[78-L] Not innocuous, but inauspicious

[DanKj]

 I don't think 'inauspicious' is what we want, either.  Something not predictive of what's to come is .... incongruous? 
Inpredicitive? Or am I wrong about what's being expressed in this thread?   Crosby's first Decca doesn't fit 'inpredictive' 
(I made that up) - he recorded many more old chestnuts for Decca.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Chichester" <dnjchi78 at live.com>
To: <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Not innocuous, but inauspicious


>
> It's a CD manufacturer.
>
> dc
>
>> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:18:30 -0500
>> From: dlennick at sympatico.ca
>> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Not innocuous, but inauspicious
>>
>> So if inauspicious and auspicious are opposites, what constitutes nocuous?
>>
>> dl
>>
>> On 3/3/2011 10:06 AM, DanKj wrote:
>> > David is the only one to use the correct word: "inauspicious". None of
>> > these records are more "innocuous" than any others, unless we're talking
>> > about offensive, controversial, or dangerous records as opposed to
>> > "innocuous" records.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "David Lennick"<dlennick at sympatico.ca>
>> > To: "78-L Mail List"<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 12:43 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [78-L] Inocuous premieres
>> >
>> >
>> >> Not a band, but Bing Crosby (Decca): I Love You Truly& Just A-Wearyin'
>> >> for You
>> >> (Decca 100, an inauspicious start for them as well)
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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