Is Cecil Adams A Sock Puppet?

About This Message Board
1

I have admired Cecil Adams for as long as I can remember.

That said, Alzheimers disease features prominently in my family and our combined memory span rarely exceeds 5 minutes. Nevertheless, on a list of the 5 people I admire most, Adams is definitely in the top 200. I can prove this:

List of people admired by me:

  1. Jimmy Page
  2. Leon Trotsky
  3. Rameses II
  4. Bugs Bunny
  5. Gabriela (for services to death)
    .
    .
    .
  6. Cecil Adams
  7. Vlad the Impaler
  8. Sven-Goran Eriksson

And yet I am concerned that my undoubted idolatry of Adams is misplaced.

There is an extant rumour that Adams is either a) a composite of Chicago Reader employees who together assemble his columns or b) Ed Zotti. To be honest, I don’t know which of these scenarios I find the most disturbing.

However, the question of who writes these columns is of no real interest to me. Nobody ever reads them anyway. What does worry me is whether or not the rules of this message board are being gratuitously infringed at the very highest level. Consider this:

a) If Adams does exist as a specific entity I can’t see a problem. All he has to do is come to this thread and state without equivocation that such is the case. A link to a photo would be nice. In fact, if Adams can be shown naked with a copy of a recent Chicago Reader concealing his private parts, that would be even better.

Thinking about this further, if Adams did once exist but is now unfortunately deceased (RIP Cecil), I don’t want anybody exhuming his body and propping it up for use in the photo. Maybe he could be shown dancing to the tune of Let’s Twist Again played by TubaDiva and her band. I don’t know. It’s just a suggestion.

b) If Adams is a myth perpetuated by the Chicago Reader and its employees, we have a problem. The SD member Cecil Adams must be a sock puppet. Furthermore, if Zotti alone is not Adams this means that Adams is a multi-sock in use by more than one other member of the administration (e.g. TubaDiva, C K Dexter Haven, people like that).

I’ve ruled out the possibility that Adams is a legitimate member of the SD and Zotti et al are his socks. If Adams wanted socks I’m sure he could do much better than this lot.

Two basic questions arise out of all this. Firstly, is it now permissible for socks to be registered on the SD and used by one or more registered members? And if not, should Zotti (and anyone else embroiled in this scandal) be banned from the SD, and should Adams’ contributions to the SD be deleted, as happens with other socks?

If Adams, Zotti, Diva, Haven or any other member of the administration of this message board fails to respond to this thread, I will assume that they have banned themselves in a futile attempt to avoid exposure and humiliation.

It’s time this subject was brought out into the open. I’ll find out the truth one way or the other you know.

2

Gasp … you mean there is no Santy Claus? ::runs off sobbing::

3

You are phishing for a response from Cecil, aren’t you?

4

Not at all.

I merely request incontrovertible evidence that a figure I have long admired does in fact exist.

If this can be achieved by other means than a photo of Adams dancing naked (except for a recent copy of the Chicago Reader covering his shame) to Let’s Twist Again played by TubaDiva and her band, then let it be so.

5

Oh, Cecil’s for real, alright. Now Ed Zotti, I have my doubts about. That sounds like a made-up name.
As far as socks go, Unka Cece prefers argyles.

6

You won’t get it. But this might be of interest to you.

7

You know, it *has * been a while since the Master has reared his mighty head 'round these parts…

8

Stop it, you bastard! Don’t you have kids! Won’t someone think of the children!

joins aldiboronti in sobbing

9

Oh please.

How does this comment…

The Chicago Reader applied to register Cecil Adams as a trademark in 1986, stating in their application that “Cecil Adams does not identify any particular individual but was devised as a fanciful name.”

…square with this comment.

Adams himself claims that he has “never been photographed”

In any case, my only concern is whether or not SD rules have been, and continue to be, contravened by the very people who purport to administer those rules.

10

Bold words, antler-boy…

11

Those statements are not mutually exclusive. Cecil Adams is the name of a character created by the Reader. The character says he’s never been photographed, which given that the character is fictional, is an accurate statement.

Which means that, yes, he’s probably technically a sock. And so what if he is? It’s their board and if they wanna dress up in a Cecil costume a couple times a year, who gives a shit? No skin off my nose.

12

:dubious: I think it’s OK if Cecil breaks the rules. Or the mods on his behalf. I really really do.

13

All I can say is, they better have one kickass can of toe fungus spray handy.

Sharing socks with co-workers? :shudder:

I need a shower now.

14

A most tenuous conclusion. I think I need a cite for the ‘accurate statement’. Even fictional comments must originate somewhere.

Nobody is saying it’s skin off your nose. The skin is off my nose.

As for the rest of your observation, it would seem that you are promoting the idea of one rule for some and another rule for others. This is not an equitable way of running a message board. If the figurehead of the SD is a sock then what example does that set to other board members?

What will the media make of this when I tell them?

15

Moderators are not permitted to have more than one username, any more than anyone else. We actually have discussed this, whether we should have one name for posting and one name for moderating, so that we could make a distinction, and we decided against that approach.

In terms of the name “Cecil Adams” being trademarked and “designed as a fanciful name,” the same is true of “Ann Landers.” That’s just the way the legal language goes.

Cecil has never posted very much, he’s not a message board groupie. And he loves when people speculate about his existence, his true identity, etc. – so much, that we are prohibited from saying anything about him that he hasn’t said about himself.

He does value his privacy. He has this notion that, if his photograph got out, then every time he went to the grocery store, he’d be mobbed by fans, tearing at his clothes, and so forth. We’ve not been able to dissuade him that this is fantasy.

16

Now, see, if he wore nothing but a copy of the Reader when he went shopping, as Chez suggests, then folks wouldn’t be able to tear at his clothes. Two problems solved at once.

And I can state definitively that I am not, in whole nor in part, Cecil Adams, nor have I ever been, nor do I expect ever to be. I think I had input into the phrasing of one sentence in one of his columns, but that’s about it.

17

Here’s my theory, FWIW:

There is no person named Cecil Adams. There IS a person who posts material under the name “Cecil Adams.” He is a real person and not a creation of a committee of Chicago Reader employees. That person chose the name “Cecil Adams” to protect his identity, and because it sounds cool. He has a research staff, but he remains one person.

His real name may be Ed Zotti or it may be Phineas Eugene Shackleford, but nevertheless he is a real person.

18

“Ann Landers” is a pseudonym too.

19

You know a friend of my cousin’s Doctor’s Wife’s Hair Dresser met Cecil while waiting to fly out of O’Hare. She said he was very nice but a bit of a know it all.

:wink:

Jim

20

– Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell