In article <4915c424$0$31794$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>,
Ruby Tuesday <once@theWall> wrote:
> I wrote what I did lest folks looking to finish their collection with the
> long missing sets 169 & 171 asked me to continue thinking they were about
> to get the real deal. They're not.
No biggie for me. I've seen both sets at some point in the past, and
have them marked in my lists as "Little Girls" (i.e. pre-pubescent),
which as a matter of personal preference I don't collect.
|
|