No because apparently you misunderstood my comment. So again, I don't see how you're suitable to teach English. If you've done it for decades that is not proof that you did it well. It's simply proof that you did it.

I said:

You define a maniac as a "lunatic" or "crazy person" with no reference to the dictionary from which you got said definition...

Your response to which was:

As for my not including the proper and actual "dictionary" definitions, I did that intentionally.

So I stated that you hadn't included a reference for the definition you used but the word you chose to quote was dictionary and then having changed the subject of my comment to suit yourself, in oppose to what was actually written, you preceded to have a write your response to me.

You said:

Vocab-ability can help mid-level or advanced-level students learn and improve their vocabulary by introducing them to the target vocab in a clear and accessible way.

but previously you had justified your use of non dictionary definitions by saying:

I can assure you that while those definitions found in the American Heritage Dictionary or Merriam-Webster might be useful for native speakers, those definitions will not help beginner-level or mid-level ESL students

I'm sorry but I'm afraid that I don't understand. I thought that your target audience was mid to advanced level ESL students.

You asked:

Also, if you believe that the 4 examples / target words do not typify "crazed person" or "lunatic." then how would you define them? For instance, would you define a pyromaniac as someone who just happens to have excessive enthusiasm for fire? That would be of no benefit to most ESL students.

In response, if I was relying on my own personal understanding of the word pyromaniac I would define it as a person who has a compulsion (the simplified form of excessive enthusiasm) for starting fires.

Allow me to further state that if I was writing your lesson I wouldn't have used advanced words which require a medical or psychological dictionary for even native English speakers to understand as examples. Also since "maniac" is now considered to a derogatory, slang term when used alone, I wouldn't have taught it at all.

You tried to teach a word which can only be used in a polite context when used together with a Greek or Latin prefix. How will that help mid to advanced level ESL students?

Why couldn't you have used the word "mania" instead? It actually fits your lessons better.

There's more but since you seem to have taken my previous comment as a personal attack, I have little hope that this will be taken in a better light. The simple fact is that in my personal opinion I do not think that your lesson is adequately referenced and I think that it is misleading. If you disagree, as you obviously would, so what?