Blahfuckblah

[Absurd]

What are typings worth? I mean, you're on this site and at least some of them do not correspond, and you're still making a theater out of how one is talking nonsense when your self-typing, even if it doesn't correspond, doesn't correspond?

I put my fair share of work in this circus, ad I would like to see it pay off, and it did, actually. Problem is, all this talk about dichotomies, Reinin, Cognitive Styles and stuff - it is not going to work unless you're not going to work, and you're not working, you do not function at all. Like I said, at least some of you.

Point is, no matter how many type lists are going to be produced, and no matter how many typings you're going to receive - it is still nothing. It stays on this site. In real world, in a real world, where you accept reality as it is - it is still nothing, for you're stuck in some kind of fantasy of somebody you're not. I hope not, actually. That would mean you're blind, literally.

[ashlesha]

correspond to what absurd

[Absurd]

correspond to what absurd

Correspond to socionics?

I mean, seriously, lungs, don't you see it - I'm not making fun or something. I'm really being serious.

[Scapegrace]

My personality does not compute.

[Absurd]

My personality does not compute.

Danger, danger! Will Robinson...

[Absurd]

Anyhow, it works alright with me, I think.

[ashlesha]

typings do not correspond to socionics.

even if they don't correspond they don't correspond.

dichotomies don't work unless you work.

some of us do not function at all.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

decent job on the last paragraph though.

[Gravolez]

I use socionics IRL. It works for me.

[Absurd]

typings do not correspond to socionics.

even if they don't correspond they don't correspond.

dichotomies don't work unless you work.

some of us do not function at all.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????

decent job on the last paragraph though.

It's easy as life. Let me expand further. Some guy types some type in some typology system and finds it to be in correspondence with socionics type. That guy did himself the trouble of running it through intertype relations, both theoretically and in practice. Found it to be alright and gave it a green light, a green light to the theory, for it explained what he was looking for.

Now, this guy magically stopped doing that and came to the conclusion it wasn't it and he was lying to himself all the time. Ditched his, I don't know, wife due to a change in scenery and self-types something else.

What I wanted to know is, how does one function, to actually pull something like that off? I mean, you want to give something credibility, you have to actually be credible yourself.

Does it make sense now?

[Absurd]

I use socionics IRL. It works for me.

That's what I wanted to hear, sort of.

[Gravolez]

The problem that you described to lungs is not related to socionics. People do that regardless of socionics.
I have heard a lot of people say: I am such and such a person. I am not such a person. I do this. I don't do that.
People who would do what you described are the people who nevertheless would cling to an image of themselves that might not correspond to how others see them or how they really are anyway. Even if it correposnds and they are generally right it is still bad because people change, people are not the same in all situations, in all configurations of people, in different social roles etc
So people who do cling to labels instead of accept themselves as they are might have such problems just because they would use labels for themselves regardless of the type of the labels.

At least I think so.

[ashlesha]

It's easy as life. Let me expand further. Some guy types some type in some typology system and finds it to be in correspondence with socionics type. That guy did himself the trouble of running it through intertype relations, both theoretically and in practice. Found it to be alright and gave it a green light, a green light to the theory, for it explained what he was looking for.

Now, this guy magically stopped doing that and came to the conclusion it wasn't it and he was lying to himself all the time. Ditched his, I don't know, wife due to a change in scenery and self-types something else.

What I wanted to know is, how does one function, to actually pull something like that off? I mean, you want to give something credibility, you have to actually be credible yourself.

Does it make sense now?

some reasons off the top of my head:

1. he misunderstood the theory.
2. he misunderstood his wife.
3. the theory fell apart at some point and stopped working so he adjusted.
4. he was lying to himself.

my money is on #3.

people who change their types get their credibility questioned fairly often.

i personally think people should be given more credibility than theory, in general. if you are in a position to choose one or the other - like if somebody says something about themselves that doesn't match what you type them.

[ashlesha]

The problem that you described to lungs is not related to socionics. People do that regardless of socionics.
I have heard a lot of people say: I am such and such a person. I am not such a person. I do this. I don't do that.
People who would do what you described are the people who nevertheless would cling to an image of themselves that might not correspond to how others see them or how they really are anyway. Even if it correposnds and they are generally right it is still bad because people change, people are not the same in all situations, in all configurations of people, in different social roles etc
So people who do cling to labels instead of accept themselves as they are might have such problems just because they would use labels for themselves regardless of the type of the labels.

At least I think so.

i think in absurd's world we should still be drinking breastmilk and wearing diapers because that's how we were when we were born and changing means lying.

[Absurd]

The problem that you described to lungs is not related to socionics. People do that regardless of socionics.

Related to or not. It is a socionics forum and what's on a socionics forum is type related, unless you're, no offence, lying to yourself.

I have heard a lot of people say: I am such and such a person. I am not such a person. I do this. I don't do that.

That's completely alien to me actually. Never described myself this way. I do not want to sound like above it all or, heh, superior, but it is a bit childish. Anyhow, what happened with those people you cite?

People who would do what you described are the people who nevertheless would cling to an image of themselves that might not correspond to how others see them or how they really are anyway. Even if it correposnds and they are generally right it is still bad because people change, people are not the same in all situations, in all configurations of people, in different social roles etc

You actually scratched on the things I have been saying here. And it still floats there, for you see, say, BG as this or that type and some other person sees it differently. Question is, to what self-image BG clings to, then?

I mean you make it sound like you're a different person in different situations, social roles as you put it. This is funny to me.

So people who do cling to labels instead of accept themselves as they are might have such problems just because they would use labels for themselves regardless of the type of the labels.

You're clinging to a ILI label - does that mean you have accepted yourself as you are? That is, you can't change? And how is that being a different person in different social roles?

[Absurd]

i think in absurd's world we should still be drinking breastmilk and wearing diapers because that's how we were when we were born and changing means lying.

When you were born, you didn't even bother registering on 16types.info. You were innocent.

[ashlesha]

I have heard a lot of people say: I am such and such a person. I am not such a person. I do this. I don't do that.

That's completely alien to me actually. Never described myself this way.

cough

[Absurd]

cough

Okay, I'm smart

[Gravolez]

I don't describe myself as ILI. I am much more than the ILI description. I don't even care that much about the description because the descriptions in socionics to me just show general trends which might help identify certain types. In certain situations I behave in a way which has nothing to do with the ILI description. I consider socionics to be more about cognition and valued IEs. I don't cling to the ILI label when it comes to behaviour. I use it only to identify things that I need to be careful about, things that I need to work on, things that I might overlook, things I should be more tolerant about etc. In a sense I am trying to use socionics to alter my behaviour for the better. I have it easy here cause I see things as a flow or a process and constantly changing so it is hard for me to fall in this trap (labelling myself as such and such) but there are other traps I can easily fall into.

I think self image and putting labels on oneself are two different things. There was a thread on the forum about general semantics and E`. I think there is some effect like that: when people present an idea in words and they start thinking about the idea in the way they verbalized it, which is not necessarily what their idea was. Words might have more or less meaning than what was the idea you wanted to express.

[ashlesha]

Okay, I'm smart

YOU LIED TO YOURSELF

[Absurd]

I don't describe myself as ILI. I am much more than the ILI description. I don't even care that much about the description because the descriptions in socionics to me just show general trends which might help identify certain types. In certain situations I behave in a way which has nothing to do with the ILI description. I consider socionics to be more about cognition and valued IEs. I don't cling to the ILI label when it comes to behaviour. I use it only to identify things that I need to be careful about, things that I need to work on, things that I might overlook, things I should be more tolerant about etc. In a sense I am trying to use socionics to alter my behaviour for the better. I have it easy here cause I see things as a flow or a process and constantly changing so it is hard for me to fall in this trap (labelling myself as such and such) but there are other traps I can easily fall into.

What, then are you if more than just the ILI description? I didn't ask about descriptions actually for I know that out of the pool of hundred people typed one type and given a description of the same type, opinions are going to vary between them. Some are going to ditch and some embrace it. Interesting, eh?

I, too, find socionics dealing with IEs. It says on the front page of 16types.info:

Socionics is a theory of information processing and personality type, distinguished by its information model of the psyche, called Model A, and a model of interpersonal relations. It incorporates Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism. Socionics is a modification of Jung's personality type theory that uses eight psychic functions. These functions process information at varying levels of competency and interact with the corresponding function in other individuals, giving rise to predictable reactions and impressions—a theory of intertype relations.

I think self image and putting labels on oneself are two different things. There was a thread on the forum about general semantics and E`. I think there is some effect like that: when people present an idea in words and they start thinking about the idea in the way they verbalized it, which is not necessarily what their idea was. Words might have more or less meaning than what was the idea you wanted to express.

Well, self-image is an image you hold of yourself that is resistant to change, it's something you have learned about yourself or learned via the accounts of others, which means you learned the IEs you wield through this site, and maybe some other auxiliary sites. Not to mention, you learned some of it via the accounts of other people whom you interacted/interact with on this site.

Labeling oneself and others deals with stereotyping exclusively, it's subjective. You're going to form some cohesive and subjective opinion about yourself and other groups of people. Be it alpha people, beta people and delta people, respectively. Of course, such opinion isn't resistant to change, for the opinion of other groups/people impacting and influencing your own, can change your opinion.

YOU LIED TO YOURSELF

No, I didin't. I lied to people reading this thread because I forgot about it, but I'm still smart, am I not?

[Gravolez]

I am not sure if my knowledge of socionics and IEs has anything to do with the image I have of myself. It might have. It surely helps me in understanding but I feel it as pretty much something secondary.
It requires conscious analysis of my motives and feelings in order for me to not act according to the urges I feel but instead take into account what I think I know of myself and adjust my behaviour accordingly. When I do this I often feel uncomfortable with what I do. Conscious activity in the brain is a very little part of all brain activities and I think that character and personality are something which is very much related to the unconscious activities rather than the conscious. That is why I think that various psychological fields contribute very little if any to my self-image (or at least what I see as self-image).

[Absurd]

Whoops, didn't see this before.

some reasons off the top of my head:

1. he misunderstood the theory.
2. he misunderstood his wife.
3. the theory fell apart at some point and stopped working so he adjusted.
4. he was lying to himself.

my money is on #3.

That means that person ought to adjust to the theory to ensure it is going to be working? And if the theory stopped working, then shouldn't be there nothing to adjust to?

people who change their types get their credibility questioned fairly often

i personally think people should be given more credibility than theory, in general. if you are in a position to choose one or the other - like if somebody says something about themselves that doesn't match what you type them.

Hmm, interesting. Thanks.

I am not sure if my knowledge of socionics and IEs has anything to do with the image I have of myself. It might have. It surely helps me in understanding but I feel it as pretty much something secondary.
It requires conscious analysis of my motives and feelings in order for me to not act according to the urges I feel but instead take into account what I think I know of myself and adjust my behaviour accordingly. When I do this I often feel uncomfortable with what I do. Conscious activity in the brain is a very little part of all brain activities and I think that character and personality are something which is very much related to the unconscious activities rather than the conscious. That is why I think that various psychological fields contribute very little if any to my self-image (or at least what I see as self-image).

It has a bit to do with it. No socionics/typology, no self-image corresponding to said theory you can/could check to get a result. Besides, it's a personality theory and psychology plays a part in it.

Anyhow, what else do you feel?

[JWC3]

Socionics works fucking awesome, only problem is you gotta make the pieces fit together first and that's huge pain. It's a lot like playing the game mouse trap as a child. Like reading the directions is lame so you just start putting pieces in places and then nothing fits, then that damn blue basket keeps falling down and setting off the catapult, and then you have to dig the one piece out the box that some how didn't obey the laws of physics and fall when you flipped the whole thing over, which is why that wasn't the first place you looked.

Then you finally get the whole thing set up, get to play mouse trap and, everything is awesome.

[Creepy-Snaps]

If you see the patterns (or w/e) in your own life, then why does it matter that other people on here think or say about this whole theory thingie?

Because the people of this forum are socionics experts.

[Absurd]

If you see the patterns (or w/e) in your own life, then why does it matter that other people on here think or say about this whole theory thingie?

also, hi

Hey there.

It's a matter of theory versus theory and practice versus practice in this case. For something to actually work the way it is meant to, that is, the way, it is bound to produce a product that's not going to be faulty and of high quality that is going to last for a long time, at least one of them is going to have to be taken into account and cross-checked for "impurities."

Socionics works fucking awesome, only problem is you gotta make the pieces fit together first and that's huge pain. It's a lot like playing the game mouse trap as a child. Like reading the directions is lame so you just start putting pieces in places and then nothing fits, then that damn blue basket keeps falling down and setting off the catapult, and then you have to dig the one piece out the box that some how didn't obey the laws of physics and fall when you flipped the whole thing over, which is why that wasn't the first place you looked.

I see

Because the people of this forum are socionics experts.

You're the people of this forum as well, last time I checked.

[JWC3]

I see

For the record that was the most I've ever laughed at anything you've posted. Thanks for that. And, yes, socionics is exactly like that. Except the last line of the socionics commercial isn't "But hey it's just socionics" it's "Now every thing makes way more sense than it used to, you can clearly relate to others why it does, what not to do inter-personally, and in general all those hardships and fuck ups were actually worth it... Eh, Probably."

[Absurd]

For the record that was the most I've ever laughed at anything you've posted. Thanks for that. And, yes, socionics is exactly like that. Except the last line of the socionics commercial isn't "But hey it's just socionics" it's "Now every thing makes way more sense than it used to, you can clearly relate to others why it does, what not to do inter-personally, and in general all those hardships and fuck ups were actually worth it... Eh, Probably."

Well, I didn't think you're going to make it actually that far to as to get what I said/posted. Interesting. It was just a sample knowing you hail from society of SEE/Ti Polr people. Anyhow, how can you relate to somebody of a given type in some way, taking into account, that person, I don't know, might be a completely different type?

I'm not implying SEE people have problems with it, but given all this stereotyping business, I found it worth mentioning.

Say, you're magically relating to some ILI and everything makes way more sense that it used to as you put it, but in the end, something stops making sense...

[strangeling]

Socionics is like the blind Kung-Fu master. *Blows mystical confetti in the air*

[Absurd]

Socionics is like the blind Kung-Fu master. *Blows mystical confetti in the air*

Well, you can mystically get along/relate to JWC3. You're both mirrors, so it makes sense.

[JWC3]

Well, I didn't think you're going to make it actually that far to as to get what I said/posted. Interesting. It was just a sample knowing you hail from society of SEE/Ti Polr people. Anyhow, how can you relate to somebody of a given type in some way, taking into account, that person, I don't know, might be a completely different type?

I'm not implying SEE people have problems with it, but given all this stereotyping business, I found it worth mentioning.

Say, you're magically relating to some ILI and everything makes way more sense that it used to as you put it, but in the end, something stops making sense...

Me personally? Not the general 'You'? Well me personally I can talk to anyone, and talk about anything (or fake it well enough until I can get out of the conversation and go gain actual understanding). Was I always like that? No, I wasn't. I've always been friendly and outgoing to some degree but I've not always been able to understand what and how people are saying in relation to what I'm saying. So how do I relate to some LII? Fucking a lot of hard work? Is it hard as shit? Hellz yes, is it worth it trying to learn to communicate with an LII? If anyone is seriously asking that question they've never really meet any of the more awesome LIIs out there. For me that's a large part of the equation. As an SEE I'm not very naturally talented or smart at many things, what I am great at however is effort. I don't ever view effort as a thing of importance when it comes to what I want. I will bang my head against a wall all day if I want to get into a house, which is why I really appreciate people who are like "You know there's a door over here? Also I'm not going to blame you for the whole wall thing, that happens." Which is where the ILIs come in. In a vacuum, I'm really bad at doing things the right way, but I'm really good at doing them over and over until they work even if it's incorrect. So long as my goal is achieved, the cost is almost completely unimportant.

What are my goals? What are the things that motivate me to run head-first in to a wall for hours on end? People. I love people, people are so worth it. So very worth it on so many levels. If I meet someone I like, who I want to impress, who I want to communicate with on their level, not selfishly command they come to mine. I will not stop until I get to talk to them, it's part of why the whole Fi = clingy thing exists. I see people I want to talk to and there's this huge compelling urge to learn everything about them, to see the world how they do, to sort of understand why they think the things they do even if it's fucking painful and walls are hard and stuff. I have to learn formal logic to talk to this LII? He seems fucking awesome, done deal. I have to acquire an interest in art to talk to this girl? Done, she seems so worth it.

Why do I function this way? I dunno, people are fucking awesome and if you don't think so then well... I disagree.

As for ILIs they are very nice because they tend to not really hold the whole wall thing against you later, and they also sort of really understand and appreciate the effort it takes to bang your head on a wall for long periods of time quiet naturally but also generally are much more restrained and can look at a intellectual house and say "Dude, the door is right there". When trying to communicate with other types it can be much less of a shared process and more of a "I'm going to go to my room and bang my head on this wall in private so that they don't know that I ever did it, and then I'll know where the door is when I see them tomorrow."

Sometimes people don't want to know you bruised and bloody your brain to learn how they think and view the world. Sometimes they think that's creepy and weird. So you do such things in private or with the help of a close friend, and then just pretend that the head wounds are from this really nasty fall and you can quite naturally understand and relate to this person.


Srsly guys, people floor me. People can dazzle and amaze me, blow my mind, make me feel. Give my life meaning. To me? There is no price too high to get to know the people who really seem worth getting to know.

[Absurd]

Me personally? Not the general 'You'? Well me personally I can talk to anyone, and talk about anything (or fake it well enough until I can get out of the conversation and go gain actual understanding).

Of course, anybody can do that, to some extent at least.

So how do I relate to some LII? Fucking a lot of hard work? Is it hard as shit? Hellz yes, is it worth it trying to learn to communicate with an LII? If anyone is seriously asking that question they've never really meet any of the more awesome LIIs out there.

Alright, sounds great. But I was more interested in how you actually make it last and going. I'm sure it has to be mutual to, at least, form a snippet of understanding between two parties. I mean, those are conflicting relations as far Socionics is concerned. Plus, what I have been aiming at is, say, you thinking that person is ILI, but it turns out LII - what then?

[JWC3]

Of course, anybody can do that, to some extent at least.



Alright, sounds great. But I was more interested in how you actually make it last and going. I'm sure it has to be mutual to, at least, form a snippet of understanding between two parties. I mean, those are conflicting relations as far Socionics is concerned. Plus, what I have been aiming at is, say, you thinking that person is ILI, but it turns out LII - what then?

Well for starters that's a really hard mistake to make. I mean, IRL there is absolutely no pressure to make or have immediate answers so I generally don't even start thinking about someone's type for months if nothing jumps out at me. The luxury of time is really worth abusing I say. That was probably my biggest mistake as a beginner, I tried too hard to make everything make sense immediately. In fact that was the best advice I got in the beginning, once I started trying to apply socionics to real life, just wait, intellectualize it less and wait for the answers to come to you.

Assuming I do confuse quasi-identical pairs. It depends on the relationship and what's at stake really. On the one hand socionics usage does present me with information pertaining to individuals, but generally I don't use my understanding to dictate who I interact with. I interact with anyone I like and seems interesting and that's the way I prefer it. I'd assume if I had an epiphany of being wrong in a quasi-identical fashion I'd think to myself one what happened and why I made that mistake. Then I'd realize that interacting with alphas takes an entirely different mentality than does gammas and, clearly if I like this person enough to spend time with and type them, I'd just go about using my understanding of socionics to try and behave more alpha like around them. It's difficult, time consuming, and when I'm stressed it's really hard for me to muster up the patience for trying to be someone I'm not for the sake of making those around me more psychologically comfortable. If and when I do have the temperance and discipline to pull it off the rewards are worth it, namely making a new friend, closing psychological distance with a new person. That's special, it's worth it.

I've always thought that if I ever get to a point in my life that I decide that I've got enough friends, or I've been close enough to enough people, or that I'm done trying to get to know the people around me. I need to sit down and seriously re-assess my priorities. It's happened a few times already actually, it always sneaks up on me too, but so far I've succussfully pulled my self out of the 'I don't need to try to get to know 'Sally' cause I know all these other great people' funk every time.

I mean the people who jump off the page, who strike me in that certain way are the ones I try to engage. It's just very important to me that I not write off anyone who wants to interact with me simply because I have other obligations or habits. I'm not always my own best role model, but I try and that's something.

[Absurd]

Well for starters that's a really hard mistake to make.

I see. Anyway - is there a reason you dismiss Gulenko's Cognitive Styles? If the answer is positive, I would like to know on what kind of grounds you find them to be not working.

[JWC3]

I see. Anyway - is there a reason you dismiss Gulenko's Cognitive Styles? If the answer is positive, I would like to know on what kind of grounds you find them to be not working.

Honestly? They just are convoluted in practical application. There are easier ways to get results and he sort of likes to deal purely in abstraction that is only tenuously connected to reality. Abstract thought for the sake of abstract thought can be useful, Schrodinger's cat for example. When it comes to abstract thought and getting practical results using it I personally tend to have a much more dismissive attitude of the intellectual contribution of others if I'm not dealing with them directly and personally. Maybe if I was talking to Gulenko he could convince me otherwise, maybe they are poorly translated, I don't know. However when I'm trying to learn something even one thought infraction is enough for me to dismiss someone as not worth my intellectual time. So frankly my dismissal of Gulenko started with his romance styles and branched out into pretty much everything he's done or said. *shrugs* Sorry if he means something to you. That's good for you, really, but he doesn't work for me, I've not been impressed by anyone practically applying his theorems, and I won't advocate their use.

You however can live your life however you want. I'll stick to quadra values first and foremost, if I'm going to be wrong I'd like to be at least in the favorable relationship ball-park.

EDIT: Maybe you're right though, I might want to go back over them sometime in the future if only so I can know when I'm dismissing people who use his ideas.

[JWC3]

One of these dogs is SEE and one is ILI *chuckles*

[Absurd]

So frankly my dismissal of Gulenko started with his romance styles and branched out into pretty much everything he's done or said. *shrugs* Sorry if he means something to you. That's good for you, really, but he doesn't work for me.

Hmm, I'm not much interested in those seeing some people actually produce something else even though they self-type some Gulenko Cognitive Style. So my criticism(?) of those stands on - it is completely at odds with practice. Not to mention it's pretty confusing. That, or people are confusing.

Besides, I knew them before under different names, before it emerged as cognitive styles. All in all, I'm skeptical.

In that case, I doubt i'd be of much help in the way of input. I've only concentrated on general patterns myself, and even that infrequently. take care

It's fine. I know what you're talking about, although, it's the real world vs. forum that bothered me. Thanks.

[JWC3]

Hmm, I'm not much interested in those seeing some people actually produce something else even though they self-type some Gulenko Cognitive Style. So my criticism(?) of those stands on - it is completely at odds with practice. Not to mention it's pretty confusing. That, or people are confusing.

Besides, I knew them before under different names, before it emerged as cognitive styles. All in all, I'm skeptical.

Ok so, lets say we live in a world were Gulenko cognitive styles work. They might work already, but lets just go ahead and assume they work for certain. However even in a world where they work it's much easier for me to observe behavior that is alpha-ish of gamma-ish than it is for me personally to observe how someone thinks. I'm not psychic. More importantly since it is easier to observe quadra related behavior accepting both observations based on quadra values and Gulenko produce results that conflict.

A wise man once said to me, "If you're going to be wrong be wrong in a way that is the easiest to fix later." So when it comes to Gulenko v. Quadra values accepting one or the other is more likely to allow you to perceive that you were wrong in a way that was almost correct but using both at the same time tends to make being wrong more of a "Fuck, I should have used the other one!" It's just easier for me to not beat myself up when I'm wrong and accept the one that is easier to observe since both produce the almost right situation.

Assuming they both work of course. I wouldn't know. Again, not psychic.

[Absurd]

However even in a world where they work it's much easier for me to observe behavior that is alpha-ish of gamma-ish than it is for me personally to observe how someone thinks.

Hehe, what is my behaviour?

"If you're going to be wrong be wrong in a way that is the easiest to fix later."

Sounds somewhat akin to: "My mind works like lightening - one brilliant flash and it's gone."

[JWC3]

Hehe, what is my behaviour?

Well speaking cordially I think your behavior is consistent with some basic stuff that is true of gamma introverts, they are work minded, difficult to engage on a interpersonal level, generally arrogant, and to me personally extremely worthwhile and interesting once they put the walls down. Those damn fucking walls are annoying let me tell you. It's like a shit flavored jaw breaker with gold in the middle.

[Absurd]

Well speaking cordially I think your behavior is consistent with some basic stuff that is true of gamma introverts

Well then, this doesn't surprise me at all. Oh well, I better ditch my career-focused individualist driven machine inside me and become a weatherman. I'm going to be king in the predictable business.

they are work minded, difficult to engage on a interpersonal level, generally arrogant, and to me personally extremely worthwhile and interesting once they put the walls down. Those damn fucking walls are annoying let me tell you. It's like a shit flavored jaw breaker with gold in the middle.

Oh ye, the wall - blackburry said she wanted to build walls around her. Hey, this actually makes sense. You want to chew blackburry?

Come on, JWC3, let's kill some people that stand in our way to glory.