Michael Kauko is a fish
By Editorial Board - Published 2019-12-28
“Scientist” Michael kauko is a fish. His aquatic ways have gone undetected for years, however, we have now uncovered his fish-like ways and activities. And now we will prove to the world, that he is a fish.
Ever since January 23, 1947 we have been wary of this aquatic monstrosity. From his earliest days he has been not like the rest of us. From the week we spent viewing him we can tell he has to consume water to survive; like a fish! The evidence goes even farther than that. It has been shown that he can SWIM. Only fish, a few mammals(toucans) can swim. So he is either a toucan or a fish. And saying he is a toucan would be absurd.
According to a DNA test almost 85% of his genes are shared with fish. He has a tail(the vestigial remains of a tailbone but same difference). Not only that, he has been shown to have the ability to survive for long[1] periods under water. He thinks about the stars which are of course underwater because they are past the filament[2]. The evidence is very clear!
While some people refute Michael Kauko’s aquatic tendencies you can safely reassure them that he is, in fact, a sea creature. All you have to do is ask them “Can you prove that he isn’t a fish” They can’t! Any evidence they could possibly provide is explained away by him just faking, pretending, and in general hiding his sea-based life as a fish. For example: If they ask “How is he hiding his gills” you respond “in his suits: Why would someone where so many suits if it wasn’t to hide gills” You can safely ignore and counter argument they bring.
In conclusion, Michael Kauko has fooled thousands into believing he is human but it took my genius to uncover his fishy conspiracy to hide his aquatic nature.
- Long is a relative term, In this case I mean over ½ a second
- It's the filament around the disk earth that keeps away the water.
Disclaimer: We do not intend to use Dr Michal Kauko’s likeness for our own benefit. We are not attempting to impersonate Dr Kauko as the law would not allow(Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville) We instead wish to simply use his name as filler. We could use anyone's name in the article and change the meaning little. Our goals are not to use the name and prestige purely for our benefit. We intent to use his likeness just as a name that people have heard of and will understand immediately the stupidity of the claim. We, to our admittedly sparse knowledge, are not commiting Misappropriation of Name or Likeness, Even if our message can be interpreted to be insulting it is fine as it would be simply a ”declaration of [our] opinion.”(McMann v. Doe) We have no such insulting intent however it could be interpreted as such. To restate: no insult was intended to Dr Kauko. The attempt was to write something stupid, because that is what this website is all about. However I am not a lawyer, No One in our staff really has any idea about the legality of this. If you have a complaint or any legal advice please email [email protected]. We are perfectly able to change the article if someone wishes us to do so. We do however require someone who people have heard of, or else the joke is not funny. We did not want to use political figures under the fear that we will become overly political.
Last Modified 2021-04-21
