Dr.SportsMedIN said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
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 StandardsDr.SportsMedIN said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.