Roadfood is not pretending that he doesn’t have a real name. I’ll go ahead and tell you that ZenBeam isn’t my real name either, even though I’m not going to tell you what it is. Ed and C K Dexter Haven aren’t just claiming Cecil Adams is a user name, they’re intending to deceive people into believing that he’s a real person distinct from Ed (or the earlier authors).
Really, the difference is analogous to that between magicians and people like Uri Geller. Real magicians never pretend that their magic tricks are anything but tricks. They don’t claim to have mental powers like Uri Geller does.
But it should, that’s my point, at least in the case of mods or others associated with the Straight Dope. And do all principles have to be carved in stone to be in effect? Posters are taken to task all the time for posting outright untruths or deliberate deceptions in GQ, why is this topic exempt?
You really do still miss my point. I’ve never said that when a question is asked in GQ, anyone knowing the answer should be compelled to post the truth. I’ve said that if you can’t or won’t or don’t want to post the truth, be mature enough to not post at all, certainly stop yourself from posting deliberate disinformation.
The difference is that I don’t write a column dedicated to fighting ignorance. There’s hypocrisy in one case and not the other. And if Cecil wrote a column dedicated to, say, fighting poverty, I’d have no problem with his minions spreading untruths about his real identity.
Sure, but spreading deliberate disinformation is completely antithetical to fighting ignorance.
To paraphrase you, keeping silent is not the same thing is lying. If those in the know simply kept out of threads like this one, I’d have no problem with it. But there’s a huge, hypocritical difference between staying silent (or even saying “no comment”) and posting known untruths.
If you don’t see it that way, if you don’t see the hypocrisy, then you and I simply have no common ground on which to discuss this topic.
Yeah, what he said. Those in the know could just say, “We’re not telling” (or say nothing at all), and that would be fine and totally acceptable. They could get their hoots from sitting back and watching all the speculation. But apparently that’s not enough for them, they have to actually feed the fires. As I said before, the silliness is on them, not those asking a simple question.
It’s not at all analogous in the context of my point.
Whether a magician has magic powers is important, and has serious ramifications. Whether Ed Zotti writes the SD column is unimportant and has no ramifications.
Again, ignorance of the column’s authorship is not “ignorance”. Sometimes the same words can be used in different contexts to mean different things. Being opposed to one and not the other is not hypocrisy.
I can see where some people can find it exasperating (especially as it’s obvious that Zotti writes the columns) but I don’t see the hypocrisy.
What’s here is two points of view on the same statements of fact - whoever is whomever, in the context of the discussion, calling this hypocrisy is quite the stretch.
I’ve said my piece here, tried to understand the opposing view, do understand it I just don’t choose to agree with it. The cinder blocks are leaving marks on my forehead, it’s time to stop.
I’m not sure “writing styles” is really a valid comparison point. I mean, I have several completely distinct writing styles. My writing style for my published feature work is totally different to the style I use for newswriting, which is completely different again from the fiction writing I do, which is different again from how I post here.
Sebastian Faulks recently authored a James Bond novel in the style of Ian Fleming, and In My James Bond Enthusiast Experience, Faulks’ novel could have been published in 1963 with Ian Fleming’s name on the cover and I doubt anyone- including Mr. Fleming’s editor- would have been able to notice the difference.
Personally, I think the fact that Cecil Adams in a pseudonym currently being used by Ed Zotti is about as staggering a revelation as that the Archbishop of Canterbury is an Anglican or that, when surveyed, nearly all wild animals indeed expressed a preference for evacuating their bowels in wooded, forested or otherwise vegetated areas.
I also think the whole thing is harmless fun, especially because The Truth is so well known that The Inner Circle don’t need to confirm or deny it. I am, frankly, surprised by how seriously some people take the whole thing…
Fun fact: some people may not be aware of this, but both Cecil Adamsand Ed Zotti have accounts here and they have posted in the past. I know, it could be the same guy, but it would still be kind of neat to have “The Perfect Master” come along and contribute to your thread…
I don’t understand why people get so upset about the existence of these threads. We can have GQ threads about such lofty topics as animal boobies, or columns about semen calories, but we can’t talk about this?
This is a question which has a factual answer. Either Cecil Adams is Ed Zotti, or he isn’t. There are people who know the answer. They choose not to give us this answer. Just in this thread we have had seemingly knowledgable people claim that Cecil is Ed and that Cecil is not Ed.
Why do we care, you ask? We all know him, trust him, and love him from his columns, but who is he? We know the truth about Santa. We know the truth about the tooth fairy. We don’t know the truth about The World’s Smartest Human. But the truth is out there…
Of course, if anyone really wants to know the “Truth,” all they have to do is sue the Chicago Reader for fraud and conduct discovery which would yield the truth of the identity of “Cecil Adams.” Pushed hard enough, this should produce either the identity, an acknowledgment of the fact that there is no one “Cecil Adams,” or, at the very least, an agreement not to portray Cecil Adams as a single, specific person, seperate and distinct from, e.g., Ed Zotti.
Of course, it would be a silly misuse of resources and the legal system to do that, but that’s not stopped others… :rolleyes:
…but I didn’t assert it was a comparison point, I responded to Dr. Cube on a direct, limited question of whether or not the writing styles seemed similar.
Has anybody considered the possibility that Ed has multiple personality disorder? Sometimes he thinks he’s Ed, sometimes he thinks that he’s Cecil. It explains how they can be the same person, yet when C K talks about Cecil being an actual person, he’s not lying, because Ed actually believes that he is really Cecil (or Ed is a personality of Cecil).
The point I was making was that Cecil and Ed’s respective writing styles are irrelevant because it’s not that hard to emulate another style if you’re an experienced writer. So,** Dr. Cube** saying “They look similar!” and you saying “No they don’t” doesn’t provide any “evidence” one way or the other as to the whole “Is Ed really Cecil?” thing.
It wasn’t intended to be a criticism of anyone, just a counter-point, FWIW.
Well there’s your proof right there. Ed and Cecil can’t be the same person, otherwise wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the no sock rule? The moderators wouldn’t put up with that
Ooh, at last, a chance to drop in my favorite tidbit on this little topic, which is the irony of The Perfect Master’s treament of a similar question regarding Santa Claus. I belive lawyers call this “professional courtesy.”
