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

[Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>]

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

> No, otherwise it'd say 'theanonassholeislosing@
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^

Keep up your bigoted remarks towards those of us who'd rather not
contribute our e-mail addresses to spammers and abusers.  Your true
colors are showing ever more clearly with each passing day.

> Changing your tune a bit?  hahaha You're losing.

If believing that makes you happy, go right ahead.

> I remember that you have no clue what you're talking about anymore.  You
> complain that I don't sign my posts yet you miss one thing.  I'm not posting
> from databasix.com.  That's where the accusations are leveled towards. Those
> were the posts that were forged.  When I post from DataBasix, I'll pgp sign
> them.

You were posting from Netcom, not DataBasix, when you accused the
poster of a technical question to alt.privacy.anon-server of wanting
the the information so that he could permit "forgery".

> You're an abusive asshole and you're posting anonymously.  There are
> legitimate reasons for using a remailer.  None of your posts have fit that
> criteria.

If you're campaigning for "privacy czar", this isn't going to win
you any votes.  Once again, when you take the time and effort to set
up your own remailer, then you have the privilege of determining
"legitimate reasons for using it".  Have you, Belinda Bryan
<eridani@ix.netcom.com>, or your other flunkies at DataBasix EVER
had ANYTHING civil to say publicly about anonymous posters?  Care to
cite an example?

> : 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?
> 
> One doesn't need to be a lawyer to send a letter. 

You didn't answer the question.  You demanded ALL of the user logs
for Jeff's Huge Cajones remailer.  Why?  What would have happened to
all of the e-mail addresses of his users if Jeff had given in to
that demand?

> : 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.
> 
> Perhaps readers would be interested in knowing the real reason you're so
> attracted to me.  Maybe someday you'll post your demands.

Just leave remailers and their users the he** alone, Gary!

> Blah Blah Blah. You're such a lousy liar.  You've still never posted one shred
> of evidence that I ever abused anything or tried to shut a remailer down or
> had one shut down or whatever you like to think.  It's more likely it's YOU
> who want remailers shut down.  Many are now complaining about tactics such as
> yours. Posting lies from behind a remailer is one good way to try to get them
> shut down.  Why do you want remailers shut down so badly?

You call me a liar, then you proceed with your typical "big lie"
technique of accusing me without evidence.  "Posting lies from
behind a remailer"?  Do you fancy yourself to be the "truth squad"
or "Thought Police", Gary?  Have you got a Perl script in your back
pocket that will filter posts for "truth" and "lies" that you'd care
to donate to the remailer net, or should remailer operators just
block all posts that even mention your name just to be on the "safe"
side?

It's interesting that you'd claim "Posting lies from behind a
remailer is one good way to try to get them shut down".  Is that
your goal?  Have you tried that tactic before, perhaps as a pretext
to get a remailer shut down?  Your unproven accusations are a bit
mis-targeted.  I'm the one who's USING a remailer, you're the one
who's consistently CRITICIZED them.  Have you even USED a remailer
(that you'll admit to)?  Have you ever contributed money or
technical expertise to setting up or operating one?  Back when you
were lecturing people on how a remailer ought to be run, you were
politely invited to set up your own and SHOW us all how a remailer
should be run.  That invitation is still open.

> : 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!
> 
> I said (and I told him)  I wanted any post with my email address in the From
> line or To line dropped.
> 
> Looks like your creativity is running out.  Looks like you gambled
> and lost. 

You were harassing Jeff in June and yet you weren't able to produce
any evidence of "forged" posts any more recent than February, and
even those appeared to have been forged to LOOK like they had
originated from a remailer.  The problem is, the person who posted
that manufactured "evidence" was not very knowledgeable about
remailers, and attempted to implicate a server, Mailmasher, that
didn't even support header pasting.  (It was a 'nym server, not a
remailer.)  Nevertheless, your associate at DataBasix, William J.
McClatchie, used this bogus "evidence" as part of his campaign to
get Mailmasher shut down.  (Still wanna claim that DataBasix is not
anti-remailer?)

According to Jeff, you also demanded that he block what you called
"inflammatory posts".  He also indicated that he was blocking posts
that contained your e-mail address in the *BODY* of the post (which
most replies to your posts would contain) because YOU DEMANDED IT.
Once again you've been caught in a lie, Gary.  "Forged" From:  lines
were already a non-problem -- it was the CONTENT that you sought to
censor.

I might add that while remailers have long ago removed the
capability of "forging" From:  lines to usenet posts, your own ISP,
Netcom, has not.  Maybe you ought to be whining to them and accusing
your fellow Netcommies of being "abusers".  There certainly seem to
be a lot more abuse complaints about Netcom users than there are
about remailer users.  Could it be that spammers and UCErs find
Netcom more tolerant of their net abuse than do the remailers you
continually attack?

> You've lost.  It's not working anymore.  Your unfounded and unproven
> accusations have proved you the liar.  You've yet to explain why you've go t
> such a 'thing' for me.  Bet I got your account closed for spamming or UCE. 

You weren't able to send any spam or UCE to my account because I've
never given the address to you.  That, apparently, is what's bugging
you about the fact that I'm anonymous.  We all know about how you
and Belinda Bryan like to Netcop anyone who dares to disagree with
you, but I was not among your victims.  Sorry to disappoint you.

The existence of people like you on the net is one of the best
selling points for posting anonymously and not indiscriminately
broadcasting one's name and e-mail address worldwide with every
post.  It's sort of hard to blackmail someone by posting
confidential information, like old tax liens, if you don't know his
name, isn't it?  Is that what's bugging you about not knowing my
name?

It's interesting that in a recent post, your fellow DataBasix-er
Belinda Bryan expressed concern about her UNLISTED phone number or
her street address being revealed on the net.  So why is it OK to
"hide behind the skirts of" an unlisted phone number, but using an
"unlisted" e-mail address somehow makes one a "dickless coward with
no balls" (to use her own words)?

--