> n@@dles,
>
> It's never too late to enter the convo. My work is ongoing; so is the
> work of EAX.
>
I noticed EAX's work in the other group - great job - i know how much
hassle it can been :(
> Is your work still open to revision? I do have some questions then if
> possible.
>
> My first queries would concern the naming of Ukrainian Nymphets set 35
> in your csvs "Ukrainian-Nymphets.com(Final)_n@@dles_10280.csv" and
> "Ukrainian-Nymphets.com-Lovely-Nymphets.com(Final)_n@@dles_19900.csv".
> Both show all files in set 35 suffixed with "_0".
>
Yeh - i noticed that when i was creating the csv - total pain because it
looks like a suffix XNews would add on downloading.
I ripped the site myself tho and thats how they where named - i never
rename files from original so left them that way for the csv.
> I presume this resulted from a naming clash with the similarly named
> Ukrainian Angels set.
>
It could have been - seems fairly likely as ua-35 is the first with the un
prefix. I am positive the mistake was at the LS side tho and not after the
rip.
> My second question would be about the naming difference of Ukrainian
> Angels set 39 when viewed in "Ukrainian-Angels.com(Final)
> _n@@dles_9737.csv" versus "Ukrainian-Angels.com-Gentle-Angels.info
> (Final)_n@@dles_19081.csv".
>
> My intent here is not to resurrect the the ua-/un- naming controversy
> for UA sets 33 thru 39. There are two camps. Both feel strongly.
> And whichever side we come down on will not make the others files go
> away. We will have these UA sets by both names forever. I would like
> to see consistency in both your csvs if possible. As it now stands,
> one csv lists the set as ua-39-nnn, while the other lists it as
> un-39-nnn. I have gone with un- in my own csv.
>
Weird - I just checked my master copies of the csvs and they both have the
set listed with the un prefix.
I have no idea how that could have happened since both csvs are obviously
made from the same collection.
The original prefix is def un. Its back to ua at set 40.
Ive attached the csvs for you to check.
> A few of the files you have indexed have never made it to usenet or
> p2p. Are you safe to post? For example, two sets are currently being
> posted by others with permanent gaps that you may be able to fill.
>
> Sgt.Pepper is posting Lovely Nymphets and ln-196-21tn.jpg is lacking
> from everyone's collection.
>
> Michalrodent has begun posting LS Girls and everyone lacks the same 8
> files, lsg-61-121 thru 128.
>
Done. RAR = miss.rar Pass = LS-miss
> There are other missing LS images of course, but this what is needed
> at present.
>
> I'm going to post three images for you that meet Count Draculol's csv
> but fail yours. I believe them all authentic and would like to offer
> them for your examination. The 2 un- images carry a 2002 date stamp
> which makes it unlikely they are a backward rename from the
> not-yet-published Old Story set. The third is from LS Magazine issue
> 02.
>
Just looking at these now.
Regards
n@@dles
|
|