🎨 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
Holdek said:
I liked this bit from his Ross Perot column:



Didn't even bother researching if Perot has a military record...how informative.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread, someone posted Mr. Sweet's infamous TV ratings column. Pretty much everything he wrote about the history of movie ratings was factually incorrect. He was too lazy to do any research at all and just pulled the "facts" out of his ass.

Here we go, courtesy of He Sets Me On Fire:

TV RATING SYSTEM

In the beginning it was ratings for movies. It started with the basics: G for general audiences, PG meant that parents had to accompany their kids to the theaters, R meant that anyone under sixteen was not admitted, and X, of course, meant strictly adult.

Where to start?

Error 1: PG was not part of the original ("in the beginning") ratings system.

Error 2: When the PG rating was introduced, it did not mean that those under 16 had to be accompanied by a parent; it meant that parental guidance was recommended. (Gremlins was rated PG, for cryin' out loud.)

Errors 3 and 4: R did not mean that "anyone under 16 was not admitted"; it meant that those under 17 could see the movie if they were accompanied by a parent.

Error 5: X did not men "strictly adult." Those who were 17 -- and neither "strictly" nor legally adults --could attend X-rated films.

So, in the first two sentences of his most famous column ever, Mr. Sweet had five major factual errors. If only his career hadn't been derailed by the Liberal/Progressive Conspiracy™, there's no telling how far he would have gone in journalism.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Merkwurdichliebe said:
Earlier in this thread, someone posted Mr. Sweet's infamous TV ratings column. Pretty much everything he wrote about the history of movie ratings was factually incorrect. He was too lazy to do any research at all and just pulled the "facts" out of his ass.

Here we go, courtesy of He Sets Me On Fire:

TV RATING SYSTEM

In the beginning it was ratings for movies. It started with the basics: G for general audiences, PG meant that parents had to accompany their kids to the theaters, R meant that anyone under sixteen was not admitted, and X, of course, meant strictly adult.

Where to start?

Error 1: PG was not part of the original ("in the beginning") ratings system.

Error 2: When the PG rating was introduced, it did not mean that those under 16 had to be accompanied by a parent; it meant that parental guidance was recommended. (Gremlins was rated PG, for cryin' out loud.)

Errors 3 and 4: R did not mean that "anyone under 16 was not admitted"; it meant that those under 17 could see the movie if they were accompanied by a parent.

Error 5: X did not men "strictly adult." Those who were 17 -- and neither "strictly" nor legally adults --could attend X-rated films.

So, in the first two sentences of his most famous column ever, Mr. Sweet had five major factual errors. If only his career hadn't been derailed by the Liberal/Progressive Conspiracy™, there's no telling how far he would have gone in journalism.
Click to expand...


Actually, X wasn't actually a MPAA rating, it was sort of just a made up rating that sounded "extreme" for movies that were not rated by the MPAA (most of which were low-budget, independent, exploitation films.)

The MPAA later added NC-17 which was for movies that didn't allow anyone under 17 regardless of whether or not they were accompanied by a parent.
 
So Sweet's aversion to learning extends all the way back to his college years at least.
 
Iconoclast said:
many well-known movie critics certainly grabbed an air sickness bag in one hand and prepared to point the other thumb down.
Click to expand...
What a bon mot. Almost every sentence in the review reads like parody of lame, trite, cutesy movie criticism.
TheUltimatePickle said:
Actually, X wasn't actually a MPAA rating, it was sort of just a made up rating that sounded "extreme" for movies that were not rated by the MPAA (most of which were low-budget, independent, exploitation films.)
Click to expand...
I apologize for not being able to source this at the moment, but the X rating was used by the MPAA until porn movie producers started using it to promote their films. The NC-17 was its less sexy/cool-sounding successor.
 
Last edited:
Ca Ira said:
What a bon mot. Almost every sentence in the review reads like parody of lame, trite, cutesy movie criticism.
Click to expand...

If things had turned out a little differently, Sweet Bro could have been a second-rate Cole Smithey rather than a second-rate Christian Chandler...
 
Ca Ira said:
What a bon mot. Almost every sentence in the review reads like parody of lame, trite, cutesy movie criticism.

I apologize for not being able to source this at the moment, but the X rating was used by the MPAA until porn movie producers started using it to promote their films. The NC-17 was its less sexy/cool-sounding successor.
Click to expand...

I looked it up, we were both sort of right. It was used by the MPAA, but it was also non-trademarked so people could also self-rate a movie.

I appologize for my sperging.
 
Holdek said:
Was poking around the "FUQ" on his site, and re-read this:


Click to expand...
The first is so generic it isn't worth discussing.
The third is just all right - it reads like a junior high book report with a few clever turns of phrase. Sweet manages not to go on and on about how sexy funny the fart scenes are, which is surprising, and shows a level of self-restraint I didn't think possible. Had I not known Sweet wrote it, I would have completely glossed over the Al Sharpton joke, which is really pretty generic for a 90's pop culture/political reference. (I am shocked he didn't go for the obvious "Bill Clinton in a jogging suit" joke though.)

The second is the most interesting, in my opinion. It's a political piece, but it's not completely off the rails. He doesn't rant about the liberals being corrupt and shifty, he doesn't praise the Republican party, and he doesn't really cheer on Perot that much. He recommends we listen to Perot, but never offers any examples of policies or positions he thinks we should agree with; he doesn't really give us any description of Perot, except that he has big ears and is "unorthodox." The entire second half is devoted to the thesis that maybe Perot's political strategists should consider trying political strategy.

Only now do I truly understand why the Herald was so terrified of the bad boy of college journalism: his milquetoast, uninformed oinions, lack of research, and edgy teenager who watches Letterman humor were just too much of a threat to the Clinton political machine. He had to be dealt with.

Dr. Merkwurdichliebe said:
Earlier in this thread, someone posted Mr. Sweet's infamous TV ratings column. Pretty much everything he wrote about the history of movie ratings was factually incorrect. He was too lazy to do any research at all and just pulled the "facts" out of his ass.

Here we go, courtesy of He Sets Me On Fire:

TV RATING SYSTEM

In the beginning it was ratings for movies. It started with the basics: G for general audiences, PG meant that parents had to accompany their kids to the theaters, R meant that anyone under sixteen was not admitted, and X, of course, meant strictly adult.

Where to start?

Error 1: PG was not part of the original ("in the beginning") ratings system.

Error 2: When the PG rating was introduced, it did not mean that those under 16 had to be accompanied by a parent; it meant that parental guidance was recommended. (Gremlins was rated PG, for cryin' out loud.)

Errors 3 and 4: R did not mean that "anyone under 16 was not admitted"; it meant that those under 17 could see the movie if they were accompanied by a parent.

Error 5: X did not men "strictly adult." Those who were 17 -- and neither "strictly" nor legally adults --could attend X-rated films.

So, in the first two sentences of his most famous column ever, Mr. Sweet had five major factual errors. If only his career hadn't been derailed by the Liberal/Progressive Conspiracy™, there's no telling how far he would have gone in journalism.
Click to expand...
Could you link to this? I didn't see it (skipped from like page 40 to page 150).
 
Last edited:
The sad thing is if Sweet had put as much effort into his writing as he has his vendetta, he'd be successful right now. He might have found a niche with in the conservative fiction market, and might even be a little famous in those circles. He'd probably be living on his own, and could do his own thing whenever he wanted. It's a road not taken, so who knows? Without outside intervention, Sweet will never change.
 
Posted here again, in case it gets taken down. Red is Sweet (easier to see than turd brown), yellow is the quotes Sweet is referring two, and baby's-breath blue are my responses to him.




HSMOF said:
You are alone. You have always been alone. You were alone in high school, you were alone in college, you were alone throughout your twenties, and you are alone now. See, you know - you know that no self-respecting woman would ever want to be with you. Heck, I'm sure that you're fairly well aware that even a woman who hated herself would have nothing to do with you. You've had no luck with women ever. You've never even kissed a woman.

(Wrong.)

Whoa, geez, Belch, that is the second most weak-sauce answer you could've come up with. Heck, I offered you at least eight points to argue with. Can't you mount a better defense than that?


May 10, 2015 at 2:50am HSMOF said:
...You understand quite well that when you eventually shuffle off this mortal coil, you will do so alone, and untouched.

(Wrong and stupid.)

And here is the first. See, Belch, you are such a pathetically helpless manchild that silly insults are all you can offer in response. I've always known that once you use such immature language, you have no argument. I'm right, and you know it. All you can do is sit there and sputter through angry tears.



I plan to save my money

Said the guy who bought repeatedly into a series of scams and at least two useless commemorative bricks. No, wait, scratch that - it benefited the college that forever kicked him out.


and rebuild my life the way it used to be, on my terms and no one else's,

By begging for handouts. By the way, your life used to be a train wreck, and nobody liked you.


how I see fit, in a little corner of the world where the girls are easy, life is simpler, and the clocks are firmly set at half-past 1997. I will finally be happy and free. I will live it up.

More delusional nonsense. Belch: If we left you in a hospital on your own, you wouldn't be able to make it out for an entire work period. You lose your glasses from days to weeks at a time. You're always running into door jambs. You don't know how to hook up a CD rom to a computer that would actually outdate that very technology. You're so incompetent that you can't live alone. Further, no one will support you in your ridiculous wish-dream. In addition, you talk, and talk, and talk about this magical future, and have done so for years, but nothing has ever come of it. Not once. You don't even posit an idea of how you will make it happen. It. Will. Not. Happen.

Tell you what, Belch, you know what would really give people an idea that you were competent enough to build your "little corner of the world"? Why don't you stop watching TV and perving over Kim Possible long enough to do something about this:

Sweet's backyard.JPG



These are a set of backyards. See those two (relatively) neat lots on the left and right? Now, take a look at the ugly, twisted mess of underbrush in the middle. That would be yours. I know that your mother has a job and health problems, so I wouldn't put it on her to fix things. However, there is an able-bodied adult (chronologically speaking, anyway) who could at least try to address the situation. Do something about that first, then the whole "rebuilding my life" garbage might seem a little more legit (though it won't).


That frightens these people...

See, Belch, that's how weak you are. You need to tell people who aren't scared of you in the least that they fear you, because you know that you don't have a legitimate argument here. As I have said before, you are a threat to no one. No one is frightened of you. If we were, we wouldn't be addressing you directly (and causing you to eventually agree with us, as has been evidenced in this very thread).


even though these are the same kind of folks who were embracing that lifestyle 18 years ago, and demanding that I look outside my narrow little definition of "normal" to do so as well. Why do you turn and run from it now, hm? Why the big one-eighty, fellas? Explain that.

Because it exists only in your muddled brain. As we have stated repeatedly, we are not all Liberals, but more importantly, no one has any idea of what you're talking about. No one. You have this fantasy set up in your head about what was going on 18 years ago - which, incidentally, I don't know if you notice, but things tend to change after nearly twenty years - which you use to try to justify your sick, silly fantasies. There is nothing, nothing that happened 18 years ago that anyone is trying to replicate but you - And you had it wrong to begin with.

But speaking of turning and running, I want to address my original point: Why are you running from what I said earlier? I said that no woman has ever, will ever want you. That you've never romantically kissed or dated a woman in your adult life, not really. So, instead of relying on childish No, wrong! responses, why not man up for once during this thread and tell me how I'm wrong? And no, "Ashleigh" doesn't count - she was a troll.

Read more: http://usaspatriot.proboards.com/thread/1439/kiwi-correspondence?page=7#ixzz3bisk3cjN
 
Last edited:
Sweet said:
a little corner of the world where the girls are easy, life is simpler, and the clocks are firmly set at half-past 1997
Click to expand...
I think I said it earlier, but the only way I could see one perpetually living like that is in the "Nexus" from that one Star Trek movie. Or some other kind of dream realm.
(I'm saying it's unfeasible, not out of spite, BTW)
 
Last edited:
So Bronies4Murica has a new greeting for unregistered visitors:

upload_2015-5-31_20-11-59.png


I love the "massive case of spilled milk" bit. They're confirming that Dr. Belch is an enormous lolcow.
 
So Sweet is fixated on a period in his life that didn't even really happen. As @Dr. Merkwurdichliebe has shown, Sweet was reviled by his peers, and was too stupid to realize he was being trolled by pretty much everyone. Anyone with even a hint of social awareness would have known they were disliked by those around them, but Sweet lacks even the most rudimentary sense of social propriety. I agree with @ASU that he probably pitched a fit about being removed from the Herald staff because he thought he'd get special privileges as a reporter.

Also, I'm not surprised that AJM Studios has gone into lockdown. Sweet was disturbing their little bubble, and rather than forcefully deal with the issue like adults and ban him, they're just blocking out contrary voices, like @Treenbeen. Oh well, it's their little corner of the internet and they can fuck it up all they like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom