what's the difference?

Here I am again. I bet you never even missed me.

 Yesterday was a long day and today I have to do my Icelandic homework so I can't stay long.   (I started classes again last week, just before I left.)

It was wonderful to have a long, non-stop conversation about life and literature as I drove with a brilliant friend (he's a good driver, too),  although he swears at other drivers on the road, quite colourfully. There's always more to learn and more to check on. - not the swear words, I know most of them - but the subjects of our wide-ranging conversation. And I  give as good as I get - not the swear words, but ideas. Today I have to look up things and check on information given and received.  What did we do before Google and Wikipedia?  Perpetuated errors, I suppose.  We're still pretty good at it - spawning mistakes, I mean. We should be very vigilant.

Once a "fact" is in print, people find it hard to refute, as if  paper knows more than they do. (Is this why it's called hard copy?)  I think there's a certain danger to an excessive reliance on the information online.  I try to check the source or find corroborating evidence, especially when a "facf" seems too good to be true. It usually is. 

I've been putting quotation marks around the word "fact" to suggest that I question its validity. Better to call it a factoid. "A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricatedstatement presented as a fact , but without supporting evidencealthough the term can have conflicting meanings."  (Wikipedia)  The frightening thing is, if it's repeated often enough, a factoid can become a fact. You have to be careful.

As if you didn't have enough to do.  

The fact is, I'm back.