I do not have "subjectivist values," though I am an INTj, and neither does Sergei Ganin or Pedro.
I do not have "subjectivist values," though I am an INTj, and neither does Sergei Ganin or Pedro.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
And how do you explain that?Originally Posted by MysticSonic
You seem pretty sure that you are an INTj yourself, despite the fact that there are some clear indications that you could be an INTp (for example your identification with some of the dichotomies that are INTp related and your identification (?) with MBTI profiles of INTPs).
As for Sergei Ganin, he has expressed very clear subjectivistic, relativistic views in discussions on his forum. I recall, for example, one we had about logic and mathematical truths.
"You seem pretty sure that you are an INTj yourself, despite the fact that there are some clear indications that you could be an INTp (for example your identification with some of the dichotomies that are INTp related and your identification (?) with MBTI profiles of INTPs). "
I identified with none of the polarities that INTps fall on the Reinin dichotomies except democratism, which is an INTj trait as well as an INTp trait.
"As for Sergei Ganin, he has expressed very clear subjectivistic, relativistic views in discussions on his forum. I recall, for example, one we had about logic and mathematical truths."
Well, Pedro has clearly differing opinions, and is most certainly an INTj.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
it doesn't pan out for me
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
"it doesn't pan out for me"
What doesn't?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Maybe you are an INTj. But even in that case you seem to have some misconceptions about yourself. You mention Merry as one of your chore dichotomies. How can you do that if you don't identify with Subjectivist? That is almost a contradiction. If you are an INTj you are a Subjectivist, even if you don't realize that yet. You also say that you are easily Careless, which you shouldn't be (and absolutely not "easily") if you are an INTj.
And you should not, under any circumstances, identify more with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTPs than with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTJs. If you still do that, you definitely have an incorrect picture of yourself.
(God you're full of shit...)
And why not? INTPs MBTI/Kiersey functions are TiNe, which is representative of Socionics INTj. What do you have to say to that?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Phaedrus, wouldn't you agree though that your definitions of "subjectivist," "relativist" and "objectivist" in this case wouldn't necessarily match the way others use those terms? It seems that you have a very specific definition for those terms that may be different from what MysticSonic has in mind.
It appears to me that just because someone is INTj doesn't mean that person wouldn't agree with the statement "absolute truth exists." And just because someone is INTp doesn't mean that person wouldn't happen to buy into some sort of philosophy that might be viewed as relativistic, for whatever reason.
I would suspect, rather, that for you, objectivist means a certain focus on empiricism, a tendency to want to test things, and modify them according to results, whereas subjectivist means a tendency to want to build one's understanding based on certain precepts in such a way that there may be no "intuitive" or "geometric" (i.e., visualizable) interpretation; and such a conception of reality may appear to others to be arbitrary or subjective. Something like that, anyway...?
That's complete psuedo-T bullshit. I don't know if that isAnd you should not, under any circumstances, identify more with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTPs than with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTJs. If you still do that, you definitely have an incorrect picture of yourself.trying to be
or the other way around, or what. (actually, you sound a WHOLE LOT like an INTJ there, and I don't even think you know it. An INTJ would prefer certainty and closure, as opposed to an INTP who would much rather leave things open.
Its completely backwards. I cannot imagine thinking that way I think you're giving these profiles and profilers way too much credit -- who are they, gods who have human beings recuded to 16 wonderful catagories? I don't think so. If it were that easy, Phaedrus, then things would be going a hell of a lot smoother.
But this isn't a super nintendo gameThere are more controls than ABXY and the d-pad. Way too narrow a scope.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
"How can you do that if you don't identify with Subjectivist? That is almost a contradiction. If you are an INTj you are a Subjectivist, even if you don't realize that yet."
The merry and serious dichotomy represents SEMANTICS, which are undeniably relative lest their exist some pre-existing entity that somehow objectifies a certain set of semantics.
"You also say that you are easily Careless, which you shouldn't be (and absolutely not "easily") if you are an INTj. "
This is true, supposedly, and it is also true that there is a level of ambiguity of my own type as far as ENTp and INTj is concerned, however, the level of certainty that I possess intuitively and from general reasoning is sufficient enough for me to believe that I'm INTj. I explain away this dichotomy intellectually simply because I have given little care to my "external" world, alotting most of my structural ability towards my "inner" world of ideas and beliefs.
"And you should not, under any circumstances, identify more with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTPs than with the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions of INTJs. If you still do that, you definitely have an incorrect picture of yourself."
Perhaps you wish to identify these obvious contradictions between the INTj profile and INTP profile, in which I place full faith in neither.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
That it is wrong. And I have tried to explain that more than once before. The TiNe in an INTP are not the same functions asAnd why not? INTPs MBTI/Kiersey functions are TiNe, which is representative of Socionics INTj. What do you have to say to that?in an INTj. They only appear to be. That they have the same name is unlucky, because then people, like yourself, assume that an INTP has the same dominant function as an INTj, which is not true. I have already talked about that in one of my posts in this thread.
Yes, that might be true. But if so, my understanding of them is the correct one.
Correct. But a subjectivist (in the sense described in the socionic dichotomies) has clear relativistic tendences, and an objectivist will, sooner or later, realize that being a relativist goes against his true nature. That is exactly what happened to me when I was about 25 years old.It appears to me that just because someone is INTj doesn't mean that person wouldn't agree with the statement "absolute truth exists." And just because someone is INTp doesn't mean that person wouldn't happen to buy into some sort of philosophy that might be viewed as relativistic, for whatever reason.
Something like that, yes. And that is consistent with what is said in the descriptions.I would suspect, rather, that for you, objectivist means a certain focus on empiricism, a tendency to want to test things, and modify them according to results, whereas subjectivist means a tendency to want to build one's understanding based on certain precepts in such a way that there may be no "intuitive" or "geometric" (i.e., visualizable) interpretation; and such a conception of reality may appear to others to be arbitrary or subjective. Something like that, anyway...?
@ MysticSonic
The merry and serious dichotomy represents SEMANTICS, which are undeniably relative lest their exist some pre-existing entity that somehow objectifies a certain set of semantics.Typical merry/subjectivist answer! I think you are an INTj after all!
I have met more than one real life ENTp who has been pretty convinced they were introverts. If you are an ENTp that would explain why you can identify with the MBTI descriptions of INTPs. I suggest you don't dismiss that possibility without further consideration."You also say that you are easily Careless, which you shouldn't be (and absolutely not "easily") if you are an INTj. "
This is true, supposedly, and it is also true that there is a level of ambiguity of my own type as far as ENTp and INTj is concerned, however, the level of certainty that I possess intuitively and from general reasoning is sufficient enough for me to believe that I'm INTj. I explain away this dichotomy intellectually simply because I have given little care to my "external" world, alotting most of my structural ability towards my "inner" world of ideas and beliefs.
It should suffice with one obvious contradiction. The INTP is described as a clear P type with an IP temperament. The INTj is described as a clear J type with an IJ temperament. I really think you should read Stratiyevskaya's type descriptions of the INTj and the INTp. It is absolutely clear the she describes the INTp as a P type in the same way an INTP is a P type, and she describes the INTj as a clear J type in the same way as an INTJ is a J type.Perhaps you wish to identify these obvious contradictions between the INTj profile and INTP profile, in which I place full faith in neither.
You don't seem to have understood that distinction correctly. Wanting closure is what you express here, when you are unwilling to discuss and anlyze the issue further and maybe consider the possibility that you are wrong, whereas I have left "things" (the problems in Socionics for example) open until I now, after many years of research and analyzing, have come to an (almost - P!) certain conclusion. That difference between J and P behaviour is much better illustrated in everyday life situations, than in theoretical discussions. But if you think about it, I am the one who expresses an objectivistic, serious attitude here, whereas you express a subjectivistic, merry attitude. Don't confuse that with preferring closure as opposed to leaving things open.
Another thing. If you feel that you don't understand how I think and reason, that is a strong indication that we are not the same type. There is no way that I can be the same type as Sergei Ganin. So, if I am an INTj, you should understand my thinking process quite easy, considering that you are intelligent, and you would not get especially irritated by what I say, and Ganin would necessarily be mistyped.
In my book, being MBTI INTJ doesn't correlate with anything. It's just the result on a Meyers Briggs Type Indicator test. To me, it does not directly relate to socioncs or anything else.
I am not saying that you are my type. I am not really concerned about your type. I just have an issue with the reasonings you presented
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
What is there to analyze? I disagree with you.You don't seem to have understood that distinction correctly. Wanting closure is what you express here, when you are unwilling to discuss and anlyze the issue further and maybe consider the possibility that you are wrong, whereas I have left "things" (the problems in Socionics for example) open until I now, after many years of research and analyzing, have come to an (almost - P!) certain conclusion. That difference between J and P behaviour is much better illustrated in everyday life situations, than in theoretical discussions. But if you think about it, I am the one who expresses an objectivistic, serious attitude here, whereas you express a subjectivistic, merry attitude. Don't confuse that with preferring closure as opposed to leaving things open.
And you've jumped to a conclusion about me being unwilling to analyze the matter further. That is false. You have not presented anything that seems worthy enough of further analysis --- in otherwords, yes, you're saying a lot but it really doesn't seem like you're saying anything new. You're just finding new ways to justify your belief, and though they are extensive and perhaps intricate, you are still just expressing your opinion on the matter. (the matter is: that MBTI and Socionics types are one in the same)
now, I'm open to considering that your opinion could possibly be the universal standard, the way in which everyone ought to think about it. But at this moment in time, no, you have not convinced ME, at all, that your views should be the universal standard.
However, your determination is at least respectable, and I might write you a few pms to see where you stand more so, as to what you've written in the forums.
PS: you can say I'm subjective or merry or whatever else you'd like to bring up, but that doesn't negate my statements. Just because someone is of another dichotomey of you, that doesn't mean that your "objective" observations and findings shouldn't work for them.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Phaddy: look at the results of the pool. That's the final piece of empirical evidence you were asking for
UDP: don't really waste more than 3 lines of text with him
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Wait a second, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were appropriating those terms from philosophy, but now you're talking about Socionics dichotomies. Are there Reinin dichotomies called "objectivist" and "subjectivist"? I looked at some of the recent Reinin dichotomy threads and didn't find those.
By the way, I know you like the Reinin dichotomies a lot. I have a hard time with them because I find it hard to figure out why those weird patterns of types would display such enigmatically-described patterns of behavior, and I haven't seen anything about statistics regarding those dichotomies, proving a true link between all those behaviors and the 16 types.
Do you have any favorite sources of information on that?
'Objectivist' and 'Subjectivist' are another name for the Merry/Serious dichotomy - which is really a conflation of the F and T traits of the two quadra sets; i.e., 'Merry' refers to the Fe and 'Subjectivist' to the Ti of Alpha/Beta, and 'Serious' to the Fi and 'Objectivist' to the Te of Gamma/Delta.
I'll get back to you in a bit on the second part to that question (got the concepts, have to put them in text).
INTp
That is precisely what Phaedrus disagrees with, and I think he's right on that, but what you just wrote is why personally I don't spend any time on MBTI anymore.
Myers-Briggs have identified 16 types. If you look at the people who best identify with those 16 types, and you write profiles of them, these will largely describe the corresponding Socionics types too.
However, the idea that the MBTI type is:
- the combination of 4 dichotomies: E/I, S/N, F/T, J/P
- the result of the tests based on measuring such dichotomies
is so prevailing, that IMO it's a waste of time to discuss this. To achieve what?
The fact is that the vast majority of people will continue to assume that your MBTI type = test results.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Fascinating how many people can have this totally wrong idea about the MBTI types. Stop believing that your MBTI type is defined by the test result you get!!! You always have to "test" your test result by comparing it with the type descriptions. It is quite often the case that your correct MBTI type is not the same as your result on the MBTI test. That is explained in just about every book or manual about MBTI that I have read. Which books have you guys read?
Which is an argument (not conclusive, though) for the hypothesis that we could be Quasi-identicals.I am not saying that you are my type. I am not really concerned about your type. I just have an issue with the reasonings you presented
I want all of us to come to a consensus on these matters. Either I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I, Stratiyevskaya, Ganin, and some others, are wrong. In either case we have a lot of cleaning up to do. We should not accept these apparent contradictions in the socionic material and/or in our understanding of Socionics and the types.
What I want you to do is start looking in the direction I point at and try to see what I am talking about. Check my statements by going through the material yourself and draw your own conclusions. But don't dismiss the possibility that I could be 100 % right about the things I say.You have not presented anything that seems worthy enough of further analysis --- in otherwords, yes, you're saying a lot but it really doesn't seem like you're saying anything new. You're just finding new ways to justify your belief, and though they are extensive and perhaps intricate, you are still just expressing your opinion on the matter.
And that is because the only way I can try to convince you is to show you where and how to look at these things.now, I'm open to considering that your opinion could possibly be the universal standard, the way in which everyone ought to think about it. But at this moment in time, no, you have not convinced ME, at all, that your views should be the universal standard.
You're welcome.However, your determination is at least respectable, and I might write you a few pms to see where you stand more so, as to what you've written in the forums.
The results of the pool are alarming. They indicate that perhaps the majority of the people who are active in the discussions on this forum might have got the fundamentals wrong.Phaddy: look at the results of the pool. That's the final piece of empirical evidence you were asking for
UDP: don't really waste more than 3 lines of text with him
I hope you have checked all my posts in this thread, Jonathan, and maybe some of my other posts lately, too. If you go through them you will see that you are also an INTp.Wait a second, maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were appropriating those terms from philosophy, but now you're talking about Socionics dichotomies. Are there Reinin dichotomies called "objectivist" and "subjectivist"? I looked at some of the recent Reinin dichotomy threads and didn't find those.
By the way, I know you like the Reinin dichotomies a lot. I have a hard time with them because I find it hard to figure out why those weird patterns of types would display such enigmatically-described patterns of behavior, and I haven't seen anything about statistics regarding those dichotomies, proving a true link between all those behaviors and the 16 types.
Do you have any favorite sources of information on that?
Thanks, Expat. Finally someone from the Gamma quadra (except for Jonathan) who says some true and enligthening words.That is precisely what Phaedrus disagrees with, and I think he's right on that, but what you just wrote is why personally I don't spend any time on MBTI anymore.
Myers-Briggs have identified 16 types. If you look at the people who best identify with those 16 types, and you write profiles of them, these will largely describe the corresponding Socionics types too.
P.S. I'm sorry, dreikin. I forgot to mention you and your true and enlightening words.(Read what drekin writes, folks, especially his latest post in this thread. And learn from it!)
I have often said that I agree that MBTI and Socionics try to describe roughly the same kind of 16 types of people.
Where I disagree with you is on the usefulness of referring to MBTI. It only confuses things. Be satisfied that you are probably right and drop the matter, it's my advice.
But the problem is that many people seem to have incorrect views on the socionic types. And that is reflected in things they say about the MBTI types. I can stop talking about the MBTI types in an instant, if only we can solve this problem with people making mistypings based on incorrect conceptions of the functions and/or the socionic types. If people started to read the socionic type descriptions (especially the good ones, like Stratiyevskaya's) and compared them, they would have to realize that what they say about the functions and the types is inconsistent with what many leading socionists say.I have often said that I agree that MBTI and Socionics try to describe roughly the same kind of 16 types of people.
Where I disagree with you is on the usefulness of referring to MBTI. It only confuses things. Be satisfied that you are probably right and drop the matter, it's my advice.
The results of the pool are alarming. They indicate that perhaps the majority of the people who are active in the discussions on this forum might have got the fundamentals wrong.Phaddy: look at the results of the pool. That's the final piece of empirical evidence you were asking for
UDP: don't really waste more than 3 lines of text with him
you're joking, are you? Please, please read Jung's introverted thinking type and you'll recognize yourself
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No. I am not joking. And I have read Jung's descriptions many, many times. But I wonder how much time you have spent reflecting upon those descriptions and comparing them with the socionic descriptions, the MBTI descriptions, Keirsey's descriptions, the Enneagram descriptions, the patterns and ideas described in the book Human Dynamics, Sheldon's body types, Ernst Kretschmer's descriptions of the differences in thinking, behaviours and body types between cycloid/cyclothymic and schizoid/schizothymic temperaments, Spranger's ideal types, Karl Groos's philosophical types, William James's two temperament types, Karen Horney's very interesting descriptions in her book Neurosis and Human Growth, neuroscientific findings on personality disorders, autism-spectrum disorders, Asperger's Syndrome, ADHD, schizophrenia, executive functions, and other statistical, empirical findings on the differences between the types and other relevant groupings of people.
Unfortunately for you, I have done most of that. Exceptions:
Karl Groos's philosophical types
Karen Horney's very interesting descriptions in her book Neurosis and Human Growth
the patterns and ideas described in the book Human Dynamics<-- don't have the books
I haven't really "reflected" over them because all the behaviour is clearly displayed by many people I already knew.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Then you have drawn the wrong (probably to hasty) conclusions. You have based your understanding of those people on false assumptions, and you don't see the whole picture. You don't seem to be aware of the pieces that don't fit your puzzle, or if you do see them you decide to ignore them.
My view on this is the only one that seems to be compatible with all those different sources of information. Your view is definitely not. And besides that your typing skills are in bad shape. You have a too simplistic and incorrect understanding of the
You really should start from scratch and review all your assumptions on the functions and the types. It is very likely that you haven't paid enough attention to the type descriptions, and I suggest you read very carefully what Stratiyevskaya has to say about INTjs and INTps.
Then you have drawn the wrong (probably to hasty) conclusions. You have based your understanding of those people on false assumptions, and you don't see the whole picture.
Too bad I've always been able to function in the world perfectly. I guess it was just that the random walk of all the particle in the world randomly coincided with my world wiev, right??
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You still don't get it ... But I guess your attitude is not untypical of an ESTp. You say that you have "been able to function in the world perfectly"!? And when did that become relevant to the issue at stake? What is at stake here is the whole theory of Socionics. It's about the objective truth, god damn it! But that doeesn't seem to bother you much, as long as you can "function"! Of course you can continue to function in the world with your false beliefs about types and functions, if you want to, but why the heck do you think anyone else should be interested in that? We are here to find the truth (or at least I am) about our own nature, about the types, about the theoretical frameworks etc. But you don't contribute to that very much.Then you have drawn the wrong (probably to hasty) conclusions. You have based your understanding of those people on false assumptions, and you don't see the whole picture.
Too bad I've always been able to function in the world perfectly. I guess it was just that the random walk of all the particle in the world randomly coincided with my world wiev, right??
If my assumptions were wrong, then all the behaviour derived from them would have not been suitable means for the ends that I posited myself. Since this is not true, then my assumption must be right at least to the extent that they make me predict how the environment functions, gotcha?You still don't get it ... But I guess your attitude is not untypical of an ESTp. You say that you have "been able to function in the world perfectly"!?Then you have drawn the wrong (probably to hasty) conclusions. You have based your understanding of those people on false assumptions, and you don't see the whole picture.
Too bad I've always been able to function in the world perfectly. I guess it was just that the random walk of all the particle in the world randomly coincided with my world wiev, right??
Again, re-read what I wrote. If I can function, then it necessarily must be either true, or the result of a competely random but wondrously coincident pathaway. Please do the math by yourself.And when did that become relevant to the issue at stake? What is at stake here is the whole theory of Socionics. It's about the objective truth, god damn it! But that doeesn't seem to bother you much, as long as you can "function"! Of course you can continue to function in the world with your false beliefs about types and functions, if you want to, but why the heck do you think anyone else should be interested in that?
Most of your contributions are around how you are INTp and everybody else is wrong for defining you an INTj. Now, do you think this is a relevant issue? My scrotum has probably more relevance than this.We are here to find the truth (or at least I am) about our own nature, about the types, about the theoretical frameworks etc. But you don't contribute to that very much.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
This problem is likely to remain unsolved.
Too many people make typings with base on a superficial understanding of the types, and then using mistyped individuals as base to type others. This will continue to happen.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Phaedrus, did you even READ my post? Care to point out the apparent inconsistencies between the INTj and INTP descriptions?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Let's conduct some empiric research to see where we stand...
Phaedrus vs Forum...
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...us&word2=Forum
sorry Phaedrus...you got your ass kicked badly
Phaedrus INTj vs Phaedrus INTp
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...=Phaedrus+INTp
hmm...pretty even...but it seems you are a tiny bit ahead in this fight...it is interesting to see how this one will end. It can still turn either way...Better not give up yet.
Yeah, I read it. But it is not that easy to point out those inconsistencies in an instant. There are more than one INTj description and there are more than one INTP description. What we should compare is not only two such descriptions but many. It is the overall picture of those two types that is relevant, and a further problem is that we of course will find many similarities between them, too. The many similarities between INTps and INTjs makes it difficult to distinguish between them, and that is one of the main reasons people tend to confuse them and mistype them.
But it is not impossible to see what I am getting at. We have to start somewhere, though, and can't you start with reading what I say about Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of INTjs and INTps on page 3 in the thread Balanced between subtype?
http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...r=asc&start=30
I think we should try to find some sort of common ground first, and I say a few things about MBTI INTPs in that post. Is there any particular INTP description that you identify with?
Let's conduct some empiric research to see where we stand...
Phaedrus vs Forum...
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...us&word2=Forum
sorry Phaedrus...you got your ass kicked badly
Phaedrus INTj vs Phaedrus INTp
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...=Phaedrus+INTp
hmm...pretty even...but it seems you are a tiny bit ahead in this fight...it is interesting to see how this one will end. It can still turn either way...Better not give up yet.
very nice.
Reply With Quote
