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 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 restrictive rules (only Pentax gear> for the PUG, but anything goes for a PAW) contributes in no> small way to the decreasing significance of the PUG, and if> any change were proposed I'd suggest just dropping the rule.> It's not as if we expect the PUG to be overrun by submissions> from outsiders, after all. I'd like to see the best work from> any of the list members, no matter what camera they were using> that day.>>
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Ralf R. Radermacher
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) E.R.N. Reed
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Cotty
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) John Francis
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Bob Sullivan
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) John Coyle
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Shel Belinkoff
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) William Robb
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Rob Studdert
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Bob Sullivan
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Daniel J. Matyola
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Paul Stenquist
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) John Coyle
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Eactivist
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) mike wilson
- RE: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Henk Terhell
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Powell Hargrave
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) dagt
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Dario Bonazza
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Pancho Hasselbach
- Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2) Dario Bonazza

