"I need advice asking a woman out on a date. ... . Seriously fuck you bitch I hope you die in a corporate hell, and then in real hell where your pale skin will burn like white wax off a candle."

Eric, my advice: unless the woman is a satanist who enjoys being demeaned, that's probably not a good approach.

By the way, the best reason nobody should email me on Facebook is how long it takes me to get to messages there. The last nasty from nutty Eric was on January 9. I only looked at mail there on Tuesday -- January 24-- and only because I had a minute to kill while I was waiting for somebody on the phone.

P.S. Hilariously, after I, of course, defriended the guy, he...yes...sent me another friend request!

I just left FB for other reasons, mainly because I connected with everyone I wanted to and had exhausted all the possibilities, but I wouldn't have friended a public figure anyhow. What would be the point? I don't know you.

Public figures attract psychopaths like moths to a flame. Probably a lesson in this for you, perhaps.

If you allow for everyone to comment on your wall, you could probably demote most of us from friends to subscribers without any practical loss of function. You probably already restrict private messages to only friends. These days, denying friend requests results in the requester becoming a subscriber.

I have a FB account, but don't use it much. I just don't like sharing that much about my life with everyone I've felt obliged to accept as friends on there, and the privacy settings are too annoying to manage sharing some stuff with everyone, other stuff with close friends, etc. But it's too ubiquitous personally and professionally now to get rid of it entirely.

Amy, have you ever considered switching to the Facebook Page format for your public Facebook presence? I don't know if that would work as well for you in terms of your advice work, but it would limit the ability of people like this guy to pester you.

I really dislike the instant message function myself, since "Hey, how's it going?" can be just as easily put in an e-mail, and I can answer better if I have time to think about it. About the only time I'd want to use the instant message is if one of my wife's family wanted to talk, since they're strewn about all over the world, and don't chat me up all that often.

As the marginal cost of being a dick approaches zero, more and more dicks show up.

I have my chat status permanently set to "offline." Even if I am logged in, it shows me unavailable for chats (I can't even explain how much I hate random IM pings).

Face book icky.

"Could you me any more self centered and rude?
Here, let me show you how it's done!"

"I have my chat status permanently set to 'offline.' Even if I am logged in, it shows me unavailable for chats (I can't even explain how much I hate random IM pings)."

Thanks for the tip, MSE! I didn't even know you could do that.

@Brian: "As the marginal cost of being a dick approaches zero, more and more dicks show up."

Which answers the question, "Why are there always more horse's asses than horses?"

Definitely don't accept Friend requests from strangers. Go the subscriber route. Private citizens get hassled enough by strangers. Someone who has a national presence like you is in so much more danger of harassment.

Going to have to find this chat business and turn it off.

And publishers, etc., expect you to have a Facebook presence -- and I follow researchers there, and they follow me. I also really like being in touch with a bunch of the people I knew at Ogilvy & Mather, where I worked right out of college. It was a blast, and a lot of them are great.

I also used Facebook to help a friend find an apartment for his sabbatical in Southern California. A friend who had a friend leaving for Princeton on sabbatical needed to sublet her apartment and she felt much better renting it to a fellow academic and a friend of a friend.

It's the people like this who are most annoying.

You can also set up groups of people who can see you online. There are about a dozen people I am willing to chat with whenever they pop in. They understand that if I don't respond, I'm away from my computer or busy, and they don't take it personally. Everyone else always sees me as offline.

Jeez- what a freak. I'd report him to Facebook if I were you, along with the VPD.

I looked up Eric Shuler on FB. Why am I not surprised that Eric has "worked at McDonald's?" - with no other work history?

He wanted advice asking women out on a date . . . he can just examine his messages and do the opposite.

the more I look at FB the more it seems like a consumer tracking and ad tool now... :shrug:
I've never used it, because of all the shifting sands of the rules... interestingly for keeping up with my friends, the twitter format seems to work the best, because it's more like a conversation...

For social media, I will quote Dogbert: "Bah!"

Anytime someone messages me "Hey" and nothing else, I get annoyed. Just say what you want, ask the question, etc.

Chat availability is controllable, so if you appear available to chat, people will assume it's on purpose.

I think you not only have to make yourself appear "always offline" but ALSO turn off friends' ability to send private messages to you through Facebook. Messages received while you're logged in can pop up in the chat window. Your chat log and message log are now the same thing.

By the way, does corporate hell offer benefits?

Wow. He is frightening.

I looked up Eric Shuler on FB. Why am I not surprised that Eric has "worked at McDonald's?"

Why am I not surprised it doesn't say "works at McDonald's?"

If I were you I would set up a Facebook fan page for people you don't want to friend, and limit who can send a friend request, private message, etc to your personal page.
Alternatively, you can put all your friends in various lists, then set who can message you or post on your wall to custom and only include the lists for people you know or want to follow. You can also control who sees specific posts from the drop down menu next to the post button.
Google+ makes it easier, they have 'follow' as a choice on 'add to circles.' Circles are just like Facebook lists only easier to manage.

I think we musn't be so hard on precious Lil' Eric. After all, his entire life it has been instilled in him how incredibly special he is. Don't you all see, the entire world revolves around Lil' Eric. He is ENTITLED to Amy's time, for free by the way, and if she DARES to disagree with that notion then she is a "selfish bitch".

Poor, poor Lil' Eric, so incredibly "special" but nobody except his parents see it. :-(

Eric is off his meds.

Eric is off his rocker!

Why does a polite request not to use IMs prompt a stream of vulgarity and hatefulness.

Some time ago, around the time when this blog was first started, I sent Amy an IM. (We had known each other by then.) She told me I was faboo, but she really couldn't have a discussion via IMs as she was working, and could I please use email.

I apologized for disturbing her, wished her a good day, and said I was going to use email from now on...and decided then and there that I was going to KILL THAT BITCH!

Well, no, not really. I didn't decide that. Besides, I'm obviously an incompetent crazed psychopath. That was 13 years ago, and Amy's still alive.

"Wow. He is frightening."

Yeah, in a "Piglet, I've lodged my head in the honey jar again, be a bro and help me out OR I"LL SLICE YOU INTO HAM SANDWICHES!" kind of way.

Why, oh why can't I get a date YOU STUCK UP BITCHES?

Huh? What's a guy got to do to DATE YOU BITCHES?!?!

Eric Schuler (Shuey Louis)
(not really)

Well, if anyone wants to make a facebook friend, here he is: https://www.facebook.com/ericschuler91

Amy, I'm really resentful that you haven't carved out a portion of you day for me (someone you've neve met).

My advice on dating for this guy is, DON'T!!!

I'm sorry you had to endure this Amy. Just know that the vast majority of us are great folks... but we aren't the ones private messaging you.

"IM conversations are presumptuous and rather rude -- unless you are sure that the person wants to have them with you. They assume the person must talk to you right when it's good for you. Not cool."

How is this any different than a person who uses the telephone to call and speak to another person? It's just a different means of communication. I can choose to not answer the telephone if I don't feel like talking. Similarly, with IM, I can choose to log out or make myself invisible, and therefore unavailable.

PS IM conversations are presumptuous and rather rude -- unless you are sure that the person wants to have them with you. They assume the person must talk to you right when it's good for you. Not cool.

Actually, I have to disagree totally with that.

IM Conversations are exactly like any other "packet" communication - the people on the ends decide how it works.

Phone calls force you to stop what you are doing, and interactively talk to someone. Email, IM, text, sticky-notes, snail-mail do not. You can address them when you are able or willing.

(Now, some IM clients don't "save" messages, but those are crappy clients. Don't use them.)

If you choose to answer the email or IM or snailmail is at your pace - and the response of the person on the other end can be presumptious. I've certainly gotten tens of emails after one I haven't read - with the original sender demanding me to reply. I like IM because I can send information to people with less work than email (seriously, if you keep IM open, do a flow analysis). It doesn't have to be acted on immediately - or if it does, I can re-send or ask "are you there, have a minute", etc.

Instant Messaging _with the presumption of instant reply_ is not the same as Instant Messaging. My wife and I use Gtalk as text messaging - same effect, less restrictions, and no-additional-cost.

As a result, my IMs are live pretty much 24/7 in some way shape or form - and most people I IM often leave messages, not expecting an instant reply.

Amy:

You need to change the preferences in your IM programs. :)

They do not _have_ to be intrusive or interrupt - mine wait for me to check them, just like email.
(Granted, that's not the default behavior, but it was easily changed in all of them)

I have to agree with Unix's suggestion above to look into changing IM preferences to suit your work needs, Amy. With the several preference settings made available to users, IM is really no more intrusive than telephone, text, or email.

I am so glad that I'm not on any the IM as available. I don't FB and don't ever care to.

I've been in front, current, or behind the tech wave since the mid-80's to current.

I look at the tech waves, the benefits, and the downsides. If a company only wants, or highly prefers, an FB/Twitter reply they have lost me as a customer.

I don't ever want my private info in public. That can happen as a bad compile by FB.