AntiOnline - The truth about the "mail bag"
Normally we might leave this section alone since it appears to be straight
forward. However, because JP printed a letter (basically showing he
agreed with it), we must now point out how hypocritical JP is (again).
In case you aren't aware, JP selectively picks mail that he likes, and
prints it. Problem is, he edits some of the mail. Since the creation of
the Negation site, we have received around a dozen pieces of mail saying
that JP fabricates up to 50% of the mail on slow weeks. We've been told
this occurs especially when JP doesn't receive enough favorable mail.
If you have any more information, or if you are a victim of what we show
below, please let us know.
=-=
From the June 14 mailbag:
http://www.antionline.com/cgi-bin/features/MailBag?date=06-14-1999
Grim Submitted The Following:
After your response to all the accusations from attrition.org and
went and read all the crap including the errata page.
What a bunch of losers. Some of the "proof" they have does look
incriminating, but it's just scraps of emails littered with "[snip]"'s.
For all we know the missing parts of the email are stuff like "ha ha..
just kidding".
[First off, the areas we 'snip' like that contain material that
is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Leaving it in only
clutters the page with uneeded text and distracts from the real
issue. Second, if we are losers for this, then JP is just as guilty
as we are. His articles and even his mailbag tend to leave out
much bigger points. We illustrate this below.]
From the April 26 mailbag:
http://www.antionline.com/cgi-bin/features/MailBag?date=04-26-1999
[Preface: The following is what JP printed in the mailbag. This is a
"letter" from Punkis that JP interjects his own comments in to. While
JP is honest (for once) about snipping it, it is amazing that characters
like "grim" don't point it out in JP's pieces. So, lets compare what JP
printed with what Punkis *really* sent in. Notice how many of the details
JP leaves out. Notice how he tries to downplay the serious reply by saying
"this dude ran his damn mouth for about 6 pages" and calls it "boring crap".
That is not a professional way to reply to a serious gripe about a libelous
article. To help clear up who is talking, I have add [jp] behind the paragraphs
that are his response. I suggest you view the original as it is a bit more
clear.]
punkis wrote:
This is in response to your article titled "What Kind Of Hackers Head The Culture" on 4-22-99.
Ok, this dude ran his damn mouth for about 6 pages. I'm not going to make you all suffer through
the boring crap that I had to. Here are some of the few points this guy came up with to "defend" his
friends.[jp]
"That same year, FEMA, partly under the direction of Fred Vilella, was reportedly planning courses
of action which would entail the rounding up an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants in the
case of a military invasion of central america, and gathering an estimated 21 million African
Americans to be placed in concentration camps in the event of rioting."
> I notice that in the article you cite no source for these accusations.
> Worse, you imply Mr. Vilella was involved as well as others like Peter
> Shipley, Mike Schiffman, and Brian Martin. It is apparent that these
> people had nothing to do with FEMA's actions in 1984, yet you put their
> names in the same light.
First of all, anyone that can read would obviously understand that I was not saying that any of the
"hackers" helped Fred Villella in his 1984 actions at FEMA. Secondly, it didn't take a genious to
figure out what a shady character Fred Vilella is. Take a look at the following if you're that
interested: [jp]
washington post, april 27th, 1986, Sunday, section A12
NyTimes Aug 5, 1984, page 36 "Us Official Quits Under Fire"
The Nation, Oct 12, 1985 by Bruce Shapiro [jp]
"These individuals have arguably been the biggest names in the hacker culture, the true "head of the
hacker hierarchy"."
> What do you base these claims on? They are less active in the hacker
> community than hundreds of 'known' hackers. They are quoted less in media
> than yourself. They do not participate in MTV specials on "hacker subculture"
> or anything else that
> would support your 'argument'.
Ok, now your just being an ass. Most normal people would view the editor of phrack, etc, etc, as
being some of the most prominent members of the hack culture. As for you mentioning my name. I
don't now, nor have I ever, claimed to be a hacker. He goes on and on for another 3 or 4 pages like
this..... [jp]
In the future I would hope you research your stories a little better. Feel free to offer any proof of the
issues I have brought up. Otherwise I feel a retraction is on order....
The proof is in the pudding. As much as I admire your attempts to stick up for your friends, I stand
behind my sources, and my story. [jp]
[This is completely absurd. That JP calls our report unfounded and without
proof, yet when he provides an article with NO backing and obvious errors,
he simply replies "i stand behind my sources". That means we could have provided
none of the proof we did, and simply stated "we stand behind our sources". On
top of that, we only 'snip' irrelevant parts, while he snips entire well founded
arguments. The amount of hypocrisy shown here is simply amazing.]
[Now, lets look at Punkis' original letter to JP. Note that he systematically
debunks most of the article. He does it in a logical and professional manner.
Yet JP was scared to print all of this and had to call it "boring crap".]
From: punkis (crash@exo.com)
X-Sender: crash@strife.org
To: jp@antionline.com
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Response
This is in response to your article titled "What Kind Of Hackers Head
The Culture" on 4-22-99. After reading the article, it is easy to
conclude that one of two things occured. Either Ms. Meinel wrote the
article with you signing it, or you plagiarized her previous work. The
amount of mistakes in this article surpass the amount of correct facts.
I feel it is my responsibility to set you straight on a few things brought
up in the article. First off, the 'instructor list' for NDI is a matter of
public record and can be found at http://www.newdimensions.net/instruct.htm.
Notice that two of the five people you list are not on the instructor page.
"Craig Whitmore" and Michael Schiffman are not NDI employees, and in fact,
'Craig' has only taught one day for NDI (last year) before moving on.
In the past six months, most of the instructors have moved on and no
longer work for Fred/NDI. Peter Shipley and Brian Martin have not worked
for him in almost six months. In the last year, Brian has taught less than
ten days for Fred while Pete has taught less than fifteen.
Verifying NDI employees or information is quite trivial. Beyond
maintaining a web page with an instructor list, course list, and more, a
simple call to NDI would yield any of this information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That same year, FEMA, partly under the direction of Fred Vilella, was
reportedly planning courses of action which would entail the rounding up
an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants in the case of a military
invasion of central america, and gathering an estimated 21 million African
Americans to be placed in concentration camps in the event of rioting."
> I notice that in the article you cite no source for these accusations.
> Worse, you imply Mr. Vilella was involved as well as others like Peter
> Shipley, Mike Schiffman, and Brian Martin. It is apparent that these
> people had nothing to do with FEMA's actions in 1984, yet you put their
> names in the same light.
"In 1996, the self proclaimed "subversives expert" Fred Villella"
> Once again, an alleged quote from Mr Villella with no backing and no
> citation.
"These individuals have arguably been the biggest names in the hacker
culture, the true "head of the hacker hierarchy"."
> What do you base these claims on? They are less active in the hacker
> community than hundreds of 'known' hackers. They are quoted less in media
> than yourself. They do not participate in MTV specials on "hacker subculture"
> or anything else that
> would support your 'argument'.
"..at least two other members being targeted by the FBI in connection with
an on-going investigation involving the hacking of the New York Times
website.."
> It is interesting to note here, that you make no mention of
> your newfound partner Ms. Meinel being questioned extensively for the same
> crime. That she refused to partake in a polygraph when asked to by the
> FBI.
"In February of this year, Brian Martin went to several news outlets,
including Wired News, and Forbes, to announce that his long time friend,
roommate and co-worker, was in fact, a fraud."
I find it rather disturbing that like Ms. Meinel, you too have difficulty
in reading and quoting these articles. In the Wired article titled "Kid-Porn
Vigilante Hacked Media" by Steve Silberman (released 8.Feb.99.PST),
Mr. Silberman says specifically:
"Martin finally added his old friend to his list of "charlatans"
on a Web page tracking frauds on both sides of the hacker/media
fence.
Then Rabey contacted the reporters who had done the initial
profiles of Se7en."
> It is quite clear that Ms Rabey contacted media outlets, NOT Mr. Martin.
> You continue on to say "But, Brian Martin, who was once one of the media's
> main sources for information on these very same stories, now said that
> "se7en" was a fraud." Could you cite even *3* articles that quote Brian
> Martin by name that were published before October of 1998? The fact is, he
> has only been quoted in 11 articles that I can reference, only *2* of
which deal with se7en (Wired/Silberman and OJR/Welch).
"Brian Martin is part-owner of a security firm called Repent Security,
with "offices located at" 13610 N. Scottsdale Rd. #10-326 Scottsdale, AZ
85254 (which is actually the address of a jack-in-the-box restaurant)."
> Repent Security maintains a virtual office where the employees work from
> wide variety of statesincluding AZ, TX, UT, CA, and CO. Had Ms. Meinel
> looked more closely at the address while visiting Phoenix on April 21
> 1999, she would have noticed that it was in fact a POBox place, NOT a
> Jack-in-the-Box restaurant.
"He has since become one of the prime "technical sources" for Forbes
writer Adam L. Penenberg ... being quoted in no fewer than 7 stories."
> Can you cite the 7 stories Brian Martin is quoted in of Mr. Penenberg's?
> I can only find 5 ("Going Once..", "Hacking Hackers", "Mitnick Speaks",
> "Reverse Hack", and a side bar titled "Voices from the Net").
"Recently, Brian Martin (as well as his ISP Inficad Computing) was raided
by the FBI.."
> Inficad Computing was never 'raided' by the FBI. This is
> a simple and blatant lie.
Also this year, according to sources close to the New York Times, Pete Shipley
(aka Evil Pete), was questioned extensively about his suspected involvement
in the very same hack group
>Peter Shipley has never been questioned regarding this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future I would hope you research your stories a little better. Feel free to offer any proof of
the issues I have brought up. Otherwise I feel a retraction is on order....
[Conclusion: JP is just as guilty (and possibly more so) of "snipping"
material. The difference is, he snips relevant portions that directly pertain
to the topic at hand. Some forum to air complaints eh?]