Legless people fetish

I figured it was based on some sort of phonetic similarity between "Weebles" and "Tepples".

Hahaha recently? He's been obsessed since 1996.

Why do some artists have a fetish for people with animal heads and paws? Why does Nintendo have a fetish for men with mustaches wearing overalls?

What happened was that I had previously been reading a fantasy novel with multiple races (elves, humans, dwarves, halflings, etc.), and I was trying to collect a list of fictional races from other works (Smurfs, Lilliputians, gnomes/kabouter, merpeople). During this time I found toys at a relative's house, and I decided to make up a race that looked like those toys, a race that could be mine to use with no fanwork bans interfering. Years later, I came up with an origin story paralleling that of Noah from the Bible: rising water levels force a small population to leave on a boat, and a mutation becomes fixed in the new population.

My avatar is a mash-up of this race with the avatar given to new users of Twitter.

In any case, Q is half right and half wrong. Yes, you got the toy brand right. No, the nick "tepples" is unrelated; as my user page on Uncyclopedia implies, it was generated by a Scheme program into which I fed character name phonotactics. People had been mispronouncing the nick I had used through most of college, which was leading to suicide jokes.

I grew up with Toddle Tots, and didn't know about Weebles until the internet era where Weebl cartoons got popular. I was wondering about your interest in it too, and just figured it was a random interest, kinda like the random stuff I find fascinating.

and I wouldn't have called it a "fetish".

And in my play time with NovaSquirrel's little sister several years ago, there was at times a racist rivalry between Little People (Fisher-Price toy) and Weebles (Playskool toy). The pegs to hold the Little People in place on their vehicles were explained DRM to keep Weebles from driving them. This may have in part influenced the rivalry between Nander and Polis that sets up RHDE.

Two of the Little People characters from the 1998-2012 generation look a lot like Smash Bros. characters. Eddie is a dead ringer for Lucas, and Michael could be Dark Ness.

In any case, open your Bible to Mark 9:45 and tell me what you see.

tepples, if you can't meet a nice girl with no legs, then meet a nice girl with legs and have them blown off.

It's like saying J. R. R. Tolkien had a "fetish" for short people just because he had hobbits in his books.

I really don't have an opinion on this subject, but I'll just leave this here: http://youtu.be/fpIX0KFFWvo?t=32s

[Dead link; "if I remember correctly it was people who climbed inside a giant balloon and inflated it, essentially making them into a legless person much like the Poli race" --MOD]

NESHomebrew has PM'd me a link to a video with similar subject matter of climbing into a huge balloon and hopping around:
Con Bro Chill | SAMM's Partied Out Balloon

The Draw-a-Person test is a psychological test that can be used to measure a child's intelligence or personality. The projective personality mode of DAP tries to guess various aspects of a child's feelings by the presence and relative size of body parts and other features. The whole concept sounded like woo to me, so I skipped it.

The intelligence mode of DAP, on the other hand, is a valid test of internalized concept of the human figure, which is somewhat (though weakly) correlated with intelligence. And it's certainly correlated with ability to design a video game character. So I tried it myself, applying the criteria (mirror) to my pencil sketch of a character that I had originally designed for an allism awareness project.


What's in Bidge's basket?

It said I draw like I'm 9 years and 9 months old. I lost six months to mistakes such as rough lines (on the hem of the cape) and no eyebrows. I lost one year because she's wearing a hood and mittens. I lost one year to stylized facial features (round head, eyes, and nose, and thin lips), even though realism is not explicit in the test instructions. But I lost over two years to the ableism inherent in the grading instructions.

Rough lines? Have they ever saw how the drawings of Disney animators look like before they get traced by the clean-up artists?

It appears worse than that.

[instructions] "I want you to draw a picture of a person…"
[success-class] "…all drawings that can be recognized as the human form." (emphasis added to both)

So one can follow the instructions and, having failed to account for the conflating prejudice of the test/examiner, receive only one point for not being just scribbles, if I read the scoring rubric correctly. (Or, if there's a scribble-like sophont...)

There is in the Whoniverse.

I updated my article to include suggestions for improving the grading scale. To reduce ableism, for example, if a body part is missing but the child explains that the character uses a different body part instead, grade the analogous body part. Grading Bidge's arms with the leg criteria in this manner would add 2 years.