Thanks jack for the suggestion. I did read your AA post, and now I am scratching my head. I can make the following observation:
A. From a purely ethical point of view, publicating a private communication, presumably received in confidence, is slightly weak.
B. Unless I am incorrect, you waited for the review results to register your discontent with the process. This opens the possibility that if the review had favored TRL instead, you may have chosen to accept it in spite of its foundational shortcomings, as hypothised by my little thought experiment above.
C. Your Faith (*) in TRL is admirable and clearly unwavering.
D. I own no TRL nor APL products, nor I have owned one in the past.
*. From American Heritage Dictionary: "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. ")
A. From a purely ethical point of view, publicating a private communication, presumably received in confidence, is slightly weak.
B. Unless I am incorrect, you waited for the review results to register your discontent with the process. This opens the possibility that if the review had favored TRL instead, you may have chosen to accept it in spite of its foundational shortcomings, as hypothised by my little thought experiment above.
C. Your Faith (*) in TRL is admirable and clearly unwavering.
D. I own no TRL nor APL products, nor I have owned one in the past.
*. From American Heritage Dictionary: "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. ")