Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[000063]

I did indeed reply "incorrect", as you do NOT know what my position is, or what "i believe".

Your assumption of what I was stating was "incorrect" is incorrect.

In which case, the onus is on you to clarify what you were saying.

This is a binary choice, FoosM. Either planes and fire did it, or planes and fire did not do it. They said you believed that planes and fire didn't do it, and you said "incorrect", and you said that was incorrect. That leaves either a)you believing the official story, or b)you not having an opinion (IE: lack of belief). Since you referred to your beliefs as if you had some, that leaves a). You believe the official story, by your own claims.

Unless you want to humble yourself and admit you were just knee-jerk responding "incorrect", or that you misread the post, or simply made a mistake.

 

[NoahFence]

I have repeatedly told you that my ID is femr2, not "kiddo".

I'll stop when you do.

Anyway, you said that the opposite of planes and fire was NOT your position. Therefore, the planes and fire IS your position. This isn't rocket surgery.


Unless you have a 3rd option?

Edit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7384388#post7384388

That's me admitting I made a mistake. It's not difficult, and won't change anybody opinion about the person making the mistake, as we all do it. Try it sometime, FEMR.

 

[femr2]

No no, I was correct. The word is meaningless

Without qualifiers, the intent is undefined, not meaningless.

I suggest your preferred scope is...

(The Amenican Government) made (the desctruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7) happen (by use of planted explosives in the buildings) on purpose.

With those qualifiers you can use the acronym MIHOP as often as you like. If someone doesn't know what MIHOP you are talking about, you can tell them.

and you have now changed your story from before where you claimed MIHOP didn't fit in with the conspiracy outlined in the 911 commission report.

Incorrect. What I said was...

You seem to be making the following assumptions when making such a statement...

• "brought down the towers" was a deliberate action, not an unforseen consequence.
  
• Destruction of WTC7 was a deliberate action, not an unforseen consequence.

I don't think you've thought it through.

Your reading comprehension seems rather flawed. I suggest you pay more attention, and stop making false claims.

Moving goal posts this openly does wonders for our case against yours.

Our case against yours ? What a bizarre thing to say.

 

[femr2]

If you don't enjoy being talked down to, you shouldn't do so to others.

I'm not talking down to anyone. Highlighting your errors is not talking down to you.

"Name calling" is against the rules, especially when, as you say, it is intended as a "put down".

 

[femr2]

There are only TWO OPTIONS AVAILABLE. If you say one is incorrect, than the other one IS correct.

I have said neither. Read my post (that you are responding to) again.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't need to read it any more. I don't need to comment on not knowing your position any more. I know what it is - you said what it is.

If something is incorrect, the opposite of it IS correct, given that there are only two possible scenarios.

Thanks FEMR.

 

[femr2]

In which case, the onus is on you to clarify what you were saying.

Incorrect, though I already did, and do so again below.

This is a binary choice, FoosM. Either planes and fire did it, or planes and fire did not do it. They said you believed that planes and fire didn't do it, and you said "incorrect", and you said that was incorrect. That leaves either a)you believing the official story, or b)you not having an opinion (IE: lack of belief). Since you referred to your beliefs as if you had some, that leaves a). You believe the official story, by your own claims.

Incorrect. As I said, it is that the user asserted "we now know this much" that I state is incorrect. You (and the group herd) do not "know". You think/believe/assume...

Unless you want to humble yourself and admit you were just knee-jerk responding "incorrect", or that you misread the post, or simply made a mistake.

Learn to read for comprehension.

 

[femr2]

I don't need to comment on not knowing your position any more.

Wonderful.

I know what it is - you said what it is.

Incorrect, to both assertions.

 

[TJM]

As for my .02, "it" has always meant the attacks themselves and the "who" has always meant the USG. Sure, you can have all the subsets of MIHOP/LIHOP you like. Whether you believe it was reptilians, The NWO, The illuminati, The Joos, Crosby, Stills & Nash or the god damned Easter bunny, truthers will still have Bush & Cheney involved somehow.

This is just an attempt by the now leading truthers, the no-claimers, to drag MIHOP/LIHOP into that realm, nothing more. If y'all want to change the definition, that's fine with me, the old ones were ******* to begin with but please don't pretend you don't know the original intent. It's insulting.

 

[NoahFence]

Now that we have a better grasp of what you believe, can we get back to the obervable/anaylsis/graph-a-riffic threads? It's all in the context......

They were actually quite informative.

 

[uke2se]

Without qualifiers, the intent is undefined, not meaningless.

I suggest your preferred scope is...

(The Amenican Government) made (the desctruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7) happen (by use of planted explosives in the buildings) on purpose.

With those qualifiers you can use the acronym MIHOP as often as you like. If someone doesn't know what MIHOP you are talking about, you can tell them.

So when you say to a truther that you're MIHOP, what are you actually saying? Because, to us it looks like you are trying to accommodate said truther by claiming to be on his side. If you aren't actually on his side of this argument, you were simply lying to the truther. Now, which is it? Are you wrong about MIHOP being meaningless to discern where you stand on 911, or where you lying to that truther?

Incorrect. What I said was...


Your reading comprehension seems rather flawed. I suggest you pay more attention, and stop making false claims.

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. There's something wrong with your honesty, as in, you aren't being honest.

Our case against yours ? What a bizarre thing to say.

No, it's not.

 

[uke2se]

I'm not talking down to anyone. Highlighting your errors is not talking down to you.

"Name calling" is against the rules, especially when, as you say, it is intended as a "put down".

You have been talking down to each person who doesn't agree with you for years, femr2. You are again being less than honest.

 

[femr2]

As for my .02, "it" has always meant the attacks themselves and the "who" has always meant the USG.

Which is fine.

Sure, you can have all the subsets of MIHOP/LIHOP you like. Whether you believe it was reptilians, The NWO, The illuminati, The Joos, Crosby, Stills & Nash or the god damned Easter bunny, truthers will still have Bush & Cheney involved somehow.

Some might. Some might not.

It is not only "truthers" that have used the acronym in various or general contexts.

Many "flavours" of MIHOP are out there, including BP MIHOP, which has nothing to do with 9/11.

This is just an attempt by the now leading truthers, the no-claimers, to drag MIHOP/LIHOP into that realm, nothing more.

Leading truthers ? What an odd thing to say.

And, no, it's simply a discussion started by NoahFence to try and state...

MIHOP IS "Inside Job"

...which has categorically shown to be incorrect.

MIHOP can be used to mean many different things, including the USG-MIHOP alluded to by the OP, but is not limited to such.

If y'all want to change the definition, that's fine with me, the old ones were ******* to begin with

No-one is "changing the definition", simply highlighting the inherent variable scope of the acronym.

but please don't pretend you don't know the original intent. It's insulting.

What was actually being "attacked" was my assertion that MY intent with use of the acronym had nothing to do with any specific "who".

Silly folk TELLING me what I meant when I used the acronym, after I'd already told them I wasn't talking about "inside job".

Rather ironic really.

 

[femr2]

Now that we have a better grasp of what you believe

I very much doubt that, but believe whatever you please. You'll likely be incorrect.

 

[Hokulele]

Without qualifiers, the intent is undefined, not meaningless.

And without a definition, it is indeed meaningless.

mean·ing (m

n

ng)
n.

1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry).

 

[beachnut]

...
To top it off, femr2 feels put upon when someone calls attention to the evasions, special pleading, and illogic of his arguments.

I love math. Nice work.

 

[DGM]

femr2:

You are a true "twoofer". And by that I naturally mean someone that honistly seeks the truth. You don't mind If we call you a "twoofer", right?

 

[000063]

Incorrect, though I already did, and do so again below.

No, if you say something ambiguous, and someone misinterprets it, it's your fault for being ambiguous.

Incorrect. As I said, it is that the user asserted "we now know this much" that I state is incorrect. You (and the group herd) do not "know". You think/believe/assume...

In other words, you were saying the thing they claimed to know was incorrect. Feel free to dress it up with as many ten-cent words and passive-aggressive near-violations of Rule 12 as you like.

I note your reluctance to actually correct our assumptions, but I assume you'd claim we wouldn't accept corrections anyway. So let me ask you, point blank;

Femr2, do you have an actual belief, or are you still coming to a conclusion? The latter is a perfectly valid third option to believing/not believing in planes n' fire.

Learn to read for comprehension.

Learn to write for it.

 

[NoahFence]

I very much doubt that, but believe whatever you please. You'll likely be incorrect.

We're still on this?

Listen - there are only two options.

A or B.

Someone said you didn't believe A. This means that person is convinced you believe B.

You replied (verbatim): incorrect.

That means you DO believe A.

As I said before, this ain't rocket surgery.

Since in this specific case, "A" meant "planes and fire did the deed" that means you believe planes and fire did the deed. I'm sure the tapdancing is fun for you and all, but it's not fooling anybody. I'm tellin' ya - it's not fooling anybody.

 

[NoahFence]

femr2:

You are a true "twoofer". And by that I naturally mean someone that honistly seeks the truth. You don't mind If we call you a "twoofer", right?

his name is femr2.