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. 

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Absolutely .. I need to rest .. to go to sleep.  But why is Dr. P's post out of line?  That's another clear example of why the forum needs better moderation .. 'it is out of line because ...'  'This is what you said that was against the rules ...."   'This is how you went OT .....'   Nothing like that though .. just SLAM down the hammer and discourage the discussion.   Topics on God you see as proselytizing instead of asking for discussion.  I open a topic on the Bible Revelation and how science today proves it .. it gets closed.  If someone opened a topic on how science proves a grapefruit has vitamin C it would remain open.   I gotta go.   Believe in God.  Time IS short.  If I'm gone from here I'm gone.  Will see you in heaven.

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. 

11 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

We like to use scripture alone because it keeps us from adding any of our own possibly flawed interpretations.  For many Christians the point of any given verse is pretty obvious, but it seems to be even more obvious that a bit of commentary helps, and in many cases may actually necessary.

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. 

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

Deride my character?  Is pointing out your faults as you so love to point out what you perceive are the faults of others deriding your character?  Are you and your mods deriding characters when you enforce your rules that you adopt to situations suiting yourselves?  I have no button to push on this side, Iodine, just words.   

"you certainly do bring up the fact that I am one a lot"  Those are your words, Iodine.  A GREAT exaggeration.

"Your reaction is that of a bad mother who has been offended that another person has tried to correct her wayward son..."   That identifies your gender I suppose.  But so does, Empress of Everything .. plus Empress declares your attitude too, I AM THE BOSS and you bring down the hammer too on the innocent and let the guilty go free .. But 'don't you dare tell me how to moderate this forum.'   OH the button of banishment .. that great authority of the tyrant.

Iodine .. what preaching did you see in the biology post in the topic about God and the afterlife?  I strongly suspected you saw the part about keeping transplant organs warm, and thought I was talking pro life or something.  And no, I didn't deride women in any way.  I didn't deride you.  But I'm not going to allow you to enjoy a sadistic little entertainment either,  POWER OVER OTHERS!!!!   EMPRESS OF EVERYTHING!!!!!! 

Time is short, Empress, the kingdom of God is at hand.

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. 

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Except that different Christians sometimes interpret the same verses in different ways.  Why would god let that happen if he was real? Where is the holy ghost's guidance in this? Look to your heart  -  you know it's nonsense - you have been lied to and are lying to yourself. 

Keep the love  -  drop the lies and delusion. x

 

DrP, I am actively participating in this thread so I do not have my staff cap on, but this post is out of line. 

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I was NOT preaching in that thread and you can NOT show me where I was.  I present SCIENCE in that thread from a very qualified scientist.

Sorry Valent, but in my opinion a lot of your reaction has to do with some kind of relationship between you and BeeCee, and that is not my opinion only, others have seen it.  Your reaction is that of a bad mother who has been offended that another person has tried to correct her wayward son, and I sincerely believe your son may be BeeCee, who I have had on ignore because of his continuous severe insulting behaviour, lewdness and disrespect for science, and who follows me around reporting what he wants you to see as offences.  Your anger when I pointed out the difference in your attitude toward BeeCee and me was clear .. and other members have said the same thing .. BeeCee gets a soft response and the others harsh.  Is BeeCee a handicapped child or something?  The other mods and I have got onto level ground and mutual respect, but not you.  The second suspension was given by you, for no good reason.  You talk about rules and discussion of science but what you are engaged in is a sadistic little sideshow OBEY THE RULES WHIP OBEY THE RULES SLASH OBEY THE RULES STAB all for your own pleasure which was passed along to a couple of your mods, with Swan in particular giving 45% of suspensions and banns out of EIGHT moderators.    However, even Swan and I seemed to get on level ground.   

I don't care if you use this message as evidence I should be banned, Valent, but I am NOT the little boy who kicked sand at you in a sandbox.  I don't go around condemning women who visit abortion clinics.  I don't criticize your right to vote.  I have three daughters and three granddaughters, I don't hate women, but you sure have a hatred on for me, and I'm a man, and I can ONLY think it's because you see me as a rightwing t.v. evangelist man who would put women into dungeons.  Well .. that's severe prejudice and bigotry on your part, and you have absolutely NO evidence to support it, and it's based on my use of scripture when the topic includes God. 

Your reactions to me have NOTHING to do with science or rules on this forum.  If they were you could provide examples and you can't, only accusation after accusation.   

Good luck with your life, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas or whatever religious or non-religious days and events you observe, if any.  

This statement of yours shows how absurd YOUR interpretation of what I write is:

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. 

Disservice?   Just look at what you wrote.  Preaching?  Get a hold of a KJV and read the Revelation.  Get some fear of God in you.  

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Not now Strange.  I didn't ask for this, it was put on me.  Now Valent has it, and you have it.  YOU show me the preaching in the post about biological life after death.  It was ALL science from a Scientist, except the little introduction which was to answer a question posed in that topic CAN SCIENCE PROVE GOD?  Don't miss that very important fact, Strange.   Did Valent think I was talking about fetuses or something when the author mentioned transplant organs?  Does it look to you like I was protesting abortion?    WHAT is going on in this forum except lack of people with the button actually READING what is written!!   But I'm glad it came to this .. because now I AM PREACHING.  READ the Revelation.  GET the fear of the Lord.  Time is short.  ALL of you reading this.  GET the fear of the Lord.  The time IS SHORT!

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. 

19 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

I've tried very hard to follow rules here, and not to bring God into topics where he is not part of the subject, but to stick to the topic, which you can clearly see I was doing here.  However, Valent seems to want one thing for me only, and that is out.  I have never insulted or threatened her or any mod here, or any member.  I have never used profanity or lewdness.

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. 

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

 OMFG!! I must really have trod on his toes pretty hard! First on ignore [or so he says, But I reckon its a porky pie] then numerous complaints, and now a sock puppet!!! My apologies iNow.  Can someone though pass onto my friend, that a scientific theory is the highest  accolade any scientific model can have, other then a law. His continued arse up approach to science here as far as proof and evidence goes, and other even more dramatic errors, misinterpretations in other threads is really simple basic stuff.

PS: Not sure what thread it was but I gave "Phi for all" a thumbs up for a great no holds barred description of coffeesippin....shame I could not have made it two!

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

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. 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I think it kinda depends upon your reactants.

You need a solution for the formation of the intermediate iminium ion.

 

 

When you are looking at the literature the modern term for Schiff Base is imine.

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.

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

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

9 minutes ago, Olin said:

You miss the point as hurricanes were used as an example of climate change, and clearly they are weather.

That said all the people who believe in climate change do is make up stuff anyway.

Can you explain when climate change is known to have not been happening on the Earth?

No you can't, just as you can't actually say that the melting of the ice age was caused by caveman roasting mammoths, or fossil fuel burning that

was not happening 

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.