> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:27:47 -0500, retrowavelength
> <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> =ybegin part=1 line=128 size=15997 name=0.jpg
>>> =ypart begin=1 end=15997
>>>
>>> Attachment decoded: 0.jpg
>>> =yend size=15997 part=1 pcrc32=81b8b482
>>
>>While vintage, I kinda think this isn't in keeping with a "vintage
>>erotica" theme. YMMV
>>
>>--rwl
>
>
>
> I can assure you there is no intent here to foul up the group by
> posting material outside the group focus.
>
> Guess there are several things going on here..............
>
> 1) The history of this group, and we're going back here about twenty
> five years, has been to post some ladies who are not thought of as
> erotic perhaps. to some, but are in fact erotic to others. Cilla
> Black does not stirke me as erotic. I'm not even a fan. But she
> was a pinup star for some.
>
> Ditto Shelley Fabares, Lesley Gore, Petula Clark, Dionne Warwick to
> name a few pop music stars who have traditionally posted here.
>
> 2) Over the years, this group, while using the word "erotica", has not
> been home to hard core porn but rather a softer look. Perhaps that is
> changing with the years and new posters such as you coming in?
>
> 3) And then, there's always the option in Usenet of just ignoring a
> post you don't like and moving on to what you do like.
>
You make good points, and I defer to whatever the others in the group
think. I'm merely a bit concerned that we become a movie star site when
there are already other groups that do a better job of that.
By the way, concerning "new posters such as you coming in" -- I've been
part of this group for well over a decade. :-) I may look new because I've
been posting more in the last couple years than I did before.
--rwl
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://www.nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage/17476', 'Re: Cilla Black - 60s Brit pop star- ----------------- - -- [01/82] - "0.jpg" yEnc (1/1)')){kind=link}