Posted by IsoM on January 14, 2002, at 3:00:34
In reply to Re: misleading information , posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:58:33
Thanks, Dr. Bob for answering.
> >"You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?"
No, I'm not suggesting this should be one of the criteria for deciding whether to let someone post. There's sometimes too many grey areas to decide correctly, but when it's obvious that the poster is benefiting, or lying, or misleading others, I think it's enough to decide. If they don't admit to anything, well, I guess it's innocent until proven guilty, right? At least Dolphin was honest about her benefits & I do feel she's probably very sincere too, just not using sound judgement.
I'll work on condensing the article tomorrow & save it to HD to use as needed. I do think it's a pretty tough balancing act you're doing here & it doesn't help at all for us to jump on you for just doing your job as moderator.
****************************************************************************************************
> > Dr. Bob, looking back I can see that my comments to Dolphin were uncivil due to feeling upset about losing Cam & perhaps others on this forum.
>
> Thanks for acknowledging that. I don't like losing people, either!
>
> > > just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?
> >
> > Does someone who owns stock in drug companies get free meds too.
>
> You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?
>
> > > *Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
> >
> > Yes, quite a few examples actually. These comments may contain some truth to them but when they're this overblown & not backed up with references, it IS misleading.
>
> Thanks for all the examples... Now *that* was a civil, educational response!
>
> (But remember that a lot of what gets posted isn't backed up with references, and some of it could also be considered overblown...)
>
> > Dr. Bob, in a fairly recent Scientific American issue, there's an article titled "Baloney Detector" about distinguishing true science from pseudoscience & a related web-site http://www.skeptic.com With your permission, I'd like to condense the points in the article & post it & the web-site each time fraudulent claims are made. Would that be fine?
>
> That would be very fine. :-) In fact, it might make a nice addition to the FAQ. Like the section on self-medication. Once some general points are laid out, it's easy to repost -- or just to link -- to them in the future. Thanks again!
>
> Bob
poster:IsoM
thread:2609
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2653.html