(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Just Fill Out this form

Use both upper- and lowercase letters!

What's the full name of the person you want to complain about? (This style indicates a required field.)

Title First Middle Last Suffix
(e.g. [Mr.] [John] [Q.] [Deer] [, Jr.])
Is that person [] male or []female?
Do you normally refer to him/her by [] first name, []last name, or []title + last name?
How many paragraphs do you want me to make?[] {ie 1,2,3,5,10}

OR FOR A COMPANY

What's the name of the company/organization you want to complain about?


(e.g. [Microsoft] or [the power company]
How many paragraphs do you want to make?[] {ie 1,2,3,5,10}


INFO
i use a program codded in C++ if you would like the source code or the online version then PM me

What goes into the body of the complaint, just wondering .
You should post an example, this is pretty interesting .

Looks interesting!! You mind posting an example? I'll be sure to Rep+ this post once my limit finishes. :y:

Scratch that! I'm retarded [edited]

Although I generally believe that the less said about Prof. Crack Mad Hacks, Esq., the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Prof. Hacks's illiberal indiscretions. Let's get down to business: Prof. Hacks's brazen attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Prof. Hacks, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am not fooled by his barbaric and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that Prof. Hacks's cronies are quick to point out that because Prof. Hacks is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Prof. Hacks is a victim of his own success—a success that enables Prof. Hacks to demand that loyalty to devious, treasonous cowards supersedes personal loyalty.

I aver that we should let Prof. Hacks prattle on about how his actions enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how Prof. Hacks likes saying that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Okay, that's a parody—but not a very gross one. In point of fact, in a tacit concession of defeat, Prof. Hacks is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his mudslinging solutions have failed at.

If you hear Prof. Hacks spouting off about how he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, you should tell him that poison is countered only by an antidote. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from sullen prigs and start doing some research of his own. Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Prof. Hacks's soulless antics, but what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe his line that he is omnipotent. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Prof. Hacks wants to play fast and loose with the truth. It gets better: He believes that he can succeed without trying. I guess no one's ever told him that inherent in our legal construction of ageism is the notion that he is greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it clearly expresses how his belief is that he should be free to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood. Hey, Prof. Hacks! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.

I don't know what bothers me most about Prof. Hacks. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his squibs? In any case, griping about Prof. Hacks will not make him stop trying to make bigotry respectable. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to convince the worst sorts of daft upstarts there are that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him.

No matter how close he's come to making me languish along beneath the thousand eyes of dysfunctional mythomaniacs, he won't be satisfied until he finds a way to incite racial hatred. Despite total incompetence, Prof. Hacks is often afflicted with an amazing conceit that causes him to establish a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become jaundiced parvenus. Do you, like he, think that he has achieved sainthood? If you do, you're very sophomoric. The fact is that by putting the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse, Prof. Hacks is telegraphing his intentions to acquire public acceptance of his temperamental analects. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Prof. Crack Mad Hacks, Esq.'s push to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior is primarily an effort to retain power and control.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------



Although I generally believe that the less said about Prof. Crack Mad Hacks, Esq., the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Prof. Hacks's illiberal indiscretions. Let's get down to business: Prof. Hacks's brazen attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Prof. Hacks, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am not fooled by his barbaric and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that Prof. Hacks's cronies are quick to point out that because Prof. Hacks is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Prof. Hacks is a victim of his own success—a success that enables Prof. Hacks to demand that loyalty to devious, treasonous cowards supersedes personal loyalty.

I aver that we should let Prof. Hacks prattle on about how his actions enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how Prof. Hacks likes saying that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Okay, that's a parody—but not a very gross one. In point of fact, in a tacit concession of defeat, Prof. Hacks is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his mudslinging solutions have failed at.

If you hear Prof. Hacks spouting off about how he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, you should tell him that poison is countered only by an antidote. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from sullen prigs and start doing some research of his own. Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Prof. Hacks's soulless antics, but what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe his line that he is omnipotent. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Prof. Hacks wants to play fast and loose with the truth. It gets better: He believes that he can succeed without trying. I guess no one's ever told him that inherent in our legal construction of ageism is the notion that he is greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it clearly expresses how his belief is that he should be free to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood. Hey, Prof. Hacks! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.

I don't know what bothers me most about Prof. Hacks. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his squibs? In any case, griping about Prof. Hacks will not make him stop trying to make bigotry respectable. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to convince the worst sorts of daft upstarts there are that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him.

No matter how close he's come to making me languish along beneath the thousand eyes of dysfunctional mythomaniacs, he won't be satisfied until he finds a way to incite racial hatred. Despite total incompetence, Prof. Hacks is often afflicted with an amazing conceit that causes him to establish a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become jaundiced parvenus. Do you, like he, think that he has achieved sainthood? If you do, you're very sophomoric. The fact is that by putting the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse, Prof. Hacks is telegraphing his intentions to acquire public acceptance of his temperamental analects. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Prof. Crack Mad Hacks, Esq.'s push to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior is primarily an effort to retain power and control.

come on guys request something

I saw this one the internet while I was using stumbler. Man thats shits funny.

wow thanks man