From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 06:18:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Ok children...
Message-ID: <199712132228.QAA23871@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi,

Would you gentlemen be so kind as to take your personal and apparently petty
squabble elsewhere?

Thanks for your prompt help with this matter.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    |
   |      We built your fort. We will not have it used against us.      |
   |                                                                    |
   |                          John Wayne -  Allegheny Uprising          |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|



Forwarded message:

> From owner-cypherpunks@ssz.com Sat Dec 13 16:27:26 1997
> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 23:04:07 +0100 (MET)
> Message-Id: <199712132204.XAA04453@basement.replay.com>
> To: mail2news@anon.lcs.mit.edu, cypherpunks@toad.com,
>         mail2news@basement.replay.com, m2n@alpha.jpunix.com
> From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
> Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited
> 
> X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting
> X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <abuse@replay.com>
> X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/
> Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.cypherpunks,news.admin.net-abuse.email,alt.privacy,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
> Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
> References: <66ssjm$bei@examiner.concentric.net> <199712131402.PAA10108@basement.replay.com> <3494afd2.148597235@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@ssz.com
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks@ssz.com
> X-List-Admin: list@ssz.com
> X-Loop: ssz.com
> X-Language: English, Russian, German
> 
> gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:
> 
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> 
> > :> That must mean that I'm harassing you as well, right?
> > :
> > :That is exactly my objection to the tactics of Gary Burnore and the DataBasix
> > :gang.
> >  
> > You've posted no evidence tactics were EVER used.  Naturally, you expect
> > everyone to believe you and naturally, a few like sam will.
> 
> I don't expect anybody to "believe me".  That's why I have posted a URL to a 
> post by Jeff Burchell in which he outlines your tactics, such as your demand
> that he turn over his logs to you, which would have had the effect of 
> compromising the remailer's security and eroding confidence in it.  Is that
> really what you wanted?  For remailer users to distrust the remailer net and
> stop using it?  You have still not explained why you wanted the remailer logs 
> and what you intended to do with the names and addresses contained therein.
> 
> > : He calls
> > :the kind of discussion that the three of us are engaging in "harassment", and
> > :has even, upon occasion, accused posts critical of him of constituting
> > :"libel".
> >  
> > You have from time to time constituted libel. 
> 
> Would you care to prove that?  Saying something that Gary Burnore or Belinda
> Bryan don't like is not "libel".  To be "libel" a statement must be both
> DEFAMATORY as well as FALSE.  While being reminded of your own actions
> several months ago might prove to be embarassing, it's not libel.
> 
> What was really laughable was when your fellow DataBasix staff member Billy
> McClatchie accused another anonymous usenet poster of "slander"!  He must have 
> gone to the same law school as Belinda. <g>
> 
> > That's not abuse.  Your
> > harassment is only that, harassment.  The ABUSE is UCE-Baiting.  The fact that
> > some remailer operators are now taking measures to prevent UCE-Baiting is
> > evidence not only that the problem existed, but that something COULD be done
> > about it.
> 
> That's not what Jeff's post said.  It said that your pretext for demanding his
> user logs was an "unflattering post", not all this nonsense about "spam baiting"
> that you invented later.
> 
> My "harassment"?  You keep whining about my so-called "harassment", but you
> have yet to prove ANY of it.
> 
> > :Actually, Gary may unwittingly prove to be a "friend" of remailers, yet.
> >  
> >  
> > Unwittingly?  I was never NOT a friend of remailers.  YOU on the otherhand may
> > simply be unwittingly trying to shut them down.  I happen to believe you're
> > doing it on purpose, but maybe, just maybe, you have no clue what you're
> > doing.
> 
> What would people have to be smoking (and inhaling) to believe that nonsense?
> Anyone who demands that a remailer operator violate the privacy of all of his
> users to placate one chronic whiner is no "friend" to remailers.  Such 
> "friends" they can do without.  What do you think it would have done for the 
> reputation of remailer security if Jeff had actually kept logs and had turned 
> them over to individuals such as you and Belinda?
> 
> Do you really think it would be more "pro remailer" to just pretend that your
> attempt to attempt to obtain sendmail logs from the Huge Cajones Remailer 
> didn't occur?
> 
> Of the two of us, I'm the one that admits to actually USING remailers.  For me
> to try to shut them down would make no sense.
> 
> > If you don't like being called the anon asshole, stop being an asshole.
> 
> If you don't like being called anti-privacy, stop being anti-privacy.
>