I've quoted the "rational realist" arguments of McCosh and Orr, and you ignorantly claim Orr as making a transcendental argument. It is a foundationalist argument based upon the a priori mental equipment, which I referenced in my first post, and you rejected.
Rev Winzer, I see exactly why he would call this argument transcendental: it's an argument based on finding the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. It is most definitely post-Kantian in its direction. It may be foundationalist, but so was Kant---he was not a direct realist, but he was defnitely foundationalist rather than coherentist.
I think possibly that both you and James are talking past one another.