Re: "Good job NANAE. You really fucked up royally." -- DataBasix

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

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

Netcom is now requiring "truth in labelling", eh?

> : Cat got his tongue?
> 
> I was busy. Surely now you'll try to figure out what I was doing.

I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, since you seem to be so intent
on taunting your readers with your latest mischief.  If you're dying
to tell us, then feel free to do so.  Otherwise, drop it.  Your call.

> : Really?  Then why are you hiding your own post from being archived by a neutral
> : third party?  Trying to maintain "plausible deniability" if you post something
> : you later regret saying and want to claim it was "forged"?
> 
> What does DejaNews have to be with this?  You can save all of her/my posts on
> your own if you want to.   *No doubt, you've already done that* so why
> complain?

So you can claim that anything you posted that later proves to be
too embarassing was "forged", right?  That's a lot easier to do if
you don't sign them with the PGP key which you keep advertising in
your bloated .sig, and you make sure they aren't archived by any
NEUTRAL third party.  (Remember when you called someone else [who
shall remain nameless at his request] a "coward" for hiding HIS
posts behind an "X-No-Archive" header?)

Many readers will remember that you were whining pitifully a few
months ago about how remailers were allegedly being used to "forge"
posts in your name.  You were given several suggestions, one of
which was to install PGP, generate a key, and use it to sign *ALL*
of your genuine posts.  Your huge .sig now contains the fingerprint
of a PGP public key that YOU ARE STILL NOT USING.  Still trying to
maintain "plausible deniability" for your posts?

And then a few weeks ago you butted into technical question posted
to alt.privacy.anon-server about Private Idaho with the implication
that the person asking the question wanted to know the answer so
that he/she could commit "forgery".  If you're so concerned about
forgery, why have you not bothered to try what was already suggested
the last time you launched into your "remailer users are abusive
assholes" tirade?

> :  Posing as a
> : "lawyer" for DataBasix, you demanded that Jeff Burchell turn over all of his
> : user logs to you and Gary, just as the so-called "Church" of $cientology
> : did with the anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland last year. 
> 
> She never posed as a lawyer.  Yet another of your lies.

Then why did you demand that Jeff violate the privacy of all of his
users by turning over his user logs to you and Belinda Bryan
<eridani@ix.netcom.com>?  And when he said that the only condition
he'd release them was in response to a letter FROM YOUR LAWYER,
Belinda Bryan sent such a letter?

Perhaps the remailer users would like to know what purpose you had
in mind for demanding the e-mail addresses of EVERYONE who either
SENT or RECEIVED anonymous mail through Jeff's remailer.

> : The end
> : result was the same in both cases, too.  Both remailers shut down to avoid
> : the continued harassment from people like you, Gary, and Helena.  I hope
> : you're proud of yourselves.
> 
> Even the remailer operator proved you wrong.  Nice try liar.  It's not going
> to work anymore.  

It's your abuse that's not going to work anymore.  You've cried wolf
once too often about "abuse", "forgery", and other imagined
offenses.  The remailer operator did not "prove me wrong".  Reread
his post when you're sober:

  http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-97.11.13-97.11.19/0432.html

Just to refresh your memory, you were asked whether you had asked
Jeff Burchell to censor any anonymous posts that mentioned your
name.  You stonewalled the question, flippantly suggesting that
he/she ask the operator.  Someone did just that, and Jeff's post is
the result of that.  Looks like you gambled and lost that time!

You can call remailer users "liars" and "anonymous assholes" to your
heart's content, but your censorious actions and those of your
associates at DataBasix speak for themselves.

--