[cryptome] Re: [cryptome]

[Michael Best]

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 at 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 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: 2892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151009/33c23a91/attachment-0002.txt>