On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:42:23 -0600, "mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.ls>
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:41:25 +0000, one tin soldier wrote:
>
>>Fallen Angels still confuses me. I would *like* to have
>>one complete set, but which reflects completion against
>>both CD's and n@@dles' CSVs, but have not yet put it all
>>together to see what may be lacking. (As you are aware,
>>there is some discrepancy between the two.)
>
>I should have images that match both csv's. Both are correct really, as
>the site reissued a few pix to get the logo off the model's face. N@@dles
>indexed the better looking of the two, while CD indexed the only one
>available at the time.
As I thought, which is why I want both versions as well.
>>What image do you lack from Fallen Angels?
>
>fa-25a-29.jpg
Sorry, don't have that one (and I've done a bit of looking).
>>I lack las-019-088.jpg from Assorties and lsp-001-113.jpg
>>from Little Pirates.
>
>Got them coming.
Thank you!
>>>Lolitas on Holiday was totally misnamed, but otherwise contained good
>>>images. I believe it was incomplete.
>>
>>It was. For whatever reason, I lack 113 images from LoH.
>
>Junked up, as I recall, with garbage after the jpg image on account of a
>website disk crash and attempted recovery.
>
>>I've no idea which group would be appropriate for requesting
>>LoH fills, and I know better than to ask which group <bfg>.
>
>Why not drop your miss_wrong in the midst of the hurricane?
Perhaps when the activity there abates somewhat?
--
ots
|
|