(BTW, I do hope that everyone recognizes the (public domain) essay from which I plagiarized my contribution. I would not want anyone thinking I dreamed that up on my own.)
Au contraire, I think this is quite conclusive. Thanks.
Now we can focus our attentions on the real burning identity question: is Ted L. Nancy really Jerry Seinfeld?
Yeah, you’ve posted this before. Proves nothing. Nobody is claiming that Cecil Adams is his actual name (it’s been stated fairly clearly that it’s not), but that there is a living, actual, single person who uses the Cecil Adams nom de plume.
I would also add, having had a chance to look at Frogstein’s links a bit more, that Zotti’s statement in his opening post that
suggest that he will say so in public. Beyond this, all the points, scientific explanations and experiments discussed in Cecil’s column are contained in various posts by Zotti, and the column adds nothing other than some cutesy comments about his fruitless call to the Coca Cola company.
If there is no Cecil Adams, then who the hell keeps asking me these damn questions about caterpillar sex and fish farts? :mad:
It is common knowledge that Cecil Admas is in fact the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
Having expanded on Frogstein’s approach and compared out a few more Zotti Usenet queries to Cecil columns, I don’t think there is any room for legitimate doubt that Ed writes the columns. There is a consistent parallel between the Zotti thinking and the Cecil column to follow, including use of the same jokes. (Also, several posters to those forums have noted biographical details as being identical for these two men - children’s names, early work as an electrician’s apprentice and others).
BTW D18, I think the radio appearances are actually done by Ed “on behalf of” Cecil.
It’s interesting, in light of all this, to juxtapose the great respect that Cecil/Ed has in these forums for his columns, with the harsh criticisms that he has received for some of his administrative decisions. One wonders: were it common knowledge that these are the same person, would his administrative decisions have more respect? Would his columns have less? I would think a bit of both.
Re: whether Cecil appears on the radio in person or not!
In “More of the Straight Dope” we read on the article involving balancing eggs:
“After another international manhunt (I casually mentioned on a radio talk show that I was interested in eggs) . . .”
However, in the online version of this article we read . . .
“After another international manhunt (I had a minion casually mention on a radio talk show that I was interested in eggs), I turned up one Jeff Hartness of Carol Stream, Illinois.”
Notice in the book, Cecil say’s he himself spoke on the radio whereas in the online version he says he “had a minion” speak on the radio. Rather Orwellian change, no?
At any rate, later in the article, Cecil makes it clear he was in the the studio that day:
“It was a great moment in radio–five minutes of deathly science–as we all watched breathlessly while Jeff went to work. To our amazement, he succeeded. This was the middle of May, you understand.”
We also have direct evidence of Cecil being on the radio himself in the article on Scientology:
“Even Cecil has been the target of the Scientologists’ wrath. Not long after my column on Scientology was published in the newspapers, I got a call from a radio show producer asking me to answer questions from listeners on the air. This happens fairly often and I didn’t give the timing much thought. When the first called lambasted me for dissing L. Ron, I started to get suspicious, and when every caller for the next half hour did the same I knew I’d been set up. Not that they laid a finger on me argument-wise. But swatting mosquitoes for 30 minutes isn’t my idea of fun.”
Now, whether Cecil was in-studio or not is unclear, but he does say that it was he himself answering the questions.
And in the original article on slugs, Cecil definitely refers to himself as being the one on the radio:
“Cecil loves fielding calls on the radio, because they enable him to keep his finger on the throbbing pulsebeat of America, disgusting though that experience can occasionally be.”
There seems to be a shift over the years from Cecil speaking for himself on the radio, to having Little Ed do so on his behalf, but we were certainly led to believe in the early days that it was he himself.
So, here’s the questions:
-
Why is the text of the article on balancing eggs changed from “More of the Straight Dope” in which Cecil says he was talking to the online version in which he says “his minion” was talking
-
What were listeners told about who was speaking - Cecil or Ed?
-
Hi Opal!
D18
Oh, yeah, about this one…
Well, there is a telephone listing for one Edward Zotti in Chicago, as well as several other Zottis in IL. So while the name may sound a bit unusual, it’s probably not made up. Or if it is made up, one should ask “why should we question it, considering that there are real people with the same name?”
I would think that the ultimate proof that the Master Cecil exists is his very occasional appearance here on the boards under his own name.
If Ed Zotti and Cecil were one and the same, wouldn’t the administration be guilty of violating one of the cardinal rules here regarding multiple usernames or socks?
Cecil Adams and Ed Zotti are both registered members of the SDMB. You can read their profiles here and here. It is against board rules to use more than one user name. Would the board’s administrator violate a rule that he wrote?
What more proof do you need?
bare, please stop reading my mind.
how many people work at the Chicago Reader? Surely one of cecil’s co-workers would vouch for the fact that he exists, or expose the fact that he doesnt. Right?
Lance, I’m sure it was just inadvertent that both your links go to Ed Zotti’s profile, hmmm? We wouldn’t have to sic the Inquisition on you, now would we?
Here is the profile for Ed Zotti. And here is the profile for Cecil.
Now all we have to do is get them to simul-post.
btw, Ed Zotti has written a few freelance pieces for the Wall Street Journal in the last couple of years. He’s quite a good writer in his own right.
[Edited by JillGat on 06-24-2001 at 01:07 AM]
Lessee here…
Just about every comment claiming that Cecil is either “Little Ed” or a group (or, alternatively, one person with a lot of hel) has sounded rational.
Just about every comment claiming that Cecil is some mysterious omniscient etc. etc. has veered into flowery, blustery language and philosophical arglebargle I can’t even attempt to slog through.
What does this mean? Who the hell knows. But my philosophy is to go with the explanation that makes the most sense. Right now the consensus appears to be that Cecil Adams is actually Ed Zotti, so I’m going with it. And if anyone wishes to convince me otherwise, let’s have some definitive proof as to his existence.
Otherwise, forget it. I’m tired hashing over the arguments about someone who may or may not exist. Let’s just accept that he exists in some form and move on. (That’s pretty much how we handled the Kennedy assassination, right? Oops, can of worms, don’t go there…)
This strikes me as exactly the kind of thing that a secret follower of Marylin vos Savant, sent to infiltrate the Straight Dope Message Board, would say in order to cast doubt and cloud the minds of Unca Cecil’s loyal and devoted disciples!
BTW, what is the actual evidence for the existence of Marilyn vos Savant? Or, for that matter, Ann Landers and Dear Abby?
If you haven’t seen The Princess Bride, go rent the video and pay special attention to discussions about the “Dread Pirate Roberts.”
Marilyn & Abby provide pictures (I don’t read Ann Landers, so I’m not sure if she does) although I think Abby’s is, no joke, at least ten years old.
When you think about it though, how can you be sure about anyone you’ve never met being real? I’ve never met my uncle Mike, so maybe he’s not really there. Of course, this is probably the thought process of every conspiracy theorist in the world…