[twittles]

It hasn't been pointed out here yet, but it seems to me that they provided no information on the reason for their decision because:

1) they decided that there isn't anything you can to do fix it to their satisfaction
2) they don't want to expose themselves to legal action from you.

The second point is key. Once they've made up their mind, providing you any additional information beyond their decision can only get them in legal trouble, from their perspective. You typically see this kind of brevity in communications in rejecting interviewees for jobs, suppliers seeking to sell something, and the like.

In other words, by design, they don't want to tell you their reasoning. You can't take exception to their reasons (or effectively sue them) if you don't know them. They are betting that the very time-consuming and expensive processes of discovery and deposition (triggered by any lawsuit) that will be required to find out their reasons is beyond your means and not a good use of your time and money.

I neither agree nor disagree with the approach I think they took, but that's my two cents. Your best bet is to move on and find someone who is more open to whatever you are writing. Different editors, publishers, and distributors have very different likes and dislikes, so whatever turned off these folks my be attractive to someone else, further diminishing the potential value to you of any specific reasons from the party that rejected you.

A long-winded response as I get some "me time" this Holiday, and I chuckle as I think of a way to illustrate the last point above. If you submit a gritty urban hip-hop song to a Nashville label, attempting to fix whatever they dislike about it will probably bury you with Def-Jam.