On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 02:20:02 +0100, "fredhogan" <fredhogan@nothere.com>
wrote:
>i think that there must be something wrong with my system for a post like
>yours to fail to show up first time round.
>
>i noticed something else recently that points to the same conclusion : when
>RWL posted his marge mellor picture recently he wrote as if it was part of a
>series of postings made at the same time - yet it was *only* that one MM
>picture that ever arrived here.
I saw 3 of Marge from rwl that day. That's sure a bummer to
be missing posts.
>looking again at my BK-post i see now that i'd have done rather better if i
>had bothered to explain what i was actually trying to do!
>
>which was that i was re-posting from ebay an index that i took to show
>definitively what *twelve* pictures - for better or worse - had originally
>made up that set M544.
I had noticed that your images didn't have torn corners like
in the index, but then *poof* the thought was gone.
>and - as ebay showed only those small versions of the pictures - i was also
>adding larger versions of my own from other sources in order to provide more
>detail.
>
>certainly - as you show - there is a great deal more that can be said about
>the wider group of pictures associated with that set.
>
>many thanks for that and for the new pictures!
You're welcome fred. Thanks for the BK set.
Your Modelscope images were interesting. People back then
must have really been dedicated to their erotica to spend
money on those things. And I bet they weren't cheap! Not
after adding all the film strips anyway.
RR
|
|