Anyway, I believe that Te deals more in a flowing manner (it is a dynamic element after all) while Ti seems to tend, more often, to get caught up in details rather than proving a point.While I wasn't making any digs at your type when I made that response to Steve, I do find your reaction interesting. There's certainly a lot of ways in which all of this is qualifiable (small samples of writing, non type related issues, etc) of course, but I've generally conceived the opposite of Steve when it comes to Ti "spreading out" and Te "proceeding along" or however he put it exactly. I'm not making any clear assertions that he's right or wrong in this, as I've never bothered or seemed particularly apt at delineating the two in any sort of concrete way. In fact, the overlap between them has confused me frequently, but I've been talking to someone who is Ti base for a while and it would at least seem to fit what Steve describes, since I frequently find myself at a loss for picking up the 'point' or 'direction' of certain exchanges in the conversation.
However, the meat of what I was getting at was that my past conceptions of Ti and Te has primarily been that Ti seeks to clarify terms, establish definitions, and systematize. From that base, then inferences can be made and observations from the world subsumed into that order, so as to bring the world around them into a subjective understanding. I don't have time to flesh out any ruminations on Te right now since I have to go to work (and I feel kind of bad how this has all kind of blown up in a now completely unrelated way to the thread), but I also wanted to note that I've considered (they're far more preliminary and based on the above analysis) Aristotle to be ISTj and Hume ENTj. Anyway, I'll think this over a bit and maybe we can split this off into another thread.
Edit: Also, do you mean "objective understanding"? This would seem to make more sense.