On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:00:49 -0600, n@@dles wrote:
>> 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
>
Wow! Thanks a mint, n@@dles. That finishes a couple series for a lot of
us. I had searched high and low for those pics. Not even placeholders
existed for the LS Girls images.
I checked the dates on your ua- csv and on my copy. Mine carries a one day
newer date. On closer examination, there has been additional text added up
top. I have never altered one of your csv's, but apparently someone did and
reposted it the next day ;-( I'll replace my altered copy with your
original.
Might I have any LS you need?
--
mr.bill
|
|