[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

[Michael Best]

>
> 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 at 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 ...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2234 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151009/ff3fbdcf/attachment-0002.txt>