[004]
ChocolateElemental
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I am going to be honest, that I am rightfully pissed off that character examples aren\'t allowed here despite the sub-tropes. If I were in TV Tropes shoes, I would be allowing them to be added here anyway, and without that, the harder it\'ll be for what characters can be of this trope, as well as finding them and identifying them.
to:
I am going to be honest, that I am rightfully pissed off that character examples arent allowed here despite the sub-tropes. If I were in TV Tropes shoes, I would be allowing them to be added here anyway, and without that, the harder itll be for what characters can be of this trope, as well as finding them and identifying them.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It doesn\'t fucking help either that Wikipedia is so bloody biased with some tomboys being on there and not allowing them, like Applejack, despite being commonly known to be one. TV Tropes is no better as it disallows the character examples on the Tomboy trope article. I really despise it when absurd exceptions are made in full-on wrongful bias. Its also obviously hypocritical because, the In Touch With His Feminine Side trope, has been given a pass, but the Tomboy article doesn\'t. Im sorry, but I\'m afraid TV Tropes will have to loosen their standards and give the Tomboy article a pass as well. 😒
to:
It doesnt fucking help either that Wikipedia is so bloody biased with some tomboys being on there and not allowing them, like Applejack, despite being commonly known to be one. TV Tropes is no better as it disallows the character examples on the Tomboy trope article. I really despise it when absurd exceptions are made in full-on wrongful bias. Its also obviously hypocritical because, the In Touch With His Feminine Side trope, has been given a pass, but the Tomboy article doesnt. Im sorry, but Im afraid TV Tropes will have to loosen their standards and give the Tomboy article a pass as well. 😒
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
It doesn\'t fucking help either that Wikipedia is so bloody biased with some tomboys being on there and not allowing them, like Applejack, despite being commonly known to be one. TV Tropes is no better as it disallows the character examples on the Tomboy trope article. I really despise it when absurd exceptions are made in full-on wrongful bias. Its also obviously hypocritical because, the In Touch With His Feminine Side trope, has been given a pass, but the Tomboy article doesn\'t. I\'m sorry, but I\'m afraid TV Tropes will have to loosen their standards and give the Tomboy article a pass as well. 😒
to:
It doesn\\\'t fucking help either that Wikipedia is so bloody biased with some tomboys being on there and not allowing them, like Applejack, despite being commonly known to be one. TV Tropes is no better as it disallows the character examples on the Tomboy trope article. I really despise it when absurd exceptions are made in full-on wrongful bias. Its also obviously hypocritical because, the In Touch With His Feminine Side trope, has been given a pass, but the Tomboy article doesn\\\'t. Im sorry, but I\\\'m afraid TV Tropes will have to loosen their standards and give the Tomboy article a pass as well. 😒
