i never really pay too much attention to try to figure out the semantics of this rejection, given that i usually get one image rejected and the other say 20 from the same shoot approved. i really don't bother to try to second guess the reviewer, as it's not worth my time to re-process it to placate his holiness. so, i never ever resubmit to them ever. 

EXCEPTION would be IS when a certain compassionate  reviewer actually took the trouble to explain in plain unambiguous English to explain to me why it was rejected.  the exemplary reviewer actually give me a SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDABLE EXPLANATION, of which when I a mere human like the reviewer (phew, thank goodness that at IS such a reviewer actually exists)  corrected the SPECIFIED  REASON OF REJECTION  most times gets approved quite promptly on resubmit.

but for DT, i gather the esteemed reviewer meant (quote)...

Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance, image was interpolated, poorly scanned, upsampled, oversharpened or JPG was not saved at the highest quality.

iow, one or all of the above. 

i gather it is the same for FT except a little more ambiguous, that only expert in hieroglyphic of DT and or FT can understand. 

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 07, 2010, 16:57

Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance

Pixels are never distorted. They can't, they are perfect squares. If they would be distorted, they wouldn't fit in an image or there would be cracks in between them. An image can be distorted, a pixel can't. 

tell that to Prince Achilles 
not my words FD. that was a copy paste from the rejection reason box of DT.