<div class="quote"><i> <p>PinkiePie97 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">NomNom1910 wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>SmashupMashups wrote: </p> <div class="quote">NomNom1910 wrote:
To be honest. I think this is the stupidest thing I've seen and I think it's pathetic that they do this kind of thing and really the worst thing is that... You keep watching the series even though you hate it and do not lie. They know it's true... Even though they're supposed to "criticize" the series. <p>And do not put these things. Just because they hate this reboot does not mean they have to publish these pathetic things... Oh and by the way. Preparing for Season 4 ;) </p> </i></div>
There's to be a fourth season?!
</div>Yes. Well, it's in production, so... </div> <p>So was that clip you posted that had "SEASON4" in the title not from Deb O'Nair? That was my first guess based on the synopsis. </p> </div> <p>I really can not tell if it's from that episode or not. Since they only gave me permission to show those clips (with the exception of Midnight at the Major's Mansion) of episodes not released. And "SEASON4" was an error that I made </p>

<p>Yeeeheeeheeheeheeeyaaahaaahaaahaaaahgaaaaa!! </p><p>Man this funny!! </p>

But the reboot is pretty cool. Call me crazy if you want but I don't care I like the reboot. Also their faces that they make are pretty damn funny

<div class="quote"><i>Wave9Nut wrote:
Yeeeheeeheeheeheeeyaaahaaahaaahaaaahgaaaaa!! <p>Man this funny!! </p> </i></div>
<p>What's funny? </p>

<div class="quote"><i>MaxGoji 2.0 wrote:<div class="quote">Wave9Nut wrote:
Yeeeheeeheeheeheeeyaaahaaahaaahaaaahgaaaaa!! <p>Man this funny!! </p> </i></div>
What's funny? </div> <p>Ignorance. Lack of Logic or an Understanding of time and change.  </p><p>THIS IS NO REBOOT. </p>

<p>I'd like for you to present actual confirmed evidence (beyond Bubbles old hair being shown in a flashback and a picture of the events of <i>Abracadaver</i>. Those are mere references to the old series. Not actual, contexual evidence that suggests a sequel) that says that the series is a sequel and not a reboot. </p><p>You keep saying that the series is a sequel, and yet, never provide evidence to back up your claim, such as a statement or an article. I've done research on the series, both before it's launch and after it's launch, and searched up articles about it, and <i>all </i>of them have said that it's a <i>reboot</i>. </p><p>As I told you before, there is NOTHING out there that says it's a reboot, article or statement from a spokesperson or employee of Cartoon Network, and unless you can find an article, at least <i>one</i>, that says otherwise, your argument will <i>always </i>be moot. </p>

<p>And if you do manage to find evidence that it's a sequel, then I could accept a reasonable argument that the 2016 series is, in fact, canon to the 1998 series. But as it stands, there's no argument to be made because there's no evidence to back it up. </p><p>And don't you dare say that's it's me refusing to take of the Nostalgia Glasses to see reality as it is. No, I've taken off the Nostalgia Glasses and gone to find a CONFIRMATION that the series is canon, to which there is NONE. </p>

'''FACTUALLY. NONE.'''

<p>No, to be honest, I think that <i>you're </i>the one blinded by the Nostalgia Glasses because you want to believe that the new show does, in fact, have some sort of significance to the franchise given how ill-received it is in comparision to the original series, which is still a <i>far </i>more respected series. You still want to try and justify it's existence in some manner, so you've created an argument in saying that it's not a reboot but a sequel. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>MaxGoji 2.0 wrote:
No, to be honest, I think that <i>you're </i>the one blinded by the Nostalgia Glasses because you want to believe that the new show does, in fact, have some sort of significance to the franchise given how ill-received it is in comparision to the original series, which is still a <i>far </i>more respected series. You still want to try and justify it's existence in some manner, so you've created an argument in saying that it's not a reboot but a sequel.</i></div>
<p>Until this post you had my greatest respect (Not trying to be arugant but most people Say: It is because [YouTuber here] said it is] so I respected you for trying) but I have only been aware of PPG for about a year and half. From the beginning I had a different view point as I learned of 3 shows and watch 1 episode from each on the same day.  </p><p>But that is beside the point. On multiple occasions i have labeled off the reasons and the fact that you do not remember is proof that you are blindly grasping for a way to dispute what I have said. You never listen to what I say because you do not want to believe the truth. </p><p>But the more times I have it put out to be seen the better: </p><p>PPG IDWs first 12 issue run all but confirms it. </p>