A disservice to the subject

...is apparently what I am (the subject being mathematics). At least, in the opinion of reader of my article Farmer Ted Goes 3D. Apparently, it's articles like mine that make potential math majors quit mathematics and become business majors. At least my article has one reader, and it generated a response from him...

Of course, after reading this letter to the editor about the paper (and also the 2D version from Greg Martin), I feel his arguments are somewhat lacking. His biggest argument seems to be in the choosing of the name almost-square (-cube), saying that objects which answer similar questions to the ones Greg and I discussed are more closer to the name, and that those questions seem to be the better ones to ask. Now, I agree that sometimes the question he/I dealt with isn't the optimal question (how often are you in a situation where you need an area/volume of x, regardless of shape, but can't exceed it?), but how does that invalidate the work? Wouldn't that create opportunities for discussion, and possibly, more mathematical work done by others? That would appear to be more of a service to mathematics than a disservice, wouldn't it?

But what do I know, I'm just a grad student.