You could always drug and rape an albino while you are ovulating.Originally Posted by niffer
hey, I just met you
and this is crazy
but here's my number
Sol call me, mb?
I finally feel famous now that I’m in this thread.
do not stop. make a typing thread with the video to get even more of the attention and admiration
You may make the video and I'll try to guess your type. And mb offer other types to you too.
The "crazy" is I still did not found even one assured EII woman on forums. Either they have no video, or I doubt based on other reasons. During the last year on this forum among the women which thought themselves as EII I typed to other types 5.
P.S.
In IRL communication I may become assured in the type during minutes. Later I know those people better but do not get doubts in that type mostly. And I may to assume possible types during several seconds by looking in the eyes. Similarly, limited forum's talking may to give enough to reject some types. I have the experience of watching people of different types for such decisions.
Last edited by Sol; 06-23-2018 at 12:22 PM.
FTR, if this is a bannable offense then @Sol should also be banned (or at least warned) for calling me a heretic at any chance he gets.
You are the heretic in the sense that you using the theory which is not classical - not by Jung and Augustinavichiute, - hence what is not Socionics, what you do not point there.
You are using random sources like Gulenko bs. Using Reinin's traits which are baseless and are far from Jung, which mostly Augustinavichiute said like raw theory and gave lame descriptions to them which are not even strictly used by others - they may use something own under the same names. You reject the normal theory where it could be used and prefer heretic bs like this was in the discussion with Myst about IEI assertiveness. You do strange interpretations of the theory like was with Si types which you claimed as tiring quickly. You make assertions against the common typology understanding like by saying that Jung used other functions than Socionics, - there you reject that Socionics uses Jung's types, - there is no more bs you could to say than that.
Where you and other ones are saying the heresies - they are the heretics appropriately. It's the fact about those actions and opinions, but not personal insulting which would be against the rules. And those are heretics in the degree they do that.
You are the heretic in the typology in significant degree and spread bs instead of Socionics or its normal theory.
You do not like the truth. Happens.
Use more classical theory to become lesser heretic, if you do not like to be such.
Socionics fundamentalism
One wonders if the theory was developed and corrected by many observations, or was discovered carved into gold tablets somewhere.Socionics fundamentalism
there's actually a concept in American law that basically says you can't be insulted by something a reasonable person would not take seriously to begin with, so all this whining about Sol calling people heretics is dumb because everyone should know, like Adam Strange pointed out, there's no gold tablets backing it, its just a meaningless phrase. its like if I call someone an infidel because they prefer vanilla over chocolate. its not bannable because you're just as if not more stupid for thinking its offensive to begin with
The beginning of genesis
[1:1] In the beginning when Jung described the types and the manifestations,
[1:2] the theory was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while the words from Jung swept over the face of the curios.
[1:3] Then Jung said, "Let there be enlightenment"; and there was Aushra.
[1:4] And Jung saw that the potential for enlightenment was good; and gave permission to formulate the formless theory out from the darkness.
[1:5] Jung called the Day, and Aushra took over...
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
When people get labelled heretics, there is a tendency for them ending up burnt.
Here they only end up being typed LSI or ESI, or SEI at worst.
Better to get on with Tinder.
So you think that Sol calling you a heretic is an offense and should be warned, or are you saying this to suggest that Myst's complaint is not legitimate?
If someone is complaining of harassment that seems like something to look into, you know, as a mod and all...
practically it's the question to what you should trust more, as the basis of the hypotheses is very differentSocionics fundamentalism
with incorrect theory you'll get incorrect results
while formally it's what you may to call as Socionics
the external fantasies should to have objective experimental basis to be attached to the basic theory as equal, or not used on practice seriously and massively
the idea is the opposite - to usage of better rationally based theory, what is not random bs without good basis from Gulenko and similars. the core theory has the basis evidently better then its derivatives until they get the experimental proof
it's not the religion where you should to trust to anything without basis. but it's what is done by those who uses external theory - they blindly trust to it like it deserves this not lesser than the core one. it's not reasonably and the same what religious approach is against which you oppose by the joking
> Here they only end up being typed LSI or ESI, or SEI at worst.
the usage of more based theory will end up in more accuracy
@Sol If you're hoping to get "results" from socionics you're wasting your time, lol.
But if we stick to core socionics only we will never make progress. It's not good to wait for others to do the research, proofs and so on because this might never happen if we don't take things into our hands. Every statement counts towards developing future theories. If someone prefers to use core socionics he is free to do it, but imposing it upon others is arrogant and pointless. Not everyone is like you and they don't share your Ni PoLR.
Yeah, it's not a bannable offense. But is annoying. There seem to be no mods enforcing anything right now at all. Because what you quoted actually is a bannable offense, not by you, but by the person writing it (as is me mentioning this)
Me mentioning this, I guess means I should be banned for a day, but will also mention that the other person has done this more than 3 times and should have been banned for a month already. So, there we go, I've now committed a bannable offense. And. . . nothing will happen. Because there are no mods. And that's actually pretty frustrating to me, because I requested the ignore order to begin with to solve a problem.3.7. Mutual Antagonism: There are some situations where mutual antagonism leads to conflict which disrupt the forum. In these situations involved users should use the ignore function and attempt to not escalate situations. Failure to do this will result in the issuing of a Ignore Order, to the antagonistic parties.
The order shall be:
1. Ignore each other using the ignore function in the forum and chatbox
2. Do not respond to each other in any way.
3. Do not post in non-socionics threads started by the other user(s).
3. Do not make personal posts in socionics threads started by the other user(s).
4. Do not in any way attempt to speak/engage/notify the other user(s).
5. Failure to comply with the above directives may result in a 1 day temporary ban and/or a ban from chatbox and/or a thread ban.
6. Failure to comply with the above directives 3 times may result in a 1 month temporary ban.
7. The users will be placed in a UserGroup ROUser, that will limit their ability to view posts and respond to user that they have ignored.
this argument could go on forever, the point is that Sol, even as he says we should throw all this stuff out, in virtue of the fact that he can't, and people continue to talk about it means he has to continue to justify his objections: this constitutes a learning process and is good. So while it may end up being deemed heresy, its not so bad, because its the path we take to get there wherein maybe we learn some stuff, we don't simply throw stuff out because its not orthodoxy, but nor do we ignore orthodoxy as having no wisdom left in it.. people just have to work it out by defending their views, coming up with new insights, and generally being reasonable and its fine. I think even Sol would admit this, he's just tired of shooting down the same claims (the ones that aren't new but are just resurrections of already debunked ideas), because it multiplies the labor. but that sort of thing is just the sawdust the mil necessarily has to produce, you go too hard on trying to prevent that in the name of efficiency and you lose sight of the objective, which is to make things better not worse.
some people are the continual advocates of bad ideas (Adam Strange) and I think the idea is people like that ultimately should be cast out first, rather than any perpetrators of surface level impoliteness, because its "heresy" of that kind that prevents good outcomes... preoccupation with politeness makes the objective of socionics to be not about typing at all but pleasant social interactions. but this has always been the battle for the soul of socionics for as long as I've been here. is it about just shooting the shit via some stereotypes forming the basis of an in group culture, or it is about all the jungian ideas of self improvement or augustas' about relationships etc. the idea of who is worse is personality itself, so there's no reason it shouldn't continue on for the foreseeable future. the bottom line is its probably best to defeat these opposed types on the field of ideas if at all possible and not get too frustrated if progress is slow or non existent, instead try to figure out what one could be doing better (and that probably doesn't include employing force, although I guess in very extreme circumstances it is the solution, but not here, not yet of course)
in the final analysis whether you prefer Sol or Adam Strange's approach, they should both be respected, but that doesn't mean politeness it means simply forebearing on banning them because you can see they serve a purpose even in purveying bad ideas or acting against what you think is proper. true cases of actual counterproductivity would be like Adam Strange sexually harrassing Lungs.. actually j/k I know people won't admit that happened, but maybe a better example would be crazedrat verbally abusing people in the most unsophisticated and public fashion without any real underlying message. that is I think something we can all agree amounts to basically spam and can be removed without any loss. the real rub of Jung is that his message is that evil is often an illusion that works for good in ways that are mysterious to us. however the culmination of this principle is even if the forums decided to do the exact opposite of what I wanted, I would be obliged to admit that they did me some good. so in the end, bans or no bans, on a long enough timeline it all will sort itself out
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-23-2018 at 04:28 PM.
He does not like the justiful criticism and the term (which seems is hardly messed in his head with religions). He does not like the emotions which follow after this and he stays on the level of emotions as can't oppose good on logical level.
> If someone is complaining of harassment that seems like something to look into, you know, as a mod and all...
The harassment and sabotage from moderators would be the prohibition of the justiful criticism of what is said about types here, to call heresies as heresies, as this will be the lawlessness and the actions against the truth and forum's tasks.
I saw such moderators actions on socioforum - when they have forbidden to argue against what people think about own types. I suppose this happened as the most moderators there are flooders-roleplayers, which doubt (mb unconsciously) in own types as those mb wrong in 50% and afraid the criticism against them. The similar seems is with *bush which understands his weak position in usage of heretic bs and his doubtful level of the typology understanding (just check above) and would prefer this stayed hiden to play here a good expert for his emotional needs. Objectivity and truth for possible Ti type may mean lesser than Fe image and emotions he wants to get here, and this leads him to the wish of censorship of disagreements just because he does not like this.
After on socioforum I got two times the bans on 3 monthes for the saying of the opinion _about types_ there, I've lost significantly the respect to that forum as the place to discuss the types. It's one of reasons I at first have reduced posting there after the 2nd ban and now do not write there anymore. The same did Stepanov (the owner of ru.laser.ru) by the similar reasons. Now brainless flooders-roleplayers feel on socioforum better without the opposition to their wrong opinions about types. The truth is what was harmed and peoples interests who will use the types after their mistakes which stayed without criticism.
If the local mods will act against the truth, forum's tasks and objective reason by the idiotic prohibition of the term "heresy" what he wanted - the situation may repeat here too, - I may reduce the talking here or will stop the usage of the forum. Then it will become possibly with lesser obstacles to continue to mislead people about types, about what Socionics is, spread the bs and mistakes with lesser limitations and to avert by this from types and Socionics. The sabotage against the truth and reason will be successful.
If bad emotions after the criticism related to _types_ here - on the typology forum - will lead to bans - the truth will suffer and people misleaded by the mistakes which stayed without the criticism.
finding any one of us is rarer than winning the lottery, maybe better too
We're the big people place -- swinging wild with the banhammer will lead us into a ghost town, or worse, PerC.
When something real needs done, I'm on it. Just about any request that doesn't infringe upon anyone else's autonomy or completely ass up the site, I'm there. Can't count the number of times I've whack-a-moled banned user alts, or done technical work on request, like moving a thread, putting up a poll, etc. Removing a human being from the site means removing a ton of value; the user, the conversations that reverberate from them, their friends/acquaintances, the vibe of the place; from marred, through damaged, to destroyed. Usually not worth it.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
If we don't use our interpretation of Socionics as a pretext to antagonize others, then what is the point?
I understand what you're saying and I'm not saying that the mods need to adopt the same policy as PerC or TypoC has, each forum administration if free to manage said forum as it sees fit.
That said, I don't know much about what it is going on here, with respect to what certain users are complaining about, I just feel that if someone complains of being persistently harassed, or attacked, it's something I personally would take seriously, but I am not in your place nor can do your job for you. Now, sometimes accusations are thrown around too lightly, and but maybe it is something to take seriously, even if in the end there is nothing, or not enough (to ban or infract someone) to the accusations?
You may use anything after it got good objective basis! Experiment somewhere in limited conditions, but do not use massively like the hypothesis is correct and has the basis for the same high trust.
By using random baseless bs like it's not such - you'll make the progress to the mistakes rise.
Check what is objective/scientific approach to the knowledge and why it's good.
As minimum, if you are using what is not part of the Socionics - is not by Jung or Augustinavichiute - you should say this clearly and do not call as Socionics, as in other case you mislead and people do not see the difference where you used random bs and where normal theory. Gulenko's subtypes is not Socionics, for example. There is a lot of what is heresy, but used here like it's not. Reinin's traits are not normal Socionics too, they should not be trusted like Jung's dichotomies and functions, for example - and this should be pointed every time they are used.
When people come on the forum - they do not know what deserves the trust in what degree and are misleaded. They see a lot of strange bs and think Socionics is that. Even after a time many ones are misleaded and think that to use Reinin's traits is the same like Jung's dichotomies. Then they get wrong types where with normal and more correct theory could to get the correct types. Then they see bs in IR and say "IR does not work. Socionics is bs. I do not like my duals".
I'll explain my post. I requested a mutual ignore order to be placed on Myst and I because she was harassing me constantly and our communication was so terrible I could not resolve it in any other way. It was an enormous relief having that order. She has recently started breaking it quite often, by mentioning me, reading and responding to my posts, etc. So, the problem has returned since there is no enforcement. If there were still mods around, then she would have been banned by now, and would stop. Niffer is her little sycophant which is why she decided to also go after me and attack me. And all of this that I'm saying is absolutely a bannable offense (because it's breaking the ignore order.) I should be banned for a day for it. But, there are no mods. And I'm actually kind of angry about this, because I found a solution, but it only works if everyone actually follows the terms.
Last edited by squark; 06-23-2018 at 05:07 PM.
omg that's such an EII-garbage-thing to say. Get lost doofus.
Socionics, My love:
"Don't go changing to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore
I wouldn't leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times; I'll take the bad times
I'll take you just the way you are
Don't go trying some new fashion
Don't change the color of your hair
You always have my unspoken passion
Although I might not seem to care
I don't want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew
What will it take till you believe in me
The way that I believe in you?
I said I love you and that's forever
And this I promise from the heart
I could not love you any better
I love you just the way you are"
I’d assume it’s not the specific word, but the sense of being harassed when someone jumps in after many of your posts to say the same thing (a negative assessment of you).
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I still believe there's room for all of us here
Definitely taken seriously -- ime, when ban-terror starts flaring up, it's mega important not to pour gas on the drama flames; if there's a real opposite, that's what to go with. Not deliberately quashing it heavy-handed style. Eliminating "crazy" by adding more "crazy"... works sometimes. Rough victory.
When the human element is lost, it's hard to tell what's getting shredded on the other side. Avatars are good; a visual representation of the source-of-posts and recipient-of-others'-postings is valuable. Big ups to all users who have a pic of themselves in the avatar -- mine rules, headshots are even bolder and imo better (spermatozoa!). Everyone who has this option practically available, and goes with it, rock on. Building a legit sig's cool too, atm I got one pointed to one hell of a power-sans-flower metal Pandora station I did up a while back.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
No one actively modding explains a lot of what’s going on on the forum.
I modded before, long ago, and I quit because there was no active owner around backing up the mods, so we couldn’t do our jobs properly at the time.
So it may not be as simple as asking mods to enforce rules set by someone else. That’s not directed at you, @squark, just an observation about the situation.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I like that the mods in here are completely "do wtv you people want". One could hope this would stimulate people into behaving properly, to self regulate themselves, but it's funny to see that apparently even the most rational types fall into such a bad judgement around what is best to do. )
mods here should support the types discussion, but not "do wtv you people want"
the bush's offer was to ban for the naming heresy about types as heresy. as he does not like this critique of his heretic opinions and because of this has offered to think this as the personal harassement. by this logoc mb offered to think as "personal harassements" any critique of your opinion which you would not like
> One could hope this would stimulate people into behaving properly
would be nice if people have stoped to use baseless heresies here. at least, without pointing on this every time as they are not the part of Socionics. while what is Socionics is written in Jung's and Augustinavichiute's texts only, but not on lame sites with poorly translated mishmashes of random peoples opinions or at sites of different authors with own speculative views
> it's funny to see that apparently even the most rational types fall into such a bad judgement around
bad sources lead to bad judgements. this forum where the mess of hypotheses is named as Socionics also helps in this
What I was referring to was way way worse than Sol calling you a heretic here and there. If what squark was doing with repeatedly picking on my posts and writing a lot of bullshit about me even after I REPEATEDLY asked her to stop is not a bannable offense, then not really much is a bannable offense on this forum lol...FTR, if this is a bannable offense then @Sol should also be banned (or at least warned) for calling me a heretic at any chance he gets.
But I realize it flew under the radar of most people and that's fine (it was 1 year ago or so).
It is incredible though that - I see now - that squark is apparently now trying to claim that I harassed her and that she never did any such thing. INCREDIBLE. I can link to her such posts if proof is needed...
I never went around slandering her like she would try to do it to me, I would only have disagreements on theory/reasonings. Good luck finding a post where I started anything like her shit myself.
Yeah I broke the ignore request after the topic came up here so I could present the actual facts. Because I'm not going to remain silent if such bs is being stated about what actually happened. She broke it much earlier by referring to me somewhere (not by name but it was obvious anyway)...
I followed it until now, for many months. She forgets this as well?! Claiming things as if I never kept to the agreement before?!
@squark look, stop talking about it, and stop talking about me, and I will stop talking about you too in terms of this topic.
I will anyway continue to keep to the agreement in other threads and in this thread too, outside this specific topic/issue. So stop worrying about that and stop claiming that I'm completely ignoring the agreement.
It's still funny though that when I asked you to stop before that mutual ignore, you didn't... I didn't know about the option of the mutual ignore back then, it'd have been great.
PS: Oh and niffer is not my sycophant. She is an independent human being who has her own opinions on things. It's funny how you try to believe that her thinking you actually did something wrong has to mean that she's a sycophant. She's my friend, but that's not the same thing...
EDIT: niffer asked me to add this in her name, because she had herself self-banned: "Would you like me to come back just to lick your ass better for you?-From Niffer"
Last edited by Myst; 06-23-2018 at 08:56 PM.
The mutual ignore order was kept by me just fine until now. I am still keeping to it outside this specific topic. I believe I do have a right to speak up if something is affecting me regardless of any such ignore order. (Squark also has that right of course.) Again, outside that, I am keeping to the agreement. I do not see the problem, no.
I agree that “do whatever you want” doesn’t work.
Eventually it is simply a void of leadership and some people take advantage of it. So “do whatever you want” until you rich certain limits should be the approach among adults.
I want to point out something else. “Heretic” is a fairly loaded term in English. As I also expect that someone who knows you disagree with them, once they’ve been informed of it repeatedly, will find an ongoing pursuit of their posts at least mildly harassing.
If someone sets a personal boundary, it is better to respect it.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
If you’d ever been stalked, you might not encourage the use of a headshot. They can be searched by more than one method.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I don’t have anything to say atm about you and @squark’s specific situation. I wasn’t present for all that took place.
Because I was responding to her, it may seem like I was focused only on you guys, but my thoughts were more general.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
"So those forum members that would keep slandering me with personal remarks and distorted baseless claims about me"
Generally I described the bs he wrote as heresy. Heretic as the term is not insulting, at least outside of religious contexts.
The basis I could to call him as heretic is clear, evident but is not baseless, what was in your conditions.
Also that was used not in his personal discussion, but in his _types talkings_ to describe them - in the forum's theme context. What follows from his comparision is that arguing about types inpires the negative emotions in him on the degree of personal insulting.
What bush does is the example of demagogy and misleading, - seems his general approach to arguments, not only in types discussions. And here I've switched to the personality of the bush indeed.As prerviously he have lied when compared my assertion about his heretic approaches to the typology with the baseless claim. Though it's not my priority here to think about the person he is. It's enough that in the typology he's evident heretic due to the lack of understanding and low quality of the sources he uses, what is seen in many places ihere he's wrong and sometimes has rather strange opinions.
Let's do not disturb your warm discussion, though if it's not about types then could to happen in other themes.
Last edited by Sol; 06-24-2018 at 02:17 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote