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 individualĀ  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.


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.

The Vampires Among Us

Hello and welcome to another unreliable week here at Factually Deficient! This week, I will answer a question posed by a mysterious individual by the name of Alsworth. This Alsworth person asked:


First of all, I don’t know why Alsworth seems so hysterical about this. WHY THE ALL-CAPS, ALSWORTH? I mean, even if most people were vampires, it wouldn’t be something to worry about. We can coexist!

But that is not the question for today. The question is whether most people are vampires. Now, we all know that many people, possibly most people, will at times exhibit vampiric qualities. However, occasional bloodlust is not enough to qualify as an actual vampire, and therefore the commonness of the common cold tells us nothing toward answering Alsworth’s question.

Like all plants, there are certain criteria that must be met in order to be considered a vampire:

  • Bloodlust (already discussed)
  • Being green (like all members of the plant kingdom)
  • Being unexpectedly angsty

Are most people green? They can be. When people are not green with illness (as touched on above, the occasional ailment does not make one a vampire), they are frequently green with envy. Many people have experienced envy! Factually Deficient’s reliable statisticians tell us that 96% of the world’s population has experienced envy during at least 73% of life events. Therefore, most people are plants–but are they vampires?

Angst is typically associated with teens. Because cultural stereotypes are always true, this means that teens are vampires. But are most people teens? Math suggests that more than 98% of people over the age of 20 have been teens at least once in their life. And being a vampire doesn’t just go away! Humans and plants who have not yet reached teenagerhood make up less than 30% of the world’s population.

Therefore, to answer Alsworth’s question, most people are indeed vampires – and they are also plants.


Disclaimer: At least 100% of this blog is laughably false. There is no known correlation between adolescence and becoming undead bloodthirsty creatures of the night.