The word "Cryptome" does not appear on that page. I imagine it was posted
here because it is relevant to the interests of subscribers to this list?
There are no claims that it is endorsed by Cryptome or John Young and none
of the info came from Cryptome's servers.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to criticize everything this particular archivist does, but it gets old. The vitriol is better aimed elsewhere.
On December 28, 2015 1:12:45 PM John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Select archiving is fine, more of that needed, but not the bloat and redundancy
We have asked several archivists and Torrenters to avoid using Cryptome
as as misleading identifier due to some of them tampering with the material
in hard to discover weay.
Best (no pun) call it by the name of the actual host for honesty not a pseudo,
pretentious fake of the source of siphoned material.
Mirrors and archives have become corrupt, not what they claim to be. Meddling
is commonplace, sometimes accidental, but usually on purpose. Archive.org
is the worst offender, the Google, then Wikipedia. then scholars, then spies,
then clouds and so on. And they are enlisting others to gather and dump debris
to inflate the garbage heap slathered with appeals for more funds to pile more
useless and/or redundant trash.
May not be stoppable but protest is needed to balance the wildly proliferating
numbers and more numbers, willy-nilly WGetting and boting, wasting bandwidth
of sources and requiring sources to explain "Hey, its not ours."
We hate bots and siphons almost as much as the jerks who use and abuse them.
Not a few of the abusers are doing the dirty for pay.
At 03:32 PM 12/28/2015, you wrote:
>On December 28, 2015 12:25:31 PM John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >Cryptome disavows this senselessly bloated and mirrored material,
>> >and all like it junking up the Internet like space debris.
>On the contrary, I appreciate the archival effort. Especially since
>sometimes WL is not available, and because the keeper(s) of some
>repositories are temperamental and therefore, unfortunately, must
>now be considered unreliable.