NurseKim_ATL said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.
NurseKim_ATL said:No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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 StandardsOne thing that is still open after NurseKim_ATL’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
stefan_berlin said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Pushing back on stefan_berlin here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.