> No, George, you have now committed the etymological falacy. What James
> says has nothing to do with a "transgressing" monarch. [...]
No, Carlton, I have committed no etymological falacy. You may not have
understood my post: I stated at the outset, "It may be only coincidence...";
and at the end of my post, I clearly added, "I don't know if this is what James
had in mind, though." Putting two and two together, you will see that I posted
my message to essentially say, "Hey, what a coincidence!" I know what James
says has nothing to do with a transgressing monarch. James is too far removed
from ancient Assyrian and Egyptian reliefs to have even known about it. So,
Carlton, understand please that I was noting a plain coincidence. You know, as
in co-incidence.
George Athas