Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:05:49 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage
Subject: Re: Dagmar aka Virginia Ruth Egnor - - - - - - - - - - -- [22/41] - "data_dagmar from wiki.JPG" yEnc (1/1)
From: retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com>
References: <eNqdnY3JSphPRFnGnZ2dnUU7-LFQAAAA@earthlink.com> <jd-dnXdZ6s_YlljGnZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <XnsA97D65EB4E3CAroakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Message-ID: <Io6dndSAysGAC1rGnZ2dnUU7-dudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:05:49 -0500
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BHmr1dXd55w1QVARgmT7FJcjEDS49Mr4eUuId22YAj2jRyvTral6rj0QF59d6LmKa7RrAvgDK6SmZUA!6kboKbTwWzbgy4XG0q75Fc3BNbf4JXBlJAcsGmWY98xZKVjXXTfNpwT1Fc7VBTwC/bi6LmarHUw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2376
X-Received-Bytes: 2467
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2408625239
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage:16202
> 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/16202h', 'Re: Dagmar aka Virginia Ruth Egnor - - - - - - - - - - -- [22/41] - "data_dagmar from wiki.JPG" yEnc (1/1)')){kind=link}