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.