~~~ and archived are your remarks pertaining to such.

Jim explained why one HOF member did not vote which was due to illness...
Most of ky remarks were pertaining to THE lack of interest, overall... as was Rich's remarks made last year pertaining to years' prior lack of interest... of which I had no idea about this vote; thus my question which was based on years prior.. and, yes, you are correct that the lack of that one vote probably did not matter in this vote but, there were other points that Rich brought up about the "hard sell" expected by the person(s) who made the recommendation(s) which I also questioned since the majority of HOF members are 20-30 year members who would know a recommended person's accomplishments -- especially in this case with Eisenstadt which was what I mentioned, initially, by saying in my first post that I surely thought he was well known by the majority... It hurts, Archie, the man didn't deserve this outcome. Sorry.