my suggestion. The evidence of their indiscretions is on your own website. If this is the first year of the awards then why not make it retroactive to those two (Iowa is stil ongoing). Georgia had a 22 year history under Ramke. Levine is a gnat. Why give a gnat the award. You do seem to lack perspective. It is not just those tow presses but everyone associated with them. I feel that I made my case in an eloquent way and you don't feel the same so I'll shut up. My suggestion still stands.
No need to be defensive. I didn't think I was disagreeing with you. You certainly did make your case eloquently and convincingly. And I believe you are correct (and certainly don't want you to "shut up"). I have never felt otherwise.
I apologize if I have made it seem otherwise.
I don't have any specific desire to see Levine get the award. My only concern is that any award given is fully documented. If the award is going to be retroactive, then fine, we have all the documentation on the site already (for Iowa and Georgia, etc.). But if the award is going to truly reflect 2006 only, then I am asking for help (whether from you or from anyone on this site) in compiling the data.
This topic we are posting in is precisely where such things are meant to be determined.
You should understand that my function here is managerial. I have no contact with the PoBiz, no fingers in any PoBiz pies, nothing to lose or gain, and (to be honest) almost no interest in the internal goings-on of PoBiz whatsoever. My purpose is to keep this site going and to do my best to get useful and valid information to those who read the site and these forums.
But I am entirely dependent on other people, those with connections and insider information, researchers and tipsters, etc.
I am not asking you for anything personally. My thinking is merely this: you have made a strong argument for your nominees, a convincing argument. Certainly, Jeffrey Levine's indiscretions do not sink to the level of Iowa, Georgia, etc, indiscretions. You will get no argument from me on this issue. But the next steps (in my opinion) have to be 1) deciding whether the award should be retroactive or reflect only 2006, and 2) formulating a concrete case for any indiscretions during the time period as determined in step #1.
It is at this stage, that I need the help of others. My request for that help is not meant as a disagreement with your nominations or a desire to argue with you.
So, will everyone please give their input on those two steps mentioned above? Retroactive or not? What specific criteria/documentation should be used in the awarding of Foet of the Year?