818 replies to this topic

[ganonlord6000]

Yeah, I honestly don't see how he could possibly draw that conclusion. All the guy says is that Nintendo keeps the timeline a secret, which is common knowledge. I thought most people knew that they kept the chronology somewhat ambiguous to prevent something like the Castlevania timeline débâcle.

Besides, the guy is paraphrasing the "NoA Localisation team" (which may actually have been Dan Owsen, assuming he visited the same pre-release exhibition as IGN and Zeldadungeon); it's not like his words have more weight than the words of the actual creators.

Yeah. After seeing what happened to those other series the guy in that video mentioned, I can see why Nintendo isn't revealing the complete Zelda timeline. Then again, we did have the complete timeline when OOT and MM came out. When the oracles and TWW came into the picture, those are what screwed everything up. I'm sure Nintendo will do something like that again in the future. The different interpretations of quotes like that is what leads to most of the theories in this thread, anyway.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 13 May 2011 - 09:57 PM.

[SOAP]

As part of Lex's current belief that the games are just literal legends (which he only came up with to blame Nintendo for somehow being incompetent just because his theories were wrong), he made this post on ZU:

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/126015-rumor-legends-theory-more-or-less-confirmed-by-nintendo-localization.html

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

Edited by SOAP, 14 May 2011 - 03:08 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

The problem is that it sort of goes against the spirit of the timeline theorizing hobby and can't be argued for or against. It's unfalsifiable.

[SOAP]

The problem is that it sort of goes against the spirit of the timeline theorizing hobby and can't be argued for or against. It's unfalsifiable.

I can see the most extreme form of the LLT being that way. It can be the same as the IJAGS (remember them?) saying they're just games and there's no timeline but it's a little unfair to paint all LLTers with the same brush. I have to still assume there is chronology because I still treat the games as their own seperate stories within the same universe (for the most part) so they can't all take place at the same time. Some naturallly take place some time before or after others but the difference between me and... I guess what I'd call a Chronologist is that the exact chronology is not what's important to me when I try to relate the games together. To me, I'm more concerned with which games are being told by the same story teller as I believe the series to be more of a bunch of folk tales being told by different storytellers at different times. Some storytellers may have heard previous story's from another storyteller and decide to add their own stories before or after the stories they heard. And some storytellers may tell one story then many years later tell a completely different story but borrow elements from stories they've told before. If that makes sense.

It can be falsible in the sense of proving whether or not two or more stories belong to the same storyteller, inspired by a story by a previous storyteller, which storytellers told their stories first and whether not newer storytellers set their own stories chronologically before, after, or in total disregard to previous stories told.

For example, I believe quite seriously that the events of TWW, PH, and ST are told through Niko's perspective via paper-cut drawings at different points of his life. This explains why the art style and atmosphere is such a big departure from other legends. ALttP and FSA may have the same storyteller but the latter is being told much later on in his or her life and he may or may not have any intention chronologically connecting the two tales, rather he or she just borrows a lot of elements from ALttP and puts them in FSA while at the same time spinning a new tale altogether. Which is why FSA can easily fit before, after, or even parrallel to ALttP. In my eyes it's more of a spiritual successor. I believe LoZ and Aol being the most oldest tales being told though at the time they were being told they were of recent events. Then later story tellers kept adding their own stories and setting them chronologically before LoZ and AoL (to make their stories sound more ancient and therefore credible) until eventually the original tales became obscured. Which is why things like the sleeping princess or the Triforce mark appearing on Link's hand on his sixteenth birthday are figure out.

I don't see how that goes against the spirit of theorizing. To me it's about connecting the games together. I just pick a different way to connect the games. That's all.

Edited by SOAP, 14 May 2011 - 05:13 PM.

[ganonlord6000]

The problem is that it sort of goes against the spirit of the timeline theorizing hobby and can't be argued for or against. It's unfalsifiable.

I can see the most extreme form of the LLT being that way. It can be the same as the IJAGS (remember them?) saying they're just games and there's no timeline but it's a little unfair to paint all LLTers with the same brush. I have to still assume there is chronology because I still treat the games as their own seperate stories within the same universe (for the most part) so they can't all take place at the same time. Some naturallly take place some time before or after others but the difference between me and... I guess what I'd call a Chronologist is that the exact chronology is not what's important to me when I try to relate the games together. To me, I'm more concerned with which games are being told by the same story teller as I believe the series to be more of a bunch of folk tales being told by different storytellers at different times. Some storytellers may have heard previous story's from another storyteller and decide to add their own stories before or after the stories they heard. And some storytellers may tell one story then many years later tell a completely different story but borrow elements from stories they've told before. If that makes sense.

It can be falsible in the sense of proving whether or not two or more stories belong to the same storyteller, inspired by a story by a previous storyteller, which storytellers told their stories first and whether not newer storytellers set their own stories chronologically before, after, or in total disregard to previous stories told.

For example, I believe quite seriously that the events of TWW, PH, and ST are told through Niko's perspective via paper-cut drawings at different points of his life. This explains why the art style and atmosphere is such a big departure from other legends. ALttP and FSA may have the same storyteller but the latter is being told much later on in his or her life and he may or may not have any intention chronologically connecting the two tales, rather he or she just borrows a lot of elements from ALttP and puts them in FSA while at the same time spinning a new tale altogether. Which is why FSA can easily fit before, after, or even parrallel to ALttP. In my eyes it's more of a spiritual successor. I believe LoZ and Aol being the most oldest tales being told though at the time they were being told they were of recent events. Then later story tellers kept adding their own stories and setting them chronologically before LoZ and AoL (to make their stories sound more ancient and therefore credible) until eventually the original tales became obscured. Which is why things like the sleeping princess or the Triforce mark appearing on Link's hand on his sixteenth birthday are figure out.

I don't see how that goes against the spirit of theorizing. To me it's about connecting the games together. I just pick a different way to connect the games. That's all.

I think I recently saw something very similar to this. That actually is a really good theory.

[SOAP]

The problem is that it sort of goes against the spirit of the timeline theorizing hobby and can't be argued for or against. It's unfalsifiable.

I can see the most extreme form of the LLT being that way. It can be the same as the IJAGS (remember them?) saying they're just games and there's no timeline but it's a little unfair to paint all LLTers with the same brush. I have to still assume there is chronology because I still treat the games as their own seperate stories within the same universe (for the most part) so they can't all take place at the same time. Some naturallly take place some time before or after others but the difference between me and... I guess what I'd call a Chronologist is that the exact chronology is not what's important to me when I try to relate the games together. To me, I'm more concerned with which games are being told by the same story teller as I believe the series to be more of a bunch of folk tales being told by different storytellers at different times. Some storytellers may have heard previous story's from another storyteller and decide to add their own stories before or after the stories they heard. And some storytellers may tell one story then many years later tell a completely different story but borrow elements from stories they've told before. If that makes sense.

It can be falsible in the sense of proving whether or not two or more stories belong to the same storyteller, inspired by a story by a previous storyteller, which storytellers told their stories first and whether not newer storytellers set their own stories chronologically before, after, or in total disregard to previous stories told.

For example, I believe quite seriously that the events of TWW, PH, and ST are told through Niko's perspective via paper-cut drawings at different points of his life. This explains why the art style and atmosphere is such a big departure from other legends. ALttP and FSA may have the same storyteller but the latter is being told much later on in his or her life and he may or may not have any intention chronologically connecting the two tales, rather he or she just borrows a lot of elements from ALttP and puts them in FSA while at the same time spinning a new tale altogether. Which is why FSA can easily fit before, after, or even parrallel to ALttP. In my eyes it's more of a spiritual successor. I believe LoZ and Aol being the most oldest tales being told though at the time they were being told they were of recent events. Then later story tellers kept adding their own stories and setting them chronologically before LoZ and AoL (to make their stories sound more ancient and therefore credible) until eventually the original tales became obscured. Which is why things like the sleeping princess or the Triforce mark appearing on Link's hand on his sixteenth birthday are figure out.

I don't see how that goes against the spirit of theorizing. To me it's about connecting the games together. I just pick a different way to connect the games. That's all.

I think I recently saw something very similar to this. That actually is a really good theory.

Yeah, which is why I don't get the hate. I always felt like that was a sensible enough theory as any other. Granted besides myself I don't know any other LLTers except for what I haera bout Lex on here so maybe they all really suck as much as you guys calim they do. Oh well... *shrug* I've never felt my theories were unwelcome here but since I've never been shy about broad-strokes approach to connecting the games before, that's why I got confused when you guys keep referring to LLT as a dead, kooky theory. I maen yaeh if I were saying it was one Link and every single game was a retelling of the same story then yeah but I've never understood the LLT to be that.

[Person]

If I were to adopt a literal legend theory I would still believe that some games were still connected in an obvious manner. Like how almost every game has to reference OoT in some fashion. It would be like how almost every epic poem from ancient times had to reference Homer in some fashion to lend credibility to its own version of events. In that sense, TWW and TP would both be sequels to OoT, with the split timeline drawn in to explain why they're so different.

[SOAP]

If I were to adopt a literal legend theory I would still believe that some games were still connected in an obvious manner. Like how almost every game has to reference OoT in some fashion. It would be like how almost every epic poem from ancient times had to reference Homer in some fashion to lend credibility to its own version of events. In that sense, TWW and TP would both be sequels to OoT, with the split timeline drawn in to explain why they're so different.

Which is basically what my beliefs are anyways.

[Average Gamer]

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

A main problem with the Literal Legends theory is that most people don't use it as a real theory. In the cases of Lex, Beemnorv, etc., they only began supporting it as part of a greater tantrum over their previous theories not working out. Rather than saying "I believe this is the timeline," they say "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong!" Furthermore, theorists often use it to dismiss massive problems and inconsistencies with their timelines while hypocritically criticizing other people's timelines for having similar issues.

Regarding the theory itself, Nintendo has made it clear that certain games do in fact connect and are considered actual history, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that all of the games connect to each other.

[SOAP]

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

A main problem with the Literal Legends theory is that most people don't use it as a real theory. In the cases of Lex, Beemnorv, etc., they only began supporting it as part of a greater tantrum over their previous theories not working out. Rather than saying "I believe this is the timeline," they say "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong!" Furthermore, theorists often use it to dismiss massive problems and inconsistencies with their timelines while hypocritically criticizing other people's timelines for having similar issues.

Regarding the theory itself, Nintendo has made it clear that certain games do in fact connect and are considered actual history, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that all of the games connect to each other.

That seems more like a problem with the theorists rather than the theory itself. Sounds like a rotten bunch that's touting the LLT. "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong." The hell! What kind of attitude is that? Sounds like something Mike Peters would say back in the day at VGF.

[ganonlord6000]

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

A main problem with the Literal Legends theory is that most people don't use it as a real theory. In the cases of Lex, Beemnorv, etc., they only began supporting it as part of a greater tantrum over their previous theories not working out. Rather than saying "I believe this is the timeline," they say "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong!" Furthermore, theorists often use it to dismiss massive problems and inconsistencies with their timelines while hypocritically criticizing other people's timelines for having similar issues.

Regarding the theory itself, Nintendo has made it clear that certain games do in fact connect and are considered actual history, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that all of the games connect to each other.

That seems more like a problem with the theorists rather than the theory itself. Sounds like a rotten bunch that's touting the LLT. "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong." The hell! What kind of attitude is that? Sounds like something Mike Peters would say back in the day at VGF.

What does everyone have against the LLT, anyway? I may not support it, but I don't have a problem with it, and I can't remember ever arguing against it...at least not recently. And was VGF really that bad at the time? I joined that site a few months ago, and it is pretty dull over there these days.

[SOAP]

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

A main problem with the Literal Legends theory is that most people don't use it as a real theory. In the cases of Lex, Beemnorv, etc., they only began supporting it as part of a greater tantrum over their previous theories not working out. Rather than saying "I believe this is the timeline," they say "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong!" Furthermore, theorists often use it to dismiss massive problems and inconsistencies with their timelines while hypocritically criticizing other people's timelines for having similar issues.

Regarding the theory itself, Nintendo has made it clear that certain games do in fact connect and are considered actual history, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that all of the games connect to each other.

That seems more like a problem with the theorists rather than the theory itself. Sounds like a rotten bunch that's touting the LLT. "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong." The hell! What kind of attitude is that? Sounds like something Mike Peters would say back in the day at VGF.

What does everyone have against the LLT, anyway? I may not support it, but I don't have a problem with it, and I can't remember ever arguing against it...at least not recently. And was VGF really that bad at the time? I joined that site a few months ago, and it is pretty dull over there these days.

Let me be clear, it wasn't VGF that was bad. It was Mike Peters. He was a single-Linker, IJAGS, Wind Waker-bashing, linearist to the extreme. But it wasn't so much the theories that he espoused but the dickish way in which he held them, even going so far as to say he had a better understanding of the timeline than Miyamoto did, although he held to the old "Miyamoto Order." In fact that was pretty much his whole timeline: OoT-MM-LoZ-AoL-ALttP-LA with one Link and TWW never happened. He also made claims that he was actually buddies with Shigeru Miyamoto and used the word "mey" in reference to himself a lot.

Case in point, you don't see a member named LexSucks around here do you?

[ganonlord6000]

I could have sworn I asked this before in this thread and maybe it was answered but I'm too lazy to go shifting through all the comments to be sure but what is so wrong with the Literal Legends theory? Or is it just Lex's version of it that causes so much disdain? I'm not familiar with Lex at all aside from what y'all say about him here but I am a Literal Legends theorists. A soft one that awknolweges chronology just in a very broader, more "mythological" sense, but a LLTer nonetheless and it really ticks me off whenever you guys bring up the LLT a knock it without properly giving a proper argument of why it's not a valid theory. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand all the hate.

A main problem with the Literal Legends theory is that most people don't use it as a real theory. In the cases of Lex, Beemnorv, etc., they only began supporting it as part of a greater tantrum over their previous theories not working out. Rather than saying "I believe this is the timeline," they say "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong!" Furthermore, theorists often use it to dismiss massive problems and inconsistencies with their timelines while hypocritically criticizing other people's timelines for having similar issues.

Regarding the theory itself, Nintendo has made it clear that certain games do in fact connect and are considered actual history, and Miyamoto and Aonuma have both said that all of the games connect to each other.

That seems more like a problem with the theorists rather than the theory itself. Sounds like a rotten bunch that's touting the LLT. "If I'm not right, Nintendo must be wrong." The hell! What kind of attitude is that? Sounds like something Mike Peters would say back in the day at VGF.

What does everyone have against the LLT, anyway? I may not support it, but I don't have a problem with it, and I can't remember ever arguing against it...at least not recently. And was VGF really that bad at the time? I joined that site a few months ago, and it is pretty dull over there these days.

Let me be clear, it wasn't VGF that was bad. It was Mike Peters. He was a single-Linker, IJAGS, Wind Waker-bashing, linearist to the extreme. But it wasn't so much the theories that he espoused but the dickish way in which he held them, even going so far as to say he had a better understanding of the timeline than Miyamoto did, although he held to the old "Miyamoto Order." In fact that was pretty much his whole timeline: OoT-MM-LoZ-AoL-ALttP-LA with one Link and TWW never happened. He also made claims that he was actually buddies with Shigeru Miyamoto and used the word "mey" in reference to himself a lot.

Case in point, you don't see a member named LexSucks around here do you?

Wow. Now I know why he was banned from VGF and came here. I hear this site had a lot of people with insane theories at one point.

And some theories I never seem to get are any that place TP at the end of the CT with one Ganon. Can anyone try to see if that can even remotely work in a logical sense? If there is, I don't see it.

[Person]

Most of those which do so put the older games on the adult timeline. So there'd only be one Ganon, the one from OoT.

[Doopliss]

Whoa! People still talk about Mike Peters? I thought he was banned SEVEN YEARS ago?!?!?

Anyways, is he still posting somewhere?

[SOAP]

Whoa! People still talk about Mike Peters? I thought he was banned SEVEN YEARS ago?!?!?

Anyways, is he still posting somewhere?

He has a facebook if that counts.

...










Don't ask why I know....

[ganonlord6000]

Whoa! People still talk about Mike Peters? I thought he was banned SEVEN YEARS ago?!?!?

Anyways, is he still posting somewhere?

He has a facebook if that counts.

...










Don't ask why I know....

Wait. He was banned HERE as well? I guess that isn't surprising.

How bad was picman when he was here?

[SOAP]

Picman is the only forum troll I despised more than Mike Peters. And I can get pretty obsessed with ol' Mikey (his sheer stupidity and flagrant homophobia caused me a lot of psychological damage over the years, okay!). Let's just say when Picman was around, I forgot all about Mike Peters. That's how bad.

Both were pretty ignorant but both believed they were entirely right and there was no changing their mind. In a lot of ways they're kinda of the same, though they come from two extreme view points. Mike Peters is a conservative, religiously-zealous, homophobic, biblethumping, America-worshipping, Muslim-bashing, mysogynic asshole who despised everyone who wasn't a white, straight, Christian male like him. Heck he hated everyone who wasn't him. I have my suspicions that he's a member of the Westboros Baptist church because he quoted their site a lot like it was straight from God's lips.

Picman started off...okay. I guess. Had some weird beliefs about Link being part Kokiri and was a self-described pagan who believed in every god and spirit was real except for the Christian one. Oh and he was a big Japanophile. Then he flew off the fucking handle and flamed everything having to do with America and Christianity and called us a bunch of ignorant Jesusfreaks blind to everything outside the United States... despite most of here being pretty liberal with diverse faiths and from different parts of the world outside the US to boot.

I almost thought Picman was Mike Peters in disquise. Maybe because my mind can't accept anyone being a worse troll than him. But Mike Peters had a very... distinct way of debating. He didn't debate the subject at hand. He attacked you personally. He got into your head. And he deconstructs your credibility point by point. Debates turned into walls of quoted texts within quoted texts with his little mind games. I don't think ever did that here as his normal persona but he did come back here as Dai Grepher for a brief period and pulled the same tricks on one of our old forum members (I think it was wisp but I'm not sure) and I called him out on it because he used to do the same to me so many times at VGF. Picman was just an asshole, nothing more.

Edited by SOAP, 24 May 2011 - 10:18 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

I like to imagine Picman was a split personality of Mike Peters. Possibly created when his Westboro Baptist beliefs got in the way of his being able to enjoy Zelda, and so his mind shattered and created this inbred pagan weeaboo autistic personality.

[TheAvengerLever]

Picman started off...okay. I guess. Had some weird beliefs about Link being part Kokiri and was a self-described pagan who believed in every god and spirit was real except for the Christian one. Oh and he was a big Japanophile. Then he flew off the fucking handle and flamed everything having to do with America and Christianity and called us a bunch of ignorant Jesusfreaks blind to everything outside the United States... despite most of here being pretty liberal with diverse faiths and from different parts of the world outside the US to boot.

Not that I doubt you, but I don't remember any of this. Maybe I was still stuck on the tree sex shit.

[SOAP]

Picman started off...okay. I guess. Had some weird beliefs about Link being part Kokiri and was a self-described pagan who believed in every god and spirit was real except for the Christian one. Oh and he was a big Japanophile. Then he flew off the fucking handle and flamed everything having to do with America and Christianity and called us a bunch of ignorant Jesusfreaks blind to everything outside the United States... despite most of here being pretty liberal with diverse faiths and from different parts of the world outside the US to boot.

Not that I doubt you, but I don't remember any of this. Maybe I was still stuck on the tree sex shit.

I think it was mostly stuff outside the Zelda forums, like Contro. Contro used to be a hellhole for this kind of crap.

I could also be confusing him with that other guy though... I can't remember his name. But I just called him Picman anyways because it's easier to think of all trolls as one person.

*checks Member Notices*

Zelda Nippon. Still think he's Picman though. And possibly Mike Peters.

Edited by SOAP, 25 May 2011 - 09:35 AM.

[ganonlord6000]

Picman started off...okay. I guess. Had some weird beliefs about Link being part Kokiri and was a self-described pagan who believed in every god and spirit was real except for the Christian one. Oh and he was a big Japanophile. Then he flew off the fucking handle and flamed everything having to do with America and Christianity and called us a bunch of ignorant Jesusfreaks blind to everything outside the United States... despite most of here being pretty liberal with diverse faiths and from different parts of the world outside the US to boot.

Not that I doubt you, but I don't remember any of this. Maybe I was still stuck on the tree sex shit.

I think it was mostly stuff outside the Zelda forums, like Contro. Contro used to be a hellhole for this kind of crap.

I could also be confusing him with that other guy though... I can't remember his name. But I just called him Picman anyways because it's easier to think of all trolls as one person.

*checks Member Notices*

Zelda Nippon. Still think he's Picman though. And possibly Mike Peters.

I remember Zelda Nippon. He was fine the first time around, but then he came back here with a new account. As I recall, he flamed most of us, especially you when you referred to him as picman, was banned, and went to ZU.

[SOAP]

Picman started off...okay. I guess. Had some weird beliefs about Link being part Kokiri and was a self-described pagan who believed in every god and spirit was real except for the Christian one. Oh and he was a big Japanophile. Then he flew off the fucking handle and flamed everything having to do with America and Christianity and called us a bunch of ignorant Jesusfreaks blind to everything outside the United States... despite most of here being pretty liberal with diverse faiths and from different parts of the world outside the US to boot.

Not that I doubt you, but I don't remember any of this. Maybe I was still stuck on the tree sex shit.

I think it was mostly stuff outside the Zelda forums, like Contro. Contro used to be a hellhole for this kind of crap.

I could also be confusing him with that other guy though... I can't remember his name. But I just called him Picman anyways because it's easier to think of all trolls as one person.

*checks Member Notices*

Zelda Nippon. Still think he's Picman though. And possibly Mike Peters.

I remember Zelda Nippon. He was fine the first time around, but then he came back here with a new account. As I recall, he flamed most of us, especially you when you referred to him as picman, was banned, and went to ZU.

In retrospect, I think calling him Picman was what set him off the deep end. Still flying off the handle like that was weird. I avoid ZU like the plague now because of that...

[Fin]

ZU banned him as well. There was a thread about trans* folk in their contro forum, and he acted like a bigoted shithead.

[TheAvengerLever]

Zelda Timeline Theorists are like the Internet CIA.

[SOAP]

Zelda Timeline Theorists are like the Internet CIA.

Well it's a dry spell because we don't have any new games wedge into our timelines so we have to do something to pass the time.

[ganonlord6000]

ZU banned him as well. There was a thread about trans* folk in their contro forum, and he acted like a bigoted shithead.

Wow. That's pretty bad.

Zelda Timeline Theorists are like the Internet CIA.

I guess I never thought of it that way.

Well it's a dry spell because we don't have any new games wedge into our timelines so we have to do something to pass the time.

It's a dry spell here, but on other sites, not so much. I wouldn't worry, though. I'm sure this site will be pretty active later this year.

[MikePetersSucks]

In fairness, those other sites don't have dry spells because they debate stupid bullshit no one cares about like if there's two Temples of Time or whatever.

[SOAP]

This is officially the best kooky theory ever.

[ganonlord6000]

This is officially the best kooky theory ever.

For YouTube, that was a pretty good timeline. The only things it loses point on are including Smash Bros. and SC2, and not including ALTTP.

In fairness, those other sites don't have dry spells because they debate stupid bullshit no one cares about like if there's two Temples of Time or whatever.

I never heard that one, but aren't those types of theories the ones that take up most of this thread?