Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

[Rick]

I wrote a lengthy article on ******'s type arguing that ****** was a Socionics ENTP. At the time I thought I was myself an INFP. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and currently I feel rather embarassed by the whole article, but since Herr ****** was mentioned, I might as well put it straitght: The article is generally suitable only as a demonstration on how one can use fancy words and shoddy logic to prove just about anything.

I think it's great that you can admit this and be open about it. Many people are never able to admit they were wrong.

[CuriousSoul]

To me, that kind of article was not so bad, actually, not at all.

Thank You, very kind of you. Some of the writing was quite inspired - if I may say so - but the attempt at logical deduction deeply flawed.

OMG ANOTHER VOICE OF REASON!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway....

Since he IS INFj, remember that type is not what you do as much as it is how you do things.

I would bet that whatever type anyone is there are evil representatives and good ones.

Yes, I am afraid you are correct. There is just Si as hidden agenda written all over the place. You can start by reading the article. Many of the other characters in "the story" would probably have to be retyped as well, but maybe another time...

[Raver]

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

Not true.

She's getting it from this quote;

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

~Aushra Augusta

Thanks Rocky (Isn't it great to have someone who reads the same books/articles as you?)

Oh, I get it now. The intutives need to connect the dots to understand something, but the sensors could understand it without that process.

Pretty much. Plus is a certainty (or as close as one can get), is possibility. The type might be right but if they missed a bit of information they could be way off.

Ah, makes sense. Thanks

[Olga]

I think I am loosing it. I can not find my last post to this topic... so I might have send it to some other thread instead of this one. Too much brain work is never good for me. If I will find it by any chance I will paste it here.

@curioius soul. ESTP and ESFP belong to different quadras. Beta quadra cares about its backjard and ESFP might not have time for it, he is like the "wind in the field" would be preoccupied rather with himself. To a certain degree we are all caring, it's a human thing. ESFP relyes on others to look after him, he really needs somebody to do the routine because he is a busy person and organasation is his weakest point and so are the theories.
+ . In my theory I do not differentiate very sharply between two functions and argue that it is simple and straight forward: if you base is that you can use successfuly when you want to but not all the time and if you weakest function is that you are not very strong in either. My daughter is ESFP and she might not think much about helping around the house but she does not forget to bring nice presents on occasions and can be very creative in that while I am very boring on special occasions but do the routine things without extra words.
I just remembered where my last post gone missing; I was typing the whole morning but forgot to save it...and it all has disappeared when I wanted to post it....

[Expat]

To me, that kind of article was not so bad, actually, not at all.

Thank You, very kind of you. Some of the writing was quite inspired - if I may say so - but the attempt at logical deduction deeply flawed.

I thought it was quite well put together, and honestly I'm not sure that ENTp is wrong and INFj right, but in one thing you're probably right, that was one of this strong functions -- that is the impression one gets from reading his quasi-monologues in ******'s Table Talk.

****** was almost certainly a Narrator rather than Taciturn, and Narrators with strong are:

INFj, ENFp, and perhaps ENTj and INTp.

I think ENFp or INTp. A rather lame attempt, I agree.

[CuriousSoul]

The last comparison - "Hidden agenda". This is what people hide from other people, because it is very sensitive area of one's psyche. If the main function is like a geometric cone firmly standing on its base, the hidden agenda is like the same cone standing on its tip that one is trying to balance. For INTjs their introverted sensing () is their nightmare. Introverted sensing is mainly about the body, its functions, sensory perceptions etc. The only way they can balance that cone is for them to be physically healthy and if this is not that important to you, you are most probably not INTj. INTps
http://www.socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm

Reading about ****** this just seems the (almost) inevitable conclusion. It is a hidden agenda that can disturb your life in more ways than most people can imagine....

If you try to "tick the boxes" and see what fits in the Reinin Dimensions and Mathematico-mechanical Socionics, the evidence would seem to point towards INFJ.


Finallly

If I have to offer a guess on ******'s type I would currently go for INFJ, but frankly that rather terrifies me and therefore I'd rather not go down that path while there is still hope I could be wrong.

I hope I am wrong, but it does not look that way...

[Rick]

I think people are making too much of this "hidden agenda" thing and blowing it's importance out of proportion. It's not nearly definitive of the individual as the strong functions are.

For the 6th function to really "disturb your life," you would need to have an absence of people around with that function as one of their strong functions. If this were the case, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to attain any meaningful self-realization, because you would keep getting hung up on everything related to it.

I know a lot of people whose 6th function is "disturbing" them. None of them is even close to being an influential individual in society. I am confident in saying that if a person has gained significant clout in society, he has most of his day-to-day 6th function problems solved.

[CuriousSoul]

I think people are making too much of this "hidden agenda" thing and blowing it's importance out of proportion. It's not nearly definitive of the individual as the strong functions are.

For the 6th function to really "disturb your life," you would need to have an absence of people around with that function as one of their strong functions. If this were the case, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to attain any meaningful self-realization, because you would keep getting hung up on everything related to it.

I know a lot of people whose 6th function is "disturbing" them. None of them is even close to being an influential individual in society. I am confident in saying that if a person has gained significant clout in society, he has most of his day-to-day 6th function problems solved.

But ****** was far from a balanced personality... Anyway I do not know what his type was, and I do not think it is - at least currently - possibly to know for sure, and therefore I shall leave the topic for now. I think though that your claim is false. Many succesful and influential persons are very much troubled by a great variety of pscyhological disorders. The infamous socionics hidden agenda is quite often involved. Whether you can see it is though another mather entirely.

[Rick]

The name "hidden agenda" was created by Sergei Ganin (socionics.com) to describe an interesting phenomenon that he noticed about how the weakness of this function often plays out in a person's life. But it is not nearly as apparent or definitive as the strong functions, and no more definitive than the suggestive function. In fact, we could call the 5th function the "Pleasure Button," write up a few essays on how it plays out in people's lives, and get people to start using it in their socionics musings. I'm not discrediting Sergei's idea at all, I'm just trying to put it in its proper perspective.

[Rick]

I think people are making too much of this "hidden agenda" thing and blowing it's importance out of proportion. It's not nearly definitive of the individual as the strong functions are.

For the 6th function to really "disturb your life," you would need to have an absence of people around with that function as one of their strong functions. If this were the case, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to attain any meaningful self-realization, because you would keep getting hung up on everything related to it.

I know a lot of people whose 6th function is "disturbing" them. None of them is even close to being an influential individual in society. I am confident in saying that if a person has gained significant clout in society, he has most of his day-to-day 6th function problems solved.

But ****** was far from a balanced personality... Anyway I do not know what his type was, and I do not think it is - at least currently - possibly to know for sure, and therefore I shall leave the topic for now. I think though that your claim is false. Many succesful and influential persons are very much troubled by a great variety of pscyhological disorders. The infamous socionics hidden agenda is quite often involved. Whether you can see it is though another mather entirely.

I agree with you about many famous people having psychological problems, but I stick by my statement. If ****** were EII, I am more than sure that he had people around whose job it was to take care of him physically, make sure his clothes were in order and that he was healthy and well-fed, and that his office was clean. In other words, his day-to-day was well taken care of.

[Rick]

Many succesful and influential persons are very much troubled by a great variety of pscyhological disorders. The infamous socionics hidden agenda is quite often involved. Whether you can see it is though another mather entirely.

Actually, I think that the problem is usually having a ravenous, all-consuming 1st function. These people are slaves to incredible desires coming from their strengths. What gets them famous in the first place is the unusual strength of their desires. Where others stop and go to bed, or finish the job and go home, they keep going and going. They are insatiable.

[CuriousSoul]

Yes, I agree and we have been using the 5th function, as well as all the other functions... It is just that in some situations some of the functions tend to manifest in ways that can be of use in typing... Often it is the irrational and atypical behavior that can most easily "give the type away". Perfectly well rounded and balanced personalities can be awfully hard to type, and the one major trouble in socionics seems to me to be that there are very few clear cut differences betweeen the types. Most theories seem to be compatible with almost all possible observations and this often makes them virtually useless from any practical point of view.

[CuriousSoul]

This is actually an excellent idea, and I think that the 5th function is actually EXTREMELY important when identifying types in contact.

Like, there is a big diff. between IxTp and IxTj that you can tell the J-ish IxTp's and the P-ish IxTj's and get thier proper types since one is horribly resistive and the other is somewhat oriented toward .

I think it was Hugo/Blake who pointed out that people often tend to communicate in a style that expects their colocutor to give a reply with their supportive functions. Thus an INFJ would often write replies that would ideally require a detailed strictly fact based ESTJ answer. :wink:
I think when correctly applied this insight is often of great value in typing.

[Rick]

This is actually an excellent idea, and I think that the 5th function is actually EXTREMELY important when identifying types in contact.

Like, there is a big diff. between IxTp and IxTj that you can tell the J-ish IxTp's and the P-ish IxTj's and get thier proper types since one is horribly resistive and the other is somewhat oriented toward .

I think it was Hugo/Blake who pointed out that people often tend to communicate in a style that expects their colocutor to give a reply with their supportive functions. Thus an INFJ would often write replies that would ideally require a detailed strictly fact based ESTJ answer. :wink:
I think when correctly applied this insight is often of great value in typing.

Definitely! I totally agree.

[CuriousSoul]

Well CS, the real problem lies in typing people that you can never have personal contact with. Within a few minutes, most people could probably be quickly typed in a personal interview or group observation or whatever...

Anyway, think of it this way: if someone were to write a biography on YOU today, what hidden agenda do you think would be most apparent?

It really becomes more about fact manipulation then actual truth when you delve into the realm of typing people that are not around anymore. In fact, I would probably say that in these cases, it would be better to just go off of VI alone, although it is not very accurate in all cases, you would probably get the same ratio as if you would type the "facts" in thier life, because what a person does, isn't always thier "type".

Yes, I would in most cases quickly come to a conclusion about a person's type, so would probably you and most people with some experience with socionics. Whether we all would come to the same conclusion is a whole different ball game. I do not think typing celebrities should be such an overwhelmingly difficult challence. In many cases there is actually an awful lot of information available, ******'s life - for the sake of example - is exceptionally well documented.

If what a person does is not their type, then what is? If the type does not manifest in behavior what purpose does the whole system serve? The type descriptions are not the type, but the "facts" in my opinion are. Whether we can correctly interpret the facts though - that is the question.

[Olga]

I would like to argue for my conclusion that ****** could be ESFJ. As usual for me, it is based on very general info which I gathared from films and histrotical facts, so I do not claim that I know a lot about him but I believe I know enough for my 'self-sufficient'/Superego block to start discussion.
1. I base it mainly on the analysis on one person I knew he, reminds me strongly ****** and this person has passed away a few years ego, I did like him.
2. I believe that Jesus was ISFJ and if it is true so ****** could be ESFJ as another extreme of dimension ISFJ...............ESFJ in my theory (of intertype compatibility).

At one point I was thinking ****** could be ESTJ but I am more inclined to think he was ESFJ. AS you know descriptions of types in Socioinics are mainly based on healthy personalities. Just imagine that it would be a reverse of a friendly and positively charged individual to a sick and negatively charged one.
Does anybody wish to argue against my conclusion of ******'s type?

[Rocky]

I'd say ENTP myself.

[CuriousSoul]

Sergei Ganin seems to think ****** was a perceiving type:

Most sources my foot! There are two ways you can go about it. First, you can mindlessly repeat what others are saying. Second, you can just use your head and THINK. Here is an idea, how about that (******) was P, ja?
http://www.socionics.com/ubb/ultimat...opic/3/96.html

I feel relieved, maybe he was not INFJ after all...
It is interesting that Carl Gustav Jung himself typed ****** as an introverted intuitive type (mentioned at least in John Toland's biography of ******), thus either INTP or INFP in modern socionics. I am starting to think he might have been INTP, or maybe not...
Now why can I not get that guy completely out of my mind...

[CuriousSoul]

I have no solid idea about ****** except that he is not an ENFj.

http://www.socionics.com/ubb/ultimat...ic/3/96/3.html

Well, since Sergei seems to a bit of an unwilling authority on socionics types... What admirabe modesty.

And neither do I.

But if this fairly standard interpretation of basic socionics theory by Smilingeyes can be trusted. ****** cannot have been from Alpha or Beta.

Okay. Another moment of pondering follows... We expect as previously with Si-Ne, that paradigm of Ti demands paradigm Fe. Why is this?

1. Object-of-thought can not simultaneously be subject and object.

But why is this? Physics applies. If you affect something you are likewise affected by it. True, but for any given effect the subject is either object or subject. A causes effect x to B. Simultaneously B causes effect y to A. Ok. That't the theoretical answer.


2. Let's assume, that we know what properties and qualities an object has Ti. We know, therefore we can not not-know Fi. Naturally we can make a mistake here to believe that you know and to believe that you not know are both simply paradigms. You can make an error both ways. Now if we know what properties an object has, that has become the defining characteristic of the object. What happens to the object is not really important as it's definition will not be changed as nothing can happen to the object that its definition did not allow. Thus knowledge of action is unimportant. It does not limit our understanding of our environment and is therefore undefined Fe.

Basically, you can only base your world-view for any given decision to one kind of knowledge. You can factor in things that are Ti, Fi, Fe and Te, but something is ultimately the deciding factor.

Thus Cheerfulness presumes that events and single actions have little meaning as nothing important can happen.

Gravity
= (gamma+delta)
= things can act in non-clearly defined ways but act in clearly defined ways.
= Te+Si-, Fi+Ne-, Ne-Fi+, Si-Te+, Te-Ni+, Fi-Se+, Se+Fi-,Ni+Te-

Gravity presumes that everything is limited by it's interaction with others and thus action and singular events are the only thing of which there is importance. Thus, the quality of things must be proved once and again by action
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=8879#8879

If you read on ******, this should quickly become readily apparent. If you do not trust my word, I can supply quotes later.
I had also more personal reasons for typing ****** as an ENTP, but currently I just get that creeping INFJ feeling again...
The thing is INFJs are, most unfortunately, capable of such sustained single-minded hatred, I am not sure which other types are....

[Creepy-]

The thing is INFJs are, most unfortunately, capable of such sustained single-minded hatred, I am not sure which other types are....

Are ENFjs capable of said single-minded hatred?

[UDP]

Bitch slapping them repeatedly seems to assist that tempermant which you are speaking of.

[Expat]

The thing is INFJs are, most unfortunately, capable of such sustained single-minded hatred, I am not sure which other types are....

Are ENFjs capable of said single-minded hatred?

I don't think it would be natural for them.

As Joseph P. Kennedy said about JFK (ENFj IMO) and his brother:

You can trample all over him, and next day he's there for you with open arms. But Bobby's my boy. When he hates you, you stay hated.

[Olga]

I would like to make my mind about ******'s type too. I looked through a couple of sites of celebreties. I think one site was from Sergei and another from Dmitri. It is confusing, because the same people typed differently. None of the the famous people is very similar to ****** in face. I think on Dmitri's site ISTJ type fits the most.
I remember when I watched the one fo the latest films about ****** i thought at that time that he must be logical type.
Then, in my life I knew the person who was very similar in face and did remind me ******. Unfortunately I have never tested him on socionics. The majority of celeb pictures are smily and positive and we do not have many pictures of bad mood.
Something makes me think that ****** had issues with ehtics/emotions, was strong in Fe and weak in Fi because he was hysterical person and the concept of human relationships was turned completely over in his head or simply did not exist. I think if we shall go this route and digg a bit deeper - I mean for those who did not make his/her mind yet....we may be able to find the truth. On the other hand he was a strong person becuase he could push and push and push. I feel the power and closed mind when I think about Hilter. So I believe that ****** had either strong Fe or strong Se. I would rather say strong Fe. Somebody mentioned he like his exotic dinners and comfort and attention to his persona in a first place... so why not strong si? He was selfish and hysterical if these qualities are unhealthy ... why not ESFJ? It would be interesting to look on the profiles of abnormal behaviour of each type.

Another thing is that I know the person who I believe is ESFJ, she is not a healthy type person. So she can be very exhausting in a negative way.
She can go on and on and on until you find it hard to handle. The only thing is she smiles at least from time to time. and ****** always seemed to be misarable, suspicious or emotional with children? I do not exclude any type at the moment. Why not ESTJ? I just do not see any particular evidence or justification/explanation for any type on the functional level. It is not enough just to say what you think you need to put functions as explanations, or interactions of functions. I do not see any intuition in his eyes as such. I think he was "here and now" person with a closed mind ( which could be strong logic at the end). Sorry, for my confusing thoughts....

[Rick]

How about we turn this into a real study of ******? It will be more interesting. A good resource to start with is Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******

I'm going to look at that now and paste in excerpts.

[Rick]

Summary of ******'s "life work":

****** gained power in a Germany facing crisis after World War I. He used charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need, nationalism and anti-Semitism to establish an authoritarian regime. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, ****** pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum

It should be noted that ****** was effective in reviving Germany's economy and establishing effective social institutions.

[Rick]

****** actually tried to be an artist!

He worked as a struggling painter in Vienna, copying scenes from postcards and selling his paintings to merchants and tourists (there is evidence he produced over 2000 paintings and drawings before World War I). During this period, he became close friends with the musician August Kubizek.

[Rick]

****** had a very "bohemian" youth. He was interested in all art forms - painting, architecture, music (Wagner), and the writings of various social philosophers of the day. His racist and nationalistic attitudes emerged gradually.

[Rick]

****** voluntarily enlisted in the army during WWI.

His behaviour as a soldier was considered somewhat sloppy, but he readily volunteered for dangerous missions such as taking dispatches to and from fighting areas. Unlike his fellow soldiers, ****** reportedly never complained about the food or hard conditions, preferring to talk about art or history. He was twice cited for bravery in action, receiving the Iron Cross, Second Class in December 1914 and the Iron Cross, First Class in August 1918, an honour rarely given to a Gefreiter. However, because of "a lack of leadership skills", he was never promoted to Unteroffizier. During October 1916 in northern France, ****** was wounded in the leg, but returned to the front in March 1917. He received the Wound Badge later that year, as his injury was the direct result of hostile fire.

****** was considered a "correct" soldier but was reportedly unpopular with his comrades because of an uncritical attitude toward officers. "Respect the superior, don't contradict anybody, obey blindly," he said, describing his attitude while on trial in 1924. One fellow soldier later remarked, "we all grumbled on him and found it intolerable that we had a white raven among us." (Heiden, 1936)

[Rick]

At some point ****** developed hysteria, as dictators tend to do (usually long before they gain power!):

On October 15, 1918, shortly before the end of the war, ****** was admitted to a field hospital, temporarily blinded by a poison gas attack. Research by Bernhard Horstmann indicates the blindness may have been the result of a hysterical reaction to Germany's defeat. ****** later said it was during this experience that he became convinced the purpose of his life was to save Germany. Meanwhile he was treated by a military physician and specialist in psychiatry who reportedly diagnosed the corporal as "incompetent to command people" and "dangerously psychotic." His commander at the time said, "I will never promote this hysteric!"

[Rick]

A key trademark of ****** was his ability to arouse crowds with his speeches.

By early 1921, Adolf ****** was becoming highly effective at speaking in front of even larger crowds. In February, ****** spoke before a crowd of nearly six thousand in Munich. To publicize the meeting, he sent out two truckloads of Party supporters to drive around with swastikas, cause a commotion and throw out leaflets, their first use of this tactic. ****** gained notoriety outside of the Party for his rowdy, polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians and groups (especially Marxists) and always the Jews.

He is noted for his dogmatism, harsh rhetoric, and ability to emotionally arouse listeners.

[CuriousSoul]

@Rick
I have read thousands of pages on ******, yet none of it bring any obvious clarity. I am well familiar that his life fits some aspects of many ENFJ type descriptions quite well, but on the other hand there are aspects that seem poorly compatible with ENFJ...

If you could try to show us how to type by applying the Reinin dichotomies, for example, I would be most grateful. Too much of typing in socionics is different variations of: he reminds me of this guy, this type description seems to fit him quite well, etc... Where is the solid undeniable logical proof?

[tcaudilllg]

I've said in once and I'll say it again and some day I'll prove it.

xNxx.

[Rick]

I'm going to keep posting excerpts here (if only for my own interest), but please share the aspects that don't seem compatible with EIE. I haven't studied ****** well enough to have an opinion, so I am forming it as I go.

"Decent" typing is based not on "he reminds me of..." or "he is just like this description," but on an understanding of functions and how we would expect them to manifest themselves in a person's life. There are also some very basic typing principles that become obvious as you observe people:

- a person cannot lead large groups of people using his weak functions
- a person emits the greatest amount of information from his strong functions
- effective individuals are known for their strengths and form a type environment around themselves that feeds off their strengths and supports their weak areas

Actually, Reinin dichotomies, if ever used in typing, are more of an "afterthought." There is no real consensus on what to do with them, as far as I'm aware.

[Rick]

The Party was run by an executive committee whose original members considered ****** to be overbearing and even dictatorial. ...

When they realized the loss of ****** would effectively mean the end of the Party, he seized the moment and announced he would return on the condition that he was made chairman and given dictatorial powers. ...

Meanwhile an anonymous pamphlet appeared entitled Adolf ******: Is he a traitor?, attacking ******'s lust for power and criticizing the violence-prone men around him. ****** responded to its publication in a Munich newspaper by suing for libel and later won a small settlement.

Basically, ****** was recognized as being dangerous and having dangerous cohorts before he had seized power (I think this is a strong argument against EII).

[tcaudilllg]

The Party was run by an executive committee whose original members considered ****** to be overbearing and even dictatorial. ...

When they realized the loss of ****** would effectively mean the end of the Party, he seized the moment and announced he would return on the condition that he was made chairman and given dictatorial powers. ...

Meanwhile an anonymous pamphlet appeared entitled Adolf ******: Is he a traitor?, attacking ******'s lust for power and criticizing the violence-prone men around him. ****** responded to its publication in a Munich newspaper by suing for libel and later won a small settlement.

Basically, ****** was recognized as being dangerous and having dangerous cohorts before he had seized power (I think this is a strong argument against EII).

You really need to read up on this. ****** was a complex character and you can't get a sense of who he was by a few quotes.

This thread is really starting to sicken me.

[Rick]

After this encounter, ****** centralized the party even more and asserted the Führerprinzip as the basic principle of party organization. Leaders were not elected by their group but were rather appointed by their superior and were answerable to them while demanding unquestioning obedience from their inferiors. Consistent with ******'s disdain for democracy, all power and authority devolved from the top down.

This is pretty anti-Delta Quadra. In socionics powerful centralizing processes are seen as happening when Beta Quadra types are in charge (this has been confirmed by many real-life observations).

[Rick]

Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, ******, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of ****** in the west are almost uniformly negative, often neglecting to mention the adulation the German people bestowed on ****** during his lifetime, though the vast majority of present-day Germans share a negative view of ******.

Germans' adulation of ****** also requires some sort of explanation, as Germans at the time seemed to look past the faults of ******'s regime and were caught up in ******'s vision and persona.

[tcaudilllg]

You really need to read up on this. ****** was a complex character and you can't get a sense of who he was by a few quotes.

This thread is really starting to sicken me.

Will you stop insulting people like the giant cock-head that you are? If the thread sickens you, don't read it.

Oh, and based on what Rick is saying, I am dropping the notion that ****** is EII. I think he is right, ****** couldn't have been from Delta at all...

...*sigh* the lament of the damned, ringing in my ears. MAKE IT STOP.

[Rick]

That's all there is of interest in the Wikipedia article.

EIE still seems to be the best version. Under his leadership was repressed (free circulation of ideas and information), was given full expression (spacial expansion, rapid industrialization), was restricted to a primitive understanding of social roles (for example, between the sexes), was actively promoted (all manner of cultural activities, mass emotional experiences, and the prevailing idea of fostering national identity and giving up one's individual identity).

[Rick]

You really need to read up on this. ****** was a complex character and you can't get a sense of who he was by a few quotes.

This thread is really starting to sicken me.

Will you stop insulting people like the giant cock-head that you are? If the thread sickens you, don't read it.

Oh, and based on what Rick is saying, I am dropping the notion that ****** is EII. I think he is right, ****** couldn't have been from Delta at all...

...*sigh* the lament of the damned, ringing in my ears. MAKE IT STOP.

tcaudilllg, why don't you open a new thread and outline your views on this subject and explain what it is exactly that you see as needing to be corrected? That would be constructive. All I care about personally is quality of ideas. If you can organize your ideas into a coherent system and get others to see what you're saying, it will be for everyone's benefit.