Flagging this early and with the caveat that I may be wrong about part of it. I would rather be corrected than quiet.
Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
One detail people underrate: an irreversible payment removes your only leverage in a dispute, so it should be the last step rather than the first.
If your experience contradicts this, say so in the thread — I would rather be corrected here than have people act on a warning that does not hold.
CryptoCarl said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
CryptoCarl said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Pushing back on CryptoCarl here. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsThis one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Dr.SurgeonPGH said:Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.