"But what offended me about McConnell’s post was that he *deliberately* put in words that very few people knew, then told them to look it up! That doesn’t strike me as being very respectful of your readers."
Now, there seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding on this blogger's part on why I put certain "fancy words" into my blogpost deliberately so that day. And that was to drive home a point. This is the era of the internet where words can be easily looked up.
I have used the word "discombobulate" a couple of times in my blogposts. Words like "confounded" is, to me, a commonly used word. And for "vulgarized," it was specifically chosen solely for the look and sound of the word where readers (those who do not bother to look it up) will assume it has to do with "vulgar" words, which it is not. Just like when many readers assumed on what "incestuous" meant despite how it was placed context-wise in a sentence.
I have in the past, on rare occasssions, added dictionary links to certain "unfamiliar words." But I pretty much stopped doing that since I figured readers are smart enough to do that on their own and look them up. Should I expect otherwise? This has always been my expectatation, as should be for everybody else, that it's the reader's responsibility to look up a word. Should I instead expect readers not be able to do this and they're a bunch of helpless creatures? Of course not! This is, after all, the era of the internet. I err on the side that my readers here are smart enough to know how to use the internet.
There is this seeming habit by certain people who have the uncanny ability to twist everything out of context in some of my blogposts thinking the subject is aimed at the whole Deaf community. It is not if one actually take the time to see where I'm driving at in my blogposts. It's clear in my blogposts that the subject is about certain individuals who do these certain things such as, for example, taking the time to actually complain to me about the use of "fancy words." Instead, a time would've been better spent looking up unfamiliar words in the first place, and not complain like a 2 year old. My blogsite is aimed at both hearing and deaf people. See?
Now, I don't turn down requests for explainations of certain words or clarifications when asked. That's a different approach and completely acceptable. But if one chooses to complain instead, well, then that person must be the laziest person on the planet who cannot even look it up or have the decency to ask for an explanation. Why complain? Is the person insecure or what? Or perhaps, instead, have serious issues with me and start throwing unfounded charges of "audism" because of the person's personality conflict with me? What gives? Seriously.
This is all intuitive here and I shouldn't even have to explain it all here in the first place. The subject is about a certain group of people who act in a certain way and not about the whole community.
Do you see the thrust of my argument here? It's the same one in my recent blogpost "A fancy, schmancy blogspot." Many Deaf people understood my blogpost right away and agreed and knew that I was talking about certain individuals who act a certain way rather than at the whole Deaf community. It's rather incredible to see these types of knee jerk responses. All this is what I could be described as "distressingly funny."
I make it abundantly clear to those who do complain about the use of "fancy words" and that is they need to grow up. I have no qualms in saying that. There are people who do not like what I say and get offended for basically telling them that they are smart enough to do these things on their own. My bar of expectation is higher for the readers who come here to read my blogposts. No reason to expect otherwise. We're not doing the limbo here.
What is your bar of expectation for your readers?