hi folks,
not sure if my answer to Kurt's note got lost in the din. If so, please
consider the following as a re-send. If it wasn't lost, then consider
this to be more noise amongst the signal.
Thanks~
-dsp
### start copy ###
Dear Kurt,
Please see:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/m
On Jan 18, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:27:57 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Bunce)
> wrote:
>
> > I can't remember what the "precedence to denying organizational
> > PAUSE id's" was. Can anyone else?
>
> Maybe he meant something like this:
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg08649.html
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:27:57 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Bunce)
wrote:
> I can't remember what the "precedence to denying organizational
> PAUSE id's" was. Can anyone else?
Maybe he meant something like this:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg08649.html ?
But that was someone applying for one PAUSE I
I can't remember what the "precedence to denying organizational
PAUSE id's" was. Can anyone else?
Tim.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:42:39PM -0500, Dave Paris wrote:
> I'm aware there has been some precedence to denying organizational PAUSE
> id's in the past. I'd like to revisit this for the fol
I'm aware there has been some precedence to denying organizational PAUSE
id's in the past. I'd like to revisit this for the following reasons:
1) The company at which I'm the VP of Software Development has created
a number of modules which we feel could be of benefit to the Perl
Community at la
