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

[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...

[krieger]

I agree with this, but he quoted me saying that "I fail" regarding my supervision on him which was not the purpose and meaning of my sentence. This is where the problem came from.

Nope. All I said was that your typing of me was laughable because your kind doesn't supervise me.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Your opinions, on any topic, should be treated with extreme suspicion for as long as you believe that I am an ISTj. You turn yourself into a charicature by repeating that ludicrous proposition in so many places.

You might as well put "I'm an idiot. I believe the world is flat. Ignore anything I say in this post as my stupidity isn't limited to the view expressed in the previous sentence." in your sig.

The quote in your sig isn't even a position of closed mindedness. Notice the "isn't always". It considers a possibility, not excluses one.

[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