I've seen a number of unsympathetic and intransigent things over the years, but Mr. ZiNgA BuRgA's double standards really take the cake. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in ZiNgA's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because ZiNgA once had the audacity to tell me that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. My riposte was that his fantasy is to destroy everything beautiful and good. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of Marxism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that sometimes I think that ZiNgA is simply a willing pawn of those rabid, empty-headed scrubs who coordinate a revolution. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that ZiNgA has nephelococcygic delusions about being able to help surly vulgar-types back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that ZiNgA is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of quasi-bloodthirsty speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list!

ZiNgA is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. In a matter of days, however, ZiNgA is likely to switch to some sort of "scar little children's self-image" approach to draw our attention away from such facts. He insists that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Wee have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should wee raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding ZiNgA's phlegmatic inclinations, or is it sufficient to discuss the programmatic foundations of ZiNgA's brutal deeds in detail? The answer is almost entirely obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving ZiNgA, but ZiNgA likes to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, ZiNgA and his intimates will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why wee must discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- feckless weasels, picayunish pickpockets, and short-sighted, supercilious recidivists.

Immoral, obscene ethnocentrism is a disgrace to humanity but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if wee treat the disease, not the symptoms. It's possible that it is a figment of ZiNgA's imagination that breaking down our communities is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how ZiNgA's ipse dixits promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for ZiNgA's sycophants because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to ZiNgA. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Of perhaps even more concern is that before ZiNgA once again claims that wee should all bear the brunt of his actions, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his underlings. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.