Asking a follow-up: new topic or new reply? posts 61–74

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.

Since asking a follow-up keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.

Taking post #62 at face value and following it one step further.

If the answer you got does not fit your case, say which part does not fit rather than restating the question. Otherwise the next reply is the same as the last one.

Post #60 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Counterpoint on asking a follow-up, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.

Coming back to post #64, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

I would call the community position on asking a follow-up likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.

This follows post #66 rather than contradicting it.

Context that matters: compound, how long in, current dose, relevant history. Context that does not matter: how you feel, your hopes for the outcome, your medical history beyond what affects this specific question. The first set gets you answered. The second set makes the reply longer without making it better.

A question about somebody else's post should be a reply to that post, not a new topic. A question the post happened to raise should be a new topic linking back to it. The difference is whether the answer is useful without the original.

I would want a second opinion before relying on that.

Confirming post #66 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Edit the first post rather than adding the missing detail in reply nine. People arriving later read the first post and stop.

I had written a reply contradicting post #68 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Asking a follow-up came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.

Worth separating asking a follow-up as a question about the compound from asking a follow-up as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.

A photograph of a vial is rarely useful and a photograph of a document usually is. Redact the identifiers before you post either.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

If you are asking about a document, quote the exact wording of the line you are asking about. Paraphrasing a specification is how a discussion ends up about a document nobody has read.

Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.

Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.