Why does Cecil Adams refuse to be photographed?

Factual Questions
81

[QUOTE=Una Persson]
People have asked me that before, and even Pitted me over it. I use quotes in odd ways sometimes; the explanation is long and boring but suffice to say I’m not an English major and someone a long time ago taught me poorly.
[/QUOTE]

I had a friend who used to use quotes this way - drove me crazy. He defended it by saying that it only “highlighted the important bits” and asked me how it could be taken wrong. I emailed this sentence back:

The senator was seen out on the town last night with his “wife”.

He hasn’t misused them since. :wink:

82

[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
I had a friend who used to use quotes this way - drove me crazy. He defended it by saying that it only “highlighted the important bits” and asked me how it could be taken wrong. I emailed this sentence back:

The senator was seen out on the town last night with his “wife”.

He hasn’t misused them since. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

That is a very good example - I guess I use them to highlight things where I don’t know all the facts, or where I think a word used by the original person may have multiple meanings. So in the case of “awareness”, I was thinking “well, does that mean he’s run into this before, or researched it before, or is remembering a thread on here, or has found a citation in the past, or…” At times I think too scientifically and over analyze things.

83

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Where were you told you were wrong? Precisely? I’m not getting it. I can see some posts that are capable of implying you were wrong but are equally capable of being read as a joke, and/or as walking some fine definitional lines, but I can’t see that anyone is saying flat out that you are wrong.
[/QUOTE]

That is where he was told he was wrong.

Now, subsequently, there was a batch of perhaps not directly to the point colloquy between Una Persson and Q.E.D. over the assertion from Reality Chuck that the use by Ed of quoted portions of Cecil’s columns tended to support the concept that Ed is Cecil. In response to this back and forth, Exapno Mapcase began to demand that those in the know (SDSAB members and Administrators, presumably), such as Dex and Una, provide a straight answer. But Dex did quite clearly say that Exapno was wrong, first.

84

Where did Exapno say that Ed *was * Cecil? Or are you saying that describing Ed as Cecil’s editor directly contradicted something Exapno said, and if so what?

85

Really, Princhester?

Exapno’s first post in this thread:

86

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Cecil Adams is a character.
[/QUOTE]

<fingers in ears>

LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOOUUUUUUUU

87

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Cecil Adams is a character.
[/QUOTE]

Boy, I’ll say he is.

This one time we were standing on some rocks at NWU looking over the lake at the moon and the skyline and Cecil says to me, he says “Nate, You ever wonder…”

Hey, wait a minute…

Is this thing on?

Nevermind.

88

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
“Do you remember writing in your diary,” Dexter said, “that it did not matter whether I was a friend or an enemy, since I was at least a person who understood you and could be talked to? You were right, I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be insane. Before we bring the thread to an end, you can ask me a few questions, if you choose.”

“Any questions I like?”

“Anything.” He saw that Winston Smith’s eyes were upon the dial.

“Does Cecil Adams exist?”

“Of course he exists. The Straight Dope exists. Cecil Adams is the embodiment of the Straight Dope.”

“Does he exist in the same way as I exist?”

“It is of no importance. He exists.”

“Will Cecil Adams ever die?”

“Of course not. How could he die? Next question.”

“What is the origin of ‘the whole nine yards?’”

“That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to give you free membership for life, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn the answer to that question. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind.” Winston lay silent. His breast rose and fell a little faster. He still had not asked the question that had come into his mind the first. He had got to ask it, and yet it was as though is tongue would not utter it. There was trace of amusement in O’Brien’s face. Even his spectacles seemed to wear an ironical gleam. He knows, thought Winston suddenly, he knows what I am going to ask! At the thought the words burst out of him:

“Has mankind ever visited the deepest part of the ocean?”

Dexter raised a finger to the man in the white coat. Evidently the thread was at an end. A needle jerked into Winston’s arm. He sank almost instantly into deep sleep.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t drag me into this. I ain’t got a dog in this fight.

89

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
Really, Princhester?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, you are right. I’d missed the obvious implication of Exapno saying that Ed was “the current Cecil”. And **CKDH ** did say that Ed was not Cecil.

The problem is, Exapno is clearly wrong on this point on at least one level. As he says himself, Cecil is a character. He’s a copyrighted character. Ed is (one assumes) an actual person. He is not Cecil. Any more than I would be Bugs Bunny if I were solely responsible for the production of every aspect of all cartoons starring that character.

90

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
But who cares? It’s fun. Cecil isn’t a real person, it’s a collection of writers writing under a collective pseudonym. Probably always has been…Dear Abby didn’t write all “her” own responses, did “she”?

Why would mods, admin and SDSAB dispel this myth? It would detract from subscribers/readers.

Again, why even care? This is a fun and informative website, it’s core being the exchange of ideas amongst the (mostly) literate membership.

I love this place, especially now that the “timed out” issue hasn’t been happening (knocks wood).
[/QUOTE]

I would heartily concur with you were this not General Questions. All else aside, this is not the forum for perpetuating myths, but for dispelling them.

91

So in your opinion, Princhester, a plausible reading of the above sentence is, “Yes, of course Ed writes the columns that appear under Cecil Adams’s name, and is the only one to do so, and has done so for a long time, but he is NOT literally named Cecil Adams”? You think that Dex thinks that Exapno is actually laboring under the misapprehension that Ed’s true name is Cecil Adams?

If so, I think that’s an exceptionally strained interpretation, and we’ll have to agree to disagree.

92

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
So in your opinion, Princhester, a plausible reading of the above sentence is, “Yes, of course Ed writes the columns that appear under Cecil Adams’s name, and is the only one to do so, and has done so for a long time, but he is NOT literally named Cecil Adams”?
[/quote]

No, except for the last bit this is not a plausible reading of what **Dex ** said. Why do you think it is?

**Dex ** didn’t respond to much of what **Exapno ** said. He’s not obliged to and he didn’t. What he did say was quite possibly literally true for all you know.

You seem to be amongst a relatively small minority of long term posters who don’t understand that there is a game going on (if you do understand this, it is not apparent). **Exapno ** understands this:, at worst he doesn’t think this is the right time and place for the game. In games of this sort, people play with words and walk pretty close to the line of misinformation without quite going over it.

93

Speaking for myself, I trust Dex.

Dex has said, more or less, that Ed is an employee working for Cecil. Any other interpretation of his words is incredibly strained.

If Dex says that, it’s good enough for me. There is a real Cecil Adams who has been head of the Straight dope since the beginning, he has employed several editors and fact checkers, the current and longstanding one being Ed Zotti.

Why is this hard to accept?

It is possible that he works under a pseudonym, that the real Cecil has been photographed a few times, and isn’t so rude in person as he projects in his columns.

94

:rolleyes:

95

Thank you for that helpful comment, Gadarene.

96

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Why is this hard to accept?
[/QUOTE]
On the off chance that this isn’t a whoosh:

  1. Editors and “fact checkers” don’t remain in the same place for 30 years. It’s plausible to write a column for that long, but not plausible to edit it that long for somebody else.

  2. Reputable magazines have published photographs of the same person, identified respectively as Zotti and Adams.

  3. The Wall Street Journal has identified Zotti as the author of the column since 1978.

  4. Zotti has published a book of SDMB-like material, obviously based on the column, without any attribution or acknowledgement of a separate Cecil Adams, which would be unthinkable if they were in fact two separate people.

  5. Many of the biographical asides in the early columns are inconsistent with Zotti’s life, but those after 1978 are consistent, suggesting a change in authorship at that time.

97

People here are just in denial of the simple truth: Ed writes the column once a year for Unca Cece, when He’s busy delivering all the toys.

98

[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
4. Zotti has published a book of SDMB-like material, obviously based on the column, without any attribution or acknowledgement of a separate Cecil Adams, which would be unthinkable if they were in fact two separate people.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not convinced that it is unthinkable. Perhaps you would care to step over here and explain why it is so. Be prepared to cite the actual legal principles that make it so.

99

If you want to really be outraged over something, I hear that Teller can actually talk.

100

[QUOTE=Sublight]
If you want to really be outraged over something, I hear that Teller can actually talk.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed he can.