# Thread: Proposition for agreement on function definitions

1. ## Proposition for agreement on function definitions

I think the community is kinda suffering over the confusion created by quadra forms of the elements. The socionists never bothered to actually work them out instead bunching both forms under the same function (or maybe they lacked the intellectual capability with so few people in their group?), the practical result being that newbies and oldbies are speaking different languages.

I think we need to come to a common agreement on what the quadra forms of the functions are and to write up a general newbie doc explaining them.

2. OK, those are good but, what about the aspects themselves? Because although those make sense to me, I think they only do so because I have a very concrete understanding what aspects those functions deal with.

3. Is it going to be a fundamental approach that easily allows for application(e.g. bodies/fields) or would it be a conclusion type description?

4. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Is it going to be a fundamental approach that easily allows for application(e.g. bodies/fields) or would it be a conclusion type description?
Preferably both. Rather than try to agree on a fourth component, though, I think we could get by on just trying to explain the conclusion as belonging to the category of the element as described by Augusta. For example if we could show that both time and choice are internal dynamics of fields, then I think that would be sufficient.

The problem is showing that a quadra form's partner element is what it is because it pairs with a specific partner element to its quadraless manifest. Like internal field dynamics WITH external object dynamics, or with internal object dynamics. Which I guess would mean, internal field dynamics focused externally, vs internal field dynamics focused internally? How would we actually frame the relationship between the two functions?

5. I would appreciate this.

6. You may have a consensus here among current members as to what the functions are who have had experience hearing many different sides to them who understand that they apply to each type differently (Fe to ILI is different to ESE), but that doesn't matter, what matters is that your definitions apply to any outsider who supposedly has them and has never heard them described before; an anonymous type.

In order to provide that anonymous type with as objective as possible a description, we should describe each function as described by another function (here is Fe interpreting Te). Since we're describing 'real' aspects of personality and behavior it is best to do so through the bias we all supposedly have through habitual use of these aspects. This will also serve to describe those functions in their interpretations of the others.

If you simply slap down a definition we agree on here, it will theoretically be interpreted at least 16 different ways, as opposed to the one way it would be intended to be interpreted. We must then provide 16 different descriptions to cater to the different biases...

I don't need to provide more context, I think you'll understand what I'm saying.

7. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Preferably both. Rather than try to agree on a fourth component, though, I think we could get by on just trying to explain the conclusion as belonging to the category of the element as described by Augusta. For example if we could show that both time and choice are internal dynamics of fields, then I think that would be sufficient.

The problem is showing that a quadra form's partner element is what it is because it pairs with a specific partner element to its quadraless manifest. Like internal field dynamics WITH external object dynamics, or with internal object dynamics. Which I guess would mean, internal field dynamics focused externally, vs internal field dynamics focused internally? How would we actually frame the relationship between the two functions?
Well the relationships would be easy. The problem, I think, would be coming up with descriptions/concepts applicable for all types.

8. Originally Posted by Skeptic
You may have a consensus here among current members as to what the functions are who have had experience hearing many different sides to them who understand that they apply to each type differently (Fe to ILI is different to ESE), but that doesn't matter, what matters is that your definitions apply to any outsider who supposedly has them and has never heard them described before; an anonymous type.

In order to provide that anonymous type with as objective as possible a description, we should describe each function as described by another function (here is Fe interpreting Te). Since we're describing 'real' aspects of personality and behavior it is best to do so through the bias we all supposedly have through habitual use of these aspects. This will also serve to describe those functions in their interpretations of the others.

If you simply slap down a definition we agree on here, it will theoretically be interpreted at least 16 different ways, as opposed to the one way it would be intended to be interpreted. We must then provide 16 different descriptions to cater to the different biases...

I don't need to provide more context, I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
You'd need a professional level of interest in that case, which we don't seem to have.

Good goal but, not the time for it.

Still, let's remind that the goal is to educate people about what the functions/elements really ARE, not what they appear to be. Granted the biased distortions can be worked out easily enough by just asking an ILI, although I suspect that ILIs do not view their PoLRs alike. They may agree that understanding the nuances of a person's self definition or a disagreement between two people to be a waste of time, but might disagree on what the specific reasons are for it being a waste of time. There might be a hundred different perspectives on that one, a debate in and of itself. At the end of the day, ILIs will just say, "don't lose money over pretty arguments."

We can't really get consensus as regards a type's view on a function, because only a person of said type actually knows what those are about! Before they even begin, they have to take an Alpha NT's word for where to start if they aren't one themselves.

The information elements must correspond to mental processing capabilities of the brain. That they do is a fundamental postulate of information metabolism.

It's looking an awful lot like this is gonna be a situation where the alpha NTs make the call, with corroboratory backup from gammas.

Me being Mr. Categorizer, here's what I see:
Ni subdivides into time (gamma) and something which includes choice...
Te subdivides into order (delta) and possession (gamma)
Ti subdivides into physical qualities (in the scientific sense [beta]) and logical propositions and their relationships (categories) [alpha]

I really don't think Te has anything really to do with logic at all... I think that's a mistake by the socionists where they interpreted strong Ti application by Te types as "Te", where Ti is an ingredient in the selection of business strategy.

Wealth is an externally changeable characteristic of objects. It falls in the domain of Te. So does order -- one object can change another object's position in a group.

Order differs from wealth in that it pairs with a static element, rather than a dynamic one.

9. it's better to have poorly defined definitions than well-defined ones that are wrong and nevertheless asserted to be right with fanaticism.

10. Originally Posted by labcoat
it's better to have poorly defined definitions than well-defined ones that are wrong and nevertheless asserted to be right with fanaticism.
You think these are wrong?

11. Te is definitely logic. Arrangement/correctness/algorithmic/classification.

12. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Te is definitely logic. Arrangement/correctness/algorithmic/classification.
I really don't think Ti egos have anywhere near the qualms with classifying people that Te egos do. In fact it doesn't seem that you can insist on making people adhere to the same categorical system like a Ti ego would. (or maybe you can, but I'll bet you'd feel regretful as hell about it...)

Whenever a Te type proposes a category that they came up with completely on their own, people ends up arguing with them over it, those people always including Te types with competing systems (see the myriad MBTI variants other than socionics) AND the Ti types who dream of being able to shut them all up and make them agree that reality exists objectively, not just in somebody's head.

13. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
I really don't think Ti egos have anywhere near the qualms with classifying people that Te egos do. In fact it doesn't seem that you can insist on making people adhere to the same categorical system like a Ti ego would. (or maybe you can, but I'll bet you'd feel regretful as hell about it...)

Whenever a Te type proposes a category that they came up with completely on their own, people ends up arguing with them over it, those people always including Te types with competing systems (see the myriad MBTI variants other than socionics) AND the Ti types who dream of being able to shut them all up and make them agree that reality exists objectively, not just in somebody's head.
Well I can agree that Te classification is arbitrary, at least more than Ti, but the point is that it is still logical.

The problem of Te systems is that the similarity in context is subjective(Fi). While Ti subjectively classifies objective occurrences. Te systems are criticized for being unfounded, while Ti systems are criticized for impracticality.

(like how I balanced your negativity? , Te logic)

14. Both Ts are logic, "what makes sense," and not necessarily knowledge "what is" or "what the procedure is" etc. With the former you can verify something, with only the latter all you have is the knowledge of "it" without being able to verify "it."

"The sky is blue," "You can use the AC-in to counter feed," "Socionics is this way not that way," etc. not logic.

15. Ni dominants often notice the same connection, but disagree on its nature. NiTe is focused on Te actions, what influences the flow of events. NiFe is more into Fe reactions, what is the personal meaning of this to me, how this flow affects me indirectly or rather, how do I react to it. The key part is, both are more focused on Ni aspect than any other, including their respective creatives. This means they see the connection first and foremost, so NiTe is by no means as "tangible" as pure Te/Fe contrast would suggest. NiTe and NiFe experiencing synchronicity or such are more likely to, respectively, kind of conceptualize it ("it gives me an idea although it's probably just a coincidence") or react to it directly ("maybe it's a real sign"), essentially staying on the same level more than not. As opposed to those, SiTe and SiFe both would claim there's no connection in the first place, because it isn't tangible - or, if they did notice and acknowledge it, they would treat it as such by interpreting it explicitly.

That attempt was bad. But it's really hard to explain it clearly, though I often experience this difference with IEIs.

16. It's not possible because Boukalov et al. have screwed it up from the start. I'm sure my system is correct, but unless the professionals offer something identical to it I just can't persuade the gammas to go along with it.

Or can I?

Forget the logic thing. Te is business logic... OK. But it's not classification and here's how I know: classification is an internally apprehended static relationship between two objects. There is nothing externally dynamic about it because nothing can change the classification save something which transforms the object itself, and it has nothing to do with objects but with the relationships between them. So classification CANNOT be Te.

17. Originally Posted by Aiss
Ni dominants often notice the same connection, but disagree on its nature. NiTe is focused on Te actions, what influences the flow of events. NiFe is more into Fe reactions, what is the personal meaning of this to me, how this flow affects me indirectly or rather, how do I react to it. The key part is, both are more focused on Ni aspect than any other, including their respective creatives. This means they see the connection first and foremost, so NiTe is by no means as "tangible" as pure Te/Fe contrast would suggest. NiTe and NiFe experiencing synchronicity or such are more likely to, respectively, kind of conceptualize it ("it gives me an idea although it's probably just a coincidence") or react to it directly ("maybe it's a real sign"), essentially staying on the same level more than not. As opposed to those, SiTe and SiFe both would claim there's no connection in the first place, because it isn't tangible - or, if they did notice and acknowledge it, they would treat it as such by interpreting it explicitly.

That attempt was bad. But it's really hard to explain it clearly, though I often experience this difference with IEIs.
My approach to synchronity is that it may be coincidence, OR it may be a statistically predictable phenomena given the current cultural stage -- that is, in any culture with a given technological level, a person of X personality (meaning the totality of the person's characteristics, not just known ones) in all probability will end up having x-and-x relation with X event. Although I believe -- I want to point this out -- technological and social advancement is a product of population density and level within a society. That the world is how it is today, is to be expected given the environmental conditions and the population level it is at. The Holocaust happened because people hadn't experienced it before, and although it could happen again there is likely enough resistance to it manifesting again in an intuitively similar form given Western cultural wealth and sophistication, that it probably will not happen again. But it's a matter of probability, NOT certainty.

18. Te basically just decides. It tries to reduce everything to decisions that don't involve interpretation of what was observed. Decision based on simply matching the perceptual input to an expectation, not reviewing it's place within an interpretatory model.

19. Originally Posted by labcoat
Te basically just decides. It tries to reduce everything to decisions that don't involve interpretation of what was observed. Decision based on simply matching the perceptual input to an expectation, not reviewing it's place within an interpretatory model.
OK, you're right. Te the function does decide. But Te the element is not decisions.

20. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It's not possible because Boukalov et al. have screwed it up from the start. I'm sure my system is correct, but unless the professionals offer something identical to it I just can't persuade the gammas to go along with it.

Or can I?

Forget the logic thing. Te is business logic... OK. But it's not classification and here's how I know: classification is an internally apprehended static relationship between two objects. There is nothing externally dynamic about it because nothing can change the classification save something which transforms the object itself, and it has nothing to do with objects but with the relationships between them. So classification CANNOT be Te.
This is pure semantics. Classification is classification, situational or permanent. Be aware of your attempt to fit it under your personal concept of what logic really is.

21. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It's not possible because Boukalov et al. have screwed it up from the start. I'm sure my system is correct, but unless the professionals offer something identical to it I just can't persuade the gammas to go along with it.

Or can I?

Forget the logic thing. Te is business logic... OK. But it's not classification and here's how I know: classification is an internally apprehended static relationship between two objects. There is nothing externally dynamic about it because nothing can change the classification save something which transforms the object itself, and it has nothing to do with objects but with the relationships between them. So classification CANNOT be Te.
QFT. Classification is totally static.

@EyeSeeCold This is semantics, but it's a very important issue. If people can't agree on the basic semantics of information elements, then it's very hard to have a reasonable discussion about socionics. Classification is one of the core themes of .

22. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
This is pure semantics. Classification is classification, situational or permanent. Be aware of your attempt to fit it under your personal concept of what logic really is.
EyeSeeCold can you not see beyond a model, to see the real truth?

Alpha Ti comes in two bits, the truth/falseness of propositions as they relate to an object and, once the truth/falseness has been established, the grouping of objects who have common true/false characteristics into categories, such that by observing that one proposition is true about an object, you can extrapolate that a whole host of other propositions are also true about it -- IF the categorization which is the basis for the implied set is not overly broad/glitteringly general.

Overreaction to/use of glittering generalities is the definition of weak alpha Ti.

23. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
QFT. Classification is totally static.

@EyeSeeCold This is semantics, but it's a very important issue. If people can't agree on the basic semantics of information elements, then it's very hard to have a reasonable discussion about socionics. Classification is one of the core themes of .
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
EyeSeeCold can you not see beyond a model, to see the real truth?

Alpha Ti comes in two bits, the truth/falseness of propositions as they relate to an object and, once the truth/falseness has been established, the grouping of objects who have common true/false characteristics into categories, such that by observing that one proposition is true about an object, you can extrapolate that a whole host of other propositions are also true about it -- IF the categorization which is the basis for the implied set is not overly broad/glitteringly general.

Overreaction to/use of glittering generalities is the definition of weak alpha Ti.
I'm not claiming classification is not . The disagreement is on Te not being classification nor logic. I don't propose that Te be the same type of classification as Ti, I realize it is situational and arbitrary, but objects can still be classified.

I can classify people into a group for all being my enemies. Or I can classify people into a group for all having blood type AB+.

All I'm focusing on is agreement that Te can classify logically, I don't require it be called classification, for the sake of clarity it shouldn't be. It's not to state the obvious, I need to have facts. If I'm wrong then I should know, but it needs to be proved.

24. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I'm not claiming classification is not . The disagreement is on Te not being classification nor logic. I don't propose that Te be the same type of classification as Ti, I realize it is situational and arbitrary, but objects can still be classified.

I can classify people into a group for all being my enemies. Or I can classify people into a group for all having blood type AB+.

All I'm focusing on is agreement that Te can classify logically, I don't require it be called classification, for the sake of clarity it shouldn't be. It's not to state the obvious, I need to have facts. If I'm wrong then I should know, but it needs to be proved.
Te is not logic as a logician expert would define it. If you take a course in critical thinking, Te-type concepts are not discussed, nor have I heard of any propositions outside socionics that Te is logic. It's not emotion-based, but that doesn't mean it's logic but a kind of thing under which logic can be categorized.

Te cannot classify logically. There will be no agreement to that end. Ever.

Non-static classification is not done with Te. It's done with Ti used in a manner that you are not acknowledging. Being a citizen of the United States? That's Ti, based on Te and probably Ti as well. Being a person living in Europe? That's Ti, based on Te. If the reason changes, then the classification changes as well. But the reason is not the classification.

Reasons for classifications are EM element relationships to Ti IM (the classification itself). They can be any element, because any object can be classified based on any attribute which it could conceivably have in common with another object.

Te-based categorization does exist, but Te does not categorize. It observes the reasons people become wealthy or obtain stature (or else become poor or lose stature), or makes arguments that they could become wealthy or are qualified for x-and-x position. It does not categorize. That's not what Te types normally do. They do categorize, yes, but they usually only do it in the name of some covert Te end, particularly in that they recognize they can exploit disagreements over the nature of reality to make a buck.

Categories can figure into Te estimations and judgments, but they form the basis for the conclusion, they are the reason for it. Te just makes a judgment that the category has an association with a Te element.

25. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Te is not logic as a logician expert would define it. If you take a course in critical thinking, Te-type concepts are not discussed, nor have I heard of any propositions outside socionics that Te is logic. It's not emotion-based, but that doesn't mean it's logic but a kind of thing under which logic can be categorized.

Te cannot classify logically. There will be no agreement to that end. Ever.

Non-static classification is not done with Te. It's done with Ti used in a manner that you are not acknowledging. Being a citizen of the United States? That's Ti, based on Te and probably Ti as well. Being a person living in Europe? That's Ti, based on Te. If the reason changes, then the classification changes as well. But the reason is not the classification.

Reasons for classifications are EM element relationships to Ti IM (the classification itself). They can be any element, because any object can be classified based on any attribute which it could conceivably have in common with another object.

Te-based categorization does exist, but Te does not categorize. It observes the reasons people become wealthy or obtain stature (or else become poor or lose stature), or makes arguments that they could become wealthy or are qualified for x-and-x position. It does not categorize. That's not what Te types normally do. They do categorize, yes, but they usually only do it in the name of some covert Te end, particularly in that they recognize they can exploit disagreements over the nature of reality to make a buck.

Categories can figure into Te estimations and judgments, but they form the basis for the conclusion, they are the reason for it. Te just makes a judgment that the category has an association with a Te element.
Okay let me get this straight:

Ti abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar facts. Ti classification allows for application and use(Fe). A family has similar genes and therefore similar dispositions.

Fi abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar implications. Fi classification allows for extraction of benefit(Te). A family has a bond and therefore can protect each other.

So Te is not classification, but the random objective occurrence?

26. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Okay let me get this straight:

Ti abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar facts. Ti classification allows for application and use(Fe). A family has similar genes and therefore similar dispositions.

Fi abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar implications. Fi classification allows for extraction of benefit(Te). A family has a bond and therefore can protect each other.

So Te is not classification, but the random objective occurrence?
I agree with that entire passage.

27. No.

The functions as laid out by Augusta, I find, work perfectly fine for intertype relations. Trying to come up with an independent consensus would merely obfuscate them.

28. Originally Posted by Aleksei
No.

The functions as laid out by Augusta, I find, work perfectly fine for intertype relations. Trying to come up with an independent consensus would merely obfuscate them.
--

Yeah you're just trying to troll, aren't you?

29. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
While Ti subjectively classifies objective occurrences. Te systems are criticized for being unfounded, while Ti systems are criticized for impracticality.
Originally Posted by labcoat
Te basically just decides. It tries to reduce everything to decisions that don't involve interpretation of what was observed. Decision based on simply matching the perceptual input to an expectation, not reviewing it's place within an interpretatory model.
I pretty much agree. Also:
Originally Posted by Bolt
There are two main requirements in understanding:
- accurate facts;
- correct interpretation of facts.

You can't dismiss either in favor of the other. Indeed the interpretation can be used on assumptions as well as on facts - maths is such an example - but that does not mean that this interpretation is a set of assumptions.

Facts and figures cannot valitate everything by themselves, in fact they reveal very little - read my sig. Deep interpretation, expansion and rules are required in order to understand a lot of things. For example, you can't tell the radius of the Sun by measurements, such thing is impossible, but you use the known correct mathematical functions to do it.
If you understand the nature of Ti and Te, you can actually realize that Socionics typing is rather a Ti field - at least someone needs to use primarily Ti to understand: unlike MBTI, where the type is determined by identifying as many typical traits and behaviors, in Socionics it is a formula so that a certain representative can behave in pretty many ways, although this formula is pretty strict and clear.

In a simplistic manner:
Te = chart: a set of actual definite inputs (Bodies), an experimental procedure, actual interactions (Dynamic), a result strictly based on them (External); "when ... action ... then ..."
Ti = function: one or more arguments/variables that can take different undefined inputs (Fields), an abstract rule, no actual interactions (Static), a result strictly based on this rule (External); "if ..., because ..., then ..."

30. Ephemeros said it, right? So it can't be completely true, even if on the surface it looks like it is...

TeNi... agree that that's a chart: outlays of wealth over time. Te as a chart? Nah. But I do agree that TeSi hovers OVER the chart, at least in a business sense.

I suppose the Te function can be used for experiments in an Alpha NT capacity. But you can never have TeNi without TeSi hovering over the background in some way, which I think kind of limits how it can be used.

Although, how would a statistician LIE operate? So as usual you are on to something, Ephemeros, while being a little reckless with your claims.

31. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Forget the logic thing. Te is business logic... OK. But it's not classification and here's how I know: classification is an internally apprehended static relationship between two objects. There is nothing externally dynamic about it because nothing can change the classification save something which transforms the object itself, and it has nothing to do with objects but with the relationships between them. So classification CANNOT be Te.
This.

Classification and logic aren't the same, too.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Ti abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar facts. Ti classification allows for application and use (Fe). A family has similar genes and therefore similar dispositions.

Fi abstracts an occurrence and identifies similar implications. Fi classification is based on extraction of benefit (Te). A family protects each other and therefore has a bond.
Fixed, I think.

Facts and figures cannot valitate everything by themselves, in fact they reveal very little - read my sig. Deep interpretation, expansion and rules are required in order to understand a lot of things.
I couldn't agree more with the first sentence. It doesn't follow that the introverted aspect responsible for creating this expansion, the understanding, must necessarily be static or external or rational.

32. Originally Posted by Aiss
Fixed, I think.
Oh yea I think this makes more sense. Te/Fe comes first. And then Fi/Ti.

33. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Te is definitely logic. Arrangement/correctness/algorithmic/classification.
order too

34. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
TeNi... agree that that's a chart: outlays of wealth over time. Te as a chart? Nah. But I do agree that TeSi hovers OVER the chart, at least in a business sense.
That's because you think of a particular case, where the input is time. What I have in mind is a general one, like the scatter plot. The input - which there is called "control parameter" or "independent variable" - can be anything.
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Although, how would a statistician LIE operate? So as usual you are on to something, Ephemeros, while being a little reckless with your claims.
AFAIK, they use more approximations, trends, similarities than say, LSE. Although both would immediately use something that works/worked - even if its mechanism is not necessarily analyzed -, an LIE director would easier apply some tactic that saved what he calls "similar company" in what he calls "similar situation", while for the LSE, the two have to be objectively identical, otherwise he'd say "they're not us". Remember that Ni can see the similarities between situations apparently unconnected:
White intuition (the inner dynamics of the field)

Temporal relationship between events, the structural relationship between the processes.

35. Now Ni is an interesting one. First of all, we are required to define an internal field. I would say that such a thing is anything observed within a definite point of reference. Like for example, the universe, or a country.

Time is such a concept, as is political and/or ethical position. I see gamma Ni as made up of two things, "sequence" and "event". An event is a reference to a specific gamma Te occurrence. The notion that events happen in sequence -- and share specific if not completely understood causal factors -- is time. Gamma Ni the function tries to execute a planned sequence of events by empowering and disempowering actors through the addition/removal of specific quantities of objects. It's about controlling all objects in a given field over if not a period of time, then certainly in between the events at the beginning and end of a plan.

The other side of Ni, the negative part, deals with (per Gulenko) avoiding negative outcomes. The only way to avoid a negative outcome is to make the decision not to enact it. Determination not to is fueled by negative emotions associated with either a past experience or anxiety about the unintended consequences of the strategy considered. Beta Ni is a reaction to gamma Ni. I see two parts to beta Ni, the choice to accept or reject proposed outcomes, and the observation that the choices people make divide them along partisan lines.

36. Time is just an illusion. Think of Ni as it being a processor.

37. Dynamic functions are time-dependent. Dynamic also marks perspective dependent perception (Pi). This is how the relation between time and subjectivity (i.e. subject-limitedness) is established. When you establish your beliefs on the basis of a single occasion in time only, you are by definition limited by perspective. Perspective-independence is created by reconciling information attained at multiple moments in time.

38. tcaudillg, now I realized that I should have specified that it was not my intention to propose Te = chart and Ti = function. Indeed, this is the topic, but I used them only to explain them to Galen in another thread, here they're just my additions to those posts of EyeSeeCold and labcoat to which I agree with and that I wellcome for helping in spoiling this myth that Ti is somehow purely subjective or something.

39. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Time is just an illusion. Think of Ni as it being a processor.
I think mathematicians would disagree.

Originally Posted by labcoat
Dynamic functions are time-dependent. Dynamic also marks perspective dependent perception (Pi). This is how the relation between time and subjectivity (i.e. subject-limitedness) is established. When you establish your beliefs on the basis of a single occasion in time only, you are by definition limited by perspective. Perspective-independence is created by reconciling information attained at multiple moments in time.
I agree with you labcoat, but what does it mean?

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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