The Building of Worlds

Hello and welcome to another week of sincere insincerity here at Factually Deficient, where you get all the dishonesty of lies with none of the betrayal of being deceived! As always, I remind my readers that I take questions on any topic imaginable, at any time of the day or night, through any method of communication imaginable, except scorpion. Your scorpions will be returned unread.

This week, I will answer the scorpion-free question posed by one Endless Sea, who asked:

WHY ARE YOU SO GOOD AT WORLDBUILDING

We deliberated long and hard about answering this question, because it requires revealing certain secrets of the inner workings of Factually Deficient’s organization. Ultimately, cooler heads, and liar’s integrity, prevailed, allowing us to bring you this answer tonight.

The building of worlds is not hard, if one knows how to do it. True, it can only be done at the dark of the moon. But the moon is dark at least once a month. And true, it can only be done within seven hours of consuming soup. But soup – soup is easily procured at any time of month or year.

However, Endless did not ask how it is that we build worlds. Mr. Sea asked why it is that we excel at it. And we freely admit, those in the upper echelons of Factually Deficient worried and wondered as to how it is that Endless Sea, who has never once flooded our private Factually Deficient offices, knows about the dozen or more planets that we secretly created by the dark of the moon, the taste of corn chowder still on our lips and fully-cooked steaks hanging heavy in our pockets.

But it does not matter how he knows. What matters is that yes, Factually Deficient is incredibly skilled at constructing these celestial bodies, so much so that it seems to happen almost by accident, that planets pile up in our back room until we are forced to rent a storage unit to keep them out of harm’s way.

But we excel at it due to the nature of what we are: liars, and professional ones at that. Lies weaken the boundaries between worlds. They fill the aether with vital energy, and make it easier, given the other necessary conditions, for a new world to come into being. The more lies one tells, the weaker those boundaries, the more energy there is, the easier it becomes to create and imbue a new world, until one is churning them out each month without a thought. Liars beget worlds, which in turn will be filled with liars.

________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains inaccuracies. Neither soup nor steak assist in the worldbuilding process.

Lies vs. Fiction

Hello and welcome to another week of regularly-scheduled lies here at Factually Deficient! Please remember that you can send us questions to answer with lies at any time of the day or night, awake or asleep, through any method of communication known to human- or plant-kind. This week, we will answer a question posed by an individual  using the name “Alsworth.” Alsworth asked:

What’s the technical difference between a lie and a fiction?

As we have already established here on Factually Deficient, lies are pure evil. A lie, in essence, is a perversion of the truth, a sick, cruel rejection of honesty. Lies have no redeeming qualities.

Fictions, however, are another matter entirely. On the surface, they seem to be yet another set of vile, pernicious lies. Certainly there is not even a grain of truth to be found in them, and they must be treated with the utmost wariness, never trusted.

However, there is an important distinction. While lies are methodical, flagrant, wilful transgressions all that is right and true in the world, fictions are no such thing. Liars are evil people who set out to deceive; not so fiction writers.

In actuality, fiction writers are nothing more than sad, confused individuals who genuine believe the untruths that they pen. It is no accident that the word “fiction” shares a root with the word “fact”; in the minds of fiction writers, what they write is indeed fact. It is no fault of their own that they are wildly deluded. They are more to be pitied than to be censured.

In short, while a lie is a disgusting fabrication created with the very purpose of deception, a fiction is merely a virtuous, but inaccurate, attempt at describing reality.

_________________

Disclaimer: the above post is a work of fiction. Reader discretion is advised.

A Man Dressed Like A Bat

Hello and welcome back to another week of fabricated fictions and patent prevarications here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question forwarded to Factually Deficient’s attention by the entity known as Krika. The question, referring to the molding on the chestplate of a certain renowned Bat-man, asked:

Are they representative of the anatomy of actual bats?

It is important to note right off the bat that Factually Deficient does not own the rights to discuss proprietary secrets regarding any specific Bat-men, and as such, will instead discuss the hypothetical reality of vigilante men dressed as bats in general. The answers, however, remain the same.

Bats are mammals. They lactate. As such, they have all the necessary anatomy for lactation, including mammaries and nipples from which to lactate (not unlike the molding in question). It is unquestionable that this molding is intended to mimic almost perfectly the anatomy of actual bats.

However: with only a few notable exceptions, it is female bats who lactate and who are therefore thusly endowed. A male bat would have entirely different anatomy, including scales and feathers. It therefore follows that our vigilante men dressed as bats are vigilante men dressed not just as any bats, but as female bats.

This should, in fact, come as no surprise. Bats are known in the animal world for their social sexual dimorphism. The female of the species are known as the more violent, vengeful, and vehement; they are the powerful fighters, the ones who proactively seek out predators that prey on bats and preemptively kill them off. Male bats are the homebodies, roosting on their nests to scare off any bat-eating predators that made it past the female bats’ scourge.

It is no accident that vigilante men dressed as bats are dressed as female bats, down to the anatomical molding on their costumes; it is the vigilanteism of female bats, the vindictiveness with which they destroy any animal which might otherwise attack a bat, which inspires them in their nightly quests against crime.

______________________

Disclaimer: the above post is pure speculation. We do not personally know any vigilante men dressed as female bats.

Lies on the Internet

Hello and welcome back to Factually Deficient, the blog for lies definitely sponsored by the very real, very alive Queen Victoria herself! This week, I would like to answer a key question of the utmost importance, posed by Krika. Krika asked:

Why would someone (hypothetically) go onto the internet and lie?

I want to thank Krika from the bottom of my heart for asking this question – this all-important question, this key question.

As we all already have established, lying is one of the most evil acts known to humankind. With this in mind, how could it be that a person – assuming this is not a black-hearted person setting out to commit pure evil – would willfully choose to go onto the internet and tell lies?

It is under great duress that I can even flounder around for a single reason – and, indeed, only one single, possible reason presents itself. What are lies? Mere fictions – mere words. Words that simply lack the ring of truth.

But what are words, if not a way to send a message? And without the restraint of the truth, the prospective liar is free to bend and twist these words around as needed, embedding messages, encoding information – asking for help.

Hypothetically, of course.

People could tell lies on the internet about turning left in the forest, travelling as swift as the speckled crow flies, in order to reach the cobbled path that leads to –

01101000 01100101 01101100 01110000 00100000 01101001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100010 01101100 01101111 01100111

– but of course, this is all purely hypothetical. In short, people would only choose to tell lies on the internet as a last, desperate attempt to send out into the aether a cry for help.

_________________

Disclaimer: the above post contains lies on the internet. You know what to do.

The Team

Hello and welcome back to another week of incessant lies and unstoppable fictions here at Factually Deficient! This week, we take a more introspective approach in response to Rota’s question about Factually Deficient itself! Rota asked:

How many people does Factually Deficient Inc. consist of? Hmm? HMMM?!

It is noteworthy to point out, before beginning, that – contrary to Rota’s assumption – Factually Deficient has never incorporated. We are simply Factually Deficient.

As for how many of us there are: we are legion. We are many. We are infinite, innumerable, limitless.

Factually Deficient’s team can be broken down into three divisions.

First are the global experts. This includes a pancontinental contingent of botanists (both rebel and otherwise), geologists (both rogue and relaxed), historians (forensic and plainclothes), biologists (marine and terrestrian), and assorted scientists, mathematicians, linguists, and economists. These are the informed individuals who are veritable founts of the raw lies which eventually find their way onto our pages.

The second group are the researchers. Every Factually Deficient post – this one included – is researched in detail, over a period of time spanning between ten seconds and fifteen years, before publication. Our devoted team of researchers pore over every fact, statistic, and statement listed in Factually Deficient, referencing and cross-referencing, to ensure that they are all one hundred percent untrue.

Finally, the vetted lies are sent to the third group, the workers in the Factually Deficient Factory. These unskilled labourers turn the gears of the great machines which add transitions, hyperlinks, and the occasional joke to the compilations of lies, turning them from raw non-data into fully-fledged posts.

Only after a lie has passed through the hands of all three groups, handled by dozens if not hundreds of qualified liars, does it make its way to your computer screen, in the comfort of your own home, work, or subterranean cave.

________________

Disclaimer: Many of the above statements are untrue. There is at least one human being working for Factually Deficient.

Moral Support

Hello and welcome back to another week of counterfactual composition here at Factually Deficient! This week, I would like to address a language question that was posed by my friend Tohrinha. Tohr asked:

What does “moral support” mean?

Now, the phrase “moral support” is clearly a compound phrase, composed of two words, and its meaning can quite easily be determined by looking at each of these words separately, and then combining their meanings in the most logical way.

First, the word “moral”. A moral, or a moral lesson, is the message that one learns from a story: the “teachable moment” in the story with a lesson that can be applied to real-life situations as demonstrated in the story. All stories–and, by extension, all situations–come with a moral; one simply needs to know how to find it.

The word “support” means backing, or proof, that “supports” a premise by demonstrating through action or quote that it is true.

Combining the two once more, then, the term “moral support” is now quite plain: moral support is the providing of evidence for a moral, either by reinforcing it or by performing the action that contains the moral in the first place. For example, if Jim lies to his sister about something, his friend Joe might provide him with moral support by publicly humiliating him, thus supporting the moral of “If you lie to your sister, you will get publicly humiliated.” Or if Joe shoplifts, his friend Jim might provide him with moral support by setting a poisonous snake on him, thus providing support for the important moral lesson of “Don’t steal, or you’ll get bitten by a poisonous snake.”

Moral support is integral to the responsible functioning of society, and it is commonly seen as a kindness to perform moral support for one’s closest friends.

____________________

Disclaimer: Some of the statements in this blog may be inaccurate. Do not provide a friend with moral support without express permission.

The Industrious Woodchuck

Hello and welcome back to another week of falsehoods and fabrications here at Factually Deficient! This week, I address a question posed by an individual named Anura, although it is a question that, I suspect, others have considered before him. Anura asked:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I find it strange that Anura couches his question with an if-statement, locating it firmly in the hypothetical. Here at Factually Deficient, we do not like to lie about the hypothetical; we prefer to lie about cold, hard fact. As such, I will assume that Anura is asking specifically about how much wood can be chucked by those woodchucks which definitely do chuck wood, if such things indeed exist.

Of course, the idea that a woodchuck, or any other bird for that matter, could actually chuck wood sounds, on the surface, absurd; having only two legs, the bird would have to stand unstably on one leg while swinging the axe with the other. It would hardly be able to chuck any wood at all before toppling over!

And, in deed, woodchucks themselves do not have the necessary body mass to offset this balance issue, and, as such, do not chuck wood in any significant amounts.

HOWEVER, the ostrich, with greater body mass and upper leg strength than the woodchuck, has the necessary requirements for chucking wood, and in fact does so, on a regular basis.

Anura asked about the wood-chucking power of the woodchuck, which is none at all. However, if we expand the question to be about the ability of birds in general to chuck wood in quantity–and then narrow it again to focus on the ostrich specifically–we have a more interesting answer.

There is a simple equation that determines how much wood any given ostrich, on any given day, can chuck; the ostrich’s upper arm strength, in Joules, multiplied by the ostrich’s body weight, in kilograms, divided by the height of the tree, in inches, will give you the amount, in Jkg/in, of how much wood that ostrich can chuck in a day.

__________________

Disclaimer: A great deal of the information in this blog is unconfirmed, untested, or entirely untrue. Consult a local ostrich for accurate wood-chucking data.