The author of Conservatipedia, in a comment on an earlier post of mine, asked why I considered his tactics spam. In laughing about his paranoia surrounding Aladdin, bizarre ideas about night lights turning children gay, God preventing atheists from having children, and other nonsense.
Back to the question, though. Chris Fraser, Hailing from Las Vegas, Nevada (at least so says his profile as wm009), the man actively trades Stumbles and participates in other, equally and occasionally more shady tactics as Stallion of Digital Point. Let’s take a look – his latest post is in a thread in the freebies section titled “2:100 stumbles,Let go!!” (errors original). The thread opens
I will stumble all yours as autotech123,Thanks
And, as of this writing, concludes with
Stumbled as wm009
This IS Spam!
Our hero Stallion or wm009 or Mr Fraser is violating the terms he agreed to at both Stumble Upon and Digital Point. The traffic gleaned by this traffic lines his pocket via the always tasteful abortion counter ad.
What others are saying
Fritzy says, to the question of whether or not Mr Fraser is having a joke
I’d like to posit a third possibility–that this guy is an attention whore with a sadistic streak. I’m no psychologist, but after having read this non-sense, I see just as much implied contempt for his assumed audience (weirdo fringe Christian Taliban) as I do for his expressed opponents (dirty liberals, godless heathens, et al.)
I could be projecting, or this guy could really be that frighteningly stupid. What do Gifsters who have visited other posts on his site think? I refuse to go to his site to sludge through another post as I do not have the where with all, nor the desire to provide him with a return visitor.
So, Is It Satire?
Chris has this to say
This site is not a satire
It must be hard for seculars to handle the fact that there are real people out there that follow God’s words and live by it. They prefer to live in their of mind numbing MTV shows like Pimp My Ride and Sweet 16, instead of a nice relaxing evening reading over the Bible.
The question apparently remains unanswered. As with the blog itself, there are what could be weak attempts at humor in this response. And the mystery of how a person could be stupid enough to believe what’s on Conservatipedia could possibly figure out how to use the internet?