raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsSleepDoc_PDX said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Mine went the same way, slower.
Reporting back.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.