Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes 
     
> :This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you
> :have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against
> :UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect.
>  
>  
> Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole.

Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and
call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon
asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry.  Your
arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to
divert attention from the facts.

Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true.
 
> All of that aside, the point is it has stopped since the remailers blocked the
> address.  Note btw, that the anon asshole is still claiming databasix does
> this and databasix does that and yet databasix hasn't been connected to the
> net since august.

Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to
the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down?  Considering how
lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have
come from someone with a Netcom account.

You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down
is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have
Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could
have run Perl scripts.
 
> The issue now is as it was then. An asshole, posting anonymously, apparently
> in an attempt to cause troubles for remailers at my expense is still at it.
>  
> He OBVIOUSLY wants remailers shut down. I obviously don't.

Your cute little conspiracy theory does not exactly square with the account
of one of the remailer operators that you along with fellow DataBasix
staffers Belinda Bryan and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") harassed.
Reread his message exposing your anti-remailer activities:

  http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html
  
> End of story as far as I am concerned.
 
Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim"
of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme.  Sam is right 
in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you 
even occurred.  He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've 
been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR 
OWN DOMAIN!

--

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes

> You're still posting lies.  You say I'm anti-remailer and anti-anonymous yet
> YOU are the one with the apparent agenda.  YOU are the one who continues the
> lies. YOU are the one who hasn't posted proof of your alligations.  YOU are
> the one who's actions give remailers a bad name.
> 
> Post your demands and your motives.  What's in it for you?

I've done it several times, but you seem to be stuck in transmit-only mode.
My "demand" is that you explain YOUR motives for your written demands to Jeff
Burchell that he violate the privacy of ALL of the users of his remailer by
turning over his logs to you and Belinda Bryan <eridani@ix.netcom.com>, listing 
the name and address of EVERYONE who either SENT or RECEIVED anonymous e-mail 
from the Huge Cajones Remailer.  If you don't like hearing that, then you'd 
better stop asking the same question over and over.

It quite obviously took you by surprise that Jeff chose to reveal to all of
his users just what you and Belinda had attempted.  Did you not want remailer 
users to know what you'd tried to do?  Contrary to your accusations, not all of 
Jeff's post was "speculation".  The attempt by staff members of DataBasix to
circumvent the security of the Huge Cajones remailer and violate the privacy of 
its users was a very FACTUAL statement which you have neither denied nor 
explained.  No one has to take my word for it.  Anyone who cares to can read if 
for himself:

  http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/listas/cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com/HTML-1997-11/msg00536.html

[Although Gary Burnore has chosen to have his side of that thread removed from
 the archives (for reasons known only to him), Jeff's comments can still be
 found using DejaNews and searching their "old" archives]:

  http://search.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=%7Ea+toxic@wired.com&svcclass=dnold&defaultOp=AND&maxhits=20&ST=QS&format=terse&site=dn

My demands?  To keep the remailers open and usable.  Of the two of us, I'm the
only one who is actually using them (or at least admitting to it).  You're the
one with the least to lose if more get shut down due to harassment of the type
you, Belinda, and William J. McClatchie subjected Jeff Burchell to.  OTOH, if 
they get shut down, I'd lose my ability to post anonymously and challenge the 
assertions and false accusations of people like you.  Your pitiful attempt at 
logic makes no sense.

You've been invited, on several occasions, to start your own remailer if you
REALLY think they're valuable, and you claim to have so much insight into how 
they "ought to be" run.  You still have not done so.

As for "giving remailers a bad name", perhaps most users would rather they be
usable, full-featured, reliable, secure, and uncensored than that they have a
"good name" with censorious people like you, DataBasix, Janet Reno, and the 
Church of Scientology.  When have dissidents ever desired a "good name"?  When 
has being popular ever been more valuable than being free?

---