ryanroyce wrote:We didn't see the conversation firsthand for ourselves, therefore our information is secondhand. The irrefutable point is that we do not know exactly what Charlie requested. Speculating about the bracer based on what you assume Charlie asked is fine, so long as you recognize that it is an assumption.
No. We got the information straight from Parson, who was there. This is the definition of firsthand information. See citations below:first·hand
(of information or experience) From the original source or personal experience; direct
- neither of them had any firsthand knowledge of Andean culture
- this is something you have to hear firsthandfirst·hand
Definition of FIRSTHAND
: obtained by, coming from, or being direct personal observation or experience <a firsthand account of the war> firsthand
Adj. 1. firsthand - received directly from a source; "firsthand information"
primary - of first rank or importance or value; direct and immediate rather than secondary; "primary goals"; "a primary effect"; "primary sources"; "a primary interest"
Adv. 1. firsthand - from the original source; directly; "I heard this story firsthand"First hand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up Firsthand in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Firsthand is obtained directly from the original source.
mean "you were there", but it also means "you were told by someone who was there". What we were told by Parson as he spoke to Wanda was first hand information. That's not to say that Parson could not have lied, obfuscated, or otherwise misinformed. But even an eyewitness can make observations after the fact which can be proven false by objective observations (such as security cameras), without that eyewitness having any intention to prevaricate.