Minor things that please you

[Beltway]

You probably overestimate how much Alex wants to get involved with the nonsense that goes on with the forum. 
There alap isn't a rule about a user getting called out on something and being incapable of admitting that they were wrong.

Yes -- that is my reading of Alex. He does a ton of work behind the scenes to keep the websites running.

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining why the number went from eight to six?

The world wonders.

Moderators are not professional communicators, they are volunteers that spend a lot of time in that job. Often the only fast and non-labor-intensive way to slow down a discussion that is out of control -- is to lock the thread -- and those netpolice posters know that.

Seems like you took full advantage of this when we dared to discuss a topic you didn't like.

I don't mind people talking about pot on a Off Topic thread.

So now you are now denying that you originally said you had issue with eight forum users?

I recall including the word "about" as there are a couple that are on the margin. Analyzing human behavior is not an exact science.

[Max Rockatansky]

So now you are now denying that you originally said you had issue with eight forum users?

[Beltway]

The spelling appears in the original 17th‑century printings of Fuller (1656) and Dunton (1710). The Archive.org scans don't have stable deep links to specific pages, which is why I pointed to the page‑image editions rather than a modern search string. If you open the facsimile and scroll to the relevant section, you'll see the long‑s form 'impleaſable' in the original type.

We know that there aren't stable deep links. We don't care because it's not relevant to the question.
The book has page numbers. See, look, there they are.
[ image reviewed ]
Kyle wants you to look at the page you found "impleasable" on, look in the upper corner of the page it's on, and say the number so he can read the page himself.
Your refusal to do this makes you look like you're either stupid or a liar. If you're neither, you could just say the page number.

The issue isn't comprehension, it's that early‑modern pagination doesn't map cleanly to the scan sequence. Both the 1656 Fuller and the 1710 Dunton have unnumbered prelims, irregular signatures, and mis‑pagination, so the printed page number isn't the same as the Archive.org frame number.

If you want the exact leaf where the word appears, tell me which edition you're checking and the surrounding phrase you're trying to verify. I can give you the printed page number *and* the corresponding scan frame so you land on the right leaf.

[Scott5114]

The spelling appears in the original 17th‑century printings of Fuller (1656) and Dunton (1710). The Archive.org scans don't have stable deep links to specific pages, which is why I pointed to the page‑image editions rather than a modern search string. If you open the facsimile and scroll to the relevant section, you'll see the long‑s form 'impleaſable' in the original type.

We know that there aren't stable deep links. We don't care because it's not relevant to the question.
The book has page numbers. See, look, there they are.
[ image reviewed ]
Kyle wants you to look at the page you found "impleasable" on, look in the upper corner of the page it's on, and say the number so he can read the page himself.
Your refusal to do this makes you look like you're either stupid or a liar. If you're neither, you could just say the page number.

The issue isn't comprehension, it's that early‑modern pagination doesn't map cleanly to the scan sequence. Both the 1656 Fuller and the 1710 Dunton have unnumbered prelims, irregular signatures, and mis‑pagination, so the printed page number isn't the same as the Archive.org frame number.

If you want the exact leaf where the word appears, tell me which edition you're checking and the surrounding phrase you're trying to verify. I can give you the printed page number *and* the corresponding scan frame so you land on the right leaf.

That screenshot is from https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_the-church-history-of-br_fuller-thomas_1656/page/n521/mode/2up

Any page that contains the word "impleasable" is fine.

[Molandfreak]

Beltway, I say this as someone who is a bystander to the Key Bridge thread drama: whatever your grievances are with these 6 or 8 or however many other posters who you are accusing of derailing the thread, your behavior over the past couple weeks isn't the correct way to handle it. What was a problem largely contained within that one thread has exploded and left a stink across numerous threads in numerous boards. You really should just take a break, whether that be self-enforced or enforced by a mod.

[Beltway]

Beltway, I say this as someone who is a bystander to the Key Bridge thread drama: whatever your grievances are with these 6 or 8 or however many other posters who you are accusing of derailing the thread, your behavior over the past couple weeks isn't the correct way to handle it. What was a problem largely contained within that one thread has exploded and left a stink across numerous threads in numerous boards. You really should just take a break, whether that be self-enforced or enforced by a mod.

These are two unrelated matters. The Key Bridge discussion is one topic; the "impleasable" citation question is another. The only reason the citation hasn't been resolved is that the scan linked earlier is a different digitization than the one I used, and the spelling being searched for does not appear in that text. Once the specific passage is identified, I can map it to the correct leaf in the scan they're using.

[kkt]

This is an interesting and amusing thread sometimes.  Be a shame if it got locked.

[Scott5114]

Beltway, I say this as someone who is a bystander to the Key Bridge thread drama: whatever your grievances are with these 6 or 8 or however many other posters who you are accusing of derailing the thread, your behavior over the past couple weeks isn't the correct way to handle it. What was a problem largely contained within that one thread has exploded and left a stink across numerous threads in numerous boards. You really should just take a break, whether that be self-enforced or enforced by a mod.

These are two unrelated matters. The Key Bridge discussion is one topic; the "impleasable" citation question is another. The only reason the citation hasn't been resolved is that the scan linked earlier is a different digitization than the one I used, and the spelling being searched for does not appear in that text. Once the specific passage is identified, I can map it to the correct leaf in the scan they're using.

Kyle was looking for the phrase "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation," which is the one you cited to begin with.

This is an interesting and amusing thread sometimes.  Be a shame if it got locked.

As with the "favorite forum quotes" thread, if this got too out of hand, I'd just roll it back to before the point where it became stupid.

[Beltway]

These are two unrelated matters. The Key Bridge discussion is one topic; the "impleasable" citation question is another. The only reason the citation hasn't been resolved is that the scan linked earlier is a different digitization than the one I used, and the spelling being searched for does not appear in that text. Once the specific passage is identified, I can map it to the correct leaf in the scan they're using.

Kyle was looking for the phrase "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation," which is the one you cited to begin with.

Thanks -- that's the necessary locator. The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears in the 1656 edition, but not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier. That copy is a different digitization with variant pagination and does not contain the leaf where that passage appears in the copy I used.

Once the correct scan or edition is identified, I can map the passage to the corresponding leaf. Without matching digitizations, the page number isn't a stable reference.

[Scott5114]

How convenient.

[PColumbus73]

Since AI is cool now LOL...

The phrase "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" is likely an adaptation or a descriptive term, using the word "impleasable" which is an alternative spelling or a mnemonic for the word implacable.

Does searching 'implacable' render any results?

[kphoger]

If you want the exact leaf where the word appears, tell me which edition you're checking and the surrounding phrase you're trying to verify.

Kyle was looking for the phrase "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation," which is the one you cited to begin with.

Good heavens, at least somebody understands me!

I'll believe you, if only you can link to just two uses of the word impleasable in print from before 1920.  Go!

Sure.

1656 -- Thomas Fuller, The Church-History of Britain: "an impleasable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation."

Here are the links to the page‑image scans:

• Fuller (1656): https://archive.org/details/churchhistoryofb01full/

The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears ... not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier.

So, I guess you can't.
Then I don't believe you.
You made up the word 'impleasable'.
The capsule stands.

[PColumbus73]

So, I guess you can't.
Then I don't believe you.
You made up the word 'impleasable'.
The capsule stands.

Here comes the Forum Police Department: Grammar Division

Department of Language Policing Harming Internet Nonsense... if you will

[formulanone]

Meh, it's a perfectly cromulent word made from the context of other words.

It's not like he came up with liccflii and proclaimed it's a term for the aftereffects of burnt toast.

But don't make up sources, jut roll with the concept that you coined a word. Instead of trying to gaslight us that it had meaning 300 years ago, and we lost souls wrote it out of existence, understand that all sorts of writers, artists, corporations, and religious folks do it all the time, but individuals rarely get to force its continued traction into the public lexicon.

[kphoger]

The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears in the 1656 edition, but not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier. That copy is a different digitization with variant pagination and does not contain the leaf where that passage appears in the copy I used.

Here is the 1655 edition, broken down by chapter.  Surely you can tell me which chapter to look in?
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?view=toc

And here's the full text.  I can't find any part of the phrase you quoted anywhere in it.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

[Max Rockatansky]

Beltway seems to be big on defending his takes even when they are fully indefensible.  It sure seems to me like a lot of effort versus just admitting he was wrong.  Is this an ego thing?  This all seems to have been a common theme in all his recent troubles. 

[Molandfreak]

Beltway seems to be big on defending his takes even when they are fully indefensible.  It sure seems to me like a lot of effort versus just admitting he was wrong.  Is this an ego thing?  This all seems to have been a common theme in all his recent troubles. 

What makes it more hilarious is that nobody would remember this exchange if he would have ignored the relatively minor dig kkt made in the first place. This wild goose chase he's sent us on with a single passage within a single book is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[Beltway]

The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears in the 1656 edition, but not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier. That copy is a different digitization with variant pagination and does not contain the leaf where that passage appears in the copy I used.

Here is the 1655 edition, broken down by chapter.  Surely you can tell me which chapter to look in?
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?view=toc
And here's the full text.  I can't find any part of the phrase you quoted anywhere in it.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition. The passage I cited is from the 1656 edition, which is not textually identical. Early‑modern editions often differ in wording, pagination, and even chapter structure. A phrase that appears in one issue or impression will not necessarily appear in another.

If you want to locate the passage in the specific 1656 digitization you're using, I'll need the correct scan of that edition. Once we're looking at the same copy, I can map the phrase to the corresponding leaf.

[Beltway]

Beltway seems to be big on defending his takes even when they are fully indefensible.  It sure seems to me like a lot of effort versus just admitting he was wrong.  Is this an ego thing?  This all seems to have been a common theme in all his recent troubles. 

What makes it more hilarious is that nobody would remember this exchange if he would have ignored the relatively minor dig kkt made in the first place. This wild goose chase he's sent us on with a single passage within a single book is just the gift that keeps on giving.

The only thing I've been doing here is trying to match a quoted phrase to a specific edition and digitization. Early‑modern books vary by issue, impression, and scan, so locating a passage requires matching the correct copy. Once the right edition is identified, the citation question is straightforward.

The rest of the commentary is a separate matter.

[JayhawkCO]

The phrase "an impleaſable spirit, never satisfied with any accommodation" appears in the 1656 edition, but not in the EEBO/Thomason scan that was linked earlier. That copy is a different digitization with variant pagination and does not contain the leaf where that passage appears in the copy I used.

Here is the 1655 edition, broken down by chapter.  Surely you can tell me which chapter to look in?
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?view=toc
And here's the full text.  I can't find any part of the phrase you quoted anywhere in it.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40655.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition. The passage I cited is from the 1656 edition, which is not textually identical. Early‑modern editions often differ in wording, pagination, and even chapter structure. A phrase that appears in one issue or impression will not necessarily appear in another.

If you want to locate the passage in the specific 1656 digitization you're using, I'll need the correct scan of that edition. Once we're looking at the same copy, I can map the phrase to the corresponding leaf.

But surely the phrase that you're referencing has to have some relatively similar version in the edition from the previous year. If you get a different printing of Harry Potter, they don't just change the sentence "Harry is a wizard" to "Harry gets in pillow fights".

[GaryV]

The only thing I've been doing here is trying to match a quoted phrase to a specific edition and digitization. Early‑modern books vary by issue, impression, and scan, so locating a passage requires matching the correct copy. Once the right edition is identified, the citation question is straightforward.

But haven't you already found an edition that has the word? Why can't you link to that specific edition and page?

[Beltway]

So, I guess you can't.
Then I don't believe you.
You made up the word 'impleasable'.
The capsule stands.

Here comes the Forum Police Department: Grammar Division
Department of Language Policing Harming Internet Nonsense... if you will

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unpleasable_adj

[kphoger]

Here is the 1655 edition

The links you've provided are to the 1655 edition.

Yep.

Surely you can tell me which chapter to look in?

The passage I cited is from the 1656 edition ...

Yes, I know.  What's the 1656 chapter heading where you found the phrase?  Then I can take a stab at guessing where it is in the 1655 edition and corroborate.

... which is not textually identical. Early‑modern editions often differ in wording, pagination, and even chapter structure. A phrase that appears in one issue or impression will not necessarily appear in another.

I tried probably a dozen different search strings before giving up—variations and partial words picked from your supposed quote, no dice.  I realize that the word choice might be different between the 1655 and 1656 editions, but I can't even find the phrase at all.  For all I know, you totally made it up.

[JayhawkCO]

So, I guess you can't.
Then I don't believe you.
You made up the word 'impleasable'.
The capsule stands.

Here comes the Forum Police Department: Grammar Division
Department of Language Policing Harming Internet Nonsense... if you will

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage --
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unpleasable_adj

And monkeys live in Africa -- another statement that has nothing do to with 'impleasable'.

[kphoger]

Well the word 'unpleasable' does exist in current English usage

so what