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 <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 ...
>>
>>
>