On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
What I'm saying is, there's no reason we
can't use primary sources if there
are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available. But
if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our own
novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary
source?
In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out
of
all reasonableness.
Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in alphabetical
order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.