Correction to Wing Chun Unity Article - Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine

[martyg]

This is my last response to this thread, because it appears everyone has said what they wanted to, and it seems to be turning in to a flame fest - which is not my intent. Those that have responded from the VTM camp seem more intent at bickering on tangents rather than addressing the original purpose of the letter. Which was simply to correct that the dates mentioned in the article as VTM events as actually being my events.


A few things:


John Sterling: I hold no ill will to anyone, as I've stated before. I also don't know if you're refering to my letter in your mention of "attacking the VTM" or some of the responses here. If you're refering to my letter, I resent it as it was not presented as an attack. Perhaps, as Don mentioned on the WCML, possibly what was published was different than what you submitted. He did mention Benny and the VTM helped contribute with the final draft and submission. The final product mentioned the VTM more than the 2 times you're saying was in the article version you wrote - which in itself was not the issue. I have no direct issue with the VTM and Benny, they certainly deserve any credit they seek. Again, the only issue I took out of the article (which was a nicely written and well presented article) were the dates of the Wing Chun Friendship Seminar being presented as a VTM event.

Chango and Tony - Chango, yes you were an attendee at the Ohio event. With regards to your comment that Benny doesn't have to announce about VTM excursions at every event, that is true. Once again though, that was not the point. People like Tony and your self should not take exception then (to the point of eye rolling and posting supposed supporting links) when people question if its official or not when he does not announce it - they go hand in hand. If you don't want people to question, then announce it. Unless Tony is used to reacting in a drama fashion - you seemed a little more level headed when I met you the one time. Furthermore, arguing about "well, if someone wanted to call theirs this or that" is pointless and completely confusing the issue - which was that the events claimed in the beginning of the article were actually my WCFS events. As clearly stated in the letter that started this thread, we hoped people would want to take up and present similar seminars. So why would I take issue with someone doing that? It seems arguing about ownership of the "title" is more like an attempt to go off on a tangent. Those dates and seminars on those dates were my seminars. Aruging about ownership of those is not on the table, and downright silly. On the far off chance someone wanted to challenge me for ownership of the specific series - its well and publicly recorded (including in various internet archives I have no control over, such as rec.martial-arts archives on google groups - the archive.org site (which i posted previously), and others) and a matter of public record. Intellectual Property for the series can be clearly demonstrated, and yes - I have several close friends and family members in that law field that I've checked with a number of times over the years, including with regards to ownership of the videos. But again, why would I ever have to deal with someone wanting to go to the trouble to claim the series for their own?