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. --