VQR Disses Submitters

I missed the initial fireworks, but the gist is that VQR blogposted some of the nasty things its slushpile readers say about the vile submissions they encounter.

Some submitters took offense.

Editor Ted Genoways pulled the comments and sort of apologized:

"In short, the tone of our blog post did not correctly represent our commitment to our authors. This is a disservice to our submitters, our readers, and our goals. However, I do think that the comments, if not their public airing, are a fair response to many of the submissions we receive and accurately reflect the righteous indignation that we often feel as readers. Too much of what we see these days strikes us as merely competent—well-crafted but passionless in its execution or, just as often, passionate only about the minor travails of the world of its author. No editor nor writer feels more strongly about the possibility of finding the universal in the small, but we also ravenously crave great writing that takes on big issues. Gutsy, fearless, hard-nosed writing. Writing that matters. Its absence makes us ill-tempered; it makes us question our enterprise. We work hard and want to see evidence of equal effort from writers."

Gutsy, fearless, hard-nosed writing, indeed.

To say nothing of pious, pompous, cliched ranting.

The phrase I think is really shameless is "righteous indignation."

Since when are Genoways and his minions entitled to Righteous Indignation while winnowing the infinite chaff from the most rare wheat?