<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[amphoteros]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://amphoteros.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[ayudin2013]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://amphoteros.com/author/ayudin2013/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[A post-scriptum on&nbsp;fluorine&#8230;]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Hi all, I am glad that one of the readers reminded me about a classic work by Jack Dunitz. In addition to my personal response, I decided to post a link so that everyone can see it and save in their folders of &#8220;important papers&#8221;. </p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.19970030115/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/chem.19970030115/abstract</a></p>
<p>The title says it all: a contradiction to what the Linclau study suggests. However, the Dunitz paper is primarily a crystallographic study, which is an important distinction. One comment: people no longer come up with really great titles. There is a monumental inscription in the title of the Dunitz contribution: &#8220;Organic Fluorine Hardly Ever Accepts Hydrogen Bonds&#8221;! </p>
<p style="text-align:center;"> </p>
]]></html></oembed>