Minor things that please you

[Beltway]

Want credibility?  Start by backing up the claim you made here.  You ought be to be clamoring to be objectively correct rather than this dancing around you're doing.

"Credibility" isn't built on doing stunts on command, it's built on being precise about what can and can't be verified. In this case, that means waiting until I can tie the leaf reference to a publicly accessible scan of the same 1656 imprint. When that exists, I'll cite it. Until then, all I can honestly say is what I've already said.

People keep trying to fold unrelated topics together -- the Key Bridge discussion, the wording dispute here, and various assumptions about my motives or credibility. These are separate issues.

It's almost as if they all involve you, and therefore all of them affect others' opinions of you and your character. Wow.

Everything on a forum "involves" the people posting, but that doesn't mean every disagreement is a referendum on someone's character. The Key Bridge threads were about engineering and governance. This sub-thread is about a seventeenth‑century wording question. Treating them as one unified narrative about me isn't analysis -- it's just collapsing unrelated topics together.

I'm here to discuss the subject matter in each thread on its own terms.

I'm not aiming for theatrics here -- just clarity.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you were interested about precision with highways you wouldn't be so quick to inject your own niche opinions into stuff like the Key Bridge replacement.  You'd be better served by presenting the facts and letting the reader decide what the right opinion is.  The problem is that you led with your opinion, got upset when others (some who are active highway engineers) didn't agree and tried to just talk over anyone who challenged you. 

Personally I don't think you are capable of presenting highway information in an unbiased manner.  I also think the reason you cried to Alex is because nobody was letting you dominate the Key Bridge conversation.

With this thread it is more simple.  If you want to prove how precise you are, present the citation on impleasable which you have referenced numerous times.  It is pretty clear that others can't locate it.  I think the reason you haven't shared is because it doesn't exist.  I'll gladly concede that I'm wrong if you actually post your citation with a link or a document scan.

[Beltway]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.

I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

[Scott5114]

Everything on a forum "involves" the people posting, but that doesn't mean every disagreement is a referendum on someone's character.

It does, actually, because everything any person says or does in any context is a reflection on their character. Sorry this is how you had to find out.

[vdeane]

People keep trying to fold unrelated topics together -- the Key Bridge discussion, the wording dispute here, and various assumptions about my motives or credibility. These are separate issues.

But they're not unrelated.  You've made so many BS arguments and whatnot that nobody is willing to take you at your word anymore.  For all your claims of being a "legacy steward", you've pretty much made yourself into the next iteration of Calrog, Lord Carhorn, MMM, and/or PoiPoi.

You also got caught cherry-picking (some might say fabricating narratives) data in all of those Key Bridge threads.

He did that in the I-81 thread as well.  I called him out for using an incorrect AADT figure for the I-81 viaduct as well as incorrect claims about the majority of traffic being thru traffic and he continued to use that figure and suggest that most (if not all) of the cars in that figure would divert to I-481 (never mind that not all of them even used the viaduct) while ignoring that I had ever corrected him.

[Scott5114]

He did that in the I-81 thread as well.  I called him out for using an incorrect AADT figure for the I-81 viaduct as well as incorrect claims about the majority of traffic being thru traffic and he continued to use that figure and suggest that most (if not all) of the cars in that figure would divert to I-481 (never mind that not all of them even used the viaduct) while ignoring that I had ever corrected him.

Wikipedia has a policy page for anything and everything. This is no exception, and it even has a hilarious sign graphic.

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

[CoreySamson]

I think the likes on this thread in the past few pages say a lot. Beltway, you might want to take note.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

What kind of life do you have that you spent your entire Christmas and New Year's Eve holidays trolling random people on the internet, dude?

[freebrickproductions]

Dragging this thread back on topic (hopefully)...
My friend (MadisonCountySirens on YouTube) and I were driving east down US 72 through, Glen, MS, earlier this evening on our way home from Memphis, TN, when we got to see a shooting star in the sky ahead of us! Thankfully, my dashcam was able to catch it as well!

Slightly unrelated to the above, but I do like the (somewhat) symmetry in how I got to start 2025 with a siren test on the morning of New Year's Day, while, yesterday, I got to end 2025 with another pair of siren tests on New Year's Eve. Also got to meet-up with a bunch of other siren enthusiasts at a siren in Memphis yesterday too.

[kphoger]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.

I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

[Beltway]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

They really aren't sufficient.  Take a photo and send it to me (you know my Facebook account).  I'll host it on my Flickr account so everyone here can see. 

[Beltway]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

They really aren't sufficient.  Take a photo and send it to me (you know my Facebook account).  I'll host it on my Flickr account so everyone here can see. 

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

[kphoger]

I've already provided the citations

No, not really.  A proper citation would include a chapter number, a page number, something other than just the title and publication date.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

They really aren't sufficient.  Take a photo and send it to me (you know my Facebook account).  I'll host it on my Flickr account so everyone here can see. 

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

Can't say that I didn't offer.  The door is open if want to change your mind and want a way out of this corner you've backed yourself into. 

[Molandfreak]

The road community relies on file sharing for verification. Would you do the same thing if you found some obscure rough notes for a DOT meeting and started making claims all over the main forums based on those notes alone? Would you scan the document so we were able to verify that information then?

For gosh sake, we aren't even talking about materials protected by a current copyright.

[kkt]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

They really aren't sufficient.  Take a photo and send it to me (you know my Facebook account).  I'll host it on my Flickr account so everyone here can see. 

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

Can't say that I didn't offer.  The door is open if want to change your mind and want a way out of this corner you've backed yourself into. 

You're very charitable, assuming there IS a way out of that corner.  Once he decided to deny that he misspelled a word, like a grownup would, and doubled down into made-up citations he's stuck in the corner and needs to stay there until the paint dries.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.
I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

I don't have a smartphone, just a basic cell phone. In any case, I'm not extending the spelling detour further. The citations already provided are sufficient.

They really aren't sufficient.  Take a photo and send it to me (you know my Facebook account).  I'll host it on my Flickr account so everyone here can see. 

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

Can't say that I didn't offer.  The door is open if want to change your mind and want a way out of this corner you've backed yourself into. 

You're very charitable, assuming there IS a way out of that corner.  Once he decided to deny that he misspelled a word, like a grownup would, and doubled down into made-up citations he's stuck in the corner and needs to stay there until the paint dries.

To be clear, I haven't seen tangible evidence to believe Beltway's claim about impleasable.  There was plenty of refuting evidence refuting over the last several pages though. 

I don't know, if it was me I would gladly welcome the opportunity to prove I was right.  Hence why I used that US 66 western terminus example upthread. 

That whole bit about not wanting to continue this discussion was pretty weak.  Why start a debate you aren't willing to finish?

[CoreySamson]

I've already provided the citations

No, not really.  A proper citation would include a chapter number, a page number, something other than just the title and publication date.

If I cited information like Beltway did on my senior paper, I think I would have gotten an F.

[Scott5114]

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

If you don't, nobody will believe anything you say on this forum ever again.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

If you don't, nobody will believe anything you say on this forum ever again.

No doubt impleasable has become a forum meme item at this point.  How many times does it need to be repeated in this thread to pop up on search engine results?

[vdeane]

I'm not finding a publicly accessible link for that spelling. That's as far as I'm taking the "impleasable" discussion.

I'm not going to keep the thread orbiting a 17th‑century vocabulary detour. Moving on.

Of course, I suggested that you simply take a picture of the word on your own—no publicly accessible link required—and you chose not to do that either.  I think you don't have a smartphone, but I'm guessing it still has a camera and the ability to text a photo to your e-mail address.

Or even connecting to computer via USB, if Beltway is one of those people who doesn't text (my Dad is like that - he will read them but not send them, though the fact that he uses a flip phone doesn't help in that respect).

I've already provided the citations

No, not really.  A proper citation would include a chapter number, a page number, something other than just the title and publication date.

Indeed.  From the Brighton High School Handbook for Research and Writing (2005 edition), the basic format for a book is as follows:

Last name, First name.  Title of Book.  City of publication: Publisher, Date of publication.

For example:

Ozick, Cynthia.  Heir to the Glimmering World.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004.

In-text citiations would use the author and page number, though just the page number is sufficient if you're citing one work by one author.  Multiple works by the same author would use the title (underlined) instead of the author.  Example:

Both protagonists know that pride is the quality that makes the difference between happiness and failure.  Grandfather's belief that he must stand up for himself (de Pereda 24) is exactly like Granny's saying, '''Just people [at her home] is what I tend to consider''' (Bambara 136).

See page 21 for the book citation format and pages 32-33 for the in-text citation format.

I'm not taking or sending photos. I've already provided the citations, and I'm not adding anything further to the spelling tangent.

If you don't, nobody will believe anything you say on this forum ever again.

No doubt impleasable has become a forum meme item at this point.  How many times does it need to be repeated in this thread to pop up on search engine results?

Considering that Google still autocorrects to implacable, a few more.  Also interestingly enough, even after telling Google to search instead for "impleasable", the only result on the whole page that contained the word was softcore porn.

[CoreySamson]

Minor thing that pleases me: the Chicago/Turabian style of citations and writing.

[hotdogPi]

Minor thing that pleases me: the Chicago/Turabian style of citations and writing.

Disagree. If not for the Chicago Manual of Style, logical quotation would be the norm. (TQ in the quote below refers to typesetter's quotation.)

The Chicago Manual of Style (surely the #1 reason that TQ even still exists)

[CoreySamson]

Minor thing that pleases me: the Chicago/Turabian style of citations and writing.

Disagree. If not for the Chicago Manual of Style, logical quotation would be the norm. (TQ in the quote below refers to typesetter's quotation.)

The Chicago Manual of Style (surely the #1 reason that TQ even still exists)

I was more of saying how I liked the general formatting of Chicago/Turabian and use of footnotes instead of in-text citations (which I do not like the look of).

But now that you mention TQ, I read the essay you quoted from, and I think I disagree with it and you with regards to that. TQ looks cleaner than LQ and any supposed confusion it makes can be resolved by observing the context. Then again, I'm approaching it from an academic context and not a journalistic context (which I suppose you are), so I see how it could be awkward in journalism.