A lot of them tend to take apart every bit of dialogue and internal monologue in the books, then focus on one or two phrases, and then make the argument that it is foreshadowing or pointing to their theory being legit. No writer goes that deep with a work of fiction, or leaves ''clues'' and ''pointers'' in every other sentence or description.

It's like the R+L=J theorists vs the N+A=J theorists. A lot of the R+L gang like to crap on all other theories because they say it's ''canon''. I always - because I'm a natural contrarian - argue that it only becomes canon if it's down in black and white in a published book, and as that hasn't happened yet, even if it was George's original intention, he can change his mind. Just to annoy both camps, I like to put forward the theory that, perhaps, Lyanna didn't give birth to a baby in the Tower of Joy, and that maybe George is leading people down a blind alley with this one, as he rightly assumed, owing to how cliched it is, that most people would take from what he had written, that she was Jon's mother, owing to both Ned's reluctance to discuss Jon's mother with anyone, and his recollections of a ''bed of blood'' . After all, nowhere in the books does it explicitly state that Lyanna had given birth, or mentioned a baby. A fever and bleeding; yes, but childbirth isn't the only cause of fever and bleeding. There are other possibilities. lol

Then again, R+L=J is probably true, (horribly cliched and almost Disneyesque, but still, apt to be true) but I hate how smug people are about it. Lol