Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "fredhogan" <fredhogan@nothere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage
References: <56FC0461.6070105@yahoo.com> <56FC05CC.3060209@yahoo.com> <dNqMy.508257$fy.145818@fx45.am4> <570328D4.3020301@yahoo.com> <F1LMy.376116$bx.94482@fx35.am4> <570617C7.2070904@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <570617C7.2070904@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Some new edits & touchups
Lines: 19
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Message-ID: <3mpNy.443165$fz.258391@fx37.am4>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.27.240.17
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
X-Trace: 1460019711 86.27.240.17 (Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:01:51 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:01:51 UTC
Organization: virginmedia.com
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:01:45 +0100
X-Received-Body-CRC: 608989644
X-Received-Bytes: 1781
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage:9611
retrowavelength wrote : Looking at them again, I'd hate to have to bet on
which was younger. :-)
rwl - i certainly agree with that - for a start in general i'm no better at
betting than i am at judging ages.
but one thing that does occur to me now is that, in the ordinary way of
things, set GA250 might have been expected to have been produced and issued
*before* the later numbered set GA282.
however i know that - even if in general dates & set-IDs *did* keep in
step - it is easy to think of many reasons why that might not have happened
in this particular case.
fredhogan
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|