[78-L] Whoopie Boop^

[simmonssomer]

You bet. At least six or seven times.

Al S.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron L'Herault" <lherault at bu.edu>
To: "'78-L Mail List'" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Whoopie Boop^


> Steven,
>
> If you think sex didn't exist in old post-code (I imagine that is what you
> meant by "them days") you are not paying attention.  There was plenty of 
> sex
> it was just not thrust (pun intended) into your face at every turn.  It 
> was
> subtle, hinted at and given visual and/or verbal euphemisms.
>
> Ron L
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
> [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Steven C. Barr
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:30 PM
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Whoopie Boop^
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Julian Vein" <julianvein at blueyonder.co.uk>
>> Bill McClung wrote:
>>> The character that became Betty Boop first appeared in the cartoon 
>>> "Dirty
>>> Dishes" in 1930 as a half-dog, half-human with no name.
>> ==============
>> Shouldn't that be "half-bitch"?
>>
> Virtually all cartoons...especially that long ago...specifically omitted 
> any
> "anatomical details"...?! S*x didn't exist in movies...filmed or
> drawn...back
> in "them days?!" There MAY have been illicit/unofficial "Betty Boop"
> films in which s*x was depicted; however AFAIK these were (like
> "party records"...?!) undocumented and quite possibly no longer exist?!
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l