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 <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 <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 ...