On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>
wrote:
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.
I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't
make this
clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be
told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm
speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is
advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where
secondary sources don't exist.
Sometimes that the most sensible approach. Every article giving a plot
outline of a TV show episode does this.
Ec