I'm no longer sure I'm really an LII

[Brilliand]

You misunderstood, it's nothing about this, LIIs are not even your supervisors, but similar (Kindred, or whatever names are given to that).

However, with him as LSI, you would be his supervisor.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[MatthewZ]

I don't get it. What has that to do with what labcoat quoted from me?

To answer that question:

Labcoat I understand, except when he's obfuscating things on purpose, on the other hand he's an LSI,

The idea that your kind's influence would spell supervision over me is laughable.

His post was in reference to you typing him as LSI. "Your kind," in turn, is a reference to your type, ILE, which is indeed the supervisor of Labcoat's type if he were LSI.

[krieger]

I don't get it.

That's the story of your life, isn't it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Typing me as ISTj was integral to your point. Me reacting negatively to that part is definitely relevant to the discussion.

Pinocchio is going out of his way to reinterpret events in a way that makes him avoid responsiblity. I have written about this in the ILEs thread in the Alpha Quadra subforum.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

However, with him as LSI, you would be his supervisor.

It's clear that your point wasn't to address Labcoat's type, but it was certainly pertinent to Labcoat's side of the discussion. A side note to the discussion, if you will. By discrediting his self-typing in a thread based around typing another individual, his stake in the conversation naturally shifts to defending his self-typing. It wasn't your explicitly-made main point of your post as a whole, but typing Labcoat as an LSI was the comment most directed at him and thus the one he should be inclined to respond to.

As the above shows, the INTjs here are perfectly capable of understanding me. Oops. Looks like it wasn't just a part of your post that was wrong. Back to the drawing board...

[Aiss]

That's connected to what labcoat had to say, not to what I said. Can you please show how the things are connected, what what I said about him has to do with my type?
---

My point was to show warrior-librarian that this misunderstanding of labcoats' posts doesn't imply necessarily that she's not an LII, because other LIIs don't understand that as well. It has no connection with my type and supervision, that was suggested by labcoat to misrepresent my post and you fell into his trap. I wasn't talking about me, supervision, influence and anything like this.

I'm not sure if it's possible to be any more clear on it than MatthewZ was. It doesn't take a LII to get it, though they obviously do. It sounds as if you were playing dumb, to be honest.

[MatthewZ]

My point was to show warrior-librarian that this misunderstanding of labcoats' posts doesn't imply necessarily that she's not an LII, because other LIIs don't understand that as well. It has no connection with my type and supervision, that was suggested by labcoat to misrepresent my post and you fell into his trap. I wasn't talking about me, supervision, influence and anything like this.

It's clear that your point wasn't to address Labcoat's type, but it was certainly pertinent to Labcoat's side of the discussion. A side note to the discussion, if you will. By discrediting his self-typing in a thread based around typing another individual, his stake in the conversation naturally shifts to defending his self-typing. It wasn't your explicitly-made main point of your post as a whole, but typing Labcoat as an LSI was the comment most directed at him and thus the one he should be inclined to respond to.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

On the other hand, what you could do would be to confirm or infirm my supposition that LIIs don't understand so clearly what labcoat usually has to say (your case, of course).

I can generally understand him just fine - about as easily as I understand you, really (I do occasionally require clarification).