Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: ramboacid on May 12, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
-
I've been around the forums for about a month now, and I still don't know what mole snacks are really. I mean, I've already done a search on the site, and more or less the best picture I got for why people give or take mole snacks is for whatever reason they want. So my question is, what criteria do you use when you click the "give mole snack"/"take mole snack" link at the side of every post?
Just to get things started, I'll give my two cents.
I generally give mole snacks when I feel someone goes above and beyond working with another user to solve a problem, or when someone puts in exemplary effort into a post answering someone else's question. Often times, I'll give a mole snack to another newbie (like me) when they're simply polite and/or seem enthusiastic on the forum, just to give them some positive reinforcement.
I try to stay away from giving negative mole snacks, as I personally don't feel qualified to deem someone else's post/pedagogy/methodology as "bad." I think I've only ever taken a mole snack once, and that was from a spammer trying to advertise red shoes or something in six different threads.
-
This is more or less what I do as well, although - because of my role on the site - I will also take mole snacks from people that break forum rules.
In the case of spammers I don't give mole snacks, I just ban them immediately ;D
-
I like to give snacks when people give good answers, and I especially like it when someone shows a sudden burst of insight to solving a problem for themselves. I also like it when people come up with a very creative way to try and talk someone through the problem without giving away the answer, that sort of work deserves a reward.
I take points away mostly for people who demand that rules don't apply to them -- not just for not following our rules, taking away snacks for that's just dull. It's for when someone demands that we give only complete answers and "stop wasting my time", or that copyrights don't actually apply to their needs. I've also taken snacks away from crackpots who demand we accept their random proof of alchemy or refutation of thermodynamics. Because I'd rather everyone knew at a glance something was wrong with this person, and maybe click on their name to see all their posts, and understand what's up with this person.
-
That snacks are anonymous and the awardee doesn’t even know which question got the snack means the system is subject to abuse.
Let me tell you of my experience with my three –ve mole snacks. As I recall, I wracked them up before I had I received a single +ve snack. Two were I suspect (as stated snacks are anonymous) from responders who in my opinion were "BSing" and I challenged them to back up their statements with facts which, subsequently, they were unable to do (one tried to BS further). BSing has no place in science and someone with my experience will see right through you if you try. (I have a tried to find a more genteel expression for bullsh*t but without success.) The third –ve snack was my first and I believe came from the "Deity" member (again correct me if I’m wrong) who was attempting to put me as a new member in my place because I implied I knew a lot about chemistry. Two problems however: I do know a LOT of inorganic chemistry and the response from the Deity Member was wrong (his background in advanced inorganic chemistry as deduced from his introduction is weak). For him to subsequently say –ve snacks are given to people that break the rules is therefore not completely true. If you disagree with a person’s view have the courage to say so. This is how science progresses. To give a –ve snack because you disagree with a person’s honestly-held view is totally reprehensible. I was also told that my –ve snacks were bad luck; another said he tried harder when he received a bunch of –ve snacks at the beginning. Those comments are rubbish! Luck is not involved in explanations of science, and there is no need to try harder when the explanation given represents the current state of understanding of the issue under discussion. When I am making a (hopefully educated) guess I state as such.
I never give (±)snacks and I play strictly according to the rules of scientific ethics. I am here to share my extensive knowledge of inorganic and general chemistry. A note of thanks would be appreciated but not necessary.
Incidentally, I have come over from Yahoo! Answers Chemistry that has even more problems than Chemical Forums. My major concern with Y!A is "top contributors" tumbling over themselves to spoon-feed students with homework answers. Furthermore, their answers are usually not referenced and are often wrong! I also brought a number of special symbols with me (stolen from other Y! Answers, ☠) many of which, by coincidence, have now been incorporated into the symbol lexicon available for this forum.
-
snacks are anonymous
They are not. Last few are listed on the right side of the screen.
The third –ve snack was my first and I believe came from the "Deity" member (again correct me if I’m wrong) who was attempting to put me as a new member in my place because I implied I knew a lot about chemistry.
I happen to be the only deity member here, so I guess you refer to me. I don't think it was me who took the snack, although I don't remember and it can't be checked now, as log holds only 24 hours of information. What I am sure about is that if it was me it was not because you were right and I was wrong, as I know my limitations.
I also brought a number of special symbols with me (stolen from other Y! Answers, ☠) many of which, by coincidence, have now been incorporated into the symbol lexicon available for this forum.
Coincidence it happened right now. I had no access to the forum code before so I couldn't do it earlier, even if I wanted to for at least two years. I am afraid we were the last science related forum to implement an easy way of using these symbols in posts.
-
cheese (MSW): I know that anonymous snack system can get to people from time to time. I've lost dozens, and I didn't really know why. Of course, I began to suspect, once I tried to work with really stubborn people, that it was them, logging in just to take a snack from me out of spite. In fact, lately, some noob has been doing just that, as I could see from the log. For a while, I was really pissed off at having so many negative snacks ... but if the "gimmie gimmie" kids are the ones taking them from me, I'm kinda proud of my negative snacks, they let me know I haven't been too easy on people.
-
I thought that might get people going! And I've collected another -ve snack!
But I have my secret method of revenge. :)
On Yahoo!Answers we call people that vote for friends or deliberately vote for wrong
answers trolls and they are obviously at work here.
Here are the first three lines of my symbols:
→ ← ↓↑ ↑↓ ↑ ↑ e⁻↔ e⁻ →Δ→ ⇄ ⇋ → hν → ←Δoct→ ⇋ Δ/hν ⇋ Δδ(AB) ~ JAB → hν/Δ →
α β γ ←δ+ δ-→ ε θ α μ ν λ χ η ħ ν (↓↑) σ bonds π bond pπ-pπ δ-←X-A-X →δ- δ-←X-A↑-X →δ-
π → π* σ → σ* π* → σ* d→ π* σ/π Å 4πr^2 Ψ^2 25 °C <109.5 ° <120° 180° -nFE° = ΔG = ΔH – TΔS -RTlnKeq
Cut & paste them for future use.
I'm afraid you guys are not in my class. :-*
-
↓↑
Makes sense. Will have to remember to add them.
-
So Deity Member will you deny that you gave me my latest -ve snack?
Do you have a BSc in Chemistry Borek? Anyone who allows himself to
be called Deity Member opens him- herself up for derision.
When I was an undergrad I received lectures from Derek Barton
(Nobel Prize 69) and Geoffrey Wilkinson (Nobel Prize 73). Now they
were awe inspiring, but still mortals. :D
Arkon: Your response defies logic! You admit to a major flaw in the system, but
you nothing to correct it and indeed you now take pride in your -ve snacks.
What are we teaching the next generation?? We must be scrupulously honest and
insist others do the same.
On Y!A students were taking my answer and deleting the question no doubt
to pass the answer off as their own for their assignment. This despicable practice
happened sometimes several times every day. At least Chem Forums prevents this.
-
They are not. Last few are listed on the right side of the screen.
huh? where?
I give positive snacks when:
somebody answers my question
when somebody does chemistry at home
when somebody is not an idiot
negative when:
person is an idiot.
-
They are not. Last few are listed on the right side of the screen.
huh? where?
You don't see them?
-
yeah, that must be a mod thing :P I cannot see it.
apparently I was active this morning ;D
-
So Deity Member will you deny that you gave me my latest -ve snack?
I don't remember taking snacks from you. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Do you have a BSc in Chemistry Borek?
Does it matter? Technically I have no chemical training.
Anyone who allows himself to be called Deity Member opens him- herself up for derision.
Only from those not understanding how the forum works. This is a title awarded automatically to anyone with over 10k posts, it has nothing to do with the science part. Could even be it is a default configuration of the SMF, I am sure I have seen it on other forums. Up to now it never attracted attention, you are the first person to bring it up.
-
yeah, that must be a mod thing :P I cannot see it.
Strange.
Can anyone else confirm if they are seeing it or not?
Edit: I see from the code it is visible to Mods and Admins only, I don't think that was the Mitch's intent (see here (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=54193.0)).
-
The last five mole snacks given or received were visible for a brief time, then disappeared again.
I usually give or take mole snacks based on the tone of the question or the answer. If the question is demanding and especially if the person asking it responds negatively to the suggestion that they should spend some time thinking about the question themselves, I sometimes give a -ve. If the person answering the question is condescending or arrogant, I frequently give a -ve. Neither of those types of responses help the forum, especially the answerers, regardless of how correct the answer is.
Positive mole snacks go to questioners that struggle on their own to find the answers and pick up on the hints that they get, and to answerers that I think do a really good job of picking out exactly what the questioner is having missing and give just enough help to get them to the answer.
And occasionally I accidentally give a mole snack to somebody when I'm trying to use my laptop to read the forum because the touchpad is very sensitive and sometimes reads a click where I am just trying to move the cursor.
-
I do not get to see the last 5 mole snacks either. As fledarmus said they were visible for a while and then one day they were gone.
My reasons for giving or taking snacks are much the same as the other replies but I probably take more away than I hand out.
I am close to taking one away from cheese (MSW) right now. I've been on this forum for quite a while and while I do not post as often as I used too I'm still an active member here in that time I have not often seen Borek point anybody in the wrong direction. What his formal qualification are I do not care; his knowledge and comitment to this forum are very high in my estimations. Sure he's made mistakes from time to time as we all do but I trust what he says. I see from the Nobel prize winners you mention that you probably went to Imperial College. Did you get a PhD? I did, does that mean everything I say is right and automatically of more value than someone just with a BSc or heaven forbid not even that? No is the short and sweet answer. Hopefully I'm right a lot more often than I'm wrong but based on my +ve and -ve mole snacks not everyone agrees. Sometimes people take snacks away for not very good reasons but thats life do not b$*%( and moan about it too much or lots of people will take them off you for bitching and moaning.
-
The last five mole snacks given or received were visible for a brief time, then disappeared again.
I do not get to see the last 5 mole snacks either. As fledarmus said they were visible for a while and then one day they were gone.
Mitch told me what happened - at some point he removed the list to lower the server load. That was before we moved to a new server, since then it seems like the forum is working flawlessly so hopefully it shouldn't be a problem now. I will keep track of a server load for the next day or two to see how things look now and if it will be possible I will make the list visible to everyone but the newcomers (Very New Members).
Both having the list visible and invisible has its advantages and disadvantages. When it is invisible, people complain they don't know who took their snacks, when it is visible, people start "snack wars". You can't make everyone happy.
Hopefully I'm right a lot more often than I'm wrong but based on my +ve and -ve mole snacks not everyone agrees.
I guess you are a victim of your honesty ;)
-
There is a dilemma with the list of recent snack activity list. There's the "snack wars" as mentioned, and even, I suppose we could call it, "snack whoring." I sometimes won't give a snack, because I don't want someone to feel obligated to give me one back (it seems to happen.) I'd hate to have an inflated snack score. Still, sometimes a really good answer just demands a snack, and a real jerk is just begging to lose one. Its nice that its just the latest five, that helps the twin problems a little bit.
-
I see I’ve picked up another –ve snack. It appears to me that this is an attempt to silence criticism. Once again what are we teaching students: that we can’t criticize the Great One? (I find Borek’s answers on advanced inorganic chemistry lacking in expertise.) Reading the reasons given why people dish out –ve snacks it is apparent they are largely arbitrary and not based on any scientific merit. If a question or answer breaks the rules the administrators do a good job and jumping on the problem. This is another good point vis-à-vis Y!A where abuses go unrectified. There is one "top contributor" on Y!A who claims he is a teacher, but I would estimate ~50% of his answers are completely wrong. Think of the damage he is causing students with his misinformation.
Conclusion: do away completely with –ve snacks!!
DrCMS Yes - I have a PhD. Would you like to try for something still higher?
-
I find Borek’s answers on advanced inorganic chemistry lacking in expertise.
So correct me whenever I am wrong, I have no problems with that.
-
I see I’ve picked up another –ve snack. It appears to me that this is an attempt to silence criticism.
Actually, that was for my lulz.
dude, it is the internet, who cares.
-
I see I’ve picked up another –ve snack. It appears to me that this is an attempt to silence criticism.
Stop being so thin skinned. Having looked back through all your posts you have mentioned the -ve snacks given quite a few times in other threads. It could be someone is taking them away just to wind you up as you seem to take it too much to heart.
I also see you post sound science so I did not take a snack off you, yet.
However, this site is about helping students it is not meant to be an ego trip for us more experienced chemists so if you carry on bitching about getting -ve snacks I will take one each and every day until you shut up about it or leave the site.
On the subject of our qualifications its not meant to be about who's the highest qualified but who is the best tutor. For my own PhD sure at the end of it in the narrow area I studied I probably knew that area better than anybodyelse on the planet. That was a very narrow area 17 years ago, since then I went off and got my 1st job doing different stuff and I've moved jobs a few times since. I'm an industrial chemist and I'm very good at what I do but it's not very close to my PhD subject. My point is that just having a PhD does not automatically make my answers better than somebody elses. It does not mean I should never get a -ve mole snack. It does not mean I can never be criticised. Hopefully it means I get it right most of the time and know my own limitations better than younger less experienced members. So if you want to carry on here ignore the -ve snacks from disgruntled fools and focus on trying to be as helpful as you can be giving answers on subjects you are confident you know well.
On the advanced inorganic chemistry questions I do not know who is right or wrong as it's not an area I know well enough to comment on. If you feel Borek has got it wrong post the right answer and follow it up with a PM to him. If you want to take a snack off everyone who posts bad science then do it. I've taken snacks away for what I consider to be bad science, and I do that whenever I see it. More often than that I take them away from people who seem to think they are entitled to something from me for no good reason be that be help or respect, both need to be earned.
-
Whoa I am up -8 –ve snacks! Arkon beware! (See below.)
This is an open discussion about –ve snacks and yes my posts are provocative because the giving of -ve mole snacks in my opinion a major flaw in the system that should be corrected. I am Canadian where we’re allowed free speech, but I can understand it if you are posting from Syria or North Korea. If Borek did not "award" me my first –ve snack then I apologize, but this is why the system should be changed. The evidence I have strongly suggested it was him; here is the question
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=50718.0
I joined Chem forums Aug 18 2011, my answer to this question was posted Aug 21. As you can see Borek’s reply and my rebuttal were posted on the same day. The -ve snack appeared at this time. It should relatively easy for Borek to check his history for Aug 21 and determine if he gave the snack.
Don’t forget I was testing Chem Forums to ascertain whether the ethics are any better than Yahoo! Answers.
Consider: Arkcon, Global Moderator, Sr. Member, Mole Snacks: +185/-90. To be a global moderator you must have the respect of your peers but he (I assume Arkon is a he, apologies if I am wrong) has 90 –ve mole snacks! [I am going to have to get a wiggle on to match that total!] Did Borek penalize Arkon for breaking forum rules? Did Arkon advertise red sneakers for sale? Of course not, Arkon probably received most (all?) of his –ve snacks from people that he as an administrator had to disappoint. The donors hid behind the anonymity of –ve snacks rather than having the courage to register an open complaint against him. This strikes me as an electronic version of slander. As I have stated before, what message are we sending to next generation of scientists to allow this? And those rules should apply to all forms of discourse in chemistry including the internet.
So if you wish to keep with –ve snacks might I suggest a few changes. Maintain the anonymity of the person giving the snack, but please give which post it refers to (how am going to correct my mistakes if I’ve posted five answers and received a single –ve snack?). Restrict the awarding of –ve snacks to regular members or higher. That should reduce the number of trolls abusing the system. Have some guidelines for awarding –ve snacks. Obscene answers, homophobic, racist, ad hominem attacks are best reported directly to the administrator. I don’t think a –ve snack should be given to someone that has made an honest mistake in his/her answer. Cases where a –ve snack might be warranted (taken from my Y!A experience): (1) A regular or higher member who consistently gives wrong answers (see earlier post). On Y!A I would try and step in with the correct answer but at times I either could not keep up with his posts or they were questions I do not answer (I only answer the most difficult questions in my area of expertise).
(2) People that belittle a person who asks a supposedly "dumb" question. There are people on this forum that come close to being in this category. There is no such thing as a dumb question; it is how we learn. To be told your question is dumb when you’re just starting out can be devastating. When I ask a dumb question I admit it and move on. There is a retired teacher on Y!A that is notorious for denigrating students whose questions he deems dumb. I would wait (usually not for long!) for our retired teacher to give a "dumb" answer and then ship him up his own medicine. Coincidentally, I was usually then attacked by trolls and had to go underground for a few days and emerge with a new ID and icon.
(3) People that BS. Discussed in a previous post. Ask them to back up their statement.
As you can see I have no reason to give –ve snacks. No one learns by giving them.
@ DrCMS "Did you get a PhD? I did, does that mean everything I say is right and automatically of more value than someone just with a BSc or heaven forbid not even that?" I see DrCMS has backed off that line of attack now that he know I also have a PhD.
If you don’t back up your answer with references then yes I believe I can question your background. I tell students to ignore my credentials and to just judge my answer on its merits that invariably include references. (Incidentally, as of 22/5/12 I have 2565 Best Answers on Y!A so some students think my answers are OK.)
@408 "dude, it is the internet, who cares."
omg: I care! As should anyone else who wants a forum of the highest ethical standards. Now what was I saying about setting standards for the next generation..
@ DrCMS "so if you carry on bitching about getting -ve snacks I will take one each and every day until you shut up about it or leave the site"
But I appear to be the only one able to answer the advanced questions on inorganic chemistry! You wouldn’t want to banish me would you? So do you control whether or not I can contribute to Chem Forums?
I see someone else has picked up on your arrogance in a recent post: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=59191.0 but Borek has censored further discussion on that topic. And now it has been completely removed!
@ DrCMS "Having looked back through all your posts you have mentioned the -ve snacks given quite a few times in other threads."
Would you care to back up this statement? The only time I recall having complained about a –ve snack was the first one I received. I have made sarcastic remarks about my other –ve snacks (see above) but surely DrCMS can distinguish the two types of comments? It appears to me you’re on a witch-hunt going over my previous posts.
@DrCMS "It could be someone is taking them away just to wind you up as you seem to take it too much to heart."
Beware of who is doing the winding up! I am renown for adopting controversial positions on subjects I believe in. I tell people my heritage is Churchill not Chamberlain. I am enjoying this storm in a tea cup! My hope is that changes will be made to what I see as a flaw in Chem Forums. You will note that I have proposed measures whereby the system can be improved. You can’t wind me up for the simple reason that I won’t let you.
Questions currently on forum.
Caesium absorbance at 340 nm: Run a blank. Cs2O is orange
Ligand field stabilization energies: Your LFSEs are wrong; Pairing energies do indeed need to be considered; exchange energies are ignored.
Hapticity in arenes: I am an acknowledged expert on TM cmplxs with η^6-arene (hexahapto) ligands
Methyl Lithium Bonding: MeLi is a tetramer (Me4Li4) with 4c-2e bonds
Question for DRCMS an organosilicon chemist: Why is Si2(Mes)4 yellow? ;D
-
cheese (MSW): read that posting you made out loud to someone you trust to give you the advice you need -- either cut the dosage on your meds, or increase them, as the professional dictates. I don't care much for stream of consciousness postings, I don't think they're cool, or smart, or artistic, but they are definitely annoying and useless for communication.
-
cheese (MSW),
You need to take mole snacks less seriously. Very few people take issue with it - this is an Internet forum, if you cannot exercise some degree of emotional detachment then unfortunately the Internet may not be a good place for you have discussions.
I can sympathise with some of your points, but you should not expect an overhaul of a system (Chemical Forums) that is running in a way that satisfies (almost) everybody else. You certainly have a right to free speech, but you also have to accept the political system by which decisions and are made and changes are made. Also consider that this is a free forum run by volunteers, you are not owed any favours. I think you have made your points fairly clearly, it has been taken on board and discussed. The system is not going to change at this time. If you don't like the atmosphere on Chemical Forums, have major issues with the workings of it and cannot tolerate the mole snack system, then you may choose not to visit the site.
-
cheese (MSW),
You need to take mole snacks less seriously. Very few people take issue with it - this is an Internet forum, if you cannot exercise some degree of emotional detachment then unfortunately the Internet may not be a good place for you have discussions.
I can sympathise with some of your points, but you should not expect an overhaul of a system (Chemical Forums) that is running in a way that satisfies (almost) everybody else. You certainly have a right to free speech, but you also have to accept the political system by which decisions and are made and changes are made. Also consider that this is a free forum run by volunteers, you are not owed any favours. I think you have made your points fairly clearly, it has been taken on board and discussed. The system is not going to change at this time. If you don't like the atmosphere on Chemical Forums, have major issues with the workings of it and cannot tolerate the mole snack system, then you may choose not to visit the site.
+ve
-
@ cheese (MSW) you're now down to -10 the last one taken by me as promised for your continued whinging about -ve snacks.
Having read the thread you link to my view is that you made a statement that ANY and ALL zinc solution at pH7 would end up as Zn(OH)2. Borek posted that it would not be the case for every zinc compound and you came back with a qualified post that said in MOST situations you answer would be correct. I'm sure you are correct but to my mind if you have made the qualification to your first post Borek would not have felt the need to make his post. If I'd seen that post at the time I might have taken the snack off you. You know the science but only put part of it in the 1st post. If we teach people rules to use but never tell them when those rules break down the people we help will make mistakes.
Arkcon can stick up for himself but yes as a moderator he will get some -ve snacks from disgruntled posters he pulls up for breaking the rules, if he gets more +ve than -ve snacks he's doing a good job.
I've not backed off anything I was trying to make the point that you have missed each time I've said it that an academic qualification (or not) on its own is not a good reason to listen to what someone has posted.
I have looked back over your last 98 posts and you have mentioned snacks 4 times in this thread and 5 times in other threads (do you really want me to link to each and every one of your posts that mentions snacks?) that fact you are talking about them so much means you are taking them very seriously. So it looks like I can wind you up by just taking snacks off you - do you really want a fight over this? Yes it is good to have more inorganic experts on the forum but I do not think you are the only one and if you whinge all the time about snacks then you become more of a distraction than a benefit and which point it would be better not to have you post anymore.
To answer your question Si2(Mes)4 is yellow because it is a disilene and they are usually coloured - from memory this was the 1st disilene every reported made by West et. al.
Now you can stop trying to playing academic games, stop whinging about snacks and help people out with their questions. If you can not do that then please leave the forum.
-
@408 "dude, it is the internet, who cares."
omg: I care!...
so you expect a website that you do not own to change their policies based on your opinion?
can you see the philosophical problem with your request?
what do you think the response would be in the real world if you went up to a business and told them to change?
-
@Arkcon Reply #23: Yours is what is called an ad hominem attack and indicates you have lost the debate. You have also lost my respect.
@Dan Reply #24: Now this is what a forum is all about (see below): an intelligent discussion of the issue. I am not wanting a major overhaul of the forum: it has several superior features to Y!A. The –ve mole snacks are however a problem and I am sure most long-term contributors have been annoyed by them. I am suggesting that the feature be modified. If the administrators chose not to do so then I have to live with their decision (and give each and every one of them a –ve snack? ;)). And yes I always have the option of not contributing to forum. But you don’t have anyone else with my expertise in Inorganic Chemistry as can be seen by the last three (unanswered) posts to the Inorganic Forum. The Cs^+(aq) is intriguing and I’ll do a SciFinder search on it to see if my explanation is correct. I learn too.
Message from a Y!A user received yesterday:
i just saw your profile in which you have written 'stopped contributing '
please dont go ...Yahoo answers need dedicated and helpful persons like you ..please dont go .
thanks for helping So someone loves me! As I say I don't do it for the pints but for comments like this.
DrCMS Reply #26 I note your –ve snack and I received another one besides yours. (See below)
You have misread the Zn question. At pH 7 Zn^2+(aq) has a conc of 3 × 10^-3 M; at pH 6, 3× 10^-1 M. Because Zn^2+, like essentially all 1st Row [TM]^2+ cmplxs in H2O, (virtually?) all Zn^+ complexes (Zn(NH3)4, (Znen]^2+, probably even ZnEDTA) will end up as [Zn(H2O)4-6]^2+ in the absence of high concs of ligands at pH <7. The Zn(porphyrin) (use in laser therapy) may survive pH 7.
I probably know more about the chemistry of TM than anyone else on this forum.
I note Borek has not denied he gave the –ve snack.
As for my comments re –ve snacks it is apparent you cannot distinguish what was a genuine complaint (once) and my just noting the fact or making a sarcastic remark re –ve snacks. Once again you are going to extraordinary lengths to disparage me.
Your attempts at bullying me will be addressed in separate post.
It was you that asked if I had a PhD and proclaimed that you knew more organosilicon chemistry than just about anybody in the world, or words to that effect. If I had said I didn’t have a PhD I suspect you would have lorded that fact over me as a PhD yourself. Now it just happens that my PhD thesis has Silicon in the title and I have been in the field of M-Si cmpds ever since. As I suspected, you do not know why (Mes)2Si=Si(Mes)2 is yellow. Treat your fellow posters with civility they might just know more than you. (See below.)
@408 (and persons giving –snacks) I should have added that a –ve snack should never be given to someone whose opinion you disagree with. The right to free speech is a fundamental tenet of democracy.
On the PBS NEWSHOUR May 22, there was a discussion on just this topic:
".. having those students participate in classes which are, in my mind, the best rehearsal spaces we have for democracy. The college classroom should be a place where students learn to speak with civility, to listen with respect to each other, to know the difference between an argument based on evidence and an opinion, and most of all to realize that they might walk into the room with one point of view and they might walk out with another." College: 'The Best Rehearsal Spaces We Have for Democracy' Andrew Delbanco, a professor at Columbia University http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june12/college_05-22.html
Could we not substitute Chem Forums for classes in the above quote?
408: you might email a fellow student, "Yo Dude git enny idear abut ow 2 do problemo 4 lol"
But would you email your prof that way for help on Problem 4? And don’t forget on forum there is no obligation for anyone to reply especially if he/she considers the tone of the question uncivil.
Forum is not Facebook.
-
That's enough. Continuing this discussion doesn't make any sense.
I don't see any valid reason to change the system.
Topic locked.