Why some theorists are blind to this
Priority Education Solution.

As shown elsewhere in this Website, not understanding or misunderstanding one word in a sentence makes the comprehension of that overall sentence vague, confused, misunderstood, or not understood.  Following sentences based on that earlier sentence are often also vague, confused, misunderstood, or not understood.

Who out there makes the connection that the failure of our education system has something to do with students not comprehending the lessons?  Who out there recognizes that comprehension requires the words being known?

Much of the problem in our failing education system – much of the damage done to our education system – is caused by just this.  As “boring” as it may sound to some educational theorists (who sometimes prefer to deal only with new areas of thought on the cutting edge of new theorizing), inadequate dictionary use is about the first problem they should be looking at.

If a needed solution to education problems is “boring,” should it be rejected and refused consideration?

What might some theorists do if looking at the basic subject matter of this Website – namely the necessity to know what the words mean and therefore the necessity of more adequate use of dictionaries?  Some theorists might just heave a sigh of boredom and say forget it, I’m not going to pay attention to that.  And they might just stop reading right there, declining to pay attention to any proofs on this Website that this subject is of priority importance.

I am going to refer to some theorists operating in foundations.  But some same theorists are likely affecting our education system everywhere, including in schools, administration, etc. 

If a theorist was making the decision for a foundation whether or not to support this program, what might that theorist write in declining to support this program?  He would likely not answer the proofs on this Website that knowing words is of priority importance.  It could be rather hard to answer those proofs, especially if he never got around to reading those proofs. 

What he might write is something general, like “We receive many requests for funds, and we do not have enough funds to fund them all.”  That would ignore and bypass addressing the proofs that this is a priority program.

Is the issue what will help education the most?  Or in effect has the issue become what program is more stimulating and challenging and entertaining to the theorist?  You might laugh, but that may be how it has been with some foundations.  That theorist can figure “What glory would come from supporting this ‘boring’ program?  My “large intelligence” can not be wasted dealing with this.  Let some other foundation support this.”

Whatever the reason is, about 200 foundations that support education failed to make any grant to our nonprofit corporation’s priority program.   Whatever that reason is, those foundations failed to recognize a priority program and support it.  I just have to wonder if the reason for not supporting this is what has been stated above.

The error is not with the foundations, but with any theorists inspecting submissions who decide for the foundations. 

No one speaking for a foundation ever addressed this program on its merits, specifically answering the proofs shown that this is priority.  No foundation ever wrote that they disagree with any proof that this is priority, and wrote why they disagreed.

In effect I asked foundations about this issue.

After writing the first time to about 200 foundations that help education, months later I wrote back a second time with more than just the basic one page I earlier sent.  The second time I included proofs that this program is priority, in a letter that was twelve pages long.  But I have to wonder how adequately my first letter and my second letter was read and considered.

On page 12 of that second letter I included a section asking them to answer some basic questions if they decided to decline giving support.  I was not trying to be insulting.  I looked forward to our actually getting into discussion about a basic issue.  I enclose below the section heading and the following sentences on that page 12:

“If you respond “no,” please answer this question.

“If you do write “no,” I would be curious why you regard even the Reader’s Digest quote as not proving that increasing vocabulary is a priority.  Would that be saying that vocabulary is not particularly relevant in education?  Is dictionary use not necessary to increase vocabulary?  Is this not obviously a much superior dictionary, that will be used more often?” 

No one answered any of those questions when sending me a letter declining to give support.  Of course, they could have read that letter.  But no one addressed those issues.

One foundation’s immediate response to my program.

Going to one large foundation in my neighborhood, I went inside to inquire how to apply for a grant.  There was a person passing by there who happened to be the person who largely decided who would get grants.  He asked me what was the nature of my nonprofit corporation’s approach to help education.  I answered helping to get words better known with a much easier-to-use dictionary.  The look on his face showed a type of revulsion and instant boredom at the subject.  All he had to say was approximately “We would not support that area.”  That ended that.

I must admit that no foundation has written back saying “We are revulsed and bored at this subject.  We just don’t feel like paying attention.  And that is why we are declining to support your program.  Whatever proofs you have that knowing what words mean is necessary to comprehend sentences – – well, we never got around to reading that far.  In effect, we will be blind to your program.”  Still, I have to wonder if any of that played a part of why our priority program was rejected.

Within the Website article “Adequate Dictionary Use, Part 3” I told in brief what the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” was about.  In that fairy tale no one except a small child would recognize the obvious – that the emperor was naked.  The people were blind to the obvious.  Likewise, here we go along day by day dealing in education with words, words, words.  Words are everywhere.  Has it not occurred to these people that maybe, just maybe, it might be important to know what these words mean?  Is this a little too obvious to some theorists, who insist on finding the “hidden story” somewhere?

How do you correct some mistaken theoretician views if they think they already know it all and will not listen?

A theorist’s instant response to hearing what our program is might have to do with three mistaken conclusions that theorist has made, namely: (1) “Oh, I am sure that everyone knows what all the words mean.”  (2)  “No one minds using a dictionary.”  And (3)  “Even if a person does not understand a word in a sentence, even if a person does not look that word up, I am sure that will not affect understanding that sentence anyway.”

All three of those conclusions are directly addressed in this Website, and all clearly proved to be mistaken.  But that person may never get around to reading the proofs that his whole viewpoint is mistaken. 

How do you get through to someone who has decided that he already knows all about a subject – – when in fact he is quite ignorant on a subject? 

You may not be able to get through to that person.  That person may just “happily” go on his way in great confidence that he supposedly did right by rejecting a priority program. 

In presuming that any solution for education’s problems must involve great complication, some theorists may be just a little too “intelligent” for their own good.  Their “intelligence” and insistence to deal only with complicated, hidden problems might allow them to be blind to an obvious priority problem.

Common sense – not complicated theorizing – is needed to  solve this major education problem.

Your education system is largely being harmed by words not being understood.  Boring or not, that is a large part of the problem.  Average people who do not insist on being amused/entertained/challenged by a complicated new theory might be more able to help education here.

Average people seeing Johny or Mary failing in school can regard that the first priority is to get Johny or Mary comprehending those classes.  Average people do not regard that the first priority is to be intellectually challenged, and forget about Johny or Mary failing. 

Let’s say you had a major solution to some major problem. How could you achieve no one noticing that solution?  Well, if the people whose responsibility to fix that problem are complicated intellectuals, just make that solution something that is right in front of their face, obvious, and “boring” in not measuring up to the standards of complication and theorizing.  They can be blind to the solution every time.

Have you ever seen any movies about someone hiding a letter by placing it in plain sight?  Then the “bad guys” break into the house  and look for the letter in all the complicated nooks and crannies.  Those searchers did not even consider the solution might be obvious.  In the stories they never found the letters hidden in plain sight.

These theorists are making large decisions affecting education not only in foundations, but also in schools, in government administration, etc.  Our education system is largely being affected by theorists everywhere.  Your common sense help is needed.

An academic culture of “theoretical, complicated, intellectual and hidden”

If a theoretician is asked “What is your thesis or research to be on?” the only way to impress another theoretician may be if the topic is theoretical, complicated, intellectual and hidden.  To study a subject (words) that is continually in front of everyone may be presumed as an impoverished academic effort – because they can presume if it is continually in front of everyone, then everyone must already know all about it.

A theoretician might be regarded as a dunce or “not even trying” if concerned about knowing the words.  The route to ego and impressive

academic credentials may require restricting oneself to “theoretical, complicated, intellectual, and hidden.”  Consequently the mere subject of knowing the words can be considered “boring, can’t be bothered with that, am above all that.”

This can tend to make theoreticians blind to and unconcerned about knowing the words.

In all this blindness on this subject, it turns out that many of them were actually BLIND to the subject from the start.  After all, knowing the words is about the most important requirement in education.

People in the real world not trying to impress each other with “theoretical, complicated, intellectual, and hidden” can be in a better position to appreciate this subject. 

That is why it is our responsibility to bring some of these theoreticians back to earth and to show them what is needed for real success in education.  That is why the public must make some clamor and write some letters.  Or else these theoreticians might be only too willing to continue to ignore this subject.

Some of them when receiving the first letters will say “Trust us, we are experts” and try to prove that by doing their dance of “See how theoretical, complicated, intellectual” I am?”  That is not going to cut it any more.  Do not be distracted or dissuaded by that dance.  Demand some real intelligence on the issue.

Is the truth offensive?

Some theoreticians after reading this Website and receiving lots of letters may say “Okay, okay, okay.  We will finally institute better knowing the words.  But did you have to be so offensive about it?  If you had merely pointed out how knowing the words is important, we would have paid attention.”

Well, no, the sad fact is they might well not have paid attention.  As some proof, twice I wrote to about the largest 200 foundations that help education, and that second time I provided much proof how knowing the words is a priority concern.  And they all said “no.”  Was it that they could not be bothered with, “were above” the subject?

It seems it may require some exposing this particular academic culture to get the public to know some of these “experts” are not such experts after all.  To get the public to feel qualified to disagree with them and demand this intelligent action.

If this hypothesis is correct about this particular academic culture, then exposing that culture would be only to the good.  Such a truth should not be “offensive.”  Know the truth, and the truth will set you free from the chains of that academic culture.

If it quite okay with me if they have ego and pretensions.  But if that gets full in the way of doing their job, that is another thing.

I do not regard it as offensive to do what is necessary to help education.

The education theorists actually and deeply dedicated to helping education may not mind but agree.  The dedicated theorists may be rather tired of these ego other people getting in their way.  Those who are most “offended” may be the least dedicated actually to helping education.  Would any attempted legal attacks against me come largely from these latter people?

Who are the actual champions of education – people trying to help education, or people trying to maintain this ego?  Who will you support?

I am sure there are many different cultures within the whole of academics, and this hypothetical culture would be only one of them.  I am certainly not saying that all academics are in this one culture.  I am sure there are many knowledgeable and practical teachers who would support this common sense program.

I am not claiming or charging that this hypothetical theoreticians’ culture exists, and I am not going to spend time trying to prove that.  I am merely saying this is food for thought that could be considered.  From your own experience, you can decide if you think that this culture likely exists.  Have you ever seen a theoretician act this way – acting rather puffed up and over-complicating everything?

When the public’s letters start pushing this program onto the forefront of academic attention, will there be any debate in the education journals?  Will there be some articles supporting this common sense program as the major first thing that should be done to help education?  Will there be any other articles disagreeing with this that are so full of off-the-wall theory as to be ridiculous to almost everyone but those writers?

Some theoreticians who might actually prefer to be off-the-wall theoretical might let the practical part of themselves support this program anyway.  To protest against this may too obviously be a losing battle.  This is what your letters will accomplish. 

Finally this major damage to education will start to diminish.  Finally our education system will take a major turn for the better.

Wouldn’t this make for a major story in the news, if this is actually what has been going on?

Wouldn’t it be incredible if this is significantly what has been going on?  Wouldn’t that be a story for the ages, if a large number of the experts in a society failed to see an obvious, major problem?  Wouldn’t that be a story – of education in the wealthiest country in the world dismally failing and that country being harmed because so many experts failed to recognize the obvious?

The “Emperor’s New Clothes” is a cautionary fable, meant to give a moral lesson.  But how often do you find examples in real life of blindness to the obvious going on?  How often do you find an example of this blindness on this large a scale, significantly harming a whole country? 

Wouldn’t that be a story if all that it required all along was for simple rationality and common sense to demonstrate that this was a major problem – but that for too long too many experts were unwilling to pay attention?

The fact is – this is the story.  This has been happening.  The absurd has been going on too long.

In theater there are the two faces of comedy and tragedy.  Some people could look at this inability to see the obvious as a type of comedy.  On the other hand some people can recognize the tragedy of how much this country has been harmed during the time this obvious problem has not been recognized.

Have some of the “experts” failed?  Can you know more than some “experts”?

Over a period of 25 years the federal government has put one hundred twenty-five billion dollars ($125,000,000,000) in funds into Title One to improve education.  A recent Department of Education study shows that 60% of poor fourth grade students can barely read.  Education seems to be doing worse than before, even after all that money.

Let us consider the type of person who made the decisions that largely wasted that $125 billion, who chose many wrong educational programs to support.  Of course, during those years these people were considered “experts.”

Can any partial element of those “experts” be found among any of the foundations, dictionary companies, and government agencies that are now making the decisions to help education?  Has everyone changed since before?

Dear Public:  It may require some of your common sense support for the right thing to be done.  You can not necessarily just leave it to the “experts” or theorists to decide this matter.  Many of these same “experts” and theorists have brought you our dismally failing education system.

Instead of throwing money at the problem, doing what the current “experts” may largely want, significantly just doing more of the same thing – – how about doing something different?  How about seeing to it that about the most basic requirement in education – knowing what the words mean – is not so broadly ignored and overlooked?

What might be some current “experts” first response if they get a few letters from you that a priority program is needed to get words better understood, where students become more willing to use a dictionary?  Might their first replies to the public be that they would not support this subject?  In effect, would their first replies say “We have the education situation well in hand, so you can leave it to us.  We are experts, trust us”?

Apart from any assurances that all is fine, they might also offer to distract your attention onto some pet education program of theirs.  Maybe some of those pet education projects would be based on lots of complicated theory, that while perhaps being somewhat useful and helpful, would be far less useful and helpful than this program.

There is a value not to just trust any “expert,” not to accept any such assurances, not to be distracted to any minor program.  The message needs to be continually brought to them that “Words need to be understood for any class to be successful.  It is relevant for students to be able to comprehend their classes.”

At first, some of these “experts” may not appreciate getting letters from and having to listen to common sense from “non-experts.”  This can make it hard to get through to them.  But over months of time if they receive many letters from many people, perhaps finally they will pay more attention to this requirement in education. 

Perhaps finally we can get this basic requirement in education better applied.  Perhaps finally we can get school classes better understood.

Maybe we will get lucky, and some letters that go to dictionary companies, foundations, and government agencies will reach people who are more open to common sense, who without large delay will do what is needed.

Comprehension has more priority. 

The final definition and concern of education is to get students comprehending the subjects. When education is failing and students are broadly not comprehending the subjects, the priority concern needs to go onto what will add to comprehension.

This program will increase comprehension in all subjects of study, for all students, in every city of the country, and at low expense.  That is why this program has priority.

No more breathing, everyone.

I have to wonder if some education theoreticians’ approach is: “We will not be bothered with the necessity to know what the words mean, but we will make up for that by putting more attention on some other aspect of education.”  This is like a health person saying “We will ignore the basic requirement to breathe – – no more breathing, everyone – – but we will make up for that by giving everyone better fitting shoes. 

The fact is knowing what the words mean  IS  a fundamental requirement.  Knowing what the words mean can NOT safely be ignored.  (The above two paragraphs are also seen elsewhere on this Website.)

Many pet projects in education that are supported by foundations are theoretical and not as important as this priority need to improve comprehension.  Also, even if you build a super modern new school or add in air conditioning, if the students do not know the words, they are not going to understand the lessons anyway. 

Words need to be better understood, and the objective fact is this improved dictionary is the only practical easier-to-use dictionary that students will use more willingly and more adequately.  Here is a priority way to increase dictionary use and get words better known.  Here is a priority way to increase comprehension. 

You can help by writing a letter or two to dictionary companies.  Please refer to the article “Contacting Dictionary Companies.”  You can also ask some of your friends to write letters.  You might also write to some foundations and government programs that have the responsibility to help education.

Am I being too unappreciative of these other parties?

Some people could ask “Why not be more mellow?  Instead of wondering if any of these parties made any errors, why not just present that not knowing the words is a problem in education, and that this improved dictionary would help?”

I am quite willing for any magazine article to take that more mellow approach.  But if I wrote that this is a partial solution to just a problem in education, many people would quickly agree that would help and could not hurt.  But with the hundreds of other programs out there to help education, many people could decide this is not particularly important, so let’s just forget about it.

What happens if instead of writing this is “a” problem in education, if I write this is about the largest problem in education?  Writing the truth that this is about the largest problem in education, people could not so readily forget about the subject.  After all, just the Reader’s Digest quote shows that most people with very poor vocabularies will tend to fail in education.

If I write that this is about the largest problem in education, many people would quickly ask:

“If this is about the largest problem in  education, then why isn’t this problem already well known?  How come this problem was not being repaired more starting 25 years ago?  If this is about the largest problem in education, then why haven’t foundations supported the nonprofit program?  Why has no dictionary published this improved dictionary for the past thirteen years?  If this is about the largest problem in education, why have many education theorists missed this problem?”

People can tend to hope or expect that the “experts” know what is going on, and that the “experts” will do what is needed to help society.  If I did not answer the above questions, many people would presume that this is not a particularly damaging problem in education. 

For instance, those people could decide “Well, this could not be a significant concern, because if it were significant, the experts would already know about it.”  So I also had to address these questions.

That is why I decided it was important also to point out WHY this fundamental requirement in education has been so much ignored.  And that does not necessarily involve giving praise to the “experts” who overlooked this problem.

If I had not included this additional material answering these questions in this Website, maybe fifty people a day would write me these questions anyway. To avoid mailing or E-mailing these answers that often, I decided to put this more complete information in this Website at the start. 

Anyone in the public who does not feel inclined to read any of the later articles on this Website that include answering these questions – is certainly free not to read those later articles.  The first articles are more important, pointing out why knowing what the words mean is absolutely critical to a successful education.

Cross reference to a related topic

You may wish to look at the article “Focus on the Issue.  No Distractions for Personal Reasons” towards the very back of that article under the heading “Should Education continue to be harmed if I offended someone?”  What if someone incorrectly imagined that I intended to offend or insult?  Would that mean that person should no longer do his legally-accepted responsibility to help education? 

Under that heading is this paragraph: “What if a dictionary company or 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”?  It should be kept in mind that I never intended to offend or insult in the first place.

Not to care about adequate dictionary use is not to care about what is needed for successful comprehension/learning/education. 

Some people could say I am being offensive to theoreticians in pointing out this error.  But it is a theoretician’s responsibility to correct his act, and not my responsibility to hide the truth.  Why should a theoretician waste his time feeling offended anyway?  Why not just repair the situation and be done with the past?

Some people say it is enough to have good intentions.  Many others say it is much better also accurately to know what is going on.  With good intentions, theoreticians should be able to recognize and repair this error fairly quickly.

I am not being vindictive or blaming here.

I am not a vindictive person.  It is not my goal to offend anyone.  I would prefer not to offend anyone, which would also have the advantage of some offended people not feeling inclined to attack me.  I have not particularly enjoyed having to spend time writing about any dissatisfactions with theorists, dictionary companies, foundations, etc.

But I realized that if I did not provide this additional information, this major damage to education would continue.

So I included this additional information.  This is the truth as I know it, without any malice.  As I see it, this free speech is necessary to solve a major problem and to help this country’s failing education system.

Let the truth come out.  With the truth known, maybe a dictionary company, foundation, etc. will decide to do the responsible thing and repair any errors made.  That would certainly be preferable to trying to cover up the truth, for instance by legal action to shut down this Website.

I have not stated any direct conclusions about any of these “experts,” partly because I do not want to waste time and funds in court being sued for using  free speech.  I have just asked some questions and put out some information, and am leaving it for you to decide. 

You may decide to write a letter to some of these people, asking them to pay more attention to this major problem in education and this breakthrough patented solution to this problem.  You are quite within your rights if you civilly ask them to help education in his way. 

It appears that the only way this aid will arrive to education is if the public gets behind this, if you write to them.  Kindly take a moment to help our failing education system.  See “Contacting Dictionary Companies” on the home page.

This Website proves the major importance of knowing what the words mean – at least enough to justify supporting this program.

There is enough on this Website to prove that inadequately knowing the words is about the largest problem in education.  That is proven if only by the hundreds-of-studies quote from the Reader’s Digest article, the other references, plus showing how the numerous cancers from numerous not understood words harms understanding.

If anyone wants more proof, that person can see to it that the suggested additional research be done as mentioned in the article “Adequate Dictionary Use, Part 3” under the heading “An obvious research study that could have been done 25 years ago.”  In that research, in some classes all not understood words would be looked up, and the improvement in comprehension and education would be tracked. 

That suggested obvious research could have been done 25 years ago by any researchers intelligently focused and interested in helping education.

The blindness in past theoreticians not to have done the above research may be the same blindness in any present day theoretician who does not recognize just from this Website that not knowing the words is a major damager of education.

Some theoreticians looking at this Website may have pre-judged the matter and prefer not to recognize this major problem.  Such theoreticians may continue until doomsday to claim this is not a significant problem – and find fault with any references or research that supports recognizing that.  To be not capable of recognizing this as a major damager to education would be a theoreticians’s problem, not mine.  “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

The rest of us do not have to wait, do not need to wait, for any supporting agreement from any blind theoretician.  We can go ahead and get words looked up more adequately, and use this improved dictionary to help that.  We can leave any blind theoretician behind.

Such a blind theoretician would probably continue to yell at us: “But you didn’t prove this to me.”  Our response: “So what?”

Further debate and freedom of speech is always to be allowed, if any theoretician wants to protest.  But this is not to presume that anyone who wants to continue to debate can recognize reality or has the common sense to be able to add up obvious, rational conclusions.  Anyone who wants to continue to debate should not be presumed to be a genius, regardless of whatever academic credentials.  Many theoreticians of high academic credentials helped bring us our failing education system.

I regard that the case has adequately been made on this Website, certainly enough to justify the minor expense of these improved dictionaries.

It could even be showing some lack of good intentions, if any theoretician in effect says “Don’t you go doing anything basic and practical to help education, such as the obvious fundamental to know the words.  It would be terrible, it would ruin everything, we just can’t have students better knowing what the words mean.  Instead, we need to sit here and theorize for another 25 years.”

This program costs too little for people seriously to be able to object to it.

I may be more emphatic in these conclusions than some readers of this Website are willing to be.  With the dismal failure that has been brought to our education system over the past 25 years, I am not willing to sit by and watch this dismal failure continue another 25 years.

The articles on the importance of knowing what words mean are partly that long to answer any theorists’ nay-saying.

Someone could say that these Website articles could have been one-fifth as long, and the basic concepts would still have been presented.  I was concerned if I did not broadly develop and prove points, that a theorist bored with the topic anyway might say I did not adequately prove points and try to find whatever excuse to continue to pay little attention to this problem.

Also, it takes much longer to condense an article down in size.  I have spent some weeks at that and other revisions.  I have so little time to work on this, I did not want to wait maybe five months or so before getting this Website set up.  Maybe this Website will be condensed later.

Some background of my deciding to write and contribute to awareness of the need for more adequate dictionary use.

I am not responsible for discovering any of these basic ideas, including how not understanding one word harms that sentence and later sentences.  I have merely contemplated these issues and came up with simple, rational proofs on the subject.  I do not know if anywhere else there is similar simple, rational writing where the subject is addressed in a common sense, everyday way. 

The same as for inventing the Dictionary Index, I did not first check how other people addressed this subject in a common sense, simple, rational way.  I just went at this simple writing on my own. 

I can presume there are all kinds of scholarly writings on the subject of vocabulary, of which I have seen a few.  The few scholarly writings I have  seen had many complicated and theoretical side issues, and never got around to stressing the point “Use a dictionary more adequately.  Look up the word to be able to understand the sentence.” 

If consistent with complicated/theoretical/often academic form, many other such writings may cogitate impassively on vocabulary, where mention in passing is seldom if ever made to use a dictionary.  Somehow they may talk about the importance of vocabulary – while often not mentioning or appearing much to care about the solution of more adequate dictionary use to arrive at more vocabulary.

One goal of my writing is to show a student simply and flatly how inadequate dictionary use would harm his or her education.  At least for the purposes of this Website, there was a need for simple, rational writing on this major subject that anyone using simple, everyday common sense could immediately understand.  This writing is sufficient for the moment to stand up to whatever overly complicated and theoretical disagreements any theorists may write against this Website.

Kindly do not confuse the fact that my writing here is purposely easy to understand – and does not try to sound erudite and intellectual and complicated – with imagining that this writing does not adequately address the issue.  A writing does not have to be intellectual and complicated to prove any theoretician mistaken in not recognizing this as about the largest problem in education. 

How many theoreticians after reading this complete Website would still  not recognize inadequate dictionary use as a major problem in education that deserves priority handling?  The ideal scenario would be if theoreticians adequately pay attention here and recognize the reality of the situation.  But as I stated elsewhere, it will require your writing to them for them to know about and be willing to read this Website.

So after inventing the Dictionary Index, here I find myself also writing on this subject.  I am sure this writing can be improved upon later, by myself or someone else.  Perhaps my writing here can be of some use as an introduction to students who have not yet seen anything else more complete on this subject. 

After reading this, some students may be interested in a more thorough presentation of the subject.  I am certainly NOT saying that my writing is the best or only satisfactory treatment of this subject.  But I am not going to get involved in researching what other good writings there are out there, or in taking any responsibility to pass judgment on those writings.  You can save the time in sending me any such other writings, because I already have too many other things to do.

As part of encouraging students to look up more words, teachers could make copies of some articles on this Website and distribute those copies to students – for instance Parts 1, 2, and 3.  See the automatic free use of this copyright for the time being as told about at the end of Part 1.

In providing those copies, a teacher would not even need to say that the teacher subscribes to those views.  The teacher could just say “Here is some food for thought that a student can consider.”  A teacher could not very well get a demerit for caring about the students and providing these truths to consider.  

© 2002 Alexander Weilgart