Village Idiot of the Day, May 15, 2009: stjoesgirl, Chet Zamilski, Canton Repository

Today's award is a bit problematic since its entwined with a Repository gaff of its own: the publication of a letter by "Elmer Sneed" IRL Chet Zamilski. (which name sounds phonier is debatable).

"Elmer" wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the recent passage of the Plain Township school levy: Continuing Levy in Plain Township Will Hurt Senior Citizens. A curious poster, "francosarto" did some checking and discovered that according to online Stark County public records sources, no such person exists, and posted that information on the thread. The Rep checked, and sure enough: no Elmer.

Editorial page editor Gayle Beck wrote a quick note to the affect, Writer used Phony Name on Letter to the Editor. She also posted a note on the letter and signed his real name to it. I Hate Canton knows from experience that virtually every newspaper in the country, when considering publication of a letter, contacts the writer to verify authorship and identifying information. The Repository definitely does. Verification is, of course, not foolproof. Zalmilski simply said he was Sneed and that was the end of it. Short of newspapers instituting a a mandatory REAL ID rule, these things will continue to happen.

"Phony name" generated a lively discussion on journalistic ethics and hypocrisy, the perceived double standard between Letters and Comments requirements, and the purpose and reasons of comment anonymity For the most part it was civil and engaging.

Expectedly, Octopuppet, in a new persona--stjoesgirl--arrived on the scene to...you guessed it...attack people who use their own names!

In Octo's world, those who stand by their own names are "egotists" who use the Repository site as "a cornerstone of their life is proving they have no life. " We wonder what it considers people are who create dozens of online smear mongering alter egos that post comments 24/7. Humble servants of the public good?

Here is the full text of stjoesgirl's comment:

Only an egotist would post under their real name. Those who are compaining just want to know peoples names so they can dig dirt one them. No other websites post using real names. I know a person named Leslie who writes under a phony name. This Leslie then makes fun of everyone else who uses a handle. What a hippocrite.

Besides anyone who makes this website the cornerstone of their life is proving they have no life. Anyone who uses their name is asking for trouble from a particular 'bunch'. They are vicious and play follow the leader. If they see you face to face they are all nice then get on this website and tear you up. I hope the Rep gets rid of a couple nasty posters once and for all, They should change their name from lunch bunch to snoop doggie dogs.

If this sounds familiar go back and read the the April 15 Village Idiot Award to "gusknows." In part:

To all of those people who use screen names that could be actual people, before you try and question a comment because of a screen name you are attempting to portray yourself as superior to others, and that is what upsets some on here, because you are just like anyone else an anonymus person with a screen name that anyone could choose.

"gusknows" has been on our list of probable Octopuppet personalities, but the name may soon slink over to the probable list.

But back to the topic! So what does the Rep do about a perfectly good discussion? Disable the comments!

Perhaps it was this comment from our resident parodist Old Fat Dumpy that did them in.

'Elmer' you're so dumb! You know the letters to the editor section wasn't meant for lies and slander. That's what the CANTONREP COMMENT SECTION is for. DUH! Next time put it in cantonrep. You can say anything you want in here, about anybody. Even if it isn't true. I
do all the time. Just make sure you don't say anything about the editors though.They don't mind if you lie about other people, just don't do it to them. Don't even tell the truth about them. So remember, if you want to use a phony name, or tenphony names, or if you want to call someone a thief, murderer, child molester,whatever...cantonrep is the place for you.

I Hate Canton was all the way with the Rep on this until the thread was sent to the shredder. Unfortunately, by disconnecting readers from the only source of discussion on the actions of Chet Zamilski and the larger issue of anonymity and accountability, the Rep jumped the award line today. With no further adieu then, (and cutting the Rep a break) we hereby grant the Rep a third place Daily Village Idiot Award for stifling genuine discussion on journalistic ethics to downplay its own easily understandable and forgivable error and the questions that followed.

We find Chet Zamilski a worthy second place winner just for being a jerk. We hope this liar and identity thief never darkens the door of the Canton Repository again. (He won't according to Gayle Beck). Elmer Sneed indeed!

And for the coveted first prize today...stjonesgirl.

I Hate Canton really hates awarding too many Village Idiot Awards to Octopuppet, but she so (naughty word bot) deserves it. Who else spends hours a day creating alternate Internet personalities to fascinate and titillate us? Does this fact alone NOT deserve an award? If OP cannot, on its own, get into the Guinness Book of Records, the least we can do is acknowledge it for the fame it so rightly deserves: that of a genuine and certified Village Idiot.

More from Don Cirelli

Don Cirelli sent the following comment after I Hate Canton posted his Letter the Repository Doesn't Want You to See. We thought it was so good that we didn't want it to get lost in our comments, so we are posting it here. His post further explicates "customer service" problems with the Repository regarding abuse by anonymous posters.


Thank you, for posting my letter to the Rep. I knew Gauger wouldn't print it, but I still wanted to make it clear to him my feelings about the shameful manner in which he is running that website.

After I sent this letter, I recieved a very curt response from Jeff Gauger, simply stating "I do not intend to print this letter".

I replied to Mr. Gauger "Of course you don't, Jeff. I didn't libel anyone and I didn't use a phony name. Perhaps if I had, it would wind up on the front page of the Rep. Nevertheless, I am going to the public with this since you are trying to cover your ass".

I had a little debate with someone recently about the use of fictitious pen names in cantonrep. The lady I was speaking to felt that pen names might be a good thing, as they shielded the legitimate whistleblower as well as regular commentators from abuse and retaliation.

I see it differently. The only things that thrive in the dark are worms, mushrooms and cockroaches. And that is exactly what we are now witnessing in the
"new" abuser-friendly cantonrep comment forum.

Originally, commentators were required to use their real names. The Rep also printed their email addresses alongside of their names when their commentary appeared in cantonrep. Of course, political conversation is always rough and tumble, and it tends to get heated and even rancorous at times. But under the original rules of cantonrep, people seemed to keep a check on the more obnoxious and abusive comments they might make, as they knew they were personally accountable for their comments.

There was at least one commentator at that time who decided he wanted to "kick it up a notch". At first he used his real name. He wound up getting booted from cantonrep because he had challenged a fellow reader to a physical altercation. But it wasn't long before this commentator re-appeared in that forum, only this time under a pen name. He was easily recognizable, however, by his very distinctive writing style and repeated use of certain phrases, such as "sick and twisted" - one of his favorite references to liberals.

This man felt free to address his fellow readers in the most egregious terms possible because he wasn't using his real name. The funny thing was, his obnoxious, hateful comments would stick to that board like glue. Anyone who challenged him, however, would have their own rebuttals booted in a New York minute. It seemed as if this particular abuser had some kind of personal connection with the cantonrep editors that gave him carte blanche to spew his bile at anyone he pleased. Anyone who defended themselves, however, were not privy to the same type of favored treatment. Once, this man's comments ever appeared in a different color and type style on the cantonrep board. That only confirmed, in my mind, that the editors had indeed granted this commentator a certain privilege that was not given to the other commentators. I think the Rep actually likes this kind of abusive behavior because it draws people in to see the freak show, hence it enhances their numbers (and revenue).

Despite numerous complaints by myself and others about this situation, the abusive commentator would stay on the board year after year, switching to a new pen name after his previous moniker was finally booted from the board.

So you can see why I don't buy these editorials that Mr. Gauger has written in the past about how he is supposedly perturbed and saddened by the loss of civility on cantonrep. I believe that is so much lip service and nothing else.

If Mr. Gauger wanted a return to civility, the worst thing he could have done is allow commentators to use pen names. That only added fuel to the fire and allowed the most uncivil people of all to feel entitled to abuse with impunity. And that is what we got. Cantonrep is now have to racists, bigots, and haters of all stripes. It is literally no holds barred now.

And it was only a matter of time before those who already felt entitled would go even further, to the point of outright libel. At least five actionable comments were made in the space of one week. I will not share the names that were mentioned in those comments, as I don't want to repeat the libel.

It is clear that the person or persons who uttered these slanderous statements feared no repercussions of any sort, legal or otherwise. The Repository has enabled their slander by making it possible for any malicious individual to register with their site anonymously and then to post their bilge anonymously. Mr. Gauger has abdicated any claim to journalistic ethics, at least as far as cantonrep is concerned. He may be the man in charge at the Rep, but he is obviously not in charge of his website. The anonymous commentator really calls the shots on that forum.

Village Idiot of the Day, April 15, 2009: "gusknows"

Due to pressing issues I Hate Canton was unable to make the big decision on Tuesday's Daily Village Idiot Award. There are so many idiots (and their progeny) to choose from and sometimes not the time to separate the chaff from the chaff.

Pressing issues still live, so we will make this short and sweet: Wednesday's Daily Village Idiot Award goes to "gusknows" for his astute observations on the conundrum of identity in In defense of posting anonymous comments on websites. We commend "gusknows" for having the courage to rebel against Descartes' (right) "thinking substance" theory on the pages of the Rep.

Unfortunately, the rebellion is a day late and a dollar short in light of the work of Lacan, Althusser, and Foucault (below left) and other deconstructionists, not to mention Marx. But let's not go there. This is, after all, I Hate Canton, not Folie et déraison: Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique aka Madness and Civilization though we see plenty of madness and not much civilization in the pages of the Rep lately.

"gusknows" spurred a debate on the meaning of identity with the following short essay, in which he questions the identity of known persons with a special concern for the identity angst of Don Cirelli, but his compassion is for us all. No matter who we are, no matter how well-known we are, no matter who knows us, we are all, in the end, anonymous.

(spelling, paragraphing, etc. as posted)

gusknows
doncirelli,
You can think whatever you want, because you have proven my point. Alot of people on here including you have the dillusion that if they post a screen name that could be an actual person that makes there opinions matter more, and they mean squat, just like my posts or anyone elses. They are just opinions by anonymus people using a screen name, if a person wants to portray someone by putting a name of a person up, fine, but in the end no matter how much they cry or whine claiming to actually be that person they are still just an anonymus person behind a screen name. When you and others that have a screen name that could be an actual person question peoples comments because their screen name does not match a real name does not give you any right to queston, because no matter how much you try to portray an actual person with a screen name that could be an exact person you are NOT you are just an anonymus person who could choose any screen name you want.

To all of those people who use screen names that could be actual people, before you try and question a comment because of a screen name you are attempting to portray yourself as superior to others, and that is what upsets some on here, because you are just like anyone else an anonymus person with a screen name that anyone could choose.

Followed by:

gusknows
I know this does not cover all people but to the ones that use a screen name that matches that of an actual persons name.
'Do you think you are superior over others because you use a screen name that matches an actual persons name??'

Followed by:

gusknows
doncirelli,
Obviously you dont realize it when you do it, everytime you make a comment such as, 'if people didnt hide behind a screen name they wouldnt say things such as.....' That is exactly what you are trying to portray, and its not just you doncirelli, there are a few others who do it often. When you see someone make a comment you disagree with or dont like say something such as 'I wonder if that person would say that to their face' or something to that extent. When you or anyone who try to portray themselves as an actual person by using a certain screen name and questioning ANYONES comments because of their screen name is attempting to make the claim they are superior because of what your screen name is. In the end we are all just anonymus people who can post whatever screen name we choose, therefore we are all equal no matter how much someone tries to make claim of being a certain individual.
Oh by the way, 'Am I superior over others? Generally, no' Generally no? so you do think at times you are superior, that again is what is called 'Dillusions of granduer'

Followed by

gusknows
This is a fantastic thread. Everyone is able to see how some people think their opinion matters more than others. What is funny is reading the comments of some who just cant except the fact that no matter what they claim or what they say they are nothing more than an anonymus person using whatever screen name they want just like everyone else.

And, as of this posting, closing with

gusknows
I personaly have no problem with anyone posting differing opinions or questioning comments. But as soon as someone questions someones comments because of a screen name they are trying to put the perception out that because of their own screen name they are better than others. And the people who post with what could be an actual screen name probaly dont realize but they are saying it about EVERY person by just questioning 1. Many people who are on here and use screen names that might not be an actual person are tired of having a select few continually question a persons comments because they do not use a screen name that matches an actual person. doncirelli and mary v parker, you both have made comments that I agree with and some I disagree with in the past and currently, (and there are many others that post with a screen name of an actual person, I am not singling out you 2 for any particular reason other than you are commenting on this thread.) but when you question anyones comments because of their screen name you are questioning EVERYONES comments because of their screen name and are maybe unintentionaly but putting out a perception that you are better than people who do not have a screen name of an actual person. How can anyone expect people to respect their comments when things they say show, maybe unintentionaly, that they dont respect others.
If people dont question comments because of whatever screen name they choose they show respect to all, when someone questions comments because of the screen name they choose they show disrespect or no respect to all because EVERYONE on here is just an anonymus person posting under whatever screen name they chose.

I don't know about you, but I Hate Canton is thrilled that such intellectually challenging conversations exposing the current existential Meaning of Man are now available to the great unwashed readers of the Canton Repository. Who needs to read Camus or watch New Wave cinema when we have "gusknows" on our side?

I Hate Canton gives genuine props to D Carey for his/her reaction to this identity crisis and for nailing "gusknows" and the octopuppets inhabiting the Rep. A sincere thank you!

D Carey
How terribly sad. Personalities no deeper than a game. People living for nothing but a win. The quality of another person's character means nothing. Respect, honesty, truth, intelligence, compassion - all meaningless. It's just points and scores for some people. Whatever has gotten into the water to turn so many people into sociopaths, I hope they cut off the supply soon. To the real people in the comments section - good luck to us all. We're going to need it.

As a side note, last night someone posing as Mary Parker, but not Mary Parker, posted under her name to make a point at how easy it is to fake identity on the Rep. If true, then the Rep has a bigger problem than just village idiots.

Look Who's Talking! "Delulsions of grandeur" cause people to use their real names at the Rep

Today's Rep published an op-ed out of the Washington Post, In defense of posting anonymous comments on websites by former WaPo editor Doug Feaver. Reasonable people can agree to disagree on the efficacy of anonymous posting. I Hate Canton understands why some people are comfortable with anonymous/roman a clef posting. (After all we're I Hate Canton). Unfortunately, this comfort zone also protects a small number of anonymous haters and vendettaists who daily puke out race, ethnic, nationality, and religious garbage onto the pages of the Rep. While ostensibly attacking various groups under the guise of free speech, (some of these attacks ARE real) the real targets usually are individuals with whom the poster has run afoul, not on the pages of the Rep, but in real life. Maybe even years ago. Decades ago. About 90% of the hate fest comes from the keyboard of one person and her imaginary friends. She is transparent to all but the newbie and clueless.

It is with great amusement, then, that I Hate Canton caught the following remark from our resident Sybil in the "anonymous posting" thread. Posting under one of at least a dozen current personalities, "demndoes," our loquacious correspondent wrote:

Delusions of grandeur would be the only reason for using your real name in a forum like this.Especially since it was was one of the delusional who let it slip that they like to dig as deep as possible into a persons life. How many people write books under a pen name ?

So, its those big bad egotists and narcissists who take old fashioned responsibility for their words who are the problem, not our humble, unassuming anonymous hydra who smears the reputation and character of posters to feed her own miserable ego.