Injustice as the law of statistics

[questfortruth]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

The failures in life are making us losers, even if we are a perfect genius and
constantly praying. This is the Theory of the Loser. On this ground, any
success makes us a lucky, charismatic person. This is the Theory of the Winner.

It seems that the world is an unjust, lawless place; but no, it has much of
law-ness. We live in the best world, which is available on our global
level of love and care. If it would be a slightly worse, then we would
have atomic explosions and open cannibalism in our cities right now.

I do not agree with feedback from officials, every time it is a simple
non-logical sentence ``we do not want it.'' This is not informative feedback,
it is insulting feedback. Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well,
therefore, I might be even genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

I might be crazy in 1000 of my papers, but genius in the 1001-th paper.
Keep giving the loser the chance. I plea to the Presumption of Innocence.
Secondly, if you have not read my papers or you have not understood them,
it is a lack of respect to reject the papers without trying to contact me.

Sending rejection letters to me like

``We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the problem''

is not acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: ``2=5+7=12 does not hold''.

The special combination of piecewise logic and feelings produces a nihilistic
way of living (or dying). It is defined by the conclusion that there is no
Absolute Truth -- everyone can have his or her own reality. It is like in one
planetary-sized madhouse, where the sick ones do not take medicine because of
their trust in their own defined normality. There are no objective standards
and viewpoints. Everybody feels like she or he is an Omniscient Suverene god
in the self-given right to reject even 1+2=3 if the latter does not sound
good: ``Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'' Genesis
3:22. Just like a lady rejects a good candidate while dating, if she is
suddenly bored. ``Michael Jackson -- Remember The Time'', ``Lady Gaga -- Bad
Romance'', ``The Simpsons -- The ancient, mystic society of No Homers'',
``The Simpsons -- No Homers Club'' YouTube. To cite Friedrich Nietzsche, the
theoretic behind Nihilism: ``The question is not that something is true or
false in the absolute sense, the question is: is this something beneficial for
life or not? Anything must be seen as right if it serves my interests.''
Therefore, one can only guess how many valid papers were unjustly rejected.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

The failures in life are making us losers, even if we are a perfect genius and
constantly praying. This is the Theory of the Loser. On this ground, any
success makes us a lucky, charismatic person. This is the Theory of the Winner.

It seems that the world is an unjust, lawless place; but no, it has much of
law-ness. We live in the best world, which is available on our global
level of love and care. If it would be a slightly worse, then we would
have atomic explosions and open cannibalism in our cities right now.

The answer from that person you are in contact with is very similar to other people you been in contact with,and people in RF who understand science.

Maybe there is something that they see and you can't, or wont accept?

 

[RabbiO]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

Shortening this piece, by basically removing the cite to one of your articles, and then posting it in another subforum hasn’t made it any more compelling than the original.

 

[ChristineM]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

The failures in life are making us losers, even if we are a perfect genius and
constantly praying. This is the Theory of the Loser. On this ground, any
success makes us a lucky, charismatic person. This is the Theory of the Winner.

It seems that the world is an unjust, lawless place; but no, it has much of
law-ness. We live in the best world, which is available on our global
level of love and care. If it would be a slightly worse, then we would
have atomic explosions and open cannibalism in our cities right now.

Look at it this way, you've had an answer, thats progress. Next it's up to you review the answer to see where you are going wrong.

The answer is nothing more than several knowledgeable people on RF have already told you so you shouldn't have any problems modifying your work to become acceptable by experts in the field. (That's 'shouldn't have any problems')

 

[questfortruth]

The answer from that person you are in contact with is very similar to other people you been in contact with,and people in RF who understand science.

Maybe there is something that they see and you can't, or wont accept?

I plea to the Presumption of Innocence. You can not doubt (openly) my papers, because you have not read them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I plea to the Presumption of Innocence. You can not doubt (openly) my papers, because you have not read them.

My answer was based on your past OP and answers. It is is not judgement of you as a person

 

[questfortruth]

My answer was based on your past OP and answers. It is is not judgement of you as a person

I might be crazy in 1000 of my posts, but genius in 1001-th post. Keep giving the loser the chance.
Secondly, you can not doubt (openly) my papers, because you have not
read them or you have not understood them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

The failures in life are making us losers, even if we are a perfect genius and
constantly praying. This is the Theory of the Loser. On this ground, any
success makes us a lucky, charismatic person. This is the Theory of the Winner.

It seems that the world is an unjust, lawless place; but no, it has much of
law-ness. We live in the best world, which is available on our global
level of love and care. If it would be a slightly worse, then we would
have atomic explosions and open cannibalism in our cities right now.

I might be crazy in 1000 of my papers, but genius in the 1001-th paper.
Keep giving the loser the chance. I plea to the Presumption of Innocence.
Secondly, if you have not read my papers or you have not understood them,
it is a lack of respect to reject the papers without trying to contact me.

Have you tried learning something from the feedback you get? Maybe try not believing you know everything already and that everyone else is wrong.

Obviously, not everyone agrees. Start with that.

 

[questfortruth]

Have you tried learning something from the feedback you get? Maybe try not believing you know everything already and that everyone else is wrong.

Obviously, not everyone agrees. Start with that.

Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well.

He also did not ignore feedback.

 

[questfortruth]

He also did not ignore feedback.

I do not agree with feedback.
Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well, therefore, I might be even
genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not agree with feedback.
Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well, therefore, I might be even
genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

Do you see your self as Jesus?

 

[questfortruth]

Have you tried learning something from the feedback you get?

I do not agree with feedback from officials, every time it is a simple
non-logical sentence ``we do not want it.'' This is not informative feedback,
it is insulting feedback.
Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well, therefore, I might be even
genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

 

[PureX]

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

Wow! This reads very much like that novel; "Notes From the Underground" by Fyodor Dostoevsky. (One of my favorite novels, by he way.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A reviewer insults my scientific talents: ``I cannot make heads or tails of
this word salad, I cannot recommend the paper for publication. You are evading
the key points. Your logic is flawed, you have failed to demonstrate anything
here.''

I would reply with the following note.

My sense of Objective Truth tells me that you are thinking wishfully, not
in the spirit of justice. But this is the law of reality because I am a loser.
Look: during 20 and more years I have faced a constant failure (even in
private life) - not because of my flaws, but because of bad luck with
officials. Therefore, the probability of success right after 20 years is
defined as the one single week one of my papers obtains consideration divided
by the number of weeks in 20 years. This ratio is approximately zero.

The failures in life are making us losers, even if we are a perfect genius and
constantly praying. This is the Theory of the Loser. On this ground, any
success makes us a lucky, charismatic person. This is the Theory of the Winner.

It seems that the world is an unjust, lawless place; but no, it has much of
law-ness. We live in the best world, which is available on our global
level of love and care. If it would be a slightly worse, then we would
have atomic explosions and open cannibalism in our cities right now.

I might be crazy in 1000 of my papers, but genius in the 1001-th paper.
Keep giving the loser the chance. I plea to the Presumption of Innocence.
Secondly, if you have not read my papers or you have not understood them,
it is a lack of respect to reject the papers without trying to contact me.

Reviewers are horrible monsters. They rejected my paper "The evolution of molecular mechanisms of alcohol related aerial impacts among two synergistic eagle species and the relationship to canine musings on spectral analysis or Corvette paint colors". I can't believe it. It had everything too. Plot twists. Action. Mystery. No one expected that it really was the butler at the end. My logic was flawless in my mind. I am a genius and I do say so myself.

I will not listen to anyone about anything. I know that I am great and you all are silly.

I don't know why I say goodbye. I will say Hello.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not agree with feedback from officials, every time it is a simple
non-logical sentence ``we do not want it.'' This is not informative feedback,
it is insulting feedback.
Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well, therefore, I might be even
genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

Maybe there are reasons for the rejection that you just cannot bring yourself to recognize.

What if the feedback you get is positive? You reject that too? Strange. It hardly seems worth the effort of submission if you are not going to listen to anything anyone tells you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not agree with feedback from officials, every time it is a simple
non-logical sentence ``we do not want it.'' This is not informative feedback,
it is insulting feedback.
Prophet Jesus Christ was not popular as well, therefore, I might be even
genius, but nobody will ever publish my papers.

The feedback you posted in the OP seemed informative. It also reflects feedback you have received here from people on this forum that are not officials.

See if you can come to understand what I mean by this. Just because two things have something in common does not make them equal or the same.

Jesus Christ was not popular.
Beheading children is not popular.

It is crude and blunt. But sometimes it takes a hammer to crack a shell.

 

[questfortruth]

The feedback you posted in the OP seemed to informative. It also reflects feedback you have received here from people that are not officials.

See if you can come to understand what I mean by this. Just because two things have something in common does not make them equal or the same.

Sending rejection letters to me like

``We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the problem''

is not acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: ``2=5+7=12 does not hold''.

 

[questfortruth]

Sending rejection letters to me like

``We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the problem''

is not acceptable at all as a flaw!

The special combination of piecewise logic and feelings produces a nihilistic
way of living (or dying). It is defined by the conclusion that there is no
Absolute Truth -- everyone can have his or her own reality. It is like in one
planetary-sized madhouse, where the sick ones do not take medicine because of
their trust in their own defined normality. There are no objective standards
and viewpoints. Everybody feels like she or he is an Omniscient Suverene god
in the self-given right to reject even 1+2=3 if the latter does not sound
good: ``Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'' Genesis
3:22. Just like a lady rejects a good candidate while dating, if she is
suddenly bored. ``Michael Jackson -- Remember The Time'', ``Lady Gaga -- Bad
Romance'', ``The Simpsons -- The ancient, mystic society of No Homers'',
``The Simpsons -- No Homers Club'' YouTube. To cite Friedrich Nietzsche, the
theoretic behind Nihilism: ``The question is not that something is true or
false in the absolute sense, the question is: is this something beneficial for
life or not? Anything must be seen as right if it serves my interests.''
Therefore, one can only guess how many valid papers were unjustly rejected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sending rejection letters to me like

``We have no time to read your paper because you are not
the only submitter [and you are not a Professor]; and it
seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation
to understand your approach to the problem''

is not acceptable at all as a flaw! Please look at the type
of mistake demonstration, I would accept: if I would write
in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that
place and reply: ``2=5+7=12 does not hold''.

I agree that they should read your work before deciding to reject it. But I have read some of what you post here. Why would I bother reading another 1000 in the hopes that there will be the one that is genius?

You do not seem to be interested in hearing any feedback unless it is all praise.