This can’t be serious, but I can’t figure out what exactly you are parodying.
Cecil Adams is hate speech?
The difference between Cecil Adams and Ed Zotti is the same as the difference between the dignity of President of the United States and Barack Obama the politician (or George Bush).
The “secret” of Caramilk isn’t a trade secret, it’s an advertising gimmick.
What are you trying to say? That Chewbacca was forced to live on Endor by the oppressive ruling classes because he was Jewish? :dubious:
Pfff, studios, right?!
Cecil is to real! Every year I leave a plate of warm, homemade chocolate chip cookies on my front porch, and the next morning they’re gone, and in its place is a note that says, “Thanks for the cookies, they were scrumptious. But I’m still smarter than you. -Cecil A.”
See, it’s signed “Cecil A.” and he used the word “scrumptious” which I almost had to look up, but worked it out given the context.
So, there!
Great Og on a pogo stick, man. Your perspective is cowering under a rock three blocks away and wants to know when it will be safe to come home.
I think this 2006 thread where I made that observation falsifies your claim about parroting. Una participated, but she didn’t exactly lead the discussion. And I pitched my silly line. Unca Cece's Wikipedia page - Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports - Straight Dope Message Board
Now generally, when I’m being oblique or ironic, I don’t like to explain myself. There are many ways of fighting ignorance: in this case we challenge the cognitive powers of the overly literally minded. But there might be a legitimate misconception by those who have not read Cecil’s books or his 1970s-1990s columns. Their tone has shifted over time. Way back before the vos Savant imbroglio (and a little afterwards, to be honest) the conceit was that Cecil was the smartest person alive and that he knew everything. It’s a metaphor gang. Ed is certainly not the smartest person alive -I’ve read The Barn House so I speak with some authority- but he can simulate one with clear writing, acerbic wit, the standard skills and tools of a journalist, a telephone and a mission of fighting ignorance. My take is that Cecil is a force of nature: or rather he’s an embodiment of all that we know. You too can tap into that – it just requires skill, effort and dedication. Once Google came in to prominent use, the premise grew more than a little stale. So Cecil’s editor dialed it back some.
Not anymore. I think I saw it throw its hands up in frustration, then hop on a commuter rail whose destination was “anywhere but here”.
A+ Funniest post in this thread. 
Quite possibly the understatement of the year. 
i have only two things to suggest, and neither are meant to be inflammatory, but rather promote a moment of quiet reflection and thought.
-
OP said “It’s an irritating attitude. That’s it. I don’t care enough to have a fight over it, I just think it’s irritating.”
three pages later, here we are.
this one is particularly interesting to me. there are multiple threads and many pages within each about what has already been proved to be a fictional character. the argument here is not whether or not he exists, or even about the intelligence of the people who choose to believe in him or not, but whether people should act as though he does.
why can’t this be the approach to larger topics, such as religion? for example, the ones who believe (in anything, i’m going broad here) can’t concretely prove their stance, just as the ones who don’t can’t either, otherwise the debate would have died out ages ago.
is it that hard to just co-exist with people who believe something different?
at least we know for a fact that Cecil and Santa aren’t real in the way that they are intended to be perceived, but for issues that people actually die over, why can’t we agree to believe different things?
anyway, just a thought. this is honestly not an attempt to troll, but just one guy’s opinion. after all, mine is the only opinion i am responsible for.
I don’t think the problem is “beliefs.” I think some people are irritated at others being “cute.”
Source: How can I avoid a holiday hangover? - The Straight Dope
Is the fact that Cecil Adams’ using the third person proof that “he” really “they”? Is it a possibility that Cecil Adams is just a pseudonym for a group of people rather than the name of a columnist?
Ask Alice! signs each response with the name “Alice”, making it sound like that it is one entity. In reality, Ask Alice! is hosted by Columbia University and is presumably answered by Columbia University students, staff, and faculty all under the same pseudonym and entity, Alice. I hypothesize that Cecil Adams is really hosted by the Chicago Reader columnists, though the original column could be created by a single person named Cecil Adams or a single person who uses the name “Cecil Adams” as a pseudonym. (Please note that the usage of the word ‘single’ does not indicate the author’s marital status. It means an individual.)
I have also discovered another Q&A author on the Internet. I have forgotten this author’s name, but I do remember that this author really likes using biblical quotations to justify explanations and queries about similar questions like those on Ask Alice! or the Straight Dope, giving me an impression that the author supports conservatism and Christianity. It seems that some people tend to use faith as a means to explain phenomena while others use scientific evidence and factual data. Or, am I just dreaming? I could have sworn I have read such an article or website…
If Alice seems rather tall, just tell them a hookah-smoking caterpillar gave you the call.
…
Or, as a rather famous bowl of petunias once said, “oh no, not again.”
When someone in real life slips in fast and takes your parking spot, you can’t address the injustice as you want to.
When someone with power over you abuses that power and abuses you, you can’t address the injustice as you want to.
When the township refuses to compensate you for the cost of laying a new sidewalk after their snowplows decimated it, you can’t address the injustice as you want to.
This is not a real life experience. Any of us who have been here long enough know it, understand the underlying construct of the place and remain because we enjoy it, or because it means something to us, etc. Expecting Una to be punished for jerkish behaviors in GQ that are founded on what she did or did not say about Cecil is inconsistent with the construct of the SDMB.
It’s not a reality that any one Doper has control over. You can’t address the injustice as you want to.
On the other hand, adult life on this planet teems with injustices. Pick your battles, and perhaps decide to enjoy The Straight Dope !!!
I’ve merged the two like threads discussing Cecil Adams.
No. Cecil’s columns are not written by a consortium of people, whether SDSAB members or anyone else. Any substantial information contributed by anyone else is credited by name.
Nope, nothing wrong here! Oh wait…
Quoth Colibri, General Questions MODERATOR (and SDMB Curator of Critters):
Huh.
Oh by all means allow me to apologize. I withdraw my entire post.