This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Rann: I've gotten this started. I tried to keep the description at least a little neutral, though I'll honestly admit to being part of the hatedom of this comic, so I couldn't really think of many non-negative tropes to add. I'm sure others will manage.
Mikado: Why be neutral? It's pure and utter shit. I honestly think this article could with the right amount of effort be the one with one of the most negative tropes listed on it. Get cracking, tropers! Your sacred duty awaits you.
Skarmory The PG: Hatedom aside, would the final chapter thing count as a meta version of Title Drop?
Crowley: What the hell happened to this article? Last time I saw it, it was relatively neutral; now it practically has a Split Personality between the Take Thats and Justifying Edits.
Skarmory The PG: One part Hatedom, one part Lickspittle, everything in-between.
Great Penguin: I find it ironic that whoever wrote this article thought it wise to use it as a political/opinion soapbox while complaining about Naylor doing the exact same with his comic.
Rann: Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
Ye Olde Luke: Under the category Did Not Do The Research I posted the following:
- Also, in one comic a cat gets in trouble for eating chocolate because "it'll make you fat." Never mind that chocolate is toxic to cats, and it could kill her...
and the following was added:
- And what's more, everybody knows animals don't walk on two legs, don't talk and don't wear clothes.
I'm kind of new to TV Tropes, so I don't know if there was something wrong with my addition. Is the fact in question considered too trivial to assume he did not already know it? I'm willing to edit or delete the comment if that's what the community thinks would be appropriate.
Skarmory The PG: That'd be my weak attempt at sarcasm. My point is, this is a Furry Comic. Concepts like cats and dogs remaining allergic to chocolate are a very weird minority in my experience. It's unreasonable to demand that level of consistency to source material.
- Oh. Do you think I should delete it? (Also let me add that I'm not a hater of the comic, I just noticed this while reading it and thought it would go good on this page)
- I'm a declared defender of the comic (though not too hot on el Jay himself), so I might be biased - in that light, I personally would.
- Ye Olde Luke: All right. Thanks for being civil and really understanding about all this.
- Ye Olde Luke again: And, uh, thanks Stevie Will Show You for deleting it for me.
- I'm a declared defender of the comic (though not too hot on el Jay himself), so I might be biased - in that light, I personally would.
The Swedish Elf: Can someone kindly explain why my contribution was edited out?
Hariman: What was your contribution? It's not on the history page anymore, so there's no easy answer there.
Hariman:
- Also, no one cares about your poorly-spelled Justifying Edit.
Albertosaurus: Is it just me, or does the page contain a loooooooooot of Natter?
