""Right, fine, dandy, whatever. But my point is...who is to say that he received even 11 votes? We don't know, he could have gotten 5."
That point is entirely moot. The Committee did not follow the rules they specifically set for nominations, which required 16 votes to secure a nomination. That means each performer would have to have received 100% of the votes of those who kept their committment to attend the performances in order to secure a nomination. Had all 24 members attended the performances and no performances found worthy of nomination, then it would be a different matter. It's like the Oscar voters who refused to see Brokeback Mountain and vote in the category anyway."
Mister Matt, I think you misunderstand the point of my post. By that post I mean that the ENTIRE damn point is moot. We don't know if he would have received enough votes anyway, so there is no point in Jonathan Pryce (specifically him) being upset. I am not saying the committee didn't screw up, I am saying that the whole Jonathan Pryce argument is unrelated and should have nothing to do with it.
Updated On: 5/22/06 at 06:51 PM