IEE is also consistent with the things I've commented; as at this moment I cannot go deeper about Taleb, I have no preference for agreeing or disagreeing with you.Originally Posted by hkkmr
But I'm curious; why aristocratic specifically. Bolded part was just a personal valoration, or are you linking it somehow to his potential type?
His aristocracy is pretty self-evident. His whole anti-fragility promotion is self-admittedly aristocratic. He considers aristocracy a anti-fragile construct.
As far as what you bolded, it's not really the part you bolded, but the fact he fudges a lot of things and present a very limited perspective. This is similar to Malcolm Gladwell tactics who is a self-admitted sell-out and doing what he does for money and not for any kind of truth/output. Like a type that might seem similar like a ILE does things quite differently. Take someone like Einstein for example, he never really relented on his views later in life despite being laughed at about it or heavily promote it or really felt the need to promote it. Today thru the lense of history, even some of what Einstein thought was wrong about what he did is proving to be more right than wrong or at least signifigant. End of the day IEE's are a passionate types, these are all 4Dtypes and heavily promote their agenda, whatever it might be, the promotion is more important than the substantive material truth. However, their efforts are largely ethical and based on this promotion,
4D types like ILE/LIE/SLE/LSE are more unconcerned about the promotion aspect, sacrificing that for material returns. 4D Te types are always willing to sacrifice popular opinion for substantive results, whether it be money, evidence, etc. It's just a world view difference.
VI isn't really supposed to be about physical characteristics per se, When using VI, one should be looking for cues of cognition (i.e. an ESE is probably going to have a brighter smile in photographs than an ILI, on the whole). The rub is, if you ask me what these cues are, I can't really give you a list, because there's some kind of intuitive insight where I'm seeing the thing but I don't really know how to verbalize it. I have to take the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" kind of approach.
I think this is incorrect. Keirsey suggested that the Se Types are most likely to be diagnosed with having attention deficit disorders. Being still and typing out telephone directories is not natural for them; if it was, then they would be Ni types and you would have the "intuitive gridlock" which is described in so many of the mirror descriptions. Have you ever read a book by Hemingway (SLE)? Short, blunt sentences which convey action.
Si types, perhaps, (if we excuse ESEs and their Ej emotional torrent) but Si types are not "sensors" as a whole.
If you read Heidegger, I think that's what an SLI "theorist" sounds like. He has a similar disdain for Plato's Ti ideal forms and classifications as the ILIs, but his entire revisionist epistemology begins with "equipmentality", how things can serve as tools for physical tasks. He has another concept known as "facticity" which I believe to be sort of analogous with Si: a chair is not "a chair" in a Ti sense, but it the thing on which grandmother sat and sowed my favorite quilt, or whatever sentimentality is tied up in that particular object. It's very different from ILI abstraction.
Also Warren Buffet might be another good example of an SLI "intellectual". He has a very simple philosophy. Buy low, wait, and sell high. It's not predicated on (possibly fallible) visions of the future that Gamma NTs like Keynes tend to be guided by. He's aware that stocks have gone up and down in the past, and so he is essentially just being still and holding onto things until the past comes again (which is related to his vortical-synergetic cognition).
Another example would be why he likes stocks in cigarette companies. He said something like, "They have great consumer loyalty". He's highly aware that cigarettes can become crucial to maintaining homeostasis.
To me, in their own way, both of these men seem astonishingly brilliant, but it's not exactly "abstraction" or "intellectual".
David Lynch commenting on a similar phenomenon, 0:00- around.4:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1sfVpw9OY&feature=kp
Contra, ignore Solaris/Rosewood's of typing of Taleb. I don't know where in the hell she got Alpha NT, but I think she just pulled it out of her ass. Taleb is pretty much the most anti-Ti author I've ever read. He derides theory at every chance he gets, and champions empiricism to the point of barely even having connective tissue which makes his empiricism sensible.
MensSuperMateriam, I think you got it right. I think Taleb is a Ni-LIE. He wrote a book, Antifragile, which is basically an ode to vortical-synergetic cognition. It's all about scorning theories in favor of experimenting in the free market. Taleb said, "I love to make right mistakes". The vortical synergetic page says, "Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error; they will undertake attempt after attempt until success ultimately comes to them." When I first read the latter sentence, I thought how well it would fit into Taleb's work.
As for Aristocracy, Taleb proclaims that prostitutes and taxi drivers are some of the most "antifragile" of professions (and therefore, implicitly some of the best) because it allows those who choose them to stochastically tinker with the market, to intermingle with a wide range of clients, and to diversify their income sources. If someone says, "Oh, well, he's talking about groups of people, he must be aristocrat!" from this, I might just about scream, because, once again, it's a failure to imaginatively digest the theory. These professions have an almost "antiprestige" in the Ne/Fi/Te/Si sense, if you were to associate yourself with one of these groups at a Delta outing, it would result in you receiving condescending pity and a lowering of status. Taleb scorns the largest Delta Neopuritan aristocracy of today, the middle class. He only appreciates "old money" because it is a way to escape being a wage slave, not because of the status it confers. He turns aristocracy on its head. I think he is a democrat.
lmao. I mean Whoobie has now healed his wound and is getting here brave telling Contra what to do as if he didn't have a brain of his own. There's an older discussion of Taleb here : http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...1-Nassim-Taleb. There's no way he's a Gamma. He approaches Ti-Ne topics in his works (critique of squeezing people into predefined categories rather than suspending categorization, eulogy of randomness and so on). There's no Te in his work, though I can see why one would be tempted to say VS cog.
Let me just start by saying that there were quite a few so I will just pick ones that stand out to me the most.
-I'm a hypochondriac too. I'm usually wary of pretty much any strange sensation in my body, but my LSE father who is a doctor usually just says it's nothing and I shut up. I also have the need to understand all of my quirks, psychological or otherwise, so I end up giving myself all kinds of diagnoses.
-My texts don't sound overly Ni either. Ni in communication is something that someone almost has to activate in me for it to really come out. IEIs do this for me rather easily.
-I feel the need to "transform something that already exists or to build something that has yet to become".
-I live inside my mind.
-I don't find it hard to express my ideas in a way that can be grasped by everyone. You mentioned that ILIs can have a tendency to almost start talking to themselves when they are relaying ideas. Usually when that happens it's because I'm hashing out the idea for the first time, and I start to pay attention to my own thoughts, which are often visual in nature. Once I'm done understanding it myself I don't have a problem with relaying it in a simple fashion.
-Your comment on mental states and symbolism, I understand also.
This entire post of yours really strikes a chord with me:
But the truth is I can be reallyI realize a lot of types could probably identify with these points, but, whatever, here you go.polemicist when I'm in a heated discussion and I know many people dislike this aspect of myself (if not myself as a whole) both here and IRL.
I have not said inflexible (neither I think I am), but I tend to state my opinion as it is, usually without too much consideration about being politically correct. If I have to be disliked because of this well, so be it. But I do not try to impose my POV; when I do this is usually because the other person is not debating in a neutral way.
I'm notactively unpleasant as long as the other person isn't either, but I have little patience with those who see themselves as "right by default" (or other forms of bullshit, like I see things you cannot because X function) and interact with me in such way. Then I'll try to smash them as hard as I can.
With those who are more or less neutral, I usually have no problem.
Considering how much you already know about Socionics, I'm actually a little surprised that you haven't found type descriptions helpful enough to make a typing (I assume).
Last edited by Contra; 07-16-2014 at 05:10 AM.
Good to know that I'm not alone... Even if I'm quite skeptical about his dichotomies, Reinin has made imo a good work in his type descriptions, pointing some aspects in them which are quite consistent. ILIs are supposed to be more hypochondriac than the average person, and also in a way that they're difficult for being diagnosed, with all sort of unusual, hard to be described, symptoms. It fits with Si being simultaneously unvalued but conscious, but not too weak for being "ignored", hence Role. True that a particular characteristic could manifest in many individuals for different reasons, but some statistical deviation should usually manifest.
Makes sense. I guess some ILIs just do not care if understood or not, and do not take the time and effort in it (ignoring people). Sociability and enneagram factors could contribute to this; a 5w6 will usually write/speak in a more understandable style than a 5w4, for example.-I don't find it hard to express my ideas in a way that can be grasped by everyone. You mentioned that ILIs can have a tendency to almost start talking to themselves when they are relaying ideas. Usually when that happens it's because I'm hashing out the idea for the first time, and I start to pay attention to my own thoughts, which are often visual in nature. Once I'm done understanding it myself I don't have a problem with relaying it in a simple fashion.
If I focus in type descriptions, ILI fits better than the alternatives.Considering how much you already know about Socionics, I'm actually a little surprised that you haven't found type descriptions helpful enough to make a typing (I assume).
But you know, there are individuals who are quite close to the archetype, and individuals who are not so close. Most people are full of contradictions; they will manifest a set of behaviors which are not internally consistent. In this case some people opt for choosing a particular coherent set and they stablish their self-type accordingly, but in this process they are ignoring what doesn't fit. I see this a bit arbitrary and prone to bias. Add to this that the correlation supposed cause->supposed effect depend on a particular interpretation of the topic. Proving the accuracy of one interpretation above the other is usually not possible, except in the most senseless cases.
As there's no way of objectively determining a solution, I prefer assigning a degree of confidence to potential types than picking one of them as the answer. In the process, I like to gather as much data as I can.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 07-16-2014 at 01:24 PM.
That Einstein's particular behavior is imo not related to his "social attitude". Ti ego explains it more easily: "I have my framework and I'm internally convinced about its validity, regardless external sources". I am aware that Ti ego implies Te id, but I'm talking about the attitude to ideas, in opposition to the attitude to outcomes.
I understand your point, but I disagree. You're taking in consideration the strength of the functions, but it represents what I can and not what I want. If we admit that your interpretation of the consequences of Fe in agenda vs outcome is true, you are still talking about personal attitudes to problems. Considering if the function is valued or not is imo more critical than its strength. An ILE will tend to pick Ti over Te despite the last is supposed to be stronger, because the former is valued and the later is not.Today thru the lense of history, even some of what Einstein thought was wrong about what he did is proving to be more right than wrong or at least signifigant. End of the day IEE's are a passionate types, these are all 4D
In the field of motivations for acting in a way or not, valuing matters the most. ILEs are Fe-HA and such kind of attiude of "promoting agenda" is not alien to them, neither in SLEs. In fact, it's not too uncommon, even if the type is broad (as all of them) and there are cases from one extreme to the opposite.
You can still argue than in your personal typings of people, the observation fits with your POV, but in the same way I've seen such behavior more usually in Fe-HAs than IEEs. SEEs are a bit particular and it depends a lot on the user, because of Se dom. The same way you offered Einstein I offer to you Huxley, who was clearly against "social agenda" in his strong support of Darwin.
I agree. That's what I was trying to state but it seems I wasn't clear enough. I use cues that do not correlate with physical attributes: gaze, gesturing, smile, voice intonation, etc, and others that cannot be easily described, hence the words impression and aura I have used many times when talking about V.I.
Neat description.If you read Heidegger, I think that's what an SLI "theorist" sounds like. He has a similar disdain for Plato's Ti ideal forms and classifications as the ILIs, but his entire revisionist epistemology begins with "equipmentality", how things can serve as tools for physical tasks. He has another concept known as "facticity" which I believe to be sort of analogous with Si: a chair is not "a chair" in a Ti sense, but it the thing on which grandmother sat and sowed my favorite quilt, or whatever sentimentality is tied up in that particular object. It's very different from ILI abstraction.
I have always "felt" that as Ni, but I have not seen it described in such terms here. Or at least, I cannot recall.David Lynch commenting on a similar phenomenon, 0:00- around.4:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1sfVpw9OY&feature=kp
Ego-bias is a common flaw in post-Freudian psychology and I think you make the same mistake along with many socionists and post-freudian psychologists. The unconscious exterts a powerful influence which cannot be underestimated.
8th function is a evaluatory function where as 2nd function is a situation function, secondary functions are always more flexible than the demonstrative function which is a "worldview function" along with the 1st, Einstein was never really convinced of the internal validity of his frameworks, as he never produced a framework as a product for us to digest, he was notoriously unsure of things like the cosmological constant and other parts of his ideas which he criticized about himself. Nevertheless many of these things he was uncertain of casts a shadow on modern physics. It's possible his cosmological constant is dark energy, it could be something else. Einstein was always flexible about his framework, he was merely skeptical of the ontological perspective produced via the quantum mechanics of his time, which he considered inadequate to describe reality.
His stubbornness against quantum mechanics despite it's theoretical and mathematical prowess was that it did not in his estimation describe reality and was not a adequate ontological perspective. This is a product of hisignoring and
Function preference is important in inter-type relationships and has a major effect in communication but functional preference becomes less primary in what a individual does and and their cognitive mechanics, a individuals conscious and unconscious thoughts are dominated by the 1st and 8th function as these are the strongest functions and take precedence over everything. These 2 functions are the lenses by which reality is filtered and essentially limiters to what a individual will cognitive accept, the creative function is merely a tool to handle some of the challenges/problems/opportunities which the 8th function encounters. It is also a way to communicate with the world in a conscious fashion instead of the uncontrolled and sometimes socially unacceptable manner which the 8th function deals with things.
Einstein never seriously promoted his counter-views since he had no substantive framework to counter the quantum mechanics of his time, his theory build days were at an end and his main objection to the theories of his time were skeptical and not creative. Huxley's actions fit a passionate type far more clearly as begin against "social agenda" is the same just another form of social agenda, he was a tireless promoter and far more promotional than even Darwin himself. I don't actually think you've understood what I've said fully either since you bring up a lot of points which I don't disagree with nor contradict what I've said. They're in fact in support of what I have said. Einstein did seek to fulfill his
It's very important to discard ego-bias in socionics because it is a more complete framework, where each function within a psyche interact, function preference has a major effect on communication and social expression but the other functions are no less important. It's also important to understand that although functions may be weak and painful in an individual that our weakness are just as important as strength as far as how we deal with life. It is by no mere coincidence that a ILE developed socionics and the idea of socionics, one who was in a poor relationship. Picking at a wound sometimes dominates an individuals thought processes.
Both seem SLI
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lynch might not be describing Ni, but, beyond socionics, beyond elements, I think the way that Lynch describes how "explaining" an event by trying to turn into words can often do the event injustice, and that one should trust the intuitive understanding inside oneself...I find these comments illuminating in a way I do not fully comprehend. Just thought it was interesting and at least related on an associative level. Not meant to be my Ni video benchmark, or anything.
(btw I will respond to your longer letter, but sometimes it takes time for me receive all of the ideas and arrange the structure.)
I was talking about the description I made and later you quoted and compared with Lynch (These symbols...), not Lynch itself. That is, I do not rember using the same words for describing a Ni aspect, even if it sounds quite consistent wich such function.
Hardly I did that. I used HA (Fe-HA) as the key motivator for "agenda" (even the words are in line). As you already know, mobilizing is unconscious. I said that talking about motivations, this function is more important that id ones. By the way, this is in line with mainstrean Socionics, not one of my "heretic POVs".
But let's suppose I did that. You're arguing that there is such thing as ego bias. even by many socionists. Similarly, they can argue that you have an unconscious bias, putting higher influence in this aspect that what it really is. So you should have an open mind for considering that maybe you are not weighting appropiately influences, unless you can prove your position which I doubt.
I personally recognize the influence of unconscious, but I think this concept is somehow abused. For example, if conscious is static unconscious is dynamic, and vice-versa. I personally think that if we associate static/dynamic to brain processes, this aspect points to a metabolic rythm, so to speak, therefore the whole brain has to go more or less in one way (always compared with the averaged human). I do not think that Socionics "unconscious" is something truly differentiated, but more like an "instinct" that notices what it is lacked, a sort of the whole minus what I am.
Anyway, that you agree or not with such vision of unconscious is not the point. I used it, not ignored it. But I put the key in superid, not id.
By the way, some person could suggest you could have a sort of ILE bias (at least in this case), because you're arguing how this type supposedly have the positive value of a characteristic (from your POV) whereas the counterparts (Fe-lead/dem) have not. But many profiles and personal observations would disagree with you...
The physical discussion about if he was right or not in some of his views is not relevant here, only his potential attitude. And about such attitude, many descriptions about him will disagree with you. He didn't just thought it was inadequate, he thought it was wrong. Maybe he didn't negated experimental results, but he refused to accept the interpretation of reality they were suggesting. That's a very pro-Ti and anti-Te attitude by every standard.Einstein was never really convinced of the internal validity of his frameworks, as he never produced a framework as a product for us to digest, he was notoriously unsure of things like the cosmological constant and other parts of his ideas which he criticized about himself. Nevertheless many of these things he was uncertain of casts a shadow on modern physics. It's possible his cosmological constant is dark energy, it could be something else. Einstein was always flexible about his framework, he was merely skeptical of the ontological perspective produced via the quantum mechanics of his time, which he considered inadequate to describe reality.
His stubbornness against quantum mechanics despite it's theoretical and mathematical prowess was that it did not in his estimation describe reality and was not a adequate ontological perspective. This is a product of his
I understand you, I just think that when a concept has several interpretations (in causes, nature and consequences) you tend to pick up those with line up with your POV and ignore alternatives because potential contradictions, making all ot it coherent and rounded but not necessarily true.Einstein never seriously promoted his counter-views since he had no substantive framework to counter the quantum mechanics of his time, his theory build days were at an end and his main objection to the theories of his time were skeptical and not creative. Huxley's actions fit a passionate type far more clearly as begin against "social agenda" is the same just another form of social agenda, he was a tireless promoter and far more promotional than even Darwin himself. I don't actually think you've understood what I've said fully either since you bring up a lot of points which I don't disagree with nor contradict what I've said. They're in fact in support of what I have said. Einstein did seek to fulfill his
Fe-HA as social causes only for example, as you're doing here. There are a lot of interpretations of the consequences of Fe-HA which go against this positive view, profiling ILEs ans SLEs as sometimes very pro social agendas, ignoring true "internal outcome" (so to speak) for gaining external profit. That is, focusing in "satisfying" Fe-HA over Te dem, and not after and secondarily to Te dem. I insist; id is unvalued.
By the way, it seems you could have a bit of a fixation with Einstein. We can argue all day about him, but in the long run a case is just a case. Regardless how "marvellous" he could be, he's just one individual. And there are some obscure aspects of him; just in case you didn't know, he was a shitty father. If you're looking for a positive example of an ILE I think Tesla is much better.
I doubt some/many of the Founding Fathers will agree with you, even if they totally could disagree with me (not that it is a bad thing per se). For example, Reinin has a very different view from what 8th function is. Of course you could argue that those who disagree with you have a conscious bias. But then it could be argued you have an unconscious bias, or any alternative.8th function is a evaluatory function where as 2nd function is a situation function, secondary functions are always more flexible than the demonstrative function which is a "worldview function" along with the 1st.
Function preference is important in inter-type relationships and has a major effect in communication but functional preference becomes less primary in what a individual does and and their cognitive mechanics, a individuals conscious and unconscious thoughts are dominated by the 1st and 8th function as these are the strongest functions and take precedence over everything. These 2 functions are the lenses by which reality is filtered and essentially limiters to what a individual will cognitive accept, the creative function is merely a tool to handle some of the challenges/problems/opportunities which the 8th function encounters. It is also a way to communicate with the world in a conscious fashion instead of the uncontrolled and sometimes socially unacceptable manner which the 8th function deals with things.
You're using 1th and 8th as key functions, but I see it no different from saying that 1th and 2th are the most relevant. Instead ego bias, dimensionality-bias.
...
Taking in consideration our previous discussions I suspect we will waste several posts constantly disagreeing in many details for ending as we started. So I'll try to go directly to what probably will be my ending point.
About this case, regardless I agree with you or not in how important 8th is for worldview, my point is for motivations (what I want), mobilizing matters more than demostrative. Valued/unvalued. Having a social agenda as more important than the true internal outcome of an idea is a thing of wanting something, not a thing of being able to do/see something. Valuing matters the most imo.
Beyond this, I do not doubt that you frequently use all aspects of the model much more than me. But I see it as a drawback more than an advantage. The more aspects you consider (reinin dichotomies, contact/inert, whatever), the more easily you can end justifying watever case you want. Just pick and weight what you need more than the alternative...
I'm more interested in using such aspects than I personally consider that could have an higher degree of confidence than using more but less trustable aspects. If you have followed that Cpig's thread, you already know how I see the problematic of all of this (alongside our previous conversations).
A conclusion cannot contain more truthness than the premises which originated them (Russell: a false premise can prove anything). Instead "believing" in the validity of such constellation of deduced concepts/aspects, I prefer to focus in accurately correlating the core with reality.
If you plan to continue with this conversation, please use your modpowers for splitting it from the type-me thread, it's too far from its purpose.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 07-18-2014 at 10:56 AM.
You've written a bit too much without really understanding what I said so it sort of becomes a lot of things that don't represent what I am explaining to you.
Yes ego/super-id is important, ego is the main defense mechanism and super-id the motivational mechanism(but hardly experienced independently). However, the id is doing a lot of the grunt work in the background and is the soil for the toil. The 8th function is a 4d evaluatory/contact/producing function, whereas mobilizing is 2d inert, situational, producing function. So one function is a area of strong judgements, contact with the enviroment while the other is case-by-case and self-contained. There is a reason the "hidden-agenda" is hidden, and it's quite the hidden motivator. There is a ego-bias in a lot of socionic writing, and infact Aushra has such a bias because of her focus on intertype relations. Consequently she also focused heavily on the super-id due to its interaction with the ego. However, this doesn't mean that the id/super-ego has somehow disappeared, or do not contribute equally to a individuals personality.
Each block, id/ego/super-ego/super-id are necessarily described in socionics and it is really contingent on the individual which area can have the primary role in any given situation, however the ego is the social defense mechanism which is why it's easier to analyze by others when looking at an individuals known behavior. I don't dismiss the ego or super-id I simply don't associate them with some things which you have chosen to do. I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation so I'll let this be my final post.
If you say so.
More of the same. Even if "I haven't understood you" I have stated several arguments that go globally against you way of using Socionics, and therefore will still apply.Yes ego/super-id is important, ego is the main defense mechanism and super-id the motivational mechanism(but hardly experienced independently). However, the id is doing a lot of the grunt work in the background and is the soil for the toil. The 8th function is a 4d evaluatory/contact/producing function, whereas mobilizing is 2d inert, situational, producing function. So one function is a area of strong judgements, contact with the enviroment while the other is case-by-case and self-contained. There is a reason the "hidden-agenda" is hidden, and it's quite the hidden motivator.
Your way of dealing with such arguments is apparently repeating (even if expanded) what you have already said/used: contact/intert, situational, etc. I have stated why I think these aspects are problematic, and this just does not dissapear when it is ignored.
Of course you can argue this is mainstream Socionics, and that I'm wrong. Buy they're not automatically valid because they're mainstream Socionics, or even because they're just Socionics. There's no point in repeating an argument which I have already criticized, if you are not going to argue why my critic is invalid.
You should already know that I have no interest in beliefs.
More bullshit. You say there's an ego bias. Prove it, that it is really a bias, and as you are assuming, all contributes equally. If you can't, then express it as it is, just your opinion, and not as a fact.There is a ego-bias in a lot of socionic writing, and infact Aushra has such a bias because of her focus on intertype relations. Consequently she also focused heavily on the super-id due to its interaction with the ego. However, this doesn't mean that the id/super-ego has somehow disappeared, or do not contribute equally to a individuals personality.
Sorry but everybody is wrong but me is a form of delusion.
Good. This is the most reasonable part in all your post. I also don't associate some behavoral aspects with the causes you understand as such.Each block, id/ego/super-ego/super-id are necessarily described in socionics and it is really contingent on the individual which area can have the primary role in any given situation, however the ego is the social defense mechanism which is why it's easier to analyze by others when looking at an individuals known behavior. I don't dismiss the ego or super-id I simply don't associate them with some things which you have chosen to do.
Not surprising, if you are not willing to question your POV. But a legitimate choice, of course.I'm not really interested in continuing the conversation so I'll let this be my final post.
Last edited by MensSuperMateriam; 07-18-2014 at 07:42 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote