Introducing myself: pharmacist, sceptic, reluctant participant Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim.
Something adjacent that I have been thinking about and that does not belong in any of the technical categories. No question in particular; I am interested in how other people see it.
Ongoing: you can post multiple introductions over time. If you return after a long break, reintroducing yourself is fine.
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Say hello. No question required. Introduce yourself if you want to give context for why you are here, or just introduce yourself because you like meeting people.
No judgment: people come to this community from all backgrounds and with all motivations. Introductions are for getting to know each other, not for evaluation.
post #5 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
What to include: your name or handle, how you found the community, what brings you here, maybe something about yourself that seems relevant (clinician, researcher, person using these compounds, curious). Anything you are comfortable sharing.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Lurking first: if you want to introduce yourself after lurking a bit, that is fine. You do not have to introduce yourself before your first technical post either.
On post #5 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Following up: if you introduce yourself and someone asks a follow-up question, you can reply here or in a direct message depending on what feels right.
Privacy: share only what you are comfortable making permanent and public. An introduction is archived and searchable; do not include information you will later regret posting.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
Ongoing: you can post multiple introductions over time. If you return after a long break, reintroducing yourself is fine.
post #14 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
On post #12 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Welcome: the response to introductions is usually welcome. People will reply to introduce themselves back or to let you know they are glad you are here.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Introductions category
Say hello. No question required. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its author and a note. If the scope described here has drifted…
|
4 | 2.3k | 23mo | |
|
Joined after a search result and stayed
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Joined after a search result and stayed Everything below is what sits behind that. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim.…
|
+5 | 9 | 26k | 7h |
|
Revisiting: Joined after a search result and stayed
Revisiting: Joined after a search result and stayed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a…
|
2 | 1.6k | 22mo | |
|
Here for the analytics and not much else
Here for the analytics and not much else — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something…
|
+93 | 102 | 10k | 16h |
|
[2026 update] Hello from a laboratory that does not do peptides
Hello from a laboratory that does not do peptides Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a…
|
2 | 49k | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much I want to check my reasoning rather than get a conclusion.…
|
+15 | 19 | 17k | 16mo |
|
Long-time reader, first-time poster
On the subject in the title: Long-time reader, first-time poster Working notes rather than a conclusion. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something adjacent…
|
+15 | 19 | 2.5k | 8mo |
|
What to include when your question involves a laboratory result
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What to include when your question involves a laboratory result Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people…
|
+8 | 12 | 14k | 2d |
|
[2026 update] Long-time reader, first-time poster
Long-time reader, first-time poster — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something adjacent…
|
+46 | 50 | 23k | 5mo |
|
Food noise reducing and the disorientation that can follow
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Food noise reducing and the disorientation that can follow Everything below is what sits behind that. General question, not a request for advice about my own care —…
|
+40 | 45 | 8.9k | 20mo |