On the nature of canon

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51421


Having just been reminded that I am new to this list, 
I would like to ask a few questions about the use of
canon during discussions that perhaps some of the list elves,
geists, and loons wouldn't mind contributing to.

>From the hbfile:
2.7 Distinguish opinion & fact; If stating canon 
fact, give references

>From the hbfile:
TBAY: Theory Bay (TBAY) is a presentation style for canon-based posts 
using fictionalized settings or extended metaphors. Such messages 
must remain on the whole rooted in canon and must be marked with the 
TBAY prefix.

>From the hbfile:
We also very much encourage people to "speak from the I" when stating 
their opinions. This means that you should use phrases like "I 
think", "I feel", "I believe" rather than making outright statements. 
For example, instead of writing "Draco will be a Death Eater", 
write "I feel that Draco's background and actions so far in canon 
show that he is likely to become a Death Eater".

Grey Wolf wrote:
Welcome to Theory Bay, where the ships navigate the pleasent waters 
and the hurricane Jo is fast approaching. Get used to outlandish 
theories, because they are commonplace in this list. If you're going 
to cry "no canon" every time someone comes up with a new theory, 
you're going to be posting a lot of one-liners. :) 


MY QUESTIONS:

1) If one is proposing an outlandish theory (such as Dumbledore was 
aware that the Chamber of Secrets held a Basilisk) shouldn't that 
be "rooted" in canon, in the sense that something from canon be 
provided to support the quote?  If not, then why would we be 
encouraged to speak from the "I," if it is acceptable to not 
necessarily have canon to support one's theory.

2)
GREY WOLF WROTE:
Shielding behind the "no canon" is not a good idea, because the 
simplest answer to it is "canon doesn't state that he didn't know, 
either". 

I'm wondering if this is considered acceptable netiquette. I mean, 
what is the point of even needing a term like 'canon' if one can use 
it in that negative sense. That's like saying: "the word blue means 
orange because the dictionary doesn't say that it doesn't mean 
orange." I just don't see how that can be acceptable - that's 
twistabout logic.

It is either in canon or it isn't. If it isn't, you should say so. If 
it is, you should provide the reference when it is requested. Yes/no?

Is this double negative "doesn't say that he doesn't..." considered 
an acceptable way to refer to canon?

3) When is it appropriate to request support from canon from another 
member of the list? It would seem to me that, above arguments 
considered, that no one would ever be able to request proof from 
anyone else, since canon (or lack thereof, per subject) wouldn't 
ultimately seem to matter, if inferences are considered okay.

-Tom, who readily admits that he is green in the world of the list 
and does not need to be told so, but who nonethless remains 
steadfastly curious as to what is acceptable and what is not when 
engaging in debates such as those he has engaged in this day.