I will admit, there are times I find rejections with comments to be quite helpful. There are instances when a critical analysis of an example of my work helps me improve the piece in question, or my writing in general. I also know that some people appreciate whenever such feedback is given.
However, call me difficult, call me stubborn, call me arrogant, but I don't always appreciate such feedback. I don't always agree with each and every critical analysis of my work. I don't feel the need to listen to everything I'm told.
I reserve the right to judge whether or not the feedback is really of any use to me. There are times I find a rejection accompanied by a critical analysis of what didn't work to be less-than-useful. There are times I think such a thing is merely baroque ornamentation of the simpler fact that the work in question didn't work for that particular editor. I think it becomes a fancy way for an editor to say they didn't like the piece, swathed in the wrappings of literary criticism.
At times, such things annoy me, especially since such things can be presented almost as writing absolutes (this is the way you must do things). I find this especially irksome with reprints or pieces that end up picked up elsewhere with praise. After all, the piece in question worked fine for another editor, so maybe it wasn't so terribly flawed after all. The fact that a lot seems to boil down to matter of opinion gets lost in all that baroque ornamentation. I shouldn't let such things annoy me, but that's just the way it is. That's the way I am.
Perhaps this all smacks of a bit of arrogance, but I don't care. I think I'll allow myself a bit of arrogance every once in a while. Besides, there are times when a simple "thanks, but no thanks" would do.