"Prolix, prolix, nothing a pair of scissors can't fix."

"...deeply painful to contemplate..."

The conceptual and technical descriptions in the paper are excellent and the paper: is generally very well written. 

Nevertheless, the reviewer recommends the rejection of the paper due to the fact that he considers it to be completely out of scope for this journal.

"I have not yet been pained by finding any excessive talent..."

“He is not indeed an author adapted to superficial minds,”

"The author's go through a great deal of mathematical detail (mostly rather trivial)..."

"... it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid and archly fatuous fashion."

"...if there are any of our readers who wish to find examples of bad rhetoric, involved syntax, stilted sentiment
and incoherent English, we will take the liberty of recommending to them this precious volume."

"Two-thirds of it is incoherent, and the passages that are plainly written are devoid of wit..."

 "It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it."

"...suffers from one fairly serious flaw—that of outright unreadability.”

I decided to reject the paper for the following arguments: - the paper is extremely difficult to read, with the use of exotic formulations such as

"exquisite sensitivity", "orthodox spread-spectrum", "metadata is so easily lost", "we would like to make absolutely clear..." "is the spurious notion..."