Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

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

> X-No-Archive: yes

> :Read it for yourself:
> :
> :-> I still don't know what the hell is going on with DataBasix, Wells Fargo
> :-> and Gary Burnore, but I suspect that someone used huge.cajones to say
> :-> something extremely unflattering about Burnore (from what I can tell,
> :-> he had it coming).  Burnore then decided that he would make things
> :-> difficult for me.  First, he wanted the user who had posted something
> :-> "inflammatory" about him revealed.  When I told him that I couldn't
> :-> do that, he carried on about mail logs and identifying the host that
> :-> a message came from (the usual).  I didn't explain to him that my
> :-> machine keeps logs, but not anything involving a *@cajones.com
> :-> address.  He then requested the logs, which I denied (and told him
> :-> to get his lawyer to send a request...)
> :
> :Here comes the key part:
> :
> :-> Between the time he first contacted me, and the time I received the
> :-> letter from Belinda Bryan, is when the baiting of databasix addresses
> :-> began (slowly, with just a few posts).
> :
> :It appears that his account differs from yours.
>  
> It appears you still censor what others say by omission.  It was said then and
> is still true now that the UCE-Baiting was NOT ONLY COMING FROM huge.cajones.
>  
> Oh, btw, since Jeff Burchell had no logs, Jeff wasn't aware of what went on
> before he was notified that it was going on.
>  
> (DUH)

That has got to be one of your most asinine assertions in awhile!  Maybe at
DataBasix logs are a recognized substitute for intelligence, but apparently
it is not universally so.  Had any of the abuse you allege been occuring at
Jeff's remailer, I'm quite sure that anyone "abused" would have complained to
him.

You're still beating around the bush.  You claimed that it was this so-called
"spam baiting" that you were trying to stop, but Jeff has pointed out that
you demanded a copy of his logs BEFORE any of it came through his
remailer.  According to him, you demanded that he turn over his logs and thus
violate his users' privacy because of a single "unflattering post" for which
you were trying to hunt down the author.  So what did you intend to do with
all those names and addresses?  If the Church of Scientology didn't succeed
in their attack on the privacy of Jeff's remailer users, what made you think
that DataBasix would succeed?  Belinda Bryan's legal skills being "superior"
to those of Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin, perhaps?

And as far as this "spam bait" that you keep whining about coming from other
sources, you aren't going to repeat your old accusations that it was "forged"
from Mailmasher, are you?  The person who fabricated that "evidence" shot
himself in the foot and tried to frame the wrong target.  Mailmasher wasn't
even a remailer and had no header pasting capability.  Mailmasher's attacker
(none other than DataBasix' own Billy McClatchie) should have done his 
homework first.