PeptideSynthNJ said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Reporting back.
Follow-up — I put something in the gap where food used to be rather than waiting for the gap to close on its own. That was the part nobody told me.