Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: purpose of the system

  1. #1
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    The only correct way to determine your type IMO is through intertype relationships. Using personal preferences will almost always lead to "rule breaking" (like stormy is implying)
    yep, that's a great way to find your type.
    i don't know.

    it seems good in theory, but i am often waffling between at least two types for almost everyone i know, including myself.

    The problem is one of consistency. In order to type a person, you need to view him as: 1-an accumulation of his particular functional elements and 2-the passage/interplay of these elements over a determined (systematic) course. this course is theoretical, which paradoxically allows for it to be determined within the confines of the system.

    The further you move away from the particular elements and their interplay across a neutral playing field (determined by a system), the less chance you have of using the system to accurately analyze the the subjects.

    trying to determine type through intertype relations certainly seems to be the more deductive route, which I would tend to like had I not found it so difficult in the actual course of my relationships. perhaps it is the case that my relationships are generally short-lived, inconsistent, or nonexistent, and that I could conceive of a person as inhabiting various shades of color along the spectrum of relations without even trying. i must remember that the colors are in the ouput field. what i take into the system is not the color itself but the elements, which are objective and categorical.

    that said, in the interest of keeping the system functional, i tend to think an inductive approach to typing is more reliable, but i'm not claiming to offer any specific inductive approaches. after all, would you likely use a hammer to pound in a nail that you could not see, or to pound in a bent one? get the nail straight first, then use the hammer.

    :wink:
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    i don't know.

    it seems good in theory, but i am often waffling between at least two types for almost everyone i know, including myself.
    Which is not a bad thing.

    What I've done is to build a "network" in my mind of the possible types and their relationships within a group of people I'm typing; eventually a point is reached where the relationships don't hold together if one of ther persons is one of the possible types; or it can only fit together if a person is one type that you know is very unlikely for that person -- surely, several combinations are always possible, but it's also possible to choose the overall likeliest one.

    Also, if you can see the interactions of people as a group, it helps to think of which quadra they seem to be acting as.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    i don't know.

    it seems good in theory, but i am often waffling between at least two types for almost everyone i know, including myself.
    Which is not a bad thing.

    What I've done is to build a "network" in my mind of the possible types and their relationships within a group of people I'm typing; eventually a point is reached where the relationships don't hold together if one of ther persons is one of the possible types; or it can only fit together if a person is one type that you know is very unlikely for that person -- surely, several combinations are always possible, but it's also possible to choose the overall likeliest one.

    Also, if you can see the interactions of people as a group, it helps to think of which quadra they seem to be acting as.
    So, something like...

    If person 1 is type x, then relation between p1 and p2 is either r1 or r2.
    (and so on)

    or..

    If relation between p1 and p2 is r1, then p1 is type x or y.
    (and so on)

    which is the better direction, in your opinion?

    And is your mental construct like a venn diagram?
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    First I have to say that I didn't understand almost a word of what you just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    In order to type a person, you need to view him as: 1-an accumulation of his particular functional elements and 2-the passage/interplay of these elements over a determined (systematic) course.
    Why do you say this? I disagree. Completely. In regards to typing by relationships. In typing by relationships determining the informational structure of the other person is completely irrelevant to determining the relationship itself. The relationships will manifest itself the same regardless of your interpretation of the workings of the participants. For example, people have described duality in great details through history without any knowledge of socionics whatsoever. It's only later, when you have successfully determined the relationships present, does interpreting the results start.

    I think you're missing the point. The method is not used for it's precision because in it's essence it's a convergence method. And that's why I state it's the only correct way of determining type. Through prolonged exposure to a person a relationship *will* crystallize, it will converge to a state described by the descriptions of intertype relationships. And there is no way of altering or reversing this process and most importantly personal bias never enters the picture, there are no biases or misinterpreting of fact. It's an automatic, *natural* process of determining someone's socionics type. The only thing you have to do is interpret the observations, and if you have enough, crystallized, relationships, and are knowledgeable in socionics, you can easily determine someone's type.

  5. #5
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    First I have to say that I didn't understand almost a word of what you just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    In order to type a person, you need to view him as: 1-an accumulation of his particular functional elements and 2-the passage/interplay of these elements over a determined (systematic) course.
    Why do you say this? I disagree. Completely. In regards to typing by relationships. In typing by relationships determining the informational structure of the other person is completely irrelevant to determining the relationship itself. The relationships will manifest itself the same regardless of your interpretation of the workings of the participants. For example, people have described duality in great details through history without any knowledge of socionics whatsoever. It's only later, when you have successfully determined the relationships present, does interpreting the results start.

    I think you're missing the point. The method is not used for it's precision because in it's essence it's a convergence method. And that's why I state it's the only correct way of determining type. Through prolonged exposure to a person a relationship will crystallize, it will converge to a state described by the descriptions of intertype relationships. And there is no way of altering or reversing this process and most importantly personal bias never enters the picture, there are no biases or misinterpreting of fact. It's an automatic, *natural* process of determining someone's socionics type. The only thing you have to do is interpret the observations, and if you have enough, crystallized, relationships, and are knowledgeable in socionics, you can easily determine someone's type.
    yeah, not what i meant at all. but i have to run to work so will get back to this in a couple hours.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  6. #6
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Once you get, it, though, it makes so much sense. Socionics is a beautiful theory, IMO.

    You will eventually see that the difference between ENTp and INTp is great - not just in magnitude, but in terms of what the functions are, how they are use, and why, and how they relate to other people. You do not strike me as an ENTp very much, reyn.

    Your attitude, post style, and demeanor suggest more INTp, and more Gamma than Alpha. But that is only from what little I know about your posts, and what you present online.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    reyn, i'm not completely sure what you're suggesting. you seem to be saying that functional manifestations do not always produce the same results as intertype relations.

    if this is a correct interpretation of what you've said, then basically what you're saying contradicts socionics. which is fine, but it doesn't make sense to discuss it in the context of socionics.


    i, myself, tend see types and relationships as essentially separate phenomena; whereas both may be operating on the principles of socionics, their effects are quite distinct. sometimes the characteristics of a person without necessarily interacting with others are sufficient to display his or her type; sometimes group interaction proves more useful. both are valid methods, but i see no reason to segregate the two based on their application to socionics.

  8. #8
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    First I have to say that I didn't understand almost a word of what you just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    In order to type a person, you need to view him as: 1-an accumulation of his particular functional elements and 2-the passage/interplay of these elements over a determined (systematic) course.
    Why do you say this? I disagree. Completely. In regards to typing by relationships. In typing by relationships determining the informational structure of the other person is completely irrelevant to determining the relationship itself. The relationships will manifest itself the same regardless of your interpretation of the workings of the participants. For example, people have described duality in great details through history without any knowledge of socionics whatsoever. It's only later, when you have successfully determined the relationships present, does interpreting the results start.
    So you're suggesting that the relational value is irrelevant to the individual, functional values which make up the relationship? This is a contradiction, so I'm assuming maybe you are suggesting something else. Perhaps you are saying instead that they are not fixed values, that there is constant flux. I can accept this as I see much chaos in the world. I do not care whether people have described duality in great detail throughout history without any knowledge of socionics whatsoever. this is irrelevant. simple analogy: if thousands of years ago, i came across a previously unidentified kiwi fruit and described its contents -- the texture, taste, size, and whatever else my senses can reveal -- and documented, and then today someone created a theory through which to evaluate kiwi fruits, thereby revealing very similar traits as I documented, there is no surprise. the contents of something often remain unchanged through the years. so, i am looking at socionics simililary. if a theory is to stand the test of time, i would say it is necessary for it's contents to be measurable and consistent over time. hear what i am saying though because i suspect that my point may be coming across as "human personality and relationship must remain consistent over time...." the latter is false, i know, but the contents of the system should remain intact until it is shown that a better method for evaluating human personality and relationship has emerged. the only answer is currently see for this potential problem is to break each down to its smallest fundamental parts. this is why i cannot begin to see how you suggest that the elements are irrelevant to the relational value.

    I think you're missing the point. The method is not used for it's precision because in it's essence it's a convergence method. And that's why I state it's the only correct way of determining type. Through prolonged exposure to a person a relationship *will* crystallize, it will converge to a state described by the descriptions of intertype relationships. And there is no way of altering or reversing this process and most importantly personal bias never enters the picture, there are no biases or misinterpreting of fact. It's an automatic, *natural* process of determining someone's socionics type. The only thing you have to do is interpret the observations, and if you have enough, crystallized, relationships, and are knowledgeable in socionics, you can easily determine someone's type.
    Ok, maybe we should forget about my previous explanation and try something else. I think i see where the misinterpretation originates.

    I am suggesting that it would be more accurate and efficient to think of socionics theory as a fixed set of elements, where even the interplay between elements is determined by the rules of the theory. this seems consistent with what i've read about socionics thus far, so nothing groundbreaking here. imagine a sort of elaborate traffic pattern like the pictures of ones seen in tokyo. actually, i am not sure how accurate all of the representatons are because some are from sci fi flicks, but anyway...vehicles can travel outside of the lines of traffic, but generally not without causing a problem. traveling the wrong way on a one-way street is obviously dangerous, if not for the cars and drivers, then certainly calls into question the efficacy of the traffic system.

    so, I questioned your saying that typing through intertype relations could be the best method. the reason for my question is that while i see intertype relations as a part of the theory of socionics, i do not see that evaluating one's personal relationships through a subjective lens (and it must be subjective unless you have some objectivity virus) and then attempting to place them into the already determined theory could very often yield information which reflects the structure of the objective system. i can see the value in saying "this relationship feels supervisory, therefore this person of unknown type may be type x, and i may be type y" but what if you have got the nature of supervisory relationships all wrong? and further, what if this person you do not thoroughly know is actually acting out of character? i see the descriptions of socionics relations as interesting, but i can't find any that offer more than a nice story of how a relationship seems to feel over time. and i personally have not had the luxury of knowing many people over extended periods of time.

    and what exactly is a natural, automatic process of determing one's type? i don't see anything automatic about relationships. perhaps i am deficient in my understanding due to my own relationships, but i am trying to gain insight into how this works, how to synthesize information that is before me without reprimanding the experience for seeming out of whack.

    i have often heard that a theory is meant as a symbolic representation of reality or as a filter through which to comprehend reality. my point in this thread is primarily to suggest that a theory can easily be a discrete reality, and even should be, if it is to become a useful means of understanding the reality in which we live. this is very different from saying that the theory is true whereas the experienced life is not. they are both true in different ways. the theory is true as long as it demonstrates logical consistency and coherency. so, i say don't measure the theory's efficacy against the reality, but rather measure each according to it's own contents. this necessitates that the contents of a socionics intertype relation (meaning the contents which reflect the greatest level of objectivity) be crucial to the determination of the types of the people in relationship.

    tell me if this is still unclear and i shall try again. if you could tell me exactly which portions are unclear, it would help.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  9. #9
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP III
    Once you get, it, though, it makes so much sense. Socionics is a beautiful theory, IMO.


    You will eventually see that the difference between ENTp and INTp is great - not just in magnitude, but in terms of what the functions are, how they are use, and why, and how they relate to other people. You do not strike me as an ENTp very much, reyn.

    Your attitude, post style, and demeanor suggest more INTp, and more Gamma than Alpha. But that is only from what little I know about your posts, and what you present online.
    The reason I haven't entirely given in to asserting my type as INTp is because while I see myself on a large scale behaving in a manner consistent with this type, I cannot see it yet through the order of the functions. On the contrary, I can see myself through my interpretation of the functional interplay of ENTp. Being prone to compartmentalization according to things roughly the size of atoms (heh), I cannot help but go with the one that makes sense according to the smaller unit -- functions. I cannot help but believe that there are no dirty atoms.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  10. #10
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    reyn, i'm not completely sure what you're suggesting. you seem to be saying that functional manifestations do not always produce the same results as intertype relations.
    actually, i am saying that they must coincide in the context of socionics, and therefore that snugglymecca's assertion seemed suspect as people often seem to guess at relationships based on how they feel, and then attempt to make various conclusions when the premise (e.g. this is a supervisory relation) is most likely inaccurate (if built upon the claim that the functional contents are irrelevant).


    i, myself, tend see types and relationships as essentially separate phenomena; whereas both may be operating on the principles of socionics, their effects are quite distinct. sometimes the characteristics of a person without necessarily interacting with others are sufficient to display his or her type; sometimes group interaction proves more useful. both are valid methods, but i see no reason to segregate the two based on their application to socionics.
    likewise.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  11. #11
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    So you're suggesting that the relational value is irrelevant to the individual, functional values which make up the relationship? This is a contradiction, so I'm assuming maybe you are suggesting something else.
    Not irrelevant, but rather independent. What I'm saying is that a rock is a rock no matter how you call it. It's existence is independent of your understanding of it. The same goes for relationships, they are independent of an explanation of them. Perhaps your troubles with your ex were caused by super ID tension, perhaps he was a racist, perhaps you had cultural differences, perhaps he was ill in some way, but regardless of it all, the tension has happened, it is the way it is and nothing can ever change that. That's what I'm saying.

    Perhaps you are saying instead that they are not fixed values, that there is constant flux. I can accept this as I see much chaos in the world. I do not care whether people have described duality in great detail throughout history without any knowledge of socionics whatsoever. this is irrelevant. simple analogy: if thousands of years ago, i came across a previously unidentified kiwi fruit and described its contents -- the texture, taste, size, and whatever else my senses can reveal -- and documented, and then today someone created a theory through which to evaluate kiwi fruits, thereby revealing very similar traits as I documented, there is no surprise. the contents of something often remain unchanged through the years. so, i am looking at socionics simililary. if a theory is to stand the test of time, i would say it is necessary for it's contents to be measurable and consistent over time. hear what i am saying though because i suspect that my point may be coming across as "human personality and relationship must remain consistent over time...." the latter is false, i know, but the contents of the system should remain intact until it is shown that a better method for evaluating human personality and relationship has emerged. the only answer is currently see for this potential problem is to break each down to its smallest fundamental parts. this is why i cannot begin to see how you suggest that the elements are irrelevant to the relational value.
    Lol, I finally get it, your line of though. You want the theory to be built like physics, with a hard core and a flexible exterior. You want a model which you can apply to reality and only have to shift parameters to accomplish this. You want an explanation of reality that will encompass everything and yet will remain consistent. You want to understand the discrete atoms that make up stuff so you can construct reality from them. And you do not understand when I seemingly say that these atoms bare no relevance on the object they make up.
    But I'm not saying that, all I'm saying is that you first whip out the measuring devices and measure, and for the time being you do not try to theorize. Only after you've done all the measurements do you start drawing conclusions. And I say this because if you are just measuring results then you have no personal involvement in the issue. It's a task, chore. Perhaps you have some in form of wanting to get accurate measurements, but with no sight of an explanation of the phenomenon you are measuring, with no understanding of it, you cannot be biased. You cannot skew the results, intentionally or (more importantly) unintentionally. You get *objective* measurements in the realm of the theory (As you have "forgotten" the theory for the duration of the measurements)

    Ok, maybe we should forget about my previous explanation and try something else. I think i see where the misinterpretation originates.

    I am suggesting that it would be more accurate and efficient to think of socionics theory as a fixed set of elements, where even the interplay between elements is determined by the rules of the theory. this seems consistent with what i've read about socionics thus far, so nothing groundbreaking here. imagine a sort of elaborate traffic pattern like the pictures of ones seen in tokyo. actually, i am not sure how accurate all of the representatons are because some are from sci fi flicks, but anyway...vehicles can travel outside of the lines of traffic, but generally not without causing a problem. traveling the wrong way on a one-way street is obviously dangerous, if not for the cars and drivers, then certainly calls into question the efficacy of the traffic system.

    so, I questioned your saying that typing through intertype relations could be the best method. the reason for my question is that while i see intertype relations as a part of the theory of socionics, i do not see that evaluating one's personal relationships through a subjective lens (and it must be subjective unless you have some objectivity virus) and then attempting to place them into the already determined theory could very often yield information which reflects the structure of the objective system. i can see the value in saying "this relationship feels supervisory, therefore this person of unknown type may be type x, and i may be type y" but what if you have got the nature of supervisory relationships all wrong? and further, what if this person you do not thoroughly know is actually acting out of character?
    And here is the gist of it. No, it is not subjective. That is the central idea of my claim. Because you take *objective* measurements, which I claim *can* be accomplished, and which only get more accurate and precise over time, you've effectively solved the issue. You have completely accurate measurements. All left to do now is fill in the blanks with the theory. The only problem that could possibly arise would be problem of the theory itself, a problem of interpretation where there are multiple options or none at all. But that's an inadequacy of a theory and a proper theory should have none of those.

    i see the descriptions of socionics relations as interesting, but i can't find any that offer more than a nice story of how a relationship seems to feel over time. and i personally have not had the luxury of knowing many people over extended periods of time.
    Well look no further then this site. An explanation of how relationships work.
    http://the16types.info/articles.php?article_id=1

    and what exactly is a natural, automatic process of determing one's type? i don't see anything automatic about relationships. perhaps i am deficient in my understanding due to my own relationships, but i am trying to gain insight into how this works, how to synthesize information that is before me without reprimanding the experience for seeming out of whack.
    Relationships converge to a stable state over time. You work only with this finished product. Consider it like a ripening fruit. And you know it's ripe when it becomes stable, balanced. To determine when it's stable, balanced, use mathematics or some such thing.

    i have often heard that a theory is meant as a symbolic representation of reality or as a filter through which to comprehend reality. my point in this thread is primarily to suggest that a theory can easily be a discrete reality, and even should be, if it is to become a useful means of understanding the reality in which we live. this is very different from saying that the theory is true whereas the experienced life is not. they are both true in different ways. the theory is true as long as it demonstrates logical consistency and coherency. so, i say don't measure the theory's efficacy against the reality, but rather measure each according to it's own contents. this necessitates that the contents of a socionics intertype relation (meaning the contents which reflect the greatest level of objectivity) be crucial to the determination of the types of the people in relationship.
    Yes, I agree.

  12. #12
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    i don't know.

    it seems good in theory, but i am often waffling between at least two types for almost everyone i know, including myself.
    Which is not a bad thing.

    What I've done is to build a "network" in my mind of the possible types and their relationships within a group of people I'm typing; eventually a point is reached where the relationships don't hold together if one of ther persons is one of the possible types; or it can only fit together if a person is one type that you know is very unlikely for that person -- surely, several combinations are always possible, but it's also possible to choose the overall likeliest one.

    Also, if you can see the interactions of people as a group, it helps to think of which quadra they seem to be acting as.
    You can drive yourself crazy with a method like that. IME the more individual people whose types I'm sure about, the less the relationships need to be examined. It makes the process a lot easier and faster.

  13. #13
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: purpose of the system

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    You can drive yourself crazy with a method like that
    *gasps* that-is-the-pattern!


    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    So, something like...

    If person 1 is type x, then relation between p1 and p2 is either r1 or r2.
    (and so on)

    or..

    If relation between p1 and p2 is r1, then p1 is type x or y.
    (and so on)

    which is the better direction, in your opinion?

    And is your mental construct like a venn diagram?
    Not necessarily as a venn diagram -- more like a matrix.

    The direction is better according to the specific case.

    One example --

    When typing my parents, I had to conclude that, individually, they seemed ESFj and ISFp, and that the relationship matched that of mirror, and that they had overall an alpha outlook on life. Their best friends, a couple, confused me for a bit. At first I thought that they were a m ISTj- f ESFp couple, since the temperaments seemed correct, and the relationship seemed to fit supervision. Also, my mother - ESFj - thought the world of the "ISTj", which fits semi-duality.

    The problem was that she also got along far too well with the "ESFp" for quasi-identity. Then I had to conclude that the "ESFp" was actually an ISFp-Fe, where the subtype made her particularly active and party-going, but still irrational, which is why I thought ESFp at first. Right now I am thinking that the husband is an ISTj-Ti, where his strong logic, both on Ti and Te, and very low Ne basically bored the ISFp-Fe. And, examining further, I could see that the ISFp-Fe was indeed more Si then Se focused, although she often showed lots of Se too, as well.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •