On 19 Nov 2010 10:08:05 GMT, jorj <jorj@jorj.orr> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:01 -0600, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2010 05:37:35 GMT, jorj <jorj@jorj.orr> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:37:02 -0600, Paddy McCarthy wrote:
>>>
>>>Why would you want it?
>>>
>>>My Stars posted a few pics from it, but I've never seen a complete set.
>>>So far as I know I was the only one who ever posted it (I'm the one who
>>>posted all those kleenx sets).
>>
>> I prefer the orignal filenames. Even with the screwed up crc, you can
>> use a csv to check for collection completeness.
>
>That's the point: you can't. Because most of the people posting back then
>were using stuff like quadsucker, which just hit links on web pages. And
>webe kept lots of images hidden by including them in the website but no
>links to them. At the time, so far as I have been able to tell, I was
>the only one actually posting bunny, karen, whitney and bobbie. I'm sure
>others shared their pics, but not on usenet in any popular public groups
>of the time.
>
>You can consider the kleenx versions as a complete set unto themselves.
>Furthermore, it's much easier to check for gaps since they're in sequence
>beginning at 1 - the highest number file tells you implicitly how many
>are in the set.
>
>I also posted csvs with these sets at the time of posting which
>crosslinked kleenx names to those cryptic and useless camera generated
>names, but of course the only people who would have saved those also seem
>to be the people who didn't and then complain about altered filenames.
>You were around back then - did you also lose them or did you never pop
>by russian to grab them?
I didn't get them from russian, and have never seen any csvs of any
crosslinked kleenex sets.
|
|