The GCHQ Cryptome slide could be a mockup/disinfo

[themikebest@gmail.com (Michael Best)]

Again, my first post asked for help and no one seemed interested. Yes, I
mentioned John by name but didn't exclude anyone. I mad general open pleas,
too. Sorry I didn't get your specific approval as one of my steps first, or
explicitly ask the list instead of implicitly asking them on the list and
explicitly asking everyone elsewhere.

Can't change what's been done, but I'm sure John Young will welcome your
advice on what to publish and when, and with what redactions exactly as
much as I do. Feel free to keep criticizing my not asking the list enough,
but I'm done with that pointless debate.

Still not convinced? Here's John's take on leaking and reactions: "We would
have dumped it, the whole thing. Everyone else likes to play this game:
'What if we harm somebody' or all this kind of crap. Which is strictly
cowardice."

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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@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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151010/d30f3ac5/attachment.html>