Rejected from AxePtiTalL 2006

[Michael Oltmans <moltmans@>]

Dear Den Mother,

We thank your for submitting to AxePtiTalL 2006.  This year our 
submissions have grown greatly in both granularity, quantity and 
quality, (with some papers reaching as many as 20 pages in length).  Due 
to the large number of submissions and their "quality", we were only 
able to accept 20,000 papers for presentation at this years conference.

We regret to inform you that your paper titled: "gsb: tonight at 5:30pm 
in 9G" was not one of the 20,000 selected for presentation at AxePtiTalL 
2006.  Your reviewers' comments are included below:

Reviewer 1:
Rating: Accept with revisions
Relevancy to conference: Minimal, only passing reference to actual 
scholarly material.
Style: Very good, easy to read, almost entertaining
Review:
  Although the author got immediately to the point in the paper's 
title, the rest of the paper lacked coherency.  At times the points were 
obscure, hard to understand and even approaching on humorous in their 
lack of grounding in the subject matter.  In the third section the 
author seems unaware of work published by a number of other researchers 
(including this reviewer) on the work that they claim as the basis to 
their approach.
  If the authors can add some content to their paper I believe that the 
style and type of writing is worthy of presentation and publication at 
AxePtiTalL 2006.

Reviewer 2:
Rating: Definite Reject
Relevancy to conference: High, main point is closely aligned with 
thinking of random  sampling of 10,000 accepted papers from AxePtiTalL 
2004 and 2005.
Style: Rambling, unguided and frankly obnoxious.
Review:
  I would like to begin by recommending to the committee that this 
paper be rejected and that all future submissions by this author be 
barred from subsequent years.  The writing is vague, unclear, rambling, 
and has no discernible scholarly merit.  The use of "top ten lists," in 
particular, provides no credibility to the material.  Parts of the paper 
are confusing and even offensive (e.g. Figure 8* and table 3**).  While 
the author's views are closely aligned with the theme of AxePtiTalL I 
highly recommend that instead of reading this filthy garbage the 
participants of our conference should instead be referred to...

           +-                                                  -+
             girl scout benefit -+-  5:30 pm  -+- 32-G9 lounge
           +-                                                  -+

              For those coming from elsewhere: Building 32 is
               <http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?selection=32>
          Once you are in 32, just take the G-elevator to the 9th
      floor and we will be in the lounge that you will be looking at
                    <http://projects.csail.mit.edu/gsb>


* Figure 8 can be found at: 
<http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2005-09%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=figure+8&btnG=Search>
** Table 3:
<http://projects.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/gsb/fortunes.cgi>

_______________________________________________
Csail-related mailing list
Csail-related@
https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/csail-related