Review-Response

Dear Sir, Madame or Other:

Enclosed is our latest version of Manuscript # 85-02-22-RRRRR that is the re-re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have again rewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed the goddam running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough now to satisfy even you and your bloodthirsty reviewers.

I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change we made in response to the critiques. After all if is fairly clear that your reviewers are less interested in the details of scientific procedures than in working out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seeking some kind of demented glee in the satistic and arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power over hapless authors like ourselves who happen to fall into their clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropic psychpaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they weren't reviewing manuscripts the'd probably out mugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batch of reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you not ask him to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letters to four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so, if you send the manuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.

Some of the reviewers comments we couldn't do anything about. for example, if (as C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeed drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefitted. Thus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by five pages, and we were able to accomplish that very effectively by altering the margins and printing the paper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you that the paper is much better this way.

One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions 13 through 28 by reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews before doing your decision letter), that this reviewer listed 16 works that he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a varlety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work that we coule see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American war from a high school literary magazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone whom reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have modified the Introduction and added, after the review of the relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review of Irrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more asinine suggestions from the other reviews.

We hope you will be pleased with this revision and will finally recognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, they you are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of human decency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from be the butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however, we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this process and to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. To repay, we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us the next manuscript that anyh of these reviewers submits to this journal.

Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnote acknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we liked the paper much better the way we originally wrote it but you held the edotirial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshuffle, restate, hedge, expand, shorten, and in gneral convert a meaty paper into stir-fried vegetables. We couldn't or wouldn't have done it without your input.

Sincerely,