"That award SO was supposed to belong to (blank)," "What a popularity contest," and "Come on! That person didn't deserve that award! Grr!" seem to be flying around oh so frequently lately, since 8 PM, Feb 3rd, when the Times Awards came to an end. Perhaps what all of those who have said a phrase alike to those mentioned are correct. I hate to say it, but there's no need to take it to higher levels.
Yes, I did say that. There's no need to take it to higher levels. No need to write an article about how it was a popularity contest and defame the misfortunate "winners" in the most subtle way possible. No need to yell at the winners or someone who tries to stand up for them and then decide that it was your "brother". No need to proclaim that you deserved it more, or to confront someone and tell them that someone else deserved it more. There's no need to mention names either, don't worry.
I may sound biased because I won several Times Awards. I still feel that some people deserved awards more than others. But I feel it's not of good sportsmanship to tell how someone only won awards because they have a nice avatar or they were "famous" in Whyville. All of the articles were nominated, and they were almost all really good. Do I attempt to make sure a winner regrets being voted on by Newbies and Oldbies alike, those who read the Times and those who do not alike?
I know that I said I wasn't going to name names, but I will name articles. Let's talk about the Article of the Year nominees.
"To Write Love On Her Arms" - Kindell
"My Life as An Anorectic" - Wiicked4u
"The Darkest Night" - Lyd1212
"Change the World: Up In Smoke" - screamxx
"Wear That Pink Ribbon" - ushersg
Perhaps you have not read all of these articles, but they are all AMAZING. AMAZING. They all deserve at least 5 awards. The winner was "To Write Love On Her Arms" by Kindell. I loved this article, and I liked the other ones too. But after this article won, people complained that it was a popularity contest, although the people they wanted to win are probably more well known than kindell. At least one of these people even said that they loved her article and she deserved it, but people who backed her article are persistent when it comes to complaining and not reading the other articles. Isn't it good enough to be nominated for Article of the Year? It is, and will be more of a coveted honor of Times Writers.
I've been getting a few of these mails about one of my articles that won, and I'd like to tell you guys - it isn't my fault I got nominated, or that people may have liked my article better, or if the eeny-meeny-miney-moe landed on it instead of the other nominees that were really good.
The awards are over. Things have happened. They aren't going to change. I really hate to be the one to say it, but deal with it.
I also realize that I am going to be the subject of hatred by several friends of mine, and receive several hate mails, and I'd like to say I can to the sincerest of my abilities, but how would I be sincere if I was prevaricating?
This has been Ps2man1. *click*
( . . . explain to me . . . this conspiracy against me . . .) -- "Conspiracy" by Paramore
