MYSELF: Give it up, you big dummy. Nobody cares.

ME: I care. After all, the guy's a teacher. He should know better. You'd think that a teacher would know a little bit about geometry, or at least know someone who does.

MYSELF: He was just trying to make a point.

ME: What point? That ice will melt when it gets hot enough? That's the only point his "experiment" will prove. To start with, he said to use one or two bricks. These bricks are supposed to represent all the land in the world that is above sea level. Do you realize that is over FIFTY SEVEN MILLION square miles?

MYSELF: Yeah, I read that too.

ME: Oh, yeah. Anyway, he thinks it's quite alright to, on a whim, eliminate half of that FIFTY SEVEN MILLION square miles of land, while keeping the exponentially exaggerated ice the same. And this is supposed to be a scientific experiment?

MYSELF: But he was just trying to make the point that if the ice melts, it will raise the sea level, So what, if he exaggerated just a little? You don't believe the ice is going to melt anyway.

ME: You're darned right I don't! ...and what do you mean "a little"? The point I'm trying to make is that the folks over there on the left seem to excel in exaggeration. Remember the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow"? And the problem is, when someone with initials after their name says something, no matter how ridiculous, there are a whole lot of people out there who will eat it up without even thinking about it. When his letter hit the paper I could just hear the little old ladies saying, "See! I knew those evil right-wingers just wanted to inundate our bricks and drown us all".

MYSELF: Talk about exaggeration!

ME: You think so? I don't.

MYSELF: Anyway, it is obvious he believes in his cause.

ME: That goes without saying, but if the cause is "noble", does that make "exaggeration" okay? The end justifies the means?

MYSELF: Well...

ME: If we can't trust them on the details, how do we know if we can trust them on the cause?