Brass Crescent Conspiracy: I don’t understand Muslim bloggers who bring up The Progressive Conspiracy every time the Brass Crescent Awards are announced.
I did a quick scan of the past winners (available from the first set of awards in 2004) and nominations (only available from 2006) at the Brass Crescent website. Genuinely ‘ultra-progressive’ blogs like Muslim Wake Up have never been nominated (does anyway even read MWU anymore?). I haven’t been able to identify any ‘ultra-progressive’ nominations or winners of these awards. Look at some of the winners: Sunni Sister. Umar Lee. Mere Islam. Haroon Moghul. Austrolabe. ‘Ultra-progressive’? Not really.
The only individual who may have rubbed people up the wrong way (you all know who I mean) was really only active for about a year or so (and he only won one award anyway).
aziz 7:58 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
I cant explain it either. Maybe it’s just paranoia. Perhaps the folks at muslim matters (just have a cultural disconnect with us on this side of the Islamsphere and feel excluded. I’d be open to inviting someone from there to particpate as a frontpager here at Talk Islam, but it would be also nice if they engaged us in our discussions here in the comments too. I think theer is a gap here and that breeds suspicion and paranoia; I want to close that gap.
Any suggestions on who over there I might send a feeler for invitation to post here?
Willow 9:59 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
A lot of the comments I read were positive. And it was a post encouraging people to vote. They don’t seem that put out to me.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:07 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Does MWU still exist?
Aziz, I appreciate you being transparent and welcoming input about the methodology.
You guys (who do the work to make the Brass Crescent Awards) should be happy to see discussion and debate, isn’t that at least one of the main purposes of having such awards, to get people talking about the blogs (the other being to appreciate and make more people aware of different blogs.) I realize that most of the blogs are small operations by people who are not really in the public eye and so harsh criticism is unnecessary and unhelpful but all of us should welcome critical engagement and difference.
Aziz, I think you are on to something with your comment (about the cultural disconnect, not the paranoia
)
Even the blogs mentioned as non-progressive have a certain tone and style which can be off putting to the MM crowd (of which I include myself, although I love all Muslims for the sake of Allaah and don’t really feel completely at home with any of the cliques out there, is that normal?)
In terms of breaking down the gaps, I would encourage people to comment. I am a regular commenter at MM, and I haven’t noticed any of the other TalkIslam contributors commenting over there, do you guys read MM?
I have some more specifics for you, Aziz, but I’ll contact you through email about it later today inshAllaah.
I do think the cultural/ideological/methodological cleavages between various Muslim communities are fascinating and something which we should discuss more…not to promote divisions but to heal them..but also to constantly be more aware of the pitfalls of beginning to think that we know what the “Muslims” out there think and do and what they are like, when there may be whole segments of the community with which we never interact, or of which we are only vaguely aware.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:17 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Oh, obviously brother Tariq is not only a commenter, but has made guest posts to MM, and as you can see from the thread you linked to, he’s a big favorite of the MM leadership and readership.
aziz 10:21 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
I think both Shahed and I have been pretty supportive of critical commentary – in fact it was most the same kinds of complainst last year that led us to implement the judges’ panel this year (something new). We will likely make further tweaks to address the ongoing criticism. We certainly havent expressed any ofense at MM’s thread, but I did in my post at the BCA blog take issue with the accusation that we are deliberately interfering with the process. Our methodology is public and we follow it openly – there’s no conspiracy, as some of the MM posters seem to assume.
I dont think they need to be “healed” but I do want them to be represented here at Talk Islam and in the Awards. The Awards are open to all, so I hope that people in the other muslim subgrups online should take more advantage of them. Nominating MM for best group blog is a good start, but there are a lot of other categories and a lot of bloggers out there. Likewise, comments here at Talk Islam are open to all, no registration required, so I would like to see some more people from those subgroups participate here in threads.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:22 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Good point Willow, the ‘negative’ comments were from like three people, and even those as I argued above, should be basically taken as a positive in that they were talking about the awards.
There is a real divide in the Muslim community, at least in the blogosphere or among the “chattering class” between progressive/traditional/orthodox understandings of Islam and this will only continue as this is the major dilemma facing the Muslim ummah, at least in the “West” at this time and for the foreseeable future. Of course, a big part of the reason that debates can become amorphous and based on perceptions which may be not accurate is that we are still at a relatively early stage of these discussions and many people, even those of us who talk regularly about these differences, do not really know what the differences are or use terms such as progressive, traditional, orthodox, mainstream, etc. etc. that mean different things in different people’s minds, further clouding the discussion.
thabet 10:35 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Which is why I linked very specifically to one comment.
thabet 10:41 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Just to be clear I am not, in anyway, involved in the setting up or running of these awards and nor do I wish to be. My comments are not, in anyway, a reflection of what Shahed or Aziz think or do for these awards (and they do a sterling job of promoting Muslim blogs, imho).
There is an even bigger gap between middle and working classes.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:15 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Aziz, bro, what’s wrong with healing?
No, I’m not arguing that we all should or can agree about everything, but I think we can and should bring healing that is based on prejudice, misperception and not knowing each other. We will still have our differences, but we can see each other in a whole different light, inshAllaah.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:17 am on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
Of course, I meant to say that we should heal differences that are based on prejudice, etc. not that our healing should be based on that.
Willow 12:59 pm on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
He didn’t seem that put out to me either. He voted, after all.
Really what I’m trying to say is that this problem doesn’t seem nearly as bad as it was last year. A certain segment of the population is perpetually grumpy; trying to please it is a futile exercise.
JDsg 10:59 pm on December 17, 2008 Permalink |
@ Aziz: Any suggestions on who over there I might send a feeler for invitation to post here?
Amad, of course.
My own personal theory (and I may very well be wrong) is that the problem lies in the company the BCA keeps. I think the perception among the orthodox bloggers is that altMuslim and its contributors lean toward the progressive side and so, by extension, there is a progressive bias when it comes to nominations and nominees. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. My own beefs with the BCA lie more with some of the judging criterion, namely the quality of writing (which a number of nominees and winners have failed to impress me with) and popularity criteria (number of comments, Technorati rankings, etc., which only turns the BCA into a glorified popularity contest). Personally I was rather grateful this year not to be among the nominees as I’d have viewed that as being a major embarrassment.
thabet 12:02 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
If you open an awards systems to the ‘public’ (the small number of blog readers who bother to vote) it becomes a popularity contest by default.
I don’t see anyway around it, other than creating a panel of ‘experts’ which opens itself up to other charges of elitism, bias, etc.
I think the system works fine for what it is.
Willow 12:44 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
I second that emotion.
JDsg 1:22 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
@ thabet: If you open an awards systems to the ‘public’ … it becomes a popularity contest by default.
I agree; however, my point is that the popularity criteria as stated on the BCA website suggests a bias toward the more heavily visited blogs. My point is that quality writing exists regardless of whether the blog is heavily visited or not. The smaller blogs should have an equal chance at being nominated for best blog (and the other categories) regardless of the number of comments they receive or their Technorati ranking.
I don’t see anyway around it, other than creating a panel of ‘experts’ which opens itself up to other charges of elitism, bias, etc.
BCA has already opened itself up to these charges; that’s the point of your post. People are accusing the BCA of bias. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I think the only three possible solutions are either: disassociate the BCA away from altMuslim (including the judges), invite your critics onto the judging panel, and/or make all the nominations transparent (i.e., list all nominations submitted).
I think the system works fine for what it is.
That’s fine; I’m not trying to change the system. I’ve offered suggestions, but I certainly not going to be offended if none of them are accepted.
aziz 8:13 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
it does? We wrote that text – what part of it makes that implication? In practice, we do want the nominees to reflect blogs that are popular as well as good, so theres a fine balance. I am willing to edit the text to make that more clear, but what part of it specifically lead you to conclude we are preferentially nominating bigger blogs? please quote directly so I know what to edit.
I am not clear what you mean by “disaasociate” the Awards from altmuslim. Altmuslim is Shahed’s site; City of Brass is mine. Neither site is eligible to be nominated for the BCA because we are the founders.
If you mean thta no one affiliated with altmuslim should be nominated, can you point to someone who *is* “affiliated” with altmuslim who has been? Shahed recruits interesting people to write for altmuslim from all over the Islamsphere. Just because someone might have wrtten a few articles for the site doesnt mean that their separate blog should be declared ineligible.
As far as inviting our critics, I dont think thats going to do anything but bog the Awards down. We chose judges based on experience and judgement we trust, with diversity of views. We will rotate the judges over time but we have to have a limited number of them. If we added more, then achieving concensus would become impossible. We do listen to all critics, in fact thats why we implemented the panel this year in the first place.
As far as making the nominations transparent, ok we could do this, but its going to be a gigantic list. i have no real issue with this but i dont see the value since its just going to be a huge linkdump.
PI.info 10:22 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
I like the idea of making the nominations transparent. Yes, please show us the link dump.
When I first decided I was going to try to engage Islam in the blogosphere (aside from family connections and the mosque) one of the first sites I found was the Brass Crescent Awards, and I used it somewhat systematically to find the initial blogs I visited, and then to go to new ones when I was bored with the first. That’s how I wound up at sites as diverse as Umar Lee and Hijabman.
People may want to deny that the awards are useful or influential, but my experience shows that, in terms of directing Muslims who are new to the Islamsphere – and I would imagine even non-Muslims who are interested in Islam – it is influential.
However, there is a “gatekeeper” quality to this that makes me very uncomfortable, and that’s why I’d like to see the other nominees. This process is susceptible to ideological bias, personal beefs and manipulation. That’s why I haven’t actually voted or participated in the BCA.
All the concern about BCA being being identified as having “progressive bias” leads me to worry that this is a “working the refs” situation like in the US media where news organizations bring on rabid rightwingers to try to disprove their “liberal bias”. Of course, the conservatives are never satisfied because this is a strategy of manipulation, and the perimeters of the dialogue keep moving ever farther to the right as the media attempts to placate them.
There are a lot of raw honest Muslim voices online that I suspect we’d never hear if not for the Internet. The fearlessness of the honesty online strengthens my Iman and the obvious silence and suppression in the social space at the mosque and in social gatherings weakens my Iman. If there are gatekeeper projects developing in the blogosphere that suppress fearless honesty, my connection to the religion will again begin to weaken if they’re successful. The BCA is not at a point yet with transparency where I want to participate in it or support it, but I will watch it with great interest. Showing us the nominees would help reassure me.
Think of this as “net neutrality” for online Islam. As the Muslim chaplain at Duke University said, “‘American Islam is an emerging cultural identity,” I believe that a lot of that identity is being formed right here online (I understand the Internet is borderless, but I’m just speaking as an American). It’s exciting, it’s wide open and I don’t want to see anyone wall off honesty again in favor of conformity to an orthodoxy. And that’s not to say that orthodoxy is weakened by honesty – sometimes conservatives ideas are poorly thought out and poorly argued for lack of engagement with people who have challenged or objected to them. The back-and-forth has an improving quality. And sometimes, when the conservative walks through the objection/criticism he resolves my conflicts or misunderstandings and I see the correctness of his interpretations.
thabet 10:45 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
Sunni Sister (Umm Zayd), Svend White, Laura Poyneer (veiled4allah) and Yahya Birt are not ultra-progressives. Neither are a considerable number of the blogs that make up the shortlists or become eventual winners. That was my point.
All I can see is someone complaining that his own ideological associates have not been invited.
And long may it continue.
shahed 10:51 am on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
I certainly don’t have a problem with publicizing the body of nominees from which the judges choose the finalists. If anything, it will keep some people from repeatedly nominating the same blog
I hope people take our efforts to alleviate concerns regarding the BCA as a sign of our genuine belief that the Muslim blogosphere should be respected in all its diversity. If there is an impression that it isn’t, it certainly isn’t because of our intent.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:14 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
Shahed and Aziz,
I truly admire and respect your efforts to have the BCA respect the diversity of the Muslim blogosphere.
I appreciate your openness to suggestions.
I do think that JDsg is basically correct that the reason some people perceive the BCA to favor more progressive perspectives on Islam is becasue of the reputation of alt muslim and COB. So most people holding this view have not really investigated the matter of the BCA and may not even really know the truth about something like alt.muslim. I myself have to admit that I don’t read alt.muslim — it’s just not in my habit and there is only so much time, but I have a vague notion that its a ‘progressive’ outlet. I don’t even know really where I first picked up that idea although it certainly may have come from reading some article on there. Now since I’m reflective enough to know I’m ignorant about it, I don’t make comments about the site, but other people may be less reticent to do so (or they may have read the site regularly and the site itself may be truly and self-admittedly ‘progressive,’ I don’t know).
I do think, and I may have already alluded to this that when I read something like that the nominations for Best Post or Series it does seem to me like progressive views are heavily represented. Of course, I don’t know everything that’s out there so it could easily be the case that more orthodox/traditional writers need to write more, or need to nominate more, or something like that. Of course, it’s also a matter of perspective, perhaps I am just so far to one side of the spectrum that almost everyone else seems ‘progressive’ to me.
I do think that there are things such as progressive theologies or fiqh and there is a separate matter of a sort of progressive attitude or style. For example, Umar Lee. I love Umar for the sake of Allaah, and he certainly cannot be called progressive since he spends half of his speech/writing making clear how he is not progressive but he has a kind of style that I associate as a ‘progressive’ style. So he communicates orthodox/traditional beliefs using this style. I worry because I think aspects of this style are not the most appropriate way to discuss Islam and Muslims and becasue I think, as his blog and others demonstrate, there is something about this style which seems inherently to at least a large amount of the audience, more appealing and attractive regardless of the substantive differences. I worry a lot about this issue with regard to artistic and creative pursuits…that there are certain values deeply enmeshed in the current western understanding of art and creativity that may be at some deep level in conflict with traditional/orthodox religious standards of behavior, expression, and interaction.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:24 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
P.I. Info,
I like your comment, and you hit on the issue I was trying to identiy in my last paragraph, although I don’t think I was doing a very good job of it, although of course you are coming from an opposite perspective.
I would separate out intellectual ‘honesty’ from other types of ‘honesty.’ I do think intellectual ‘honesty’ is almost always good, although it has to be tempered with humility, perhaps the trait that is most lacking in our own time and place in general, and which is even more discouraged in the social space known as the “blogosphere.”
In terms of other forms of honesty, like being honest about our current situation as individuals and communities. Again, yes, we should be honest but there is a certain adab or manners that should be observed with regard to how we talk about our own or others’ sins in public. On the other hand, you point to the problem of real issues that are suppressed and not dealt with…so let’s discuss our issues with the proper adab, neither suppressing them completely nor simply speaking without filters.
Having a filter on our speech and actions is exactly what taqwa is….but yes of course let us always be careful that we have the right filter on..which is what a lot of the culture vs. Islam paradigm is about.
aziz 3:04 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
Abu Noor,
I am curious as to what an operating definition of “progressive” might be. I am surprised to see COB and altmuslim labeled as such. I am even more surprised to hear that Umar Lee has a progressive “style” and am curious about what you mean, since when i hear the word “progressive” i think of content, not style. If this notion of “progressive” is something so vague as can be applied to blogs as diverse, yet staunchly traditional in sensibility as COB, altmuslim, and Umar Lee, then I begin to question whether theres any meaning to it at all.
I will confess that I have seen some bloggers – no one here on this thread, assuredly – equate “progressicve” with any of the following: proud citizen of the US, skeptical of Ummah, moderate towards the Palestinan-Israeli conflict (moderate defined as not taking the Pal side by default), etc. In other words, progressive has become an epithet to be attached to muslim bloggers who dont toe the line on certain issues. I certainly do not toe the line at COB on these issues, which is why i may be considered a progressive by some (though this is the first time Ive ever heard that COB was considered such) – but I stand by my orthodox and traditionalist credentials quite strongly.
aziz 3:05 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
P.I., I am also interested in your definition of prigressive, since you self-identify as one. I think the gap between your definition and that employed by those who accuse the Awards of being too much so will be instructive.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 3:45 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
Aziz, I tried to explain what I meant by ‘progressive style’ vs. ‘progressive substance’ in my post. I suspected I may have not made much sense but I’m not sure if I can do better.
I agree with your other points and I think I tried to state this earlier on — “progressive” in this discussion probably has little meaning beyond what you described, and even in that sense is not used with any care.
Which is a shame because there is a real substantive difference in methodology between an orthodox/traditionalist approach and a progressive one which should not become confused with this other stuff.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 3:55 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
And my point about Umar should really be bracketed off and the ‘progressive’ label stripped from it. Let’s just say that Umar follows an orthodox theology and fiqh but he has an un-orthodox style.
And of course throughout this whole discussion we are conflating the orthodox/traditionalist as if they are the same thing when Allaah knows that until very recently when “progressive” Muslims started to appear in the public discourse the main divisions were among this camp.
Maybe we should throw out this whole discussion because I think we are all being loose with terminology. For example Orthodox/Traditional may be generally linked by a shared appreciation for traditional madhabi fiqh but in theology when I say Orthodox I don’t mean Ash’ari (which is not to say I am excluding all Ash’arees necessarily but just to say that this is not what I mean to refer to) which many people may mean.
Also, of course, for many if not most educated orthodox Sunni Muslims, orthodox Shi’i Muslims while recognized as distinct from ‘progressive’ Muslims would not be considered part of the Same Orthodoxy or Tradition as Orthodox Sunni Muslims.
So, yeah I think this particular thread has gone completely off the rails. InshAllaah we can pick up the discussion from some other angle and start by defining terms more precisely.
PI.info 6:06 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink |
Aziz,
Well, my identification as a “progressive” was intensely personal, which means a narrative, rambling response liable to inspire glazed eyes and yawning. Apologies. Anyway, “Progressive Islam” to me is both political and religious. For the last 5 years or so the most moral thing I’ve done with my life prior to conversion was political activism – service to the greater good and self-defense against predators. But I was intensely frustrated that there wasn’t a “fit” for this activity among the orthodox. Somehow the orthodox or traditional Muslims seemed very, very passive. They’d say “God willing” and accept that things happen, and my unspoken response would be, “Yes. God willing, but only after you’ve made every effort.” Is it God’s will that your baby was born with birth defects? Yes, but only after you made every effort at self-defense against that paper mill that was dumping chemicals in your water supply. If you’re not concerned with the affairs of this world you’re easily victimized. The example of the prophet (pbuh) was not to be easily victimized, so I got a strong sense that there was an uncorrected error in orthodoxy somewhere.
On the religious side it was the inability to ask questions that compounded a loss of faith in orthodoxy. The line of discussion about voting and taxes we were having in the other thread reflected another conversation I had with a brother a few years ago. He was trying to tell me that voting is a sin. A brother who pays taxes. I’m sorry but that just seems like an unrecoverable contradiction. That’s like saying three beers is ok but the fourth one is sinful. However, in my interpersonal new Muslim mode with the guy who was trying to teach me this, the question went unsaid because I didn’t want to seem impertinent, so it just sat there in my head like the tell-tale heart, beating so loud I couldn’t hear anything else the guy had to say. So the progressive approach to me means asking those questions and not getting stuck in the path.
But Abu Noor hit on an important point about adab. I’ve figured out since then that one of the knocks on progressives is that they lack adab. One Muslim’s passionately expressed insight or objection is another Muslim’s hopelessly inappropriate lack of adab. I found myself moderated out of conversations a few times, so I started my blog so that in those situations I could have a platform to get the point out. It seems to work. I’ve railed on various topics and aggressively challenged assertions, and if someone wants to engage with me they can come over to my Internet house. Or we can have a cross-blog discussion. Functionally now, it’s like a version of Umar’s “selective engagement.” I can interact with people at various blogs, but if someone says something that deserves a passionate treatment, I withdraw and take it to my site. Half the bottom line for me is the honesty: I don’t want to pull any punches on the truth of the situation or it’s going to get so loud in my head that I get blocked in the path, so I take it up at my blog. Others have the option of just ignoring it.
The other half is public record. A huge number of the visitors to my site come in on search engines. If somebody is researching a point maybe my objections didn’t show up in the comments section on the other blog but they did show up as a line item at my blog in the Google search.
Another part of Progressive activism (ie, serving the greater good) in the Muslim community is making information available, because it seems like a lot of Muslims don’t have it, based on the Web searches that hit my site. I’ve greatly expanded this informational aspect of my blog and pull in articles on all kinds of topics that don’t get treatment in the rest of the Islamsphere. With that in mind, I’ve basically pointed my blog at the search engines and blasted out information. I’ve had Google searches come in on everything from “Ramadan and anorexia” (yes, there is a version of the disease that sits on a religiously based substrate that has nothing to do with concepts of Western beauty) to “first time intercourse in Islam.” Oftentimes, I’m taking information that was created for a wider audience and just relabeling it for Muslims with the goal of saying, “this is for you too” in the search engines.
JDsg 2:17 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink |
@ Aziz: …but what part of it specifically lead you to conclude we are preferentially nominating bigger blogs? please quote directly so I know what to edit.
Right here: Popularity in the blogosphere (as measured by comments, links, Technorati score, etc.) This criterion very strongly suggests a preference for bigger blogs. If I were in your shoes I’d delete this criterion entirely.
Just because someone might have wrtten a few articles for the site doesnt mean that their separate blog should be declared ineligible.
Maybe they should be. Once again, you’re trying to fight a charge of bias.
As far as inviting our critics, I dont think thats going to do anything but bog the Awards down. We chose judges based on experience and judgement we trust, with diversity of views. We will rotate the judges over time but we have to have a limited number of them. If we added more, then achieving concensus would become impossible.
I appreciate that you want trustworthy, experienced judges, and rotating the judges is a good idea as well; however, not inviting your critics simply because it might “bog you down” is a rather lame excuse, IMO. You guys were already bogged down this year with your current set of judges. Achieving consensus is admirable but perhaps not very important. You want a diversity of views that don’t necessarily correspond to what you, as judges, would prefer. Your problem lies in the perception of bias. You need a more diversified listing of nominees. One way to do this is to get your critics’ opinions as to whom they would select for nominees.
JDsg 6:40 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink |
I wrote: Maybe they should be.
I was thinking about this further. In the world of sweepstakes marketing, there’s often a clause that states who’s not eligible, such as the following:
If you want the BCA to be above reproach, you have to make sure that all avenues toward potential fraud or bias are closed. You can’t be showing any sort of favoritism. In which case, yes, I still think you’d have to exclude anyone who writes for any of the websites affiliated with the BCA, including everyone at altMuslim.
aziz 11:23 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink |
these are useful comments and rest assured shahed and i are going to discuss them after the Awards conclude this year.
the text you quote needs to be revised; ill explain in mor detail at a blog post at BCAblog later.
i never said that i didnt want to include ANY critics; i just said we cant include ALL of them. At any rate i agree in principle with your concerns, but thee are a lot of issues to consider and no matter what we do, there will of course still be complaints. we have to find a way forward that addresses the concerns but doesnt undermine the integrity of the Awards as a whole. we will have a sugestions thread at BCAblog soon as well.
shahed 7:14 pm on December 19, 2008 Permalink |
I still think you’d have to exclude anyone who writes for any of the websites affiliated with the BCA, including everyone at altMuslim.
This is one of the reasons why the excellent Goatmilk blog was not eligible for the BCA, despite several nominations. (Wajahat writes for altmuslim.com)
Umm Zaid 2:29 am on December 28, 2008 Permalink |
Salaams:
//You guys were already bogged down this year with your current set of judges. Achieving consensus is admirable but perhaps not very important. You want a diversity of views that don’t necessarily correspond to what you, as judges, would prefer. Your problem lies in the perception of bias. You need a more diversified listing of nominees. One way to do this is to get your critics’ opinions as to whom they would select for nominees.//
You know, JD, how would know if we were “bogged down” since you were not privy to the process?
If critics want their opinions heard, then *nominate* people. Volunteer to do something other than pick the BCAs apart year after year. Honestly.
JDsg 11:08 am on December 30, 2008 Permalink |
You know, JD, how would know if we were “bogged down” since you were not privy to the process?
Quite easy: you guys kept delaying (and delaying and delaying) your announcements. That was all very public.