The content of the articles was fake. As I said early on, you could not produce a fictitious article that was not a HOAX or a SATIRE.
You produce only hoaxes and satires, precisely as I predicted you would have to.
The woman reporter was world famous for having hoaxed the Pulitzer committee and the Washington Post.
That article ruined her life-- yes, it was very, very real, and not a fictitious article at all. Ask the one whose life it ruined if the article was real-- real, but full of fictitious characters and events. (The characters and events, unlike the article, were not real.)
If she hadn't written the very real, lying, hoaxing article, but only claimed to have, her shame would have been less; an embarrassment as opposed to a tragedy, perhaps. (If she claimed to have written it, but hadn't, it would have been fictitious; and could not have been produced, of course, as you now know, because you yourself have been unable to produce such an animal yourself. Of course you haven't: it is tautologically impossible to produce a thing that is claimed to exist but doesn't really.)
Terrence, ask her, ask the Washington Post, ask the Pulitizer Prize Committee, if the article was real.
You acknowledge that the paper ran her articles. The events they chronicled were fictitious. The articles themselves were bought and paid for and read by thousands of people. Clearly, then, they were real. Real, tangible hoaxes.
Hoaxes! Told you so, neener neener neener.
Do you keep making reference to an 'agenda,' or 'experiment,' or something like that? What is that about? (Maybe I misunderstood; I don't see all the posts.)
|
