![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 112. Go back in thread:
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 22, 2010, at 15:32:50
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2010, at 15:26:00
> > Do you think you could explain, to the best of your knowledge, what might have happened?
>
> Sorry, what happened isn't clear to me. Is it to any of you?
>
> > is there any way that anyone who doesn't have Fayeroe's Facebook information could have gotten it through Babble?
>
> I don't see how they could have. Babble doesn't know anyone's Facebook information. You can't even get your own Facebook information from Babble, can you?
>
> > Is there any way for posts to be sent to someone's facebook page if they don't hit the button, or someone doesn't know their identity?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Who can post to someone's Wall, or contact them, on Facebook depends on their Facebook privacy settings:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy
>
> > Did you or any agent of yours send the message to Fayeroe's message box?
> >
> > zazenducke
>
> Neither I nor anyone acting as my agent contacted her on Facebook.
>
> BobGosh, it doesn't seem quite right that Fayeroe was blocked and THEN you answered her question. Might it not have been worked out on the boards without a block having to take place?
I guess not, since it's already done.
But that's my interpretation of appears to have happened here. I wonder if a dialog might have been possible to clear up the Facebook query - but not any longer, with Fayeroe blocked.
Then again, this has always been your place to rule as you see fit. This must be the right way.
Posted by Dinah on April 22, 2010, at 16:28:09
In reply to Bob says 'Fayeroe, I am so sorry this happened' » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 22, 2010, at 11:25:17
I had hoped that Dr. Bob would see the same opportunity for greater understanding that I did.
I guess the words are important to him.
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 17:53:27
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2010, at 15:26:00
> > Do you think you could explain, to the best of your knowledge, what might have happened?
>
> Sorry, what happened isn't clear to me. Is it to any of you?
>
> > is there any way that anyone who doesn't have Fayeroe's Facebook information could have gotten it through Babble?
>
> I don't see how they could have. Babble doesn't know anyone's Facebook information. You can't even get your own Facebook information from Babble, can you?
>
> > Is there any way for posts to be sent to someone's facebook page if they don't hit the button, or someone doesn't know their identity?
> >
> > Dinah
>
If Fayeroe had previously checked the leave me logged in button on the popup that comes up when you hit the Facebook button at the bottom of the post and then someone was able to get into her account the same way they did when you were hacked
they could have sent the post to her facebook page while they were signed in as her. Wasn't someone posting under other peoples names last time by somehow getting their passwords?Of course you would need more information from Fayeroe to check this theory out and she is no longer available because of your block.
Maybe you should hire a professional to check before this starts happening to other people.
Posted by BayLeaf on April 22, 2010, at 18:58:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » fayeroe, posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2010, at 14:37:47
Bob - did u decide to block her for suggesting that saying you were projecting? really?
PartyCloudy's post about avoiding this block by just letting us resolve the problem by talking it out was perfect. That's what the Admin board is for, right?
But, when it comes to certain posting you have a hair trigger on the blocks. This is a classic example.
Can't you see this in yourself, and perhaps want to work on self-improvement? Don't we all, who are engaged in the personal growth process want to improve?
Bay
Posted by PartlyCloudy on April 22, 2010, at 19:35:05
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on April 22, 2010, at 18:58:12
I am an advocate for diplomacy whenever it might have worked.
(shrug)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2010, at 21:21:19
In reply to LYING ABOUT FB + TWTR....why am i not surprised?, posted by fayeroe on April 21, 2010, at 17:56:58
Fayeroe,
I can certainly understand your reaction to seeing that message in your FB inbox. It definitely would feel like an intrusion to me, and perhaps threatening in some way. I'm sorry that Bob acted to block you, as I do think that it would be useful for the community to see this dialog actually played out. One question I have is whether the message you received was a link to a thread, i.e. a hyperlink you could click on, a cut-and-paste of the thread on Babble, or perhaps a screen shot of the thread on Babble, and sadly, you can't clarify that here now. Bah.
At any rate...
I looked at my FB message box today, and I noted that there were not any messages that did not list who they were from, so I'm not sure why yours wouldn't have an associated "sender". That alone would be off-putting. But I did want to let you know that it is possible to send a message to someone on FB even if they are not your Facebook "friend". I recently did that in order to get in touch with a FB friend's husband to ask how my friend was. My friend was not able to get on FB herself at that time. My message went through to her husband on FB, even though we were not FB friends, and he was able to reply to me on FB, even though he is not on my friend list.
It appears that one can set their privacy for receiving messages to the following choices: "Everyone", "Friends of friends", or "Only Friends". So if your profile was set to "Everyone", as mine is currently, then anyone could have sent that to you. I suspect that the setting "Everyone" is the default, as I don't recall specifically choosing that for myself.
It's possible, then, that someone who had knowledge of your email address could search for that email address on FB and find your facebook profile. The only way I'm aware of that someone could be prevented from finding a person's profile on FB would be if that profile was set to be non-searchable. Again, I suspect that being searchable is the default for privacy on FB. Folks can also have FB search for friends automatically through their email contacts list if they allow their contact list to be linked to FB. So anyone who has the email you used for FB in their list of email contacts could potentially find your former profile on FB if you didn't elect to become non-searchable.
Gah, just writing all this out shows just how confusing it is.
If you ever decide to reactivate FB, I do recommend taking a few minutes to go to Account->Privacy settings-> etc. and go through all the options to make sure that the settings are what you're comfortable with.
At any rate, I'm sorry this happened to you. I can certainly understand your upset at Bob/Babble about it, but I wanted to point out that it really could have been anyone who sent it. Of course it must have been someone who was aware of your connection to Babble, or why would they send it? And having one's real world persona connected to Babble can certainly feel unsafe.
Hope you're well otherwise. There have been times when I've read something or heard something in the news that made me wonder what your reaction would be. Usually something political. :)
gg
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
In reply to Re: message box on Facebook » fayeroe, posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2010, at 21:21:19
I mean ...seriously ;)
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:38:00
In reply to I think Bob has a personality disorder don't you? » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
it wouldn't be professional.
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:40:38
In reply to Don't answer that, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:38:00
The most wonderful babbler of all!!!!!!!
Posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2010, at 21:42:57
In reply to Don't answer that, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:38:00
> it wouldn't be professional.
Good that I'm not a professional Babbler, then, eh?
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:43:36
In reply to Hi Henrietta!, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:40:38
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:46:36
In reply to Re: Hi Alexandra K and twinleaf (nm), posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:43:36
Posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:49:20
In reply to Hi verne (nm), posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:46:36
Posted by kaylabear on April 23, 2010, at 0:10:14
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 22, 2010, at 15:26:00
Well, Bob, you are really putting people at risk by not knowing how this happened to Fayroe. And now, thanks to you, we cannot investigage this further being Fayeroe was blocked. If this site's features pose a unknwn security risks, it should be stopped until you do get it figured out.
It seems people can be logged into their facebook accounts without realizing it while using this site on the same computer. Many sites use cookies and automatically log you in - and there's no way to log out (like here). Yet, many of those same sites will not work without cookies enabled.
The growing complication of all the online services are increasingly more difficult to sort through, fix, or understand which jeopardizes people's privacy and identity concealment. Security and privacy settings change or are "updated" for all sorts of accounts, and they are becoming more complicated and numerous. For example Google automatically linked all user emails for public view after people joined a service and were unaware of it. What you are doing is not much different.
Its becoming more difficult to navigate the appropriate settings for your accounts with all the automations such as automated linking. I don't even understand what all the security settings mean, as some are so abbreviated and vague. And sometime you have to send an email and cannot possibly go through all your settings each time to ensure they have not changed.
It seems having the Twitter/FB link capabilities and now capturing and storing all the posts is benefiting no one but you-your research. Most people here do not want it, and it has harmed several people already. Barely anyone is using it; again, except you. You seem to be one of the very few interested in this media, yet you claim this forum is for member support.
Five years from now, people will wish they thought of such things, and laws will be created to offer more protection. But that it a slow process and right now, YOU can ensure members are safe by taking appropriate actions. But you are not.
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2010, at 8:02:49
In reply to Re: Don't answer that » zazenducke, posted by gardenergirl on April 22, 2010, at 21:42:57
Would Mr Cow have been happier if he'd never had that one last break for freedom?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19shriver.html?pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------February 19, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Not Grass-Fed, but at Least Pain-Free
By ADAM SHRIVER
St. LouisIN the 35 years since Peter Singers book Animal Liberation was published, jump-starting the animal rights movement in the United States, the number of animals used in cosmetics testing and scientific research has dropped significantly, and the number of dogs and cats killed in shelters has fallen by more than half. Nevertheless, because the amount of red meat that Americans eat per capita has held steady at more than 100 pounds a year as the population has increased, more animals than ever suffer from injuries and stress on factory farms.
Veal calves and gestating sows are so confined as to suffer painful bone and joint problems. The unnatural high-grain diets provided in feedlots cause severe gastric distress in many animals. And faulty or improperly used stun guns cause the painful deaths of thousands of cows and pigs a year.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals discomfort through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
This prospect stems from a new understanding of how mammals sense pain. The brain, it turns out, has two separate pathways for perceiving pain: a sensory pathway that registers its location, quality (sharp, dull or burning, for example) and intensity, and a so-called affective pathway that senses the pains unpleasantness. This second pathway appears to be associated with activation of the brains anterior cingulate cortex, because people who have suffered damage to this part of the brain still feel pain but no longer find it unpleasant. (The same is true of people who are given morphine, because there are more receptors for opiates in the affective pain pathway than in the sensory pain pathway.)
Neuroscientists have found that by damaging a laboratory rats anterior cingulate cortex, or by injecting the rat with morphine, they can likewise block its affective perception of pain. The rat reacts to a heated cage floor by withdrawing its paws, but it doesnt bother avoiding the places in its cage where it has learned the floor is likely to be heated up.
Recently, scientists have learned to genetically engineer animals so that they lack certain proteins that are important to the operation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Prof. Min Zhuo and his colleagues at the University of Toronto, for example, have bred mice lacking enzymes that operate in affective pain pathways. When these mice encounter a painful stimulus, they withdraw their paws normally, but they do not become hypersensitive to a subsequent painful stimulus, as ordinary mice do.
Prof. Zhou-Feng Chen and his colleagues here at Washington University have engineered mice so that they lack the gene for a peptide associated with the anterior cingulate gyrus. Like the animals given brain lesions, these mice are normally sensitive to heat and mechanical pain, but they do not avoid situations where they experience such pain.
Given the similarity among all mammals neural systems, it is likely that scientists could genetically engineer pigs and cows in the same way. Because the sensory dimension of the animals pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured.
The people who consumed meat from such genetically engineered livestock would also be safe. Knockout animals have specific proteins removed, rather than new ones inserted, so theres no reason to think that their meat would pose more health risks for humans than ordinary meat does.
If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.
Adam Shriver is a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University.
Posted by zazenducke on April 23, 2010, at 8:08:58
In reply to I think Bob has a personality disorder don't you? » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
(such as people suffering from personality disorders) might have found offensive
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 9:30:30
In reply to I think Bob has a personality disorder don't you? » gardenergirl, posted by zazenducke on April 22, 2010, at 21:33:54
> I think Bob has a personality disorder
Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you. I don't want anything bad to happen to you. In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceYou might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 52 weeks
period of time since previous block: 8 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 82.28 capped = 52 weeks
Posted by BabyToes on April 23, 2010, at 10:26:52
In reply to Re: blocked for 52 weeks » zazenducke, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 9:30:30
> > I think Bob has a personality disorder
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
Just wondering about the rules, trying to still get it, Dr. Bob.If Duck said "I think Bob has a cold (a physical condition) ," would that be considered a post that would make someone feel accused or put down? Would that lead to a block?
What I am wondering is if you block someone for saying that they think you have a personality disorder (which according to you) is considered to be a put down, than isn't it also saying something about how YOU perceive people who do have personality disorders- as being a negative thing to have? Is having a personality disorder such a bad thing that if someone thinks you have one and you don't, it is very offensive if they tell you that they think you have one?
I am just trying to figure out why it is such a put down to you. Are people with personality disorders something that means something really bad to you?
I am just trying to follow the logic and waiting for your response to this as I am confused...
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 11:02:54
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by kaylabear on April 23, 2010, at 0:10:14
> Might it not have been worked out on the boards without a block having to take place?
>
> PartlyCloudyI would've preferred that, and one poster did try to help her avoid being blocked again, but she declined to rephrase or apologize.
--
> Well, Bob, you are really putting people at risk by not knowing how this happened to Fayroe. And now, thanks to you, we cannot investigage this further being Fayeroe was blocked. If this site's features pose a unknwn security risks, it should be stopped until you do get it figured out.
As I said before, it's not even clear to me what happened, let alone how it happened.
She's now blocked from posting, but she can still babblechat, receive babblemail, and send and receive email.
Unknown risks are always possible. Again, the only way to be completely safe from those risks is to abstain from this activity.
> Many sites use cookies and automatically log you in - and there's no way to log out (like here). Yet, many of those same sites will not work without cookies enabled.
That's a good point, privacy has always been a priority here, so there are tools for that. There's a way to log out. This site works (in a basic way) without cookies (or Javascript). Your password cookie is encrypted. It's easy to see all your cookies and to erase your name and password cookies. Babblemail enables you to communicate directly with each other without sharing your email address.
> The growing complication of all the online services are increasingly more difficult to sort through, fix, or understand which jeopardizes people's privacy and identity concealment. Security and privacy settings change or are "updated" for all sorts of accounts, and they are becoming more complicated and numerous. For example Google automatically linked all user emails for public view after people joined a service and were unaware of it.
>
> Its becoming more difficult to navigate the appropriate settings for your accounts with all the automations such as automated linking. I don't even understand what all the security settings mean, as some are so abbreviated and vague. And sometime you have to send an email and cannot possibly go through all your settings each time to ensure they have not changed.I agree, things are becoming increasingly complicated -- and interconnected. Maybe another way Babblers can support and educate each other is on topics like this. As gg just did above.
> It seems having the Twitter/FB link capabilities and now capturing and storing all the posts is benefiting no one but you-your research. Most people here do not want it, and it has harmed several people already. Barely anyone is using it; again, except you. You seem to be one of the very few interested in this media, yet you claim this forum is for member support.
>
> kaylabearA couple clarifications: Babble has always captured and stored posts, that's what makes archives possible. And Babble is not currently considered research.
In what ways have people been harmed already?
There are more than a few people interested in Facebook and Twitter! People on Facebook and Twitter can also benefit from support and education. Sharing and tweeting links to posts might lead them to the thoughtful and intelligent discussions here, and then they might join Babble and contribute new perspectives and energy.
You're clearly passionate about these issues. If you stay, you can make sure your concerns are heard.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 23, 2010, at 11:49:10
In reply to Re: what might have happened, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 11:02:54
Dr. Bob...
I do understand your desire to be treated with respect. But I also think there's more than one way to express regret. Fayeroe didn't say "I'm sorry" but, in my opinion, her frank expression of her pain and fear and disappointment in how she wished you had responded were more conciliatory and expressive of a wish to restart than many an apology you've found acceptable have been. I really really hoped you would see it that way, even though the words "I'm sorry" weren't contained.
I think, had you responded in kind, a lot of reconciliation could have been achieved. Far more than another block.
Wouldn't it have been more conducive to peace in the long run to simply request that next time anyone with a question of that sort simply ask you with respect and you'll be happy to answer? Or to point out that no one feels all that much like responding politely unless they were addressed with politeness? From a sheer practical standpoint, aside from civility standards.
You *know* I have no problem with the civility guidelines or blocks, even long blocks in some cases. But... An invitation like that doesn't come along all that often. I wish you'd have accepted it. Just as you wished that Faye had accepted your invitation to use the words "I'm sorry."
I have a feeling that a bad precedent wouldn't have been a major threat.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2010, at 12:59:29
In reply to Re: what might have happened » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 23, 2010, at 11:49:10
> Wouldn't it have been more conducive to peace in the long run to simply request that next time anyone with a question of that sort simply ask you with respect and you'll be happy to answer? Or to point out that no one feels all that much like responding politely unless they were addressed with politeness?
Those are among the possible take-home lessons, thanks for spelling them out.
> An invitation like that doesn't come along all that often. I wish you'd have accepted it. Just as you wished that Faye had accepted your invitation to use the words "I'm sorry."
I think we can learn a lot by looking at who we do (and don't) invite to do what and what invitations from others we do (and don't) accept.
But I don't invite posters to be civil, I require it. So in this context authority and power are complicating dynamics.
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2010, at 13:19:12
In reply to Re: blocked for 52 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by BabyToes on April 23, 2010, at 10:26:52
Posted by muffled on April 23, 2010, at 23:01:59
In reply to I had the exact same question/thoughts (nm) » BabyToes, posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2010, at 13:19:12
http://www.olweus.org/public/bullying.page
What is Bullying?
Dan Olweus, creator of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, provides us with this commonly accepted definition for bullying in his book, Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do:
"A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself."
This definition includes three important components:
1. Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions.
2. Bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time.
3. Bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 24, 2010, at 1:37:22
In reply to So....who is the bully I wonder....?, posted by muffled on April 23, 2010, at 23:01:59
Including Dr. Bob. I really don't.
I realize you and others may have differing opinions. It's just that this question was posted back to the post with my name on it so I thought I'd better clarify.
I was agreeing with BT that those are natural questions, especially in this community, i.e., why and even if, wondering or even asserting a person has a mental health condition is really so negative. That's all. Seems that word **disorder (ed)** is the true trigger as several have mentioned (see thread on Psych board) After all, I'll bet if if someone posted, "I think Dr. Bob is anxious," or "I think Dr. Bob is depressed," would the reaction be the same? Maybe, but.....
Bullies...hmm.
Looking at *only* those three criteria, I could apply them to every law enforcement officer doing their jobs (depending what is exactly meant by *aggressive*) in the view of a 'perpetrator' anyway. Context and circumstances are really crucial, I think. Although law enforcement officers are certainly capable of bullying behavior *within* the bounds of their duties, unfortunately...:-(
But, what do I know, really? I am no expert on anything about human behavior. Hardly understand my own.
Bullying is not good. Bad things happen. I feel sad for the victims and the bullies.
Must disappear now...can't really be here any more.
(hi muffy)
Posted by muffled on April 24, 2010, at 8:41:18
In reply to I don't think anyone is a bully here » muffled, posted by 10derHeart on April 24, 2010, at 1:37:22
Sorry 10der, just I had worked thru the thread and then clicked reply.
I agree it seems some (like me) are VERY affected by the blocks.
My sense of fairness is challeneged by the inconsistancies.
To me blocks feel punitive becuase of their length. They are not just a time out to get control, the are a punishment. And IMHO sometimes the punishment FAR outweighs the crime.
Thats why I need to stay away from here.
This is not a safe place to get to know other people cuz I come to care about people here, and then I get very angry at the punishments that occur. It is very upsetting to me.
No chance to talk things out, just banishment.
This is Bobs site. Bobs rules. Bobs decision what happens here(when he is even around). There is no democracy here. whatsoever.
I can't feel safe here.
Hope you are doing ok.
TC
M
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.