Yes, Phaedrus, I am well aware that I have had the same disagreements about Te vs. Ti with you, too, and I believe the reason is basically the same -- you are a Ti type parading as Te and adjusting your functional understanding to remove the systematic contradictions. The result of altering your functional understanding is that the proposed intertype relations become hopelessly mucked up, but you choose to turn a blind eye to that. Or, you change your understanding of all the functions to allow your real-life interactions to retain logical consistency, but then encounter serious problems when discussing socionics with people on the forum.
Just a brief demonstration -- I am 100% sure that other IEEs and EIIs on this forum would have the same aggressive reaction to the statements I cited as being Se + Ti, which you and Smilingeyes see as Te. In Russian language socionics these statements would be almost universally attributed to Se + Ti, which makes far more sense when their affect on different types is observed in real life. Some types take such statements as normal or as signs that the other person has gotten a little worked up, and that's perfectly fine -- they just need to be appeased a little bit. Other types take them as a personal attack and get very defensive or aggressive in return. If you look at how different types react, it would make no sense at all to call that Te. I almost never hear such things from LSEs and SLIs, and yet as soon as the SLEs and LSIs on this forum get a little worked up, these statements start coming out naturally.
Out of interest, Phaedrus, what do you think Lindemann's type is?
My other challenge is to provide a functional analysis of my argument with Smilingeyes and/or past ones with you that explains what about each person made the other angry.