Either I’m missing something (quite probable), the date of the column is wrong (most likely), or Cecil discovered a way to travel at least 12 years into the future 22 years or so ago, and accidentally let slip his knowledge of the (at that time) future in this column (the most intriguing possibility).
I guess it must make it easier to fight ignorance when one can just zip oneself into the future to see what conclusions the “historians” of that time period have drawn about significant events. Also, it enables one to see potential errors ahead of time so one can correct them therefore they never existed in the first place. This is why Cecil doesn’t make mistakes in his column. He’s fixes them when our future selves notice them, so that they never exist in the first place. But I’ve caught him in this one. Clearly it escaped his notice. Odd thing is that I’m still typing this and the Straight Dope Secret Ninja Reconditioning Patrol haven’t taken me away to prevent his secret from being revealed. Maybe my workplace is protected by one giant invisible tinfoil hat preventing his past self from being aware that at this very moment I am exposing his up until now well-kept secret. That would explain why I can’t get cellular signals here. But I digress. By luck, or fate, or Og or whatever, I have been given the ability to see things for what they really are. Soon I will click submit and the truth will be revealed to the world (or at least the SDMB, hey, you gotta start somewhere).
This makes the whole “Is Ed really Cecil” thing pale by comparison!
Likeliest explanation: Ed updated the column for AOL in the 90’s, but did so in a rather haphazard manner that left the original writer from '82 looking a bit silly.
You know, Unca Cecil hasn’t posted in a while. This would be a perfect moment for him to come out of hiding and laugh his ass off. Not that that would answer your question, but it would be funny.
Look, here’s the deal. Cecil doesn’t exert himself unless he has to, for money, usually. Ed has to do the grunt work. And posting “Classic Columns” is a no-work option that gets something “new” on the website each day. Hence, sometimes the Classic Column gets a bit of updating because someone has some new info readily available; and (more often) sometimes it don’t.
So, the updates are erratic and irregular and neither thorough nor complete. Just view the Classic Columns as a window into history. Knowledge changes through time.
I’m somewhat amused - and amazed - by how often and repeatedly people question a column’s original date in relation to the information in a column.
However, I do wish that, whenever a column is updated, that a simple addendum be made (at least at the end of the column) noting the date the update was made.
Aside from any insight such an addition might add to a column, it might also help cut down on all the questions caused by updates. Is that too much to ask for?
I apologize for being abrupt. I was having a terrible, horrible, no good very bad day, and I let it get the best of me. Damn real life, anyhow.
I will discuss this with them as does these partial updates. My own opinion is that a column should stand as it stood, with the old date, or be fully updated. A partial update is just confusing. Of course, that’s just my opinion, so I’ll discuss it with the Powers.
All joking aside – and I hope you realize my prior post was just my little attempt at humor, Dex – I agree wholeheartedly with your position. Let it stand as-is, or update it. OR, if that’s too much work, have a “follow-up” at the bottom. So you might have the original article presented without change, followed by “Update by C K Dexter Haven on 6/17/04” (for example).
I think that’s a decent idea. Aside from updating the information, I would think such a practice would make it much easier on the “updaters”, in that they wouldn’t have to waste their time trying to wedge new information into an original column while attempting to maintain the integrity of the column and trying to avoid making things confusing (fact-wise or grammatically).
