Dealing with "Harsh" Rejection

Gawker has a tale of a writer who received what she thought was an overly harsh rejection from a Village Voice editor. Here's the original note:

I'd shoot myself before I had anything like Julia Allison in this paper. What you're pitching sounds like the 256th version of Sex in the City, and that's so played out. I'm satisfied with the two sex columns I have now, and I really don't have room for additional columns at the moment. But thanks for thinking of us.

What did the writer do? Send it on to someone who was likely to publish it. Any doubts as to whether this will get back to the editor? If so, then I also have a bridge I'm trying to peddle.

From what I've seen in a thread on Freelance Success, some writers think the editor was trying to be funny, and some agree that he was being nasty. My take is that it shouldn't matter. If you don't like the way an editor works, then don't work with the editor. This tactic has not only burned the bridge with that editor, but anyone that editor knows. Such things don't stay secret.

but even more importantly, whether you like the tone of the editor's response or not, it was a gold mine for marketing. Suddenly you've got a grasp of the editor's sensibilities and tastes, great market info (no room for more columns, meaning that to sell one you'd have to find supplant the weakest column there, which is a tough sell), and a bit more understanding of editorial strategy than when you started. This is a prime case for not taking things personally and, instead, being thankful that someone let his guard down and helped you by accidentally disclosing information that you couldn't buy.