From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:13:33 +0800
To: m2n@alpha.jpunix.com
Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
In-Reply-To: <199712101544.QAA18369@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199712142304.AAA11494@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



rashidk@mailexcite.com (Rashid Kaman) wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes

> >So why should an unlisted e-mail address be any different than an unlisted
> >telephone number?  If I want you to e-mail me, I'll give you my address.
> >I don't.  So why should I broadcast my e-mail address?
>  
> Credibility and you have been going in different directions for a good
> while.  

I suppose you have that on the "authority" of your unnamed "unimpeachable
source", huh?  (The same one who you claimed knows more about what was going
on with Jeff Burchell's remailer than Jeff himself did.)

Shades of McCarthyism....  When Gary Burnore and the DataBasix gang become
the standard for "credibility", the word will have become meaningless.

Strangely enough, a search of the public database of listed telephone numbers
turns up nothing for you.  If you'd like to post your home address and 
telephone number, in the name of Gary Burnore's "tell all if you have nothing 
to hide" philosophy, be my guest.

> I'd be interested to see the BS you add to all your other ones
> by answering the below.  You wouldn't be avoiding an answer would you?
>
> -------------------------previous querry-----------------------
> From: rashidk@mailexcite.com (Rashid Kaman)
> Subject: Re: Gary L. Burnore's Paranoid Hatred of Privacy and Anonymity
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:17:02 -0500
>  
> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:44:40 +0100 (MET), nobody@REPLAY.COM
> (Anonymous) wrote:
>  
> >If remailers were shut down, I'd lose my ability to post.
>  
> Why is that?

For the same reason you'd no longer be able to post from mailexcite.com if 
someone decided to shut it down!  

I guess I've overestimated the intelligence of Gary Burnore's tag team if
the answer to your question wasn't obvious. <g>

Now would you care to tell us why the wonderful folks at DataBasix thought 
they were entitled to copies Jeff Burchell's sendmail logs listing both the
senders and recipients of anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer and what 
they planned to do with the information in them?  (If you don't know, 
perhaps you can ask your "source" who seems to know everything about this 
whole episode.)