No, it’s not. It’s quite obvious that the intent of the question is to inquire whether a single flesh-and-blood person (using a pseudonym or no) has been writing the columns signed by “Cecil Adams” since February '73.
Obviously, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink style of the answer to question 14 of the FAQ implies (to put it mildly) that Mike Lenehan began writing the column under that pen name and kept it up for 3 years, that Dave Kehr took up the column for the following 2 years, and that Ed Zotti’s been writing the column since '78.
But in any case, if your post is serious (hard to tell – especially in this thread ), then I’m gonna have to go ahead and… disagree with you there.
Is Cecil not real? That won’t fly!
Let no one existence deny
Of our true Perfect Master –
'Twould be a disaster
If we all stopped believing – he’d die!
It was Mike who began the charade.
It took two years for David to fade.
Then our Ed got the duty,
and oh, what a beauty –
all in all, it’s a pretty good trade.
I found the Discover magazine article I mentioned earlier. It was from January 1987. The article is titled “The Answer Man” I believe. I left it at my parents’ house, so I can’t get the article right now. It implicitly confirms that “Cecil Adams” is a pseudonym.
And it can’t be an anagram for Ed Acclaims because it was around before Ed Zotti became “editor.” That is very X-Filesy. :eek:
Well, let’s not get too excited about a US government website(even though I use it all the time in my “word origins” searches).
Instead of using Ann Landers, let’s use Miss Manners, whom we all know is a real live person named Judith Martin??
And, by the way, leaving live links to your searches over at the Trademark database is useless, as the session expires in a short period of time, and can’t be viewed by a later visitor.
Cecil has this strange notion that if his photo were published, he’d lose all his privacy, and every time he went to the grocery store, he’d be mobbed by fans trying to tear off a piece of his clothing as a souvenir.
I know, I know, but he’s an eccentric genius and the boss, so I’m sure not going to argue with him.
I see your point, Dexter. I suppose the yearly subs would have to go up if we were forever having to replace his wardrobe.
On the other hand, how about if he auctioned of his apparel on e-bay every now and then? I could imagine that some of his garments would fetch staggering prices - especially among the lady dopers.
Then we’d get to use the boards for free (like the good old days) and you’d be paid for all the tireless work you put in.
It has been suggested in the past that “Cecil Adams” is a pseudonym, for the same reason that he doesn’t allow photographs. It’s not the wardrobe loss, it’s the loss of privacy that he fears. He thinks that if his true identity were available in the Chicago phone book, for instance, his house would be surrounded every day by fans, screaming and cheering for autographs, food, etc. He wouldn’t be able to leave the house, without being mobbed.
I personally think it’s irrational, but he’s an eccentric genius, what can I say.
This is the sort of thing that gives you that sense that you know the man, and that leads us to venerate Cecil as the Perfect Master, above all others (well, the “damn fool war” thing caused a number of people to pile on him, but you know what I mean). So, when somebody asks “Is Cecil Adams real?”, to me it means “A, is their one individual who had all of the experiences I read about Cecil having, and B, if there is, is his name really Cecil Adams?” The A part is much more important to me, personally, than the B. I would be a crushing disappointment to think that the mental image I have of Cecil, whoever he is, has merely been a composite of multiple people.
C K Dexter Haven, you have always assured us that Cecil Adams was a real person, and I think of you as extremely trustworthy. If you say that the points above do indeed reflect one particular individual, regardless of his name, I for one will believe you … and be extremely happy.
Doggone it – obviously that underlined word should be “there.” I had originally worded the sentence differently and “their” was correct at the time, I swear.
Individual or composite? Just go into GD on a hot topic thread, such as transsexualism or cats, and see if you can distinguish one PC contribution from another. Can you truly tell your from your Windy City doper from your Bay doper?
As an auditor once told aspirants to that noble profession, there are three things you must do if you wish to be good at your job: “Doubt, doubt, and doubt”.
I doubt it, but that’s my point – to me, it seems like Cecil’s writing style has been consistent since the column started in 1973 until now, so it seems like it has been written by one individual … but I probably wouldn’t be able to tell if it wasn’t, especially since I really, really want him to be a real individual. I don’t care what his real name is, as long as the person I feel I’ve gotten to learn a few things about is an actual person.
Speaking of doubt, I had an idea. The usual speculation is that Cecil if Cecil does not exist, it’s Ed Zotti writing the columns under that name, right?
So perhaps somebody could dig into Ed’s past (or, you know, hire a private investigator or whatever :)) and see if any of the details Cecil has given out above match Ed’s life – did he ever own a Pontiac 6000 LE, did he ever work for a guy named Belcher and crash an overhead crane into a building, etc.
On the other hand, that information could be difficult or impossible to find, and hiring an investigator would be very expensive.
Now, I remember that, a few decades ago, some researchers at Brigham Young University (I think) claimed that they did “wordprint” studies that proved the Book of Mormon was written by many ancient authors and was merely translated by Joseph Smith, rather than being written by a single author (presumably Joseph Smith), and that none of the writing styles in the Book of Mormon match up to Joseph Smith’s writing style anyway. Now, I know their claims were met with skepticism, and many people brought up very plausible-sounding reasons why their work was skewed and invalid, and then apologists brought up plausible-sounding reasons why the results were NOT invalid, followed by refutations from the other side, and so on back and forth. But let’s assume for a moment that, even if that particular work by those particular researchers wasn’t valid, the basic theory is sound and it would be at least theoretically possible to get a valid wordprint comparison done for the writings of Cecil and Ed. Then we’d be able to tell if the same individual wrote both, right?
Of course, Cecil’s articles are edited by Ed, so that might give a false positive. But Cecil does have posts here on the board, and presumably Ed doesn’t edit everything Cecil writes, right? So we could use those, too.
I leave it to somebody who knows more about the topic than I (like whether the basic theory is sound or not, and things like that) to comment further.
Well, there’s a handle called “Cecil Adams” and a handle called “Ed Zotti”. Doesn’t mean much. As for writing for 30 odd years in a similar style, the same thing’s been achieved for much longer by editorialists (those fellows and women who write newspaper editorials) for much much longer. If you didn’t know it, and took editorials from London, Hong Kong, LA and NYC (and anywhere else in the same newspaper tradition), and got 'em all printed out in the same font, with the same margins, etc, I bet most people would think they’d come from teh same author.
Same pompous tone, similar pie-in-the-sky optimism, same faintly nauseating self-congratulatory tone.
Anyway, I feel like the Grinch what stole Christmas. Cecil, you’re the man!
Just amuses me that the world’s premier ignorance-busting portal should employ such energies in perpetuating a myth; and that the world’s premier evidence-demanding cite-driven cyber-college should ignore its own founding principles regarding its “founder”!
And it’s real fun to see the Mods sucked into more and more loopy defences of the great one.
I don’t doubt it – most editorials sound similar to me (in style and tone, that is, not content). But supposedly wordprint studies can tell the difference. I personally have extreme doubts about that, but it would be an interesting experiment nevertheless.
), then I’m gonna have to go ahead and… disagree with you there.