DanielChem_CHI said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
DanielChem_CHI said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
DanielChem_CHI said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Dr.MetabolicMD said:Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.