[78-L] Not innocuous, but inauspicious

[David Lennick]

I actually meant "inauspicious" as applying to Decca's first release.

dl

On 3/3/2011 3:12 PM, DanKj wrote:
>   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)
>>>>>
>>>>