Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Please don't slander me

(25 Posts)
happymerryberries Sun 23-Jan-05 13:38:19

Alwayssaythank you has inferred that because I once worked for a pharmaceutical company I am trying to deliberatly mislead in another thread.

She seems to be saying that my job was to mislead. In fact my job was to make sure that advertising companies did not misrepresent journal quotes.

It was a job that I did with great care and skill. I was extremely good at it. And I deeply resent the implication that I am in some way underhand or untrustworthy. I have been quite open about my work history.

Might I remind her that making personal attacks breaks the mumsnet code.

suzywong Sun 23-Jan-05 13:41:25

at the risk of seeming cliquey I will say sorry you are feeling peeved hmb, I have always known you to be the voice of reason and to give advice and opinions based on fact and honesty rather than emotion or excitement

cloudy Sun 23-Jan-05 13:41:46

...

JanH Sun 23-Jan-05 13:42:55

Hear, hear, suzy.

Gwenick Sun 23-Jan-05 13:43:44

Wow just seen the latest comment on the thread in question and I have to say I think that is way out of line. I'd ask MN to remove those comments if I was you (and yes I'll probably be accused cliqueness too).

happymerryberries Sun 23-Jan-05 13:44:51

Naw, let it stand. It says far more about the quality of her a'argument' than I ever could.

Gwenick Sun 23-Jan-05 13:46:24

actually that's a good point - better that people see what this person 'stooped' to rather than take her word on it.

Slinky Sun 23-Jan-05 13:48:27

Just to second Suzywong.....

edam Sun 23-Jan-05 14:14:02

I posted towards the start of the thread because I thought ASTU was giving alarmist, extreme and untrue advice. Opinions are fine, misleading and scaring people that their children will die isn't, IMO.

So her resorting to personal attacks when she finds someone clued up who disagrees with her doesn't surprise me. Sorry you are upset about this.

lou33 Sun 23-Jan-05 16:08:27

as a moderator, i would say the best course of action is to email contactus@mumsnet.com if you have any concerns or complaints


sorry , am feeling too lazy to change into official mo name

hercules Sun 23-Jan-05 16:10:18

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Does that mean you don't have your mod hat on and so really we can just ignore you

Twiglett Sun 23-Jan-05 16:15:37

I will second (or is it third or fourth) what suzywong says .. I've always always thought your posts were honest and full of integrity

I haven't read the thread in question so sorry you're feeling maligned

lou33 Sun 23-Jan-05 16:22:50

No, it means i am being all nice and pleasant, but if you get cheeky with me young lady, i will put on scary mod hat and half moon glasses and give you a good talking to.

RTKangaMummy Sun 23-Jan-05 16:30:41

HMB I really like reading your posts

Is that person ASTY a troll?

Didn't read the thread as it was happening and is way too long to read in detail

but it strikes me that it is just someone trying to start an arguement and want a fight

I am sorry if I have misunderstood it

tamum Sun 23-Jan-05 16:31:39

Just a quick message of support, hmb- I think you were endlessly patient in the face of extreme provocation.

lockets Sun 23-Jan-05 16:34:12

Message withdrawn

Podmog Sun 23-Jan-05 16:36:59

Message withdrawn

Twiglett Sun 23-Jan-05 16:42:47

I have now scanned the thread in question and have one admission and one question

Question first: Am I the only one who doesn't read reamsand reams of copy and pasted material? (I prefer reading people's own thoughts, ideas and experiences)

Admission second: I used to work in ..<shudder> .. advertising and I happened to be immensely ethical and never represented any product / company that I couldn't believe in

<thpppptt> (that's a raspberry BTW )

Gwenick Sun 23-Jan-05 17:26:28

Twiglett - no you'r not the only one - given a link there's a very strong chance I'll go and read the page (and maybe even more) but having it shoved in my face 'en masse' is a right turn off.

NotQuiteCockney Sun 23-Jan-05 17:42:15

Also, when you get a link, you can evaluate it in context, and see if it's the Lancet or Nutjobs Monthly. (Not that those are the only two options, obviously.)

HappyMumof2 Sun 23-Jan-05 18:24:03

Message withdrawn

happymerryberries Sun 23-Jan-05 18:27:49

twiglett, I believe you honest !

To be fair to the ad writers their brief was to make the best copy they could , out of the papers we had on the drugs. They never made anything up, but would stretch it. The rules for drugs are much tighter than for other areas we had to comply with more than the legal honest and decent stuff. I was there as a watch to to make sure it was all done by the numbers. and it was. We never had a complaint. And remember the people who read drug ads most carefully would be other drug companies, so you could bet they would try to scupper you.....jsy like we did them. What larks eh?

nasa Sun 23-Jan-05 19:02:44

hmb, I haven't seen the thread in question but I think that sounds like utter nonsense. You always seem full of common sense and intelligence.

MistressMary Sun 23-Jan-05 23:28:49

Arghh, wind up time. Sorry just got in and scanned the thread, well I would be here til Easter if I read all the Copy and pasting stuff.
Very in yer face stuff and not the way to go in this sensitive issue.
Sorry it turned out the way it did.
Agree it was bang out of order to make those statements.
Reasonable comments make far more impact then scaremongering like that person did in my opinion.

Socci Mon 24-Jan-05 00:13:20

Message withdrawn

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now