On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@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.
Johnleemk