-

-

-

-

-

Both sets of comments I received were helpful, supportive, and constructive. Reviewer 1's comments went into more depth than Reviewer 2's comments.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Oh my god, you cannot imagine how rude the editor was. I inquired about the status of the paper; while the editor was so bothered such that he recommended me to withdraw the paper.

-

-

-

-

Received two sets of comments: one consisting only of generic feedback, and another filled with sloppy misunderstandings and strawmen that hardly required four months to produce.

-

-

-

Referee ignores large sections of the paper, begs the question against my arguments, commits basic logical errors, wanders off into irrelevant territory, and fails to understand very clear arguments from the paper.

In the paper I made an assumption for conditional proof. Referee 1 argued that by making this assumption I was begging the question. This is basically incompetent. Referee 2 complained that the paper wasn't about something else and attacked my character.

Referee contradicts himself in his first substantive paragraph, thus setting the tone for his review.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-