On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:41:05 +0300, Servic <servic02@mt2009.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:01:42 -0600, "mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.lss>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:10:54 +0300, Servic wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:11:20 +0000, EAX <eax@less.than> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:30:34 -0600, servic02@mt2009.com (servic)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I didn't understand what mr.bill means saying 'You must have gotten some
>>>>>remakes.' ??re is my csv.
>>>>
>>>>This is not n@@dles'. Try to use n@@dles' csv for lsm09.
>>>EAX, this is csv of the lsm09 images what I have, but not n@@dles'
>>>csv.
>>
>>Servic,
>>
>>The csv you have was made from files that are not original. Your files are
>>probably okay. Here's n@@dles' csv to check with.
>Mr.bill, I have n@@dles' csv for lsm09. But according to this csv my
>images (Pics_888.csv) are not correct. For instance:
>
>lsm-001-001.jpg,281478,A235F37D - in Pics_888.csv (my collection),
>lsm-001-001.jpg,281513,FD0C0564 - in n@@dles' csv.
>
>lsm-001-002.jpg,293391,4E4E00B1 - in Pics_888.csv (my collection),
>lsm-001-002.jpg,293426,38B75500 - in n@@dles' csv...
>and so on.
>Do you suppose that are identical files?
>
>Servic
Servic, csv you posted is the part of big bourne's csv for all
LS-Magazine issues. I have all the files which match your csv, but I
need more time to compare n@@dles' and bourne's csv for lsm09 in order
to say which of them is correct.
|
|