LOL, Theresa, love your examples.
The point all submitters should take from this is-- don't submit less than your best work, and frankly, don't submit until you know (not just think) your best work is really good. The trouble is, some editors (not me, fortunately for those submitting to me :) have very long memories. If months ago you submitted a proposal full of errors, the editor might remember and groan as she sees your name. That's not the reaction you want to produce.
This doesn't apply to manuscripts that just don't go. That is, we assume that 90% of submissions aren't going to be right, and there's no shame attached to that. It's the really sloppy submissions that stick in an editor's craw, the ones to which we can't help but attach value judgments like, "This author must have no pride," and "This author must be lazy." If you plan to submit to this editor again, you want this sort of value judgment: "This author needs some POV help, but boy, this is a meticulously proofed manuscript," or "I anticipate some plot holes coming up, but the author has really worked hard on her voice."