Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
The question I want answered is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Dr.PeteFamMed said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultspaul_denver said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.