🎨 Artcow Iconoclast / Jonathan Mack Sweet - The Chris-Chan of Arkansas

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
A simple solution would be, as others have suggested, to distance themselves from the idiot who dragged them into this in the first place. Can someone explain to me why anyone there is still putting up with Sweet?
 
Francis York Morgan said:
A simple solution would be, as others have suggested, to distance themselves from the idiot who dragged them into this in the first place. Can someone explain to me why anyone there is still putting up with Sweet?
Click to expand...
I cannot. God help me, but I have no idea. If he would just contribute to conversation, share his artwork, etc. that would be fine. I first started getting fed up due to his blatant racism, and it just descended from there.
 
NobleGreyHorse said:
Taking new information on board is just so bizarre to him
Click to expand...
That's also my guess as to why he'll sometimes misinterpret things with really bizarre twists - like how my silly "lolcow academy" idea was turned into a violent trap in his mind, because it apparently challenged his ideal view of college life in the late 90s.

Also, way back on page 13 or so where the "rules" Iconoclast made up for chinaphone* dating are discussed - as others pretty much point out, they seem to reflect Iconoclast's personal experiences. And if you read between the lines, you can tell what he likely did that was odd or problematic to the girl.
*(Whoever (I forget who) came up with that term - I love it.)
 
Last edited:
It must be stressful for them to have a man-child in their midst.
 
I don't know how sensitive they are on that board, so I'll say this here: It would be a reeeeal good idea to take a look at Absinthe's timeline and see who exactly started the ... well, conflict, if it could be called that. Sweet came here, deliberately stirred up static, then ran off like a whipped pup, went to their site, and continued to lob stink bombs. You'd think this would make him a coward, but no, it doesn't. It makes him a coward and a trouble maker.

Here's the thing about this forum: We are some of the most level-headed, easy-going people on the net. Sweet provoked us. Sweet provoked us. Not any of the /chan/ people (I really don't know anything about those boards at all, so I don't know what to label them), or ED types, or anyone like that, us. Y'know, they people that sent Chris-chan a post-fire care package? Now, let's say that Jon goes flapping his gums on another forum, one where people aren't so nice. One where people might try to dox others, or (if they don't own the site outright) TOS the board (and no, Jonny, this isn't a threat). One guy, one demented member with severe antisocial personality problems causes their site no end of grief. None of them would have been responsible, just one guy. They really need to think about what Sweet caused to happen over there.
 
"Dr Belch: So I'll tell you what: you close down the thread on me over there (archive it or kill it, whichever), and I won't mention you here or at my blog. Deal...?"
Oh my oh my.
 
Typically in negotiation, you have to be in a position of power or have something the other party wants. Does anyone here actually give a rat's ass if Icky mentions us in his blog?
 
I didn't mean to answer for everyone here, folks, but I just thought I'd give Sweet my two cents. Reposting here in case it's taken down:


Sweet said:
"So I'll tell you what: you close down the thread on me over there (archive it or kill it, whichever), and I won't mention you here or at my blog. Deal...?"
Click to expand...

I said:
That is a laughable offer, Belch. You can't be serious. We're not afraid of what you say, we just defend ourselves against your unprincipled misrepresentation. Besides, you've also shown yourself to be dishonest (changing details), untrustworthy (running over here to spread untruths about us), and underhanded (that sickening photo). There's no reason to put stock in your word anyway.

Now, I realize you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between individual and group, so let me make it clear that I speak for myself when I say the following: Write whatever you wish.

See, you underestimated the strength of the Kiwis. You'd thought we'd crumble in the face of your poorly-thought-out attacks. We didn't. But, really, when people take just a passing glance at what you've said, it all falls apart: anecdotal evidence, huge leaps of logic, blatant misrepresentation, "blame the victim" arguments, and posts full of mindless cursing and blim blim talk - literally. Instantly, people see you for what you are, and have quickly rejected you, fired you, dropped a trash can at you, beat you, started a Kiwi thread on you, wrote you up in ED, and tossed you in jail. They have rejected you, just like your strange and perverted lusting after Kim Possible and Miley Cyrus. Even a member of this very forum has begun to question your behavior.

Write what you will, Belch. So will we. The difference is that we'll tell the truth.
Click to expand...
 
Treenbeen said:
"Dr Belch: So I'll tell you what: you close down the thread on me over there (archive it or kill it, whichever), and I won't mention you here or at my blog. Deal...?"
Oh my oh my.
Click to expand...

5146343+_949594f3d9d2e8f7ad5f6b212765ab11.png


And by that I mean I doubt that Sweets will stop. He hasn't stopped bitching about all the other people that have "ruined" his life, so what makes this webzone different?
 
He Sets Me On Fire said:
Sweet came here, deliberately stirred up static, then ran off like a whipped pup, went to their site, and continued to lob stink bombs. You'd think this would make him a coward, but no, it doesn't. It makes him a coward and a trouble maker.
Click to expand...
I amend my previous post: It must be stressful for them to have a belligerent man-child in their midst.

The Mountain said:
Typically in negotiation, you have to be in a position of power or have something the other party wants. Does anyone here actually give a rat's ass if Icky mentions us in his blog?
Click to expand...

He's holding the other AJM members as hostages too. He, correctly I might add, assumes that we have no quarrel with them and do not desire to disrupt their message board or otherwise bother them.

I made an alternative rules of engagement offering to Jon, which I believe is reasonable and would be most amenable to the innocent bystanders at AJM. It's really more of a truthism, so I don't feel out of line speaking for my fellow Kiwis with it:

An alternative proposal to Belch:

You can post whatever you want on your blog, we can post whatever we want on our forum, and let's all leave this forum out of it. No more mention of the Kiwis by you here at AJM, and then we have no more reason to come here and respond.

I make this offer only because we have no quarrel with the other members of this forum, and mean them no stress.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holdek said:
I made an alternative rules of engagement offering to Jon, which I believe is reasonable and would be most amenable to the innocent bystanders at AJM. It's really more of a truthism, so I don't feel out of line speaking for my fellow Kiwis with it:
Click to expand...
I appreciate all of you being so courteous of the members at AJM, however, I want to reiterate: it's the internet. Anything they post has always been available for anyone to view, comment on, etc. so don't feel badly about this, at all. You've done nothing to them.
 
Dr. Belch said:
You call me out for my plan involving pasting a few clippings together to make a fake photo of a man and a child together. A picture.
Click to expand...

Jon is admitting that he has essentially produced sexual imagery of a child.

Dr. Belch said:
Corruption of a minor, last I checked, is illegal.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, Jon. Indeed it is.
 
Last edited:
I sincerely hope that Iconoclast is bluffing about that picture of a child blackmail thing.

Although, what if he wants to use (questionably) legal lolicon combined with photo, like how he combines photo with drawing in Belch Dimension, while claiming it's real blackmail?
 
It's funny that he thinks he has the computer skills to doctor a photo to blackmail someone. We're talking about someone that can't even use a cell phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom