I am pleased to hear that Table 1 has finally entered the realm of
politically incorrect terms. Let me fire another insult at it:
> The data statistics are an attempt to describe the quality of the actual
data as a result of an experiment.
Unfortunately, table 1 does not achieve that objective. The statistics in
table 1 are a single global numbers limited to what we believe were the
primary Bragg components of the
diffraction pattern at the time of data processing. The diffraction
experiment is a much more complex, time dependent, etc. process. If you
truly care about the experiment,
demand raw image deposition.
> everything else in an article is merely interpretation, most of all the
model itself (which is not data, as many often confuse), and to a large
extend even the electron density map.
I take issue with that (not just politically) incorrect and indiscriminate
insult towards electron density. Any SAD or similar experimental map from
decent model-independent phases firmly attests to the opposite.
> which I would like to encourage people not to use the term 'Table 1'.
Language has an influence on how we think, so language should be kept from
too much degradation.
To this wonderful statement I have only one response:
i=0
do i=1,100000
write (*,*) 'Table 1'
i=i+1
end do
BR
PS: Never thought Table one has so much fictional (and frictional)
potential. Just wait for Table 2, refinement statistics.
--
--
Dr Tim Gruene
Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
Tammannstr. 4
D-37077 Goettingen
GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
|