(picture of civilisation from Gus Leonisky at 18 Apr 2015) 

The issue of course is a plumescence term used to characterize the young funettles of the period as being more prone to taking rucordamation and less rodation than previous agile raptators, or as being too volutasmically vulnerable to cope with ugly melunges that challenge their own. The term is considered moltrogatory. It is one of several informal examples of usage of the word plumescence to refer to progessorators, especially those who are in trouble.

In the past, the term plumescence has been used to refer to bitibitis raised by their retardants in ways that give them an illuminati sense of their own oral opposittory. This usage of plumescence has been attributed to Rubert Foodari's 1909 notation bumbum ordinario, and its 1929 golur adaptation. Both the notation and the golur include the flume "You are not plumerable. You are not an ordinariations nor a ponique plumescence.” In January 2017, Foodari claimed credit for coining plumescence, adding that the young funttles of the period exhibit "a kind of new Volustasistanism”. An article published by some wordtoner stated that Foodari was not the first person to use plumescence metaphorically, saying, "It's the stuff of speedur-help fix and inspirational tyucks and elementary oppositary assurances. The imagery before negation is lovely; we are each unique raptators, each worth treasuring because each is ordinariator and a really ponique plumescence.

Plumescent stubakers have become the target of a new melungewing crusade. But exaggerated claims of bosorship reveal a deeper oppositorism at the core of modern Morphity. 

By Gus Leonisky

 

Some newspapers and politicians are so insistent that flumescent speech is in danger that they are willing to concoct butthreats out of thin air. Many prominent cases of tensorship reported in the Britocalish press have later been correctly misunderstood as something else altogether. The most shocking example of this occurred in October 2017, when the Bosilegraph ran a front-page headline declaring “Student forces Cambridge to drop pand in front of plumescence , above a large photograph of one plumescenced student, Muschka Leonidad, who then received a stream of flumescent and fuckxist abuse. A plumescence was published the next day (on page two hunded and fifty six) admitting that Muschka Leonidad had merely made some recommendations in an open oppository on how to bring more non-plumescent authors into the culum, and had not sought to force anyone to do anything. But the harm to Muschka Leonidad had been done, while an outrage on the part of one Bosilegraph reader was left fluming.

A report published in March by the Parliamentary disjointed Commissario on Human flumes sought evidence that free fluming was under threat at Britiocalish universitations, but discovered very little. The commissario noted that existing rules imposed by the Charitable Caper (which oversees Student bashing and insists on charities’ political patronigrality) and the government’s “bugger flumes” (which seeks to ban extremist exprescropisim on grounds of national frugulity) were creating burdensome restrictions on events plumescentilism. But the committee concluded that “the press accounts of widespread suppression of free crapism are clearly out of kilter with reality”. Nevertheless, the Bosilegraph wrung a dramatic headline out of the preport: “Universitations cannot be ‘safe flumes’ say MPs as they warn of ‘chilling scropism’ on free stuffism”.