BethLabQueen said:True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
BethLabQueen said:True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.
Coming at BethLabQueen’s question from a different direction. 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.
Happy to go further on any of that.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
lisa_labSD said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from lisa_labSD, on substance rather than tone. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.