So, while you suggest there is a chance here to "mislead" folks, etc., it is not only not relevant, it is not present. It is not present because for the most part my text is saying nothing different than what the English translation is saying. You can see that for yourself by reading the translation over at AikidoJournal.com. Additionally, if there is a chance to mislead folks, it lies only with the English translation, which has made use of obviously poor translations regarding key terms. In other words, if you want to read my effort as a translation, you would have to read it as a better translation than the one currently in use and claiming to be the words of Osensei. The dangers you claim to be heading off lie in the translation, not in my work.
Regarding my second point which you are addressing. Let me just clarify that I am not concerned with the degree to which you are twisting or not twisting the speaker's words. My only concern (which arose only through this discussion) is that it is far from clear that your text is a 'rewrite' of an existing English text, without reference to primary sources. Your text could be infinitely better, clearer, and more accurate than the original without lessening this point. You say that this is not relevant, but I can only assume this means you misunderstand my point.
All I'm saying is that, however clever, apt, or otherwise impeccable your piece may be: it is in fact somewhat confusing because it leaves the reader uncertain as to quite what you have done. Actually, it might not be confusing at all - but to the extent it is not, then it is misleading. Let's take a simple example. There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether or not various translation of the Doha are as accurate as they could be. Suppose someone were to take it upon themselves, based on their understanding of the subject matter, to 're-transliterate' the Doha, using an existing translation as a base, and without reference to the originals. If they simply labeled this work with the enigmatic adjective 're-transliteration', and did not explain the process they had used, this would be misleading.
Even if the new text were, in the author's (and even everyone else in the world's) opinion - it would seem entirely appropriate to label it for what it would be. I fail to see how the confusion created by not doing so would be 'not relevant'.
It's possible we're talking past each other, and you think I'm accusing you of something more sinister than obfuscation. On the other hand, maybe you understand me perfectly. If I am missing something, I will be happy let it go. Can you point me to the portion of your text which makes it clear that you are essentially paraphrasing - as opposed to translating? If not, are you really saying that you feel this information is irrelevant?