I think i mentioned that i reached out to Seeking Alpha with a "globanomics" offering, which was rejected for "plagiarism-like" issues (i.e., plagiarizing myself from earlier writings).  The old "Catch 22" operation (i.e., we will not publish you if you have written down or published any part of your submission in another forum, including a personal blog, outside of Seeking Alpha).

I do not mind "burning bridges" when other opportunities exist.  Seeking Alpha was just an easy shot in the dark for me and i felt that they somewhat belittled me in their response back to my offering.   

As i think you probably already know, i have little patience with condescending editors, who have little knowledge of what i know and what i can deliver.  All my life i have known that it is not good and proper to burn bridges.  Seeking Alpha is not the only bridge than i have burned in my life.  Burning bridges just seems to be a fairly consistent "bad trait" of mine.  I know better, but i just don't believe compromising my life away like that.

So, here was my message back to my the rejection of my "globanomics article" to Seeking Alpha.

--------

I appreciate the feedback, but i see that Seeking Alpha and i would not be a good fit.  It would be too difficult for me to put up with all of your "new enhancements".  

For example, i see that you have a "plagiarism" algorithm that can review everything that i have written prior, which i think would somewhat verify my credentials even more than a photo from a driver's license (which would mean little to me).

As the author and developer of "globanomics", a theory that will become a dominating theory above those in finance and economics, i find Seeking Alpha's quaint regulations somewhat quaint (if you know what i mean).  

I would also like to mention that the only place where i could go and find the globanomic offering that i submitted to Seeking Alpha is in my book called, Globanomics.  All the other places you mentioned (i.e., Business Insider and Talkmarkets) are in bits and pieces to my offering.

Let me tell Seeking Alpha something that they might not understand.  When one is developing one's theory (e.g., globanomics), it is good to get feedback while you are developing your creation--and that is what i was doing with my Talkmarkets blog--which is consistently followed by a very, very small group of interested followers (twelve people in total).  And i find it somewhat discouraging that Seeking Alpha would decline my offer because i am blogging to twelve people, not thousands, millions, or billions.

Seeking Alpha's decision also means that they will not be the ones that explain why "health care costs" in the United States are two to three times higher than other comparable "free world" countries, while showing poorer "health care statistics" than the other "free world" countries, resulting in a rather humongous transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class in America to the wealthy class.  Seeking Alpha would also miss out on bringing to light the Federal Reserve's thirty-year mistake on "long term interest" rates between 1982 - 2012--also resulting in a large transfer of wealth between the poor/middle class to the wealthy (and places like China to help them grow).  But who cares about trying to understand why the gap between the rich and the poor widened these past forty-years while our nation was experiencing rather good economic times?  

Thanks again for getting back to me just the same.  It's not my loss, it's the loss to those who follow Seeking Alpha.