And so how should I have proved they were real, since John called it
   fake (either a lie of omission by refusing to check or a deliberate lie
   to conceal)??
   On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Mirimir <[1]mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

     On 10/09/2015 08:20 PM, Michael Best wrote:
     >>
     >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a
     >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified
     selected
     >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ...
     >
     > *Umm, I *did* post a redacted version first.* JYA said it was
     faked
     > and refused to verify it until days after it had been published in
     its
     > entirety. I even told him before hand that if he didn't verify it,
     I'd
     > have to post it. He still called it disinfo and fake until well
     after
     > it'd been released and confirmed as the files being un multiple
     > releases, including an old torrent.
     Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it's clear that multiple
     copies
     are out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy.
     Maybe
     by then, it's a moot point. It was still a bad move, if only for
     you.

   > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mirimir <[2]mirimir@riseup.net>
   wrote:
   >
   >> On 10/09/2015 07:19 PM, Michael Best wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>> Maybe because Mike _published_ the fucking logs, just because JYA
   was
   >>>> doing the mirror shades thing about whether the archive was or was
   not
   >>>> genuine? I mean, JYA can be a very funny man. For sure. But does
   that
   >>>> justify publishing Cryptome access logs?
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> I published them to verify the data, *AFTER JYA publicly accused me
   of
   >>> FAKING it.* I only raised the point of the logs because of the GCHQ
   >> slide. *If
   >>> *John had verified it a week earlier, or not accused me of faking
   data
   >>> (with ZERO evidence, and the data turns out to be legit) *they
   never
   >>> would've been published. *
   >>
   >> Publishing them was still unwarranted. You could have published a
   >> redacted version. You could have polled this list, and verified
   selected
   >> lines. Whatever. Yes, JYA was being a jerk. But still ...
   >>
   >>
   >

References

   1. mailto:mirimir@riseup.net
   2. mailto:mirimir@riseup.net