Intriguing, an anagrammatic approach to the problem suggests the following hypothesis…
At some stage in the mid-to-late seventies a secret Chicago Reader/ Digital Equipment Corporation (“Claim as DEC”) research project into biological computing (involving amongst other substances “Camel acids”, possibly from a rare Spanish breed (‘A Cid camels’) based in Saudi Arabi (“I, Mecca lads”) and/or North Africa (“Decca mails”) achieved a remarkable breakthrough.
Using the world’s first optical storage devices (“A slim, ace CD”) and prototype display technology (“I’m ace as LCD”) the researchers (possibly including unknown individuals named ‘Alexander’ (“Sic mad Alec”) and ‘Sam’ (“Lice cad Sam”/“Acclaimed S”) managed to produce a huminoid AI machine of unparalleled sophistication.
The crucial breakthrough appears to have been the devolpment of the “Idle sac cam”. Although the exact purpose of this device is as yet shrouded in mystery it appears to have been developed to fix the ‘Mad sac lice’ problem that plagued initial development.
Possible other breakthroughs were the development of “Calmed asci” during initial programming.
Those responses were more than just bad journalism. They were just too close to identical. There’s something more going on with this. There are people “in” on the joke, then there are people like myself who just know from common sense that Cecil isn’t real but aren’t in on the gag, and then there are the people being fooled. Why? What’s the point in fooling alot of people and using cryptic language and nearly identical responses to queries?
I like mystery novels, I’m not averse to a little deception and uncertainty in good fun. But I just don’t get the point of continuing to play this little game about “Cecil” and his existence as a real individual. All good mysteries have a resolution. Isn’t time to just come out with it? I’ve been on this board for 7 months, and if I still haven’t heard anyone give a straight answer then people are taking the mystery too far.
First of all, Cecil obviously exists. Else, why would there be SD Staff Reports? Why not sign everything “Cecil Adams”? Riddle me that.
Second of all, even if Cecil didn’t exist (perish the thought!), your having spent 7 months on this board is not reason enough to blow the lid on a mystery kept since 1973. 29 years go by and then you show up. After 7 months you think the mystery has gone on long enough. Are you telling me that the first 29 years are OK, but then it gets old? Puh-leeze.
No, I’m saying that if I didn’t encounter the answer through a plain statement in the course of a 7 month stay, then clearly they’re being too mysterious for my taste. A series of cryptic answers and joke responses, what’s with that?
I’m just saying that a website/newscolumn dedicated to “fighting ignorance” should fight the ignorance on this issue, speak out and admit that Cecil is not a real individual, or is a pen name for a real individual, or something. The fact that they trademarked the name shows that he isn’t real, why not just admit it and give the “straight dope” on Cecil?
In what way does copyrighting the name show that the person doesn’t exist?
Besides, you admit that Cecil Adams could be a pen name for a real individual. Think about this for a while. If this is the case, the individual in question obviously doesn’t want publicity, and doesn’t want his/her name published. What you’re asking for is an admission that the birth name of this person isn’t Cecil Adams. Why? What’s the point? Would you wake up happy tomorrow, thinking to yourself “I don’t know who he is, where he is, how he does what he does, but at least I know his name ain’t Cecil Adams!”?
If you’re still wondering why these responses are so similar, they are all parodies of the famous New York Sun editorial “Is there a Santa Claus” from 1897. So somebody answering questions about Cecil’s existence like this doesn’t necessarily know more about this mystery than you.
Yes. Yes I would. That would be a nice plain statement of fact, answering the mystery. I don’t need or want personal information from someone seeking privacy, but usually even the most reclusive author at least admits (or lets his publishing house state) he’s using a pen name, even if he gives out no personal information at all.
Read William Poundstone’s book, called Bigger Secrets or Biggest Secrets (I can’t remember which title). He has a theory on “Cecil Adams.” I won’t post it here, because the old-time Dopers would be all over me for spoiling the joke.
]