Nocapszy, I think you are on to something and you should stick to your guns. However, you made some pretty strong claims and then failed to back them up, so it was hard to take your post seriously.
Yes and no.
I'm not being one of those grammar bitches.
It's irritating because it displays (and later causes) poor understanding.
If we speak this way, it gives the impression that a type is a mindset, or... a decision or something like that.
It's not.
You may be onto something here, but the way you worded it amounted to little more than "everyone who uses this particular grammar doesn't understand the theory". You didn't bother to see if there is an actual reason we chose the words we do.
I'd say that perhaps we are just using the theory in a different way. Since I'm a computer programmer by trade, I tend to encapsulize concepts and then deal with the aggregate. It's how my mind works.
So I like to think of Fi, Ti, whatever as an whole object that I can then apply to situations. Using 'has Ti or has Fe' becomes a natural extension of this. The problem, though, is that this is a real academic Ivory Tower approach, and neglects that the functions are
used. It's taking real life application out of the picture in a very subtle way. This is where I can agree with you, and will be more mindful of how I use the terms in the future.
Sorry guys, Jeffster and the peanut gallery ruined it for everyone.
/serious.
You know, I think "The Peanut Gallery" would be a pretty cool user name.