Now I'm going over the contents of the rejected paper once again and trying to tidy things up so that it looks neat. There is nothing I can do to enhance the technical contents of the paper. It is clear from the review reports that I was, at least, unable to make them understand some of my points, let alone elicit appreciations for them. This part of paper-writing is very tricky because the border line between emphasis and overemphasis depends on the referee's familiarity with the subject, general outlook on research etc. You may lose some points if you hammer in a particular point what you consider important when the reviewer finds that over-the-top. On the other hand, if you don't want to underscore some important points a few extra times in order not to be loud, the points may go overlooked by the reviewer all the way. Evaluation by only three 'experts' out of more than thirty odd members is always fraught with risks of unfairness. However, this is no excuse as this is the most practical solution to this whole conference process. Despite all such difficulties and competition there are many smart guys who consistently get papers accepted at the top conferences. I envy and, as well, salute them.