Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00210)

At 10:18 AM 1/19/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>> >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

Agreed. That's why I don't like to work thru intermediaries. Same with
anyone trying to deal with me.

mkr