Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[TheRedWorm]

This thread is a monument to no claimers......ANYTHING but tell the truth.

 

[femr2]

Reduced to quote-mining sentence fragments.

Throwing away useless parts of your post is not quote mining.
Ignoring portions of your post that are irrelevant or of no interest to me is not quote mining.
Responding to and quoting your full post is not necessary or required.

Needless to say, there's a funny coming up in a moment...

All prior usage has been of the form (any who) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means)

This directly contradicts your position that the terms has no standard usage. "It", as several people have pointed out, is inferred from the context. Given that the context is generally 9/11 and conspiracy theories thereof, "it" does have a meaning which can reasonably inferred from context.

So, what do we find if we go to the post of mine you are quoting from...

Yes. All prior usage has been of the form (any who) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means)

It has generally been destruction to ground of WTC 1 & 2, but not exclusively.

However, my usage is not the topic of this thread.

I have already highlighted the subjective nature of the acronym

As you can see, your choice of quoted section was rather misleading, and deliberately so I would imagine

How very ironic, given the context of your ridiculous accusations.

Really rather funny.

I feel rather confident in calling you a bald-faced liar.

How very rude and uncivil.

You are a bald-faced liar.

Incorrect.

 

[Carll68]

ROFL.

Berty is a fluffy cat. It is brown.

Berty is the subject matter being discussed, so he /she is the "IT". Thanks F2 for again proving the grammar we all learned is 3rd grade is indeed correct.

I've stated in the past "I am openly MIHOP".

This subject lacks context and scope. I hope this is helpful to you kiddo.
Not to mention, I doubt you are openly anything.

By your frankly bizarre view of the written word and context, you now think that I am talking about a Made It Happen On Purpose scenario where the "it" refers to a brown fluffy cat called Berty.

[F2 Mode] Incorrect [/F2 mode]

When Berty was the subject matter, "It' referred to him.
You failed to assigned context to the next sentence. Also, F2,
MIHOP is not an acronym used when the subject is fluffy cat's.
Do I really need to explain this to you? Is remedial reading and English a course you missed?

Thanks champ

 

[tsig]

ROFL.

Berty is a fluffy cat. It is brown.

I've stated in the past "I am openly MIHOP".

By your frankly bizarre view of the written word and context, you now think that I am talking about a Made It Happen On Purpose scenario where the "it" refers to a brown fluffy cat called Berty.

Don't breed eh.

So when you use that phrase you mean that someone made something happen?

Or maybe Mike Intentionally Held Or Passed?

Or Many Individuals Hold Or Piss

Or Money Is Happiness Or Pain

Or Monkey Is Hopping Our Porch

Or Melissa Is Hearing Our Plans

Or any of the thousands of other combinations?

 

[femr2]

Thanks F[emr]2 for[,] again[,] proving the grammar we all learned isn 3rd grade is indeed correct.

Always funny when folk assume the system in their country applies globally.

I imagine there's some irony in there somewhere

Context can indeed shift almost from word to word.

Context can change in an instant.

Context can change without declaration.

Context is a very poor choice of mechanism to scrape the barrel with to try and force a particular meaning to the acronym MIHOP or "argue" with femr2.

Perhaps you can identify in grammatical terms why the statement "I am openly MIHOP" implies a literal meaning of the acronym ?

But you don't have to. You'd have to add a whole other layer of meaning, increasing the range of "what does MIHOP mean" considerably.

It's good that you've realised that MIHOP has many possible meanings though. Well done.

 

[femr2]

So when you use that phrase you mean that someone made something happen?

On purpose.

You could even compare that use with "I'm not happy with fine details of the NIST report" if you like

You could look at it in terms of drawing a line in the sand between a number of different viewpoints, and saying "not that side of that line".

You could look at it in many ways.

You folk are very obsessed by femr2 though.

How very strange.

One could think you have no interest in "what does MIHOP mean" in the slightest.

 

[Carll68]

It is senseless. You, F2, are arguing against proper grammar. Using English, then being upset by the rules. "It" always refers to the subject matter. The context.

The context can change, yes, but "It" always refers to "it"! (See how that works F2?) Always. Without exception given a competent writer.

Are you a competent writer?

I imagine a real world conversation with you would be very short on this subject, in which you are way over your head and being deceitful to cover for your faux pas.

A real world, short, sweet conversation with you:

Me: So, kiddo, what does MIHOP mean?
F2: Made. It. Happen. On. purpose.
Me. Made what happen on purpose?
F2: Whatever is being discussed silly!
Me: Well, what was being discussed when you said it?
F2: Umm...duuuuur.....incorrect..no, wait, it's literal, oh, I mean...umm...look at my chart!

Please keep going, this is quit amusing. Reminds me of youtube when you were Rizla2012.......

Off to bed now, can't wait to see what bizarre English language iterations you invent by morning!

Thanks champ

 

[beachnut]

Here, on the JREF 9/11 subforum, MIHOP = US Government did it. ....

Most likely that is the belief of the typical 911 truth movement follower.

 

[Hokulele]

M.I.H.O.P. is an acronym for:

Made It Happen On Purpose

As discussed a few years ago on an external site...


[MIHOP/LIHOP] can mean almost anything depending on what the user wants them to mean when left unqualified, and they can just as easily be misunderstood by the intended audience when this happens.

Without clarification, the terms are like empty, unfilled glasses; containers without meaningful content.

If the acronym is inherently meaningless, why on earth did you use it? You might as well call your research FNERBLE or XITIPITITU.

Using meaningless terms in any discussion is nonsensical.

 

[NoahFence]

Troofers ignoring facts? Really? Seriously?

Surprising as it is, he's not a truther. His own website cites "the terrorist attacks of 9/11"....

Why he can't say that here is as big a mystery as what MIHOP means.

 

[femr2]

If the acronym is inherently meaningless, why on earth did you use it? You might as well call your research FNERBLE or XITIPITITU.

Using meaningless terms in any discussion is nonsensical.

Again, I think ozeco41 summed it up clearly near the beginning of this increasingly ridiculous thread...

It is the "debunker side" which is arguing that MIHOP cannot be used with its literal meaning of Made It Happen On Purpose. They are claiming that femr2 (and I ) are wrong if we use it in its literal meaning. Even when it is absolutely clear in context to a person of modest intellect that the literal meaning is intended.

Can you understand the difference between meaningless and non-specific ?

It's obvious to me (and others) that literal use simply means that the person using it is not stating a specific "who", not stating a specific "what" and not stating a specific "how". There are plenty of available "who's" (regardless of the whining of some here), plenty of available "what's" and a veritable mountain of available "how's" kicking around.

A point worth reiterating yet again...all of those calling for the acronym to have a specific and singular "who" are also inherently using non-specific "what" and "how", which is rather ironic.

A person of modest intellect will infer that the intent is "not natural collapse" by "someone" in "some way".

A person of modest intellect may also infer use in the form "I am openly MIHOP" to be a statement of stance, a position relative to a line in the sand. Some would say it's a declaration of "truther", but obviously I'd disagree with that, as the word has been bastardised significantly in the years since 2001.

None of the above indicates "meaningless" to me, but certainly non-specific.

How about you ?

 

[femr2]

double-post. deleted.

 

[Hokulele]

Can you understand the difference between meaningless and non-specific ?

Absolutely. And if you are trying to have an open discussion, non-specific is pretty much meaningless, as you yourself noted in the quote I provided above. So why on earth did you use a meaningless term without providing your definition? It would make sense if your goal was to be deliberately misleading. It would make sense if you realized you had painted yourself into the corner of actually making unsupportable claims.

If you can think of any other reason that would make sense in the context of a discussion of your research in this forum, please let me know.

 

[femr2]

Absolutely.

Splendid.

And if you are trying to have an open discussion, non-specific is pretty much meaningless, as you yourself noted in the quote I provided above.

Oh dear, maybe you don't.

The green quote is a viewpoint made by someone other than myself, in 2006 if I recall correctly.

Non-specific is far from totally meaningless.

Fruit is non-specific.

Apple is specific. Cox's orange pippin more so.

Fruit is not meaningless.

It's really not difficult.

So why on earth did you use a meaningless term without providing your definition?

Not meaningless, and it has been assumed that a person of modest intellect will be able to determine when a literal or non-specific meaning is intended. I have since provided my intent probably 50 times or more. Can you guess what it is yet ?

If you can think of any other reason that would make sense in the context of a discussion of your research in this forum, please let me know.

I could repeat the same thing I've said 50 times or more. Literal meaning with no specific "who", no specific "what" and no specific "how".

Not interested in "who" in the slightest.
Not fixed on a particular "what". As I've also said..."Indeed I imagine the perspective of most here is that we are running out/have run out of viable MIHOP scenarios."
And until discussing a specific "what", a specific "how" is irrelevant.

 

[Hokulele]

Non-specific is far from totally meaningless.

Fruit is non-specific.

Apple is specific. Cox's orange pippin more so.

Fruit is not meaningless.

You are claiming that in the context of discussing your research on this forum, you mean it to be non-specific, which is completely meaningless, apparently deliberately so. Even if the quote equating non-specificity with meaning was written by someone else originally, you brought it into this discussion. If you didn't agree with it, why use it?

To show you how non-specific can certainly be meaningless and use your fruit example, if you were talking about politics and used the word "fruit" to refer to Republican voting patterns in general (e.g. "Republicans don't like to enable fruits in the US."), how is your audience to know whether you are talking about Mexican trade agreements or same-sex marriage?

If you are talking about cooking, yes, fruit is non-specific and meaningful, as the audience can assume that you are referring to either tomatoes or oranges, depending on the recipe. Just like MIHOP can be meaningful, as the audience can assume you are referring to the US government being materially involved in the collapse of the various WTC buildings on 9/11 by the context of your discussion.

Since you are claiming we cannot assume definition by context, your non-specific use of the term is either meaningless, or deliberately misleading.

 

[dafydd]

You are claiming that in the context of discussing your research on this forum[/B].

g.

What research? Do you mean those photographs with the squiggly coloured lines that femr posts?

 

[RedIbis]

You are claiming that in the context of discussing your research on this forum, you mean it to be non-specific, which is completely meaningless, apparently deliberately so.

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory." It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

 

[NoahFence]

is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen...

MIHOP was originally created to describe those who thought the attacks on 9/11 were government orchestrated. If it has since changed meaning to mean whatever, that's irrelevant.

ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO TALKING ABOUT 9/11 -

It retains its original meaning. Period, end of discussion.

MODS - Please close this thread. I started it, so I should be able to decide when it ends. It has run its course, clearly.

It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp

Femr isn't a "twoofie".... just sayin'

 

[dafydd]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory." It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

That highlighted part is very funny. You ought go on the stage.

 

[dafydd]

If I could add my two cents worth of salt. All Femr is doing (I think, I could be wrong) is hilighting the false choice nature of automatically assuming that MIHOP is the US gov't made it happen... He's simply allowing for the possibility that an as yet unidentified group made the attacks happen on purpose. You'll have to deal with the cold logic of his reasoning since it is in the realm of possibility, even if it's not probable.

This isn't meaningless, but it is non-specific. Now I suspect I know why this flips the wigs of many so-called debunkers. One of the most important aspects of 9/11 debunking is to try and pin down the Twoofie to make an accusation. It must be frustrating when the Twoofie refuses to name a perp and instead refocuses the discussion on NIST's poorly constructed collapse explanations without providing a perpetrator or "full theory." It is not the preferable debunker position to argue the flaws in official accounts. It is prefered that the discussion be forced into the more narrow direction of accusation.

Reading between the lines,you mean that no twoofie has a theory or any clue about 911 and they all live in their own fantasy world. We rational folks all agree about what happened on 911 but twoofers have a whole spectrum of theories ranging from holograms,energy beam weapons,MIHOP,LIHOP and other fantasies. Which one do you support?