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?
|
|