March 2013 - Photo of the Month Nomination Thread

[Ballistics]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

 

[runnah]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Maybe you should take a photo of some sour grapes?

 

[Ballistics]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Maybe you should take a photo of some sour grapes?

Actually, that doesn't make sense at all.

 

[runnah]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Maybe you should take a photo of some sour grapes?

That would make sense... if I lost?

Don't we all lose in a way?

 

[Ballistics]

Maybe you should take a photo of some sour grapes?

That would make sense... if I lost?

Don't we all lose in a way?

Not you, being that you've never been nominated to lose in the first place. :lmao:

 

[runnah]

That would make sense... if I lost?

Don't we all lose in a way?

Not you, being that you've never been nominated to lose in the first place. :lmao:

Ouch, we aren't friends anymore.

 

[Ballistics]

Don't we all lose in a way?

Not you, being that you've never been nominated to lose in the first place. :lmao:

Ouch, we aren't friends anymore.

Maybe you should take a photo of some bandaids?

 

[runnah]

I blame the fact that I live in a flat area with no exciting geological features.

 

[cgipson1]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

 

[Josh66]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

That might make it worth watching. LOL

Deathmatch with a few thousand dudes on steroids. One guy gets a ring when it's over.

 

[Ballistics]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

There's just so much wrong with that analogy I don't know where to start lol.

Let's put this in perspective. You have 5 or 6 killer photos on this months nominations alone, all of which could easily be photo of the month(and year), now let's say, 2 months down the road, there's only 2 images nominated, both of which aren't close to the 5 or 6 on here.
You mean to tell me, that those images have a better shot at being photo of the year, than the 5 voted out this month and that's fair?

 

[cgipson1]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

That might make it worth watching. LOL

Deathmatch with a few thousand dudes on steroids. One guy gets a ring when it's over.

If it was a DeathMatch.. I would agree! But they would soon run out of overpaid goons! lol!

 

[cgipson1]

Yeah, I agree. They should do photo of the year with ALL of the nominated photos, not just the winners.

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

There's just so much wrong with that analogy I don't know where to start lol.

Let's put this in perspective. You have 5 or 6 killer photos on this months nominations alone, all of which could easily be photo of the month(and year), now let's say, 2 months down the road, there's only 2 images nominated, both of which aren't close to the 5 or 6 on here.
You mean to tell me, that those images have a better shot at being photo of the year, than the 5 voted out this month and that's fair?

It is called ELIMINATIONS... once you are out, you are out! Unless the Forum decides to rewrite the rules on that... that is the way it is!

 

[mishele]

If you we're voted for the first time...Take the hint... lol

 

[Ballistics]

Sure.. just like I think ALL teams should be allowed play in the Superbowl.. not just the ones that won enough games to get there!

There's just so much wrong with that analogy I don't know where to start lol.

Let's put this in perspective. You have 5 or 6 killer photos on this months nominations alone, all of which could easily be photo of the month(and year), now let's say, 2 months down the road, there's only 2 images nominated, both of which aren't close to the 5 or 6 on here.
You mean to tell me, that those images have a better shot at being photo of the year, than the 5 voted out this month and that's fair?

It is called ELIMINATIONS... once you are out, you are out! Unless the Forum decides to rewrite the rules on that... that is the way it is!

Why do you end every sentence with an exclamation? You are, in a literary sense, yelling in every post.

You would think, with all of your vast knowledge, you would know that I understand exactly how a voting system works by offering a suggestion to change how it works lol.

Saying "That's the way it is" is irrelevant. If it weren't the way it was, I wouldn't be suggesting to change it.

My point is, there are MUCH better photos in this months thread that will be eliminated, than there is already in the running for photo of the year. If the 2 greatest images anyone has ever seen get posted in the same month,
it's kind of sh*tty that one of the greatest images gets eliminated from everything all together, when it was better than the 11 other photo's of the month.