[109202] in Cypherpunks
Re: Ron Guilmette: Spammer and Spambaiter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sat Mar 13 20:28:12 1999
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 02:10:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
eridani@databasix.com (Belinda Bryan) wrote:
> In article <199903130832.JAA24568@mail.replay.com>, someone sounding
> suspiciously like Ron Guilmette, posting as the Anonymous Asshole
> <nobody@replay.com> wrote:
Now that we've established that anybody posting via the Replay
remailer is an "Anonymous Asshole", according to Gary Burnore and
Belinda Bryan...
At least everyone knows how you and Gary feel about privacy and
anonymity, don't we?
> >> You haven't seen Gary Burnore's hostility yet. This is one angry,
> >> violent man who will stalk you if you're not careful. Sure he
> >> apologized to Al McDowell for his abuse, but there are many, many many
> >> more victims out there. You're probably next, if it hasn't started
> >> already.
> >
> >Speaking the truth
>
> For pity's sake, you just credited the sock puppet of a known net.kook with
> speaking the truth.
Cheryl Voss is a "sock puppet", now?
> > like that is liable to get YOU accused of
> >"harassing" or "stalking" Burnore, etc. Pi** him off sufficiently,
> >and you might find youself accused of masterminding everything bad
> >that happens to him, or even the decline of Western civilization.
>
> No, accusing me and Gary of the decline of Western civilization is your
> schtick.
Gee, I post to this thread the first time, and Belinda the All
Knowing knows all about me?
> >At a minimum, you'll get a royal potty-mouthing from his
> >foul-mouthed accomplice Belinda Bryan,
>
> Ironic, considering that just last week Ron Guilmette told one of his
> critics in nanae to "shut the fuck up".
Oh, you poor thing. He told you to do that, huh? Why not tell his
mommy that he's being mean to you?
> >(Read some of the old, 1997-era URLs about his previous harassment
> > campaigns to find out how the DataBasux wrecking crew operates.
>
> Yeah, after they've been spambaited several *thousand* times, listserv
> bombed, and forged.
So you're finally admitting to the harassment? And your rationale is
"they had it coming"?
> > Notice how he still
> >froths and foams at the mouth at the mention of one of his earlier
> >victims, Ron Guilmette.
>
> Oh my, imagine that name coming up. Why is that when Guilmette isn't
> active on Usenet, we hear nothing from the Anon Asshole. Guilmette starts
> posting again and right like clockwork, the same old song and dance gets
> posted anonymously.
I just MENTIONED the name, observed how the DataBasux parrots exude
their hate at its mention, and you perform right on cue.
By DataBasix' standards, your paranoid fascination with Ron
Guilmette should probably be called "stalking", right?
> Not to mention that anyone remotely familiar with Guilmette will be amused
> to hear *him* described as a victim. Do a Deja News power search on Ron
> Guilmette and spam baiting, 96-97, and read the hundreds of complaints from
> innocent people at a half dozen different ISPs. Read about Ron's theory for
> saving the net via "mutually assured destruction".
And your proof that Ron did all these nasty things and not you, Gary,
and/or Billy McClatchie, is ... ? Is this just another chapter in
the perennial DataBasix disinformation campaign against anyone who
dares to criticize His Royal Highness Gary Lee Burnore?
> >He even accused Ron of being the anonymous
> >whistleblower who reported Gary's child molesting activities to his
> >victim's mother and school authorities.
>
> Gary never accused Ron of any such thing--primarily because no one
> "reported Gary's child molesting activities to the victim's mother and
> school authorities". What unmitigated crap. Just how the hell did this
> "anonymous whistleblower" know about the ALLEGED child molestation
> activities?
It isn't ALLEGED. He was convicted, remember?
As for how he knew, it's your theory that it's "unmitigated crap",
so why don't you tell me? How would Ron have known the name of
Gary's victim? Her mother's name? Her e-mail address? The school
she attended?
> Answer: He didn't. Because there were none and the tempest-in-a-teapot
> incident which did occur had already been reported. By *Gary*.
$30K in legal fees, three years probation, required to register as a
sex offender, and you call it a "tempest in a teapot"? Gary didn't
make it sound that way when he was pitifully whining about it and
the large amount of legal fees he expended getting the charge plea
bargained down to a misdemeanor. Is there something about
California's "three strikes" law that frightened Gary so?
> Free clue: your dates don't match up. And I can PROVE it.
Be my guest. Seeing the DataBasix folks prove ANYTHING might be
interesting.
Free clue to you, as well: How would an outsider know information
that has never been made public about the molestation?
> > And he dared to characterize that good deed as "harassing" Gary's victim.
>
> Good deed, ha. One that exists only in the figment of your imagination. I
> know *exactly* which post and email you are referring to and I know for a
> *fact* that they were sent *months* after the real incident (which only a
> fanatic would characterize as molestation) occurred and there is
> authoritative evidence to prove that.
You have never explained how Ron would have known about the
incident. Who informed him? The most authoritative evidence is a
criminal conviction against Gary Burnore that still stands.
BTW, how do you know all this for a fact? Hearsay from Gary Burnore
would not be "fact". So what is your personal involvement in the
incident?
> So the hateful emails someone sent via a remailer were nothing but a shot
> in the dark and they were harassment.
If you, or your daughter, were the victim, you might view them
differently. Mr. Guilmette could have chosen a lot of avenues for
harassment. So how do you suppose he knew who Gary's teenaged
victim was, who her mother was, where she attended school, etc.?
That sounds like more than just a "shot in the dark".
> >Funny, but the law didn't see it that way.
>
> Since you don't have the documents, you don't know how the law saw it. I
> will bet you $5000 that there is no mention of any anonymous whistleblowing
> in said police reports. Care to step forward and take that bet,
> mouth?
Go ahead and post them if you think they support your case. I won't
hold my breath. My guess is that you're bluffing.
> Moreover, while you were offline dealing with your latest project, those of
> us who are open-minded, clueful, and not bearing years old grudges have
> repeatedly discussed how out of line CA's puritanical sex offense laws when
> compared to the rest of the country. It's rather easy to find ample
> evidence to support that as well.
I'm sure Gary and his NAMBLA friends do consider California's laws
against child molestation, especially Megan's Law, to be
"puritanical". I'll bet former Gov. Jerry Brown and the folks who
got them enacted would have a chuckle that you consider the laws
that legalized just about anything between consenting ADULTS to be
"puritanical" just because they didn't also make children fair game
for predators.
Now we know why Gary had to leave California -- "puritanical" laws
against sex with children. When the San Francisco bay area, where
Gary was arrested and convicted, is considered sexually
"puritanical", that ought to tell you something.
> > Gary is now the convicted criminal, not Ron.)
>
> But Ron is still, and will always be, a spamming and spambaiting
> asshole.
If he has, if you can prove it, and if it's against the law, why
hasn't he been prosecuted?
> >I wonder what lies he will concoct about you ... or me?
>
> Why would anyone lie about a kook and a sock puppet? And there's no need to
> concoct lies about Ron Guilmette, the truth is bad enough.
Good question. But when Gary THINKS he's the person who got him
arrested, who knows what he might be capable of.
> See Ron spambait:
The only spambait that I saw that was attributable to anyone was one
of the early ones that had Gary Burnore's infamous .sig still
attached to the end. I guess he forgot that anonymity is useless if
he forgets to to turn off that feature of his mailer and leaves
identifying info attached.
> Go crawl back under your rock. Or maybe I'll put up a webpage consisting of
> the "best" of your Usenet posts. That ought to be real good for business,
> eh?
If I really were Ron, your threats might concern me. I don't see
that Gary has much to gain in a battle of dueling web pages.
Perhaps he ought to learn a lesson of Gary Hart and not dare people
to uncover more of his wrongdoing.
