User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 140 of 140

  1. #131
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    @Eric B what's the empirical foundation for supposing that the 5th function has a negative character? My view is that it's character is predominantly positive, though I could be mistaken.

    I don't think it opposes the 1st function, but rather complements it.

    I view opposition typically as occurring between Feeling and Thinking, or Intuition and Sensing, though as Jung says "where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling".
    the lone star flies alone

  2. #132
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by typologyenthusiast View Post
    I doubt the shadow functions even exist in the psyche. But introverted feeler has talent of pretending that he could act as if it was someone else it is actually not hence it could appear to someone else that it is somebody it plays act as. It is an ancient art practice. It is observable in a stage/film actor/actress. In the role playing art, they try to become somebody else they are not. It could claim to feel that it feels something that it is actually not conscious of. But the risk is, when it is busy pretending, the psyche could forget to be itself. However, the play-acting as somebody else will not last long, since the psychic energy will be depleted and the person gets exhausted.
    When pretending, It may appear that the fi psyche to be the person has a cognitive functions it doesn't, and hence make a false conclusion that the functions also exist in Fi psyche.

    Only two functions are conscious by nature and by default; the primary and the auxiliary. The other two are not conscious although exist in the psyche. It means empirically a thinker type habitually doesn't feel vice versa. An sensor type empirically habitually doesn't intuit, vice versa. An effort can be undertaken so that the person can get conscious also the third and fourth function but doing so, it must get the primary and auxiliary function becomes unsconscious. Don't forget also that each function do not operate independently, they works in pairs. In INFP, Fi doesn't work alone. Fi works in conjunction with Ne. It is the only two functions that is conscious in INFP. Indeed INFP has a third and fourth function, but they are unconscious.
    Isabel Briggs myers effort to make her third and fourth function conscious was learning statistics from Hay consulting. Studying statistics will get the introverted sensing and extroverted thinker of INFP conscious, since it is needed in learning the subject. No one can learn statistics by feeling. INFP by default is not like her. INFP by nature loves to write and read story. Isabel Briggs Myers even ever won a novel competition, before she was occupied with MBTI, CMIIW.
    This is still looking at the "functions" as THINGS. What's in the psyche isn't really "functions", it's COMPLEXES (lesser senses of "I"), and these complexes are what take the different functions as their perspectives, and are more or less "conscious" or "shadowy".
    Functions can be "differentiated" or "undifferentiated" via the presence or inactivity of the complexes, and this should be specified when talking about "consciousness" of functions; else, it makes it sound like the intuitive can't see, hear, touch, remember, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    @Eric B what's the empirical foundation for supposing that the 5th function has a negative character? My view is that it's character is predominantly positive, though I could be mistaken.

    I don't think it opposes the 1st function, but rather complements it.

    I view opposition typically as occurring between Feeling and Thinking, or Intuition and Sensing, though as Jung says "where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling".
    Again, it's about complexes, and the ego is just as invested in its dominant attitude as its dominant function. So of course, the opposite attitude will come off as "oppositional". The "Parent" is the one whose agenda in part is to expose the ego to the opposite attitude. Mixing that attitude with the dominant function will be very ego dystonic, but also back up (or "complement" as you say) the dominant. Thing is, it takes maturity for the ego to appreciate this (which is the goal of the theory). Otherwise, the Opposing complex (or "Warrior/Amazon") will fight the opposing view, engaging the opposing function attitude.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  3. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Ne
    Posts
    226

    Default

    The idea of whether, say, Fe is more opposing to Fi or Te is more opposing to Fi requires precise specification of the sense one is using 'opposing' --- roughly there's some tension in both cases, but the idea is that ultimately, Te can be seen as the complementary point of view 'almost the same' in some very deep sense as Fi.

    But I definitely don't accept theories that suggest this means it's easier for a Fi dom to consciously appeal to Te perspectives than to appeal to Fe ones.

    It's more like, to the extent the Fi-dom wants to grow, since Fe still involves the egoic perspective F, there will always be a way for the conscious dominant personality to assert itself rationalize squashing out the need to appeal to Fe, by appealing to a Fi point of view...I think it's less that Fe will be hated so much as F is in too general too well rationalized a perspective for the person not to wield it in the preferred direction.
    Overall balance in the psyche thus often proceeds by appeal to the secondary function and the inferior -- both cases involve potential to show how other perspectives complement the dominant's own.

    I'd roughly say in the example that this is how the psyche would develop a mature relation to extraversion. It can begin to show in a more mature relation to Fe, etc as well, but the point would be Fe wouldn't be the first place to turn to develop a more mature relation to extraversion for the Fi-dom.

  4. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    -
    Socionics
    - None
    Posts
    399

    Default

    @Eric B
    You need to clarify what do you mean by less conscious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This is still looking at the "functions" as THINGS. What's in the psyche isn't really "functions", it's COMPLEXES (lesser senses of "I"), and these complexes are what take the different functions as their perspectives, and are more or less "conscious" or "shadowy".
    Functions can be "differentiated" or "undifferentiated" via the presence or inactivity of the complexes, and this should be specified when talking about "consciousness" of functions; else, it makes it sound like the intuitive can't see, hear, touch, remember, etc.
    Differentiation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions -- as for example thinking' with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc. -- as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.e. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency andambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriee"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
    Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the spearation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentia- tion direction is impossible, since the direction of a function is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.
    according to Jung p448, Psychological Types.
    Jung doesn't explain the relation between differentiation of functions and complexes.

    No. it doesn't mean Intuitive type don't hear, see, touch, taste, smell. As long as their five senses are still functioning, they can still do that. You identify yourself as INTP, an intuitive type How could you have been able to respond to my post if you hadn't even seen it? and You certainly wouldn't be able to respond to my post, if you did not see it.
    Consciousness in Jung understanding,
    By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego (v. Ego) in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego [25]. In so far as relations are not sensed as such by the ego, they are un- conscious (q.v.). Consciousness is the function or activity [26] which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego,. Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego [27].
    Jung, Psychological Types, p445

  5. #135
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by typologyenthusiast View Post
    @Eric B
    You need to clarify what do you mean by less conscious.

    according to Jung p448, Psychological Types.
    Jung doesn't explain the relation between differentiation of functions and complexes.

    No. it doesn't mean Intuitive type don't hear, see, touch, taste, smell. As long as their five senses are still functioning, they can still do that. You identify yourself as INTP, an intuitive type How could you have been able to respond to my post if you hadn't even seen it? and You certainly wouldn't be able to respond to my post, if you did not see it.
    I wasn't saying an Intuitive type couldn't hear, see, touch, taste, smell; I was saying "it makes it SOUND like" that IF you don't specify the distinction between "differentiated" and "undifferentiated" via the complexes.

    Differentiation means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept chiefly in respect to psychological functions. So long as one function is still so merged with one or more of the other functions -- as for example thinking' with feeling, or feeling with sensation, etc. -- as to be quite unable to appear alone, it is in an archaic (q.v.) state, and therefore undifferentiated, i.e. it is not separated out as a special part from the whole having its own independent existence. An undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions, i.e. it is constantly mixed up with sensations, feelings, or intuitions; such thinking may, for instance, become blended with sensations and phantasies, as exemplified in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis. The undifferentiated function is also commonly characterized by the qualities of ambivalency and ambitendency [35], i.e. every positive brings with it an equally strong negative, whereby characteristic inhibitions spring up in the application of the undifferentiated function. Such a function suffers also from a fusing together of its individual parts; thus an undifferentiated faculty of sensation, for instance, is impaired through an amalgamation of the separate spheres of sensation ("audition coloriee"), and undifferentiated feeling through confounding hatred with love. Just so far as a function is wholly or mainly unconscious is it also undifferentiated, i.e. it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions.
    Differentiation consists in the separation of the selected function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function [i.e. "attitude"] is dependent upon the isolation and exclusion of the irrelevant. Through fusion with what is irrelevant, direction becomes impossible; only a differentiated function proves itself capable of direction.
    The way I understand "undifferentiated" meaning the functions "mixed up together" (which is also known as "concretistic", and you'll see him mention "concrete" functions; it doesn't mean just S; there's concrete N, F and T as well) is that in everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we've learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we've learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we've learned from the environment, or internal values we've learned individually through nature.

    But only SOME of our normal complexes (ego states or senses of "I") will associate with these different perspectives and thus focus on their products, and this is what will "differentiate" them as discrete "functions", where we pay special attention to their "products" (senses, inferences, truths, likes), and they are then said to become specifically "conscious".
    In other words, jut like we divide an otherwise undivided spacetime into "left/right", "back/forth", "up/down", and "past/future" based on our position in it, these different functions will separate out the tangible details of a situation, from an implication, and the impersonal truth of a situation, from its affect on people, and also, taking it as is from the objective environment, or filtering it through the individual subject.

    Jung's language is so "dense", some of this stuff needs to be "interpreted" and even appended (hence, why we have Myers, Grant, Beebe, Lenore, Socionics, etc), and while there will be debates as to whether the interpretation is right or not (like the attitude of the auxiliary, etc.), but this is what makes the most sense of his discussion of "differentiation", to me.

    By consciousness I understand the relatedness of psychic contents to the ego (v. Ego) in so far as they are sensed as such by the ego [25]. In so far as relations are not sensed as such by the ego, they are unconscious (q.v.). Consciousness is the function or activity [26] which maintains the relation of psychic contents with the ego,. Consciousness is not identical with psyche, since, in my view, psyche represents the totality of all the psychic contents, and these are not necessarily all bound up directly with the ego, i.e. related to it in such a way that they take on the quality of consciousness. There exist a great many psychic complexes and these are not all, necessarily, connected with the ego [27].
    And the way I understand this, type is formed by the ego, which is itself a complex, along with one other complex. The ego is what sets the dominant function and attitude. Other complexes that work with it are the "Hero" (the ego's "main achiever"), and the "Persona" (the image we put forth to the outer world). The next one is what becomes the "caretaker" or "parent", and is about adaptation, and will for the sake of balance, choose a function opposite in both attitude and rationality (judgment or perception). These complexes and associated levels of consciousness/differentiation are "compensated" their opposites falling into lower consciousness. (That's what I meant by "more or less conscious" in the quote). So a "child" will "reflect" (as I call it) the parent, and its "tertiary" function will be somewhat less conscious that the auxiliary, but not as much as the inferior, which will be a reflection of the dominant or "superior" function and complex.
    Since each of the four basic functions have been assigned one i/e attitude or another, then that implies that these attitudes for each function are also compensated or "reflected" by an even less conscious opposite attitude for each, which are then associated with more negative counterparts to the first four complexes. This is what in Beebe's model are called the "shadows".

    Keep in mind, terms like "shadows" and "complexes" refer to much more than what is discussed in Beebe's model. It's just that these particular eight complexes (and related) are the ones that figure in our typological preference, and basically, the "ego structure" as far as what we call type. (That's how I understand "relatedness of psychic contents to the ego"; "sensed by the ego"). Of course, there are many more complexes than just those; hence the last sentence.

    So all eight functions are represented in type-specific ways for each type there, but of course, there are non-specific ways, like how everyone can see, hear, feel, think, etc.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  6. #136
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Again, it's about complexes, and the ego is just as invested in its dominant attitude as its dominant function. So of course, the opposite attitude will come off as "oppositional". The "Parent" is the one whose agenda in part is to expose the ego to the opposite attitude. Mixing that attitude with the dominant function will be very ego dystonic, but also back up (or "complement" as you say) the dominant. Thing is, it takes maturity for the ego to appreciate this (which is the goal of the theory). Otherwise, the Opposing complex (or "Warrior/Amazon") will fight the opposing view, engaging the opposing function attitude.
    I guess that explains what you think, but it's not a proof or anything...

    A question I have, being a very similar question to the last one, is that if in Beebe's model, the anima/animus is associated with the 4th function, and the shadow with the 5th-8th functions, why is it that in Jung's conception the anima/animus is viewed as more unconscious than the shadow? Why has been made the shadow more unconscious than the anima/animus?
    the lone star flies alone

  7. #137
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    Beebe acknowledges that you can't make too much of the stack order in that way, as afar as "strength". "Shadow" is about unconsciousness, and in a really young person, all eight functions can technically be "shadow" (i.e. nothing has "developed" yet). He, for one, acknowledged that the Trickster (7th place) often develops right behind the tertiary it shadows (which would then explain the historic question of the attitudinal ambiguity of the tertiary function), so there, it would likely come into consciousness before the anima (inferior). That's where we can bring in Lenore's "ship" model (with both 7 and 8 as the "brain lateral alternates" of the dominant that will come into consciousness quickly), or Socionics; which do in fact have the Beebe's "shadows" as higher than the inferior.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  8. #138
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Beebe acknowledges that you can't make too much of the stack order in that way, as afar as "strength". "Shadow" is about unconsciousness, and in a really young person, all eight functions can technically be "shadow" (i.e. nothing has "developed" yet). He, for one, acknowledged that the Trickster (7th place) often develops right behind the tertiary it shadows (which would then explain the historic question of the attitudinal ambiguity of the tertiary function), so there, it would likely come into consciousness before the anima (inferior). That's where we can bring in Lenore's "ship" model (with both 7 and 8 as the "brain lateral alternates" of the dominant that will come into consciousness quickly), or Socionics; which do in fact have the Beebe's "shadows" as higher than the inferior.
    If you observe your internal thought processes, neither suppressing nor boosting any particular mode of thought, what I think you will observe is that your thoughts go in cycles, in the order suggested by Beebe. The same goes for, say, speech. In interviews with a person, it is not uncommon for a person being interviewed to give an answer which covers all 8 of their functions, in the order given by Beebe, and to then wrap the answer up there. Furthermore, I have found that same function order to be quite useful in drawing up a timeline of how I've developed over the years, though there's a lot of room for interpretation as far as that goes.

    I interpret this sequential ordering to be a reaching down to further levels of consciousness, though that then raises the question of why, when the 8th function is completed, it cycles back to the 1st function. Sometimes in cycling back to the first function though, what is seen is not the usual manifestation of the 1st function, but is actually a higher form which characterises a level of unconsciousness just beyond the 8th function. What I'm saying is that from my experience with analysing these things, it seems that the ordering from 1st to 8th function makes the most sense as a gradual movement away from the conscious position and towards the unconscious. The 5th function, then, is more unconscious than the 4th, and the 6th moreso than the 5th etc.

    Though I've also taken note of the secondary type phenomenon, in which, though I'm an INFJ, I will sometimes show the functionality of an INFP, and sometimes other types as well. But other P types are hard to access, whereas other J types are easier to access, thus making is plausible that the 5th-8th functions could be accessible by "becoming" a different type, whereas the 4th function is typically accessed as a weaker function in the primary type.

    Anyway, that sums up a lot of my understanding and findings.

    I tend to associate the 1st-2nd functions with persona, 3rd-4th with shadow, 5th-6th with anima, 7th-8th with wise old man, and then there are further "archetypes" beyond this which I associate as being a higher form of the 1st-8th functions. I'm not sure how far the unconscious extends; my own unconscious is still being unravelled, so I can't determine it through analysis of myself.

    I don't know if I'm correct in how I've associated the functions and archetypes though; in particular, it contradicts both Beebe and socionics. But I haven't noticed any or much internal dissonance by associating those processes within myself, though perhaps I haven't put it to the test well enough.
    the lone star flies alone

  9. #139
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,618

    Default

    While I've never noticed any time order for the stack (and I remember not too long ago dealing with someone suggesting something like that, somewhere), that's interesting, and worth looking for. "sequential ordering to be a reaching down to further levels of consciousness"; that makes sense, as the archetypes (complexes) and the manifestations of the associated functions are getting more negative the further down you go.
    I would still think that different situations, especially sudden or stressful ones, could break that order as whichever complex or functional perspective is forced to the front in the moment. So what you're describing might not even be the specific complexes, but just the ego's own use of each perspective, and yes, it will always cycle back to the dominant, which is the ego's starting point. (and running through the other seven would add the depth of the split off data that was initially ignored by focusing on the dominant function).

    What I've been cautioning against is this whole familiar "strength" concept", based on "how much" functions are "used", or a score on a "cognitive process test". We may think what's more "conscious" is more "strong" (or what's less conscious is less "strong"), but "strength" is poorly defined when it comes to functions; many are looking at them as a sort of "gears" that you shift one, unshift and then pull another, so whichever one you "use more" is "stronger". But it's not that concrete and mechanical, as these are but divisions of reality.

    Why do you associate the anima with #5 and 6, and "wise old man" with 7 and 8?
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

    "PERSONALITY MATRIX" on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/Personality...6272699654735/

  10. #140
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Why do you associate the anima with #5 and 6, and "wise old man" with 7 and 8?
    It feels natural for me to associate personifications of my unconscious, which I interact with, with those functions in particular.

    From my writing, I have found an association between the 5th function and the search for fulfillment, focusing on the other person, sociability and so forth, and associations with the 8th function and fulfillment of the story, leaving a legacy, completion and so on.

    In my behaviour, I associate Te-Si behaviour in myself, such as organisation, with being in a highly functional state which I associate with the masterful nature of the wise old man archetype.

    (though my understanding of the archetypes isn't strictly Jungian; it's about the territory, not the map, but it's clear enough to me that the Jungian map seems to be describing the same or similar things to what I deal with)

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I would still think that different situations, especially sudden or stressful ones, could break that order as whichever complex or functional perspective is forced to the front in the moment.
    I've noticed myself start with Ti sometimes for a few reasons. It can be humour on the one hand, or frustration on the other hand, or simply that the point I wish to make is of a logical nature.
    the lone star flies alone

Similar Threads

  1. Draw your idea of the functions...
    By King sns in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2011, 06:31 PM
  2. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  3. Examples/Explanations of the Functions within Processes
    By Thunderbringer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 06:08 PM
  4. Wonka's Elucidation of the Functions - Part One
    By Wonkavision in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 02:16 AM
  5. From the Horses' Mouth: Jung's Root descriptions of the Functions.
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 08:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO