6 Comments

1. jummy  •  Feb 22, 2008 @9:28 am
   

   Conservapedia is a nothiing, no-name site run by a pair oof home-schoolers from New Jersey. It literally would not exist except for the amount of obcessive attention progressives devote to it in pursuit of their own rather telling war on pluralism. There are three blogs and two wikis erected to “counter” a website which gets no traffic from anyone by lefty trolls. It’s pathetic on every level.

   (Report comment)

2. Ken  •  Feb 22, 2008 @9:31 am
   

   Hmm. How does adding a reply to a previously unnoticed thread from three months ago on an obscure blog play into that theory?

   (Report comment)

3. jummy  •  Feb 22, 2008 @10:52 am
   

   It works this way: On the “internet” there’s this stuff called “hyperlinks” and you “click” from one to the next until you arrive at a three-month-old post from a no-name blog.

   In this case, I was reading a comment I found interesting I was curious to know more of this commenter’s point of view, so I “clicked” on the “hyperlink” of his user name. Arriving at his blog, I read the first entry, which was a trackback of the same Andrew Sullivan blog you’ve posted above.

   Thems the mechanics of it. If you want to know how my commenting about it here three months after the fact plays into my “theory” of Conservapedia as a strawman fluffed up by progressives who can’t handle discourse directly and are obcessed with torching effigies and such, it’s simple.

   The Conservapedia “story” broke in March. Sullivan was still apparently obcessed with it in friggin’ November, as were aparently you, thirsting for fresh Conservapedia dish. In fact, if you do a Gooogle search for “Conservapedia”, you get 162,000 hits. For “conservapedia+wingnut” you get over 4000. That is how obcessed progressives are over this.

   Before March, Conservapedia was ranked in the 1.8 millionth slot on Alexa. after a month of this pageantry of outrage and “look what the Heritage Foundation is up to” strawmans and the resulting clickthroughs and trolling, progressives singlehandedly managed to raise Conservapedia’s Alexa rankking 1.2 million points to 600,000th.

   So, you see, it’s against that background that it never occurred to me to check the dates, and rather just assume that Sullivan, you and others were still obcessed.

   (Report comment)

4. Ken  •  Feb 22, 2008 @11:00 am
   

   I am but a simple man. Your technical terms frighten and confuse me. Nevertheless, I can see how my one post out of several hundred betrayed my deep and pathetic obsession with the subject. Your multiple paragraphs have certainly set me straight.

   (Report comment)

5. jummy  •  Feb 22, 2008 @11:02 am
   

   I agree with every part of that.

   (Report comment)

6. Patrick  •  Feb 22, 2008 @11:38 am
   

   In fact, if you do a Gooogle search for “Conservapedia”, you get 162,000 hits. For “conservapedia+wingnut” you get over 4000. That is how obcessed [sic] progressives are over this.
   
   I take it you’ve alread informed the 3,953 sites ahead of ours of your concerns? Who’s obsessed here?

   (Report comment)

Leave a Reply