Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.113 [SLACK_000327] · slack_pm:msg:01157

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

May be. I dunno.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-07-27 18:12 Kristian G. Andersen open

Exactly!
2020-07-27 19:02 Kristian G. Andersen open

Obviously the person writing the email... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 7.02.03 PM.png]
2020-07-27 19:50 Edward C. Holmes open

I'm not sure what I would conclude except that it is completely inappropriate to discuss the thoughts of the editors atNature. In addition, they completely fail to note that it was Clare that suggested Nature Medicine!! Clare seems tohave rejected the paper largely on the grounds that she thought it would go out of date quickly.
2020-07-27 19:55 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, but only a reviewer would be privy to this information - nobody on the call (unless they reviewed the paper) would know this.
2020-07-27 20:03 Edward C. Holmes

May be. I dunno.
2020-07-27 20:07 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's possible Ron was that reviewer too - and then just relayed the whole story to Ralph. More likely, Ralph was the reviewer and talked to Ron about it and Ron probably said "that's funny, let me tell you something...". Ralph then got pissed when he saw Jon's article - once again not citing him - with our quotes once again stating that this is a natural virus. In the Baric universe, I could see how that would blow a fuse.
2020-07-27 20:08 Edward C. Holmes open

Yes, that makes sense to me.
2020-07-27 20:09 Kristian G. Andersen open

Or, alternatively, @Robert Garry did it to boost our Altmetric score. That's a legit move.