I'm not the one who made up these definitions. They're just the definitions that certain group involved in Bitcoin development love to reword very couple years. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is completely alone, referring to apples as oranges. You are at odds with the entire Bitcoin community. Deal with it.
FTFY
Show how it was redefined every couple years.
Actually demonstrate it. Based on the wiki, those definitions haven't changed in the last five years. As always, you never provide any proof for your false claims.
seems its you that cant define it.
a "soft-hard...."
Sigh. In quotes, to emphasize the fact that consensus -- not stupid labels about soft vs. hard -- is what matters.
He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.
BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.
As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.
But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.
easier to just admit it was hard.. and just social drama marketed FALSELY as soft, by use of baseball caps and twitter tags
There is no evidence or logic for what you're saying. You're just repeating, "It was hard! Buzz words! Baseball caps! Hard hard hard!"
It's easier to apply the definitions we've used for many years now, so we can stop wasting time on these stupid discussions. BIP148 was falsely marketed as
backward compatible, which is just as bad as marketing a hard fork as a soft fork, but isn't the same thing.
I'm willing to call a bad apple a bad apple. I'm not willing to call an apple an orange. Words have meanings.
a soft fork would be something that only does something at high majority acceptance thats doesnt cause controversy.
That's ridiculous. We're talking about how to define
code. Software doesn't care about controversy. People run it or they don't. We're trying to describe
what the network is doing, not whether a code fork is controversial according to Franky.
As I've said over and over, the issue is whether consensus is broken -- we can agree on that. Why are you so obsessed with the definition of "hard fork?" Why does it matter one bit to this discussion?
148
and this new block lowering topic are not soft.
I will defer to the community on that one. As for your obsession, keep on keeping on!
Why don't the big people give us a chance to stop laughing 
Not even close to luke proposal of 300kb 
