(1) The response of the conference organizer (btw, why is it always the same person?): Oh he must be an expert in the theory of peer review. He quotes so many journal articles to support accepting "non-reviewed" papers. Even more, when authors asked for rejection reasons, he also cites so many literature to support him not providing reviewer comments. This sets the standard so high; I suppose I can never be a conference organizer if I need so much knowledge about this.
(2) Although I can generate as many papers as I wish, I probably couldn't get them into this prestigious conference, because as stated in their conference website:
Acceptance decisions related to the submitted papers will be based on their respective content review and/or on the respective author’s CV.Given that I have such a poor CV, I must have no hope of getting them accepted.
(3) Could someone tell me whether the "get me off the fxxking mailing list" paper is accepted or not?
(4) They accepted 2904 papers last year. Wow! Can I also know how many papers are submitted?
(5) I generated several papers for myself. One is titled "Internet considered harmful", and another cites my own "paper" co-authored with D. Johnson (D S Johnson?) titled "Contrasting IPv6 and vacuum tubes"...