hypervalent_iodine

We can add / remove options, change it to a text window, or remove it entirely. I am personally in favour of the latter option, as with iNow.

! Moderator Note I appreciate the effort this took to write, but I must remind you that this is a discussion forum and not a blog. As such, I am closing this thread. If you wish to open a new thread, please be concise and please clearly state the points or questions you wish to discuss.

No, it was out of line because of the insulting language used towards people who chose to believe in God. I don't think it's fair to say that people who are religious are deluded and lying to themselves. However, as I said to DrP, I am participating in this thread and therefore not moderating it so my comment to him was not as staff, but as a member. If I were acting in my capacity as staff, my response to him would have been in the form of a green note. Please understand that this is a science discussion forum, not a religious one. As such, we chose to operate from the perspective that the existence of God has no evidence to support it, and that the question itself is not scientific. If we did not pick a vantage point from which to operate and base our rules, it would be chaotic. It is not to say we don't accept discussion on religion - we do. We just ask that discussion be objective and that quoting religious texts be accompanied with some rationale that isn't simply rooted in the broad notion of "God is real." Failure to comply with this amounts to preaching, and this is where you are running into trouble.

We don't like members simply posting verses for the same reason we don't like members posting videos or links with no commentary - it lacks the context necessary to continue discussion. We have a Religion section for the general discussion of theological matters, but as a general rule we still prefer that threads there are approached scientifically in as much as is possible. "Is God real?" or threads that aim simply to proselytise do not really have a place here. With some restrictions, thought experiments where the bounds of discussion are framed clearly and correctly are fine, and we don't mind people talking about the bible, or even presenting its contents. This should always be from an objective standpoint, and should always be accompanied with some explanation as to why it pertains to the thread and / or supports the points you are trying to get across. My friend, I strongly suggest you take a break, have some tea, and consider whether this small corner of the internet is really worth getting so worked up over, or if it warrants so much melodramatic prose. I have done nothing to offend you personally, merely asked that you comply with the rules. If you wish that I clarify my warnings, you are welcome to contact me and I will do so. DrP, I am actively participating in this thread so I do not have my staff cap on, but this post is out of line.

Do you know, that in all our correspondence, I am not sure I have ever brought my gender - and certainly not my opinion on a woman's right to abortion - into discussion? You say you don't condemn women, but you certainly do bring up the fact that I am one a lot in a post where you attempt to deride my character and my ability to moderate this forum. Why? What possible bearing does it have on this conversation?

It was not necessarily that one single post that triggered my mod note, it was also the few posts of yours that preceded it. The post you have quoted of yours does leave a lot to be desired, and I mentioned this in my note. Specifically, the idea that the opinion of one scientist is equivalent to what is known from science is absurd, and does you a disservice. You were preaching in that thread, and you will be banned if you continue to disregard moderator warnings and the forum rules. Do not pretend as though we have sought you out simply because of your beliefs in God, or that I have ever done anything towards you in anger because of your stated opinions on God when I have not. Frustration perhaps, since you continue to break the same rules time and time again, but not anger, and not for your beliefs. I have to believe that this is purely disingenuous on your part. You have acquired 1 suspension and 7 warning points since joining less than a month ago, most of which were not given to you by me. Are you genuinely suggesting that those are not as a result of you not being able to follow the rules here, or that I am the cause of your troubles here rather than your own behaviour? Furthermore, I have not wanted you out. Indeed, I do not really wish for anyone to be "out". What I would like is for everyone to follow the rules and play nice; unfortunately, that is not in agreement with the reality of a publicly available, web-based discussion forum. As such, we have rules and staff to enforce those rules so that this place is able to meet its primary intention - to discuss science (and other topics surrounding science) in a rational, intelligent, and respectful manner. If you are unable to comply with the rules we have designed in order to do that, then yes, you will find yourself banned. You would not be banned purely because of me, since no one is banned at the sole discretion of one staff member. We discuss things. We have minimum quotas to meet before action is able to be taken.

! Moderator Note coffeesippin, Science =/= the opinion of one scientist. What you have presented is not science, nor evidence for anything that you claim. In fact, it is little more than another attempt at preaching. Staff will not continue to warn you about this. We will ban you permanently if it keeps up.

! Moderator Note Staying on topic is a rule that applies to everyone, for the record.

! Moderator Note coffeesippin, stop with the allegations of sock-puppetry. They aren't conducive to discussion, are off-topic, and are insulting to those you are accusing (not to mention flat-out wrong). Please also stop with the bizarre off topic rambling. Simply put, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic of this thread, don't post.

! Moderator Note Suzie has now been banned as a sock puppet of two other accounts, and so this thread is now closed.

Suzie has been banned as a sock puppet of Olin (who, incidentally, was a sock puppet of Menan).

! Moderator Note Please get back on topic. coffeesippin: this is a science forum for the purposes of discussion. We do not permit members to simply preach the Bible here. Discussion of its contents and its interpretations from an intellectual stand point is permissible, but that is where we draw the line. If you cannot comply with this, your posts will be removed.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. Thread closed and video removed. (Side note: we discourage members from replying solely on external files, links, or videos in their posts. Please articulate your posts via text and use videos for supporting information only)

Just because they aren’t dissolved doesn’t mean you aren’t getting reaction. Have you checked that you are getting product formation? Beyond that, the obvious solution is to change solvents and think of additives. There are plenty of options available, so I would look up literature on your compound if it’s available. If not, do you know what your compounds are soluble in? You can try solvents like methanol or maybe THF, or spiking in small amounts of DMF / DMSO until everything solubilises. You can also add small amounts of acetic acid or similar to help drive everything. Schiff bases are not usually made under basic conditions due to competing reactions, although it is possible. It’s typically done with small amounts of acid. Schiff base is also still a fairly common term, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find by looking up either. That being said, the best way to search literature on these things is structure based searches through SciFinder or similar.

! Moderator Note Kindly stop with the fat shaming, please and thank you.

coffeesippin has been suspended for one week for abuse behaviour and preaching.

FreeTheGenius has been permanently banned after a particularly abusive and unwarranted PM.

! Moderator Note I have removed several posts from this thread. If anyone wishes to discuss the minutia of climate change beyond the scope of the article beecee linked, please open a new thread.

! Moderator Note I suggest that if you want to speculate on the existence of climate change, that you open your own thread and kindly stop hijacking this one.

! Moderator Note Since your intent here is consume these nanoparticles, I cannot in good conscience allow this thread to continue. I recommend that if you have medical problems to seek the advice of a medical professional, and not strangers on the internet.

! Moderator Note I think emotions are a little high in this thread, so I am closing this for now. If anyone wishes to continue discussion of the science in a reasonable manner, feel free to open a new thread.

! Moderator Note Please return to the topic of this thread. If anyone wishes to discuss the details of POC and the criminal justice system, I would suggest opening another thread.

! Moderator Note I have merged the replies in the duplicate threads into one.

In that case, the onus is on you to come up with the ideas, not us.

I can't think of any way to remove it without it ending up as tasteless mush. Detecting and quantifying it is more straight forward though; you should be able to find something to suit your needs by simply Googling it.