  It was "Tigger", but it wasn't Tigger. I saw urlLink this article on the urlLink Drudge Report about some Disney employee who was allegedly fondling people while in his urlLink Tigger costume .
That's odd enough and I was about to get bored and click back to Drudge when I saw the statement of the Disney spokeperson: "One of the things we need to point out to our victims in these cases is that the gentleman in question here wasn't in character during the time of some of these occurrences," explains Solomons. So is he trying to say that urlLink Tigger wouldn't do something like that so therefore this perpetrator was not "in character? " Is this some way to protect children from thinking that Tigger is a molesting tiger? J. 
