Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Rodney Reason <ogri.rules.ok@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage
Subject: Re: Any ID on girl in 68C set? (0/1)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:43:03 +0000
Message-ID: <791c3c91pi5k32j1dka04pb42qhupdt922@4ax.com>
References: <XnsA6C9592B23314roakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131> <2016112306541846951-@news.giganews.com> <5rcb3ch7sv7gsardjll479q5gnvn8v8as8@4ax.com> <v6WdnZ7W4NnVdqjFnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 31d07bf6.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=:\X\N4k?3?0YCNS1UYSjA1L?0kYOcDh@:72F7U6B]Wg4oPXXUkhlTI1^O<T2lXi3>2[L7L?Tjjlg2^1LWFHKjH73B95S\cnZji9
X-Received-Body-CRC: 721422974
X-Received-Bytes: 1639
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage:12112
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:17:28 -0600, retrowavelength
<retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The only ID I have is negative. In 2010 she was posted here with
>> filenames of '_not joan blondell'.
>
>But you will see a lot of places in the internet have one or more of this
>set with the claim that it's Joan Blondell. Of course, that doesn't prove
>anything. We ought to look up some early Joan pics & compare them.
When they were first posted I did that. In my opinion Joan does
not look like the Set 3A, 68C girl. I agree with the '_not joan'
poster.
RR
|
|