|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Jan 30, 2006 15:20:56 GMT -5
I will only give her a chance because of what I have read about her from her days when she was Pam...from what I hear about the current Connie, she is very generic and boring, but with beautiful skin. I would still take her to dinner, but I would probably call her Pam.
|
|
|
Post by missdavidson on Jan 31, 2006 0:36:30 GMT -5
And she would probably stare at you as though you were a strange strange guy. . .
you know, the looks that the rest of us give you!!! LOL
We love you HD!!!
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Jan 31, 2006 16:56:00 GMT -5
I know you all love me...fascination bordering on intent admiration, I know. She would realize the same. Once we got past her skincare security.
|
|
|
Post by missdavidson on Feb 2, 2006 0:35:54 GMT -5
I'm sure she's quite secure in her skincare. ;D
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 2, 2006 10:47:50 GMT -5
I am sure. However, it is not the easiest site to navigate. They have a message forum, but they read and edit everyone's messages, which is fine, but they should still post and/or respond and they don't....mean.
|
|
ThatGirl
Third String Utility
I'll stop by one of these days
Posts: 76
|
Post by ThatGirl on Feb 13, 2006 1:25:27 GMT -5
Whew! It was a long, grueling haul, but I made it back!
O.k. I said she is a bit odd because I remember stories about the horrible practical jokes she used to play on Gil Gerard. That being said, I'm sure she is a very fun person, and probably grew out of the tendency to scare her husband to death, when she married the second time!
I always liked her on TV though. I think she would have been a lot more fun as a Charlie's Angel than Kate Jackson, although I really liked KJ on Dark Shadows. I probably have the decade wrong though. She is probably too young to have been a Charlie's Angel.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 13, 2006 19:54:41 GMT -5
Probably was too young to be an Angel...I liked her better as Pam anyway. I found that tidbit about her...I put it in the thread.."things you might never know." Welcome back, THATGIRL. Keep coming back and posting more.
|
|
|
Post by missdavidson on Feb 20, 2006 1:20:32 GMT -5
Maybe not. . .let's see, born in 1955? She was in her early twenties, so I don't think she would've been too young. . .
|
|
ThatGirl
Third String Utility
I'll stop by one of these days
Posts: 76
|
Post by ThatGirl on Feb 20, 2006 1:43:12 GMT -5
Well, I think she would have been good, but maybe it was better for her not to!
Thanks, HD. I'll try!
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 20, 2006 14:35:54 GMT -5
I think she would have made a great Angel, but wasn't that late 70s? She was just getting started in the business and such. I think her GAH choice was better anyway...a strong female role over sharing the spotlight? Money in the bank.
|
|
ThatGirl
Third String Utility
I'll stop by one of these days
Posts: 76
|
Post by ThatGirl on Feb 20, 2006 16:21:29 GMT -5
Definitely better for her, but less fun for us. Although I like Kate Jackson, I never thought she was right for the "angel" role.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 20, 2006 17:42:04 GMT -5
Me either. Of course, I don't know if Pam has the right fit for the ANGELS role either. She was too sophisticated to be a beautiful bimbo droid.
|
|
ThatGirl
Third String Utility
I'll stop by one of these days
Posts: 76
|
Post by ThatGirl on Feb 27, 2006 0:55:33 GMT -5
I think she would have brought more to it, but then again, maybe they would not have let her.
|
|
|
Post by HoudiniDerek on Feb 27, 2006 12:03:02 GMT -5
They didn't really let her add to her role in GAH, why would they in ANGELS?
|
|
ThatGirl
Third String Utility
I'll stop by one of these days
Posts: 76
|
Post by ThatGirl on Mar 5, 2006 0:36:16 GMT -5
True, except the Angels were the focus, whereas on TGAH, the two male stars were the focus.
|
|