DeniseRN_TPA said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
DeniseRN_TPA said:The answer turned out to depend on the detail I had left out of the opening post, which is a lesson about how to ask rather than about the subject.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from DeniseRN_TPA — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
labquiet_amy said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.