it's not really about numbers; it's the tone of what y'all said. i went back through the whole thread and reread everything to make sure i wasn't off, and i do notice that stuff has been deleted, so maybe i haven't seen everything. but in general, this is my impression -- it seems like orobas was doing a lot of type-based interpretation, and when she declined to interpret using a different paradigm, you made a few strong statements directed at her specifically, calling her out on something negative. she refused, continuing to interpret with MBTI, and you both got frustrated.
i agree with you saying that she seemed to be reducing a lot to type, things that might be totally type-independent, and then making generalizations based off of that. not to reduce to type myself, but she and i are the same type, and i know that i can get very caught up in theory sometimes - excited about analyzing and theorizing to the point of forgetting reality and/or accidentally offending people. perhaps this is what happened to her.
so it seems that what happened in the conversation is that she got lost in analyzing to the point of making offensive blanket statements and you made strong negative statements directed at her that she found offensive. but you seemed to be more aware of what you were saying, while she seemed to be caught in a paradigm. not that that's more excusable or anything, but it seemed like you were asserting yourself personally more in defense of Fe, while she just kept talking about type and not really about herself. so it seems like she would more likely be personally offended - but that's only in forgetting that her generalizations applied to a group you are a part of.
my point is that i see and agree with aspects of both of your arguments, but this is my understanding of why it may seem like orobas is more of an underdog in the debate.
if you want my play-by-play analysis... it's here, lol...
orobas' first posts were about Ti/Fe and Fi/Te, and they seemed pretty neutral. then your first post was about Fe in depth, you were talking about people not recognizing Fe at work at a more intimate level. and i do agree with a ton of what you wrote there, but your language was more emotionally-tinged. it sounded vaguely frustrated. then you guys engaged in some other discussions, you were both pretty neutral. orobas said she thought some of your thoughts were "beautiful" and she'd get back to them later. she posted her comment about the types if there's no Fe, saying that she thinks Te/Fi and Ti/Fe seem to "result in massive communication issues." your reply included "I think people on this forum EXAGGERATE miscommunications [...] You'd think the other function pairs Se/Ni and Si/Ne would have just as much difficulty, but for some reason people with their own agendas seem to lay the blame at this." perhaps this was not your intention, but it comes off a bit as attacking her, instead of just saying her ideas are off. i think it's because your language again seemed emotionally-tinged. hers again seemed neutral.
her reply saying she thought people on forums undercover the severity of miscommunication was not overtly friendly, but it didn't seem negative either. uumlau's response to it was more forceful in nature. your response to uumlau was pretty neutral. bologna agrees with you; orobas posts counterpoint to bologna, bologna posts counterpoint to orobas, orobas posts counterpoint to bologna. all insistent but neutral. you post counterpoint to uumlau; insistent but neutral. in the same post, you reply this to orobas: "I guess you're trying to create some theory of everything in your mind using MBTI and you disregard stuff that doesn't fit." not explicitly attacking, but kind of an unfriendly assumption. i don't think her ENFJ example was necessarily miscommunication either though, just to point that out. i think her point was "she never said it, so i can interpret it any way i want", while your point was "non-literal communication, duh." and i agree with both of those things. jaguar pointed out that it seemed obv too but uumlau noted that hindsight is 20/20.
and then here is where it feels a little more explicit to me: your post saying "Then basically are saying you CANNOT COMMUNICATE with half the population. Do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean it's Fe users, it means IT'S YOU! Stop making it Fe, when it's you. Furthermore, stop dragging other Fi users into your underworld and blowing it up into some kind of Fe-Fi communication abyss, when it's Orobas's lack of understanding. You're making yourself the standard and everyone else the exception." the thing is, she never actually said it was Fe, she said Fe-Fi difference. there's nowhere she says that it's only Fe users that are the problem. she just says Fe-Fi has different communication styles. to me, it never came out as blaming Fe any more than Fi, just saying she doesn't understand the other side. her example did make Fe sound more "difficult", but it wasn't blaming Fe. then you talk about your "puny empathy skills" (i take it that is sarcastic). orobas did make a lot of type-related assumptions. the way i understand it, she was applying typology theory. i agree that it may have been overdone, and personal difference not accounted for enough. but the way you stated that came off more as aimed at her, not her idea, and in a defensive way. then you got more neutral in discussion.