If Mike had uploaded them without full inspection, no problem. But, as I understand the narrative, he knowingly uploaded them.

I found them after uploading them, as I and the Daily Dot article said.

He discovered the files when he uploaded the contents of the sticks to the Internet Archive, Best told the Daily Dot in a Twitter message. “Scrolling down through the list, I found about a hundred awstats log files listed in a row,” he said, referring to Cryptome analytics data.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:

To prove the GCHQ slide could've been fake, getting John to fix the leak and stop calling me a liar. Same as I've said all along. How is that implausible?

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

Got it. Totally altruistic motivation...

On 10/10/2015 01:46 PM, Michael Best wrote:

"Any money" is still more than I'll make off this. My only compensation is a headache from ridiculous accusations.

Any chance you hold this same standard to Snowden and consider his press coverage as

"an ongoing for-profit commercial motivation as redistributor" for the NSA docs?

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 10, 2015, at 16:39, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 10/10/2015 01:35 PM, Michael Best wrote:

Nope, laughing at someone who has no idea how little a media mention is worth in terms of money.

Sent from my iPhone

Yes I do and it depends on how much money you consider 'money'... For some, paying the rent is enough. Ask any artist or musician.

RR

On Oct 10, 2015, at 16:33, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

Nervous laugh...

On 10/10/2015 01:32 PM, Michael Best wrote:

I say Best's name's appearance in DailyDot or
any other media constitutes an ongoing for-profit commercial motivation
as redistributor.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.