<p>I have a group history project and I’m writing out a lot of the research. I plan to present the people in my group a packet with information. Would it be offensive if I footnoted some vocabulary in my writing that I’m not sure they’d know.</p>
<p>(I’m basically writing out a script for them to say, or else I’d just change my word choice.)</p>
<p>No. I think in the long run it will be useful to them!</p>
<p>Ok. Sweet. I just didn’t want them looking at it and thinking I was insulting their intelligence.</p>
<p>I sure hope not, otherwise they may want to grow some thicker skin :/</p>
<p>Good. Thanks.</p>
<p>I think its sort of pedantic. Make sure you only footnote really uncommon or difficult words. It would be better to overestimate their vocabulary than to underestimate.</p>
<p>It’s a nice thought, but you shouldn’t need to waste your time. These kids need to learn how to use a dictionary (or at least punch some words into dictionary.com) some time or another.</p>
<p>^im pretty sure she’s implying that her grade will suffer if these kids mess up. still think she should rely on them? :p</p>
<p>I guess you’re right.</p>
<p>I try to limit the big words to just adjectives and adverbs. I always tell them that, in the event that they can’t pronounce it (doesn’t matter if they know what it means or not) then they should just skip over it and continue without pause. </p>
<p>Technical terms, however, always need to be defined. And this definition needs to be incorporated into the presentation so the public knows what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>that seems really obnoxious. and i’d worry more about pronunciation than whether they know the definitions, but that could be covered in a read-through. </p>
<p>edit:It’s only offensive if there are any minorities in your group.</p>
<p>I, too, am a pedant! Woohooooo</p>
<p>edit - oh noz, Choklit, you’ve left the top of the bell curve!>?!???</p>
<p>No minorities, just people that will say that will say the word and stop with the “Oh my goodness! What does that word mean!” </p>
<p>Plus, a lot of it is I’m writing out questions for them to ask. (We’re doing kind of a reporter thing… It’s a stupid assignment) If they’re asked to restate their question I want them to know what the question means, (or if they want to originally put it in their own words.)</p>
<p>Are you serious?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t define them. If someone handed me a script like that with words defined, I’d defffffinitely be at least irritated, if not mildly offended. Who cares if they don’t know what it means? If they can’t pronounce it, then tell them that they’re pronouncing it wrong IF they do. If they don’t know what it means and they actually ask what it means, then tell them. I wouldn’t assume their ignorance and define it beforehand.</p>
<p>^yeah, take the advice from a woman who wouldn’t give up 100 dollars to save a person, now you know you have a reliable source</p>
<p>^Hey, at least you admit that I’m a woman.</p>
<p>And in all seriousness, what kind of a hypothetical is it [wait, it’s just that! hypothetical! and in no way realistic!] where you’re supposed to assume that giving that 100 dollars will automatically and most definitely save a person!? And how long are we saving them for? Another minute? Until a meteorite crashes into their head? Until what? It’s a ridiculous question and anyone who answered in the affirmative is silly.
And btw, humanitarianism has nothing to do with OFFENDING people, and if aaaanyone, I should be the one to trust on this - I mean, srsly, someone who’s willing to throw away their money to maybemaybenot save a person’s life for an unspecified amount of time is obviously going to be worried about offending other people with defined words. Geez. If I, the people-killer, am worried about offending the person, you’d better listen, lol.</p>
<p>^Too bad the hypothetical question dealt with nearly nothing you just said. The catch to the question was that you don’t know what kind of a person you were saving, and i thikn that was made pretty clear. There was no mention of time, and choklitrain said they were guaranteed to be saved. It’s pretty obvious that the assumption can be made that it would be a good amount of time; that would set a standard so that you could make your decision based on whether you wanted to risk sending a psychopath back out to the world or a good person, not based on how much longer they would live.</p>
<p>And lets face it, the number of decent people far outweigh the number of criminals on this planet. You’re just selfish is all.</p>
<p>^And that’s my point!, that the hypothetical dealt with nothing I said! If those things had been specified, I may [or may not] have given up the money. And just because the question says “guaranteed to be saved,” that doesn’t mean that you can assume it would “be [for] a good amount of time.” I mean, what if I assumed it would be for only a minute? Why isn’t it specified?! If I’m giving up a hundred dollars to potentially “save” someone, I’d actually like to know the specifics of what’s going down. </p>
<p>And yeah, before you continue the pointless argument, yeah, I am selfish - aren’t we all? [Really, how much would you give to save this hypothetical person? A million dollars? All your money? All of your family’s money?] At least I can admit it.</p>
<p>^alright i give lol, i think he assumes we’ll apply some common sense when answering the question. sorry for the hard time invenviam. and i don’t think of myself as selfish 
maybe im selfish for thinking that and others should decide.</p>