From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:29:01 +0800
To: remailer-politics@server1.efga.org
Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
In-Reply-To: <8a79c36c23626791ed29d293cab5cfa8@anonymous.poster>
Message-ID: <199712071513.QAA19077@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes

> You're still posting lies.  You say I'm anti-remailer and anti-anonymous yet
> YOU are the one with the apparent agenda.  YOU are the one who continues the
> lies. YOU are the one who hasn't posted proof of your alligations.  YOU are
> the one who's actions give remailers a bad name.
> 
> Post your demands and your motives.  What's in it for you?

I've done it several times, but you seem to be stuck in transmit-only mode.
My "demand" is that you explain YOUR motives for your written demands to Jeff
Burchell that he violate the privacy of ALL of the users of his remailer by
turning over his logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani@ix.netcom.com>, listing 
the name and address of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous e-mail 
from the Huge Cajones Remailer.  If you don't like hearing that, then you'd 
better stop asking the same question over and over.

It quite obviously took you by surprise that Jeff chose to reveal to all of
his users just what you and Belinda had attempted.  Did you not want remailer 
users to know what you'd tried to do?  Contrary to your accusations, not all of 
Jeff's post was "speculation".  The attempt by staff members of DataBasix to
circumvent the security of the Huge Cajones remailer and violate the privacy of 
its users was a very FACTUAL statement which you have neither denied nor 
explained.  No one has to take my word for it.  Anyone who cares to can read if 
for himself:

  http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/listas/cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com/HTML-1997-11/msg00536.html

[Although Gary Burnore has chosen to have his side of that thread removed from
 the archives (for reasons known only to him), Jeff's comments can still be
 found using DejaNews and searching their "old" archives]:

  http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=%7Ea+toxic@wired.com&svcclass=dnold&defaultOp=AND&maxhits=20&ST=QS&format=terse&site=dn

My demands?  To keep the remailers open and usable.  Of the two of us, I'm the
only one who is actually using them (or at least admitting to it).  You're the
one with the least to lose if more get shut down due to harassment of the type
you, Belinda, and William J. McClatchie subjected Jeff Burchell to.  OTOH, if 
they get shut down, I'd lose my ability to post anonymously and challenge the 
assertions and false accusations of people like you.  Your pitiful attempt at 
logic makes no sense.

You've been invited, on several occasions, to start your own remailer if you
REALLY think they're valuable, and you claim to have so much insight into how 
they "ought to be" run.  You still have not done so.

As for "giving remailers a bad name", perhaps most users would rather they be
usable, full-featured, reliable, secure, and uncensored than that they have a
"good name" with censorious people like you, DataBasix, Janet Reno, and the 
Church of Scientology.  When have dissidents ever desired a "good name"?  When 
has being popular ever been more valuable than being free?

---