Part of the story is true.

'The world' is objective, logical, universal, factual, scientific.

His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.

That is not true, and if it were, life would be incredibly boring.

Still, consider a recent matter of fact report from a sober and respected US magazine.

Now let's be clear Oiwan says she has no factual information linking these two events.

Or you could fact check a newspaper article from the mainstream media and point out factual errors or bias on your blog.

Only a few examples are given here Roman jurists clearly separated the legal right to use a thing (ownership) from the factual ability to use and manipulate the thing (possession).

It may be topical (as in the case of a local newscast and some made for television movies), or historical (as in the case of many documentaries and fictional series).

He was right.

Are they right?

The reason?

You're right.

We were right.

Am I right?

Schrag is right.

No doubt.

You're right.

Perhaps you are right.

I'm correct.

You have a point.

You got it right.

Tom was right.

Tom's correct.

Tom's right.

They're right.

Tom is correct.

They're both right.

I was right.

You guys were right.

You got it right.

I understand the reason.

There's another reason as well.

The reason is simple.

The yogis had it right.

What would be your reason?

That's one reason.

'What for?' said Alice.

I said What for? '

You are absolutely right.

There is no other reason.

Am I not right?

Maybe you're right.

His mother was right.

Perhaps you are right.