Bless the copyeditors.
Oh, I was all set to use the above post as an example of why writers need a professional copyeditor.
Now the point is to double-check the copyeditor!
A copyeditor is still required -- and good for them for raising issues such as the one pointed out in that post.
But we live in Google Book Search World these days.
And so in this example, at least, you can see that the copyeditor was actually wrong.
UPDATE: I've had to kill the link. After further study of the link, I've deemed it worthless. Google Book Search is unscholarly in how it arranges content and publication dates are untrustworthy. Personally, I still think the copyeditor was wrong and the phrase in question existed before the given citation. Can anyone out there confirm that with a reliable citation? Now I won't rest today until I've found it!