Fail addicts

An alcoholic is a fail drinker, I have to say it.

It's not supposed to be offensive nor negative, just calling a spade a spade. Most people drink and most people are not alcoholics. Scientifically, by statistics, it's failure. I'm sympathetic that they got the short straw for whatever reasons, but there's no excuse to blame alcohol. Thou should not touch alcohol ever again, and it's evil. But keep it to yourself. Moderate drinking have health benefits. Another Prohibition?

When people cannot handle Tequila, they get a Margarita.

A compulsive gambler addict is a fail gambler.

If one haven't lose enough, one is probably not a self confessed addict yet. Gambler do have techniques. If you can't handle poker, try black jack instead. You can even win if you have memory like a computer. You can blame anything but gambling itself. Tell that to the many Las Vegas and Macau visitors. People are having fun, it's just a game. Lottery gives people hope.

Fail hookers ... let's not start this

Fail johns see things differently. He's clueless about internet hookups, that's understandable, but he manage to interpret the article in a fail way, that's typical throughout his blog. Writers and Cops in insignificant papers and places (no offense, just generally speaking) are expected to fail. If you trust them too much you fail more. If you misinterpret in the opposite direction you are epic fail.

This is good circle jerking material from the blog but totally off the mark:

Granted, if someone were to take this matter to the ACLU or Supreme Court, or argue against the act on a civil level, they wouldn't get too far. There's a quantum difference between surveillance used to track law-breakers vs. using it to eavesdrop on the suspected terrorist activities of your Aunt Bertha from Fargo. But what is confirmed yet again here is that if you're going to engage in random hunting or soliciting online, you might as well either be standing on a street corner in broad daylight or cruising the boulevard with the windows down. The risk appears to be close to equal these days.

Basically the article is reporting that hookers advertising from Craig's List is busted by the good old conventional method, hook up via phone calls, video tape the transaction on site IRL. If you fail to see this you fail, easily falling for propaganda.

The cops is quoted as saying that most hookers use proxies on Craig's List, making IP tracking useless. If you need warrants you have no authority in foreign countries, which most proxies bounces off from. This is not even true. You know, insignificant cops are fail. Actually in significant places, you can't even post via proxies from foreign countries. Craig can't handle that. If some unusual IP's are detected, say from Russia, you are required to do an autometic telephone verification before you can post. If this experiment fails, I still own them.

If you know how far pimps are willing to go to spam CL, any hope of you remaining in CL will be gone. And you will never be busted.

On top of that the reporter is clueless. Even that the facts and the cops do not support this, she have to add that:

Clinton County Sheriff's deputies used a computer that analyzes hard drives to find IP addresses for the suspects, and obtained search warrants through Internet carriers like AOL to seek out the solicitors.

That's not what the bust is about and the cops is saying that's basically useless. Maybe she is omitting some top secrets but it's most likely she doesn't know what she's talking about. Maybe she's the only one still using AOL. And since she's female she's qualified to be a feminist, which explains why she had to add something even though she's clueless.



Scheduled reporting on cheer leaders in a couple of hours.