In article <548811c4.358225687@news-beta.easynews.com>, Grouse
<grouse1@gDONTSPAMITmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, she's a pip. Have a few of those spam-source sets,
> but most are not worth keeping, the extended runs of closeups
> and the models clearly not having any fun. Stopped checking
> them years ago.
Yeah, not much to be gleaned there (and that's the only set of Reena
that I know of), but I'm wasting some time going through that crap
once more mainly because I want to make sure that I have everything
from that low-grade source of Galitsin's Liza, since I never saw or
collected the originals. There, too, these sets aren't so good because
of the crummy lighting (sometimes deliberately so, pretentiously artsy)
and the many wasted shots, but... a face to die for.
Another find was a few early sets of skinny-but-cute Monika Matejovska,
a.k.a. 80K's Sharon 59, with reasonable photography, and with her grin
lighting up the room. There's one who *was* having fun.
But I have to try not to pay any attention to the idiotic subject
lines. I was engrossed looking at the nude photos of the Olivia!
You like to look it? So look! They are very young to be such
attractive? Typically when you see a chick in glasses you might not
look twice.
--
without shame and conscience!:)
(story of my life)
|
|
 (yEnc)')){kind=link}