StringJunky

It's always a work-in-progress, so it's unlikely to be absolutely valid. The main thing is that it's useful.

Regardless of where it's development occurs and the means by which it was conceived, it is no less artificial than baby a born inside a woman. I think of an artificial object as something that is made from something different to the original.

That's basically the long and short of it. Let's see what happens.

That's right. More to do with self-discipline and consideration.

Speculation in the guise of a question. This type is especially annoying because it starts with a deceit, unless explicitly stated otherwise which it rarely is. It puts responders in the wrong starting mode for answering. I think when people do this they are trying to avoid, initially anyway, the sharp critical analysis that comes with presenting an obvious speculation

In pure science discussions egos should be left at home. Accepting ones error without a fuss is a virtue and essential for good science discussion imo. Getting emotional and egotistical is the antithesis of good scientific practice... Spock would turn in his grave.

Yeah, it's like 'chemical' vs 'natural' pills... it's ALL chemical, DAMMIT!

This raises the question: is science discussion about 'winning the argument' or mutually pursuing as a close a description of nature as we can? For me personally, winning the argument is for politics and debating societies. I'll keep it in the back of my mind.

If the barrel was 100 metres long and did a 1000 revs a second it will still come out straight. Think of a cricket bowler fast over-arming, there's no angular momentum there, is there? There's no fixed connection between the gun and bullet, once it's left the barrel for angular momentum to be there.

Patience is acquired, not born; it's a skill. When it comes to educational dissemination, empathy for the ignorance and naivete of others is as important as knowledge. You can't teach if you can't speak in the language of the listener.

But then you are perpetuating the pointless conversation if you don't; it's a dilemma. I shall make a point of flagging a thread of this type and see how it goes. Not say anything for about 100 posts, at suitable point, and see what happens. If it's a reader + mod opinion, that's collective responsibility.

From the shooter's perspective, I think the path of the bullet appears to curve, but in reality, it follows a normal straight path. Angular momentum is not induced in that scenario... how can it? The bullet is not going to rotate about a point once it has left the barrel.

This is striking picture of the Chile volcano: Click image to enlarge http://uk.reuters.com/news/picture/photos-of-the-week?articleId=UKRTX1D5OH

That's part of what I mean: it becomes wilful intransigence. I think somewhere around 100 posts must be enough to say "enough!", surely?. It happens at 300-400 (10 pages) mark anyway, so why not preempt the inevitable? It's not a massive problem, but I thought a little bit more QC in this area wouldn't go amiss, especially when you know the likely ending.

There's no skill in preaching to the choir.

You wouldn't think we were nagging if people thought they were talking to a brick wall, which is what it is alot of the time?

Yes, what acme has posted is what I understand. I've had it a few times, mostly occurring during a traumatic dream and I'm conscious before the chemicals that relax me have warn off, hence, me feeling paralysed.

Assume = Pretend.

Yes, perhaps voting down the persistent ones more keenly may have a behaviour-altering effect. You can't go mental with the down votes anyway, because you only get 3 a day. Perhaps it might work if offenders start getting sudden flurries of them from different readers the moment they start, they might think more deeply about their next response.

Yes, perhaps people need to be a bit more vocal, or use the red ones more, The only problem with in-thread off-topic comments about a posters attitude/style may only serve to derail the conversation. Regarding ignoring a thread at the right point, most people seem unable to do this... because the other guy is so wrong! They can't let it go, and deny it the oxygen of a response.

I've noticed a consistent trend of threads dragging for about 300-400 posts, then people start getting annoyed and mods start insisting for some substantive evidence. None is forthcoming, and then quickly follows some mardy exchanges, resulting in closure. Might it be a good idea for the mods to intervene much sooner, say 100 posts? I think this is more than ample to ascertain the direction and usefulness of a thread. I think the mods would not be out of order, if there is a consensus between them, to 'knock a thread on the head' because it's clearly pointless with no productive outcome. I like this forum because of it's relative freedom, but I do think a line needs to be drawn when that freedom just results in aimless, content-free waffling, or stubborness to pursue an idea that was scientifically dismissed umpteen posts ago in a thread.

I think one way to help avoiding confirmation bias is to put your initial questions or statements in such a way that they do not prejudice towards a certain outcome i.e. the results that you want to see.

Camaraderie or comradeship?

I read a bit and the silicone lube is suppose to stop that. I suppose the chlorine vapours have as good as welded it.

Most likely, the people who are knowledgeable on this stuff haven't been around and seen it yet. Here's a search page: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=microscopic+slide+preparation