Sorry, but your presence and rank on perlmonks don't mean much to me. You are person 438 in Saints in our Book
. Anyone who shows up and votes religiously on this site for a few years should be able to reach a rank like that. That doesn't say much about what you personally are like, or how good you are.
I have paid no attention to you in the past so I don't know what you're like. Glancing at your highest rated nodes and looking for one that shows your level of Perl knowledge, I see Using a module more than once. This shows that you have fundamental misunderstandings about how Perl works, and shows that you are not in the habit of looking in perldoc first for answers. (perldoc -f use would have given your answer.) Sorry, but this doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to realistically contribute to a problem like this.
Furthermore as a personal bias, I dislike the groupthink on this site that says that people from this site are all great. Not only do I dislike that groupthink, but I tend to think relatively poorly of the people who subscribe to it, and doubly so of those who expect me to subscribe to it. So you get a bad reaction from me by insisting that your presence on perlmonks demonstrates that you can't be the kind of person that my (admittedly cynical) first reaction suggested you might be.
I'm not saying that my cynical response is accurate, but it really was my first reaction. And as much as you might dislike it, I don't think it was particularly unfair under the circumstances.