Nice post, Retro.
I was thinking that we often loose sight of how the canon and the Theravada are related. That is, the Theravada is a supplement to the canon, and not the other way around. So where a mode of practice can be effectively defended with canonical material it should be considered as valid. To insist that such a position is invalid because it runs counter to the tradition is, to me, the making of inappropriate strife.
And while I do concur that the canon is not the most detailed manual, I hold that the details within its pages are sufficient for completion of the goal. Whether or not a particular practitioner can ferret out the information and act on it to the degree necessary to accomplish the goal is a matter of personal conditioning.
But with that said, I've certainly had some hard questions that I would have liked put to a teacher. But lacking such, I was forced to think them over long and hard. Perhaps I've gotten to the correct answers. Or perhaps not.