On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:59:57 +0000, zup <zup@nowhere> wrote:
>Dakota <wanderer@badlands.org> wrote in news:
>
>> Maybe because so many of the later NS models are so fucking ugly
>
>Which ones do you think are ugly? Just curious.
>
>> or because the photography has waned in quality. The early Destiny,
>> Candy, Sunshine, Daniele, Ginger, etc. were delectible, but no more
>> like them.
>
>This we can agree on. Now, some models like Sugar #2 are actually really
>hot, but the photography is completely pathetic. Can you imagine what a
>real studio like Vladmodels might have done with her?
I don't recall the names of the ones I referred to as ugly because I
have just randomly downloaded some pics now and then and don't save
them.
Some of the newer models look to be crowding 30, though I'm sure they
are not that old. I don't save any Newstar models now, even though
some of them may be cute, because the photography is uniformly shitty.
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://www.nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.newstar/315', 'Re: Why is no one else posting? {T^T} - "laura-400-042.jpg" - 42 files (2/2)')){kind=link}