tl;dr "trashy people eat this food, which makes this food trashy, and if I then eat that food, I will become trashy myself" is a social opinion (a shitty one), not a scientific opinion, but people will never stop trying to use nutritional terminology to legitimize their shitty social opinions

The ideal of major revision is: this paper is not yet worthy of publication, but with a revision it would be.

What many major revisions actually are: this paper is publishable, but I would prefer it to be different, so I'll demand they do that.

oh does it 'look bad'? buddy, our papers look like this. we don't give a FUCK about that

It was conscious until version 5. But it's not any more

Watson's over-simplification of Crick's Central Dogma is thus responsible for the mistaken belief in 1970 that reverse transcriptase contradicted it! See doi:10.1038/227561a0

7/n #JDWxNC

"widely used" is a gross overstatement, imo.

But, yes, some people are doing this

Potassium-deficient zombie desparately looking for someone who’s thinking about bananas

Everyone loves a bad boy

I presume you're talking about when we do math and pretend it's philosophy.

Sandwich thing, criminal law thing. Boom that’s the tweet

I would never call you that. You're obviously a scone