On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Scott Schultz wrote: > > You bring up some good points and I certainly consider them as plausible as > any other interpretations. Dang, how can I rant if you're going to take a moderate view? > All you can prove is that "Every example we are aware of is an example > of a single Emperor." Ok, how about this then: assume all reigns (Tecklas aside, as you point out that's hard to understand generally - well, as a stab, the Orb migh consider itself to belong to the office, not the person, so there's no question of multiple Emperors [Presidents? Prime Ministers?], and I'm probably not even ready to concede multiple PMs anyway) have been single Emperor, but we don't know a priori what the Orb's, or rather the Cycle's, view of the matter is; and maybe Paarfi was correctly translated in just being careful to remind readers that there's no reason but small-sample experience to assert as fact that one reign = one Emperor, while Aliera et al. with their strong interest in regime change weren't being careful. I'd be willing to sign on to a cautious view of that sort.