Re: Seattle in 2011 question

Ben Yalow <ybmcu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

>In <fqukmu$48e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
writes:

>>Ben Yalow <ybmcu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Four.  Geneva was also bidding.

>>> Not really.  They weren't on the ballot, since they didn't file
>>> any papers.

>>Their bid was withdrawn in 2004, but they were bidding until then.

>It's hard to talk about the bid being withdrawn when it never did any of 
>the things a real bid would do -- like looking into facilities and 
>planning on how to hold it if they win.  They just stopped throwing 
>parties -- which was all they were doing anyhow.

>>For 2010 and later, there never were any competing bids as far as I
>>know.  Unless you count the DC in 2011 bid, but I don't count that
>>as a competing bid because it was withdrawn *before* Seattle started
>>bidding for that year.  Of course competing bids may spring up in the
>>future, but I'm not aware of any previous time in at least the past
>>half century when there were no competing Worldcon bids.

>In part, that's a not-unexpected outcome of going to no-zone and 
>shortening lead time.  That combination means you don't know what year 
>you're likely to be eligible in until much closer to the vote, so you can

>wait before bidding until it looks like there's a good combination for 
>you.

And Keith's awareness is once again lacking.  Both Chicon 2000 (2000) and
Interaction (2005) were unopposed.  ConJose (2002) was effectively
unopposed (Roswell actually filed papers, but no one, including them,
actually thought a Best Western could host a WorldCon.)  Which is three of
the last eight Worldcons.

-- 
Michael T Pins
mtpins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 of the nn sources
http://www.nndev.org