> retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:jd-dnXdZ6s_YlljGnZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>>>
>>> =ybegin part=1 line=128 size=42401 name=data_dagmar from wiki.JPG
>>> =ypart begin=1 end=42401
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: data_dagmar from wiki.JPG
>>> =yend size=42401 part=1 pcrc32=6f827889
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now THAT'S interesting! I must reconsider the implications. Because
>> at this time I'm not convinced that our Set 2K Ruth Egnor is the same
>> person as this Ruth Egnor. Thoughts?
>>
>> --rwl
>
>
>
> I don't think the 2K model is this Ruth Egnor. I also don't think
> that she is Joan Blondell.
> For me, that means either 1) she is just another model who someone
> tagged with an incorrect name, or 2) there are two Ruth Egnors.
> And all of that helps in no way whatsoever. But it is interesting.
>
>
It is indeed interesting and you've put your finger on it. But I guess the
contentious issue is whether the girl in the grainy old nudie pics was
really the Joan Blondell that was the movie & TV star.
--rwl
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage/16202', 'Re: Dagmar aka Virginia Ruth Egnor - - - - - - - - - - -- [22/41] - "data_dagmar from wiki.JPG" yEnc (1/1)')){kind=link}