There is a Santa Claus. So sayeth the New York Times. In theory, I suppose it might be argued that “Cecil” also exists in the hearts and minds of believers. Or maybe Cecil is like Elvis, and most people have a little Cecil in them somehow. Elvis needs boats. Cecil needs currency, small non-consecutive bills prefered…
Of course there isn’t a “Cecil Adams.” He values his privacy too much. But he can still be a real person. Just as “Dear Abby” was.
If you’re saying there’s one and only one person who both writes “The Straight Dope” and uses the alias Cecil Adams for so doing, I ain’t buying it. Could be wrong, but that is not what I understand the trademark document to say.
'Twas the Sun (and it was in 1897).
Well, then, you understand wrongly. It only establishes that “Cecil Adams” is a pseudonym owned by the Chicago Reader (and not by “Cecil”); it says nothing either way about who actually does write the column.
There is significant evidence of a single “Cecil”:[ul]
[li]“Cecil” occasionally posts here.[/li][li]There is a quite consistent prose style and weltanschauung to the “Cecil”-bylined columns.[/li][li]Other articles are consistently and explicitly credited to other names.[/li][/ul]
The text in the trademark document leaves open the possibility of multiple people writing under the “Cecil Adams” name. It does not necessarily imply that they do so at the same time: It could be that one single person has replaced another single person in the role. It could even be, based on that document, that only one person has ever used the name, thus far, and the Reader just wants to leave it open to the possibility that someone else may someday replace that person.
Besides, if Cecil’s columns were written collaboratively by multiple people, who would those people be? I can tell you straight up that it isn’t the members of the SDSAB. And when Cecil does use information from one of the staff members, he always credits that member.
It clearly, and in all caps, says what I quoted it as saying.–ie Cecil is not a particular individual. If you say I’m wrong, I’d like a cite to something other than your opinion.
Anybody can register a user name. Hell, it might be a joint use account, or used by whoever edits the column. Don’t think it was ever explicitly confirmed or denied in the thread I linked.
A single editor could account for the style.
The “Cecil” columns are the draw. The other stuff is like the salad while waiting on your steak.
No, it does not; it says that “Cecil” need not be a particular individual, which is not the same thing.
Oakminster, have you read any other patent documents in the same field? They all say pretty much the same. Are you suggesting that no column is or has ever been written by a single person?
Just because you do not exist, does not mean that you should confuse Cecil with Santa.
I am a multiple individual. No, I’m not. Am, too. Maybe I’m a multiple individual, but I’m not!
Yes, I am a multiple individual, but I am not Cecil.
Oh, shut up, you glump.
Hey, I can’t talk to myself that way. Have a little civility.
Sorry. :rolleyes:
For starters, the document I linked is not a patent document, it’s a trademark document. Different things.
Also, in somewhat random fashion, I checked a few names. Dave Barry’s listing says that it is an individual name used with his permission. Ann Landers is a fanciful name. Quite a few columnists aren’t listed at all.
I don’t get why this is so controversial. The document says what it says. The language is quoted here multiple times. “Cecil Adams” is not a particular individual.
Yes, the document says what it says. It does not say what you say it says. It only establishes the fact that the Chicago Reader reserves the right to name a new “Cecil”, not that there is more than one “Cecil” in fact.
Maybe someone should submit a question to Cecil asking if he exists.
Oddly enough, a quote from the WIKI page:
seems to indicate that Oakminster isn’t alone in the belief that Cecil isnt a real, singular person. I say Oddly because the article then goes on to describe his traits including being married, balding, left-handed and color blind.
Holy wack, Cecil is James Bond… 
… or The Doctor … 
Maybe someone should hire a team of analysts to check Adams’ output over the past few years.
By examining the replies to Cecil’s Columns for similarities in sentence structure, grammar, phraseology, style (where applicable) and wit (ditto) it would surely be possible to conclude whether the same person, or group of people, is responsible for these columns.
Regrettably there is a cost involved in getting this analysis performed. Any person willing to spend vast amounts of $$ in order to find out the truth would have to be truly obsessed with the Cecil enigma almost to the point of mania.
Contributions to my Who’s Cecil? fighting fund can be made by arrangement after contact via my email account (in profile).
I don’t get why you care.
No, it doesn’t say that, as you’ve been told several times. Since you either do not bother to read or do not bother to comprehend, I guess this is the end of the conversation.
Disclaimer: the following is from this individual acting upon his own and is not to be considered an official answer upon the behalf of the USPTO as a whole.
“CECIL ADAMS DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS DEVISED AS A FANCIFUL NAME” only means “Cecil Adams” is a pseudonym. It does not mean there are mutiple people sharing that pseudonym at any given time–“The Straight Dope” is not penned by committee.
John W. Kennedy is correct: the wording establishes the fact that the Chicago Reader reserves the right to name a new “Cecil”. Note that recent trademarks for “Dear Abby” contain similar wording: “the name DEAR ABBY or ABBY is a fanciful name and does not identify a living individual.” Yet the advice column has been penned by one person–not the same person, mind you–since it started in 1956.
Argh. This is the SDMB, the board of fighting ignorance and all that. And we cannot even find out whether the guy who writes the SD is real or not! wtf!