Results 1 to 40 of 51

Thread: VI picture phrases in Filatova and Ashton

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default VI picture phrases in Filatova and Ashton

    CAVEAT...This is an experimental impression...just please take it for it what it is.

    When looking at VI pictures, I tend to try to understand them by imagining what the people in the pictures are "saying" in their minds that leads to their facial expression. Recently, I was thinking about the VI picture categorizations by Filatova (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=31643) and Ashton (http://gallery.socionix.com). It was interesting to me that some Ashton Ni-INTps look like Filatova INTjs, and that Filatova INTps are spread out into several different NT types in Ashton.

    This is NOT to pick on Ashton. I don't know who's "right" between him and Filatova, or whether there is a right answer. Also, Ashton has sometimes voiced a negative opinion of Filatova's writing, so it wouldn't be surprising that their VI interpretations don't match.

    Anyhow, here's a first draft of my reactions to these pictures. They could be refined, but here's my first impression. I've only done the NT Club pictures:

    Filatova:
    INTj: "I know a lot, and that knowledge makes me ready for anything."
    INTp: "Give me the problem, and I'm going to pounce on it with lots of skepticism."
    ENTp: "I have a devious little idea."
    ENTj: "I have everything organized, completed, and prepared, and I'm ready to meet with you."

    Ashton:

    INTj - about knowing the answer
    Ti-INTj: "I don't know the answer. I'm trying to find it."
    Ne-INTj: "I know a lot. Now let's focus on you (or on what we can do with it)."

    INTp - about responding to incoming information
    Te-INTp: "I'm a little skeptical intellectually about what you're saying."
    Ni-INTp: "I have something inside me (knowledge, or just a sense) that lets me deal with what you're going to throw my way."

    ENTp - about considering a problem or something "out there"
    Ti-ENTp: "I'm ready with ingenuity for whatever problem you're ready to show me."
    Ne-ENTp: "I'm thinking about something way out there."

    ENTj - about some sort of challenge to meet
    Te-ENTj: "I'm ready to meet the challenges right now."
    Ni-ENTj: "I'm thinking deeper into solving the problem."

    Roughly...
    Filatova INTj corresponds with Ashton Ne-INTj and Ni-INTp.
    Filatova INTp corresponds with Ashton Ti-INTj, Te-INTp, Ti-ENTp, and a little of Ni-ENTj.
    Filatova ENTp corresponds vaguely with Ashton Ne-ENTp, less so with Ti-ENTp.
    Filatova ENTj corresponds with Ashton Te-ENTj, and a little bit of Ni-ENTj.

    Overall, the biggest difference is that INTjs are so smug in Filatova; but through subtype, Ashton found a way that this "smugness" is more distributed between types, causing, for example, subtypes of all four NT club types to have something in common in that they're what we might call "unsmug" or "undecided" types (corresponding to Filatova INTp).

    The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

  2. #2
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know lots of other people contribute to that gallery too, so don't just credit Ashton.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.
    This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

  3. #3
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.
    This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."
    Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  4. #4
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post


    This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."
    Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.
    Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.

  5. #5
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.
    Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.
    No. You must do it, in this thread, for it to pass; it is not Aleksei's claim, it is not siuntal's claim, and it is not Jonathan's claim - it is your claim. I reiterate: provide examples of plausible evidence that Alpha NTs give more positive results than other types to the extent that the hypothesis of 'Alpha NTs dismiss the reconcilement of incompatible theories' is not just a reactionary baseless conjecture that serves to fallaciously and preemptively support Ashtonian Socionics.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  6. #6
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post

    Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.
    No. You must do it, in this thread, for it to pass; it is not Aleksei's claim, it is not siuntal's claim, and it is not Jonathan's claim - it is your claim. I reiterate: provide examples of plausible evidence that Alpha NTs give more positive results than other types to the extent that the hypothesis of 'Alpha NTs dismiss the reconcilement of incompatible theories' is not just a reactionary baseless conjecture that serves to fallaciously and preemptively support Ashtonian Socionics.
    Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

  7. #7
    Juvenile shindaiwa21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    TIM
    H-ILE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    114
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."
    The only way in which they can be reconciled is if one system is a rotation or mirror of another. The same internal type relation structure would have to hold true.

    I'm going to ignore ENTp INTj ENTj INTp in this discussion and just focus on Alpha NT vs Gamma NT's, as for the most part I find the rest to be quibbling, and introversion vs extroversion by far not the most important factor in intellectual mental processes.

    If it was just a rotation, alpha nt ---> gamma nt, gamma nt ---> alpha nt from one to the other, which obviously is not the case. Therefore the typing are based on different factors and are different and irreconcilable systems.

    I would try and evaluate in which the intertype relations tend to hold more true would be the one I'd look at. Don't look at it as "what is my type," but how well does whoever's typing of me + friends + other people I know relate to my experience. Duality and conflict are often the strongest ones to go look at. If you can't get your network typed using one method or the other, try thinking of the people to whom you are attracted and the people by whom you are repulsed/react badly to and try and see who's set of portraits they match better (if you believe VI is legit at all, again, you can form an opinion on this by VI-ing people as best you can and seeing if it matches the inter-type relations)

    If the inter-type definitions are all the same (which they are approximately,) either one or both systems are internally inconsistent.

    Arctures: delta just produces boring people
    Arctures: but that's how we like it

    vero: who needs a real person
    vero: That's why I date an SLI

    dolphin: someone tell gulanzon adjusting shower water to the right temperature is not si

    Kraezz: you just have to do the ****** thing sometimes

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."
    The only way in which they can be reconciled is if one system is a rotation or mirror of another. The same internal type relation structure would have to hold true.
    Just a few short points...I wouldn't say I agree with the statement ""these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them." However, I do think you can have multiple interpretations of Jungian typology or Socionics in particular that apply the basic mathematical structure to different things. While I think rotations/mirrors are pretty common, it's also possible to have different typologies that have a kernel of truth to them, but are not simple rotations/mirrors.

    This wouldn't be possible if the intertype relations were fixed and unambiguous. However, if people were to describe or witness the relations between two people, I'm sure there'd be disagreement over which of the intertype relations existed between them, just as with anything else in Socionics.

    It's interesting and maybe predictable that this discussion has focused on whether Ashton's typing represents "another system." I was not saying that, but only noted that some of the Ni-INTps on his list had a similar facial expression to Filatova's LIIs, and some of the Ti-INTjs similarly looked like Filatova ILIs, etc. Although it's just a VI impression that can't be rigorously documented, I think there is something to this.

    Incidentally, I also think it's perhaps silly to argue about whether Filatova represents "classical Socionics" or whether Ashton doesn't. Filatova represents classical Socionics by definition, because she's part of the original Socionics community in Russia and abides by the basic ideas such as Model A. However, this doesn't mean that she's "correct" or even consistent with other "classical Socionists" in her typings. Similarly, Ashton criticizes Model A but that doesn't make his point of view worth any less.

  9. #9
    Juvenile shindaiwa21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    TIM
    H-ILE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    114
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote=Jonathan;794933]
    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    This wouldn't be possible if the intertype relations were fixed and unambiguous. However, if people were to describe or witness the relations between two people, I'm sure there'd be disagreement over which of the intertype relations existed between them, just as with anything else in Socionics.

    That's why you shouldn't try and determine it with the fuzzy relations and instead just go for straight up duality and conflict. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but the affects of the relation should be statistically significant in any method.

    Arctures: delta just produces boring people
    Arctures: but that's how we like it

    vero: who needs a real person
    vero: That's why I date an SLI

    dolphin: someone tell gulanzon adjusting shower water to the right temperature is not si

    Kraezz: you just have to do the ****** thing sometimes

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    That's why you shouldn't try and determine it with the fuzzy relations and instead just go for straight up duality and conflict. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but the affects of the relation should be statistically significant in any method.
    Well, I didn't really mean this thread to be about my type, but here's roughly my relations with the types (based on my view of their type of course). This is slanted more towards ILI, and certainly other people on the forum would type all these people differently:

    LII: Good long conversations with some; I may be too imprecise or dilettentish for others. Often have similar interests.
    ILI: Often I get the sense of having similar strengths and problems; often strike up a friendship, especially with those who are ostracized and not part of "the group." (I usually feel ostracized; when I was in school, I ate at the "outcasts" table.) Friendships are more likely with the more intellectual ILIs; have less in common with those who are more "business-oriented."
    ILE: Usually have a good conversation with them; usually have a lot in common with them in terms of thought process, but not in terms of overall personality; generally they seem to be more extroverted and off in more directions than me; usually they also seem more successful and better at making things happen than I am. I've learned from their ability to seek out opportunities, and sometimes I'm like that too.
    LIE: Generally good conversations; sometimes I have to work a bit to impress them, and then I have their trust.
    EII: I usually get along quite well with them, unless they're very shy.
    IEI: Sometimes I have a deep friendship with them, with lots in common; other times, I'm not able to gain their trust, and then they're closed to me.
    IEE: Usually very good relations in a friendship setting. Generally they do most of the talking.
    EIE: Have had some good friendships with EIEs. Sometimes they can be critical of my tardiness.
    ESI: Good relations; easy to form relationships...Share a lot of non-intellectual interests together. Have a lot of complementary abilities. Big difference in level of organization and time management are sometimes issues (opposite in terms of me being laid back, vs. ESIs being super-neat and super-disciplined).
    SEI: Generally find them nice, interesting people that I would like to know better. However, somehow I never get a chance to know them. Sometimes I may subconsciously judge their intelligence or maturity, but afterwards I feel wrong about that.
    SEE: Usually get along well with SEEs. They're good at bringing me to a sense of reality (or sometimes, unreality). In school, there was one SEE teacher I didn't get along with, but I'm not even sure she was SEE.
    ESE: Never seem to have a problem with ESEs. Usually I see them as friendly, helpful people that I would like to get to know better. Never get a chance to know them very well, as they seem somewhat inaccessible.
    LSI: I've known some LSIs who are very difficult people, and others who easier to get along with. Probably some of the most difficult people I've met are LSIs, but then again there are some LSIs who are easy to get along with.
    SLI: Get along fairly well with them, as they seem similar, but sometimes I get bored by a lack of shared interests.
    SLE: I can sometimes feel intimidated by SLEs, especially the very aggressive ones. If there are interests in common, then I can get along well with them.
    LSEs: Some LSEs I get along with great; other ones not so much; they can seem overly methodical to me; I may appear too chaotic to them.

  11. #11
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    I basically see these as just two completely different systems.
    From what I've heard Filatova didn't type any of the people in her portrait collections by any visual factors, but by interviewing and observing them. Thus any physical similarities between the people she typed was a coincidental finding

    Ashton's method seems to place a high importance on visual typing, which alone places it in contention with Filatova's method. I get the impression that there's very little extensive research put even the observational celebrity typings, which again doesn't seem consistent with how Filatova typed famous people

    I'm of the strong opinion that Filatova was situated in what we know of classical Socionics while Ashton's approach is a typology system of it's own that often contradicts the formers approach. Of course we can argue forever on whose typology method is more accurate but I've already stated my views in the past about this, and it isn't the basis for your thread either, so I won't go into that.
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  12. #12
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Filatova's collection is said to contain over 1500 photographs and through the process of interviewing and typing all of these people she has found that those with the same type AND subtype look all almost like identical twins, even if they lived 1000 miles apart / were unrelated. Here is a set of fantastic examples:



    All of the individuals in the above image are typed ILI via Filatova Interview/Photo process (not typed by VI). It is only after she amassed a collection that she made the identical subtype appearances connection. With this she adds:
    It is my opinion that the similarity of faces in the subtypes of a psychological type is a reliable reason to believe that we have discovered an <<elementary>> type, and further differences would have only personal characteristics related to culture, education, family traditions, etc. Currently, it is difficult to assign a certain number to the quantity of subtypes. One thing is certain: within reasonable limits, the number of subtypes in one psychological type is not far above a dozen. It is now essential to find an objective basis for the subdivisions inside a certain type.
    More of these photo's would be nice, but I don't know where to start looking short of online Russian book stores.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  13. #13
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post

    Actually, there's a lot more that goes into it aside from VI. Video interviews, written statements, biographical info, and intertype relations all factor in heavily.

    Methodology is explained in detail here.

    You stand corrected.
    I'm not suggesting that you type strictly on VI, I just get the impression that you place a lot of importance on it when typing

    Except you've no idea what methods Filatova used for famous typings.
    Hence the "I get the impression", not "I know". The impression is just a consistency one, that is if she typed the people in her portraits through extensive research I would think she'd have done the same with her celebrity typings.
    I'm of the impression that you, and many of the people who use your Socionix methods, often too quickly type people based on VI, usually posting a few pictures of other people that you're typed to show the resemblance

    These are unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be proven.
    I'm not disagreeing with you, I just feel like Filatova's descriptions and the means she went about typing the people in her portraits was related to the more Model A understanding of Socionics.
    Your methods seems more branched out, incorporating multiple theories that do not necessarily correspond to the more classical understanding of Socionics
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  14. #14
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
    Hence the "I get the impression", not "I know". The impression is just a consistency one, that is if she typed the people in her portraits through extensive research I would think she'd have done the same with her celebrity typings.
    I'm of the impression that you, and many of the people who use your Socionix methods, often too quickly type people based on VI, usually posting a few pictures of other people that you're typed to show the resemblance

    These are unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be proven.
    I'm not disagreeing with you, I just feel like Filatova's descriptions and the means she went about typing the people in her portraits was related to the more Model A understanding of Socionics.
    Your methods seems more branched out, incorporating multiple theories that do not necessarily correspond to the more classical understanding of Socionics
    Why do you live in a fantasy world with Socionics of all things? Can't you be a bit more realistic here, and reach out to others' knowledge. And fantasize about other things that don't make you look clueless? You're assuming nobody knows what they're talking about because it's convenient for you. Maybe if you tried opening your ears and listen for once, pay attention to Ashton's explanations, you wouldn't have to repeat the same claims over and over again and have them debunked by obvious events. You obviously seem incapable of thinking for yourself about various viewpoints on this forum, like an old dog or one trick pony of sorts. It's really kind of like you don't care about anyone here.

    You also really don't have any credibility. The fact that Ashton holds convos with people about typology or 'has followers' might actually be a sign that he's a good teacher. But of course that doesn't sound good for you so it's not true.

  15. #15
    Marie84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    2,347
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    let's just agree we won't agree on this and move on
    EII INFj
    Forum status: retired

  16. #16
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,840
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Classical socionics??


  17. #17
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
    I'm not suggesting that you type strictly on VI, I just get the impression that you place a lot of importance on it when typing
    Not really. There's a confluence of many different indices taken altogether; the weight of VI among that is more marginal than you'd think. I tend to use it for broad measures like quadra or sometimes temperament, then look at other details to precise it down further.
    In your "methodology" you seem to place VI above all else...not only is it first in your bullet points, but you say "Images and/or videos", rather than Videos and/or images". Videos should not be considered optional where they exist...images really are inferior.

    People who ascribed to Model X also always seem to prefer posting images over videos, even posting them in that order of preference when they actually list both...further, they are also prone to posting one or both of these to actually giving any (proper) reasoning for a particular type for the individual.

  18. #18
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Omg Marie84 kill yourself please
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  19. #19
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    In your "methodology" you seem to place VI above all else...not only is it first in your bullet points, but you say "Images and/or videos", rather than Videos and/or images".
    Are you seriously nitpicking over the order of the words as if that actually means anything? Because it doesn't.

    Who says they're considered optional? I'll certainly resort to videos when they exist (though I usually type historical figures and philosophers, and videos typically aren't available for them. For that matter, neither are many pictures).
    your "methodology" doesn't seem very methodological then. Your wording suggests a preference for images, fairly clearly....why not say "Videos and images"? It is obvious that videos will not always exist for famous people...but it is also true in the case of images. Here it really sounds like you consider videos as secondary to images. In the case of historical figures where videos do not exist...or even where they do...relevant textual resources are still more important than images. I don't often see Model X people using such resources compared to images, and they tend to focus more on the appearance of the individual's eyes than on relevant textual resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Disingenuous smears again. More often than not, case study threads on Socionix appear to be accompanied with videos. For instance, this latest one has 3 (I don't know the woman's type, I've only tentative observations).
    it does seem that in the case of musicians...if videos are included, they are videos of their music rather than the musician describing themselves. Also, even the limited "analysis" I've seen is generally not descriptive of the way the individual being typed processes IMs, even if textual sources are included.

  20. #20
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,374
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    No. I frequently post walls of text by authors, intellectuals, public figures, etc. when available.
    and when you do, it is generally with no analysis beyond an IM symbol or a bizarre reductio with the aid of a dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Wrong again.
    statistics?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •