Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: strength of functions

  1. #1

    Default strength of functions

    as a very rough outline, is this correct?

    strongest to weakest:

    1. demonstrative
    2. base
    3. ignoring
    4. creative
    5. role
    6. hidden agenda
    7. polr
    8. suggestive

  2. #2
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,131
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dont know, it may come down to how you define strength. And then personal eccentricities will change them for people. Base subtype will nave a stronger Ha than role, and vice versa for creative subtype.

    Mine would look like (I think)
    Base
    Demonstrative
    Ignoring
    Creative
    Hidden Agenda
    Polr
    Role
    Suggestive
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  3. #3
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO:

    1. Base (Fi)
    8. Demonstrative (Ni)
    2. Creative (Ne)
    7. Ignoring (Fe)
    6. Hidden Agenda (Si)
    5. Suggestive (Te)
    3. Role (Ti)
    4. POLR (Se)

    I have no idea why demonstrative would be stronger than base, or POLR over suggestive.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I dont know, it may come down to how you define strength. And then personal eccentricities will change them for people. Base subtype will nave a stronger Ha than role, and vice versa for creative subtype.

    Mine would look like (I think)
    Base
    Demonstrative
    Ignoring
    Creative
    Hidden Agenda
    Polr
    Role
    Suggestive
    I would define strength as how quickly and accurately information is processed.
    so the stronger functions would process info instantly and correctly, the weaker ones may actually get the same result by do so slower and make more mistakes along the way


    Good point about personal eccentricities affecting it, hadn't thought of that. I'm just looking for a general trend though

    why is hidden agenda stronger than polr for you?

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Radio View Post
    IMO:

    1. Base (Fi)
    8. Demonstrative (Ni)
    2. Creative (Ne)
    7. Ignoring (Fe)
    6. Hidden Agenda (Si)
    5. Suggestive (Te)
    3. Role (Ti)
    4. POLR (Se)

    I have no idea why demonstrative would be stronger than base, or POLR over suggestive.
    Interesting. I put demonstrative because it seems to react faster, without any thought, automatically adjusting to the surroundings. The base by contrast has a bit of a lag between thought and action.
    Also suggestive over polr because suggestive is unconscious, it seems to be routinely overlooked. The polr by contrast is sensitive when it has at least some experience.

    Why is role weaker than suggestive?

  6. #6
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to the theory of dimensionality of functions, it should be something like this:

    Base/Demonstrative, 4-D
    Creative/Ignoring, 3-D
    Role/Hidden Agenda, 2-D
    PoLR/Suggestive, 1-D

    I'm not sure if that always works out in practice though and how much subtype has an effect on it.

    Can a function with a lower dimensionality be stronger than a function with a greater dimensionality? I'm also inclined to think that even though they are equal in dimensionality, the base tends to be a little stronger than the demonstrative, and the suggestive a little stronger than the PoLR.

    I sometimes think my Fi and Si (2-D) are stronger than my Te (3-D), so my overall order might be something like.

    1. Base Ti
    2. Demonstrative Ni
    3. Creative Ne
    4. Role Fi
    5. Hidden Agenda Si
    6. Ignoring Te
    7. Suggestive Fe
    8. PLR Se
    Last edited by The Exception; 01-02-2015 at 06:11 PM.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    I would define strength as how quickly and accurately information is processed.
    so the stronger functions would process info instantly and correctly, the weaker ones may actually get the same result by do so slower and make more mistakes along the way

    (...)

    I put demonstrative because it seems to react faster, without any thought, automatically adjusting to the surroundings. The base by contrast has a bit of a lag between thought and action.
    Also suggestive over polr because suggestive is unconscious, it seems to be routinely overlooked. The polr by contrast is sensitive when it has at least some experience.
    If I go by that then I agree that demonstrative is before base function but otherwise I would say base is stronger for me because demonstrative is less consistently used, for me anyway. So my list:

    1-2. Base; Demonstrative (see as above)
    3. Ignoring - fast automatic, though not "on" much
    4. Creative - fast but not always automatic (only the already well-ingrained aspects are automatic) and often not turned "on", then sometimes "on" very much
    5. HA - fast, easy, but incomplete
    6.-7. Role - slow, though not too bad if it gets to directly process; Suggestive - fast, easy because of receptiveness but very much incomplete results of processing and can be outright incorrect
    8. PoLR - slow, incorrect, if it ever gets to directly processing anything

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    If I go by that then I agree that demonstrative is before base function but otherwise I would say base is stronger for me because demonstrative is less consistently used, for me anyway. So my list:

    1-2. Base; Demonstrative (see as above)
    3. Ignoring - fast automatic, though not "on" much
    4. Creative - fast but not always automatic (only the already well-ingrained aspects are automatic) and often not turned "on", then sometimes "on" very much
    5. HA - fast, easy, but incomplete
    6.-7. Role - slow, though not too bad if it gets to directly process; Suggestive - fast, easy because of receptiveness but very much incomplete results of processing and can be outright incorrect
    8. PoLR - slow, incorrect, if it ever gets to directly processing anything
    I think I should fix this up. :| How I originally described stuff is largely true but I learned more about myself since then and the labels are off too due to typing as my Mirror.

    Lol where I wrote that Creative is "fast but not always automatic (only the already well-ingrained aspects are automatic)", I should've realized that wasn't my Creative (I was talking about Ti). Or where I wrote that Ignoring is "fast automatic, though not "on" much".. fits Demonstrative better lol. I wasn't sure how to evaluate my skills in superego functions, either. And as for Suggestive, same issue. The rest I saw largely correctly before too.

    Basically it's Demonstrative = Base => Creative > Ignoring >>> Mobilizing > Suggestive => Role > PoLR

  9. #9
    Chacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    France
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Instead of strength, "dimensionality" seems more accurate, in the case that we are talking about the dimensionality that an information element can perceive.
    It's hard to talk about strength per se, I would rather say comfort and predisposition.

    But in this order : 4D > 3D > 2D > 1D. We have a general overview of the strength of each IE.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the function strength spectrum is bs in my opinion. whether a function is prioritized over its alternative is a binary matter. any other differentiation between funtions can be amply understood in terms of other dichotomizations. further differentiating strenths is an illusory crutch without rational basis.

    dimensionality is especially terrible in that it imposes illusory quantifyability where there realistically is none. it is entirely made up. the only appropriate quantification is the binary one.

    i also disagree that the polr is a particularly weak function compared to other unprioritized ones. there's tons of people including myself who don't have huge trouble balancing polr and creative function.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    as a very rough outline, is this correct?

    strongest to weakest:

    1. demonstrative
    2. base
    3. ignoring
    4. creative
    5. role
    6. hidden agenda
    7. polr
    8. suggestive
    how can you err so? It's just a matter of comparing numbers and putting them where they belong. I'll make two versions of this:

    a) Matching purely on strength

    1. Base = Demo (4D fncts)
    2. Creative = Igno (3D fncts)
    3. HA = Role (2D fncts)
    4. Sugg = PoLR (1D fncts)

    4D > 3D > 2D > 1D

    b) Matching on strength and value

    1. Base (4Dv)
    2. Demo (4Duv)
    3. Creative (3Dv)
    4. Igno (3Duv)
    5. HA (2Dv)
    6. Role (2Duv)
    7. Sugg (1Dv)
    8. PoLR (1Duv)

    4Dv >~ 4Duv > 3Dv >~ 3Duv > 2Dv > 2Duv > 1Dv > 1Duv

    ...where's the problem at again?

  12. #12
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,943
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree that it certainly depends on which assumptions you make. You could probably make a good argument for saying that each function in Model-A is equally strong, although in terms of "strength" in relation to a Base function, that other functions are thus weaker.

    (My PoLR could be strong in direct proportionate to my Ego, rather than being inversely linked for example).
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  13. #13
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,308
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have difficulty in accepting that such an order of strength can be accurately measured and determined.

  14. #14
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    733 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Allow me to demonstrate:

    I am deeply hurt and saddened that anyone would say that my Te is less than stellar and my Se is less than phenomenal.

    Anyway, the idea that demonstrative is strongest would have certain implications leading me to believe that there are quite a few mistypings due to the use of demonstrative function. Although I did read it is primarily used "in private". I would have to agree with that since I am more likely to use the demonstrative function with those I feel know me best. I do get those feelings of attraction/repulsion when gauging how other people respond or react to me. I usually only make serious fun of it in private. I have taken to considering the demonstrative function when typing others because I don't think it is as "private" as I previously thought. I do this through the engaging of my base function which leads me back to maintaining my base function is strongest and all the rest are just tools in my toolbox.
    Last edited by Aylen; 08-31-2015 at 06:43 PM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  15. #15
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    733 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJay View Post
    I have difficulty in accepting that such an order of strength can be accurately measured and determined.
    Maybe some genius will take all this and find the socionics "eureka" moment in it?


    http://www.apadivisions.org/division...ssessment.aspx

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chips and underwear
    Can a function with a lower dimensionality be stronger than a function with a greater dimensionality? I'm also inclined to think that even though they are equal in dimensionality, the base tends to be a little stronger than the demonstrative, and the suggestive a little stronger than the PoLR.

    I sometimes think my Fi and Si (2-D) are stronger than my Te (3-D), so my overall order might be something like.
    At the end of the day, the dimensionality stuff is just a speculative blueprint, just as is the idea that ego consists of 2 things! Ultimately in a more irrational type, or more rational type, the ego will mostly consist of one thing with the other much more tempered. And Jung allowed for a second auxiliary, and the analogous idea definitely applies whether you're using socionics definitions or Jungian ones, in socionics theory.

    Really all this is saying is that you're more of an introvert than you are a T, which is obvious enough a thing to consider, considering you almost always typed yourself as introverted types, used to have the "self-submerged H subtype" thing to describe you, etc.

    Jung viewed all these things in terms of degrees, and on some points, even if we use socionics theory more than we use his, where his ideas make more sense (e.g. being flexible about which areas show most differentiation, rather than using the one-fits-all packaged blueprint), it's necessary to make adjustments.

    For what it's worth BTW Gulenko puts H as strengthening both Si and Ni and more secondarily Fi in one of his descriptions, and there's actually an idea to this, in that introverted feeling is often said to evaluate against harmony with the self.

  17. #17
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    733 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    At the end of the day, the dimensionality stuff is just a speculative blueprint, just as is the idea that ego consists of 2 things! Ultimately in a more irrational type, or more rational type, the ego will mostly consist of one thing with the other much more tempered. And Jung allowed for a second auxiliary, and the analogous idea definitely applies whether you're using socionics definitions or Jungian ones, in socionics theory.

    Really all this is saying is that you're more of an introvert than you are a T, which is obvious enough a thing to consider, considering you almost always typed yourself as introverted types, used to have the "self-submerged H subtype" thing to describe you, etc.

    Jung viewed all these things in terms of degrees, and on some points, even if we use socionics theory more than we use his, where his ideas make more sense (e.g. being flexible about which areas show most differentiation, rather than using the one-fits-all packaged blueprint), it's necessary to make adjustments.

    For what it's worth BTW Gulenko puts H as strengthening both Si and Ni and more secondarily Fi in one of his descriptions, and there's actually an idea to this, in that introverted feeling is often said to evaluate against harmony with the self.
    Interesting. These ideas were floating around in my mind last night but I did not write them down. Here you actually put it together in a way that makes sense of what I was thinking. Not all of it but some very specific things. Unrelated to chips of course.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's also worth looking at Jung's view of Nietzsche's type for a lot of these issues --- frequently in MBTI/socionics/Jung-related settings, people are quick to assume a blueprint along the lines of

    dom = clear attitude E or I

    aux = more mixed

    inf = opposite dom

    However, this all depends on which aspects of polarization/dichotomy one emphasizes. Jung thought Kant was overall a clear introverted thinking type (dominant), but not as repressing of extraverted thinking as was Nietzsche, despite introverted intuition outranking thinking in Nietzsche, with introverted thinking secondary.... demonstrating how the above blueprint/model doesn't really always work -- ultimately everything depends on the extent to which what preferences actually become egoic. If introversion is highly pronounced as the ego's attitude, and if the secondary function is quite differentiated, it may sufficiently offset an extraverted influence to the secondary, despite it being more prone to unconscious influences.
    This is why it's important to get the theory behind the assumptions of the models

    All this means is that overall, Nietzsche was more polarized towards introversion than Kant, despite both being highly pronounced introverts, and Kant was more polarized to T (and indeed one of Jung's other close associates confirmed Kant was an uber-T, and we can probably see this in how he describes ethics, namely in a way Jung would probably say is a highly T slant repressing F).

  19. #19
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I]even if we use socionics theory more than we use his[/I], where his ideas make more sense (e.g. being flexible about which areas show most differentiation, rather than using the one-fits-all packaged blueprint), it's necessary to make adjustments.

    For what it's worth BTW Gulenko puts H as strengthening both Si and Ni and more secondarily Fi in one of his descriptions, and there's actually an idea to this, in that introverted feeling is often said to evaluate against harmony with the self.
    Interested about the Fi also being strengthened in H subs. I often get mistyped by others as EII. And oh yes, harmony with the self, it's very important.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah it seems to be a general thing with all the subs to view them as strengthening one temperament form + an "auxiliary"

    E.g. I think dominant strengthens the EJs (Te, Fe) but also Se, creative's formula is Ne+Se and then Fe, H is like creative but everything is introverted, N is Ti, Fi predominantly, then Ni.

    This is by memory, but you can of course just find the page, it's on here somewhere.

    . I often get mistyped by others as EII.
    I understand some people are worried adding subtypes will water down taking the main type seriously, but at the end of the day, Jung himself, despite giving this general idea about doms and auxes and inferiors, in his diverse writings, has written of many different variations/scenarios, and various Jungian analysts have figured out many cases where the orders aren't rigidly determined.

    My general philosophy is that the model A types are good for general cognitive blueprints, i.e. they can be more rigidly structured because they're more based on assumptions of philosophy of cognition, i.e. that the different philosophies of information processing cannot be jumbled together in assembling a coherent viewpoint.

    So for instance, one person who habitually formulates his/her views in a T fashion is not going to always be temperamentally and psychologically just as T > F in every respect of life. These are both relevant to things Jung talked about, and I think it's a welcome thing to classify them separately.

    I would guess Jung himself was a case where he was not quite as T compared to some of his contemporaries in terms of raw temperament, but was quite T in how he formulated his views and ideas, albeit not really pure T, very much mixed up with intuition.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chacha View Post
    Instead of strength, "dimensionality" seems more accurate, in the case that we are talking about the dimensionality that an information element can perceive.
    It's hard to talk about strength per se, I would rather say comfort and predisposition.

    But in this order : 4D > 3D > 2D > 1D. We have a general overview of the strength of each IE.
    Dimensionality is a better concept than just generic "strength", yes. In my list, I was going by dimensionality and by preference together.


    Quote Originally Posted by krieger View Post
    the function strength spectrum is bs in my opinion. whether a function is prioritized over its alternative is a binary matter. any other differentiation between functions can be amply understood in terms of other dichotomizations. further differentiating strenths is an illusory crutch without rational basis.

    dimensionality is especially terrible in that it imposes illusory quantifyability where there realistically is none. it is entirely made up. the only appropriate quantification is the binary one.

    i also disagree that the polr is a particularly weak function compared to other unprioritized ones. there's tons of people including myself who don't have huge trouble balancing polr and creative function.
    The problem with your viewpoint is that when you decide what function is prioritized over the other, that's still dependent on quantifying things without having any more "appropriate" basis for doing so than for determining dimensionality.

    Dimensionality of information processing isn't just a "made up" thing (wtf sort of "reasoning" is that?), this isn't just a socionics concept, it's found in general psychology as well.

    As for PoLR, you had a recent post explaining how you ignore Se a lot. How's that balanced. (Rhetorical question)


    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Allow me to demonstrate:

    I am deeply hurt and saddened that anyone would say that my Te is less than stellar and my Se is less than phenomenal.

    Anyway, the idea that demonstrative is strongest would have certain implications leading me to believe that there are quite a few mistypings due to the use of demonstrative function. Although I did read it is primarily used "in private". I would have to agree with that since I am more likely to use the demonstrative function with those I feel know me best. I do get those feelings of attraction/repulsion when gauging how other people respond or react to me. I usually only make serious fun of it in private. I have taken to considering the demonstrative function when typing others because I don't think it is as "private" as I previously thought. I do this through the engaging of my base function which leads me back to maintaining my base function is strongest and all the rest are just tools in my toolbox.
    The demonstrative does seem to be demonstrated relatively easily compared to the ignoring function for example. As for your last sentence, it does make a whole lot of sense though in my case the creative can also get very strong and then it no longer feels like just a tool.


    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    It's also worth looking at Jung's view of Nietzsche's type for a lot of these issues --- frequently in MBTI/socionics/Jung-related settings, people are quick to assume a blueprint along the lines of

    (...)

    All this means is that overall, Nietzsche was more polarized towards introversion than Kant, despite both being highly pronounced introverts, and Kant was more polarized to T (and indeed one of Jung's other close associates confirmed Kant was an uber-T, and we can probably see this in how he describes ethics, namely in a way Jung would probably say is a highly T slant repressing F).
    I'm not into a purely descriptive viewpoint, also I don't subscribe to the crap stereotyping, I'm more like I view these dichotomies etc as quantified variables along which evaluations can be made but those don't necessarily lead to "pure types". I guess you are similar? I just like to have more of a comprehensive system behind those variables.

  22. #22
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well I wish that my polr was strong. I don't have forceful and pushy qualities. My bf said "you should stand up for your self" having realized that it makes me feel bad he said "don't worry about it I got it" still, I like being independent and though it depresses me and makes me feel down I often manage to avoid situations that require it. My Fi goes first as things are evaluated through subjective feeling and system of ethics. Ne is second because I feel that people have the potential to be good and don't just assume they are bad. This gives a positivist angle to my Fi . I dread Se

  23. #23
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've weirdly found my Suggestive to be pretty good, (I'd give it a B-) kind of middle of the road- as I often help correct physical/tangible stuff for people that they have issues on. Nobody would think this about me though, because I am campy and faggy.

    My polr is god awful, it's just painful and even if I can get good at it, I still avoid it.

    My Fe is the strongest, then my Ni. My Fi I think is kinda weak-ish even though the theory says I'm supposed to be good at it.

    It would be interesting to think of things in more nuanced/complicated terms like this rather then trying to make some neat theory that possibly can't include everybody and all their complexities.

    Have the model fit the person. Not the other way around.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    My Fe is the strongest, then my Ni. My Fi I think is kinda weak-ish even though the theory says I'm supposed to be good at it.
    ah nah, your Fi passes as 4D just fine, you are just not consciously aware of it much (demonstrative)

  25. #25
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    ah nah, your Fi passes as 4D just fine, you are just not consciously aware of it much (demonstrative)
    Well yeah that's what they say, but do you mind giving me a concrete example of how this is true?

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post


    Well yeah that's what they say, but do you mind giving me a concrete example of how this is true?
    next time I see it in chatbox I'll let you know

Posting Permissions

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