Analysis

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Given that the report is very straightforward, I don't understand why the editor still took very long to make the decision.

Glad for the quick rejection. The reason was that the paper felt like a response piece. It isn't, and is now accepted at a journal of roughly equal (or slightly better) stature.

-

-

-

-

-

You don't need 3.5 months to read a four-page paper, do you?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

My paper argues against a view that assumes A, and I argue that A leads to some undesirable result. The reviewer objects: but A is false. :/ While I appreciate the time and effort the reviewer put into reading and reviewing my paper, they unfortunately did not read it closely enough to follow the dialectic or to read the footnotes which address several of the reviewer's other points.

-

-

One decent set of comments (with reasonable objections leading to rejection) supplied. Editor supplied further comments (also helpful).