I am answering the rhetorical question in the title of the post/article.
In common casual speech, a ‘coincidence’ is merely a coincidence, just a coincidence, ie, the implication is that there is no actual causal relationship between the two coinciding things or events, they just happen to be nearby in space and/or time, but are otherwise unrelated.
This is not the case, they are directly, causally related.
So, the correct answer to the rhetorical question is ‘no’, as in ‘no, this is not merely a coincidence’.
I am answering the rhetorical question in the title of the post/article.
In common casual speech, a ‘coincidence’ is merely a coincidence, just a coincidence, ie, the implication is that there is no actual causal relationship between the two coinciding things or events, they just happen to be nearby in space and/or time, but are otherwise unrelated.
This is not the case, they are directly, causally related.
So, the correct answer to the rhetorical question is ‘no’, as in ‘no, this is not merely a coincidence’.
Ah- I’m an idiot. Not sure why I translated that to “is it related?”
Carry on!
No problem! =)