"There are two unrelated issues here. One is the question of whether your text is 'better' than the one it modifies. You keep assuring me that it is unequivocally better, and I keep completely ignoring the point. I have not even read the original text because the extent to which you have improved it is irrelevant to the second question. I would point out though that assurances from an author that what he has done is valid are somewhat superfluous. We can assume you like what you have done and feel that it is valid, etc. - so your repeating that opinion as an argument does not add much. If you wanted to elevate the claim to more than an opinion, you would probably need to accept the idea that your piece should be rigorous in its attributions."
Please, let us say that nothing is more superfluous than speaking about things or in the name of things that one has not even read.
The improvements I made to the text, concerning the translations of key terms, do not change the meaning of the translation that you have not read. Before you assume differently, or before you assume I am just wishing this to be true, you should probably read the English translation. My translations of key terms do not give the piece a lesser accuracy because they do not change the overall meaning of the lecture. It is clear in both pieces that Osensei's placed God at the center of his efforts and that he is advising us to do the same if we want to have an art like his art. Additionally, assuming you do not speak or read Japanese and/or that your are not familiar with the religious and cultural history of Japan, please let me point out that my translations are not of my own whim. For example, no scholar in the field worth their salt would have ever translated "Kannagara no Jutsu" as "The Art of Shinto." My translations, when not taken from Osensei's own elaboration or from Omoto-kyo theology, are field standards. They are not the products of my own fancy and I am not just wishing them to be accurate -- certainly not in the way that you are just wishing for them to be inaccurate.
You are mistaking my openness and my willingness to engage your ideas for a confession. I have disagreed with your points because they exist only upon assumptions. I am allowing them to be "real," but only for you. Moreover, I was very clear concerning under what minimalistic conditions I would concede your worries -- under what extremely rare conditions your worries might exist elsewhere than in your own mind. Outside of that, I have not agreed with your suggestions that I am being deceitful or misleading -- neither purposefully nor incidentally. Rather, I have rejected them up front -- through and through -- from the time you spoke as if you have read the translation to the time in which you acknowledged that you have not. I also imagine that I will be rejecting them from the time you spoke as if you knew field standard translations until the time that you may acknowledge that you do not.
You seemed to have universalized your own experience and disguised it all with claims of helping people and doing the right thing, etc. -- this though you have never said and cannot say what you are saving people from (especially since you did not read the English translation and seem unable to recognize which translations are field standards and which are not). You talk about "misleading" and "deception" and you can only hint in the spaces between your words on what this might mean and why we should avoid it (i.e. you cannot show what is accurate and non-accurate, what is different and what is the same, etc.). In openness again, I can see your point if you were able to determine accuracy from inaccuracy, I can see then the motivation of saving folks from being misled to inaccuracy. However, without that skill, or without even taking the time to read the English translation, I must wonder why you simply could not say, "My preference is for a disclaimer," why you felt the need to bring up "saving folks."
Additionally, I wonder, why not just be satisfied with making the disclaimer yourself. Why so pressed to have me make it? Without you having the means or (possibly) the ability to distinguish accuracy from inaccuracy, all I can see is that you are very much into doxa and/or the various economies and types of cultural capital that go hand in hand with determining what is authoritative and what is not. At a personal level, it seems the Founder's words are central to a cultural economy you have chosen to participate in. Accepting that I very well could be wrong, it seems like there is much at stake for you here and that you are at a critical junction not only because of what I have not done but because, for you, the message of said lecture was better left unclear, vague, and difficult to read. It seems that you object to the message of the lecture, and now that it is readable, the only cultural economic move you can make is to get me to say that I said it and not Osensei. You must realize, if anything would be misleading it would be this since it would clearly give the impression that I have said something different from what Osensei said (assuming here that the English translation at AikidoJournal.com is accurate) -- which is 100% inaccurate. I mention this here because if this does prove to be relevant then this will be one more reason why we do not share the same set of worries or concerns. Osensei is not the center of cultural economic system for me. I do not define what my Aikido is or should be by what Osensei has done with his own practice. He is at most a guide, one of many, and he is far from the center of what I do, try to do, who I am, and who I try to be.
Assuming none of this is true or relevant, and I would like to think it is not, we are where we have always been. You would like a disclaimer. I do not think one is required (nor would I like to make an action that misleads one from what is accurate to what is inaccurate). I think you should feel free to make said disclaimer yourself, as much as you like (while I would be ready to debate any unwarranted claims that one is not reading Osensei's very idea of what his practice was and what he thought ours should be). You said, "Do it." I say, "No." You say, "You are a deceitful person." My answer stays, "No." Again, I do not mean to be rude, but let's face it, we have different sets of concerns here. We simply do not agree. I can be fine with that - I hope you can too.