On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:40:24 GMT, Sgt.Pepper@StrawberryFields.Forever wrote,
> I just rechecked LS-Land-21-Stunning-Dolls and I see that was your "LS Land
> 21 lsh-Stunning Dolls Complete_mb_3472" I checked with the first time. I
> remember not being able to find one by n@@dles. (and I'm not missing
> lsh-024-123.jpg I must have found it since Oct.)
>Your csv says I'm 100% , the other says I'm missing lsh-024-01 because
>they're using it for lsh-07 which don't exist , what is the other csv using
>for lsh-01?
That's exactly what I was hoping to discover. It may be a reworked image but
we'll never know for sure about that. I also checked the size and crc32 on
the other lsh-024-001.jpg (Variety) but it was no match either.
> Also just checked LS-Extension; now 100%!!!
>
I was just as shocked when I ran my set against that same csv! I thought
that last LS Extension set was a phony. It wasn't!
Would it be safe to say 'bourne' is the author of this collection of csv's
you posted then?
I recall looking into Freenet back about that time. None of the on-topic
sites were published. It seemed you needed a BBS to find them and from what
I could tell, the BBS's weren't safe. A lot of published sites were for the
sole purpose of outing pedo's seeking sites through the BBS's. I passed.
Thanks for all the work you've done helping me out here.
On another note, I parsed the videos from lsm13 out of the very large LS-
Magazine.csv which was part of the collection. It shows lots of deviation
from n@@dles and may match a bunch of the (bad crc) videos you are currently
posting elsewhere. We may need to revisit n@@dles on this set and post a
revised csv.
mr.bill
|
|