I don't have to see Ni Fe in his posts to think he might be INFJ.
I think you cling too strongly to precise functional orders. How exactly was I supposed to take the statement about ENTPs not having Te? What about people who don't have one of the predefined Xi/Xe or Xe/Xi combinations as their first two functions? What if he's Ni/Fi or Fe/Ne or Fi/Ni or some other combination? MBTI doesn't seem to account for these possibilities, and yet each time someone doesn't fit one, you seem to be implying that they can't be that type.
I don't put much stock in MBTI's rigid functional orders for each type. They are seriously flawed. When I refer to Victor as INFP, I mean only four things about his preferences, stated below. I'm not claiming any specific functional orders, because I think that part of MBTI is pretty useless. It's silly to assume that eight functions with 40,320 ordered possibilities would only occur in sixteen distinct orders. I've noted that several people on the site list their types as something like "Ni/Ti" or various other orders that, according to MBTI's functional orders, are impossible. I don't buy it.
Personally, my functions from strongest to weakest seem to go something like Ne, Ti, Te, Fi, Ni, Fe, Se, Si. Those are rough guesses because we're working with a very imprecise "science" here, but really, how do these four-function orders in MBTI (like Ne-Ti-Fe-Si for ENTP) even explain use of the other four functions? Reading up on explanations of functions, it seems very implausible to me that the other four go totally unused. What is the justification here? Are the other four functions all weaker than the listed four? Are they all in between the first two and the last two? What happens when someone's functions don't line up with prescribed orders at all?
To clarify, this is all INFJ (for example) means to me:
1) Those whose prefer introversion become less energized as they act: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. People who prefer introversion need time out to reflect in order to rebuild energy.
2) Those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
3) Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.
4) Judging types prefer to "have matters settled." They're prone to being more decisive and more likely to have plans, etc. etc.
I'm sure you know all of this, but this is why I'm weary of your constant functional analysis and accompanying overconfidence in its use or accuracy. You're trying to use typology as more than a system of generalized guesses, and it doesn't work. You think you've proven all kinds of crazy theories simply by stating that your guesses must be correct because x type never exhibits y function, and you've convinced yourself of some serious total nonsense because of it. Who's the one stereotyping here? If real functional priorities of real people followed the theory this closely, we wouldn't have so many different kinds of people within each type. (You've used this functional order dogma to justify almost all of your type-theory points thus far.)
Victor also sounds INFx to me in his mannerisms and writing style. It's a function of knowing people who identify or test as INFP/INFJ and creating a kind of composite understanding of the personal styles they often use to interact with the world. Here are my observations about him, off the top of my head:
--Extremely abstract; all of his posts are based on free form association between the most unlikely connections, because he thinks that's the best way to explore ideas. N
--Very personal values-focused (this one is called Fi, right?), seems especially offended by concepts of violence. His rant about guns in the obscenity thread struck me as very idealistically NF.
--So dislikes hard logical rules in discussions that he openly states that logic is not a good way to respond to him. F
--His writing style and diction show a kind of fascination with the beauty of language and its many possibilities for doing good of some sort; I get this vibe from INFPs in real life a lot.
--He seems open to abrupt changes in ideas and will let conversations wander in whatever direction seems natural. He doesn't seem to approach his conversations with much of a particular direction in mind; in fact, he makes a point of stating that he rarely intends one. This seems pretty P, now that I think about it.
--He has obvious talents for people-reading, but is a little overconfident in his ability to do it (characteristically INFx.)
--I'm going with INFP because he doesn't seem to match the level of energy or personal style of most of the ENFPs I know. Maybe he is ENFP; I don't know. Maybe he's some other type that gives off an INFP image when he posts on this online forum. The key here is that I don't know for sure because I'm not a psychic, and if Victor were to correct any of my above observations about him, I would be forced to allow that, given the severe dearth of real, useful information that any of us actually has on him, he is the authority on his own mental processes, not me or you or anyone else. That's just a fact of life.
I once snap-typed him as an INFP who really wants to be INFJ. Maybe this is right; maybe not. If he were to take the time to explain his inner mental and emotional motivations to me, I certainly would not sneer at this gesture by insisting that I know his personality functions better than he does. Regardless of background in typology theory, you must eventually accept that people know themselves better than you know them.
Of course I see flashes of T in his writing sometimes; it's just dominated by N and F functions most often. INFPs can have Fe and Ni as high priority functions. Jung never actually said anything about the functional orders for particular types; he mainly just explained their existence and gave basic definitions for them. MBTI is written as a four-independent-variable average of behavioral and perceptual patterns, and it's already a bit shaky. It may be based on Jung as source material, but the two systems aren't intended to be mixed purely with perfect results. Don't make it even worse with such rigid functional order interpretations.