Posted by Alan on December 9, 2002, at 10:24:20
In reply to You miss the point, posted by Anyuser on December 9, 2002, at 9:52:10
> The merits of what pharmrep has to say are beside the larger point I am trying to make about your tactics. What you did is categorically wrong as a tactic, regardless of what it is you're trying to prevent. The criticism I'm making would apply to anyone using the same tactic in an attempt to prevent postings on any topic.
>
> 1. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether a self-confessed drug rep on PB is a tolerable thing. There are many articulate critics of pharmrep. Dr. Bob has heard them out, and so far he has not blocked him. You essentially tried to go around Dr. Bob and block a poster that he declined to block. If Dr. Bob had decided to block pharmrep after hearing the arguments for and against, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Do you think any poster should be able to go around Dr. Bob to subvert his policies? Maybe I am overstating this point. Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't care, or has a different view. That's why I asked him.
>
> 2. Even if Dr. Bob were a laissez faire administrator, in my book what you did was a very big internet no-no. You went outside the universe of Psycho Babble in an effort to mess with someone's personal life, because you didn't agree with what that person has to say or their right to say it. I would be very, very upset if someone tried to do that to me, and I bet you would be, too. If that isn't "uncivil," in the PB meaning, I don't know what is. To me, that is much more alarming than the insults and sarcasm that trigger a PBC.
>
> 3. You overlook the benefits of free speech. The strongest critics of pharmrep presume that he is somehow winning a debate, and it doesn't seem that way to me. If you read all the posts he's taken more shots than he's given. I think it's wrong to try just to shut him up, or shut up any poster, instead of watching the discourse play itself out. If he'd been blocked, we wouldn't have read the to and fro between him and Dr. Dave, for example. This, however, is Dr. Bob's call. He determines the benefits and the limits of free speech on his board.
>
> In sum, you, and the other poster that endorses you, say that pharmrep and his employer are so very bad that your tactic is justifiable, and I strongly disagree.
===========================================So your point is that FDA policy about direct advertising/advising don't superceed those of Dr. Bob?
I would think that highly implausible.
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:8456
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8478.html