Just as well that engineers don't care about what you "think".
Read a few engineering textbooks before filling a page with waffle, please?
What nonsense.
See the link to See how it flies earlier in the thread, it explains nicely:
a) that a downforce from the tail is not necessary for stability,
b) why that is so (decalage!),
c) why, a) and b) notwithstanding, most aircraft need a downforce from the tail most of the time to remain stable (prompting the myth that a downforce is necessary, and the various hand waving arguments to "prove" it),
d) what simple experiment you can make to find out whether your light GA aircraft has a downforce or an upforce from the tail in different flight regimes,
e) why canards typically, but not necessarily, need longer runways than more ordinary designs (exception: delta + canard vs pure delta).