|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 05:07 am: |
The BFS has pointed out here: http://tinyurl.com/ajlkz
that "...on the voting form there is a space in each category marked "other" - members can vote for items not on the recommendation list, though the same eligibility rules apply."
If anyone -- who is eligible to vote as a BFS member (and can still fill in this 'other' slot) -- would like to consider NEMONYMOUS FOUR in the BFS Award: for Best Anthology, Best Small Press or Best Short Story categories (and they haven't seen a copy), please contact me on firstname.lastname@example.org and I shall send them a free copy (signed by the nameless editor, should they require).
Please tell others eligible for this offer.
|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
This message from BFS concerning my post earlier today:
"BFS members still only get three votes per category, so if they vote for Nemonymous (or anything else for that matter) as an "other" selection, please could they indicate whether it's a first, second or third choice?"
Today: From a member of the Nemonymous discussion group to that public forum:
"It has made ripples, and garnered many reviews (mostly positive), possibly more per issue than most other periodical (correct me if I'm wrong, but the review-rate is still high). It has sparked discussion, it has fermented debate, it has added a new word to the English language (just as much as Joseph Heller added THAT phrase back in the 1950s) and got the names of a bunch of unknown authors into the Wickopedia for all the world to see. Most importantly of all, it is considered an immense accolade to be accepted by Nemonymous."
|Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 05:58 am: |
Regarding earlier posts here: http://tinyurl.com/ajlkz -- to reiterate, I was worried about Nemonymous (or its contents) not being on any long voting list for the BFS 2005
Award categories for which it is eligible. This seemed and still seems quite incredible. That's not to say that the others already on these lists are not very worthy candidates to be subject to this voting process, of course.
You see, I'm talking about objective principles here.
A publication that received nine 'honourable mentions' (for example) for stories in Nemo~3, from YBFH... and the independent reviews that
you can find linked here: http://www.nemonymous.com about Nemo~4 etc.
As yet, no member from the BFS has shown any interest in receiving a free copy of Nemo~4 (as offered before) which would indicate members who are voting are taking one of these routes:
(a) already considered it and discarded it (fair enough) or will in fact be voting for it in the 'other' slots,
(b) they have decided not to vote for it after consciously deciding not to consider its contents at all,
(c) they are not voting for it because they are unaware of its existence, Nemo or its contents not being on the long voting lists.
Please feel free to give your view here: http://tinyurl.com/ajlkz (or below on this board)if you have a view. Don't hold back. But if there is a lot of comments - please reread from time to time exactly what I have said before - in case it's creatively misinterpreted by some!
I sense the interest will be minimal, however (and fair enough).