SOHCAHTOA

This is so confusing. We know next to nothing about Alicorns, but what we do know is mostly self-contradictory. I know there is a reasonable explanation for all that, but we don't know what it is. In my opinion, the best we can do is wait for this season finale. It must have some sort of answer. Even if it doesn't explain everything, we need at least an answer that makes sense. Until then, it's impossible for anyone here to guess right anything about Alicorns, considering all the contradictory information we've been given. @@himanuts, I think the reason Twilight didn't change much is because she's still young. If ponies aged like humans, I'd say Celestia looks about 30 to 35 years old, Luna 26 to 27 years old, Cadance 21 to 23 years old and Twilight 14 to 18 years old.

I am really sorry about what I've done. Mostly it was just answering someone, but I should've known better than to do that. I'd delete my posts if I knew how. About the point of the thread, I don't think there's anything else we could find that SasQ hasn't pointed out. I mean, dude, you study this kind of thing. I doubt there's anyone on this forum who could notice everything you noticed here, let alone anything you missed. For now, all we can do is wait for new episodes to see if we can find any new symbols. And if I may ask, since I'm already writing something you're most likely to read anyway, have you done any progress with that pony alphabeth thing, SasQ? Have you given up? Or are you awaiting for those glyphs to be used again? I found it really interesting, specially when you pointed out that if it worked how you said it, Dark Magic would be pronounced "Mana". Wait... what if we combined the searching for alphabeth with the searching for symbols thing? I mean, in the other thread, someone mentioned how the illustration of NightMare Moon in the book (A moon in a purple sky, with one star in each corner of the image) would translate to "dark heaven". What if there are stances like those in the show where simple symbols, like stars and moons and suns appeared, and people dismissed it as decorations? What if they actually meant something? If the symbols fit with the ten glyphs you mentioned then there might be some meaning behind it! EDIT: Currently, I am not able to watch episodes of MLP:FIM. But as soon as I am capable of rewatching the show, I'll start looking into this!

Actually, no. I don't just say whatever comes to mouth, I triple-check my posts before being sure I said what I wanted to say the best way I could. If there's a contradiction there, could you please point it out to me? Because I don't see it. When I say there are multiple truths, I'm thinking on how everything is relative. One person might say "This food is bad", and the other "This food is good", both talking about the same thing, and both are right. Why? Because What they mean is "I don't like this food" and "I like this food", respectively, and taste is relative. Meanwhile, Two people might live completely different philosophies. One might decide to abandon all physical possesions, while the other might simple decide to live the luxuries of life. Are either of their philosophies wrong? No not really. Because everyone has the right to live their life however they want. I do admit that there's a great universal truth, but this truth does not acknowledge sapiency. There are just too many variables caused by humanity, because we don't follow our instincts nature never knows what we'll do next. The "greater jigsaw puzzle" is too big, you need to walk a few steps back to see it. And once you do you'll realize Earth is just a pale blue dot (anyone familiar with that Carl Sagan quote?), and that if you want to see the big picture, you won't even be able to see earth. The universal truth does not account for something that can have two mutually exclusive characteristics at the same time, and that's why we must remove earth from the equation. I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over. Sorry, I have an habit of doing that if I don't know how to finish what I'm saying. So I'll stop now. Did I use it wrong, or did you simply thought I was using it wrong? Well, as far as I know, disillusioned means to willingly believe something that can be disproven. Can you tell me wheter I used it right or not? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Frankly, I believe that those symbols are there, and that someone intended to put them there. I just don't believe that they're the reason some people like the show so much. They're there for the same reasons there are masonic symbols in Wshington D.C: Someone in charge of making the show/building the city though about putting symbols everywhere, just because. Some of it, I believe was too circunstantial (like the double helix) but most of it made sense, to the point where, in my opinion, it's more likely that the symbol is there than that it's a coincidence, which brings us to the burden of proof. But let's not talk about that, since we're talking about opinions, not assertions. And please, don't come saying "it's not a coincidence, it's just one guy believing random cr*p" (Tiina, I'm not talking about you, just skeptics in general. I don't think you'd say something so rude). It's not one guy, because about half of the people who posted here agree with him, and can too see it, and we would have seen it by ourselves if we just had as much knowledge about symbolism. SasQ, sorry for the little take over of your thread. Regarding new symbols, that'll be a rather hard task. I mean, I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly no expert. Unless I see a Möbius Strip, a Void Cube or Menger sponge, it isn't very likely for me to notice anything that wouldn't normally be in a children's show. But I'll try looking for something. It'll be an excuse for rewatching all the episodes again in fact, the crystal empire, and crystal formation and structure come to mind. I think I'll study a little of this. Er... Dangit, I never know how to finish. Well, I guess I'll leave it at that. Ciao.

Ok. I know I shouldn't say this on the internet. But come what may, I'm not the type of guy to keep my thoughts to myself. Your first mistake is talking about religion on the internet. And my first mistake on this post is answering that, but oh well. To put it simply: God has no effect whatsoever on your knowledge or wisdom. Usually, he's a step back, if anything. Because people who believe in some sort of god tend to just dismiss anything they don't understand as work of god, and make no effort to learn more. Of course you're different, you managed to learn a lot. Your problem is that your belief in god has made you believe you already learned everything you could learn. One does not need to find god to learn more, and there is nothing one can only learn if he believes in god. And this is you second mistake. Believing that there is a single truth. That's an understandable mistake, since only philophers tend to discover this isn't true. What's really a shame is that you believe you know what this truth is. To be so disillusioned... (ohmyohmyohmyohmyohmyohmyi'mjustmakingmyselfatargetforflameain'tI?) The truth is, the world is more than one thing. It is simply too big to be just one thing. And it might be true to you that the world is screwed up, but you know what? To someone else, the truth is different. To some people, it might be just like you say, to some it might be slightly different than what you say and to some it might be the complete opposite. But one way or the other, whatever you believe is the truth, that's YOUR truth, so don't assume it goes for everyone. Because the truth is not absolute, and two things that contradict themselves may both be true. Mistake number 3. Man, I really didn't plan to make this a running theme, but you make this too easy. No you did not watch the world on every level. And even if you did, watching is not enough to understand something. You need to live it. Were you ever a hobo? A CEO perhaps? You know that "watching the world on every level", implies you did so regarding every place and every culture right? Well, tell me about the polictical situation on brazil. Yes, that is relevant, because in brazil we talk about polictics casually. Even if you didn't follow the elections you should know what people were talking about the candidates if you were "watching that level of the world". Now, the last thing I'll talk about. This isn't a mistake you commited, it is just something I want to give my opinion on. Why should you bother, you ask? Well, that depends. To some people, it is "the goods outweigh the bads". To others, it's "I have nothing else to do", and to others yet the only thing stopping them from committing suicide is fear of death. And you know what, I used to ask myself that question too. "Why should I even bother?", I thought. But unlike most people, I didn't stop questioning that until I got a satisfying answer. And you know the answer I got? "Why shouldn't you?" Seriously. I don't need much motivation, so when I started thinking about both sides of the question, I realized that there were about as much reasons to bother than to not bother. And contrary to what you might think, that didn't make me realize I should care about what happens. If anything, that made me realize that I didn't give a flying sh*t about anything that doesn't concern me. What's the point of worrying if you can fix the problem? What's the use of worrying if you can't? There are kids starving in Africa, but blaming myself for it won't make their situation any better. Once I can do anything about it, I will, but for now, I'll just focus on my studies and on having fun. But if ignoring the evils of the world is not your style, then there's the old saying: "Better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness". Remember Hurricane Fluttershy? What was the lesson? No matter how little you can actually contribute, every bit counts.

This thing has been going on for years now and hasbro hasn't said a word. I doubt they'd shut it down, all of the important people in Hasbro are good guys. It's not like Sony.

You're attacking the last thing I said while ignoring everything else. He didn't get enough screentime to have a developed personality and backstory, things that would make people really like him. If you like him for how much of a jerk he is, I'm sorry dude, but you might be the only brony who likes a character because that character is a jerk. Ah, this discussion is getting tiresome. Repetitive. Maybe I'm just tired. I'll stop posting here for a while, and maybe, if I think this is no longer boring, I might post here again later.

She had more personality than him, more screentime, a more developed backstory and a relation to one of the Mane 6. She was the first griffon shown in the show and one of the only two griffons shown so far. But in the end, it falls to not liking the character, but what one projects in the character. Her fans always think she wasn't as bad as she appeared in the show. They make her look sympathetic and stuff, even though she didn't seem to be anything but a jerk in the episode. They like her for the same flawed and illogical reasons you like Blueblood, but Gilda has more fans because her personality and backstory were more well developed. Also, "only a little bit biger screen time than him but not that much"? Please. She had way more screentime, as well as more lines, and a bigger role.

1) Cadance is not overrated, she is liked because she's a good character. I don't see anyone fanboying on her like you're doing with Blueblood. 2) He has nothing in common with Him, or Doflamingo. The show never actually showed him acting as a metrosexual. Meanwhile, the other characters you mentioned may be metrosexual, and even bad guys, but they're not douchebags. 3) You have just proved you are not a fan of the character, you are a fan of your headcanon of him. None of the reasons you cited for liking him are canon. 4) Seriously? "If he was a mare he'd have more fans"? Are you forgetting that his whole role in the show depended on him being a stallion? Or perhaps you just like him for his personality, in which case, once again, you don't like him, just the way he is. While I admit mares in the series tend to have larger fanbases, that happens because their body models are just cuter. They're adorable, something that can give you diabetes just from looking at. Not because "the fanbase are biased and pervs", as you put it. 5) He's not "one of the awesome stallions in the show". He is "one of the few relevant stallions in the show". And the most irrelevant at that. He's the stallion with the least physical appearances.

No! D: I wouldn't survive with Circuits constantly rambling. And he thinks too much. And he takes things too seriously. And I dislike the "pair" idea. I'd rather work on a full team, with at least four people. Or alone, alone is good. Also, I'm a bit reluctant on posting something thats completely irrelevant to the thread.

Trixie. People loved her even before her redemption. All's fine and dandy as long as they're INTERESTING stuck-up pricks. And Blueblood was not. Oh ok. Whatever you say.

I agree with what you said, mostly, up until the end. He is a Prince. And he is Celestia's nephew... great great great great great ... nephew. It was never canonly stated that all royalty is and must be Alicorns. In fact, we know next to nothing about Alicorns and how the government in Equestria works, so don't make any assumptions. And stop being a meanie D:< Be nice. Or else, people won't like you, for the same reason they don't like Blueblood.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE!!! Seriously! I've said it in this thread many times already that if he had more screentime, he'd have a bigger fanbase, even if he was still a dick. I compared him to Trixie. And that's just fanboyism from you. Sure, he'd have a bigger fanbase, but saying he'd have a bigger fanbase then Cadance. That's ridiculous. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'm acting like too much of a prick. Are you sure you're not a troll. How did Prince Charmlesss gain even 1 fan, I'll never understand... Waaaaaaaaaiiit. Many times in this thread you've tried telling us that our reason for disliking him were invalid, but you never even once gave us a single reason to actually like him. Seriously, why do you like him so much? Ignore "if he had more screentime", with only what we have of him now, what reason is there to like him? I don't see a single reason.

'Ey, relax. As I said, I just read it that way. It's not that I think thats how you are, and this new post really proves you're not snob. I'll be honest with you and just say: No way I'm reading your whole post. It's boring. And I only read what catches my attention. Now now, don't lose your head. Relax. I'm a lazy person that doesn't like putting much effort into anything, even thinking. You really need to chill. I really didn't expect you to act like that. T'be honest, I don't want to understand your story, your view of the world, and all that complex philosophical stuff. And I'm also not going to judge you without understanding your story, your view of the world, and all that complex stuff. As I said in that first post, that's just how it sounded to me. You're not snob. It's just the way you talk (or, in this case, write) that made me think that. You're too philosophical for my tastes. I don't like using my head. The thing is, you take everthing way too seriously. I mean, if you don't, then how to justify the amount of text you wrote as an answer to me simply saying you kinda seemed snob in your one post I read? As I said before, and I'm gonna say again, you sounded snob. I was saying just that. For the same reasons the internet fails to conceive sarcasm, it sometimes makes your tone of voice seem like something it isn't. @@SasQ, that's really cool. But did it end? Awwwwww D: My favorite part was the part about the kundalini.

I have no idea who's Chris Jericho. And your question is stupid. You'd hate Blueblood if you were to interact with him, the same way people would dislike Discord if they were to be somewhere where he can victimize us. That's not a good point. Unless there's evidence that supports this argument, we need to stick with what's more believeable. That's how the search for truth works.