From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:59:50 +0800
To: mail2news@anon.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Same old shit from Gary L. Burnore / DataBasix
Message-ID: <199712111644.RAA05263@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore)

> X-No-Archive: yes 

> :Your paranoid conspiracy theories remind me of the kid who blamed the mess in
> :his bedroom on an invisible herd of stampeding elephants.  ("Well of course
> :you didn't see them, dad.  They're INVISIBLE.")  In your case, you speculate
> :that there's a single "anonymous asshole" who's responsible for everything
> :that you CLAIM has occurred.
>  
>      
> Nope, I'm saying that the anonymous asshole (you) keeps posting lies with no
> proof and still hasn't explained why.  

How is asking you a QUESTION a LIE?  Why won't you answer the question about why
you wanted the sendmail logs from the Huge Cajones Remailer?  What purpose did
you have in mind for all those names and e-mail addresses?

> First you said it was because of rfg
> then because of burchell  yet you were attacking me long before either.  

I trust that you have proof for that accusation.

Are you now saying that your previous accusation that rfg was your so-called
"anon-asshole" was a lie?  Or your accusation that Scott Dentice was this
person?  Remember, it's YOUR theory that there's only ONE such person, yet you've
accused three different people of being this individual.

> So come on anonasshole, what's your reason?

If you don't like my answer, then stop asking the question.  As one of the
former users of Jeff Burchell's now-defunct remailer, please explain why
you wanted him to turn over his logs to you and Belinda Bryan which, had they
existed, would have listed the identities of everyone who either sent or
received anonymous mail through that remailer.

> : The problem is, you haven't proven that 90% of
> :the stuff you *CLAIM* occurred even happened, let alone was the work of your
> :imaginary lone "spam-baiting/forging/child-molesting/cyber-stalking/libeling"
> :(did I miss anything?) so-called "anon asshole".
>    
>    
> Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.  You still haven't posted proof of your claims.

They're YOUR claims, Gary. You're the one who keeps claiming that you're the
victim of "forgery", "libel", "spam baiting", etc.  You are the one that made
the unsubstantiated claim that a remailer user sent a harassing letter to an
unnamed "teenage girl" with a web page at DataBasix. You are the one who needs 
to prove them.
     
> :How about some proof of your wild charges, Gary?
>    
>  
> You're posting anonymously. You're lying about me.  Those are the charges.

I'm posting anonymously?  Well cry me a river.  Deal with it!  If that's your
charge, then it says more about you than it does about me.  If posting anonymously
upsets you, then that alone is reason enough to do it.

I'm lying about you?  How?  By asking you why you wanted to violate the
privacy of all of the users of Jeff Burchell's remailer?  It was Jeff's
post that revealed your attempt to violate the privacy of his users.  I only
referred to it.  How does that make me a liar?
 
> :" Only one of us even USES
> :remailers (or at least admits to it).  You, OTOH, have never had a civil word
> :to say about ANY anonymous poster.
>  
> You're the one who keeps ranting on and on that I'm agaist remailers and I say
> I'm not. You've yet to do anything other than prove that you really do want to
> shut them down.

Then why did you harass Jeff Burchell by demanding that he turn over his logs
to you that would have identified all of his remailer's users and effectively
shut it down by destroying confidence in its integrity.  Did you really think
that the remailer would have remained viable after it was revealed that its
operator turned over its logs to DataBasix or the Church of Scientology?  Or
were you hoping that your attempted end run on privacy would remain your own
dirty little secret?

> : If remailers were shut down, I'd lose my
> :ability to post.  What would you lose, Gary?
>  
> The same thing you'd lose.

How so?  You claim that you don't use remailers.

> : Is being able to identify your
> :critics and single them out for harassment really that important to you?
>  
> You mean like you single me out for harassment?

Your disinformation is getting old.  You've posted no evidence:  

  * No evidence that this so called "harassment" even occurred.  
  
  * No evidence that it originated from someone other than a DataBasix staffer
    fabricating evidence for a smear campaign.
  
  * No evidence that I did it.
  
  * No evidence, period.
  
Typical DataBasix big lie technique.  How about the evidence, BurnFUD?
HINT: Unsupported allegations that an UNNAMED user at DataBasix was "harassed"
by an UNDISCLOSED e-mail from an UNNAMED person using an UNNAMED remailer are 
not evidence.

I've posted a URL to my evidence, posted by a NON-anonymous, firsthand witness
to your abuse, that NAMED you, Belinda Bryan, and William J. McClatchie.  You are 
invited to do likewise, if you have any such evidence.