From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 06:15:37 +0800
To: m2n@alpha.jpunix.com
Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
In-Reply-To: <66ssjm$bei@examiner.concentric.net>
Message-ID: <199712132204.XAA04453@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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.