The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo

[Cari Machet]

Sir i am not in your head

I get it john young leaked logs you pointed it out he waffled and then did
admit it but sir you also leaked logs unredacted and i see no evidence of
an ask by you of this list for help

It could have been "hey is anyone interested in helping me get through this
difficulty with a compromised log of a site" simple stuff ... if no one
replied another more pointed ask could have come but instead you replicated

Listen have a think on what is being critisized about your process ...
criticizm can be healthy to absorb and we can shift out like that ...thru
council with others we can have many minds
On Oct 10, 2015 8:50 PM, "Michael Best" <themikebest at gmail.com> wrote:

> Did you see the first one where I asked for help verifying the information
> in redacted form, specifically from John Young/Cryptome but in no way
> excluding the list?
>
> Or that after I posted the redacted version of the logs, and before John
> Young first denied they were real (before denying it again then admitting
> it again), he sent me an email saying ""Keep at it."
>
> Or my general request on Twitter, which wasn't limited to the list and
> occurred after the list had been alerted to the matter?
> https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/651760609189568512
>
>
>> Ok i read it all see no fucking ask of this community for help on the
>> matter
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2010 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151010/ef24fb5f/attachment-0002.txt>