dan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
Happy to go further on any of that.
dan_philly said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLibrarianMeg said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Nothing to add that would improve it.
LibrarianMeg said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at LibrarianMeg’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.