Johammadeezus on Information Elements (thread split)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

ask woof, he is ILE (he mistakenly thinks he's SEE)

one thing I've noticed about Fi-PoLRs is they get mad or uncomfortable if you talk about "who they are [inside]" or "what their 'essence' is"

:lol: this is what happens when you powder your Mozart wig with bath salts.

ATTENTION EVERYONE: Johammadeezus has swapped the IEs:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...plaining-to-do

Joe-cionics Socionics
1) ...Ne... ...Ti
2) ...Fi... ...Ne
3) ...Se... ...Se
4) ...Ti... ...Fi
5) ...Si... ...Ni
6) ...Te... ...Te
7) ...Ni... ...Fe
8) ...Fe... ...Si

And for all who haven't seen it, the valedictorian of the special-ed school of Socionics has a type list. Look at all the forum Deltas that got chucked into Beta:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1003318

@Kenneth Chesney forum user type list:

1981slater ------ LSE
Absurd ---------- EII
Anndelise ------- IEI
Eliza Thomason -- ESE
Geneiouws ------- SEE
Ideae ----------- LII
Jimmers --------- IEE
Kenneth Chesney - IEE
Kim ------------- SLE
Maritsa --------- IEI
Radio ----------- ESI
Reficulris ------ IEE
Saberstorm ------ β NF
Scapegrace ------ SLE
The Foundation -- SEI
The Ineffable --- ILI
UDP ------------- ESI
Woofwoofl ------- ILE

If you're really hellbent on that ILE typing, have the balls to make a thread about it and see how far it gets you. I suspect you won't post anything in support of your rationale. Just more diversionary tactics, grandiose puffery, and stupid pictures of pears with mouths. You have less than nothing.

OMG, I am EII. Roll over, Maritsa. New sheriff is in town...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

OMG, I am EII. Roll over, Maritsa. New sheriff is in town...

Now I am confused more than ever...socionics.

:?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Now I am confused more than ever...socionics.

:?

You can thank Bloomberg for that. I am not EII.

Radio is identical to UDP. Cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

:lol: this is what happens when you powder your Mozart wig with bath salts.

ATTENTION EVERYONE: Johammadeezus has swapped the IEs:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...plaining-to-do

Joe-cionics Socionics
1) ...Ne... ...Ti
2) ...Fi... ...Ne
3) ...Se... ...Se
4) ...Ti... ...Fi
5) ...Si... ...Ni
6) ...Te... ...Te
7) ...Ni... ...Fe
8) ...Fe... ...Si

And for all who haven't seen it, the valedictorian of the special-ed school of Socionics has a type list. Look at all the forum Deltas that got chucked into Beta:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1003318

@Kenneth Chesney forum user type list:

1981slater ------ LSE
Absurd ---------- EII
Anndelise ------- IEI
Eliza Thomason -- ESE
Geneiouws ------- SEE
Ideae ----------- LII
Jimmers --------- IEE
Kenneth Chesney - IEE
Kim ------------- SLE
Maritsa --------- IEI
Radio ----------- ESI
Reficulris ------ IEE
Saberstorm ------ β NF
Scapegrace ------ SLE
The Foundation -- SEI
The Ineffable --- ILI
UDP ------------- ESI
Woofwoofl ------- ILE

If you're really hellbent on that ILE typing, have the balls to make a thread about it and see how far it gets you. I suspect you won't post anything in support of your rationale. Just more diversionary tactics, grandiose puffery, and stupid pictures of pears with mouths. You have less than nothing.

just by looking at this one post, I can see that you're either a very "special" SEE or a very "typical" ILE

for an "en-tee", you sure are dumb

EDIT (here's my attempt at a brief explanation):
the reason why I provide such little evidence to support my claims is because it is difficult for me to put in words why I think someone is a particular type. in fact, to say "I think" you are ILE is kind of inaccurate; it's more of an "I feel" thing. that might seem tenuous to you, but when I "feel" something it's usually accurate (Fi is my judging function, after all). why do I think you're ILE? because you're clearly logical and because you're clearly intuitive, and because you speak just like other ILEs I know. since the first time I met you I've been skeptical of your self-typing, as the SEEs I know aren't half as witty and articulate as you are. it's impossible to have an abstract conversation with an SEE; they sound fucking retarded when they try.

woof, if you really want to understand me, just go through your "I'm calling Johannes out" thread and watch the videos I posted. again, because it is difficult for me to explain myself, I post videos in hopes that you'll "see what I see". I'm going to continue posting videos and providing modest commentary, and hopefully it will all make sense to someone besides just myself.

I'd say a majority of the people on this forum are Fe/Ti

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshSun

Gonna try to tone down the Fi polr in this thread a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvybhRUym8

I think she´s SEE btw. Incredible voice.

not sure about the singer, but I agree that woof displayed his Fi-PoLR in this thread. he's a dick with an inferiority complex.

You want me to supervise him, @Kenneth Chesney ?

I finally understand socionics... thanks to many different people, for showing me the way...I can now die happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

You want me to supervise him, @Kenneth Chesney ?

I'll let InvisibleJim handle that (that's right, Jim, I think you might be EII)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I'll let InvisibleJim handle that (that's right, Jim, I think you might be EII)

I thought you need live footage of people to type them and here you are, typing them without even seeing nor knowing them. Better yet, post your list in that (in)famous typing thread, but just don't scale it off woof's list of your list...

... that's plagiarism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I thought you need live footage of people to type them and here you are, typing them without even seeing nor knowing them.

that's why I said "I think" and "might be" instead of "I know" and "must be"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

that's why I said "I think" and "might be" instead of "I know" and "must be"

Weren't feelers supposed to feel and not think?

Why do you get up in the morning?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Weren't feelers supposed to feel and not think?

Why do you get up in the morning?

in your view, what is meant by "feel" and what is meant by "think"?

answer to your second question: because I'm not tired anymore, duh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Weren't feelers supposed to feel and not think?

Why do you get up in the morning?

Aww, everybody feels...everybody thinks. I think a group hug is called for...:hug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2dZfM_IUTI

:cry:

I just feel the love here... <3

I know my socionics

*giggles*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

in your view, what is meant by "feel" and what is meant by "think"?

Chase, seriously, this is some fine construct you constructed here/are still constructing. I don't know whether this is my morbid curiosity that tells me to focus on you more closely or the fact that I've seen it somewhere before.

Either way feeling is and has always been an subjective experience of emotion, at least psychology wise.

Your turn.

(And why can't I supervise woof instead of Jim? Am I inferior in your eyes?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Aww, everybody feels...everybody thinks.

What do you think about Arturo Giovannitti?

What do you feel towards Arturo Giovannitti?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

What do you think about Arturo Giovannitti?

What do you feel towards Arturo Giovannitti?

I think he looks like Oscar Wilde. I feel nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

I think he looks like Oscar Wilde. I feel nothing.

Where do you think you see the resemblance and you have stated that everybody feels and thinks, yet it is a bit disappointing that you do not feel anything.

I have control over my thoughts, feelings and actions...when I want to. I had no need to feel anything since I didn't know him. I instantly thought of Wilde when I saw his pic. That's just my perception. Others may not see any resemblance. I remember faces.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rturo-1912.jpg

http://www.biography.com/imported/im...1078-1-402.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Chase,

It's "Charlie", not "Chase". Sheesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

seriously, this is some fine construct you constructed here/are still constructing.

Thanks, I thought so too. After all, I define "Ne" as "Explicit Field/Condition/Construct Statics".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I don't know whether this is my morbid curiosity that tells me to focus on you more closely or the fact that I've seen it somewhere before.

Quote:

Auditor seems like a significant person; how he acts deserves attention.

Yes/no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Either way feeling is and has always been an subjective experience of emotion, at least psychology wise.

So "to feel" would mean "to subjectively experience emotion"? What would "to think" mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

(And why can't I supervise woof instead of Jim? Am I inferior in your eyes?)

Assuming I'm right (which I'm probably not), you can do me one better: you can conflict with him. I'm starting to wonder if you're ESI; if so, I urge you to antagonize woof as much as possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

It's "Charlie", not "Chase". Sheesh.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Thanks, I thought so too. After all, I define "Ne" as "Explicit Field/Condition/Construct Statics".

What does it have to do with anything I have wrote so far? Nothing?

Quote:

[/COLOR]Yes/no?

Yes.

(Problem is, you're giving me attention now and you get me oh so confused now, that is, I am starting to think I am supervising you now. Help out a brother here, who doesn't read Morning Start and can't stand being called a brother).

Quote:

What would "to think" mean?

It is the act of producing thoughts, which in your case means you have a problem and I am here to profit from your problems.

Quote:

Assuming I'm right (which I'm probably not), you can do me one better: you can conflict with him. I'm starting to wonder if you're ESI; if so, I urge you to antagonize woof as much as possible.

The act of assumption again, eh?

Come on, Charlie Sheen, it is time you castaway your hypotheses, you're starting to sound liek a hypothetical person already.

Let me summarise: first EII, then EIE, now ESI. God damn, Sheen, I mean Charlie, purchase yourself a nice lightning conductor and whenever you have a thought, let it strike it. As for conflicting woofl, hell yes I will do, after I am finished with you. Rhyming with Absurd made easy, you just need to pull the trigger and squeezy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

What does it have to do with anything I have wrote so far? Nothing?

You said that I said that feelers only feel and never think (which isn't even what I said), and somehow that was supposed to invalidate something else I said. I thought the appropriate response would be to ask for clarification as to the meaning of "to feel" and "to think".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

(Problem is, you're giving me attention now and you get me oh so confused now, that is, I am starting to think I am supervising you now. Help out a brother here, who doesn't read Morning Start and can't stand being called a brother).

Maybe I just like attention?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

It is the act of producing thoughts, which in your case means you have a problem and I am here to profit from your problems.

But what is a "thought" as opposed to a "feeling"? Aren't they both "thoughts" insofar as they are both "products of cognition"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

The act of assumption again, eh?

It was purely for hypothetical purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Come on, Charlie Sheen, it is time you castaway your hypotheses, you're starting to sound liek a hypothetical person already.

Hypotheses about what? Your type?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Let me summarise: first EII, then EIE, now ESI. God damn, Sheen, I mean Charlie, purchase yourself a nice lightning conductor and whenever you have a thought, let it strike it. As for conflicting woofl, hell yes I will do, after I am finished with you. Rhyming with Absurd made easy, you just need to pull the trigger and squeezy.

Don't fuck with K. Chesney; you're just a gay lesbi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

You said that I said that feelers only feel and never think (which isn't even what I said), and somehow that was supposed to invalidate something else I said. I thought the appropriate response would be to ask for clarification as to the meaning of "to feel" and "to think".

Yes sir, I wrote that. I'm going to write it again: feelers feel, thinkers think.

Quote:

Maybe I just like attention?

"Maybe" is another assumption.

Quote:

But what is a "thought" as opposed to a "feeling"? Aren't they both "thoughts" insofar as they are both "products of cognition"?

No, they're not. Two distinct things, two different animals. Besides, I already scribbled what thoughts are and what feelings are and I am inclined to say you're totally irrational, based on your inability to differentiate between those two.

Quote:

It was purely for hypothetical purposes.

You don't say.

Quote:

Hypotheses about what? Your type?

Hablas españo? No, about this bottle of water that rests at my desk now.

Quote:

Don't fuck with K. Chesney; you're just a gay lesbi

Post your pic and I will decide that to do.

I like Johannes. He's doesn't overly focus and nitpick on people's posts in detail hence not concentrating on Se and trumping people or I should say my own base function around :) I like him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritsa

I like Johannes. He's doesn't overly focus and nitpick on people's posts in detail hence not concentrating on Se and trumping people or I should say my own base function around :) I like him.

You lil Smurfette you, of course you liek him. Never doubted this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Yes sir, I wrote that. I'm going to write it again: feelers feel, thinkers think.

oh, so you said it? then I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

"Maybe" is another assumption.

"Maybe" just means "it could possibly be".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

No, they're not. Two distinct things, two different animals. Besides, I already scribbled what thoughts are and what feelings are and I am inclined to say you're totally irrational, based on your inability to differentiate between those two.

You said "to feel" means "to subjectively experience emotion" and "to think" means "to produce a thought", but that doesn't clarify anything. What is a "thought", and how is an emotion not a thought?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Hablas españo? No, about this bottle of water that rests at my desk now.

This is why I like you; you're sassy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Post your pic and I will decide that to do.

Maybe I will. My profile pic looks a lot like me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

then I disagree.

Why oh why?

Quote:

"Maybe" just means "it could possibly be".

Well yes, but when "could possibly be" multiplied by 10 doesn't deliver nor land at all, it is an assumption. Excess speculation.

Quote:

What is a "thought", and how is an emotion not a thought?

It is simply a process and product of mental activity, like Model A. Not unless you consider that an emotion, and if so, I stand corrected.

Quote:

This is why I like you; you're sassy.

This is an emotion.

Quote:

Maybe I will. My profile pic looks a lot like me.

Cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Why oh why?

Because like Aylen said, everyone experiences both thoughts and feelings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Well yes, but when "could possibly be" multiplied by 10 doesn't deliver nor land at all, it is an assumption. Excess speculation.

"Could possibly be" means "could possibly be"; an "assumption" is saying "this is certainly true" without justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

It is simply a process and product of mental activity, like Model A. Not unless you consider that an emotion, and if so, I stand corrected.

Are you saying that we can "control" our thoughts but not our feelings, and that is what differentiates the two? I'm still unclear as to what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

This is an emotion.

How?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Because like Aylen said, everyone experiences both thoughts and feelings.

Running under a skirt? Even if it were so, how the heck are you able to type any one, for it is impossible using what you both use.

Quote:

"Could possibly be" means "could possibly be"; an "assumption" is saying "this is certainly true" without justification.

Where is the evidence to "could possibly be"? It didn't happen yet, that is, you're just content with believing it might happen, as in trying to predict the outcome (future event) without much information to begin with...

In the same vein I can scribble that you could die tomorrow not knowing whether you're ill at all, overdosed, have AIDS and only have one day to live, etc. It is an assumption.

Quote:

Are you saying that we can "control" our thoughts but not our feelings, and that is what differentiates the two? I'm still unclear as to what you mean.

?

Quote:

How?

Seems you're new to the world, so I am going to meow a bit - it carries an emotional load and is aimed at the receiver of such, be it positive or negative, in this case it was positive(?)

I'm not sure whether you are emotionally retarded nor can say, but being unaware of what you tell people and the impact your words can make on them, makes me wonder whether it is intended and aimed at manipulation of some sorts - if so, I won't continue this and going to piss on you. I am allowed to after my beer.

the gauntlet has been thrown down

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Maybe I just like attention?

Now that you've got some, I sure as hell hope for the both of us that you know what to do with it. That which you got right more certainly than anything else is that which you've shown the least certainty towards. Which segues smoothly into the next issue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I'm going to continue posting videos and providing modest commentary

You can't continue "providing modest commentary" because you never began. You've compared yourself to Mozart, Jesus, and Einstein, you've said you came to retype everyone who was supposedly mistyped as if you were some sort of savior of Socionics, and then you said your ultimate motivation was to make money. As I said before, Pod'Lair beat you there. And as far as the ridiculous messiah persecution mania on your end goes, you haven't been persecuted like Mozart as much as you've been pelted with rocks like Chad Kroeger, you haven't been crucified like Jesus as much as you've been beseiged like David Koresh, and you haven't been... hell, I don't even know what type of supposed victimization you're going for with the "Einstein" thing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

the reason why I provide such little evidence to support my claims is because it is difficult for me to put in words why I think someone is a particular type.

You'd save your ass a lot if you at least made an attempt. You've been gallivanting around the boards, retyping everyone without any consideration for the system itself, let alone the members. If you don't actively attempt to clear the opacity of the black box operation you're running, someone's gonna try to smash the whole damned thing open for you.

There's a lot of people on here whose conclusions I disagree with, but I've seen, in one way or another, a certain methodology of theirs that differs from mine in such a way that their entire operations slice across mine perpendicularly, and I have particular things I check for in regards to my own typings based on what they end up with. Without going into further details, this is one thing that has been a thorn in my side in regards to me using the SEE configuration in regards to self-type for years, and there's a reason I phrased my sentence in that manner. I don't "think" of anyone as a "type", I find whatever type configuration I find to fit best for a person, and I use it. The difference is large, and it's fucking important. Finding the difference out for yourself, if you're currently unaware that there is one, can be the first of hopefully many steps in the journey of you learning to cool it with the wild speculative long-jumps to nowhere or worse.

Having said that, and due to multiple events in my world that, in part, comprise this crazy assed thing called life, I'm gonna publicly relax my Se-SEE typing just in time for you to constructively and proactively make a case for something. You've got one week. Rock me, Amadeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Running under a skirt? Even if it were so, how the heck are you able to type any one, for it is impossible using what you both use.

Why wouldn't we be able to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Where is the evidence to "could possibly be"? It didn't happen yet, that is, you're just content with believing it might happen, as in trying to predict the outcome (future event) without much information to begin with...

are you asking where the evidence is in this particular case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

In the same vein I can scribble that you could die tomorrow not knowing whether you're ill at all, overdosed, have AIDS and only have one day to live, etc. It is an assumption.

but in this case, I had evidence enough to say "Absurd might be ESI", and now I have evidence enough to say "Absurd might be LII"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Seems you're new to the world, so I am going to meow a bit - it carries an emotional load and is aimed at the receiver of such, be it positive or negative, in this case it was positive(?)

wat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I'm not sure whether you are emotionally retarded nor can say, but being unaware of what you tell people and the impact your words can make on them, makes me wonder whether it is intended and aimed at manipulation of some sorts

not sure what you're referring to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

- if so, I won't continue this and going to piss on you. I am allowed to after my beer.

you're not pissing on me, you're pissing into the wind

*crushes scouter* damn, the IQ level in here is at 9001.... but how can that be!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Why wouldn't we be able to?

Get Aylen here and show me on, say, three samples. Three test subjects to type.

It is interesting to see you two work in tandem, though. Hmm, heh.

Quote:

are you asking where the evidence is in this particular case?

Yes, evidence. Hard evidence for, not against. In criminal blablah you don't bust people on "he may be or he might be."

Quote:

but in this case, I had evidence enough to say "Absurd might be ESI", and now I have evidence enough to say "Absurd might be LII"

I still don't see any evidence for, not to mention against. You're talking about it all the time, but I don't see shit.

Quote:

wat

Spat.

Quote:

not sure what you're referring to

I am referring to the convo.

Quote:

you're not pissing on me, you're pissing into the wind

I'm not pissing on you, yet. You're more impatient than me. Anyhow, it is four types now. Maritsa managed to get to eight in less than a month. Go for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Get Aylen here and show me on, say, three samples. Three test subjects to type.

It is interesting to see you two work in tandem, though. Hmm, heh.

Are you suggesting he is, my dual (SLE), semi-dual (SEE) or mirage (ILE). I see my mirage and semi above...I spot them anywhere...How come I got to come up with examples? I am not even reading all the posts so I do not know what you want examples of.

I know my socionics :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Are you suggesting he is, my dual (SLE), semi-dual (SEE) or mirage (ILE). I see my mirage and semi above...I spot them anywhere...How come I got to come up with examples? I am not even reading all the posts so I do not know what you want examples of.

Reading what isn't there is established IEI trait, it seems. I've got a magic marker, yay.

No, Charlie, points towards your expertise in some matters and I want to see myself.

Quote:

I know my socionics :P

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Are you suggesting he is, my dual (SLE), semi-dual (SEE) or mirage (ILE). I see my mirage and semi above...I spot them anywhere...How come I got to come up with examples? I am not even reading all the posts so I do not know what you want examples of.

I know my socionics :P

Aylen, what type are you? I have to add you to my list.

Woof = SEE in my perception...I hold that perception loosely.

...

Jim won't be able to supervise him. Me neither even though I wouldn't be able to, I am now his mirror in Charlie land. Times, they are a changing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

you're not pissing on me, you're pissing into the wind

I wouldn't bother arguing with Absurd. Hence his name...it's just Absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Woof = SEE in my perception...I hold that perception loosely.

Thank god because he's not. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Aylen, what type are you? I have to add you to my list.

I self type IEI within the confines of this forum. I have others say, SEI, EIE, EII, IEE but that is another matter of perception. I guess I am whatever people say I am that and so much more. :biggrin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

I self type IEI within the confines of this forum. I have others say, SEI, EIE, EII, IEE but that is another matter of perception. I guess I am whatever people say I am that and so much more. :biggrin:

hehehe. Ok. I'll add you in as IEI so far thanks :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maritsa

Thank god because he's not. :p

Whatever he is I want to be like him when I grow up but I don't think I could ever be that daring and free. I still have hangups.

Hmm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Get Aylen here and show me on, say, three samples. Three test subjects to type.

For examples of my typing prowess, check out the following threads:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...n-Michaels-SLE
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Videos-of-LII (I got my ass skewered in this one)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Typing-Thread
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Duck-Commander
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ctures-of-SLEs
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...f-Duck-Calling

I'm probably forgetting a couple; in my efforts to show you people what particular types "look like", I've made quite a few threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

It is interesting to see you two work in tandem, though. Hmm, heh.

It isn't like we conspire together or anything; she simply understands me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Yes, evidence. Hard evidence for, not against. In criminal blablah you don't bust people on "he may be or he might be."

Two words: "social dynamics"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I still don't see any evidence for, not to mention against. You're talking about it all the time, but I don't see shit.

Perhaps that's because you actually are a logical type, and hence you cannot "see" the "social dynamics" that I can see?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Spat.

Fat. As in, "you're fat".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I am referring to the convo.

So you're saying my words impacted you in some way? How?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

I'm not pissing on you, yet. You're more impatient than me. Anyhow, it is four types now. Maritsa managed to get to eight in less than a month. Go for it.

I need to hear your voice to definitively type you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Whatever he is I want to be like him when I grow up

Perhaps that is because he's your dual? (I still think you're SEI :cool:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Now that you've got some, I sure as hell hope for the both of us that you know what to do with it.

We'll see; my weak Te makes it difficult for me to "know what to do", but I think I can manage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

You can't continue "providing modest commentary" because you never began.

I don't think you've actually read my threads then, because I've outlined plenty of times my ideas about this nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

You've compared yourself to Mozart

No, you started comparing me to him after you decided that all I do is "conduct a symphony of madness".

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Jesus

Only after you crucified me in that obnoxious thread of yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Einstein

lol, no

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

you've said you came to retype everyone who was supposedly mistyped as if you were some sort of savior of Socionics

That is because I see types.

inb4 The Sixth Sense reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

and then you said your ultimate motivation was to make money.

But that wasn't my motivation for coming here. I came here because there is truth to socionics that most people don't understand, and I am sick of people spreading misinformation on these boards. My "ultimate goal in life" is to make money, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

As I said before, Pod'Lair beat you there.

Fuck Pod'Lair; I'm glad you're pooping all over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

pelted with rocks like Chad Kroeger, you haven't been crucified like Jesus as much as you've been beseiged like David Koresh

All Chad Kroeger wanted to do was play some rock'n'roll; all David Koresh wanted to do was amass firearms; all I want to do is tell (maybe "show" is the better word) everyone what I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

You'd save your ass a lot if you at least made an attempt. You've been gallivanting around the boards, retyping everyone without any consideration for the system itself, let alone the members. If you don't actively attempt to clear the opacity of the black box operation you're running, someone's gonna try to smash the whole damned thing open for you.

Noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

I don't "think" of anyone as a "type", I find whatever type configuration I find to fit best for a person, and I use it.

You see "type" as a "label"; I see "type" as an "essence". That is also why I disagree with Aushra that "Ne" is the "essence" of an object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Having said that, and due to multiple events in my world that, in part, comprise this crazy assed thing called life, I'm gonna publicly relax my Se-SEE typing just in time for you to constructively and proactively make a case for something. You've got one week. Rock me, Amadeus.

Can we discuss this via TinyChat? I feel like that is a better medium, as it allows us to instantly address any disagreements or misunderstandings. The key is to not get pissed at each other again. I only ask that you show me respect; in return, I will answer any question you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Perhaps that is because he's your dual? (I still think you're SEI :cool:)

it fluctuates...semi for now.

Like @Absurd said, it's hard to tie down an IEI.

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps96ec6a19.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

That is because I see types.

inb4 The Sixth Sense reference

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/m...lfaery/pan.jpg

and yes I understand you... and you understand me. :content:

I just realized I don't even know your self typing...what is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/m...lfaery/pan.jpg

and yes I understand you... and you understand me. :content:

I just realized I don't even know your self typing...what is it?

I am... IEE! If I'm right about SEI for you, that would make us semi-duals.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by woofwoofl http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...post-right.png
Having said that, and due to multiple events in my world that, in part, comprise this crazy assed thing called life, I'm gonna publicly relax my Se-SEE typing just in time for you to constructively and proactively make a case for something. You've got one week. Rock me, Amadeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Can we discuss this via TinyChat? I feel like that is a better medium, as it allows us to instantly address any disagreements or misunderstandings. The key is to not get pissed at each other again. I only ask that you show me respect; in return, I will answer any question you ask me.

I would love to observe that! Time and place?

:popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I am... IEE! If I'm right about SEI for you, that would make us semi-duals.

Ok, I understand...so if I am IEI then it is extinguishment...hmmm, but if both people were very self aware it would not necessarily have to extinguish anything? Making mindful choices (self aware) is a sign of growth to me. My issue with socionics is, it can be limiting. People should be able to "dual" it out with any type...I don't know, just "typing" out loud here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

Ok, I understand...so if I am IEI then it is extinguishment...hmmm, but if both people were very self aware it would not necessarily have to extinguish anything? Making mindful choices (self aware) is a sign of growth to me. My issue with socionics is, it can be limiting. People should be able to "dual" it out with any type...I don't know, just "typing" out loud here.

I understand, and I wish that was so, but unfortunately "type" is what "defines our entire world". I'm pretty self-aware, yet I still have problems communicating with my LSI boss; I still unintentionally offend Ti-users with my Fi-statements, and I still become offended when they criticize my logic, even though I know it's faulty. I think "type" has something to do with "language-games":

Quote:

The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words "block", "pillar" "slab", "beam". A calls them out; — B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language.

Imagine LSI as being builder A and EIE as being assistant B; their language is Se/Ni and Ti/Fe. Imagine SLI as being builder C and IEE as being assistant D; their language is Ne/Si and Fi/Te. When I attempt to communicate with LSI, it's like I'm talking about "sticks", "bricks", "pipes", and "tiles" instead of "blocks", "pillars", "slabs", and "beams".

Does this make sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylen

I would love to observe that! Time and place?

:popcorn:

Place:
http://www.tinychat.com/the17th

Time:
Currently undetermined

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I understand, and I wish that was so, but unfortunately "type" is what "defines our entire world". I'm pretty self-aware, yet I still have problems communicating with my LSI boss; I still unintentionally offend Ti-users with my Fi-statements, and I still become offended when they criticize my logic, even though I know it's faulty. I think "type" has something to do with "language-games":

Imagine LSI as being builder A and EIE as being assistant B; their language is Se/Ni and Ti/Fe. Imagine SLI as being builder C and IEE as being assistant D; their language is Ne/Si and Fi/Te. When I attempt to communicate with LSI, it's like I'm talking about "sticks", "bricks", "pipes", and "tiles" instead of "blocks", "pillars", "slabs", and "beams".

Does this make sense?

Actually it does if I re-frame a bit within a different personality typing framework that I am more familiar with. :content:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

For examples of my typing prowess, check out the following threads:

I don't know any of those people and to be honest I read just one (thread) you posted, that SLE one I think, in which I nearly died seeing people with portable squirrel houses on their faces.

Quote:

It isn't like we conspire together or anything; she simply understands me.

This doesn't mean she is your dual of course.

Quote:

Two words: "social dynamics"

Two fingers.

Quote:

Perhaps that's because you actually are a logical type, and hence you cannot "see" the "social dynamics" that I can see?

How is EII, EIE and ESI a logical type?

Quote:

Fat. As in, "you're fat".

Seven years is a lot of time. Not unless you're static and oblivious to time flow. Cough.

Quote:

So you're saying my words impacted you in some way? How?

Repeat them.

Quote:

I need to hear your voice to definitively type you.

Code:

http://speedy.sh/DqB9Q/Absurdvoice.mp3

To be fair, JoBro IS answering constructively now, maybe the tone could be more nuanced now?

LUL @ ILEs and tone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

LUL @ ILEs and tone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

This is hilarious! It's almost the same as my use of pink text, it makes everything sound funny! (goes off to buy a canistre of helium)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reficulris

This is hilarious! It's almost the same as my use of pink text, it makes everything sound funny!

And gay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

And gay.

It does. One cannot have everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reficulris

It does. One cannot have everything.

Or can.

Quote:

No, you started comparing me to him after you decided that all I do is "conduct a symphony of madness". Only after you crucified me in that obnoxious thread of yours. lol, no

@woofwoofl is this Truth or gaslighting? I'm up for TC 17th sessions btw... Wanna have my webcam up & running this time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ath

@woofwoofl is this Truth or gaslighting? I'm up for TC 17th sessions btw... Wanna have my webcam up & running this time.

Just don't motivate the sheep mob to ban him this time...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

Just don't motivate the sheep mob to ban him this time...

Beeeeeh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reficulris

Beeeeeh!

Try ritual slaughter foods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ath

@woofwoofl is this Truth or gaslighting? I'm up for TC 17th sessions btw... Wanna have my webcam up & running this time.

It sure as hell ain't truth. "Gaslighting" can fit the bill, "bullshit" definitely does, and at best, it's just more sloppy guesswork. The full name of "Johannes Amadeus Mozart" was a byproduct of "Johannes" being incredibly close to the first name of Johann Sebastian Bach (and coincidentally the first name of the father of the entire Bach line of composers, as well as the actual first name of Johannes Brahms), and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being commonly typed at IEE. Any mentions of conducting symphonies of madness were made well after the name was set in place.

And awesome on having the webcam running! I really have no idea whether I'll be on TC, sleeping, or just biking around the town/city/whatever at night before the snow hits here tomorrow. There's also the strong possibility that I'll make a pizza in the dead of night. Today is 311 day, so the iPod might be playing a hell of a lot of 311 as I bike through the currently snowless roads and sidewalks. Winter needs to get out of here for a few months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

It sure as hell ain't truth. "Gaslighting" can fit the bill, "bullshit" definitely does, and at best, it's just more sloppy guesswork. The full name of "Johannes Amadeus Mozart" was a byproduct of "Johannes" being incredibly close to the first name of Johann Sebastian Bach (and coincidentally the first name of the father of the entire Bach line of composers, as well as the actual first name of Johannes Brahms), and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being commonly typed at IEE. Any mentions of conducting symphonies of madness were made well after the name was set in place.

The point is that you initially compared me to Mozart. I didn't come in here saying "I'M IEE THAT MEANS I'M LIKE MOZART LUL", and I highly doubt the whole "symphony of madness" thing began after the nickname was given. Stop pretending to be innocent; "gaslighting" and "bullshitting" is what you've been doing, not me.

@woofwoofl
Hey, Se-SEE 9w7 9w1 9w2 4w3 4w5 6w9, when are you going to be in TinyChat?

the Butt Commander continues to waste ammunition by shooting himself in the feet repeatedly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

The point is that you initially compared me to Mozart.

1a) Boo-hoo. :lol: :8* hope you don't chip a nail if/when you dig into that box of tissues.

2a) Way to circumvent the fact that you were wrong again. It almost worked.

3a) You don't get to pick what "the point" is.

4a) That wasn't the point to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I didn't come in here saying "I'M IEE THAT MEANS I'M LIKE MOZART LUL"

1b) Nor did I.

2b) Refer to 4a.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

and I highly doubt the whole "symphony of madness" thing began after the nickname was given.

1c) Tough shit. Refer to 1a and 2a.

2c) The sum of your actions has proven you to be far less of "a savvy source" than almost, if not everyone else here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Stop pretending to be innocent

Never did that. On the contrary, I'm proud as hell of that one, and I'm proud of every name that's an outgrowth of "Johannes Amadeus Mozart".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

"gaslighting" and "bullshitting" is what you've been doing, not me.

Not even gonna hunt down the post(s) in which you, at least, implicity stated that a majority of your posts were for trolling purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

@woofwoofl
Hey, Se-SEE 9w7 9w1 9w2 4w3 4w5 6w9, when are you going to be in TinyChat?

Fuck if I know, but probably in the night. There's a hell of a lot of things I'd rather do than to hear your obnoxious mouth write a bunch of checks that your ass can't cash, and there's a hell of a lot of people I'd rather spend time in TC with than you. Focus on you detracts from focus on them, and from all that you've said and done, not only do you not give a shit about the negative repercussions, but to detract focus from everything other than yourself is your goal in the first place. The door to TinyChat remains open to all nonetheless.

By the way, you've got less than five and a half days to make a solid case for a typing for me. This all falls within the parameters of "don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't cash". Taking a tinkle on the Enneagram and trityping me 999 ain't gonna do you any more good than effectively putting both Ti and Fi in my Ego block like you did with that Joe-Cionics "ILE" typing. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

By the way, you've got less than five and a half days to make a solid case for a typing for me. This all falls within the parameters of "don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't cash". Taking a tinkle on the Enneagram and trityping me 999 ain't gonna do you any more good than effectively putting both Ti and Fi in my Ego block like you did with that Joe-Cionics "ILE" typing. :lol:

That's what you get with Alphas/Betas, woofl, that is, if I were to rank conflict types the Absurd way, those would be IEI, EIE, ILI, ILE, SLE, LSI, etc. Anyhow, has Bloomberg ever been on cam in tiny chat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absurd

That's what you get with Alphas/Betas, woofl, that is, if I were to rank conflict types the Absurd way, those would be IEI, EIE, ILI, ILE, SLE, LSI, etc. Anyhow, has Bloomberg ever been on cam in tiny chat?

Oh god yeah, the cam and video were on, but the cam was pointed towards what looked like a tan-colored wall. An infuriating day in TC, it made me envy the deaf at times. It was one of those things I don't regret doing once, but sure as hell don't wanna do twice. Ath was there to witness, Lungs too, same with Maritsa, and if I were to join the Ja-heezus Sebastian Bach school of voice typing, there'd be enough there for me to make him Idents with Jadae and Gummi. Same tonality, same cadences, same all-sorts-of-stuff. Tried to make sense of what the guy was doing, but he kept bringing on the emo and blabbering about god knows what. I had to mute/hide his vid for the sake of my sanity and the sanity of anyone else in the room, all of whom I'd much rather talk to anyways. Based on past experience, I would rather be hit by a car than to hear the Butt Commander talk for over five minutes. Everything was a mess to such an extent that I suspected the guy was deliberately making a mess. Any further Socionics related convos between the both of us had to go to the forums after that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

1a) Boo-hoo. :lol: :8* hope you don't chip a nail if/when you dig into that box of tissues.

I don't care about you, nor do I care about the stupid nicknames you come up with for people; I just didn't want others to think I compared myself to Mozart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

2a) Way to circumvent the fact that you were wrong again. It almost worked.

What the fuck are you talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

3a) You don't get to pick what "the point" is.

Yes I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

4a) That wasn't the point to begin with.

Yes it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

1b) Nor did I.

No, but you're making it look like that's what I did, when in reality you're the one who first called me Mozart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

2b) Refer to 4a.

Refer to "fuck off".

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

1c) Tough shit. Refer to 1a and 2a.

No, I think I'm right about this. The nickname was created for derisive purposes and you know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

2c) The sum of your actions has proven you to be far less of "a savvy source" than almost, if not everyone else here.

You're not properly equipped to understand my posts; maybe if you were born with an "F" instead of a "T" you wouldn't have this problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Never did that. On the contrary, I'm proud as hell of that one, and I'm proud of every name that's an outgrowth of "Johannes Amadeus Mozart".

Because you're an Fi-PoLR asshole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Not even gonna hunt down the post(s) in which you, at least, implicity stated that a majority of your posts were for trolling purposes.

Good, because I wouldn't give a fuck if you did, and thus you would be wasting your time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Fuck if I know, but probably in the night. There's a hell of a lot of things I'd rather do than to hear your obnoxious mouth write a bunch of checks that your ass can't cash, and there's a hell of a lot of people I'd rather spend time in TC with than you. Focus on you detracts from focus on them, and from all that you've said and done, not only do you not give a shit about the negative repercussions, but to detract focus from everything other than yourself is your goal in the first place. The door to TinyChat remains open to all nonetheless.

You're such a whiny little bitch. Sorry if I spoiled your precious atmosphere; just kidding, I'm not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

By the way, you've got less than five and a half days to make a solid case for a typing for me.

My case gets stronger with every post you make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

This all falls within the parameters of "don't let your mouth write a check that your ass can't cash". Taking a tinkle on the Enneagram and trityping me 999 ain't gonna do you any more good than effectively putting both Ti and Fi in my Ego block like you did with that Joe-Cionics "ILE" typing. :lol:

Okay, so Aushra defined "Ne" as perceiving "the essence of an object", right? And you've got yourself typed as SEE, which means "the essence of an object" is something you don't think you're capable of perceiving, right? As an IEE, I think object-essence perception is the job of Fi, and thus it would make sense if you're ILE that you feel incapable of detecting such essences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Oh god yeah, the cam and video were on, but the cam was pointed towards what looked like a tan-colored wall. An infuriating day in TC, it made me envy the deaf at times. It was one of those things I don't regret doing once, but sure as hell don't wanna do twice. Ath was there to witness, Lungs too, same with Maritsa, and if I were to join the Ja-heezus Sebastian Bach school of voice typing, there'd be enough there for me to make him Idents with Jadae and Gummi. Same tonality, same cadences, same all-sorts-of-stuff. Tried to make sense of what the guy was doing, but he kept bringing on the emo and blabbering about god knows what. I had to mute/hide his vid for the sake of my sanity and the sanity of anyone else in the room, all of whom I'd much rather talk to anyways. Based on past experience, I would rather be hit by a car than to hear the Butt Commander talk for over five minutes. Everything was a mess to such an extent that I suspected the guy was deliberately making a mess. Any further Socionics related convos between the both of us had to go to the forums after that.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/81/81ab...64937800ba.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

It sure as hell ain't truth. "Gaslighting" can fit the bill, "bullshit" definitely does, and at best, it's just more sloppy guesswork. The full name of "Johannes Amadeus Mozart" was a byproduct of "Johannes" being incredibly close to the first name of Johann Sebastian Bach (and coincidentally the first name of the father of the entire Bach line of composers, as well as the actual first name of Johannes Brahms), and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being commonly typed at IEE. Any mentions of conducting symphonies of madness were made well after the name was set in place.

Did you call him that first, or did I? I don't recall now, but I think it started after I mentioned how he (in chatbox) called @hkkmr a jealous Salieri out to get him, thereby comparing himself with Mozart and attempting to pass himself off as a persecuted genius.

Woofl stop using your friendship with Kim as a way to get around the rules and openly shit on other people by making threads to explicitly target them. It's not nice.

Everyone else has to go through innuendo and snarky comments after all. Which is obviously far nicer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis

Did you call him that first, or did I? I don't recall now, but I think it started after I mentioned how he (in chatbox) called @hkkmr a jealous Salieri out to get him, thereby comparing himself with Mozart and attempting to pass himself off as a persecuted genius.

did I really say that? fuck

http://s14.postimg.org/r1tthb8n5/image.jpg

the maestro's wand has gone limp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I don't care about you

Your repeated responses prove otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

nor do I care about the stupid nicknames you come up with for people

Yes you do, and when you say "people", you really mean "you".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I just didn't want others to think I compared myself to Mozart.

And about you saying that you were getting persecuted just like Salieri "persecuted" Mozart? You mentioned that you had a "fiendish cackle" like Mozart's, and what's so bad about a nickname? My TC name is based on a nickname I was given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

What the fuck are you talking about.

Your repeated habit of trying to distract from the issue at hand when you're backed into a corner. I chopped off the "Bloem" and put "Amadeus Mozart" in its place due to "Johannes" being close to the first name of Johann Sebastian Bach, and due to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being regularly typed at IEE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

No, but you're making it look like that's what I did, when in reality you're the one who first called me Mozart.

:lol: what the hell is wrong with being called Mozart? I've played lots of Mozart and it ruled. I've seen Amadeus, both the movie and the play. Hell yeah for seeing the play. And by the way, Salieri and Mozart were contemporaries...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

No, I think I'm right about this.

:lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

The nickname was created for derisive purposes and you know it.

If something pops into my head, I go with it, same deal. The nickname turned derisive when you got more and more baselessly pompous. When something/someone is ridiculous, it tends to get ridiculed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

You're not properly equipped to understand my posts; maybe if you were born with an "F" instead of a "T" you wouldn't have this problem.

:lol: !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Because you're an Fi-PoLR asshole.

Joe-cionics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Good, because I wouldn't give a fuck if you did, and thus you would be wasting your time.

You're not the only person on these forums, which brings me to my next point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

You're such a whiny little bitch. Sorry if I spoiled your precious atmosphere; just kidding, I'm not.

...it's not about me exclusively, the TC would be pretty shitty if it was just me in there. I had a hell of a good time with some awesome people and we talked about doggies and played Pop-Up Videos. It ruled!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

My case gets stronger with every post you make.

:lol: it certainly can't get any weaker...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Okay, so Aushra defined "Ne" as perceiving "the essence of an object", right?

You shitcanned her definitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

And you've got yourself typed as SEE

Nope. Check under my avatar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

which means "the essence of an object" is something you don't think you're capable of perceiving, right?

More baseless speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

As an IEE

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I think

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

object-essence perception is the job of Fi

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

and thus it would make sense if you're ILE that you feel incapable of detecting such essences.

This is retarded and you should feel ashamed of yourself. Anyways, you got Aushra Augusta herself as IEE. Consequentially, "as an IEE" doesn't even count for shit in your own mind and/or by your own parameters. Her say trumps yours by default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

another 4chan pic

4chan has been past its prime for almost a decade now. As with your quasi-Pod'Lair meanderings, you're a day late and a dollar short.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis

Did you call him that first, or did I? I don't recall now, but I think it started after I mentioned how he (in chatbox) called @hkkmr a jealous Salieri out to get him, thereby comparing himself with Mozart and attempting to pass himself off as a persecuted genius.

:lol: !!!! I came up with Johannes Amadeus Mozart, you condensed it to "JAM", which totally rules. :love:

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

and if I were to join the Ja-heezus Sebastian Bach school of voice typing, there'd be enough there for me to make him Idents with Jadae and Gummi.

In that case, better dead than red, that is, better dead than jadae and gummi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Your repeated responses prove otherwise.

I was just trying to clear my name, but evidently there is nothing to clear :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Yes you do, and when you say "people", you really mean "you".

I'm a person, and I doubt I'm the only person you've come up with nicknames for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

And about you saying that you were getting persecuted just like Salieri "persecuted" Mozart?

I guess I felt like Hkkmr was "jealous" of me like Salieri was of Mozart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

You mentioned that you had a "fiendish cackle" like Mozart's, and what's so bad about a nickname? My TC name is based on a nickname I was given.

You're right, and I guess there are worse nicknames than Mozart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Your repeated habit of trying to distract from the issue at hand when you're backed into a corner.

I truly don't know what you're referring to here. Or maybe I do, but it's hard for me picture what you're talking about. Could you explain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

:lol: what the hell is wrong with being called Mozart?

It's not so much that I mind being called Mozart (he was a great composer, after all); it's that you're using the name in an ironic way, as in "he thinks he's like Mozart but really it's quite the opposite".

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

I've seen Amadeus, both the movie and the play. Hell yeah for seeing the play.

Nerd ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

If something pops into my head, I go with it, same deal. The nickname turned derisive when you got more and more baselessly pompous. When something/someone is ridiculous, it tends to get ridiculed.

I regret acting so pompous, but I don't think it was "baselessly" as you claim. First, I act pompous when I feel threatened, and second, I know I'm right about most of my typings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

:lol: !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw

lol, there's nothing wrong with you being a thinker; in fact, I'm a little jealous. I said that because I honestly believe the T/F divide is the reason you have trouble understanding me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Joe-cionics.

"Socionics" is like the "language" of Fi-logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

...it's not about me exclusively, the TC would be pretty shitty if it was just me in there. I had a hell of a good time with some awesome people and we talked about doggies and played Pop-Up Videos. It ruled!

This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

:lol: it certainly can't get any weaker...

It's only weak if you're looking for logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

You shitcanned her definitions.

Because I think she used them to justify her incorrect ILE self-typing. It took a long time for me to accept my being IEE, and before I did I maintained that I was ILE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Nope. Check under my avatar.

What would you do if after a week I hadn't justified my claim about you? Would you revert back to self-typing as SEE?

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

More baseless speculation.

Not really. Here are the "traditional" definitions:

Quote:

http://www.socionics.us/images/eN.gif = internal statics of objects
http://www.socionics.us/images/eS.gif = external statics of objects
http://www.socionics.us/images/eL.gif = external dynamics of objects
http://www.socionics.us/images/eE.gif = internal dynamics of objects
http://www.socionics.us/images/iN.gif = internal dynamics of fields
http://www.socionics.us/images/iS.gif = external dynamics of fields
http://www.socionics.us/images/iL.gif = external statics of fields
http://www.socionics.us/images/iE.gif = internal statics of fields

If we're going by these definitions, as an SEE you'd be weak in Ne, which is "Internal Statics of Objects". I have "Fi" as "Implicit Object Statics". Why did I define it that way? Because "personal feelings" and "personal qualities" are "static" and "implicit" properties of "objects".

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Nope.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Nope.

Mhmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Nope.

Oh yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

This is retarded and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

But it's true, you're utterly incapable of detecting the "essences" of objects; you're terrible at finding their "implicit" and "static" properties. Just as I am utterly incapable of detecting the "essences" of the "conditions"; I'm terrible at finding their "implicit" and "static" properties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

Anyways, you got Aushra Augusta herself as IEE. Consequentially, "as an IEE" doesn't even count for shit in your own mind and/or by your own parameters. Her say trumps yours by default.

But if she's got herself as ILE but she's actually IEE, then she mistyped herself, and thus she can't be trusted to define the information elements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woofwoofl

4chan has been past its prime for almost a decade now. As with your quasi-Pod'Lair meanderings, you're a day late and a dollar short.

Sorry, I guess I failed to detect the "implicit" and "static" properties of the "conditions".

I think this guy was IEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_III_of_Russia

Here's a pic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...v_PeterIII.jpg

dat upturned nose! it's a dead giveaway! (this might sound like a Maritsa-statement, but I swear to god)

also, those big, red lips!

And some commentary:

Quote:

The classical view of Peter's character is mainly drawn out of his wife's and usurper's memoirs. She described him as an “idiot”, “drunkard from Holstein”, “good-for-nothing” etc. This portrait of Peter can be found in most history books, including 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Nature had made him mean, the smallpox had made him hideous, and his degraded habits made him loathsome. And Peter had all the sentiments of the worst kind of small German prince of the time. He had the conviction that his princeship entitled him to disregard decency and the feelings of others. He planned brutal practical jokes, in which blows had always a share. His most manly taste did not rise above the kind of military interest which has been defined as "corporal's mania," the passion for uniforms, pipeclay, buttons, the "tricks of parade and the froth of discipline." He detested the Russians, and surrounded himself with Holsteiners.
There have been many attempts to revise the traditional characterisation of Peter and his policies. The Russian historian A.S. Mylnikov gives us a very different view of Peter III:
Many contradictory qualities existed in him: keen observation, zeal and sharp wit in his arguments and actions, incaution and lack of perspicuity in conversation, frankness, goodness, sarcasm, a hot temper, and wrathfulness.^[2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

This is why I hate being an outcast. Unfortunately, I think "being an outcast" has something to do with being male and being an Fi-ego.

I don't know, I honestly think you would be just fine, at least around here, if you could be tad bit less arrogant and belligerent in terms of getting along with people. That at least is MY only issue with you. :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim

I don't know, I honestly think you would be just fine, at least around here, if you could be tad bit less arrogant and belligerent in terms of getting along with people. That at least is MY only issue with you. :shrug:

Noted. Thanks, Kim :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

If we're going by these definitions, as an SEE you'd be weak in Ne, which is "Internal Statics of Objects". I have "Fi" as "Implicit Object Statics". Why did I define it that way? Because "personal feelings" and "personal qualities" are "static" and "implicit" properties of "objects".

Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.

Implict...the person provides the meaning
Involved...the person actually experiences it and cannot transfer that experience via words, formulas, categories, etc
Field...relational connection between two or more objects

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Personal feelings are not an inherent property of an object. They are part of the relational field between a person and the object. Think of it as a bubble map. The person is a node. The object is a separate node. The link between them is the feelings towards the object. Hence Fi.

No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

No, the "feelings" exist inside the person (or "object").

The other day, I was hanging out with an SLE friend who has three cats. I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it." My friend was silent for a second and then started talking about something completely unrelated. I think I hit his PoLR with that comment.

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.

Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.

To simplify: Take a magnet and a nail. The magnet sits there and does its thing between its poles. The nail sits elsewhere, doing nothing. They are each individual objects, not influiencing each other, not creating a field together UNTIL you bring the two separate objects together at which point they create a magnetic field between them.

The magnet needed the nail to expand its field,
The cat needed your hands petting it to feel the pleasure/pain.

Quote:

"Personal feelings" are merely "what we feel inside".

Simplisticly:
Fe is the straight up emotion. The Ni/Si creates the fields for Fe.
Fi is the emotion in relation to something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

The cat did not feel anything, neither pain nor pleasure until you created an emotional field between the cat and your actions. Iow, if you, another objeect, had not been petting the cat, then the cat would have not felt that pleasure/pain.

I pet the cat. I perceived that the cat "felt" a certain way about me petting it. In perceiving the way the cat felt, I detected an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Feelings "existing inside a person/object" is related to "the involvement" aspect. Personal feelings are the experiences (involvement) which we give meaning to (implicit). But it requires something to trigger those feelings, whether an external object, a memory of an event, etc.

Here's the definition of "implicit":

Quote:

a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed

I understood the cat's feeling of "like" because it was behaving in a certain way; from the cat's actions, I deduced an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

Noted. Thanks, Kim :)

I also think we could get along, if you would tolerate my stupid jokes and maybe was a bit more nuanced in your approach to others.

the open palm earlier in the thread still is extended

Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.
And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.

You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.

A field requires at least two objects.
An object does not require another object to be an object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Yet the cat wasnt feeling pleasure/pain until you did somethign to trigger it.

So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

And yes, i am sure you read the emotional orientation the cat was having to your actions, an emotional orientation that would not have happened if you weren't petting it. You even said yourself, you perceived the cat felt a certain way ABOUT you petting it.

The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

Cat = object
Feeling of like = static property
Indirect means of knowing = implicit

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

You deduced an implicit and state property of an object's field in relation to your actions.

"Objects" and "fields" are two separate things. Look:

Quote:

Quote:

In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The term macroscopic particle usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.

Quote:

A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.

I basically said, "this cat likes these conditions", and in doing so I deduced a property about the "particle", not the "field".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reficulris

I also think we could get along, if you would tolerate my stupid jokes and maybe was a bit more nuanced in your approach to others.

I definitely think we could get along. Sorry if I've offended you with my brashness; people easily frustrate me and I tend to show it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reficulris

the open palm earlier in the thread still is extended

Yes, let's be friends :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

So what? I'm still detecting an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object".

The point is that I perceived how the cat felt.

Cat = object
Feeling of like = static property
Indirect means of knowing = implicit

"Objects" and "fields" are two separate things.

Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.

The thing with implicit fields is that you cannot directly perceive the field. You know that there is a relationship betwen the two+ objects going on, but it cannot be explicitely seen. So you have to grab clues elsewise. Such as the cat's reactions to what is happening to it.

As I said...an object does not need another object to be an object. But a field requires two or more objects to exist.
The cat exists as is. But it's feelings of like/dislike, attraction/repulsion, etc towards you and/or towards your actions did not exist until you created the field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I definitely think we could get along. Sorry if I've offended you with my brashness; people easily frustrate me and I tend to show it.

Yes, let's be friends :)

I actually understand those frustrations, I'm hoping people will take a different stance towards you. Also I kinda admire the brashness, just maybe a little bit toned down.
lets be friends yes :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Wrong, cat is an object, yes, but the object wasn't what you were looking at, it was the object's relationship to another object that you were looking at.

I said, "this cat feels a certain way". How am I talking about the conditions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Chesney

I said, "this cat feels a certain way". How am I talking about the conditions?

You were talking about how this cat feels about your method of petting it.

Quote:

I was petting one of the cats, kind of "slapping" it on its rear end. The cat was rubbing its muzzle up against me and arching its back really high. My friend said, "don't pet him like that, you're going to hurt him". I said, "no dude, when he rubs his muzzle up against stuff and arches his back like that, it means he likes it."

"That" and "it" refers to your method ofpetting the cat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

You were talking about how this cat feels about your method of petting it.

So I was talking about the cat.

You were talking about how this cat related to your method of petting.

Field = how an object relates to or interacts with another object.
Object = cat
Object = your hand
Field = how the cat felt about your hand

That is what you were talking about, how the cat felt about your hand. How one object related to another object.

You know the image of a finger pointing at the moon, right?
The moon is an object.
The finger is an object.
The finger pointing at the moon creates an invisible "field" between the finger and the moon.

In this case, though, the reactions of the cat are not the moon. The reactions of the cat are the clues as to the relational field between your hand and the cat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Field = how an object relates to or interacts with another object.

No, this is the proper definition of "field":

Quote:

A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time. Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.” The field creates a "condition in space" such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.

The field is independent of the objects; it is like the "medium" in which the objects exist. The field is "that which acts upon the objects"; it is "the conditions" under which an object operates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

Field = how the cat felt about your hand

In this case, the field would've been my hand petting the cat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anndelise

That is what you were talking about, how the cat felt about your hand. How one object related to another object.

I merely deduced how the cat felt, and in doing so, I detected an "implicit" and "static" property of an "object". It's that simple.