hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note Nope. One thread per topic. I'd say that this is your last warning, but in fact I was just on my way to suspend you for being a troll. Enjoy your holiday.

! Moderator Note sammy7, You already have a thread on this. Please direct your comments there. Thread closed.

I suspect he was talking about his knife-wielding wife. If we never hear from Joatmon again, we'll know why.

! Moderator Note Ivan, As with your other threads, I have removed your personal information and would ask that you please try and focus your post on what it is you want to discuss, as per the below copy/paste of my other mod note: Finally, at SFN we have rules against what is called soap boxing or preaching: As it says, we have this rule in place on account of this being discussion forum, where our primary aim is to create an environment that fosters discussion. Using this site as your 'personal lecture hall' does not agree with this aim and we therefore actively encourage our members to avoid it. Unfortunately, this thread as well as your other two come across as soap boxing. Rather than instantly close all of them, I would rather give you the opportunity to bring some points to the thread that you would like discussing or to perhaps be more clear on what it is you seek to engage in conversation about. If you are having trouble with how to go about this (I can understand that language barriers are often quite imposing), have a look at our etiquette guide. If you wish to make an inquiry about this mod mote or action, please do so using our report feature, which may be found by clicking the 'Report' button on the bottom left corner of the relevant post.

! Moderator Note Ivan, As with your other thread, I have removed your personal information for your own safety. For the sake of completeness, I thought I would also copy my mod note from the above linked 'other thread' into here as well: ! Moderator Note Finally, at SFN we have rules against what is called soap boxing or preaching: As it says, we have this rule in place on account of this being discussion forum, where our primary aim is to create an environment that fosters discussion. Using this site as your 'personal lecture hall' does not agree with this aim and we therefore actively encourage our members to avoid it. Unfortunately, this thread as well as your other two come across as soap boxing. Rather than instantly close all of them, I would rather give you the opportunity to bring some points to the thread that you would like discussing or to perhaps be more clear on what it is you seek to engage in conversation about. If you are having trouble with how to go about this (I can understand that language barriers are often quite imposing), have a look at our etiquette guide. If you wish to make an inquiry about this mod mote or action, please do so using our report feature, which may be found by clicking the 'Report' button on the bottom left corner of the relevant post. As a side note, there also appears to be a few words in the above text that have missed being translated from Russian: аксоны имеют множество. Perhaps you could shed some light on what it means so that people here can read it?

! Moderator Note Ivan, For your own personal safety, I have removed the personal information you have entered in your post. I would strongly recommend doing this against in future. Secondly, you had two posts on this topic - one that contained the above image with no text and one that contained the above text with no image. I suspect this was likely a mistake and I have therefore merged the two into one thread. Finally, at SFN we have rules against what is called soap boxing or preaching: As it says, we have this rule in place on account of this being discussion forum, where our primary aim is to create an environment that fosters discussion. Using this site as your 'personal lecture hall' does not agree with this aim and we therefore actively encourage our members to avoid it. Unfortunately, this thread as well as your other two come across as soap boxing. Rather than instantly close all of them, I would rather give you the opportunity to bring some points to the thread that you would like discussing or to perhaps be more clear on what it is you seek to engage in conversation about. If you are having trouble with how to go about this (I can understand that language barriers are often quite imposing), have a look at our etiquette guide. If you wish to make an inquiry about this mod mote or action, please do so using our report feature, which may be found by clicking the 'Report' button on the bottom left corner of the relevant post.

For the record, I didn't name the thread.

! Moderator Note the rules of this particular forum require that you back up your claims with proper evidence, which is incidentally something you have been requested to provide on numerous occasions within this thread. Regaling us with tales of days gone by does not count, since anecdotes are still not evidence by any stretch of the definition. This thread will be closed if you chose to ignore this request.

I should preface this by saying that I myself am still fairly young (23) and my counsel might not offer the same reach as others who have posted here. Regardless, I thought I might give my own opinions as (I think) the only female in the thread so far. This seems to me to be more of a religious / cultural artifact when you consider that marriage does not have as much importance placed on it as it had in the past. The underpinning idea of waiting until marriage to have sex stems from the unique symbolic weight that we place the concept of sex itself as well as the social paranoia that surrounds it. The tradition itself comes from a time where marriage was a.) significantly more permanent than it is now and where b.) being unmarried was looked down upon after you reached a certain age (particularly for females). Objectively, the point behind remaining abstinent until you marry appears to be to wait and share the experience with the person you are to spend the rest of you life with (however long that really is). This is, to me, only a small step sideways to the further simplified view of waiting until it seems right, marriage or no marriage. Another somewhat related argument that I encountered while doing a little bit of research comes from the bias inherent within the Judeo-Christian stance on sexual relations, which is that reproductive sex is considered 'natural' and all other forms of sexual expression are discarded as anathema. This bias is quite representative in the practice of remaining a virgin until marriage, since under such a belief system one would typically not start a family until after marriage. I think, however, that 'no sex before marriage' is not something that originated with the Judeo-Christians, though the same bias may very well be present in other religious groups where this has been practiced (you would have to look it up). I'm unsure, but I suspect it would be a complicated comparison. As a very broad assumption, I would think that couples who stay true to remaining virgins until marriage are of a more traditional and conservative upbringing, where things such as divorce are not necessarily as prevalent because of localised pressure from their community. That is, as I say, a rather large assumption on my part and I have no idea if it is correct. The answer to your second question is probably not. You should do what feels right within reason - and that is something that is entirely your perogative (and your partner's, of course) - but I think that taking a bedroom tour of Australia because you feel you have to gain experience is not the right way to treat it. This is just my personal opinion, though. For some people, doing that is okay. Not everyone treats sex in the same manner; some people will use it as little more than a tool for pleasure whereas others hold more of a commitment value to it. I dare say that you strike me as more conforming of the latter than of the former. I disagree with this. I think that sharing yourself so intimately would be just as much of a gift to another person regardless of whether it's your first sexual encounter or not, but that it depends entirely upon how you yourself value the gift (where the value itself is described as a sign of commitment and affection). I think that depends a lot on the person. In general, it takes a small bit of getting used to and a partner who is conscientious enough to listen and not force things along. This shouldn't be a problem, though I am hesitant in giving any sort of medical advice. As imatfaal suggested, you may want to go see a GP (if you don't have a regular one, your uni might have a bulk bill medical centre) and talk to them about your concerns. That would take some serious doing. That being said, I did once have a male friend who managed to break his female companion's hip during sex. I'm not entirely sure how and I was too afraid to ask. In my experience, they tell you. I don't think I can answer this particular bit any more than others already have.

! Moderator Note doG, this thread isn't in the main science forums, it's in the General Philosophy forum. These types of questions don't necessarilly have a right or wrong answer, nor do the terms used in them have standard definitions as you might see in science. As such, if you disagree with something or someone's definition of something, it would be wiser and much more conducive to actual discussion if you could summarise your reasons in a polite manner as opposed to simply telling someone that they're wrong. CP has asked you to take any grievances you have with staff action or comments to private discussion away from this thread. I will repeat what he has already said and tell you that if you wish to question staff on our mod notes or our actions, please do so via the report feature or by contacting us via PM. If you continue to derail this thread with off topic discussion, your posts will simply be removed. And as a further note, it might be a good idea in future to leave the moderating in threads to the moderators (that's what we're here for after all) and to simply report things you see to be in violation of the rules.

! Moderator Note As per my previous modnote, this thread is now the culmination of a number of threads written by IsaacAsimov on different methods for approximating pi. Although normally we would close threads considered as duplicates, it's obvious that Isaac has put in a lot of work in his calculations and so I thought it would be better if I instead merged them all into an all-in-one SUPER pi thread. Isaac, as mentioned, I would like it if you could please post anything further related to approximations of pi into this thread rather than posting more and more new ones.

! Moderator Note Closed as a duplicate of another thread, which was merged into this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66297-sneaky-method-of-estimating-pi/

! Moderator Note Isaac, you already have a number of threads on calculating pi. From now on, could you please consolidate them to one thread instead of opening up others? For reference: http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry679038 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 http://www.sciencefo...__fromsearch__1 There are far too many of these. I am merge the non-repeating threads into the last of these links so you can use the single thread for your ideas, etc., on calculating pi. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note SRHBRU, since you already have a thread on this, I'm going to close this one and ask you to direct you conversation to your olde thread (which can be found here).

! Moderator Note Debate can't solve this problem? Then why would you choose to bring it up in a discussion forum of all places if you had no intention of discussing anything? That's rather against the nature of this website, don't you think? You don't get to cherry pick what you will and will not respond to. I have asked you to answer all of the questions asked of you in this thread and you still refuse to do so. This is against our rules. Since you refuse to comply and refuse to even attempt to foster discussion, I am closing this thread. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic. Edit: cross posted with shufeng-zheng.

! Moderator Note shufeng-zheng, 1. The insults stop. 2. You'll answer their questions. As John Cuthber noted, simply telling members to read the paper does not constitute an answer. If you cannot comply to the rules of this forum, this will be closed.

! Moderator Note newts, Logical fallacy (see swansont's post) is not only bad form in a debate, it's also against our rules. As are insults. I'd advise against both in future.

You wouldn't really want 'dust'. Silica dust won't hurt your eyes so much, but it will bind irreversibly to your lung tissue and eventually kill you. It certainly wouldn't incapacitate anyone on a battle field in the immediate sense, save a bit of coughing and wheezing. It's also quite light, so you would have a problem with effectiveness and efficiency. Small glass shards might be more feasible.

! Moderator Note Closed as per my mod note here.

! Moderator Note shufeng-zhang, The rules of this forum require that you respond to the questions asked of you. Please have a look at the two posts above this by JohnCuthber and mississippichem and respond to them accordingly.

! Moderator Note Lê_ When posting, we ask our members to take into consideration the fact this is a discussion forum and that our main aim here is to provide a place that promotes actual conversation of ideas. With that in mind, I'm going to ask you to perhaps elaborate a bit more on this idea of yours in this thread. Links to external websites are supposed to act as a support for your argument rather than as the entirety of your post. Here's what you need to do: write a new post that describes the premise of your idea as well as your idea itself. Include some important bits of key information and any relevant proofs or evidence that led you to your hypothesis or question. You may then include your link for further information so that members can go and look at a more detailed and descriptive version of what you are trying to say, should they wish to do so.

! Moderator Note sammy7, you have three choices here. 1. I close this thread 2. I close your other thread that I split for you to discuss this exact same question: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66513-evolution-creation/ 3. I merge them both. Pick one and in future, don't open multiple threads on the one topic.

A few general comments to start with. The big question I have is, do you have any inclination as to what kind of compound this is at all? Where did it come from? This will make it much easier to narrow down. Secondly, what is this for? If it's for a research group, you may want to check with your supervisor that he's okay with you sharing data publicly like this. And finally, are you absolutely sure this is a pure sample? Have you run it through HPLC or even a GC at all? I'll split this up for you to make it easier to read. 1H and 13C 1D NMR The peak on your 1H NMR that you identified as acetone is perhaps not correct. Acetone pops up at ~1.96 ppm in d-MeCN, not 2.06 ppm. As it happens, you have a peak at 1.96 ppm, but the splitting pattern makes it unlikely to be either acetone or residual d-MeCN. Your residual solvent peak should also crop up at 1.96 ppm, which makes me wonder if the peak you've indicated as being acetone is your solvent peak and you just haven't calibrated it. On that note, why did you use d-MeCN over CDCl3? The multiplet at 1.96 ppm is very curious. The splitting is very clear and would suggest being next to 4 protons, possibly 2 x -CH2 or 1 x -CH and a CH3, though there is nothing else in your spectra that appears to be coupled to it. Again, I would say it's your solvent, but d-MeCN shouldn't be split like that (which makes me question purity). I can't comment too much on the other two peaks without seeing the integration. What makes you think the peaks in the aromatic region are CH2 groups, by the way? You haven't given any integration on the spectra that I can see, but they seem very much like aromatic CH protons to me. I'm assuming you're having issues with the multiplicity of the aromatic peaks you circled with a question mark? The one at 6.53 ppm is a doublet of doublet of doublets (and a very nice one at that), which indicates some kind of long range coupling. The peak at 6.94 ppm looks like it also has or wants to have some fine splitting, but it's hard to tell. I think you may need to scale down the concentration and run your proton NMR again on a machine with more power (a 400MHz or 500MHz would work if you have access to one) to see it. You should also see the splitting on the little triplet at 7.24ppm become more resolved and less lumpy. The larger triplet has a coupling constant of about 9 Hz, which indicates ortho coupling rather than the para coupling you've written on the spectra. That in conjunction with the splitting would place it in between two aromatic protons (most likely the the two doublet systems at 6.53 ppm and 6.94 ppm). You may therefore have a meta substituted phenyl ring, although this would put into question your singlet at 7.01 ppm and to some extent, the smaller triplet at 7.24 ppm (neither of them appear to be due to any common solvents). I've noticed you also have a peak at about 8.25 ppm. It's a rather featureless hump, but could possibly indicate the presence of an enol (which I doubt as you should see some indication of the keto form in the IR) or maybe have something to do with the nitrogen you think is in there (more likely). I think the carbon spectra you have there is a DEPT spectra? It doesn't look like it's been run long enough or phased properly; I would run it again either with higher concentration or with more scans. When you analyse it, compile a report with an overlay of your normal 13C spectra so you can see where there are meant to be peaks and if there are any quaternary carbons. If it isn't meant to be a DEPT, run a DEPT and phase your carbon spectra properly. 2D NMR (COSY, HMQC and HSQC) The external projections on your HSQC, COSY and HMQC look a little odd and I wonder if maybe this was run at a different time to when you ran your original proton spectra? In your original proton spectra, you had some nice splitting at 1.96 ppm which now appears to have disappeared. The splitting in your aromatic region has also become quite a bit different and the shifts are all off. You may want to look into this. In the meantime, I would question your interpretation of the COSY spectra. You've penciled in a line where you have your one and only cross peak from an aromatic proton to a peak in the ~2 ppm range, but you've drawn it as coming down to the wrong aromatic peak. The cross peak clearly sits above the singlet in the middle of all the aromatic peaks, so why have you then drawn it as coming down to the lower field peak? It's curious as well that the peak at just above 7.25ppm isn't coupled to anything. This would be the peak corresponding to the tiny triplet at 7.24 ppm in your original spectra, although again I am dubious of reading too much into it until I know why your projections are so different to your 1H NMR. Your HSQC and HMQC both seem to use different projections on the 1H axis and both look different to your 1D spectra. It's not much good commenting on these until I know why some peaks are missing and the splitting is different, so I'll reserve my analyses until then. IR With your IR, is it possible to change the view window so that you can incorporate the entire spectra? As it is, it does look like you have some kind of amine. The peaks just above 3000 cm-1 are reminiscent of aromatic peaks, which contradicts what you said about the proton NMR. You also appear to have some aromatic breathing peaks, though it's hard to say without the peaks being labelled. Mass spec I'm assuming your mass spec was low res? It looks like something you might get off of a GC-MS run, which typically use quite harsh conditions. If it was run on a proper LRMS machine, you have to consider what ion mode it was run in and take into account the mass of sodium ions, etc. Have you done a high-res mass spec on it? You should get a molecular formula from that. If you can't do that and, try doing a micro analysis on it (CHNO test) or see if you can get some x-ray crystallography done on it (if it's crystalline, of course). As for the spectra itself. There are a lot of peaks at the base line, which makes it hard to figure out if there is a molecular ion peak in there or if so, where it is. I would, as I suggest above, run a high res and see what you get out of that. How temperature sensitive is your compound, out of curiosity? Also, you assume that you absolutely will get a molecular ion peak out of MS. This is not always the case. Some compounds are temperature sensitive and will decompose under the conditions used to collect data. Other times, your compound will form dimers and you'll see a lot of 2M peaks. And in some cases, you might have a very minor impurity in your sample that ionises much more readily than your compound. The result of this can be a near complete masking of m/z peaks from your compound.

! Moderator Note I've split all of the above posts from another thread as it was getting off topic. Sammy7, I have moved this whole thing to speculations as your own opinions on evolution do not belong in the mainstream science forums. Please be aware that we have rules against posting speculation in the main science forums. It falls under derailment and thread hijacking. Now, as for this thread. You are required to back up all of your assertions with evidence and not be dishonest in your approach. This means that 'I don't know the official story' just ain't gonna cut it. If you're going to argue against something, you should probably go and find out what that something is actually about. Soap boxing isn't going to be tolerated. I've also noticed a few remarks in here that are somewhat insulting (towards both camps). This is to stop. Oh, and sammy7, I have one last request (although it's not really an official one); the constant use of 'lol' is frustrating to read. Do you really laugh that much when you're talking? Must be difficult. Please do not respond directly to this mod note within this thread. You are welcome to use our report feature (located at the bottom left of this post) or our PM feature to contact staff with any queries regarding this action.

If you catch it within the edit time then you can edit and erase it, otherwise not really.