Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed

[Anonymous]

gburnore at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes

> :> Sure it does in your mind and I'm sure in the mind of the anon-asshole.
> :
> :Call someone an "asshole" all you like, but when you have to qualify that and
> :call him a "black asshole", "gay asshole", "Jewish asshole", or "anon
> :asshole", it only demonstrates your personal prejudice and bigotry.  Your
> :arguments are so weak that you must resort to ad hominem argumentation to
> :divert attention from the facts.
> :
> :Repeating your unproven accusations over and over does not make them true.
>  
> One could say that about you.  An asshole posting only anonymously is the
> anonymous asshole.                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Posting ONLY anonymously"?  Wherever did you get that idea?  If you really
believe that this "anonymous asshole" is "posting only anonymously", then
your previous accusations that someone else on this NG (who posts 
NON-anonymously) was this person were a LIE, weren't they?  So which of your
two contradictory statements is the lie?  Or are they BOTH lies?  They can't
both be true.

> Note that I have never and will never say that people who
> post anonymously are assholes.  

You just did.  When you have to single out alleged "assholes" as being black, 
gay, Jewish, anonymous, Italian, or whatever, you reveal your own prejudices 
against that group.  For example, you never hear a white person say, "That 
white bastard just cut me off" while driving, do you?  Such language is usually 
reserved for groups you HATE.  For all your recent backpedalling and sucking 
up, your stance on privacy, anonymity, remailers, etc. remains quite clear.

> :Are you claiming that all the DataBasix personnel no longer have access to
> :the Internet simply because the databasix.com domain is down?  Considering how
> :lax Netcom is with their servers, any abuse you might allege could easily have
> :come from someone with a Netcom account.
>  
> Yawn. It could have as easily come from you.

"Could have" equals "proof" in DataBasix-speak?  (You did just move to the
part of the country where burning alleged "witches" was once a popular
pasttime, didn't you?)  Remember that you're the person CLAIMING that this 
alleged abuse even occurred, so the burden of proof is on you.
 
> :You might as well reconnect databasix.com to the net because having it down
> :is not a credible alibi -- not when most of the players involved have
> :Netcom accounts, and a few even have shell accounts from which they could
> :have run Perl scripts.
>      
> I don't require an alabi because I've done nothing to require one.  

If everyone bought into that attempt at "logic" (assuming your conclusion as
part of your argument),  we'd have no need for jails, would we? <g>  It could 
become the universal response to "where were you on the night of XX/XX/XX?"

> You on the other hand apparently feel you need to hide.

Bovine excrement.  Concealing one's name and e-mail address is no different
conceptually from concealing one's home address or phone number.  So if you
truly have nothing to hide, please feel free to post that information, or else
shut up about having nothing to hide.  If you have nothing to hide, why are
you so afraid of people reading your posts via from DejaNews that you cloak 
each one with that No-Archive header?  I remember when you once criticized a
fellow poster for "hiding behind" it, and now you're doing the same thing you
criticized him for!
 
> It's obvious to me and to many that you want to cause damage to the remailers.

"Obvious to me" does not constitute proof.  I posted Jeff's account of
YOUR anti-remailer activities.  He mentioned you and Belinda Bryan BY NAME.
When you have similar evidence against someone else, naming names, please post 
it.  You have yet to demonstrate that this mythical monster you're expecting 
others to believe exists is anything other than your own self-serving creation.
It reminds me of what one philosopher said about the devil -- "if he didn't
exist, we'd have to create one".

> :Not as long as you want to keep it alive by claiming that you are a "victim" 
> :of some grand forgery, "UCE-baiting", "cyber stalking" scheme.  Sam is right
> :in doubting your claims that most of the things you allege happened to you
> :even occurred.  He pointed out that the one flimsy piece of evidence you've
> :been able to produce more recently than February of 1997 originated from YOUR 
> :OWN DOMAIN!
>  
>  
> You mean not as long as you keep posting lies.
 
Huh?  The "evidence" was posted by YOU and the analysis came from Sam.  I
wasn't even in that loop.  Nice try.

--