From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:44:05 +0800
To: m2n@alpha.jpunix.com
Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
In-Reply-To: <3491b371.83978414@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199712140036.BAA23775@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"Sam" <sam-001@dpinc.ml.org> wrote:

> >:That's because there AREN'T any.  Again, what are his motives in shutting
> >:down something that he obviously considers to be a valuable asset?
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY?  Why obviously? Obviously because he says so?
>  
> Obviously, as in being very apparent, based upon his actions.

"Obvious" because I'm the one using a remailer as a communications medium.  To
attempt to destroy my own means of communications would be ludicrous.  Gary,
on the other hand, has stated that he does NOT use remailers.  He would thus
have nothing to lose if any/all of them were closed down.  It would be
similarly ludicrous (though perhaps less so) to accuse Gary of annoying,
flaming, and accusing people as part of a scheme to get Netcom shut down.

Interestingly enough, Belinda Bryan, out of the blue, recently taunted a 
poster to  netcom.general by saying, "Are you going to use anonymous 
remailers to attack Gary next?".  It's almost as if the crew at DataBasix is 
INVITING "abuse" via remailers,  and it has had an uncanny knack for appearing 
right on cue from them in the past, too. (Just like the so-called "spam bait" 
started showing up right after Gary's initial demand to Jeff that he turn over 
his logs to DataBasix.)

Nor does it make sense that if I wanted to get remailers shut down, I'd limit
myself to criticizing one little obnoxious clique on usenet, namely the 
DataBasix Gang.  I doubt that anyone is likely to arouse a hue and cry against 
remailers from the masses by criticizing Gary, Belinda Bryan, and Billy 
McClatchie ("Wotan") anonymously.

> > "Obviously because if he didn't find them valuable he wouldn't be using them"?
> > So when he (and others) uses them to spam bait, is that finding them valuable?
>  
> I do not recall any conclusive proof being posted, or even circumstantial
> evidence, that he was responsible for spam baiting.

Back when the alleged "spam baiting" was going on, Gary and Belinda were
accusing "rfg" of doing it.  For awhile, they accused Scott Dentice. Now
they've gotten tired of accusing named individuals and have invented a
mythical "anon asshole" who is supposedly responsible for just about
everything imaginable.  (I'm supposedly the latest re-incarnation of this
evil, mean ogre.)  Since Gary is adamant about there being one and only
one "anon asshole" responsible for all of this, at least one of his
accusations against people he's named in the past must have been a lie.