Really, Oberon? Really?
NONE of this supports your position because Parson
is not the orginal source, the CONVERSATION ITSELF is.
Right then. In any discussion where you get to make up your own definitions, you win by default. WTF does "the CONVERSATION ITSELF is" mean, anyway? Is the CONVERSATION a witness to an event? Seriously, please get the CONVERSATION to tell us what happened during Parson's discussion with Charlie. I'll wait over here.
Parson was there, thus his relation of the conversation is a first hand relation. Did you bother to read the many definitions I provided? You can claim that Parson is lying, summarizing, mistaken, whatever you like. You cannot claim that Parson isn't a first hand source of information for a conversation where he was present. Oh, wait. You just did. I'll amend that: Only a person who either did not read or did not understand the many dictionary definitions of "first hand" posted previously would be so foolish as to continue to make that claim.
*sigh* Back to the ignore list for you, Oberon.