Heresy! 
Not Zotti’s. Cecil’s. Little Ed is just his assistant.
I answer to at least three different names that do not appear anywhere on my birth certificate. That doesn’t mean those names are fictional characters.
Now I can’t wait for the thread about Una’s conversation with Mr. Snugglebuns.
The cute fiction that Cecil Adams is a mystery, wrapped in an egg roll, smothered in brown sauce, and garnished with parsley, isn’t the issue. Una’s behavior and the special privileges she is given to behave differently from everyone else on the board is the issue.
This is the right forum to raise this and I had planned to start a thread myself if Justin hadn’t beat me to it (thanks, Justin). She doesn’t post about Cecil as a member. She posts as Ed’s Right Hand as if that is a board title that puts her above everyone else. And then she teases and mocks the rest of us with that status. And nobody dares to say anything to her even when she’s being a jerk.
I have nothing personal against Una on anything but this behavior. I don’t know her and I haven’t clashed with her on anything else ever. Why should that matter? She’s wrong on this and not only does she know she’s wrong on this she sticks her tongue out at the rest of us while being wrong.
As I keep saying - in GQ, of all places - if I’m wrong on Ed being Cecil, then all you have to do is provide evidence that I’m wrong. You know, the whole purpose of that forum and the column and the board and everything else this place is built on. I don’t even care if Una came out and said she’s writing the columns she “contributes” to. That would be great considering Ed’s embarrassing past with his attempts at science.
Or just make a rule that questions about who Cecil is are barred in GQ. Or a rule that nobody who knows can post in them. Or any rule that is written. Because I don’t care if I violate unwritten rules. I love to tromp all over them. I hate unwritten rules. They exist solely so that some people can bully others and get away with it, all the while going “Who, me?”
You, Una. And Ed’s your enabler. So he needs to step in and make the appropriate changes.
ATMB just gets weirder and weirder.
What inaccurate information did Una give? So far as I can tell, everything she’s said is completely factual and correct.
Boy, you got that right.
I think it’s time to stop visiting this forum for a while.
Not speaking for the OP, I don’t think Una’s correctness in what he/she said is in question. The problem is that Una suggested that she/he knew more about the answer than she/he was prepared to say in GQ: in other words, Una was being a tease. I don’t think that’s enough to make Una a “jerk”, but clearly others (including the OP) do.
And if there was no real name to associate with Dear Abby, what then? What’s the difference between someone claiming have held a conversation with Dear Abby and someone claiming have held a conversation with Cecil Adams?
The amount of nerd-rage being generated by a harmless journalistic pseudonym is just baffling to me. Why does anyone care if Cecil is Ed, a group of people who may or may not include Ed, or someone else entirely? And if Una wants to keep someone else’s secret, why would anyone care about that either?
I really don’t know where you get this idea. That’s not how GQ works. As moderators, we do not police it with regard to the quality of the answers provided. If someone posts what you regard as incorrect or incomplete information, you are free to dispute that information, and provide contrary evidence if you have it. And there is nothing to say that someone has to tell all that they know. One thing however that is definitely against the rules is to engage in personal attacks on another poster, as you did in that thread.
At any rate, at least to my knowledge nothing that Una posted in that thread is a lie or factually incorrect. And she was in no way breaking forum rules. (Given your position on the subject, I would hope that you would never assert on this board that Harpo Marx was real. ;))
One thing I find very odd about all this is how much more seriously some posters take Cecil (or his non-existence) than Cecil does himself. Many of Cecil’s remarks in his column are obviously tongue in cheek. I mean, this is a website dedicated to “the world’s smartest human.” Like, get a grip.
Well, you know, tis the season to be jolly.
I thought it was the season to be merry and gay.
Would you settle for happy-go-lucky and bi?
No, it’s the season to be jelly, as in a bowl full of.
I thought it was the season to be Jolie. But yours makes a lot more sense. I mean, I liked Tomb Raider well enough, but having an entire season fixated on the star seemed a bit over the top.
Now THAT is funny stuff!
Yes, there has been more than one writer. But the first few writers were all at the very beginning, and Ed took over the column in the early 70s and has been writing all by his lonesome it every since.
Again, complaining that “Cecil Adams” isn’t real is like complaining that Ann Landers is fictious, or John Wayne, or Alice Cooper. Actually, Alice Cooper is a pretty good example, because it wasn’t the name of the lead singer, it was the name of the band.
WTF?