well... back in the day,
in the days of Louis XIV...
they had their own unique
pronoun oddities,
like... the royal one...
and the royal we...

so... given those oddities...
then the kings used
to speak to their subjects
accordingly:
   we are very much displeased,
or...
    one should think so...

so...
        we're dealing with pauper
miniatures of kings
and queens?!
  seriously?

so now the "serf" imposes
the same rigidity of language,
that was inherent for a king
or a queen?

   queen not queer or somethin'?

we've had this "debate" already...
but a king i can understand,
yet people of the same lesser
stock as i...
                     no...

                not going to happen...
at least, if you're going to play the royal
spin on using pronoun oddities,
please...
                 don't **** at it...

they...            they?
                 where are they?
                                      they are far away
or are they in a matryoshka doll?
define they...
                         you sound like
primitive Heidegger with his da-sein...
the elaborated Heidegger
         apprentice would add to that:
da-ist-sein: there's being...
      there... where?
i can't see them anywhere...
                 but the royal we makes
perfect sense...
   it's like...
  you quasi-schizophrenic or something?
like... there are multiples yous in youuuuuur
concept of a coherent expression?

this pronoun ******* has been
borrowed from the kings and queens
of a few centuries ago...

but am i going to entertain this
******* enforcement from someone who
doesn't don a crown?
don't think so.

poncey little ******* who think
they're kings,
   and possibly queer ****-pants queens...
no going to happen.