E.R.N. Reed wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each
month - Non-Pentax gear.
Tom C.
Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that secti
ancho
Dario Bonazza schrieb:
You know what I meant.
Dario
- Original Message - From: "Pancho Hasselbach"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Well,
but up to which limit?
Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Ze
on the server) but I don't see this being crucial to the
improvement of the gallery.
Henk
> -Original Message-
> From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 January, 2006 9:00 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
&
So?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Personally I don't care about equipment
On Jan 31, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos.
Well I do & there are plenty of other sites to view images.
I said exactly that in my second paragraph.
We don't need no stinkin larger photos.
And that in my third :)
Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos.
Well I do & there are plenty of other sites to view images.
We don't need no stinkin larger photos.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sub
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I keep suggesting the most obvious rule:
"There must be some Pentax equipment involved"
(IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of
Samsung clones)
Personally I don't care about equipment - it's all about the photos.
What's ale-ing him?
Its his throat... he's barley able to talk.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bu
quot;John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:45:14 -, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
I agree on lager pictures, though.
Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
"Why?
There's a storm brewing up.
Better keep your head up.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
There's a storm brewing up.
Tom C.
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECT
If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics.
Watch it knarF, that's a stout comment.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECT
I agree on lager pictures, though
I'll drink to that (hick)
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
I agree on lager pictures, though.
Some folks might becom
You know what I meant.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Pancho Hasselbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Well,
but up to which limit?
Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Zenitar lens to my Ric
, January 30, 2006 4:25 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
> >
> >
> > On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off.
> > >
> >
> > What's ale-ing him?
On 1/30/06, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, sometimes I can barley understand these threads!
I'm sure that if you draught a list of your concerns some of us will
be able to tap into some information and pitcher in with some answers.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois conce
Well,
but up to which limit?
Mmmmhhh, what if I attach my Zenitar lens to my Ricoh body, even if they
are connected by a K mount?
Or:
"Taken with a Canikolta, with a Pentax Filter attached"?
"Lighting measured with Pentax digital spot meter, picture taken with an
Olyflex"?
"Lens cover deta
You know, sometimes I can barley understand these threads!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:25 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
>
>
> On 1
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener him off.
>
What's ale-ing him?
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Quoting frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/30/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At yeast it'll be over then.
>
> Yes, but not 'til you're foaming at the mouth.
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
But Tom malt be hopping mad if you pilsener hi
On 1/30/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At yeast it'll be over then.
Yes, but not 'til you're foaming at the mouth.
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
At yeast it'll be over then.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:30:35 +
It's going to come to a head soon.
-- Origin
CTED]>
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
> >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500
> >
> >On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Perhaps its time to
On 1/30/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a storm brewing up.
So I see. I'm quite sure a few of us will end up at lager-heads over this one.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:45:14 -, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
I agree on lager pictures, though.
Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
"Why?" asked the stout porter, mildly. This is just small beer. We want
nothing heavy; just a good hea
There's a storm brewing up.
Tom C.
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:49 -0500
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On 1/30/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why?
I would expect stout opposition from you, Shel.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On 1/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps its time to draft some new rules.
If we do, we'll have to get bock to basics.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Like: No wasps?
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=217314
DagT
Den 30. jan. 2006 kl. 21.54 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps its time to draft some new rules.
-- Original message --
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Better hop to it then.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps its time to draft some new rules.
-- Original message --
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
I agree on lager pictures, though.
Some folks might become rather bitter about tha
Why?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: mike wilson
> Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
> Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>
> > I agree on lager pictures, though.
>
Perhaps its time to draft some new rules.
-- Original message --
From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>
> > I agree on lager pictures, though.
>
> Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
>
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
I agree on lager pictures, though.
Some folks might become rather bitter about that.
>In a message dated 1/30/2006 10:58:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I'm sure you accidentally left off the smiley from that statement
>Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ... it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better,
> when one compares
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month -
Non-Pentax gear.
Tom C.
Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors
I'm sure you accidentally left off the smiley from that statement
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ... it would just go to show that Pentax gear is better,
> when one compares the shots side by side.
In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:10:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not opposed to there being a 3rd section of the gallery each month -
Non-Pentax gear.
Tom C.
Hmmm. Not a bad idea. We could even label that section Darkside Defectors.
Hehehehe.
Although I am
OTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:58:43 +0100 (CET)
>Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought.
I
>now feel that the PUG should stay as it is
>Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought. I
>now feel that the PUG should stay as it is wrt equipment, although I'm
>still in support of an agreed upon increase in file dimensions and size.
Exactly how I feel about it.
I have submitted dozens of images to the PUG o
Reading all the comments in this thread has given me pause for thought. I
now feel that the PUG should stay as it is wrt equipment, although I'm
still in support of an agreed upon increase in file dimensions and size.
Shel
On 1/30/06, Daniel J. Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can argue forever about how restrictive the rules for the PUGshould be.
> The bottom line is that, if no one pays any attention towhat is posted, very
> few will bother posting anything -- Pentax onnon-Pentax.
I agree, Dan.
Most of
We can argue forever about how restrictive the rules for the PUGshould be. The
bottom line is that, if no one pays any attention towhat is posted, very few
will bother posting anything -- Pentax onnon-Pentax.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:44 +0100, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that
counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have
been taken using a Pentax lens?
In a digital camera, doesn't
John Forbes wrote:
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that
counts, not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have
been taken using a Pentax lens?
In a digital camera, doesn't what's behind the lens count for quite a
bit, too?
So maybe the stipulation
Hi!
> If it comes to a vote, keep it with Pentax lenses, and allow a body of
> the photographer's choice.
> When you say "Look at how this image turned out!" you're not bragging
> about the fact it was shot with your MX, or your K-1000, you're saying
> "Look at the special way this lens makes imag
- Original Message -
From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
We may end up stipulating either/or. Either the body OR the lens must be
Pentax.
You haven't read the rules. Thats the way it has been for several years.
William Robb
Don Williams wrote:
That won't work. I'll bet half the group have more than one Sigma,
Tokina, Zenitar, Vivitar and others in K mount or even M42. Not only
that, but this rule would exclude images taken though microscopes and
telescopes. Some part of the equipment needs to be Pentax and the bo
John Forbes wrote:
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts,
not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken
using a Pentax lens?
John
I was just going to comment on that thought, John.
There are basically two elements involved in a PUG
7 AM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I could agree if we still used film, but now much of the limitations also
relate to the sensor and electronics in the camera. So if brand has any
interest at all the camera is part of it.
DagT
fra: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That won't work. I'll bet half the group have more
than one Sigma, Tokina, Zenitar, Vivitar and
others in K mount or even M42. Not only that, but
this rule would exclude images taken though
microscopes and telescopes. Some part of the
equipment needs to be Pentax and the body is the
obvious c
I could agree if we still used film, but now much of the limitations also
relate to the sensor and electronics in the camera. So if brand has any
interest at all the camera is part of it.
DagT
> fra: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the le
mmm...
I would have subscribed this for film but, in the
digital era, the body (sensor, processor, ...) has
acquired a great relevance, quite close to the lens
IMHO.
To me the current restriction is fine (Pentax body or
lens) and I would even admit rebadgeds like the new
Samsungs, although this ma
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts,
not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken
using a Pentax lens?
John
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Oh yes, sure, but the difference with t
Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that,
here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I
have read their posts for many years), and I know that
I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for
details in the PDML.
--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> I don't kn
Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can the PUG get further promotion?
Remind the notoriously forgetful like me that (a) the deadline is
approaching and (b) what the month's subject is.
And please do keep it somewhat Pentax eclusive.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/C
>
>File size/dimension restrictions make me reticent to post images to the
PUG, by
>most current web image presentation standards it's pretty limiting.
I would like to see a bit larger image size.
Powell
John Francis wrote:
As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that
a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/...,
I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to
submit to the PUG.
It's my belief that the r
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
For a short time a few years back, we had a half dozen volunteers who each
commented on a number of photos for each PUG. It was a discussion starter
and led to more comments. I thought it was a pretty nice way of
raxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com)
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:04:32PM +, Cotty wrote:
er.
I do agree that the size might be changed, though, and perhaps a limit of
1000 pixels/ 150k would be acceptable?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:07 AM
Subject: RE:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG
"Pentax exclusive." Perhaps we don't even need to admit Samsung
entrees. After all, it's not meant to be democratic, it's meant to be
Pentax.
In which case, the Samsung folks can join PDML and post PESO
When I first started reading the list ('97), the PUG was dormant.
Another reader made a stab at publishing a gallery and embarassed the
then list mavens into reviving the PUG. It started slowly and
eventually got to be VERY big. It became so big that commentary was
difficult. Then PAW & PESO ca
Shel,
When did we ever say the Pentax Users Gallery was open to shots
produced entirely by non-Pentax branded equipment? I don't remember
anything like this!
I could see slightly bigger pictures in the PUG, but as mentioned,
bandwith used will surely jump. But from my point of view, we need
thr
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 30. januar 2006 01:04
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG
"Pentax exclusive
Me three!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
"Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't however bring my
In a message dated 1/29/2006 3:17:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be
allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it
seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about
For a short time a few years back, we had a half dozen volunteers who
each commented on a number of photos for each PUG. It was a discussion
starter and led to more comments. I thought it was a pretty nice way of
developing some dialogue, but it was canceled after just a few months.
I wouldn't
Hardly anyone pays any attention to the PUG or bothers to comment onthe
entries. Why should people bother?
On 1/29/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> As others have observed,
PUG submissions are significantly> down as compared to previous years. While
I'm sure that> a lot of this is
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:04:32PM +, Cotty wrote:
> On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear
> >for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW)
>
> When and where was this ever stipulated, and by whom?
I believe that w
Good point. There are obviously some valid reasons to keep the PUG
"Pentax exclusive." Perhaps we don't even need to admit Samsung
entrees. After all, it's not meant to be democratic, it's meant to be
Pentax.
Paul
devil's advocate and curmudgeon
On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Jaume Lahuerta wrot
"Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can't however bring myself to agree that the _Pentax_ Users
>Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear.
>There are dozens of other places to present those pics.
I agree.
Allowing non-Pentax photos might garner more submissions to the PU
ions from 100% non-Pentax gear.
There are dozens of other places to present those pics.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:19 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Good points all. I w
Hi,
although I didn't yet contribute much to PUG, I agree with Cotty that
Pentax in PUG stand for the use of Pentax gear. I think the range from
Optios to 67s is broad enough, isn't it?
As for the size, I think pictures should not be allowed too large. Not
everybody owns a large screen, and
On 29 Jan 2006 at 18:13, William Robb wrote:
> One of
> the reasons why I made the change in wording when I was looking after the
> thing was because some official Pentax distributors (CR Kennedy in Australia
> is one iirc) don't distribute Pentax lenses, the result being that some
> Pentax sh
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
Then should we stop discussing Canon, Sony, Nikon, and other cameras?
What
about Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and other lenses?
This is the PDML, not the PUG.
I agreed with John because th
I agree with Cotters.
But larger file sizes would be good. Bandwidth costs very little these
days, and I for one would be willing to contribute to the cost.
Also a reminder for the incompetent and disorganised - like me - would be
helpful.
John
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:16:45 -, Cott
Then should we stop discussing Canon, Sony, Nikon, and other cameras? What
about Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and other lenses?
I agreed with John because the door for using off-brand equipment had
already been opened. If a Ricoh could be used with a Pentax lens, and a
Pentax with a Sigma lens, then w
Looks like I'm the only dissenting voice, and I haven't contribute to
the PUG for quite a while. However...
This is a Pentax list, yes? Why would anyone want to display pics, in
the PUG or as a link from an email posted to the list, that were shot
using equipment other than Pentax?
If I post a li
On 30 Jan 2006 at 0:00, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
> But this is just an interpretaion of the gallery
> utility. The second one (to be commented ant
> critizised) can be achieved in many other places, but
> the first one (to discover what can be done with
> Pentax equipment) is not that easy to find.
On 29/1/06, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
>It's my belief that the restrictive rules (only Pentax gear
>for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW)
When and where was this ever stipulated, and by whom?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
When I started using Pentax gear and I discovered the
PDML, I liked to look at the PUG because there I could
see what other's did with an equipment similar to mine
(so, it was my fault, not the equiment's fault ;-) ).
This way I could resist better the temptation of the
Dark Side.
One of my main m
ax_ Users
Group should allow submissions from 100% non-Pentax gear.
There are dozens of other places to present those pics.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:19 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject:
On 29 Jan 2006 at 14:07, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Rob, in another message, suggested that the allowable size of the
> submissions be increased. I'm pretty much for that as well, providing that
> the increase is to a dimension that can fit on a certain sized monitor (say
> 17") without having to sc
Good points all. I would suggest that we just specify a dimension for
the long side, so as not to discourage the submission of square pics. I
would also think that we could easily go all the way to 900 points
without placing undue stress on either the web connections or the
server space. The si
I pretty much agree, even though I don't post to the PUG. Some time ago
the requirement for using only Pentax gear was relaxed to the point where
we are today: as long as there's a Pentax lens or body, the pic qualifies
for the PUG. Considering the variety of cameras used on the list these
days (
I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [messed-up nonsense]
Odd. Looked OK when I sent it, first time. Here's the corrected version:
>From my own experience, a short reminder on this list by the time the
deadline for submissions approaches might be a good idea.
I for one would have uploaded a few mor
John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
> down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that
> a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/...,
> I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to
> submit to the PUG
That's true. My PESO pics are twice the size of PUG submissions.
Perhaps it's time to update the size requirements??
On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 at 15:34, John Francis wrote:
As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
down as compared to pre
On 29 Jan 2006 at 15:34, John Francis wrote:
> As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
> down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that
> a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/...,
> I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to
> submit to th
Since I only submitted to the very first PUG, back in 1997, I think I don't
have good reasons for contradicting anyone here.
Regular submitters (and woud-be submitters as well) should better speak loud
now.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent
A good suggestion. I'm for it.
Paul
On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Jostein wrote:
Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that
a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/...,
Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As others have observed, PUG submissions are significantly
> down as compared to previous years. While I'm sure that
> a lot of this is because of the upsurge in PAW/PESO/...,
> I really don't feel this is the time to make it harder to
> submit to the
91 matches
Mail list logo
