（￣へ￣

That's the underlying message I'm getting from some reviewer comments I'm sifting through from the article I'm (re)writing for the third time.

The problem with the paper as it now stands, from my perspective, is that it draws on at least three different sets of literatures to frame its analysis, yet none of the framings are especially relevant to what the paper actually addresses in its data set.

The paper reads to me as though the author is trying to make a comparison for which they do not have sufficient data (either their own or others’), and so rely on very basic populist (mis)understandings about online and FTF interaction.

The very brief and bland conclusion reflects a larger structural problem with the paper.

I think I am going to be able to pull it out of the ditch though. I think.