lucan <earl@missing.invalid> wrote in
news:0001HW.D1055DCA001B8EF3B01029BF@news.giganews.com:
> (in article <XnsA44165D01F4E4roakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131>):
>
>> news:XnsA441649E5B0B3roakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131:
>>
>>> This one involves the duplication of the file name "hs-pedon103".
>>>
>>> First off, why would a file "103" be duplicated and not "101" and
>>> "102"? That indicates that there may be files I do not have.
>>>
>>> Second, the "103" file in the csv is not the correct one (based on
>>> the subject of the pics). What I mean is: as you can see by the
>>> attached, the "103" and "104" go together. The odd pic is the one
>>> annotated "+duplicate file name+". Yet this odd one is the "103"
>>> that is in the csv.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I screwed up the file names. But you can see what I mean. The one
>> pic with her soaped down is not part of the sequence, yet it is the
>> one in the csv. The other is not even recognized in the csv.
>>
>> Sorry, but you must be getting used to me screwing up.
>>
>
> I'm afraid all I can add is more confusion and uncertainty. The 103
> you posted (140899 bytes) is new to me -- or at least I can't find it
> anywhere else. The HH Roberta Pedons I have differ from gnomon's csv.
>
> What I had before gnomon posted his hs-pedon files was from a post I
> downloaded on 17 Sept 2001; no idea who posted it. The files are:
>
> HS-PED~1.JPG (169718) = gnomon's hs-pedon100
> HS-PED~2.JPG (135334) = gnomon's hs-pedon101
> hs-pedon102.jpg (147367) cf gnomon's hs-pedon102 (147785)
> hs-pedon103.jpg (172598) cf gnomon's hs-pedon105
> hs-pedon104.jpg (155048) = gnomon's hs-pedon104
>
> I have no record of Humbert reposting his hs-pedon scans. Many of the
> other series he reposted in June 2008 are still shown in my
> newsreader, but no hs-pedons. As I had only a confusing mix of some
> pics with old DOS-style file names and the more recent "hs-pedon"
> names, I can't believe that I would have skipped downloading whatever
> Humbert had to offer of his Roberta pics. The only one I got from that
> repost was hs-fling106.
>
> Do you know from where you got your hs-pedon pics?
>
> CandyFan reposted the HS-PED~ pics in 2011:
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> From: candyfan@aol.com (CandyFan)
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pinups
> Subject: more ROBERTA PEDON - next posting of 50 [01/50] -
> "HS-PED~1.JPG" yEnc (1/1)
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> HS-PED~1.JPG (169718)
> HS-PED~2.JPG (135334)
> HS-PED~3.JPG (147367)
> HS-PED~4.JPG (172598)
> HS-PED~5.JPG (155048)
>
> Unless there's some evidence that the ones gnomon lists in his csv
> were posted by Humbert (or Pugsley, etc.), I'm inclined to believe
> that the HS-PED~1 through HS-PED~5 listed immediately above should
> correspond to hs-pedon100 through hs-pedon104. But that's based solely
> on the Sept 2001 post I downloaded, and those might have been renamed
> by someone other than Humbert, so . . . And what to do with the odd
> hs-pedon103 (140899), I don't know. Make it 105?
>
> But perhaps you have some info about this that I don't. ?
>
> If this mess isn't confusing enough, I noticed an index of Humberts
> that Raven posted in 2003 -- it shows a pic named hs-ped~2.jpg (168.55
> Kb, 549x589) that appears to be the same as the HS-PED~4.JPG posted by
> CF.
>
> I give up.
>
> Sorry to be of no help,
> lucan
>
>
>
>
Thanks for the info.
I show the extraneous 103 (140899) as coming from June 2008. The others
are from Feb. 2007. (?)
It seems the HS-PED~# are machine shortened file names. I can see how
they could be produced from the 11 digit hs-pedon### names back in 2000.
(You want to use more than 8 digits to name something?!?!)
Anyway, thanks.
|
|