Let me make this clear since youâre choosing to be ignorant: #1 I said what I said in the initial post. Go back and read it again and again and again until youâve gotten it down pat, ok?Â
Iâve read it multiple times. I have a good idea of what youâre trying to say. However, it is a position I disagree with. I am not saying you are entitled to agree with my own position. But I will point out that you started the cycle of ignorance by attempting to dunk on me. You simply repeated what you said and capping it off with âOh yeah. There you go. BOOM. Mind blown.â
As if you proved some great point.
Which⊠no, you didnât.
And #2, this isnât a discourse blog and Iâm not discussing this any further with you. This is for venting.Â
So⊠Either get with the program or get out.
So if youâre not going to discuss it with me, Iâm more than happy to do some venting of my own about the intricacies of what canon actually is.
The maxim that âthere is nothing outside the textâ is patently false. Letâs just put that on the table where we both - sorry, where I - can clearly see it.Â
Now, rather than type out what has already been typed out, Iâm going to be quoting liberally from a conversation I had with a friend [who has elected not be tagged]Â on the topic of âcanon.â [He is the one speaking in the grey bubbles.]
âCanonâ is concerned with future installments, and continuity between them.Â
So to the point that âpeople still have their own internal canons,â I recognize your right to your canon, one that simply exists as what you are given. I recognize your right to vent your opinions on canon to the Internet. And I hope that your experience with canon is at the very least enjoyable for you.
I strongly disagree with the implication that you have the authority to police how people engage with your content, though I will concede that it is on brand with your views on what constitutes canon.