[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]
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. *
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 ...
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. 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 ...
On 10/09/2015 08:21 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 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.
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 ...
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]
*Cari Machet* carimachet@gmail.com
<carimachet%40gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D%20Re%3A%20%5Bcryptome%5D&In-Reply-To=%3CCAGRDzQX8MeKa3DuwLaNpW-jfTneECwos-oXhSxo0iCb5V%2BGsHA%40mail.gmail.com%3E> *Sat Oct 10 04:51:59 EDT 2015*Still michael best you could have consulted the list here That someone calls you a liar therefor you act is an ego based mindset Answer why you decided to not consult this list that has profoundly smart beings on it You could have asked this list for help we are interested in helping with such matters i would say and you could have done so without revealing info ... did this never cross your mind ? If it never even crossed your mind to consult us i find there is something terribly wrong
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/9/15, Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:
... *they never would've been published. *
i find it useful to think of voice. published yes, with little voice.
now it's most certainly a loud something! the published always was, however...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 05:03:13 -0400 Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:
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]
Yes, you getting blamed is pretty ridiculous. The stuff was also *published* in a *public* torrent by coderman?? J.
participants (4)
-
coderman -
Juan -
Michael Best -
Mirimir