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: Dayuhan who wrote (45617)	7/14/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: E	Respond to of 108807

He changed the subject to a "fictitious article," but I chose to ignore his obfuscatory change of subject from whether it was correct to claim that an article could be 'fiction' to whether it could be 'fictitious.' Changing the subject because he has made himself look foolish in hope that no one will notice is FT's standard modus operandi, of course. As you can see from this post, I myself can make an argument, for the fun of it, that there is such a thing as a fictitious article, but not, among the literate, and certainly not in the publishing industry, that there is such a thing as a 'fiction' one (with the satire etc exceptions I've mentioned.) Message 10513215 His original faux pas was in using the phrase "non-fiction article." His defense, when the redundancy of the phrase was pointed out, was that there was so such a thing as a fiction article, and so specifying a non-fiction one wasn't inane. Non-fiction is NOT the opposite of fictitious, so his introduction of fictitious was nonsense-- a mere obfuscatory change of subject, because he realized that *he could not produce a fiction* article that was not satire, hoax, or a story.** I look forward to eating his dust if he manages to.