We are submitting an “application of A to B” kind of paper, to a conference in B. There are a big overlap between A and B communities, and we are the N-th (N > 100 or even 1000) to find an application of a technique in A for a problem in B.

**The problem**: one reviewer obviously has no background in A, and gives us “reject” because he thinks the presentation of the method is confusing, and “terminology and notation are not defined sufficiently clearly for a non-initiate to be able to follow”. He also gives detailed comments, but they are technically wrong, and easy to answer.

Due to space limit, we do not provide formal definitions for basic concepts in A, these definitions can be found in countless textbooks and surveys. Therefore, his overall comment is somewhat correct, in the sense that our paper is not for “a non-initiate”, we assume the readers have basic background in A (he explicitly asked about some basic notations in the detailed comments).

But this is the only reason for rejection, and we think it is very unfair. Other reviewers have no problem understanding our paper, and one even lists “well-written” as our strong points. However they only give “weak accept”, so it’s likely that nobody will champion for us.

**Our goal is not to offend this reviewer**. We want him to be happy while accepting that he is wrong. I intend to say something like the following: “we partially agree that this paper is not for every one, as we assume readers are familiar with standard notations in A. However, we believe that there are readers with background and interest in the B community”. Possible problems:

- This implies he doesn’t have background in A (which is true). But he does not admit that, and we are afraid he may feel insulted?
- As his details comments are technically wrong. We want to make a short “No” in the answer of each comments, following by an explanation. This can show our firm answers. But we are afraid that too many “No”s will make him upset?

So my question is: how should I effectively answer this reviewer.