hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note dt1, Please do not create posts for the purpose of advertising or otherwise attempt to drive traffic to external sites. If you wish to discusss something, please explain what that is or this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note You realise of course that this is a discussion site? Please make your point clear so that people are able to reply to whatever it is you wish to talk about, or this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note SamBridge, I will start this by saying that this is not an official repremand, however I am going to address something you said a few posts ago and ask that you please keep it in mind when posting. The primary purpose of this site is not simply to answer questions, but to discuss science. I don't know how much clearer I can make that for you. For your own sake and for the sanity of those who have to keep repeating themselves to you, you need to remove that notion from your head. We are not here to tutor you or present full lectures on neuroscience. If that is what we did here, you'd better believe we'd be charging you for our services (FTR, I charge $AUD40 / hour for private tutoring). Now granted, we have a homework section that is dedicated to answering student questions and we certainly have researchers asking questions about experimental set ups, etc. However, if one such student were to come in here and ask something vague like, 'What is Chemistry,' the response would almost certainly be, 'go read a book.' And so, if you want to learn neuroscience from the ground up, I would ask that you go read a book. If you want to be tutored in neuroscience, go pay someone to tutor you in neuroscience. If you wish to have a genuine discussion about specific areas within neuroscience, then welcome to SFN. If you wish to discuss this note, you know the proper channels.

! Moderator Note It would be appreciated if all members could keep this thread on topic. If you have an issue with a mod note or action, report it or PM a member of staff.

! Moderator Note STeve555, We have rules that preclude predujice or slurs against any group of people. This, believe it or not, includes females. You were suspended once for your foul attitude, don't think we won't ban you should you keep it up now.

Agreed. The OP is a little ambigious (as you noted before), though I suppose it could be an issue of misusing the term, 'corrosive,' without realising that it is not the same as asking about acid/base strength.

I realised LDA was a bad example after I posted it. Regardless, phenyl lithium has a pKa somewhere in the 40's (IIRC). I wouldn't expect the sodio derivative to be more basic.

That isn't cyclohexane though, is it. In fact it's not even close, since the molecular formula for cyclohexane is C6H12. What you've written down could be any number of chemicals. Not only that, but I sincerely doubt that what you've drawn has a pKa of 52. LDA, an incredibly strong superbase and one that would be much stronger than whatever you've drawn, only has a pKa of 36. I suggest you reread your text book or get a new one.

! Moderator Note It made sense to split all of these posts into their own thread, as they did not relate to the OP of the original thread (found here). Regardless of where it was, however, the last few posts are off topic. Sam, you don't need to spend entire posts going through analogies to what are mostly irelevant points. Try to understand that what you are asking is a lot of information, even in simple terms, for someone to have to explain to you. In these sorts of cases it is easier and more courteous to do some of the leg work yourself by consulting Google or a book(s) and come back with more specific questions that don't take as much time and effort to explain.

! Moderator Note Mr Rayon, You've been told several times to post your threads in the appropriate place. Staff are sick and tired of moving them, so could you please be more considerate of where you are posting.

Firstly, as a kindly piece of moderator advice, we'd like it if you could refrain from venting about your issues with other forums here. Your problems with Physics forums has nothing to do with SFN and we'd like to keep it that way. Onto the topic. You could in theory learn the equivalent amount of knowledge on your own as you would in college, but the issue (asides from it being a difficult thing to achieve) is that you would get no official recognition for that and as such, getting a job as a physicist would be nigh on impossible. For all the time such a task would take you and financial sacrifices you'd have to make to get yourself nowhere, you might as well just go to college. Also, I have to ask, when did you become change from being 30 to mid twenties and what made you change your mind from doing math?

Really, the $AUD67 I just paid for an A1 sized print (inc. postage) is not that expensive. I've seen smaller prints of far less quality go for much, much more. I too cannot think of any improvements; the concept and asthetics of the final product are phenominal. I look forward to seeing the coloured version.

Well, she's obviously wrong to assume that no one could buy guns simply because they're illeagal, however there is some obscure truth to this statement, since it may effectively hinder / prevent criminals from obtaining them. Certainly, it would do something to stop the mass shootings using Dad's gun collection, but I think also that at least some and possibly even a majority of criminals are not so motivated to commit a crime using firearms that they would be willing to overcome any obstacle in order to get them. And I mean, it's a lot easier to conceal a bunch of meth to deal on the streets than it is to conceal a bunch of guns for a similar purpose.

! Moderator Note This thread doesn't belong in the Mathematics section, so I'm moving it to Biology.

! Moderator Note This thread doesn't appear to belong in the Relgion section given that the overriding theme is morality. Moved to Ethics.

It happened to me over the weekend a fair bit and last week as well.

I've had this happen to me as well. It often takes for ever to load or just returns a 500 error and can take up to a half hour to go back to normal.

! Moderator Note This has once again gone off topic. This thread is about whether being gay has a genetic component or whether is it simply a matter of choice. It is not about how many people are gay, it is not about whether effeminate gay men are hair dressers and it is not about how many gay men work in banks. Please return this thread back to the topic it was intended to address. Any more posts that are off topic will be removed.

It's true. Phi will lock you in his dungeon if you so much as try. And sometimes, for no reason at all.

! Moderator Note I guess I must have missed when this was moved to Speculations. Anyway, this is getting tiresome. A-wal, you've said all you have to say in your other thread about why you think GR as wrong and you're right. Since that thread was closed and since this one has now become a repeat of it, I'm closing this. You're not permitted to open any more threads on the topic.

! Moderator Note John skotz, Judging by this and pretty much all of your other posts, it's clear to me you haven't read the rules you agreed to when you signed up here. This is a link you should read: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules We ask members not to derail threads by introducing new and irrelevant topics. We also ask that speculation and other non-mainstream science be kept out of the main science forums. You have gone against one or both of these in every post you've made in your short time here. As such, I have chosen to remove the more egregious infractions from their respective threads and I would ask that you please keep the forum rules in mind when posting here in the future. If you wish to discuss this, please PM a member of staff or report this post.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations.

! Moderator Note A-wal, From the looks of things, you could have done with some more time to chill out. Please try and be a bit more humble and a whole lot less discourteous and hostile in future. You'll find it goes a long way in a discussion, unless of course your aim is to pit everyone against you and end up with a permanent ban.

Obviously, members who have been here longer or have more posts are, in general, going to have a higher net reputation attached to their profile than those who are less established. I am unsure where you are getting the idea that this is because people don't like to admit that they're wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I'm sorry, I really can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here. What isn't a coincidence? It's per user per day, with the exception of moderators, admins (both of whom I think have unlimited use) and resident experts (who are limited to 5 neg reps per day last I checked). We do this to avoid misuse and overuse of the negative rep points and to make people consider more carefully when giving them out. As well, I think the general idea is that positive reinforcement is preferred over negative, but that's not to say that both aren't needed from time to time. I doubt it would change the workload at all since, as I said, it's rare that something like that ever happens and staff are required to step in. And again, the limits on neg rep points do a lot to prevent this kind of behavior. Changing the name of the button does nothing to stop people from using it however they want, especially if the end result is still the same. As well as not being applicable to certain areas of the forum for which threads don't always have a correct answer, you're also precluding a lot of the other legitimate reasons people give out positive rep points to posts. I think what you're suggesting is quite a dry approach to things and in general, doesn't aim promote the types of interesting discussion we strive for (IMO). The thing you seem to be missing in all of this is that SFN is, first and foremost, a discussion forum. If people just want black and white answers to things, there are text books and Google. I don't think it's meant to have a scientific purpose, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Further to the reasons I have already outlined in my earlier post, it's other function is to encourage quality posting amongst our members. So to me, it's primary function is to promote healthy discussion and to provide guidance to members less informed on the subject matter. I don't see what your proposal offers that the current one doesn't do already.

To be honest, we've never really had a problem with spamming of negative rep points due to the daily limits on how many each member is able to dish out; it used to be 1 per day, but it was recently increased to 3. I will admit, some of your negative reputation was perhaps undeserved, but these types of cases are (in my experience) the exception rather than the rule. I think that the negative reputation is a useful feature as it curbs instances of members unfamiliar with content matter being led astray by incorrect science. It's also a good way to reinforce the fact that discourteous behavior and fallacious arguments by members aren't tolerated. Sock puppet accounts used to increase reputation aren't always easy to find and can be even more difficult to prove. We have had a few instances of it and for all I know, there may be more (though it's unlikely). To my knowledge, we've never had an instance of a sock puppet account being created to give out more negative reputation points (at least since I've been here). Obviously, the rep system is not intended to be used on a personal level but rather as a reflection of the post's content. Abuse is something that is notoriously hard to detect. It can be very hard to tell whether someone is giving out neg reps simply because they don't like them or if they have genuine issues with the content of the post; it's a similar story with the positive rep points. We can infer intent by looking at how someone is giving out rep points to another member and how frequently, but it's hard to say anything concrete. Regardless, I'll repeat what I said before which is that I think abuse is not the norm for how the reputation system is used by members. If the negative rep becomes too much of a problem, we might look at reducing the limit. For now, it will probably stay as it is.