John Cuthber

It seems to be working OK in Chrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-Methyltetrahydrofuran

It seems more sensible to me to label these things (dyes, proteins, structure, whatever) with their charges.

I'm not sure that the terms "acid" and "basic" are useful here. Lysine is illustrated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine and it's got a positive charge on it because, at the sort of pH you get in the body, it carries an extra proton. (The amino and carboxylate groups at the other end don't get involved much, because they are part of a protein chain- each is combined to form an amide group) The reason it picks up that proton is that lysine a base. However, once it has picked it up, the resulting protonated form is an acid. (and I think that's where the confusion lies) So, in the body, it's got a positive charge, and it sticks to the -ve charge of eosin. Look at a much simpler case- ammonia. NH3 is a base- it has no charge. However in the body, at about pH7 it is protonated to form the ammonium ion NH4+ NH4+ is acidic (albeit weakly so). Here's the strange bit, if ammonia wasn't a base, it wouldn't get converted into an acid in the body. (in the longer term the ammonia will be removed from the body- probably as urea- but that's not the point)

No, and once again you seem to be repeatedly ignoring what I say, Stop pretending that the decision is down to my personal biases. I never said that, you keep trying to pretend that I did. I repeatedly pointed out that it's a societal decision. And you flatly said it isn't- but you offered no sensible reason for that assertion. If you want to see who is sane you look at what people believe. If they think the moon is made of cheese, that there are dragons at the bottom of the garden, and so on- things that are clearly not true, then they are insane. It's not a matter of "not people's subjective view of those who disagree with them. " It's a matter of whether they believe that the Queen is a shape changing alien lizard. If they do, then they are nuts. Why do you think it takes a medical professional to see that? How do you reckon that anyone ever ends up going to see such a doctor? After all- you seem to think that nobody else can make the judgement. Do you think these people wander deludely round the streets until they happen to bump into a psychiatrist? Or do you accept that the general public are able to tell that someone is "not right in the head" and alert the authorities? Until you actually look at what I say you are not even trying to debate with me.

Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that the stain called Hematoxylin isn't Hematoxylin. The stuff in the bottle has aluminium added to it. The Al + Hematoxylin complex has a +ve charge overall. On the other hand eosin, at the sort of pH you get in normal tissue has a -ve charge. This might help http://mhpl.facilities.northwestern.edu/files/2013/10/The-Science-and-Application-of-Hematoxylin-and-Eosin-Staining-6-5-2012.pdf

By whom is it recommended? I ask because it doesn't seem to be very good.

I'm getting tyred of this.

No I did not. I said that, if you want a medical diagnosis then you need a doctor. However, to judge if someone is sane or not, you just need to consider their behaviour.

And, once again (in the hope that you might listen this time). No. I have labelled people who disagree with evidence insane. That's not controversial and I have cited my reasons for asserting it. You seem not to understand that I already presented the evidence. The definition of delusional disorder falls within the field of psychiatry. The relevant bit is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion However, the diagnosis might not fall in that field. Imagine I claim that there's gold in my garden. The only way to tell if I'm delusional in thinking that is to check to see if it's actually true. You need an analytical chemist or a geologist or some such to do that. A psychologist or psychiatrist simply isn't qualified to establish whether my belief is delusional or not. So, will you please stop banging on about psychiatry and psychology as if they are some God-given answer to anything? Anyway, here's the evidence again. http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm You are not in any way attempting to show that it's wrong. And, in spite of that clear documented evidence, you seem to insist that the Right wing are correct in their beliefs. Do you, by any chance also think that you are Napoleon?

Yes, as I have pointed out several times. The Right wing are in the same position as a man who thinks he's Napoleon. They believe stuff that's plainly not true. For example, trickle-down economics. There are, of course, plenty of other daft ideas they subscribe to.

Next time, before you quote stuff back at me, you may wish to read it John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist."" Also, it might look better if you spell my name correctly- I know it's a pseudonym, but surely it's not too much trouble to get it right. And, once again I will draw your attention to the fact that three were de facto diagnoses of insanity before there were psychiatrists. The doctors came about because there was an illness- not the other way round. Are you actually going to address that?

If you look back a bit, you will find out what I think is required to make a diagnosis http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity/?p=841378 And, since I have clarified why I think it's essentially a societal decision, ordinary people are perfectly able to decide if someone has lost the plot or not. As I said, people diagnosed others as being insane long before psychology existed. It's possible that psychology and psychiatry can tell you more about these unfortunates- perhaps give you the why's and wherefores or even offer treatment. But, in terms of just answering the question "are these people normal?" there's no need for any qualification; there never was.

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology. If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist. If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion. it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

You should come to terms with the fact that a bright eight year old can see how a bike works.

No. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal "Originally used chiefly for making guns, gunmetal was eventually superseded by steel."

The dees are hollow.

Your hair is dead. It's past the point where something can be "good" for it. If you think the gel makes it look better or whatever- go for it.

Ok it seems you don't like the idea of the Right being defined by being the Right. you seem to have forgotten that I did attack the principle or, at least, I provided a link to where another group has done so. http://www.oecd.org/...es Numero 2.pdf But there's a point where people stick to principles even after they were shown to be wrong. At that point I start to think they have lost their minds.

Exactly which part do you not agree with? Do you not agree that a slippery slope argument is a fallacy? Do you not agree that the Right wing has common properties that make them Right wing? Do you not agree that I can lump all right wingers together - at least in so far as their political views are concerned- because if I can't then "right wing" is a bit thin on definition? Do you not agree that a group of people who - as the groups defining character- believe in something absurd can be considered insane? Do you not agree that "trickle down" economic policies are discredited to the point of absurdity? If it's just the last of those then all we need to do is look at some financial figures and see who as reality on their side. And, you may have missed it, but labelling isn't just found in playgrounds- it's rather common in doctors' surgeries and in hospitals.

I think I realised it when I was at school. The school' preacher taught us there was a heaven where dead people went. I realised that since none of them ever came back, there was no way anyone could tell if it was true.

So, you cease to be human each night when you sleep? I'm rather more than my DNA- for example, it can't type. At best it's a matter of opinion when life begins. Pick a random point on a continuum.

If they are going to become a human, then logically they can't be one yet. So they are not human life. It's a matter of playing with words. What does it mean for something to be to be "human life"? Also, it's entirely possible that the secondary oocyte will not actually proceed to become a human because it may be unviable for some reason.

I can argue against that perfectly easily. The sperm and egg were alive and human. That's before conception. However, as ophiolite is right, all we could argue about would be the details of the meanings of the words.

My degree was 4 years, but that's unusual here in the UK, most are 3 I was 22 when I finished it.