3 ms·
i also didn't tell you what my favorite color is nor my wife's maiden name - maybe you shouldn't be such a presumptuous condescending <word>. again if you don'
by mathisfun123 3y ago
i also didn't tell you what my favorite color is nor my wife's maiden name - maybe you shouldn't be such a presumptuous condescending <word>.
again if you don't believe me, it doesn't matter. the paper exists and the reviews exist and the email exchange with the PC exists and i have shown all of these things to my own committee (and if i knew who you were and trusted you, i would show them to you as well).
> I've edited my comment to reflect the new information.
your edits further cements your position as presumptuous and obliging of a process that warrants/merits no such thing.
- robotresearcher 3y agoI marked the edit as such. Not a stealth edit.
- robotresearcher 3y agoI've believed everything you said, when you said it. The difference between "My paper got rejected because a reviewer dug up some vaguely similar thing from 3 years ago" and "I mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions." seems to me to be quite important. After hearing the first by itself, the second came as a surprise.
- mathisfun123 3y agoThey dug it up as a cause for rejection, like one digs up skeletons in someone's closet to discredit them. I'm pretty exhausted from dealing with this and now explaining it to you but I have an update: I've just now gotten an email from the PC (after emailing them yesterday pointing out the flaws in reviewer 3's reasoning) saying I'm welcome to come present (and highlight the differences) in a "lightning talk" that won't be published in the proceedings. Looks like they're going with the "do it for the exposure" influencer model. I've declined the "opportunity".