bad dual relationships
...just out of curiosity, have you ever seen a couple where the two people were duals, but you thought, "god, those people should really not be together" ?
any and all examples welcome.
EDIT
humor me with anecdotes, please.
Edit: my fear is that, even when negative or not ultimately feasible, the relationship is an oddly reinforcing one.
Last edited by lemontrees; 12-05-2014 at 02:32 AM. Reason: privacy
Some people aren't fit to be in a relationship.
Duality isn't an instant relationship-maker. It's more like it gives you a headstart. If you aren't compatible for whatever reason (interests, hobbies, goals in life, mental issues, etc.) it won't work. I can't think of any that I know that haven't, but I don't really know many dualed people in general.
Oh, and LII of mine just ended a friendship with an ESE. I don't know all the details, but it sounded more like they were in a relationship than friends, and the ESE ended up hating the traits of herself that the LII exhibited. It was weird to listen to.
Yes; I've been in a terrible dual relationship where I thought the person's own reluctance to let off their guard and boundaries were seriously prohibiting our ability to come together fully.
Nom, those things are not Socionics related; those have to do with how messed up life makes people.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any two people can have a relationship. They just have to be willing and work hard at it. Minus those two things: you're finished, more than likely.
I've had 3 >7 year relationships, and none of them were/are my duals. I loved them all the same, and for the most part, I would do it all again. I wouldn't be there if the relationship wasn't enjoyable in some way. I generally don't find my dual is appropriate for me (not an insult, merely an observation).
My bro dates a girl > 20 years that is his dual (ILE/SEI), and..... I don't think they should be together. He cheats, and she just puts up with it. According to him and her, they are just friends now, and there is no sex/romance.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-28-2013 at 12:27 PM.
High IQ differences hinder relationships
Low IQ differences hinder relationships
One person should be slightly more intelligent than the other for the relationship to work
Smart guy+smart girl = romance (short relationship)
Smart girl+dumb boy = marriage (long)
Smart boy+dumb girl = sex (short!)
Dumb boy+ dumb girl = kids (long!)
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
My ex of a while ago was an LIE. it was very volatile. He didn't trust me, I didn't trust him. I found rather disgusting emails/texts/photos of other women he had been talking to while I lived with him.
I stayed. and we broke up. dated other people, got back together, fought, broke up, dated other people, got back together. we would have bouts of a good relationship for a few weeks but over all it was a very shitty relationship. and he had pretty terrible anger issues and blamed all of his problems on me. this went on for years.
And he would constantly joke that he would "train me" to be how he wanted me to be (ie less oblivious... when really I didn't give a shit enough to separate the lights and darks in the washer nor did I like his taste in music at all ( fuckin country).
moral of the story: I was young, stupid, and thought no one would "understand me" as much as I thought he did. hence now my total 180 mindset.
(*I actually joined this site to try to figure out why it was so hard to get out. and why it felt so easy and natural to just pick back up and continue on with him).
Last edited by blackburry; 03-28-2013 at 06:11 PM.
say whaaaa?Originally Posted by lemontrees
ok, that's funny but also a little sad. lil bit.
I completely understand where you're coming from though. hopefully you both continue on unscathed, and like I said before, if it's getting better each time, why not, I guess. could do you both good.
Would like to know what those 'different voices' are.
lol can't imagine a LIE caring about that, usually it's ESIs bitching at LIEs because they get this stuff wrong...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Looks as if everything is wrong.
Assuming you didn't mistype someone again, the obvious reason for this is that you were at different stages in your relationship. I understand rational deltas have a natural guard up that slowly comes down as a relationship gets stronger; the trick is to move at the same speed.
Duals have it easier though.
I've dated an SLE sp/so for a short while, which wasn't horrible but somehow he managed to suck all life out of things :/ didn't really feel much resonance there. There are a few other duals I've met whom I would never consider, including two older married SLEs where the fact that they are married and hitting on girls on the side raises a big red flag (one of them is married to an ESE and the other to an SLI) and an artistic type SLE who has been the most interesting out of my duals for me, but he can't seem to keep his shit together, and then there are other things like substance abuse that make me doubt that this will turn out well. He sort of latched onto me in he beginning and I had to break away and keep some distance, I think now he refers to me like a personal therapist or sth lol
Of the other duals pairs that I know of ...
.... an Ti-LII and Si-ESE couple where she complains that he doesn't talk to her enough, just comes home from work and goes to his computer, and she desires to have more interaction (this is probably conflict of subtypes, inert Ti-LII + contact Si-ESE)
.... an LIE 8w7 and ESI 4w3 couple that seems to argue a lot, it's kind of hard to figure out what's going there, last time I saw them they were sitting together talking then she gets up, throws her shoes such that they slam against the wall (she had her shoes off), and walks off, and he's left there confused look on his face. I get a feeling that she's emotionally manipulating him and he can't figure out what's going on (this seems to happen in 4-8 relationships where the 4 start to twist emotional ropes out of the 8 with the later being clueless, up until a certain point)
On Russian forums there have been many stories and anecdotes posted of duals not getting it on, including an SLI who was just abusive and sadistic to this poor IEE, which lasted for years until she finally managed to break away from him; an LIE who cheated an ESI girl out of some money she was saving for school - got into a relationship with her, asked her to borrow the sum for some project and then disappeared, she posted a thread about it "but..but..but... duality!" and was told that she should have verified the factual content of the bs that he told her; some sort of workplace conflict between an LII and an ESE where the LII thought the ESE was incompetent and stupid and tried to get her fired, later when she was fired their group kind of folded; an ILI-SEE-LSI love triangle where the SEE kept ditching the ILI and going back to her supervisor LSI, then getting frustrated with him and coming back to the ILI only to leave him again later for the LSI; another failed SEE-ILI duality where the ILI was too self-involved and impassive and didn't respond to the SEE who was trying to shake him up a little until she got bored and started things with another guy, and so on.
In short, some duals simply aren't meant for each other - I got a sense there are "your duals", and then there are other duals, "someone else's duals" who are just not meant for you.
Yeah, I've read somewhere that an IQ gap of 15-20 points makes communication difficult, and it's more comfy if you and your partner are within 10 points of one another This is more of an issue for women though - some british study showed that for each 16pt increase in IQ lowers the likelihood that a woman will get married by 40%, and it's the opposite for guys, which is so unfair.
From what I've read of duality stories from russian forums, there is usually some kind of back-and-forth involved in dual relationships. Most frequently they voice two reasons for it: that duals get "locked into" one another and eventually grow bored without some external activities and input; and that duals don't fully appreciate one another when they are together but only start to truly miss each other when they are apart - so they separate, realize it was a mistake, come back together, grow bored, start thinking grass is greener somewhere else, separate again, and so it goes, unless they get married and have kids, or have some common project or goal that keeps them together.
Last edited by silke; 04-02-2013 at 08:21 AM.
I don't believe socionics relations is a working system, so.....
You can always write a better one.
No, thanks. I'll leave that to you.
I can't write. IQ gap.
My bro ILE is always bitching at his gf about household chores - that she doesn't clean, doesn't know how to cook, etc. In fact, he treats her pretty-much like a dog he is training, imo.
I agree, but ideally, a relationship shouldn't be a lot of work. If you find you have to work, and it's an uphill battle, you'll exhaust any natural chemistry after a while.
lol:
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I had a borderline ESI girlfriend who liked to wake up in the wrong mood, call me, break up with me, have sex with someone else, then come back crying asking why I didn't love her enough to be with her.
I know one LIE-ESI couple that kind of really love to argue with each other, even strongly (once the ESI was late 3 minutes, the LIE was waiting, me and my gf came around and he told me loudly "DO NOT EVER GET MARRIED WITH WOMEN111!!! then she came around and said "WHAT11!! I HEARD YOU ASSHOLE2" and they kept arguing for 10 mins). But now they are getting married...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Could be illusion as well, because getting bored is a very very common feature of illusion.
Some people also aren't meant for permanent romance or monogamous relationships.
As far as duals, I've never been romantically involved with one, but I've had illusion relations and semi-dual, and I would say illusion is characterized by boredom while semi-dual was characterized by violent misunderstandings. Both of these individuals I think very highly of still.
But I've worked with a dual for like 13 years and it has been a great relationship, probably one of the few people I've ever enjoyed working with, she's married to a ILE as well.
Romantic relationships are going to be more volatile but given my professional relationship experiences, I seriously doubt anything but a dual will work out romantically for me, as I view romantic relationship at a very low priority in life(althrough still neccessary).
That sucks for women, I guess I'll aim for the same IQ or smarter female then... ^_^
Are you being serious with this bunch of crap?
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
What if he's right?
umm... i'll eat my hat?What if he's right?
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
I'm sorry to hear that you two are broken up for real, SF. I hope that it's for the best.
Edit: I watched that video and cried like a baby.
Last edited by lemontrees; 03-29-2013 at 03:38 AM.
I do agree that any 2 people can have a good relationship if they're willing to work hard and long enough at it, but it's definitely easier for pairings that are naturally set up to interact at the closest psychological distances. Looking at how many years of effort and pain went into learning to do so without hurting each other for my activator parents, I shudder to think how difficult it would be for, say, conflictors. (admittedly that's a rather small sample size) Also, socionics clearly doesn't capture every aspect of a person that affects relationships, such as maturity, intelligence, interests, physical attractiveness, psychological scarring, disabilities/diseases (particularly neurological), etc. Still, socionics is useful because it gives structure to one of the aspects of people that's rather difficult to grasp.
P.S. @jet city woman I have to ask... if you think socionics is bunk, why do you hang out on these forums?
Valued | Devalued
<
| Conscious
| Unconscious
There are activities here that interest me, other than discussing socionics in its pure form.
I honestly think individuals are too complex to infer that only one type would be my ideal relationship. There are too many other possibilities to consider.
In my case for instance, I've had many experiences with my dual (starting in my teens, actually), and each time, I could only handle them in small doses, if at all. Most of the time, they irritate the living hell out of me to such an extreme that I can't stand to be around them at all (no offense to my dual; I'm simply being honest). If I decided to take on a relationship with my dual, it would be so much more work than I am doing in my current relationship, that I can't even imagine it. I can barely even acquaintance a girlfriend that is my dual. So I have no idea how someone could tell me that somehow a dual relationship would be easier than what I have now, or that a dual relationship would be easier than one with other types that I actually know I prefer to befriend and hang out with, and communication is there and it's at least semi-easy. I have to bring out a very certain part of me in order to befriend my dual, and I can't sustain it, nor would I want to. I want to be with someone who accepts a much bigger piece of me from the get-go, with minor adjustments lol. I've also found over the years that I generally have little-to-nothing in common with people who are my dual, and I pretty much think in my case that "those who play together, stay together". I prefer to be in long-term relationships where there are many shared activities, and not that many group activities, just one-on-one. People who are of my dual-type seem to misunderstand me to the point where it's very frustrating often, and I find them to be very petty. (No offense). They actually seem to take away from more than offer for me. My goals frequently do not seem to coincide with their beings. I believe from my own experiences that there are very few people of my dual-type that I could befriend, but there are lots of others within other types that I could befriend, and actually would prefer to. So go figure.....
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-29-2013 at 06:38 AM.
Makes sense.
On the other point, my first thought would be to consider the possible ways I might have misapplied socionics before I concluded it was incorrect. I don't know how much of that you've done (I know I already partially brought this up elsewhere, so w/e, I should shut up)
Although you're clearly right in that it's only a categorization of people, so it by no means fully captures everything that would affect relational compatibility, whether it's correct or not.
Valued | Devalued
I've been observing for awhile, and the relations simply don't work. I can have many different types of relationships with the same type that don't all fit the descriptions from some resources (and sometimes I can't even find an inkling of it), and these relationships can't be defined so narrowly and simply. People are not one-size-fits-all the way it is assuming. Even other forms of typology change our relationships, such as enneagrams. For example, in my relationship now, our enneagram types seem to prefer one another according to certain resources. So there are way too many other factors to consider that a one-size-fits-all model doesn't cover. I know they apply a clause to it, such as, "don't assume that every type that is your dual will be 'the one'." Then why use the system at all, if it's THAT imprecise and inaccurate (I have certain standards on the accuracies of a system from my eyes), even if it does happen to work that I find 'the one', and it happens to be my dual? It could've also worked that I find 'the one', and it happens to be not-my-dual, which is most likely for me. People have goals in life, and sometimes those goals do not coincide with their dual's personality type.
I think this system is based on some crazy notion that, "There is a soulmate out there for you." lol...... Ok, let's just fallaciously say there are 8% ENTjs, for instance, and one of those 8% would be someone's dual. What if one out of 200 would make a compatible/fairly easy relationship? We don't even know the statistics on this, do we (as to how many ENTjs there are, and how many would be compatible as your dual)? Are there any? And because of the way you developed, maybe one out of 100 ESTJs would make a compatible/fairly easy relationship. Who's to say better than yourself, really, and I don't know all the answers because none of us have met and had relationships with all the people in the world, or basically even enough to make a good study pertinent probably, to even to determine who would make our best partner. We have to go by experiences. To believe in such a thing like socionics fully would be erroneous. It just depends on whether it works for you or not, and no, it doesn't work for me.
Of course, not to mention all the other problems that socionics brings forth.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-29-2013 at 08:38 AM.
If you were to make a theory that described every aspect of a person, then there would be a "type" for every single person in the world, and only one person in the world would be that type. It would also be a totally useless theory. The reason the theories are useful is that they point out general tendencies and use them to give some amount of predictive power. Is there more complexity beyond that described by socionics? Tons. Does that make socionics wrong? Not at all. Is every person of type x the same as every other? Of course not. Is every relationship between type x and type y the same as every other? Again, of course not. But there are general tendencies.
Duality gets a ton of hype, as though it magically makes a relationship perfect. It doesn't. However, to someone who's mostly been in relationships with people in other quadras the difference can be a real eye-opener, and they sometimes express this experience a bit hyperbolicly. I would say the practical usefulness of socionics is really learning to avoid expecting the wrong things from others in relationships and keep relationships at their natural psychological distance, not finding your "soulmate".
Incidentally, MBTI is effectively a contentless theory, since all it really says is "pick which description most fits you" then tells you "this description fits you", whereas socionics goes further and gives information about how its different types interact with each other. Part of what that means for socionics, though, is that one's type is more than just a description of one's self; it's a description of where one fits into a structure that crosses individuals. Thus your self-typing isn't the absolute authority on your type the way it is in MBTI.
Valued | Devalued
I agree with most of what you've said here. But, there is no proof that socionics works at all except for my own observations at this point. And I can't find a real example of where I think it does. I'm not even sure if there are "general tendencies" between relationships, other than how we may learn to act to get along with others, in general. I mean, one person of a type I'm in love with, another I can't stand to be around. One seems more like dual relations, while the other seems conflictor. This shows no overall similarities or tendencies. And that's my problem. When I studied enneagrams, I could find resources that would say distinctly, "These two types seem to be the most relationally compatible", and I've found examples (tons of them) where I think that may be at least somewhat true comparatively. I have found complete opposite situations to what they are telling me with socionics, and no examples where it has exactly worked. In fact, I don't even agree with alot of what I read, but it is translated, so who knows what it ACTUALLY says in true form. Not to mention that there are many authors and even they can't agree. So what is socionics?
Well, this makes sense, however, if I try to change my type, that doesn't work for the relations either, and it doesn't fit me in other ways either. I see socionics as being one big clusterfuck of a mess, and inherently pretty useless. I've gained a little insight here and there.
I think typology is very personal to the person studying it, and I think one's experiences and personalities will color what works for them. I may, for instance, have a bad experience with a person of a type, and write them all off, and just decide that I'm going to conflict with them. Or, I may not like someone for a trait other than what is described in socionics, and have conflictor relations with them based on that. No one can determine what type of relations I decide to have with someone, if I make a decision for some reason. Socionics as a whole just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When they tell me I'm in a conflictor when I think I'm in a dual relationship, for instance, what use is that? It's just not a solid-enough theory. There are too many if's, and's, or but's to make it useful.
If I read the book Gifts Differing, (mbti) the description fits me like a glove. If I read any resource from socionics, not more than 50% of any of the descriptions for one type fits me, approximately. It's more like astrology to me.
The other point I wanted to make is: I can decide how I am going to act with someone, and I can change it on a daily basis, and often do. I am who I happen to be at-that-moment, and nothing is going to predict an overall tendency of how my relationships will evolve, imo, except maybe my own reliances on my own experiences and studies about the nature of people, my own observations. Also, I think as we change over time, our relations with others definitely also change with experiences. Does socionics address this situation?
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-29-2013 at 10:30 AM.
Lack of objective proof is one of the serious problems for socionics, although small scale tests have been done in russia, afaik no scientifically satisfactory proof can be furnished. A bigger issue than that, though, is that it is a rapidly growing and evolving subject, as different people take it in different directions, most of which cannot coexist and have not been tested. In that kind of environment, "what socionics is" is really a matter of the common ground from which these many different theorists are working, and separating that out from their personal theoretical quirks can be difficult, particularly given the language barrier between here and where it all started.Obviously our own biases can't be completely eliminated, but shouldn't we try? Also, a "conflict" relationship isn't a category for every relationship that goes wrong. It's a category for relationships where people "rub each other the wrong way" in a specific sense. 2 people of any 2 types can just be mean to each other because they were in a bad mood, and end up not getting along from then on, but that doesn't mean they're in a conflictor relationship. The whole point of socionics is to study aspects of relationships that go beyond the obvious effects.This is an unfortunate aspect of the rapidly growing/evolving nature of socionics. Probably the only way to understand socionics well right now is intuitively or by collating multiple resources.The general agreement among socionists is that sociotype seems to be fixed for life, which makes sense with the idea that it represents some fundamental aspect of how we process information, however, there's a huge amount of room for a person to change without changing sociotype.
So... is the thread officially hijacked yet?
Valued | Devalued
CONFLICT RELATIONSHIPS ARE WORSE THAN ANY ABNORMAL DUAL RELATIONSHIPS. TRUST ME. I WAS SEEING AN SLE AND I WOULD TRADE MY LIFE IN FOR A DAY OF DUAL INTERACTION.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-31-2013 at 04:24 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
This kinda reflects my opinion on the matter.....
Edit- the "your" vs "you're" bugs, but oh well.. sentiment is perfect.
Last edited by Finale; 03-29-2013 at 10:42 PM.
Then stop seeing him :-D
If you don't like someone you are seeing...then why see them?
Don't be a dummy.
Yea, I'm thinking that an ENTp may've written this thing, and crammed it down people's throats (or some variation of this pattern), based on what worked for them.This kinda reflects my opinion on the matter.....
I find it interesting that the only people I can think of who are actually with their duals on a long-term basis are ENTps, unless they believe in socionics. Maybe each type needs to have their own formula.
The relations formulas do seem to contradict findings from studies based in mbti.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-30-2013 at 09:46 AM.
Difficult or impossible? lol.....
I'm not sure if my own personal issue would be a "bias" actually, since it was a natural reaction, thoughts, and feelings I've had since my teens, during multiple experiences. I continue to give each one I meet a chance, some with better results, but I'm pretty convinced there's no way I would choose my dual or ever would have, or if I happen to be mistyped (which, I don't think some types or function definitions are anywhere near 'correct' by my standards anyway), any other type of real relationship with this type. I tend to choose relationships with less emotional types and have since my teens. That's comfortable for me, and it allows me more time and energy, and focus. I'm not sure if everyone should try to eliminate their biases; I suppose it just depends on how extreme they are and if the biases make them unhappy vs. safe and assured, and happy.
Yes, I know. It was a hypothetical example. Any two types could be used.
So... is the thread officially hijacked yet?
I agree with you that interpreting socionics intuitively is about the only way, and I'm sure it's a ball for some of the intuitive types, but from my perspective, there's not a whole lot there to work with. If I were to approach it, it would be in a manner of trying to "fix" it, and that would be a much larger undertaking than anything I am capable of alone, at this time. If I were to actually spend my time creating a relations system, it would probably be done with mbti as a basis, since it's a more solid ground with which to build on.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-30-2013 at 01:10 PM.
My sister's aYea, I'm thinking that an ENTp may've written this thing, and crammed it down people's throats (or some variation of this pattern), based on what worked for them.
I find it interesting that the only people I can think of who are actually with their duals on a long-term basis are ENTps, unless they believe in socionics. Maybe each type needs to have their own formula.That doesn't really make any sense, since the types aren't transferrable between the two, which is one of the reasons I don't like people using the MBTI-like names for socionics types (like "ENTp") as it perpetuates the myth that socionics is somehow an "add-on" to MBTI that says how the types interact, when really its a totally separate typing system that happens to coincide just enough with MBTI to be confusing.
Valued | Devalued
I doubt that here in America, 1/3 of married couples are dual relationships, or I (and others I know) would have noticed it alot more often. I think it's a possibility, but not more so than any other relation.My sister's a
The findings I am speaking of do not specify types, just that people are more likely to marry and like people that are more similar to their own type than socionics relations will specify for you to choose as a dual, in a nutshell. (Some of the findings do specify some info on types, some do not). My observations and experiences tend to match this.
I know that when reading on the forums, some of the types seem exact matches for mbti-types, (or, how the type is being interpreted seems an exact match is a better way to put it). But yes, I've viewed the mbti/socionics typing chart, and many were typed differently in socionics than mbti.
Last edited by jet city woman; 03-30-2013 at 01:44 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
