Rejection letters, correspondence, and miscellanea from the otherwise empty annals of the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Readers Reject II: TPDU

 Editor's note: From a highbrow first installment of Readers Reject, we now stoop to this in our second installment.  Please post your rejection letters in the Comments section.  The results will be announced in a week.


I would like you to consider my TPDU (Toilet Paper Dispensing Unit) efficiency paper for publication.

The following the abstract of my paper:
TPDU's are used every day in many of the countries around the world. They are sometimes positioned to allow the client to dispense from the top, and sometimes from the bottom. Another less common method is the have them dispense vertically, and then they are described as wall and anti-wall dispensers. This paper will show that there is a greater wiping efficiency and less TPDU waste with the top/anti-wall dispensers. Pictures have been taken both of many dispensers, but also pics of the wiping efficiency.

I have over 33 years of TPDU usage experience, and also more experience with my 2 sons both of which I taught the joys of TPDU usage. If you would like to know more, please contact me and I will send the entire paper with references, pictures, videos, etc.

Thank you for the consideration.

Gregory Weaver
BS, PhD, and MA in Bowel Clearing Studies.

(Note the acronyms after my name are not to be confused with accredited degrees, they are BS- BullShit, PhD-Piled Higher and Deeper, MA-Master of Ass)


  1. Dear Gregory,

    We hold great respect for independent research outside of academia, and assure you that your lack of credentials did not prevent your imminent rejection. While the engineering aspects of TPDU merit further investigation and documentation, we feel that you have overlooked a major component in this system analysis. Have you considered that efficiency is not the goal but merely the framework of discourse, or the cultural implications of "anti-wall/top-loading dispensers" on North-South political interactions? Also, you fail to address the working principles of this design.

    We look forward to future submissions and/or newspaper clippings.

  2. Dear Gregory, I'm sorry to report that there was some confusion on the part of some editorial board members concerning your submission, particularly after one of the more absent-minded members had taken it to the executive washroom as reading material. Another board member mistook the paper for the product described therein, and followed the instructions in it.

    On the other side I am quite happy to report that despite this unfortunate mishap we have been able to dignify your subscription in the same manner afforded to the very best manuscripts we receive.

    Yes, you understand me correctly -- it has been flushed.

    We welcome any and all future submissions, but we request that, if possible, your next piece be printed on a lighter bond, 2-ply paper.

    With all due respect,

    R. Craigen

  3. Dear R.,
    Thank you for posting another rejection. We can always use more, even after the competition is closed.