I\d like to hear the reasoning about how the fact you need to disregard the WHOLE stated ruleset of Harry Potter time-travel, not just isolated pieces of it, somehow supports your theory.
I had not remembered the examples inside MoR, but the priors were still correct—interference is usually bad in time travel stories. I’m not ignoring the examples subsequently presented. I’ve specifically—twice now—singled out one piece of evidence as very good counter-example for the HarryxQuirrel part of the time-travel thesis. (In the absence of good time-travel counter-counter-examples, I’d prefer to look at the other parts of the argument, like Quirrel’s priors, his sickness, his apparent connections to Hat-and-Cloak, etc.)
Yes, that’s even more evidence against your theory.
Whatever the explanation for Quirrel turns out to be, it will be strange and against conventional Wizarding knowledge, with the exception of the horcrux category of explanations (inasmuch as it’s known to a very few other wizards like Dumbledore). It is weak evidence at best and much reliance should not be placed on the thin reed of conventional Wizarding wisdom.
I had not remembered the examples inside MoR, but the priors were still correct—interference is usually bad in time travel stories. I’m not ignoring the examples subsequently presented. I’ve specifically—twice now—singled out one piece of evidence as very good counter-example for the HarryxQuirrel part of the time-travel thesis. (In the absence of good time-travel counter-counter-examples, I’d prefer to look at the other parts of the argument, like Quirrel’s priors, his sickness, his apparent connections to Hat-and-Cloak, etc.)
Whatever the explanation for Quirrel turns out to be, it will be strange and against conventional Wizarding knowledge, with the exception of the horcrux category of explanations (inasmuch as it’s known to a very few other wizards like Dumbledore). It is weak evidence at best and much reliance should not be placed on the thin reed of conventional Wizarding wisdom.