http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
Interesting!
Your Type is INTJ
Strength of the preferences %
Introverted 67
Intuitive 50
Thinking 62
Judging 1
<http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=5&c=mastermind>INTJ
<http://keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=5&c=mastermind>type
description by D.Keirsey [Rational mastermind ]
<http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-67&SN=-50&TF=62&JP=0.6>INTJ
<http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-67&SN=-50&TF=62&JP=0.6>Identify
Your Career with Jung Career Indicator"
<http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-67&SN=-50&TF=62&JP=0.6>
<http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-67&SN=-50&TF=62&JP=0.6>INTJ
<http://www.humanmetrics.com/vocation/JCI.asp?EI=-67&SN=-50&TF=62&JP=0.6>Famous
Personalities
<http://typelogic.com/intj.html>INTJ <http://typelogic.com/intj.html>type
description by J. Butt and M.M. Heiss INTJs know what they know, and
perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.
Qualitative analysis of your type formula
You are:
* distinctively expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* distinctively expressed thinking personality
* slightly expressed judging personality
At 12:21 PM 10/18/2008 -0500, you wrote:
I apologize iin advance for getting in this issue but are you familiar
with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI)? While you cannot determine
someones personality type from postings you can get some indications.
Indi, I would guess you as something close to an ISTJ and Ode closer to an
INTP. Google the type or MBTI and you will get more info than you want.
The point I want to make is not your type but to point out that you both
have different personalities that color your view of the world. As do I
and every member of this list. We each will look at what Ode has done and
make our own evaluation of the methods and results independently. I
appreciate the information Ode has provided since it is information I
would not have otherwise.
You, Ode and I each have different standards for determining what is
acceptable 'proof' but that does not make any others standard unacceptable
as a criteria. You can use your criteria without insisting that everyone
else use it too. The problem with hard scientific proof is that is that
such proof is often unachievable and that lack of such proof if required
prevents release of otherwise useful information.
Ode provided his information and test methodology and I think that is
sufficient for one to understand and evaluate the data.
- Steve N
----- Original Message -----
From: Indi <indule...@comcast.net>
To: silver-list@eskimo.com <silver-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat Oct 18 08:40:18 2008
Subject: Re: CS>blue moons revisited
You'd probably want to send it to a lab. Around three hundred dollars for
true answers. I realize it isn't cheap (or even affordable for most of us).
A good chemical analysis is not something an untrained person can do at home.
People get degrees in chemistry, you know. :)
As I've said before, my point is speaking in ABSOLUTES is irresponsible when
your "testing" is so rudimentary.
"Feelings", anecdotal evidence, belief, etc do not disprove this point one
bit.
Sorry if that gvets people's dander up, but I am not about to abandon
all principles of critical thinking just because some here want to make
unsubstantiated claims. Data is data. Either one has it or one doesn't.
:)
indi
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:45:05PM +1030, Neville wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Indi" <indule...@comcast.net>
> To: <silver-list@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 2:53 AM
> Subject: Re: CS>blue moons revisited
>
>
> Quote:
> [armed with only an EC meter and a laser pointer, for the simple reason
> that those devices are not enough to *prove* your claims (in scientific
> terms).]
>
> In the absence of suitable laboratory testing equipment, in the home,
> which is where most users involved with EICS are, perhaps you could steer
> me in the direction of a more accurate, better or more suitable
> instrument so that I may be able to assess my EICS in a more acceptable
> and precise manner. I for one would certainly be most grateful in the
> knowledge that there are other instruments available, other than EC
> meters etc, which are available and affordable over the counter to
> everyone in their homes, but I don't know what is available to me, other
> than the instrument I currently use. If you know something I don't then
> I would be humbly grateful if you would pass it on, but it must be
> affordable and available over the counter to everyone who is involved
> with EICS..........in their own homes.
>
> It's fine for those who may be scientifically minded and/or have access
> to more precise instruments, but I think most EICS users are just plain
> ordinary folk using equipment that is affordable and readily available.
> Tell me what else I can use that fits the above criteria and I'll go out
> and get one, but remember, it must fit the above criteria so that perhaps
> we can all go out and get one.
>
> N.
>
>
> --
> The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at:
<http://silverlist.org>http://silverlist.org
>
> To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
>
> Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com
>
> The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
>
> List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
>
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1732 - Release Date: 10/18/2008
6:01 PM