Dear Sirs,
I am writing concerning the rejection of my entry in The Analyst's "Going Faster and Faster and Faster in the 21st Century" Essay Contest, sponsored by Exchangron. Admittedly, the subject of a peer-to-peer based anonymized assassination network as an enterprise catalyst in a globalized free trade system is a controversial one, but isn't this open exchange of ideas precisely the reason a forum like The Analyst exists?
Allow me to quote the rejection letter - "The essay contains content not suitable for discussion in the contest" This is lunacy. "Ding Dong! You're Dead!" is a thoughtful, and may I go so far as to say, exquisitely reasoned argument on the value of "lethality churn" in vitalizing stalled markets. I would have hoped that an organ as prestigious as yours would have examined the work on the merits of its argument, leaving emotional histrionics for the nattering soy-munching nabobs of less celebrated publications.
Before you dismiss me as simply embittered, I feel it is my duty as a loyal reader of the magazine to raise the issue of its clearly slipping standards. The concept that the content of my entry constituted an implied threat against the review board is preposterous. Like any advocate of a new idea, it is my duty to present my case as zealously as possible. Using the names of prominent political and entertainment personalities as example targets of an encrypted, Nth-blinded "conflict termination" network was merely an evocative stance with which to press my case, a rhetorical trick that might be used by any essayist. To be rejected for pushing ideas that may be ahead of their time, that I might be able to accept with some equanimity, as a backhanded compliment. But to say that there was an effort to extort prize money from the panel, and that I was complicitous in that effort - that, sirs, is beyond the pale.
My colleagues released our freeware client, "Scarlet Sunshine! 1.0" just last week. I sent install disks of the SS! 1.0 to the judges as a souvenir, so that they could see the system in action and experience its potential for themselves. It was never, ever intended as a threat, and I am disturbed that it was interpreted as such. When I entered this contest, it was as a scholar among scholars, a freethinker entering into the domain of scholarly debate. I expected to be treated as a man, not discarded with the same lack of consideration one shows uneaten pizza. I am appalled and disappointed. Perhaps the stuffed shirts on the judges' panel at The Analyst could use some lethality churn of their own.
Sincerely,
Winston Blair
| 
