This post has nothing to do with my opinions of any given functions. I'm pointing out that the motivation is more important than the surface behavior, regardless of which function(s) we're talking about.
People come to the erroneous conclusion that they use all the functions because they read descriptions that say, "Te users will commonly do x, y and z" and think to themselves, "But I do x, y and z sometimes, so I must be using Te when I do that!"
But you're not, because the same actions can carry completely different motivations when performed by different people. The broader point here is that functional attitudes are motivational value systems, not descriptions of observable surface behavior.
I'm a total loss as to how you interpreted this as anti-Fi, but then, I guess taking offense where none is intended is what INFPs do best.
For another example unrelated to Fi--
Te people will commonly take leadership roles in order to get situations under control and move toward the desired external world goal. But taking control of a situation is not automatically Te--any function might lead to a decision to take control of a situation; the function used is determined by why you did this, not what you did.
So Fe might motivate someone to take control of a situation because the Fe user thinks it's his social obligation to do so.
Or Ti might motivate someone to take control of a situation because the Ti user thinks it would be inconsistent for him not to.
Or Se might motivate someone to take control of a situation because the Se user thinks that's the best way to make an immediate impact and that he has a gut feeling that it's what he should do.
etc. etc...."I took control of the situation to get a goal completed" =/= "I used Te"; when discussing functions we're referring to motivation, not behavior.