I resent that I can no longer let this go on, at the risk of appearing as thought I'm coming to Meade's defense (which I'm not), but ...
Meade is not objecting to the actual terms of the DPF. He's pointing out some rather glaring (to some of us, at least) misspellings and grammatical errors which might be considered especially amusing considering the source.
I suspect these thing were not freshly written for the DPF, but are some sort of boilerplate the paper adopted and, apparently, didn't carefully proofread. The term "sexually orientated" should be about all you need to figure this out, but then again I'm the sort of person who encounters a typo in a paperback and literally winces.
Meade may be full of shit about a lot of things ... okay, virtually everything ... but on this one point I have to agree: Those terms are so badly written, they make my scrotum hurt. If any actual lawyer authored them, he or she should be summarily disbarred.
Y'all are guilty of assuming Meade was posting his de-registration "threat" in good faith. I ask you: Since when has there ever been any threat of that?