Gary L. Burnore's Paranoid Hatred of Privacy and Anonymity

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

> :Most control freaks like Gary Burnore and the rest of the DataBasix Gang are
> :hypocritical about privacy.  They want to invade that of others at will while
> :protecting their own.  Gary Burnore and Belinda Bryan
> :were worried that their UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS might be given out, but anyone
> :who dares criticize their actions with an "unlisted" e-mail address is an
> :"anon asshole".
>      
> So you'll post your address and phone number right away, right?

You go first, since you claim you "have nothing to hide".  Why would anyone
with "nothing to hide" choose to "hide behind the skirts of" an unlisted phone
number and street address? (Recognize the rhetoric?  It's yours, not mine.)

> :I'm still wondering what wondrous plans Gary and Belinda had for all
> :those e-mail addresses of the users of the Huge Cajones Remailer if Jeff
> :Burchell had turned them over to DataBasux as they had demanded.  (Not just the
> :senders but the RECIPIENTS as well!)
>     
>      
> More lies from the anonymous asshole.

I posted the URL.  What part of it was a "lie"?  Are you now denying that you
demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over the sendmail logs from his Huge
Cajones Remailer to you and Belinda Bryan?
   
> : Fortunately, Jeff was smarter than your
> :average Burnore and didn't keep such things around to tempt DataBasix,
> :Scientology, etc., so we'll never find out.
>  
> Supposidly, they weren't available.  Now you're claiming he had them but kept
> them private. What else will you accuse Jeff of?  Jeff didn't do anything
> wrong yet you constantly berate him.  What do you have to gain by demeaning
> Jeff?  

Haha!  Nice try at IKYABWAI.  I guess that's the best you at DataBasix can do
to try to divert attention from your activities and tactics?  You and Belinda
were the anti-privacy control freaks who supposed that Jeff had created and
maintained logs for abusive organizations like DataBasix and the Church of 
Scientology to demand.  Jeff knew better all along and didn't keep such info
to tempt people like you.  Had you done your homework rather than blindly
attacking Jeff and his remailer, you'd have known that such data didn't exist
and could have saved yourselves the embarrassment of being caught trying to
demand it.

You still haven't stated your reason for demanding these logs which, had they
existed, would have identified everyone who either sent or received
anonymous messages through the Huge Cajones Remailer.  What wonderful surprises
lay in store for remailer users after their identities had fallen into your
hands?

> Why are you trying to get remailers shut down.

Jeff Burchell NAMED his attackers.  Would you care to point out my name in his 
post? (Yours is named rather often.):

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

How about some proof of your wild charges, Gary?  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.  If remailers were shut down, I'd lose my
ability to post.  What would you lose, Gary?  Is being able to identify your
critics and single them out for harassment really that important to you?

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.)

wmcclatc@primenet.com (William J. McClatchie, aka "Wotan") wrote:

> X-Comment: Aw, are you offended?
> X-no-archive: yes

[...]

> >> So you'll post your address and phone number right away, right?
> >  
> >You go first, since you claim you "have nothing to hide".  Why would anyone
> >with "nothing to hide" choose to "hide behind the skirts of" an unlisted phone
> >number and street address? (Recognize the rhetoric?  It's yours, not mine.)
>  
> Can anyone else spot the hypocracy of someone using an anon-remailer
> demanding others post their unlisted phone numbers?

I'm glad you spotted that.  It started the other way around, with Gary Burnore
whining that people were "cowards" and "anonymous assholes" for not including
their e-mail addresses in their posts (thus indiscriminately broadcasting
them to the world), while his own telephone number is unlisted.

If he's so concerned about full disclosure and properly identifying everyone
that posts, then surely he won't mind posting his street address and home
phone number ... if he has "nothing to hide". <g>  Personally, I don't care
what his phone number and address are.  I have no reason to call or snail
mail him.  I'm only calling his bluff concerning the premise "if you have
nothing to hide, then you won't mind disclosing everything".  If you're the
current contender in the DataBasix tag team, then the same challenge applies
to you.  Since Gary claims that he has blocked all e-mail from remailers,
apparently he does not wish to communicate with me privately.

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?