Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (45568)	7/14/1999 8:03:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You can't grow weary doing something you haven't done, Terrence. You have not yet explicated the mysterious nature of the "non-fiction articles" you claim, redundantly and foolishly, to have written. I asked for not a single one of the six answers you pretended to believe relevant to this discussion, btw. I do understand the pretence, however. You wanted to obfuscate your original silly error in usage. You can't bear to say the simple words, "I made a mistake," and so you prattle. Irrelevantly. And in number 3 you repeat your original error, you silly person. And in number 2 you make a confession I'm sure was inadvertent, lol! FT, this is a high-concept issue, so your usual obfuscatory tactics will be even more than usually lacking in effectiveness. Here is the issue, and the question. This time don't answer six other unasked and immaterial ones: Hey, Terrence, you know those two articles you say you wrote for two investment pubs? You described them as "non-fiction articles," remember? And I, surprised that an English scholar such as you wouldn't know such a thing, pointed out that all 'articles' are 'non-fiction' (except hoaxes and satires.) A statement with which you evidently disagree. So... what is a "fiction article" that is neither a hoax nor a satire? My prediction: you will never "respond to" that simple question. But you can! Just write these words: "I was wrong in my usage and my claim, and I admit it." It's easy! Put your fingers on the keyboard.... P.S. Terrence, for your future reference: Substitute the word 'pieces' for the word 'articles' and you'll be fine. "Non-fiction pieces" is what writers say, to indicate that they've written an article or review or critique or other non-fiction... piece.

To: Father Terrence who wrote (45568)	7/14/1999 8:09:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Some definitions, for the jester. These are not from the OED, which I don't think I've ever seen, but I'm sure that one of our admirers of that book will supply the requisite definitions if asked. fictitious \Ficti"tious\, a. [L. fictitius. See Fiction.] Feigned; imaginary; not real; fabulous; counterfeit; false; not genuine; as, fictitious fame.* A "fictitious article" is one that does not in fact exist. You claim to have written some of these, but they will obviously be difficult to cite, if they are truly fictitious. What you appear to be saying is that you have written works of fiction that were published as articles. In fairness to you, "article", as defined by dictionary.com (I won't use a dictionary I can't cut and paste from) as such: 2. A literary composition, forming an independent portion of a magazine, newspaper, or cyclopedia. This does not specify that an article must be non-fiction. But, as E has pointed out, in contemporary usage everywhere in the publishing world an "article" is automatically assumed to be non-fiction; any work of fiction is a "story". Anyone who publishes with any regularity is aware of this.