(alternately titled -
today's lesson iz
addressing categorical imperative)

Courtesy of unpleasant he
ping diatribes visited me
from eldest offspring ugh gree
guss vituperations, doth force me
     to admit (and take key
lock, stock, and barrel
     lamentations to heart), that she
(Eden Liat) didst

     perceive (hence nee),
interpret as her reality
     regarding my actions,
     intents, words, et
     cetera men knee
instances of objectionable
     dealing with situations
     of mine mien to thyself

     (lamely, meekly, and nervously
     pleading being oblivious),
     nonetheless purportedly untoward
     fatherly behavior, said kin recoils
     in reaction to extremely re:
pulse sieve, no matter,
     whether paternal behavior
     of mine unintentional (see

ming lee) find
     ding total unawareness
     as poor excuse, which does not
     hold candle box
     three doors down, nor
     bankable, dutiful guarantee
hence this papa, heed decree,
his displeasing, now accepting

     onerous task of child rearing
     inflicted hurtful affects asper,
     mismanaging challenges
     as legal guardian,
     and thus grievously, honestly,
and readily attests averse
     to hold a mirror be
fore my person as

     proof positive aware
     ness, and accept,
     how I usurped carte blanche
     (parental role, no
     matter honest intentions,
     sans welfare of daughters)
     unknowingly shamefacedly interpreted

     as unflattering about me
whom ***** nilly
     bandied authoritarian free
reign (and/or rein)
     recounting mine foibles, viz
despite my best intentions,
     impressions, and iterations
     as even handed sues err un tee

I mint jewel
     lip succoring (suzerainty)
spurring the conundrum,
     que who, what,
     and how does one pre
sent lee define
     true intentions, and whether
neutral stance can be cree
jewel less lee codifies, si?