Hasn’t it always been known that “Cecil Adams” is a pseudonym? I’m pretty sure it was in one of the books.
…and this post shows just how well I follow my own advice. :smack:
nm
Excellent and timely! And funny too… 
There are ways of maintaining the Cecil Adams fiction without lying. It is a bit unseemly. Pretending to have conversations with Cecil is patronizing at best and insulting at worst.
I didn’t catch on until I had been here.
For quite some time.
I’ve never been a fast learner.
But in my defense, once the aliens left I removed the probe and just got on with life.
So that’s the reason the column folded back in 1973 and the message board is such an abject failure.
I also want to add that I don’t think I have ever felt patronized or insulted concerning this matter, and I suspect that the vast majority of posters, past and present, feel the same way.
True but misleading, since it’s an assembly of one. The pseudonym “Cecil Adams” is used by one singular individual. Presumably, when the Chicago Reader attempted to register the trademark, they wanted to leave themselves open to the possibility of replacing that individual with a different single individual writing under that name, but that would still mean that there’s only one Cecil Adams at a time.
I know you are the self-appointed board apologist, but you are making a fool of yourself. Of course it’s patronizing for someone with “official” status to be having make-believe, behind-the-scenes conversations with a completely fictional character. Why don’t you relate some of the chats you had with “Unca Cece” when you were a big-girl panties moderator, Czarcasm. I’m sure this can get a little more retarded.
Is it me or do we have an increased number of “Is Cecil real?” questions in the leadup to Santa’s yearly ride? Coincidence? I think not.
Cecil is The Dread Pirate Roberts??!?
If you have a problem with Czarcasm, you need to take it to the Pit.
This is not an appropriate place for you to vent yourself and most surely not at Czarcasm.
Personal insults are not allowed. If I see this again you will receive a formal warning.
nm.
A current trademark for Dear Abby uses wording that is nearly identical to that of the Cecil Adams application. Does this mean anyone who has ever claimed to have a conversation with Dear Abby is delusional?
Disclaimer: this is not an official statement from the USPTO.
I don’t see Una as lying. If there is an individual who writes under the name Cecil Adams and if Una speaks to that person, I think she can honestly say she’s spoken to Cecil. For all I know, the guy actually uses that name around the office, even if it isn’t on his birth certificate or driver’s license.
Una is certainly not being a jerk by giving lip service to a mystery that Cecil and the SD organization wish to maintain. I’ve always enjoyed the mystique of Cecil Adams.
I wasn’t going to reply to this, because my standard “it’s just a messageboard, people!” never seems to work. These things actually seem to matter to people. So, with that in mind, my take on things.
Corresponder, who asked the question in GQ, was perfectly within his/her rights to ask the question. It IS something that has a factual answer. And that answer was provided by **pravnik **in the 3rd post in the thread. The thread could have been closed at this time, as there is very little (if anything) to add to this.
**Corresponder **is a new member, (Nov 2011), so no harm, no foul.
One thing that **Justin_Bailey **might be getting into an uproar over is that it is consistently hammered into the collective heads of the board members that GQ is a place for factual questions, factual answers, and very little in the way of pointless, humorous posts, especially before the OP has been answered.
The OP was answered early, so no major harm on the humorous replies. But Una Persson’s reply, while IMO harmless, seems to have rankled more than one of the TM that thinks that giving explicitly false information in GQ, even in an inside joke, is inappropriate.
As this particular question/issue is at the heart of the SD (who actually writes the column, books, etc.), perhaps there is a bit more sensitivity. Therefore, **Una’s **answer
is simply silly. Why continue to live in this fantasy world? This isn’t trying to keep a 4 year old in the dark about Santa… and even though I agree that this issue is nothing to get into a twist over, once the question is asked, a proper answer is expected.
Why not put a note in the registration agreement outlining the idea of Cecil Adams… that he’s not real, but a nom de plume that at least one (Ed Zotti) or more people have written under. That’s it. That seems to be all that’s required.
In any event, Exapno Mapcase rightly points out to you:
Seems that there might be some personal business between you two. Whatever. Irregardless, he’s right. Your replies from that point to defend your position are odd, trying to justify your “purposefully pedantic” :dubious: answers to a not-so-secret secret. As if you are on the inside of this cute little canard, and you want to keep it that way.
Well, the secret is out. Please, try to accept it, embrace it, and move on. As a member of the vaunted Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, we lesser TM expect more from you.
But that “mystery” opposes the founding principles of the organization, as least if the sub-headline at the top of every page is to be believed.
I must have gotten my first Straight Dope book over 30 years ago. I never saw the column in a newspaper, only in the successive, paperback collections. Back then, everyone thought Cecil Adams was some really smart guy who had a funny and informative q&a column.
So it turns out “Cecil Adams” is a nothing more than a brand name. I was a little disappointed when I realized that it was more than one writer, but whatever, it’s still entertaining. But the mystique? There is no mystique. Cecil is Oz with the curtain drawn. Pretending to talk to “him” is just silly.
Not delusional, just wrong. You would then have to ask if they are referring to Pauline Phillips or Jeanne Phillips.