Fred = subject
has introduced = verb
Bob and (?) = object

Objective form is me, not I.

I is incorrect. Me is correct here.

As suggested before, if you change the plural from "Bob and I" to just "I", it becomes quite obvious: "...Fred has introduced I..." is wrong. "...Fred has introduced me..." is correct.

The whole sentence should read: "I saw that Fred has introduced Bob and me via email and I would like to follow up by saying that we are extremely excited about working with you, James, and DynaCorp." Also note, "follow up" should not be hyphenated. "Follow-up" is a noun. You want the verb form here (and of course, it's spelled follow, not foolow).

Oh, and just a style comment; The sentence a bit long, a bit of a run-on sentence.

Well, she's already using "most" in its superlative sense, so technically she can't be topped, but if you want to try, you could say "I love you utmost". or "...uttermost". Technically, utmost is not an adverb, but I say go for it. You could also try a play on words by saying "I love you all", purposely misconstruing "most" to mean "nearly all", with "all" being more superlative. How about "I love you more than most"? That should get a laugh. If all else fails, you could say "I love you mostest".

Oops, I meant to say, "...I would ultimately say either is correct with "Book of Mormon"'s being somewhat preferred."

Tell you the truth, I think it could go either way and probably the other way. You did say "...book ENTITLED, 'Book of Mormon'...", that is, it is specifically a title. Say you go to Blockbuster to take out the classic "B" sci fi movie "Day of the Triffids". The kid behind the counter says "You're in luck! We have three "Day of the Triffids"'s left. They're over there." He doesn't say "We have three "Days of the Triffids"...". Titles are proper nouns in themselves. IF it is truly a title, then the title should be treated exocentrically as a single unit and pluralized at the end. Note, in my example, even though "triffids" is already plural, it would actually be proper to doubly pluralize the entire phrase with -'s.
In my example, there's no ambiguity. Clearly a movie isn't a type of "day". But, in your question, "Book of Mormon", is actually a book, so one could claim that it is a title, OR a description of the book itself. If it is a description rather than a title, then "Books of Mormon" would be acceptable. Of course, it is also a title, or at least has become one, so I would ultimately say either is correct with "Book of Mormon"'s being correct. Note that it should be italicized (except for the pluralizing "s"), or, when italicizing is impossible (like for me now) then in quotes with an apostrophe before the final "s". I think you could compare this with spoonfuls vs. spoonsful. Both are correct with spoonfuls being the more common.

Good question. While we're at it, how did Jonathan make it to Jack? How did Margaret become Peggy (or Daisy)? Chuck from Charles? Polly from Mary? Lolita from Deloris?

Nice post, John.

Sukeshini, I suggest you scroll up and look at the previous posts. None of the words you listed are pronounced like "aunt". While I seem to be repeating myself, some pronounce aunt as "ant" and some pronounce it as "ahnt", but all of the words you list are pronounced with an "aw-" sound, not an "ah-" sound, so your list really doesn't prove anything. Very few (I suppose I can't say none) pronounce it as "awnt". Besides, such a list is meaningless. "au" has many different pronunciations depending on the word. "Laugh" uses the short "a" sound like "ant". "Gauge" sounds like "ay". "Faux" sounds like "oh". None of this has anything to do with how to pronounce "aunt". Unfortunately, neither does your list (which isn't pronounced like ANY version of aunt, anyway).

X is the first letter of Christ, in Greek. The earliest known versions of the new testament were written in Greek, and Christ in Greek was ΧριστÏŒς (Christos). The first letter is chi which, in upper case, looks pretty much exactly like an X. Chi, or the roman X, was used as an abbreviation for Christ since the 1500's. Well before that, Christ was (and still is) abbreviated as XP, Xt, IC, XC and IX, also from the Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

Andrea is on the right track. There's nothing wrong with using the word "impose" in this context. The surrounding grammar is incorrect though. When uninvited (and unwelcome) guests drop by, they are imposing on you. I think a similar meaning applies in your example. Someone or something can "impose" something "on" someone or something: "The governement imposes income taxes on the working populace" or "The British crown imposed a tariff on tea". There would be nothing wrong with slightly modifying your example as follows: "The suppliers imposed on us to absorb a price increase." I really don't see how "absorb" would be at all ambiguous. What else can it mean other than, your supplier expects you to just buck up and accept a price increase with no change in the terms of your previous agreement and no increase in value or service? As Jessica said, companies are often forced to accept price increases from their suppliers without raising their prices, but the supplier has nothing to do with permitting them to raise prices or not. It's the customers and the end market that determines that. The supplier couldn't care less what the company charges its customers, unless, of course the company stops buying from the supplier because the company is no longer competitive. This may (or may not) make the sentence incongruous, but not ungrammatical.

This probably is not what you are seeing, but do realize that "merchandises" can very much be a word. "Merchandise" is also a verb meaning "to buy and sell goods". It's perfectly ok to say something like, oh, "Joan used to merchandise in the consumer retail industry but now she merchandises in wholesale electronics". Also, let's not forget the noun, "merchandising".