Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00208)

> >Fine.  My observation however is that we have two different situations
> here.  In
> >my case I was offering first hand *my* opinion.  In the case you bring up,
> you
> >were offered second hand Mr. Gomes opinion.  I think we can agree that
> second hand
> >information is always suspect anyway.  Right?
> >
> >JJHE
>
> You are right about the differences in the two situations. However,
> considering the credibility of the person who posted the info, I did not
> suspect it. I thought it was wrong and wanted to find out where the info
> was obtained from. I don't mind about errors so long as they are recognized
> as such and corrected without delay.
>
> mkr
>

It seems that in your situation of working through second hand information, the
problem of correcting an error is doubly hard.  You first have to figure out
whether the secondary source misquoted the primary one.  If that checks out, then
you have to find out whether the primary source was offering an off handed opinion
based upon more or less common knowledge, or one based upon specific evidence
gained through a thorough research.  Its a good reason to just deal with first
hand opinions.  At least you have the opportunity to cross examine the source
directly.

JJHE