I belong to a number of mailing lists, many of which are populated by authors, both published and unpublished. As an editor, I can sympathise with the frustrations shared by many unpublished (and undermarketed) authors, but I always wonder if they're aware of how negatively others perceive them when they post bitter, angst-filled rants to public mailing lists.
These posts always seems to focus on how unfair it is that publishers direct so many resources towards marketing and publicity for popular authors such as Dan Brown, Stephen King, and John Grisham, and how crappy these authors are -- with the implication being that the ranting unknowns would be equally successful if only they had the same marketing budgets -- because they (these great unknowns) are writers of far superior talent.
Talent is subjective, and it's always arguable, but these authors would greatly improve their chances of getting the sort of treatment they want, if they would stop eating sour grapes. That's because sour grapes tends to colour your worldview -- and believe it or not, editors can spot it.
Nobody wants to deal with sour-grape-eating folks, and they sure as heck don't want to pour scarce financial resources down a sour-grape hole. Editors are much more likely to want to deal with authors who are not too self-important to learn from the Kings, Grishams, and Browns of the world.