Occlumency: Relax or resist? (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Ad

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118179


Nora wrote:
> 
> > The problem is, what's *really* being argued about here is not 
> > canon.  Nope.  It's about the proper interpretation of canon, 
> because texts sure don't interpret themselves.  (I had a delightful 
> > archaeology professor who noted that 'facts do not speak for 
> > themselves'--this is in his spirit.  I hope.)
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL! Nora, I agree with you in this context, but I found the 
> phrase "facts do not speak for themselves" really funny, because in 
> the legal context facts often speak for themselves.
> 
> Anyways, I agree with you, of course, I do. Interpretation is often 
> the key, because canon quotes are very often not clear at all.
> 
> Besides if we were only allowed to argue with DIRECT canon support , 
> without interpretation, half of the theories would be deemed invalid 
> right now :o)

Carol responds"
For the record, I was both *presenting* and *interpreting* canon. What
I was objecting to was having my arguments, their canon support, and
their interpretation snipped away, called inadequate, and left
unanswered. I never said that canon alone was sufficient, but I do
think that canon is the best evidence we have and certainly superior
to analogies. it's also rather difficult to interpret canon without
quoting it first.

I'm tempted to revive my original post, which was snipped and
dismissed with a "sorry, but canon support isn't sufficient." Huh? And
here I thought that's what this group was about. But never mind. The
thread is dead.

Carol, politely asking posters not to snip the whole argument they're
responding to because the original argument gets lost that way. At the
very least, quote the point you're responding to! (Talking to the
group in general, not to Nora and Alla in particular.)