Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    While reading through the January 14, 2022 issue of the Chronicle, I thought that I had mistakenly picked up a copy of the National Inquirer. This was because the “Austin at Large” column by Mr. Mike Clark-Madison ["We're Not Making More Land"] and the “Faster Than Sound” column by Ms. Rachel Rascoe ["Is the Broken Spoke Too Broken"] both constituted the kind of hatchet jobs unworthy of print in The Austin Chronicle. Clark-Madison offers his opinion and ad hominem attack and Rascoe cites numerous anonymous sources in her attack of long time Austinites that have done more for this town than either columnist will ever do. Surely dear editor you can insist on higher journalistic standards from your writers.

Dear Editor,
    I didn't see the movie 355 but, is it just me or is 355 actually Fox Force 5? That's the fictitious movie that Uma Thurman talks about to John Travolta in the restaurant scene in Pulp Fiction. They're exactly the same, plot and number of female stars, too.  So, did you see 355 or Fox Force 5?

Dear Editor,
    I'd never heard of the Big Mouth sitcom before, so it took a bit of research to understand your answers in your “Commitment” [“An Unsatisfactory Level of Commitment,” Luv Doc, Jan. 7] article. 
    You have an interesting take on things. It's almost like reading science fiction in a way; and a story where you as the writer are transmogrified into a homunculus, and then you are set free to wander about in an abandoned ants nest. Your keen observational skills allow you to, in your own unique way, describe to your readers the dimensions, geologic composition, and in fact, every twist and turn, ad nauseum, until the whole place appears to the reader to be mapped out in fine detail. 
    But what about the tale of ants that created the whole thing? If you compare the motives behind the creating of an ant colony to that of humans when creating relationships, just how much do humans behave like ants, meaning also likely to behave instinctively? There are areas of overlap to be sure. After all, both ants and humans seem blind to what's really happening, as well as to what will actually be produced in the end by their toiling. In both too there's a randomness and a compromise to nearly every part of the building process. That said, you don't have to be E.O. Wilson to know that in both cases instinct itself gives out a very simple set of collective instructions that, when carried out at the individual level, produce exquisitely detailed results. It's those simple biological influences to human behavior you seem to steadfastly avoid writing about. I wonder why that is? 
    By the way, I'm still trying to digest your comment to me some time back about Bill Clinton being the greatest living president. At least I feel comfortable now in thinking that you're not likely to substitute our current president as the new president to take old Bill off of that same top spot you put him on.

Dear Editor,
    Zynga's games do provide valuable connection and distraction, but over the years the company has become excessively greedy, with cost of in-game purchases soaring and many crudded-up "passes" and other stuff to buy constantly promoted in Words with Friends.
    At one time they only had a modest fee to buy out of ads and another modest charge for hindsights. It was a better game then and tempted no one to bust their budget.

Dear Editor,
    I have to partially agree with Guy LeBlanc's complaints [“Billionaire Dreams,” Feedback, Jan. 10] regarding Mike Clark-Madison's piece. [“It's a Season, Not Just a Day,” Austin at Large, Jan. 7] Obviously I am fine with reading partisan takes on community events. If I wasn't, I would not pick up The Austin Chronicle. But Clark-Madison's thinly veiled attempts at lofty prose make for particularly disappointing reading. When I open The Austin Chronicle, I expect to learn about local community events and issues. Clark-Madison's explanations of vital community issues often make this harder to achieve. These are complex issues, to be sure, but the bare facts should come across clear and concisely, without forcing readers to re-read long sentences and wrack their heads to understand the most basic news facts. I like how Clark-Madison introduces all sides of a housing issue. But he often assumes knowledge on the part of the reader and draws points out into lengthy asides.
    Maybe I'm the only one with this complaint. Otherwise, I love the Chronicle. I just feel like housing issues in Austin are too significant of an issue to mire in overly complex language.