From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8A3138206 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 462CDE0845; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from auth-4.ukservers.net (auth-4.ukservers.net [217.10.138.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E218CE07FE for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (host86-156-148-249.range86-156.btcentralplus.com [86.156.148.249]) by auth-4.ukservers.net (Postfix smtp) with ESMTPA id 38CE21520641 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:11:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [was: What can cause printer to crop top of page?] /etc/papersize is ignored To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <9349542.N0JEzlDTSJ@dell_xps> <26462848-1442-965e-8673-792e56bb0ea5@gmail.com> <5A47A380.20504@youngman.org.uk> <2024436.hqgmcn6Cq0@peak> <20171231103417.16be2eae@digimed.co.uk> From: Wols Lists Message-ID: <5A48C5CC.9010805@youngman.org.uk> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:11:08 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171231103417.16be2eae@digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ff639e80-0728-4c96-8331-8379d66a7317 X-Archives-Hash: 0ab286968d3128c8449a072a623f4776 On 31/12/17 10:34, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 02:26:26 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: > >>> Actually it was the New York World. So actually imho it was originally >>> perfectly legit. >> >> I don't agree. In that case it should have been called the New York >> World Series. > > If they were paying for it, they could call it what they wanted. I assume > the paper was generally known as "The World" otherwise it would have been > a waste of marketing money. > > Actually, I believe it WAS originally known as The New York World Series. Then presumably some marketeer decided that was too much of a mouthful, and dropped the "New York" rather than "World" :-( Cheers, Wol