"How dreadful to be somebody. How very like a frog, to shout one's name the livelong day to an admiring....blog?" - with apologies to Emily Dickinson Blogs should be a tiny bit personal, and entertaining and I realize that this one is definitely lacking in the "E" factor---no graphics, no embedded YouTube videos. Its aim is to be informational, a lagniappe of useful and perhaps a few odd tidbits. It's also, if only very tenuously, tied to a serious magazine. But I don't want it to suffer from the "B" factor, or to be too boring, either. I still don't have time for the graphics, yet, but yesterday, I broke out of character to mention the weird fact that some web visitors had found this blog site after typing in the unlikely terms "hunk" and "hunk of the day" and traced that unusal traffic (it was a trickle, not a flood) to its only possible source. (I had also meant it, certainly not as an insult, but as a compliment to Dr. Peter Rost, the "bad boy" of the pharma blogging world, whose blog is acknowledged to have the most "sex appeal." ) The important part of that post was that Rost had spoken at a recent pharma conference, which suggested that maybe he was returning to his roots after an extended absence. But, alas, he linked to the entry on his site with the suggestion that I post more of his photos to increase our traffic, prompting one nasty comment and likely more to come from his site's visitors about how dull this site is, etc. Points well taken and no offense taken either, as this is only blogging that we're talking about. But I don't want the people who clamor to read about Britney's head shaving or poor Anna Nichole Smith, may her soul rest in peace, visting my blog. Or those in search of "hunks." I know they won't and am vastly relieved. I've been a promoter of the Doctor and his position against off-label marketing to the "serious"side of pharma, the people who make the drugs that marketers promote. We posted an op ed, chapter from his book, and even a little film. on our real web site..and received positive responses from the invisible folks in the industry who previously may have misunderstood his motives I wish Dr. R. well with his book, the movie and his career and will continue to write about whatever is positive. But, for the one or two of you who may even read this, that post was a sign that it's time to get back to a "just the facts, ma'am" approach with this blog. As John Mack's survey indicated, most people only visit these silly things to learn what's new. So, while you may see a more interesting visual presentation one day, you will never see "The Boys of Pfizer," photos of Chippendale pharma drug reps or anything like that on this site. Or attempts at cute interplay with other bloggers. Because, after all, who cares?