930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Sir HC on September 08, 2003, 11:12:00 am

Title: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Sir HC on September 08, 2003, 11:12:00 am
Hopkins made a big mistake in a study, and the researchers say "We're scientists not chemists!"
 
 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1037007,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1037007,00.html)
 
 So does the scientist have to change his name?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 11:18:00 am
well if you order some white powder or clear liquid, do you trust what is sent, as labelled?
 
 Personally I have never tested any reagents I have purchased in that way. Which is in some ways quite worrisome.
 
 Than again the reagent was such a critical part of the study.   And not noticing it was the wrong thing means that they probably not do any quality control on it, or check its purity in any way.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Sir HC on September 08, 2003, 11:27:00 am
And the bigger question is who is this supply house and what other big mistakes could they have been making?  Imagine if it turns out that dozens of studies are all hosed because they sent out shoddy merchandise.  
 
 Can you sue the seller for giving you the wrong thing, or is there some "Use at your own risk" in the labeling?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 11:35:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
 
 Can you sue the seller for giving you the wrong thing, or is there some "Use at your own risk" in the labeling?
but dont things sold in america have to be fit for use. If you buy a car that doesnt go, in the UK at least, it is deemed not fit for use and the seller has to pay the money back. In theory at least.
 
 I guess though that using a lot of monkeys, as the study did, would have been fantastically expensive. As well as that the effect on the reputation on the scientists, institutes and journal will all have been severely harmed.
 
 
 but it must be a niche supply company, the drug was ecstasy (MDMA?) and they shipped speed, (methamphetamine) by mistake. I doubt many companies are allowed to make or supply those drugs. I dont think there is a medical use for either, unlike cocaine or heroin (dimorphine).
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Sir HC on September 08, 2003, 11:40:00 am
You are right, which almost begs the question is the supply house somehow government related?  If they are in well with the Feds or DEA and they shipped it wrong on purpose this could get the conspiracy theory guys going on something new since the 9/11 lies...
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 11:46:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
   which almost begs the question is the supply house somehow government related?  
I think the production is government licensed not owned.
 
 But as they shipped speed without the correct papers for shipping speed,  I would guess they will be in trouble.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Venerable Bede on September 08, 2003, 11:49:00 am
well, states have lemon laws for cars, which allow the consumer to return the car and be refunded the money.  that's got nothing to do with mislabelling stuff.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 11:54:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  well, states have lemon laws for cars, which allow the consumer to return the car and be refunded the money.  that's got nothing to do with mislabelling stuff.
the "lemon laws" are because an article is not fit for the use it was sold for?
 
 If I want to run around at twice my normal pace I will use speed. If I want to do the same and hallucinate I will use E.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: ggw on September 08, 2003, 12:14:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
  the drug was ecstasy (MDMA?) and they shipped speed, (methamphetamine) by mistake.
I hate when that happens.....
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Venerable Bede on September 08, 2003, 12:18:00 pm
if you go and buy a car, and that car immediately and repeatedly requires maintenance for whatever reason during the first year you own it, it's considered a lemon and can be returned to the dealership.  but the scientists didn't know they were dealing with speed and not ecstasy.  that's not the same thing.  however, the company that sold the university the wrong item should be responsible for reimbursement and any other "damages."  those would be different laws.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 12:27:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  if you go and buy a car, and that car immediately and repeatedly requires maintenance for whatever reason during the first year you own it, it's considered a lemon and can be returned to the dealership.  but the scientists didn't know they were dealing with speed and not ecstasy.  that's not the same thing.  however, the company that sold the university the wrong item should be responsible for reimbursement and any other "damages."  those would be different laws.
All cars require maintenance.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Venerable Bede on September 08, 2003, 12:30:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 All cars require maintenance.
they do??  well hell, that explains everything.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: ggw on September 08, 2003, 12:40:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
  All cars require maintenance.
Even them fancy new Italian jobbies?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 01:23:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
  All cars require maintenance.
Even them fancy new Italian jobbies? [/b]
YEP!...some more than others though.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:28:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 YEP!...some more than others though.
I saw a new maserati convertible in Georgetown last week. I was hoping it was going to be you driving it, but it was some middle aged guy, balding with a big paunch and a small willy. His bird was ugly too.......
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: ggw on September 08, 2003, 01:29:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
  I saw a new maserati convertible in Georgetown last week. I was hoping it was going to be you driving it, but it was some middle aged guy, balding with a big paunch and a small willy. His bird was ugly too.......
So it was Mankie?
 
 
 Oh....that was too easy.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:31:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 
 Oh....that was too easy.
I knew someone would be able to work with it.
 
 Hey Mankie how many dark metallic blue convertible mazzers have you sold/are there in the country?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 01:43:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
  I saw a new maserati convertible in Georgetown last week. I was hoping it was going to be you driving it, but it was some middle aged guy, balding with a big paunch and a small willy. His bird was ugly too.......
So it was Mankie?
 
 
 Oh....that was too easy. [/b]
Middle aged - getting there!
 Balding - NOPE
 Big paunch - GONE!
 Small willy - I'll never say...how did you know?
 Ugly bird - Never in my company.
 
 Mind you, with that description are you sure it wasn't a Porsche?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 01:46:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 
 Oh....that was too easy.
I knew someone would be able to work with it.
 
 Hey Mankie how many dark metallic blue convertible mazzers have you sold/are there in the country? [/b]
Dark blue is Maserati's traditional color so tends to be one of the more popular ones, if I had to guess there's probably about 300 in the country. The US only gets 1,100 cars per year total, so there's not many mazzers at all.
 
 Beautiful cars though aren't they markie? Did you manage to see the interior? I'm guessing you did seeing that you saw the drivers willy.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:46:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 Mind you, with that description are you sure it wasn't a Porsche?
yes, maybe a good description of an average porsche driver.
 
 The corvette hits the same demographic, but the guys are always single and you can see their chest wigs.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 01:48:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote

 
 The corvette hits the same demographic, but the guys are always single and you can see their chest wigs. [/b]
That's not a chest wig, that's their toupe that they shove down their shirt so it doesn't blow away.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:50:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 [qb]
 
 Oh....that was too easy. [/b]
Beautiful cars though aren't they markie? [/b]
It wasnt as pretty as I imagined. but convertibles with their top up often look a little ungainly. I think it would have looked better with the old boomerang lights. I didnt see inside. It was driving by, albeit slowly.
 
 In looks terms I think the big jag is prettier, but not in gold. I hate gold colured cars.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 08, 2003, 01:50:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 Small willy - I'll never say...how did you know?
 
well at least you've had a song written about you, "little willy" - sweet", which is more than markie can say for himself
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:51:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 
 The corvette hits the same demographic, but the guys are always single and you can see their chest wigs.
That's not a chest wig, that's their toupe that they shove down their shirt so it doesn't blow away. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 ahh, thanks mankie, I will be stealing that line.....
 
 Why are corvette drivers always lone?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 01:53:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
   "little willy" - sweet"
there will be, no flowers for willy. <<<Television>>>
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 02:02:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote
Why are corvette drivers always lone? [/b]
Because the only other people who would actually get into a Corvette are out driving their own?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 02:02:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   
Quote
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
   "little willy" - sweet"
there will be, no glamour for willy. <<<Television>>> [/b]
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 02:06:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
  [/qb]
Because the only other people who would actually get into a Corvette are out driving their own? [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 I dunno I have never been in one. The mustang I drove was  a hoot though. It had a live rear axle........
 
 It was probably the worst car I have ever driven, worse even than the 80s fiesta with big rust holes.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 02:12:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
   
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
  [/b]
Because the only other people who would actually get into a Corvette are out driving their own? [/QB]
I dunno I have never been in one. The mustang I drove was  a hoot though. It had a live rear axle........
 
 It was probably the worst car I have ever driven, worse even than the 80s fiesta with big rust holes. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 
 The problem with yank *ahem* "performance" cars is that the engineers put all their efforts into horsepower and seem to forget that we turn corners once in a while so don't bother with minor shit like handling and stuff...Vipers, Corvettes, Mustangs...all the same. Even the Shelby Series 1 we have here has crap handling.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 02:19:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
   Even the Shelby Series 1 we have here has crap handling.
how bad is it? It should be good..... Its not too heavy, is it?  Which is a lot of the other cars problems.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: bungle bud on September 08, 2003, 02:21:00 pm
i was a passenger in a corvette yesterday, ah sunday afternoon drives, the thing shifts and corners well, i think its the crap american drivers and not the cars that cant corner.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Sir HC on September 08, 2003, 02:24:00 pm
I am suprised that these researchers didn't go out and buy some street E to compare to the stuff they were given.  Simple cheap control subject.  And since every police department can test drugs for you, why not send some out?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 02:24:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bungle bud:
  i was a passenger in a corvette yesterday
<img src="http://www.aestheticdesign.com/images/corvette.jpg" alt=" - " />
 
 I like your new outfit.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: markie on September 08, 2003, 02:27:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
  I am suprised that these researchers didn't go out and buy some street E to compare to the stuff they were given.  Simple cheap control subject.  And since every police department can test drugs for you, why not send some out?
I dont think you are legally allowed to do that. you cant use illegal drugs from an unspecified source. You cannot inject or feed animals with a drugs over unspecified purity or nature.
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Jaguär on September 08, 2003, 05:13:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 [qb] Why are corvette drivers always lone? [/b]
Because it's such a crappy ride!
 
 Actually, I use to have a boyfriend who bought a new Vet. I hated that freaking car! Try falling in and out of that car in a mini skirt and heels.    :roll:   The only way to get in or out is to fall. There is no gracefull way. The ride was horrible! So damned bumpy. It was like a freaking obstical course just being inside that damned car. I broke up with the guy soon afterwards......thank God!
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 05:33:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 [qb] Why are corvette drivers always lone? [/b]
Because it's such a crappy ride!
 
 Actually, I use to have a boyfriend who bought a new Vet. I hated that freaking car! Try falling in and out of that car in a mini skirt and heels.     :roll:    The only way to get in or out is to fall. There is no gracefull way. The ride was horrible! So damned bumpy. It was like a freaking obstical course just being inside that damned car. I broke up with the guy soon afterwards......thank God! [/b]
So you got the rich redneck box checked off then?
 
 Did he have a small willy?
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: paige on September 08, 2003, 05:45:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 [qb] Why are corvette drivers always lone? [/b]
Because it's such a crappy ride!
 
 Actually, I use to have a boyfriend who bought a new Vet. I hated that freaking car! Try falling in and out of that car in a mini skirt and heels.     ;)  
 
 Being that low to the ground scares me, and it isn't a very comfortable ride. I feel like I am below sea level. However in terms of fast cars, a Porsche 911 Carerra isn't such a bad idea...   :p
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: mankie on September 08, 2003, 05:56:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by paige:
 
Quote

 end up spread eagled and looking horrible.  
 
 [/b]
Now there's a contradiction of terms if ever I heard one!
 
   :D
Title: Re: Chemists are not scientists?
Post by: Jaguär on September 08, 2003, 06:35:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
     
Quote
Originally posted by Jaguär:
     
Quote
Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:
 
Quote
Originally posted by mankie:
 [qb] Why are corvette drivers always lone? [/b]
Because it's such a crappy ride!
 
 Actually, I use to have a boyfriend who bought a new Vet. I hated that freaking car! Try falling in and out of that car in a mini skirt and heels.        :roll:       The only way to get in or out is to fall. There is no gracefull way. The ride was horrible! So damned bumpy. It was like a freaking obstical course just being inside that damned car. I broke up with the guy soon afterwards......thank God! [/b]
So you got the rich redneck box checked off then?
 
 Did he have a small willy? [/b]
1. A nouveau rich hip geek. Not a redneck at all.
 
 2. Ah, no. But he doesn't have me anymore either.
 
 3. And before you ask, he had all of his hair and was skinny and attractive. BUT, he was, or IS, a big jerk.
 
 Paige, those cars are difficult enough to get in with jeans and flats let alone any other kind of attire. You try to lower yourself gracefully to get in and end up just falling in. Same with getting out. The only thing you can do is fall out and end up looking like some drunk being kicked out of the car even though you are sober as a church mouse who hasn't found the wine stash. I wonder if it has something to do with the difference in distribution of body weight between men and women?