quinn_sf said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
quinn_sf said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
quinn_sf said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
DebRD_ATL said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.