Yeah so maybe it’s because I’m somewhat of a newbie, or maybe it’s because Cecil doesn’t seem very interested in the gory details of human electrocution, or maybe it’s because he never answered my questions about mass transit, but I just don’t think he’s THAT INCREDIBLY cool.
That’s not to say I don’t find his answers interesting and appreciate that this board exists.
Maybe I liken him to Dan Savage. Question-and-answer columnists seem to easily adopt a mildly pompous, self-righteous tone after awhile which readers either fawn on or find putoffish. Like in today’s question about electrocution, Cecil calls the guy a nutcase and professes his disinterest in learning about possible tours of death chambers. Why write an answer column if you’re not going to fully answer the question? Who cares what your opinion about death chamber tours is? Why not just answer the question?
I don’t even read Dan Savage’s crap anymore. It seems it’s more of an outlet for him to ridicule and belittle others than it is to answer anything.
I guess, compared to Dan Savage, Cecil is still supercool. I guess it just makes me uncomfortable when a person – privileged enough to have thousands of people turn to him for a frank answer about something – uses his voice to invalidate anothers’ interests. If it doesn’t interest you, throw it away and turn to something else. Don’t publish it and shoot it full of holes. Electrocution is just as interesting as anything else!
This is a WAG, and I’m not speaking for the Reader or Ed Zotti, who edits Cecil’s column.
The column about electrocution is fairly old. It’s old enough, in fact, that it was in the first Straight Dope book. Hence, it wasn’t written for an online, uncensored audience. It was written for print (which Cecil’s columns are to this day; they appear in the Chicago Reader newspaper and are sold to other alternative newspapers). Since the Reader and the other papers make their money from advertising, it makes sense that the columnists and writers should show some restraint and good taste in their discussions. Ditto for Dan Savage; he also makes his money syndicating his column, and I’ve seen his column in some pretty mainstream publications. I’m sure both men (and other columnists) could be a lot more explicit in their treatments of their respective subjects, but simple economics dictates that they not be.
Yeah, but he answered the question, despite his belief that the writer was an asshole. Personally, I thought the writer was more CREEPY than assholish, but that’s not my call.
I’ll also point out that right now there is a thread about this very column. When I first read the article, I was suprised to see the word “asshole,” so I went over here to find out what was up. Try that next time.
In response to Cecil’s column (the second one), I heard something along the lines of this myself.
It’s not that there are “traces” of anything, it has something to do with the pedigree. Any pups she has after ~gasp~ a mongrel litter can’t be pedigreed.