[004]
BURGINABC
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from ''WesternAnimation/RegularShow'') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she's a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a
to:
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from \'\'WesternAnimation/RegularShow\'\') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she\'s a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a \"bunny\"), Judy herself could qualify, as rabbits should probably be smaller than that.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish, extreme, obvious cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for. At this point, I won\'t personally object to an example mentioning that Weaselton is bigger than a weasel realistically should be.
I\'m curious what rva 98014\'s views are on this, though, as he\'s the one who zapped the original example, but has yet to participate in this conversation.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish, extreme, obvious cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for. At this point, I won\'t personally object to an example mentioning that Weaselton is bigger than a weasel realistically should be.
I\'m curious what rva 98014\'s views are on this, though, as he\'s the one who zapped the original example, but has yet to participate in this conversation.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from ''WesternAnimation/RegularShow'') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she's a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a
to:
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from \'\'WesternAnimation/RegularShow\'\') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she\'s a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a \"bunny\"), Judy herself could qualify, as rabbits should probably be smaller than that.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish, extreme, obvious cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish, extreme, obvious cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from ''WesternAnimation/RegularShow'') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she's a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a
to:
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from \'\'WesternAnimation/RegularShow\'\') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she\'s a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a \"bunny\"), Judy herself could qualify, as rabbits should probably be smaller than that.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish extreme cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish extreme cases that don\'t require research to identify.
But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from regular show) are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she's a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a
to:
Of course, relatively subtle cases of AnimalsNotToScale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from \'\'WesternAnimation/RegularShow\'\') are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she\'s a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a \"bunny\"), Judy herself could qualify, as rabbits should probably be smaller than that.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish extreme cases that don\'t require research to identify.
...Man, we\'re \'\'really\'\' getting in-depth on this. I\'m not sure this is worth the thought we\'re giving it; it is a [[DownplayedTrope downplayed example]] at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish extreme cases that don\'t require research to identify.
