It seems weird to me to define a function as a tendency, because literally, a function is an input/output relationship. A tendency towards certain cognitive behaviors should not be called a "function" by the definition of the word..
Yes, it is weird, but this is what a function is in the context of Jungian typology. We are not disputing the prudence of Jung's semantical work, merely pointing out the conclusions he has arrived at. The fact is that you have misrepresented his ideas much like many posters on this site and adherents of conventional MBTI theory did.
I really don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to look at my definitions and draw any conclusion about any type...
You are not writing to scholars. When you mention a type such as 'Introversion', 'Intuition' and so on, they are inclined to assume you are making a generalization about a type. They will do so unless you specify that your intended claims were not this.
I didn't at all talk about function relationships. Everyone uses Sensing and Intuition as I've defined them literally all the time (it doesn't even make sense to talk about specific instances of perceiving functions), and Thinking and Feeling are each used multiple (5+) times a minute....
I do not see the relevance of this. Moreover you should note that Jungian typology presupposes a relationship between functions. The existence of one type is impossible without the other as Introversion for example is defined to a significant extent by opposition to Extroversion, Thinking in opposition to Feeling and so on.
I didn't proclaim anything of the sort. I expect readers to use their brain;....
That is very naive of you. You've been here for a year, and have learned nothing of your readers?
Consider the context, this is an online board about typology, there's thousands of posts and threads where people go "Ne = [insert definition here]", is it fair to pick on this particular case and not all the rest?
I agree with you that on this board most people post careless remarks regarding typology and it is not fair to single out just one person. (I think this was your claim)
However, I think things should not be this way and people need to take responsibility for what they say. Otherwise we cannot hope to avoid the many confusions about the subject that it is fraught with today.
He hasn't even said anything......
My criticisms could be summarized as follows.
1) You have improperly defined the Jungian function. You have stated that it is merely a set of cognitive behaviors. (E.G, Ne is seeing many possibilities). What you have defined is a manifestation of a function or a description of it, but not the intrinsic essence thereof. Hence your definition is analogous to a function as the following definition is to a car; it can be used to go fast forward and back. (I have also argued regarding what a function truly is, here and elsewhere)
2) You have neglected to state that a function can be described in more ways than it has been by you.