An EXTREMELY serious message for ALL OPP members
Jun 10, 2014 20:37:49 #
Shut up Aboyo. Ya schmuck.
Retired669 wrote:
The post is right on the money jimmy is why you and many others like you will never get it. :thumbup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jun 10, 2014 20:43:57 #
Anigav6969 wrote:
Hey Mr Blacksheep...you stay out of this...I don't want to try and match wits with you !
But seriously, don't you think the personal insults are hurled from both sides? I've done it...as we all have
But seriously, don't you think the personal insults are hurled from both sides? I've done it...as we all have
Oh yeah. I've ignored far more than I've answered, personally. But yeah.
Jun 10, 2014 20:45:14 #
Viral wrote:
Correct.
45 CFR would be the relevant regulations. However, using public information (given that no personal identification information is collected and tied to the data) is excluded from informed consent.
45 CFR would be the relevant regulations. However, using public information (given that no personal identification information is collected and tied to the data) is excluded from informed consent.
Interestingly, I get the impression you are an expert who's dabbled in government codes?
Jun 10, 2014 20:51:10 #
I worked in industry under the purview of 21 CFR, pharmaceuticals.
And, I researched my position. I posted my findings a few pages ago.
And, I researched my position. I posted my findings a few pages ago.
UncleJesse wrote:
Interestingly, I get the impression you are an expert who's dabbled in government codes?
Jun 10, 2014 20:52:25 #
Retired669 wrote:
You need to work on your paranoia problem instead of concerning yourself with how I post. :lol: :lol: :lol:
And you seem pretty concerned about my posts. You "reply" to them enough.
Jun 10, 2014 20:55:12 #
[quote=mwdegutis]I apologize in advance for the length of my post but this is extremely serious and cant be buried in some obscure thread. All political views aside, there is something VERY unethical and illegal going on in the friendly confines of One Political Plaza (OPP). I happened to notice recently that at least five times it was mentioned that OPP member Glaucon is doing some type of psychological research. Based on these observations, I concluded that Glaucons research includes the members of this website, albeit unknowingly. This would explain a lot about his/her approach to how he/she posts and interacts with OPP members.
So I was wondering and posted to Glaucon in a thread He/she has said I never ask questions. Well here is a condensed version of that thread:
Interesting comments...this leads me to believe that in fact, Glaucon is conducting unapproved psychological studies on all OPP members. So lets review
I am in full compliance with APA standards although there is no need for me to be.
Kind of sounds like someone else we know but I digress. Not only do I respectfully submit that Glaucon is NOT in full compliance with APA standards, he/she has also crossed both ethical and legal boundaries and on a minor note, possibly OPP rules. Case in point:
Concerning APA and ethical requirements:
American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct:
3.10 Informed Consent
When psychologists conduct research they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about: (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) [b]whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
Concerning legal rights and the rights of human subjects:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study, and the discomfort it may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participation in the study, and that he or she is free to withdraw his or her consent to participation at any time. The physician should then obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.
LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
FDA Regulations
Informed consent
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
General requirements for informed consent
No investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
So there you have it. Based on the evidence, I, and to the best of my knowledge, everyone else on this website have been the subjects of a psychological study and have never given our consent for Glaucon to conduct research on us. Therefore, we have unethically and illegally been involuntary test subjects. So one of my questions is, given APAs Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 8.02 Informed Consent to Research edict concerning incentives for participation, how are we going to be compensated? Another is how should Glaucon be held accountable for these egregiously unethical and illegal offenses?
Considering the seriousness of this post, I am posting this to the forum at large to inform you of this matter. If you choose to, PLEASE only post serious replies.[/quote]
Glaucon I find your posts extremely informative. I would hope that you would continue with your constitutional rights to free speech. And ignore the TP hypocrisy.
So I was wondering and posted to Glaucon in a thread He/she has said I never ask questions. Well here is a condensed version of that thread:
Interesting comments...this leads me to believe that in fact, Glaucon is conducting unapproved psychological studies on all OPP members. So lets review
I am in full compliance with APA standards although there is no need for me to be.
Kind of sounds like someone else we know but I digress. Not only do I respectfully submit that Glaucon is NOT in full compliance with APA standards, he/she has also crossed both ethical and legal boundaries and on a minor note, possibly OPP rules. Case in point:
Concerning APA and ethical requirements:
American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct:
3.10 Informed Consent
When psychologists conduct research they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about: (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) [b]whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
Concerning legal rights and the rights of human subjects:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study, and the discomfort it may entail. He or she should be informed that he or she is at liberty to abstain from participation in the study, and that he or she is free to withdraw his or her consent to participation at any time. The physician should then obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.
LAWS RELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
FDA Regulations
Informed consent
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
General requirements for informed consent
No investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
So there you have it. Based on the evidence, I, and to the best of my knowledge, everyone else on this website have been the subjects of a psychological study and have never given our consent for Glaucon to conduct research on us. Therefore, we have unethically and illegally been involuntary test subjects. So one of my questions is, given APAs Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 8.02 Informed Consent to Research edict concerning incentives for participation, how are we going to be compensated? Another is how should Glaucon be held accountable for these egregiously unethical and illegal offenses?
Considering the seriousness of this post, I am posting this to the forum at large to inform you of this matter. If you choose to, PLEASE only post serious replies.[/quote]
Glaucon I find your posts extremely informative. I would hope that you would continue with your constitutional rights to free speech. And ignore the TP hypocrisy.
Jun 10, 2014 21:02:58 #
mwdegutis wrote:
So tell me Glaucon...how many are on your payroll?
BoJester
Brian Devon
Who else?
I guess conclusions based on observation and documented facts mean nothing nowadays.
BoJester
Brian Devon
Who else?
I guess conclusions based on observation and documented facts mean nothing nowadays.
Hey I want to be on that list. I want to understand why The TP folks vote against there own self interest and deny that Fox News does not lie and they are fair and balance. I am all in. Tdsrnest
Jun 10, 2014 21:06:56 #
mwdegutis wrote:
And you seem pretty concerned about my posts. You "reply" to them enough.
I enjoy paranoid filled rants especially yours! Where else can you go and have this much fun?
Thanks....
Jun 10, 2014 21:08:40 #
Viral wrote:
I worked in industry under the purview of 21 CFR, pharmaceuticals.
And, I researched my position. I posted my findings a few pages ago.
And, I researched my position. I posted my findings a few pages ago.
I am impressed. Nice work.
Jun 10, 2014 21:12:26 #
tdsrnest wrote:
Glaucon I find your posts extremely informative. I would hope that you would continue with your constitutional rights to free speech. And ignore the TP hypocrisy.
Okay, would this explain the faint voices you sometimes hear in the background when you're talking to someone else and they can't hear them? Or when you go to shut off your computer and some program or .dll is still working away and won't shut down and sometimes you actually have to manually shut it down? Could that be government monitoring? Do you think all our cell phone calls are really being monitored or is that just scare tactics? You have me wondering now.
Jun 10, 2014 23:38:00 #
Blacksheep wrote:
Okay, would this explain the faint voices you sometimes hear in the background when you're talking to someone else and they can't hear them? Or when you go to shut off your computer and some program or .dll is still working away and won't shut down and sometimes you actually have to manually shut it down? Could that be government monitoring? Do you think all our cell phone calls are really being monitored or is that just scare tactics? You have me wondering now.
Yup black sheep read the patriot act and you will find out who authorized the FBI CIA and NSA to tap your phone oh that bill was signed by Bushy oh and take a look hand the homeland security another Bushy bill. Put the blame where it belongs
Jun 10, 2014 23:50:11 #
tdsrnest wrote:
Yup black sheep read the patriot act and you will find out who authorized the FBI CIA and NSA to tap your phone oh that bill was signed by Bushy oh and take a look hand the homeland security another Bushy bill. Put the blame where it belongs
(He went for it, snicker snicker giggle.)
Jun 11, 2014 00:04:37 #
Let's be fare The Patriot Act Was necessary at the time. But with every bill there are hidden rules. 99 percent of us never read it. Both Republicans and Liberals never made to much of a stink about it. There are good and bad parts to any bill. So lets get rid of the bad.
Jun 11, 2014 07:55:51 #
Jun 11, 2014 08:22:22 #
jimahrens wrote:
Let's be fare The Patriot Act Was necessary at the time. But with every bill there are hidden rules. 99 percent of us never read it. Both Republicans and Liberals never made to much of a stink about it. There are good and bad parts to any bill. So lets get rid of the bad.
I suspect that 99% of us were so freaked at the time of 9/11 that we would have said "yes!!!" to just about anything if we "thought" it would keep us safer with no thoughts to the consequences of the slippery slope that would ensue. Guess the quandary is -- how do we get rid of the "bad"? Congress is not our friend; nor are any of those agencies out there like the NSA or the CIA. Once upon a time, now long ago, I had friends in the CIA and one in the NSA and I can still remember chuckling at their paranoia. I can't even imagine, given 9/11, how that paranoia, some of it warranted, has multiplied!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.