Even if people didn't read the original post and follow it, there was still a good discussion, no? Your original post isn't the most clear post with the most obvious question to answer, either... it mentions children's functions, what percieving and judging really mean, and the relationship between dominant and judging functions, so it should be no surpise that different people discussed different things. I think it was a great post for that reason, really... it has us thinking about several interrelated things.
I think it makes some sense with how children could have one strong function and a bunch of vague ones. We often measure the strength of our functions as a percentage (i.e. 70% Te, 60% Ni, 85% Fi, 55% Se, or whatever). For children, maybe only one of their functions has developed enough to be apparent (i.e. maybe 25% Te, but only single digit percentiles for the other functions, making them insignificant). Thats my theory for now, anyway, I'm not sure how that aligns with the true MBTI theory.
Is that what you intended to discuss in the original post?