[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
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. *
*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. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/09/2015 08:21 PM, Michael Best wrote:
Sorry. I had forgotten that. But once it was clear that multiple copies were out there, I don't get the point of publishing your own copy. Maybe by then, it was a moot point. And still, it was a bad move, if only for you, in that you come across as imprudent.
The list had been involved since the first post about the GCHQ slide. The list was no help at all. Sorry you don't approve, Cari, but what's done is done. The list was consulted and no help. John Young refused to acknowledge the problem - *or fix it. *[sarcasm] But what's terribly wrong is that I reported it - *not* that John leaked it or lied it about it when he kept denying it or anything else. [/sarcasm]
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
participants (4)
-
coderman -
Juan -
Michael Best -
Mirimir