^ Seriously. I didn't even bother reading it all the exchange was so childish.
When I originally started this thread it mattered to me what my "type" was, but now I have become less interested in that and more into how I can improve my life and those around me by the choices I make.
I have considered it as possibly deliberate, though not absolutely. Anyhow, your point is odd, since you seem to be saying that only F wouldn't be able to suspect that you were being deliberate, and I don't know why that would be the case.
You're wrong about that. No matter what your intentions are, if you say something that is not logically cogent, then it is not logically cogent.
Textbooks don't always explain things in a logically cogent way either.
They're also rarely wrong.
Ya don't have to explain things logically to be right. You only have to explain things logically to garner the respect of people who, if worthy of respect, would be able to piece things together without logical cogency.
That would simply make you what is conventionally called a troll or a flamer
Nothing in the quoted section points at all toward being a troll. I spoke only about how the arrogance (as you like to call it) keeps me from bothering to explain things to you.
If you think that's a troll, then look up troll 'cause you don't know what it is.
which is hardly something I haven't considered.
What the hell is this? You really ought to read a few of your posts kid...
Reading things like this, seeing the clumsy, frivolous use of words suggests (and this is a habit of yours -- not an isolated event) that you're not paying a great deal of attention to what you're saying.
My overall point about you
Well this isn't about me, is it?
is that it is damned one way or the other. you're an illogical, irrational mess
Who never seems to get the answer wrong...
or you are someone that indulgences in being negative and problematic. As I said, neither my T nor my F can make anything good out of you. One makes you fail on logical grounds, the other makes you fail on ethical grounds. You are bound to fail.
The only failure here is yours. That you can't pull together my sentiments into a logical whole, is only your problem.
Listen to me very carefully.
Remember the ego you mentioned earlier? I'll confess to it being mostly real. I'm conceited to where I have little interest in explaining things to where the commoner can comprehend. They own their misunderstanding. Not me.
Actually using poor logic on the other hand, is not the same.
I get the right answer, because the world works by logical rules, and I'm highly adroit in finding and following them.
To explain, is not to understand. Understanding can be isolated from explanation.
"more than one", "almost never", "typically". Yes, precisely speaking, you did not say it has to be the case. You did not use absolutes, you used quantifiers. I didn't precisely reflect that fact in my question, and you caught me on it. Aren't you cute? But if you weren't evasive and nitpicky
I'm not being evasive. I'm not really being any more nitpicky than anyone ought to be.
The problem here is that you're being obtuse. Your abuse of English as I mentioned above, and combined with your evident distaste for proper use points out clearly that you've made it a habit to ignore important details. This obviously skews your perception of the big picture. I even doubt that you can understand anyone anymore because as bad a problem as this seems to be with you I find it impossible to believe that any analysis you might make would be undoubtedly flawed as the result of poor information collection. Again, these are not isolated events -- I pointed out to major faux pas in a single post.
you probably would have ignored that and gotten to the point that you must have clearly known I was looking for
Well, let's take a look at the question you asked, and then my response:
Originally Posted by 2postsago
Originally Posted by Poriferan
Is that so? Why does that have to be the case?
Originally Posted by Nocapszy
It doesn't. And I didn't say it does.
Now, clearly, you didn't have a point. You asked a question. Why does that have to be the case? Perhaps you meant that as a rhetorical question, instead stating that it doesn't. If it was the latter, then my response was to agree with you. The likelihood you had any other intention ranges from stretch to lie.
As I've said, you've gotten that wrong.
No I haven't. I now redirect you to the points above where I clearly point out where you fail to correctly address my linguistic acumen. Which does, regardless of your willingness to believe it, substantially alter the big picture.
There's a huge range of different between, most of the time, and all of the time.
Concerns do require the use of Feeling. You have to have at least some very primal basis of good/bad values to be concerned about anything.
Which makes it nature -- not judgement; not Feeling.
Those values could involved pain and pleasure, or propagating ones seed, but the point is that concerns have to come back to a motive. Motives require Feeling.
None of this matters...
And if it is true, then it has no pertinence to whether you're an F or a T, unless you forgot to say "by the way, I have less motivation than most people" which isn't unbelievable given your history of leaving out or ignoring important factors.