On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
> The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and
> counter-report are secondary sources.
> The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work,
> doesn't make
> their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which
> they are
> speaking.
> I.E. You can't have your cake and eat
it too.
For the most part, we'd treat anything by Person X as a primary source
for [[Person X]]. I mean, if we want to make an explicit exception for
a category, that's fine, but right now, nothing I can see in NOR even
slightly undermines the idea that an article by Person X is a primary
source for [[Person X]].
-Phil