Focus on the Issue of how this will help Education
No distractions for personal reasons.

My invention objectively is a major breakthrough in the field of dictionaries.  I hope that no one says that this invention should not be paid attention to because I do not have a degree in education.  That would be an error in thinking, in declining to address the issue of the need for an improved dictionary – as if the issue is to be distracted to thinking about me personally.

It would be an attempted distraction if someone says “No reason for alarm, folks.  Alexander Weilgart has no education degree, and therefore everything he says should be ignored.”

While I could have taken the time to get an education degree, having an education degree is no proof that a person can teach anyway.  The objective fact is that many people with education degrees have made an education system that is failing dismally.  At this point I do not have time to get an education degree.  There are more important things for me to do to help education.

It is time for the common sense requirement of knowing the words to gain respect, regardless of who is proposing that common sense.  It does not require an education degree to be able to recognize how important it is to know what words mean.

So who am I, anyway?

I do not feel it is relevant for me to get into personal matters.  I feel that the necessity of knowing what the words mean should be addressed on its own merits.  But in case anyone is concerned about my not having an education degree, here are some objective things I can say about myself.

What kind of intelligence, creative power, persistence, and power-solving ability do I have?  Well, not to toot my own horn but objectively to answer that concern, keep in mind that after one hundred (100) years of many inventors all over the planet trying, that I alone invented the only practical easier-to-use dictionary.  This is proven in the Website article "Proof:  This is the Only Practical Easier-to-Use Dictionary." 

After deciding that dictionaries needed to be "fixed" or improved, one way I achieved this invention partly by not going down to the patent library to see how previous inventors addressed the issue.  If I had seen the overview of how they did it, I might have got stuck in their same mistaken presumption that you supposedly needed to have about 26 separate charts.  I just started afresh on my own, not conforming with how anybody else did it, and came up with an index with a do-all one chart.

I got this U.S. Patent No. 4,813,710 by myself, with no aid of a patent attorney.  Only about one out of 50 patents that are finally issued were such a breakthrough that they were never doubted/rejected by the Patent Office in any preliminary action – and mine was one of those.

Usually the U.S. Patent Office does not allow more than 20 claims/variations on a patent idea.  My patent was such a breakthrough in the field with so much developing of the basic idea remaining to be done that I got 47 claims.

To know a little about me, I graduated with honors from California State University at Sacramento about thirty years ago.  I got a Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences, with emphasis in sociology, government, and economics.  I was accepted to top-ranked U.C. Berkeley Law School but never went. 

I state nothing here on this Website that you can not verify with your own intelligence. 

I am not asking you to take my word on anything.  I am not asking you to believe me because I am supposedly an expert.  The importance of knowing what words mean is a common sense matter that does not require any "expert" to present it.  The public is quite qualified to inspect and decide on this matter. 

In fact, I am saying feel free to disagree with any "experts," if they do not agree with this common sense.  It is possible for some “experts” to become lost in intellectual theorizing, where after much round-about twisted thinking, they can end up supporting very mistaken positions.  How about some rationality here?  How about some common sense?

If anyone says that no one should pay attention to this Website because I am not an official authority on education – keep in mind that after 25 years of $125 billion in federal government Title One funds, education is doing worse than before, with 60% of poor fourth grade students scarcely able to read.  Most students who can not read well by fourth grade do not graduate from high school.  With such failure, present education “experts” obviously do not know all they need to know about education.  It behooves them to be willing to learn more about this area where they can help education.

Therefore, the issue is not me personally.  No one should try to divert attention on me personally, while trying to distract away from and ignore this requirement to help education.  They should try to FOCUS on the ages-old necessity to know what the words mean.  Knowing what words mean is not some dubious new theory-of-the-month that can be ignored.  It is a requirement that always has been necessary to education.

An analogy – the Dark Ages and their immunity to objectivity.

During the Dark Ages in Europe, about 476 A.D. to about 1000 A.D., many people did not take baths because the earlier Romans took baths.  They decided that anything the Romans did was wrong, and Romans took baths.  They thought their disliking the Romans ended the discussion, and that they had it all thoroughly and theoretically worked out.

It would not matter what you told them about the value of a bath.  They felt justified to ignore all such rationality.  Many Europeans went along month after month feeling dirty, greasy, and clammy.  Some wealthier Europeans wore perfume to try to hide their own smell. 

Someone could have asked them “Why don’t you just forget about the Romans and focus on the issue objectively?  Like, with a bath you would not feel so dirty and clammy and would not stink so much.”  Their answer would be “No, we must always consider the Romans, because our proper duty in life is not to do whatever they did.”  They carefully were not paying attention to the objective issue in and of itself. 

The Dark Ages were a period of repressiveness, superstition, and lack of rationality and enlightenment.  In later years came the Renaissance, with its art, revival of classic culture, and the beginnings of modern science.  But can you imagine many people going about 500 years with the stupidity of not taking baths? 

Would that actually be an answer why no one should use this education aid, because of anything about me personally?  Should anyone say: “Hmm – the ages-old issue of knowing what the words mean.  Well, I guess we must all ignore that topic because Alexander Weilgart (apart from tens of thousands of teachers) regards that as important.”  

While anyone is free to dislike me, that would actually not prove that words do not need to be known.  This issue needs to be objectively looked at by itself, with no personal reference to me or anyone else.  Do not allow yourself to be distracted to any personal issue about myself.

Is this article on this Website even needed?

In deciding whether to include this article on this Website, I wondered how could this education aid be disagreed with?  On what basis could anyone possibly claim this is not important?  I could think of no legitimate answers.

If there are no legitimate, rational answers to this, then the only remaining way to disagree with this is on the basis of irrational emotion and personal attacks.  Are there any people out there who make irrational emotional and personal attacks?

I noticed in the political arena there is what is called “the politics of personal destruction,” where a political policy is not debated on its merits, and instead the person presenting that policy is attacked personally.  The goal of people employing the politics of personal destruction is for the public to decide “We should not do that policy, because this person has been so demonized, and we dislike him that much.”  Sometimes a person is "demonized" by making up outright lies about him.

This is somewhat similar to the Dark Ages, having theoretical justifications carefully not to pay attention to the subject. 

What excuse could anyone come up with to justify ignoring the ages-old necessity to know what words mean?  What could they say – – “We will keep our education system damaged, because we do not like Alexander Weilgart’s (      fill in the blank     ) politics, religion, hair style, hobbies, preference in sports, preference in music, etc.”  This would be absurd.  There is nothing wrong about me anyway.  And the issue is not me personally, but helping education.

The fact is – any attempt to put your attention on me personally, and to take your attention off the issue of knowing what words mean in effect would be an attack on education.  Any such attempt would be an admission that they have no legitimate reservations about this education aid, and all they have left mey be just thrashing about to prevent education being aided in this way.

Hopefully this Website article will not be necessary.  Hopefully theorists  will be willing to consider the rational proofs presented here – – if necessary, from your prodding them to consider this.  But just in case, I am including this article to answer any such attack beforehand.  The answer is: “Do not divert attention to me.  Kindly focus on the real issue.”

I have fairly much decided not to answer personal questions about myself.  The issue is not to become me personally, as if for “People” magazine.  Let us keep this discussion on a higher plane.  The better well being of our country’s education is at stake.  I certainly will not accommodate any fishing expeditions of personal questions asked me, just so as to get something irrelevant with which to attack this program. 

Also, as for television, if I get any appearances, I will stay “on message” and not use my few minutes to talk about other subjects, including me personally.  While there are other important issues in education, I will not use the little time I have to talk about them, either on television or in answering letters about them.  The main contribution I will ever make to the world is right here, and I will not ignore this to chat about other things.

Freedom of speech is needed to improve our failing education system.

One of the largest dangers to this country is our failing education system.  On this Website is pointed out a major problem in our education system, that must be repaired.  Freedom of speech is needed to point out and improve this danger to our education system. 

Are we going to tolerate any attempt to ignore this important way to help our education system?  Are we going to say that freedom of speech is not to be allowed here – – if it interferes with someone’s public relations plans, or if I offended anyone?

One unethical if not always illegal tactic of some big companies is to do a “SLAPP” suit, meaning “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.”  This is a way to shut up someone in the public from pointing out any wrongdoing or questionable behavior.  Even though the big company knows their suit has no legal merit and is “frivolous,” the big company goes ahead and files the suit anyway. 

The big company knows it will lose the case, but is just seeking to inconvenience and maybe bankrupt with legal fees the person they are attacking.  Any legal attacks trying to shut me up and prevent this aid coming to American education will be put on this Website under the homepage title “Legal Attacks.” 

I will not say what kind of entity I was talking to on the phone and anything more about this later because I have no written proof, but in the past a person with one entity told me approximately that their lawyers might contact me later.  That one outfit is probably not representative of other companies in that field. 

I hope that the media will remember that I do not intend to spend all or any of my time talking about this. The first concern is not to bash some oddly acting entity. There is a more important story to get out, to help our education system.

Should education continue to be harmed if I offended someone?

Someone might recommend to me that I should tone down the truth and only be pleasant, and then maybe a dictionary company or foundation would do this to help education.  But I have already gone through the regular channels with dictionary companies and foundations, and to this point they have all declined.

Here I am writing more so to the general public.  The general public is quite capable of understanding how important this is to education. At this point I am moreso relying on my fellow citizens to help out by requesting that these other people do the right thing.

What if a dictionary company or a foundation, etc. said “Yes, you do have a priority program to help education.  But so what?  You offended me, and so we will not do this priority program to help education”?

Out of their concern to help education, should they not still help education, even if they were not particularly pleased with anything I wrote here?  If a person has accepted a responsibility to help education, does that responsibility end if that person’s ego is somewhat affected?

Let us say that person A said to person B “I do not like your style of clothing, but your child is in danger, and here is how you could save your child’s life.”  Should person B say “I refuse to listen to you or help my child because you offended me”?

I did not make any statements here personally or intend to be offensive.  A person can show even more how much a hero to education he or she is by going ahead and helping education even if that person feels I offended him or her.

Informing dictionary companies and foundations that I would go to the public.

I wrote to some of the dictionary companies, and in the second writing to about 200 foundations, that if there was not support for this program, that my only recourse would be to go to the public.  I did not intend that as a threat.  I was politely giving them advance notice.  Is that being “offensive,” that I would not be willing for this need for education to die?  Their getting your letters will help wake them up to the importance of this education fundamental.

Anyone thinking I have been “offensive” might recommend that if only I would agree that knowing the words does not matter (which would allow everyone more readily to ignore this program), then maybe I would get along better with everyone.  But what if my concern is more for the well being of students than to hang out with people who are not interested in this necessity for education?  Is a request and a polite insistence that this education priority be instituted “offensive”?

Or is any charge of being “offensive” just a defense mechanism of someone who does not want to interrupt his set ways to learn about this priority for education?  Is that like their saying “I am trying to sleep, and you are being offensive by insisting to wake me up?”

I would not mind if while deciding to help education here, if any person wrote “I will objectively help education with this invention, even though I regard that Alexander Weilgart was being a schmuck in 1/3 of what he wrote, where I regard that he was quite mistaken.”  That would be fine with me.  Go ahead.  My goal is to help education, not to be thought of highly.

If any dictionary company publishes this improved dictionary, I might even sign an agreement that I would state to the public no dissatisfactions with that dictionary company.  I might well applaud that company publicly for having the wisdom and foresight in this large step they are taking to help education.  This would not mean that I was being “bought off.”  Doing this might make that dictionary company more comfortable in doing the right thing.

Cross-reference to a similar topic

You may wish to look at the article “Why Some Theorists are Blind to this Priority Solution,” towards the very back under the heading “Am I being too unappreciative of these other parties?”  This relates to the subject of offending other people.  Under that heading is pointed out one question that many people could ask, namely: “If this is about the largest problem in education, why have many education theorists missed this problem?”

Under that heading is pointed out why I basically had to address some dissatisfactions with some of these other parties, or else many people would decide “Well, this could not be a significant concern, because if it were significant, the experts would already know about it.”  So I am not trying to offend anyone; but on the other hand, the truth of how these entities could have missed this priority problem must be pointed out, or else this damage to education would likely continue.

Breaking this secret to everyone

Dictionary companies and foundations that help education should have no basis to pretend that they never knew about this education aid.  This Website is to break the “secret” of this education aid to everyone.  From this Website the public can request and demand that dictionary companies and foundations do this to help education.  At the end of the home page, please see “Contacting Dictionary Companies” for names, addresses, etc.

I am just doing what I can, also having in mind that time is running out. If this is not published within a year or two, this will likely never be published. With our dismally failing education system, one viewpoint is it would be a form of crime to ignore a priority program that could much have helped. 

So, friends in the public, are you willing to send a letter or two?