# Pasadena Group Photo



## Rich_Hale

Doc requested I post this picture of a group class in Pasadena and let everyone put names to people in the picture.


----------



## MA-Caver

Rich_Hale said:


> Doc requested I post this picture of a group class in Pasadena and let everyone put names to people in the picture.


Well I recognize GM Ed Parker right away...


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Back row, third from the left looks familiar, but it can't be him: Too much hair.


----------



## IWishToLearn

Dave I was thinking the same thing. To Mr. Parker's left (right as we look at it) I believe is Bernie Bernheim. Back row 2nd from right - Eddie Booze? 5th from right - John Conway? 7th from right looks like Frank Trejo.


----------



## Doc

IWishToLearn said:


> Dave I was thinking the same thing. To Mr. Parker's left (right as we look at it) I believe is Bernie Bernheim. Back row 2nd from right - Eddie Booze? 5th from right - John Conway? 7th from right looks like Frank Trejo.



All of you are doing well, (except for the hair crack). Keep going. Who are the two on either side of me?


----------



## IWishToLearn

Out of my league. No clue - I just came into Kenpo land in 2004.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Doc said:


> All of you are doing well, (except for the hair crack). Keep going. Who are the two on either side of me?


 
I'd say it's our old buddy Lee Wedlake on your left and Jim Mitchell to your far right.  Don't know the kid standing just to your right.


----------



## HKphooey

Great photo.   Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> I'd say it's our old buddy Lee Wedlake on your left and Jim Mitchell to your far right.  Don't know the kid standing just to your right.



That "kid" is Paul Dye. 

Keep going.


----------



## Doc

IWishToLearn said:


> Dave I was thinking the same thing. To Mr. Parker's left (right as we look at it) I believe is Bernie Bernheim. Back row 2nd from right - Eddie Booze? 5th from right - John Conway? 7th from right looks like Frank Trejo.



Correct. Still a lot left.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Doc said:


> That "kid" is Paul Dye.


 
Paul Dye . . . . Doc we never looked that young . . . well maybe I did.

Okay, I'll toss in Paul Girard.  He is seated in the front row, to our far left.  Paul and I used to work out togehter in Pasadena when Frank Trejo ran the school.  Paul practically lived there.

And I'll go with Rick Hughes standing just to our left of Mr. Parker.


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> Paul Dye . . . . Doc we never looked that young . . . well maybe I did.
> 
> Okay, I'll toss in Paul Girard.  He is seated in the front row, to our far left.  Paul and I used to work out togehter in Pasadena when Frank Trejo ran the school.  Paul practically lived there.
> 
> And I'll go with Rick Hughes standing just to our left of Mr. Parker.



Very good. Anymore?


----------



## kenpotroop

Jim Mitchell taught at the school right?


----------



## Doc

kenpotroop said:


> Jim Mitchell taught at the school right?



WRONG!!


----------



## KenpoDave

Doc said:


> All of you are doing well, (except for the hair crack). Keep going. Who are the two on either side of me?


 
Well, that's got to be Bobby Ewing from "Dallas" on the back row, far left.


----------



## kenpotroop

Mr. Chapel, which schools did he teach at and run for Mr. Parker.


----------



## Doc

kenpotroop said:


> Mr. Chapel, which schools did he teach at and run for Mr. Parker.



None Sir.


----------



## Doc

You might add Jim "Josh" Furuya, (still teaching in Glendora with Ed Booze) along with Richard "Rick" Hughes that I can recall without working at it. Also Charles "Charlie" Gonzalez owner of Castle Litho, who printed most of Mr. Parker works including the Infinte Insight Volumes.


----------



## kenpotroop

Are you saying he never taught at or ran any ED Parker schools.


----------



## KenpoRick

Lower Right front is John Conway Jr. then Steve Orcino...and I think Paul Casey is 2nd row, 3rd from R...3rd from L, 1st row is Tom (forget his last name)...2nd from R, back row is Paul Mills...Ed Booze is 2nd row, far R...
Roger Meadows is 5th from L, back row...That's about is for my memory...
Also I believe that day was a test...I made 2nd black...


----------



## Doc

KenpoRick said:


> Lower Right front is John Conway Jr. then Steve Orcino...and I think Paul Casey is 2nd row, 3rd from R...3rd from L, 1st row is Tom (forget his last name)...2nd from R, back row is Paul Mills...Ed Booze is 2nd row, far R...
> Roger Meadows is 5th from L, back row...That's about is for my memory...
> Also I believe that day was a test...I made 2nd black...



Yeah it was a test Rick, and I was on the board. Man we're getting old.


----------



## KenpoRick

Doc,
Hope all is well with you and yours...
Old? Well, at least oldER...Ha, Ha...
I think you were on the board of my 4th black test in Pasadena also (1984)...
Ron, you have always been very supportive and enthusiastic, and I thank you for that...
Take care...
Always your friend,
Rick
P.S. Here, I'm a white belt again...starting over gives me more reason to live...Ha, Ha...


----------



## Doc

KenpoRick said:


> Doc,
> Hope all is well with you and yours...
> Old? Well, at least oldER...Ha, Ha...
> I think you were on the board of my 4th black test in Pasadena also (1984)...
> Ron, you have always been very supportive and enthusiastic, and I thank you for that...
> Take care...
> Always your friend,
> Rick
> P.S. Here, I'm a white belt again...starting over gives me more reason to live...Ha, Ha...



Thanks, and I know the feeling Brudda.


----------



## AvPKenpo

Thank you for taking credit for the picture that is on Mr. Mitchells website. www.mitchellkenpo.com Seeing as how I scanned that picture as well as all other pictures on Mr. Mitchells website, from his personal collection, I cannot see how you can take credit for that. Do not post anymore of his pictures from his website. Do not take credit for something that is not yours, even if Mr. Mitchell gave you permission to use the file give credit where credit is due. Please do not misrepresent yourself. 
Michael


----------



## Kenpodoc

AvPKenpo said:


> Thank you for taking credit for the picture that is on Mr. Mitchells website. www.mitchellkenpo.com Seeing as how I scanned that picture as well as all other pictures on Mr. Mitchells website, from his personal collection, I cannot see how you can take credit for that. Do not post anymore of his pictures from his website. Do not take credit for something that is not yours, even if Mr. Mitchell gave you permission to use the file give credit where credit is due. Please do not misrepresent yourself.
> Michael


So i guess your suggesting that only Mr. Mitchell got a copy of this group photo.  I find your random Hostility interesting since I don't see anyone taking credit for the photo although several of the respondants are in the picture. 

Jeff


----------



## Doc

AvPKenpo said:


> Thank you for taking credit for the picture that is on Mr. Mitchells website. www.mitchellkenpo.com Seeing as how I scanned that picture as well as all other pictures on Mr. Mitchells website, from his personal collection, I cannot see how you can take credit for that. Do not post anymore of his pictures from his website. Do not take credit for something that is not yours, even if Mr. Mitchell gave you permission to use the file give credit where credit is due. Please do not misrepresent yourself.
> Michael



So there is no misunderstandings sir, the picture was posted at my request and supplied by me from *my* personal collection. Although it may be posted on Jim's site, that is not the only place it may be found. I also know it to be on Frank Trejo's site as well. You may discuss its use with him separately if you choose to do so. 

However, you will notice that Frank Trejo, myself and many others are in the picture. The business of the day was a promotion test, where I (and others) sat on the testing board with Mr. Parker. If you had been there, you would know "that picture," was made available by the several photographers present to commemorate the event. 

Therefore the picture and its display belongs to the photographers, who freely supplied copies to all present, and probably persons not present. Under these circumsatnces, the photo likeness is not copyrighted or at the exclusive use of Jim Mitchell. If you had inquired as to the origin of the photo(s), or even asked Jim before you launched your indignation, this could have been avoided. Had you inquired here first, instead of assuming you were the only one with a scanner and access to the picture, this could have easily been avoided sir.

Additionally, I have other photos that Jim may have copies of as well. My suggestion is you should at the very least talk to the person who supplies pictures to you, before assuming they are the exclusive property and domain of any one individual. Martial Arts pictures are notoriously "public domain" unless published and duly noted as copyrighted material. Of course to do that, you must be capable of demonstrating legally you have exclusive rights to the photo. 

With apologies to Rich Hale, I'll see you at the Superbowl Party, "Go Colts."


----------



## AvPKenpo

Doc, I am not one to argue with anyone if I can help excuse me for standing up for this trivial matter.  In comparing the image that is on this thread and the image that is on Mr. Mitchells website, the images SEEM to look the exactly same. They look to be cropped at the same points that I cropped my image with dust particles in the exact same spots.  Fine could be coincidence.  Whatever.  At this point unfortunately it is only one mans word against another, and because you have such a large following of people, this forum will sway to whatever you say.  I respect that.  You have the peoples vote here so I will continue to be a troll and throw my two cents in every now and then.  I often sound hateful in my posts, so I apologize for that, let's keep moving forward instead of back....  
I hate to agree with you but GO COLTS!!!!
Michael



Doc said:


> So there is no misunderstandings sir, the picture was posted at my request and supplied by me from *my* personal collection. Although it may be posted on Jim's site, that is not the only place it may be found. I also know it to be on Frank Trejo's site as well. You may discuss its use with him separately if you choose to do so.
> 
> However, you will notice that Frank Trejo, myself and many others are in the picture. The business of the day was a promotion test, where I (and others) sat on the testing board with Mr. Parker. If you had been there, you would know "that picture," was made available by the several photographers present to commemorate the event.
> 
> Therefore the picture and its display belongs to the photographers, who freely supplied copies to all present, and probably persons not present. Under these circumsatnces, the photo likeness is not copyrighted or at the exclusive use of Jim Mitchell. If you had inquired as to the origin of the photo(s), or even asked Jim before you launched your indignation, this could have been avoided. Had you inquired here first, instead of assuming you were the only one with a scanner and access to the picture, this could have easily been avoided sir.
> 
> Additionally, I have other photos that Jim may have copies of as well. My suggestion is you should at the very least talk to the person who supplies pictures to you, before assuming they are the exclusive property and domain of any one individual. Martial Arts pictures are notoriously "public domain" unless published and duly noted as copyrighted material. Of course to do that, you must be capable of demonstrating legally you have exclusive rights to the photo.
> 
> With apologies to Rich Hale, I'll see you at the Superbowl Party, "Go Colts."


----------



## Doc

AvPKenpo said:


> Doc, I am not one to argue with anyone if I can help excuse me for standing up for this trivial matter.  In comparing the image that is on this thread and the image that is on Mr. Mitchells website, the images SEEM to look the exactly same. They look to be cropped at the same points that I cropped my image with dust particles in the exact same spots.  Fine could be coincidence.  Whatever.  At this point unfortunately it is only one mans word against another, and because you have such a large following of people, this forum will sway to whatever you say.  I respect that.  You have the peoples vote here so I will continue to be a troll and throw my two cents in every now and then.


Sir, it's not about a following, its a picture that many people have. You need to understand, even if someone took it off the site, its still isn't owned by you or Mitchell. Just because someone has custody of it, doesn't make it exclusive. And trust me, nobody sways to anybody here. However your opinion in any discussion is always welcome and helps to liven the debate sir.


----------



## kenpotroop

AMEN Brother


----------



## kenpotroop

AvPKenpo said:


> Doc, I am not one to argue with anyone if I can help excuse me for standing up for this trivial matter.  In comparing the image that is on this thread and the image that is on Mr. Mitchells website, the images SEEM to look the exactly same. They look to be cropped at the same points that I cropped my image with dust particles in the exact same spots.  Fine could be coincidence.  Whatever.  At this point unfortunately it is only one mans word against another, and because you have such a large following of people, this forum will sway to whatever you say.  I respect that.  You have the peoples vote here so I will continue to be a troll and throw my two cents in every now and then.  I often sound hateful in my posts, so I apologize for that, let's keep moving forward instead of back....
> I hate to agree with you but GO COLTS!!!!
> Michael



AMEN Brother


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

AvPKenpo said:


> Doc, I am not one to argue with anyone if I can help excuse me for standing up for this trivial matter. In comparing the image that is on this thread and the image that is on Mr. Mitchells website, the images SEEM to look the exactly same. They look to be cropped at the same points that I cropped my image with dust particles in the exact same spots. Fine could be coincidence. Whatever. At this point unfortunately it is only one mans word against another, and because you have such a large following of people, this forum will sway to whatever you say. I respect that. You have the peoples vote here so I will continue to be a troll and throw my two cents in every now and then. I often sound hateful in my posts, so I apologize for that, let's keep moving forward instead of back....
> I hate to agree with you but GO COLTS!!!!
> Michael


 
As a student-of-opportunity of Docs (meaning, I train with him whenerv I can, and with many miles between us, that's hard now) I may be one of the supposed people whose vote goes towards Doc. I also know that, if I think Doc is full of beans on something, he's the last person who would want me to be silent on it. That's called friendship, and I am honored to be able to have frank conversations with the man. 

So, I resent the implication that this community of posters is without critical reasoning faculties, and we defacto opt out of our ability to think and speak for ourselves in favor of nepotistic preference. 

Moreover, unless the people in the photograph have signed away their rights to their own images, and Mr. Mitchell has these waivers in his possession, I fail to see the point as to the origins of the image. It strikes me as moot. I see Doc in the pic. I see others in the pic. Now, I'm not an expert on copyright law, but my guess is that they would certainly have the right to post and explore the pic antidisirreagardlessly of the origin.

Of course, I'm often wrong.

Dave


----------



## evenflow1121

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Back row, third from the left looks familiar, but it can't be him: Too much hair.


 

LOL I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Kenpodoc

AvPKenpo said:


> Doc, I am not one to argue with anyone if I can help excuse me for standing up for this trivial matter. In comparing the image that is on this thread and the image that is on Mr. Mitchells website, the images SEEM to look the exactly same. They look to be cropped at the same points that I cropped my image with dust particles in the exact same spots. Fine could be coincidence. Whatever. At this point unfortunately it is only one mans word against another, and because you have such a large following of people, this forum will sway to whatever you say. I respect that. You have the peoples vote here so I will continue to be a troll and throw my two cents in every now and then. I often sound hateful in my posts, so I apologize for that, let's keep moving forward instead of back....
> I hate to agree with you but GO COLTS!!!!
> Michael


I resent the implication of this statement.  I respect Doc and what he has to teach. if I disagree with him I simply tell him so. 

Interesting hobby studying the picture in great detail.  I suspect there are multiple copies of the group picture floating around.  

Now I suspect the real intention of this attack was Dr. Chapel's short repudiation of the statement that Mr. Mitchell had taught or run one of Mr. Parker's schools.  If that's the problem adress it directly.

Jeff


----------



## Rich_Hale

Wow, I really just don't get it.  

I have a little photo gallery on my site at: http://www.pacifickenpo.com/Galleries/Gallery_1.htm and anyone who would like to copy any picture is welcome to it.  

Every now and then somone will contact me for permission (which is an unnecessary, but polite thing to do) and it is always granted.  

This is the Kenpo Mr. Parker shared with me.

By the way, if any of you want to keep something as yours and yours alone . . . my advice is don't go posting it on the Internet.

Rich Hale


----------



## Tames D

Rich_Hale said:


> Wow, I really just don't get it.
> 
> I have a little photo gallery on my site at: http://www.pacifickenpo.com/Galleries/Gallery_1.htm and anyone who would like to copy any picture is welcome to it.
> 
> Every now and then somone will contact me for permission (which is an unnecessary, but polite thing to do) and it is always granted.
> 
> This is the Kenpo Mr. Parker shared with me.
> 
> By the way, if any of you want to keep something as yours and yours alone . . . *my advice is don't go posting it on the Internet.*
> 
> Rich Hale


That is good advice.


----------



## Rich_Hale

By the way . . . I was on my way to Bas Rutten's for an MMA class when I wrote the little tid-bit about photo that was being discussed as being property of Jim Mitchell. 

Although I think my class was a lot more interesting, I still can't get myself to trun away from this conversation.  (Kind of driving by a car wreck, you just help but look.)

For the record, in regard to copyright law:

_In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. _

_Ownership of a &#8220;copy&#8221; of a photograph &#8211; the tangible embodiment of the &#8220;work&#8221; &#8211; is distinct from the &#8220;work&#8221; itself &#8211; the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the &#8220;work&#8221; is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. _

_Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. _

_The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. _

This statement was taken directly off the U.S. Copyright Office web site.

So in other words, if whoever scaned the Pasadena photo and put it on Jim Mitchell's web site did so without the express written prermission of the photographer, he is in violation of U.S. copyright laws, as it is the photographer who is the "author" of the material - not the subject(s).

Just a little something to think about.

Doc, I'll see you Sunday . . . I was thinking about bringing my camera, so I'll have my people call your people so they determine a mutually agreed upon photographer to take our picture.


----------



## Kenpobuff

I see Mr. Mitchell has posted two pictures on his site of what appears to be the same group perhaps by two different photograghers.  One pic shows Mr. Trejo in the back and one with Mr. Trejo to the far right.  I wonder who has the rights to which one...or who cares.  

My position is that we should all give thanks for sharing it and too those that have other similar historical photos posted on their sites.  Thanks for sharing with the rest of us who weren't there.  I think it better serves the Kenpo community to share rather than to hoard pictures, video clips, and information especially when it is of historical reference.


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> By the way . . . I was on my way to Bas Rutten's for an MMA class when I wrote the little tid-bit about photo that was being discussed as being property of Jim Mitchell.
> 
> Although I think my class was a lot more interesting, I still can't get myself to trun away from this conversation.  (Kind of driving by a car wreck, you just help but look.)
> 
> For the record, in regard to copyright law:
> 
> _In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. _
> 
> _Ownership of a copy of a photograph  the tangible embodiment of the work  is distinct from the work itself  the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the work is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. _
> 
> _Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. _
> 
> _The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. _
> 
> This statement was taken directly off the U.S. Copyright Office web site.
> 
> So in other words, if whoever scaned the Pasadena photo and put it on Jim Mitchell's web site did so without the express written prermission of the photographer, he is in violation of U.S. copyright laws, as it is the photographer who is the "author" of the material - not the subject(s).
> 
> Just a little something to think about.
> 
> Doc, I'll see you Sunday . . . I was thinking about bringing my camera, so I'll have my people call your people so they determine a mutually agreed upon photographer to take our picture.



That's ok. We're dojg a documentary so there will be a videographer there. Bring some good Kenpo stories, and sign the photo release at the door.


----------



## kenpotroop

Kenpodoc said:


> I resent the implication of this statement.  I respect Doc and what he has to teach. if I disagree with him I simply tell him so.
> 
> Interesting hobby studying the picture in great detail.  I suspect there are multiple copies of the group picture floating around.
> 
> Now I suspect the real intention of this attack was Dr. Chapel's short repudiation of the statement that Mr. Mitchell had taught or run one of Mr. Parker's schools.  If that's the problem adress it directly.
> 
> Jeff



Really that's funny since it was with me not the other subject. Also no matter what Mr. Chapel or you or anyone else says I believe my instructor.As I would expect you to do. The original question was just that and it was answered by someone who know matter what will think he is right.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

kenpotroop said:


> Really that's funny since it was with me not the other subject. Also no matter what Mr. Chapel or you or anyone else says I believe my instructor.As I would expect you to do. The original question was just that and *it was answered by someone who know matter what will think he is right*.


 
I assume you are referring to Doc. It was also answered by Mr. Hale, who is one of the straightest shooters you're going to meet. If he thought he had done something in poor form, he would be the first to admit it and apologize, regardless of who it miffed or why. Knowing this about him, I waited for his reply, which eventually did come.

That was all I needed.

Dave


----------



## kenpotroop

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> I assume you are referring to Doc. It was also answered by Mr. Hale, who is one of the straightest shooters you're going to meet. If he thought he had done something in poor form, he would be the first to admit it and apologize, regardless of who it miffed or why. Knowing this about him, I waited for his reply, which eventually did come.
> 
> That was all I needed.
> 
> Dave



I have nothing but respect for Mr. Hale, I'm talking about your reference to Mr. Mitchell and the teaching in Mr. Parkers Schools. The picture it between them and avpkenpo.


----------



## kenpotroop

Mr. Hale we have talked so please do not think this is towards you.

I can't talk about things that I was not there for.


----------



## Rich_Hale

kenpotroop said:


> Mr. Hale we have talked so please do not think this is towards you.
> 
> I can't talk about things that I was not there for.


 
Not a problem my friend.  As you said we have talked about the art and people in it and have a mutual understanding that no one is perfect, least of all ourselves.


----------



## Rich_Hale

Kenpodoc said:


> Now I suspect the real intention of this attack was Dr. Chapel's short repudiation of the statement that Mr. Mitchell had taught or run one of Mr. Parker's schools. If that's the problem adress it directly.
> 
> Jeff


 
I agree 100%  

I know we're all kind of used to Doc answering questions in great detail with lots of history and interesting information, but you should also take notice to when he is correcting an incorrect statement.

When he does this he is more likely to say something like, NO, WRONG, or INCORRECT!

If I had been in that photo and someone had said, Didn't Mr. Hale teach at the Pasadena school, Doc would very likely write back the same single word answer of "WRONG".

Not that Doc has anyting against me, because were buddies. In fact we're family . . . admitidly I am the white sheep in the family, but family all the same.

Doc would simply be correcting an incorrect statement - quickly and efficiently.

What I do find funny about all this is, as people, we find single word answers like, NO, WRONG, and INCORRECT to be somewhat rude and uncaring, but single word answers like YES, RIGHT, AND CORRECT, seem to be prefectaly acceptable and appreciated.

People . . . what odd creatures we are.


----------



## kenpotroop

Point taken

Thanks


----------



## Doc

Rich_Hale said:


> Not that Doc has anyting against me, because were buddies. In fact we're family . . . admitidly I am the white sheep in the family, but family all the same.



Wait a minute! You're uh, white?


----------



## MSTCNC

Doc said:


> Wait a minute! You're uh, white?




:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

Thanks, Doc C!

It's been a l-o-n-g day... and I really needed that chuckle... badly! :ultracool

Your Brother in the arts,

Andrew


----------



## AvPKenpo

Kenpodoc said:


> Now I suspect the real intention of this attack was Dr. Chapel's short repudiation of the statement that Mr. Mitchell had taught or run one of Mr. Parker's schools. If that's the problem adress it directly.
> 
> Jeff


 
Wow where did that come from?


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

AvPKenpo said:


> Wow where did that come from?


 
I would suspect it was the timing of your comment about a picture that dozens of people have (Side Note: I'm in Maryland I've seen several "originals" of it).  It just coincidentally came after Doc uncerimoniously negated the idea that Mr. Mitchell ever ran a school for Mr. Parker.  Doc says "No, Mr. Mitchell never ran a school for Mr. Parker". A few posts later a "Mitchell Supporter" shows up demanding that the picture be removed and credit given to the "owner" of the picture.  Being rude and wrong on several counts didn't help but the timing alone "suggests" there was a motive.  Whether there really was one is 1) something only you know and 2) largely irrelevant to the original topic.


----------



## kenpotroop

AvPKenpo said:


> Wow where did that come from?


 
I innocently made a comment awhile ago about Mr. Mitchell teaching at the school in the picture and was abruptly told I was wrong.


----------



## Doc

kenpotroop said:


> I innocently made a comment awhile ago about Mr. Mitchell teaching at the school in the picture and was abruptly told I was wrong.



Not True. You asked a straight forward specific question, to which I gave you a direct answer.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

kenpotroop said:


> I innocently made a comment awhile ago about Mr. Mitchell teaching at the school in the picture and was abruptly told I was wrong.


 
Ummmmm No.  You made no comment.  You asked a short "yes or no" question (and asked it three times in three different ways) and received a short answer in return.  Did you want a lengthy answer as to why? Because you didn't ask why.  Summary:

1) Mr. Mitchell taught at the school in the photo RIGHT?
answer: WRONG

2) What school did he teach at then?
answer: none sir (notice the sir as in respect)

3) So Mr. Mitchel never taught at or ran a school for Mr. Parker?

The problem appears to be you asked a question and didn't like the answer you received because the answer contradicted what you were told by your teacher.  That's fine to disagree with the answer itself but the "manner" in which you received the answer reflected the "manner" in which the question was asked. No more and no less.  This internet sensitivity is getting....nevermind some things will never change with people seeming to be looking to be offended and all..


----------



## MSTCNC

Without emoticons (smiles), or stating your emotion with a bracket [laughs] there is NO WAY to convey anything even remotly resembling the emotions that you have when writing something on an Internet forum...

As someone who used to moderate a Locksmithing website... and who belongs to several different forums... I can tell you this a universal issue...

My suggestions?

1. Pause... and really consider the information you're reading BEFORE your reply... this gives the blood-pressure time to regulate (if it's elevated).

2. Signify, in some way, the emotions that you're attempting to convey... whether with a :soapbox: :tantrum: :wah: or a  or just something simple that doesn't rely on codes like [Kicks person in the butt]... ANYTHING to convey where you're comming from with your comment...

The Internet, and forums such as MT are NOT three-dimensional... so you won't get your point across properly (IMHO) unless you take these extra steps...

Remember... "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!"

With respect... :asian:

Your Brother in the arts,

Andrew


----------



## kenpotroop

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Ummmmm No.  You made no comment.  You asked a short "yes or no" question (and asked it three times in three different ways) and received a short answer in return.  Did you want a lengthy answer as to why? Because you didn't ask why.  Summary:
> 
> 1) Mr. Mitchell taught at the school in the photo RIGHT?
> answer: WRONG
> 
> 2) What school did he teach at then?
> answer: none sir (notice the sir as in respect)
> 
> 3) So Mr. Mitchel never taught at or ran a school for Mr. Parker?
> 
> The problem appears to be you asked a question and didn't like the answer you received because the answer contradicted what you were told by your teacher.  That's fine to disagree with the answer itself but the "manner" in which you received the answer reflected the "manner" in which the question was asked. No more and no less.  This internet sensitivity is getting....nevermind some things will never change with people seeming to be looking to be offended and all..



So why is it you have to answer for someone else when it was not asked to you.  Mr. Chapel I'm sure can answer without you doing it for him. Like I said I believe my instructor. I just wanted to confirm the answer so I know who's full of BS I think I have the answer now since it only came from one person. I will talk about no more.


----------



## kenpotroop

Doc said:


> WRONG!!



Simple answer huh????


----------



## Kenpodoc

kenpotroop said:


> So why is it you have to answer for someone else when it was not asked to you.  Mr. Chapel I'm sure can answer without you doing it for him. Like I said I believe my instructor. I just wanted to confirm the answer so I know who's full of BS I think I have the answer now since it only came from one person. I will talk about no more.


Out of curiosity, when and where do you believe mr. Mitchell taught? I wasn't there, but there are numerous people who can answer that simple question.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Dragondog1

Actually, you all are doing very well. I was there so...I know you're right. I just posted this pic on my site (www.nakoakenpo.com). Brought back many memories. There was a comment about Jim Mitchell teaching there...well he did at one time. But when this picture was taking he WAS NOT (Mitchell's site has this pic and it says it was taken in '79 and he was the running the school...well he wasn't then and the pic is vintage 1981)... the people running the Pasadena school at that time was Frank Trejo, Paul Girard, and myself....you know.. that good looking guy seated front row and second from the left! (Ha!) And for a time...I DID live there...literally(as much as I hate to admit that)! I'm talking sleep on the mats, clean the school, sort out the mail for Frank and Mr. Parker, teach classes, etc.


----------



## Doc

kenpotroop said:


> So why is it you have to answer for someone else when it was not asked to you.  Mr. Chapel I'm sure can answer without you doing it for him. Like I said I believe my instructor. I just wanted to confirm the answer so I know who's full of BS I think I have the answer now since it only came from one person. I will talk about no more.



Thank you for displaying your ratiionale and feelings. You are of course entitled to your opinion even though you weren't there. And as far as where the BS lies, perhaps you should look a tad closer to home. My only displeasure is you took us through this cherade of seeking information, when if the answer didn't agree with what you were already told, it would be regarded as BS. Under these circumstances, why even ask the question (3 times). Clearly you were looking for comfirmation of what you thought you already knew. Unfortunately, to put it politely, you and your source of information are both incorrect. There are plenty of people around who can verify my answer, who were actually there. Having faith in an instructor is commendable. Having blind faith in anything and everything a man says, is stupid and dangerous and smacks of a cult-like mentality.


----------



## Dragondog1

Ok gang...here's the list of names that I can recall at this vintage 1981 Black Belt testing (in no particular order):

Jim Mitchell, Paul Dye, Ron Chapel, Lee Wedlake, Roger Meadows, Rick Huhges, Bernie Bernheim, Josh Furyua (sp?) Frank Trejo, John Conway Sr, John Conway Jr, Charlie Gonzales, John Murillo, Paul Casey, Ed Booze, Paul Girard, Steve Orcino (handsome dude!)

I along with Paul Girard assisted Frank in running the school at this time. Jim Mitchell was running a Parker Franchise school in San Diego. For a very short stint, Mitchell ran the Pasadena school in the mid-70's ...a very short stint. I know because I visited the school at that time.

Let's see...and I don't know who the hec owns that pic but its all over the net. I am glad its out there...I thought all remanents of that era had been destroyed. I have a copy of that pic and so does Frank Trejo on his site.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

kenpotroop said:


> So why is it you have to answer for someone else when it was not asked to you. Mr. Chapel I'm sure can answer without you doing it for him. Like I said I believe my instructor. I just wanted to confirm the answer so I know who's full of BS I think I have the answer now since it only came from one person. I will talk about no more.


 
I posted simply because it's a public forum and I CHOSE to.  My apologies if it offended you that I posted on a public forum (just as you did) and dared to have a different viewpoint than you.  Just proves my point about people LOOKING to be offended and things not changing....

Salute none the less.


----------



## kenpotroop

Dragondog1 said:


> Actually, you all are doing very well. I was there so...I know you're right. I just posted this pic on my site (www.nakoakenpo.com). Brought back many memories. There was a comment about Jim Mitchell teaching there...well he did at one time. But when this picture was taking he WAS NOT (Mitchell's site has this pic and it says it was taken in '79 and he was the running the school...well he wasn't then and the pic is vintage 1981)... the people running the Pasadena school at that time was Frank Trejo, Paul Girard, and myself....you know.. that good looking guy seated front row and second from the left! (Ha!) And for a time...I DID live there...literally(as much as I hate to admit that)! I'm talking sleep on the mats, clean the school, sort out the mail for Frank and Mr. Parker, teach classes, etc.



Thank you I knew he taught there I did not say it was at the time of the picture. If I offended anyone I apologize, I did asked a question not a comment, it was not written right.  The truth is he did teach there maybe not when the picture was, but he did teach there. Thats what I should have said. As to blind faith, it sounds like I was right and he did teach as one time.  

Doc said he never did well according to the above he did.

Lets move on to something else.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

kenpotroop said:


> Thank you I knew he taught there I did not say it was at the time of the picture. If I offended anyone I apologize, I did asked a question not a comment, it was not written right. The truth is he did teach there maybe not when the picture was, but he did teach there. Thats what I should have said. As to blind faith, it sounds like I was right and he did teach as one time.
> 
> Doc said he never did well according to the above he did.
> 
> Lets move on to something else.


 
Yeah let's move on....but before we do. Why ask a question that you're sure you know the answer to?  And notice when someone disagreed with you, you dismissed it and even said "Only one person said it" about Mr. Mitchell NOT teaching at the Pasadena school. But now "only one person" (Dragondog1) says that Mr. Mitchell DID teach at the Pasadena school and you're like "sounds like I was right!" Believe what you wish as it's really largely inconsequential to more important matters (like your current training for one)..but..getting offended for ONE answer not agreeing with you and then using ONE answer as evidence to support your own opinion is....nevermind this will probably just offend again. :deadhorse

Random Note: Dragondog1 just joined the forum on 2/3/07 and only posted twice on this topic to support your viewpoint. Someone is bound to bring that up as a "coincidence" so I'll just throw it out and shoot it down right now "so what!". Now we can get back to intelligent discussion of hopefully the actual topic as the question that started all the "hostilities" wasn't even on topic to begin with.

Salute.


----------



## kenpotroop

Gentlemen I apologize for all this, it was not my intent. We sound like a bunch of bickering old housewives.

Can we drop it and get back to more important subjects like the Kenpo we all love.

Can anyone tell me when the Grande Nationals are going to be this year.


----------



## Dragondog1

Yup..true...I just joined and only posted twice on this topic (this makes three posts...yeah!). I was perusing the web yesterday...saw this forum which sparked my interest since it was a pic of my BB testing/promotion and thought it was interesting that everyone was trying to name who was in the pic, so I joined so I could 'join' in the discussion. Its also a good way to say hi to some old friends (Rick Hughes[yeah it was your 2nd black test], Ron 'Doc' Chapel, and others..). 

It wasn't until afterward that I realized there was a 'second' discussion going on. Which, I agree, is WAY off topic. I knew Jim Mitchell during his 'Parker days'...even taught at his San Diego Parker school for a short time in '79 before we parted ways and I started training with Frank at Pasadena.  

Now...back to the point of this discussion...did we get all people in the picture identified? And hey..not only who were they ...but where are they all now? I know where some are..but not all..


----------



## Dragondog1

AKA Grand Nationals Martial Arts Championships
Donald E. Stephens Convention Center · Rosemont, IL 
January 26-27, 2007


----------



## kenpotroop

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Yeah let's move on....but before we do. Why ask a question that you're sure you know the answer to?  And notice when someone disagreed with you, you dismissed it and even said "Only one person said it" about Mr. Mitchell NOT teaching at the Pasadena school. But now "only one person" (Dragondog1) says that Mr. Mitchell DID teach at the Pasadena school and you're like "sounds like I was right!" Believe what you wish as it's really largely inconsequential to more important matters (like your current training for one)..but..getting offended for ONE answer not agreeing with you and then using ONE answer as evidence to support your own opinion is....nevermind this will probably just offend again. :deadhorse
> 
> Random Note: Dragondog1 just joined the forum on 2/3/07 and only posted twice on this topic to support your viewpoint. Someone is bound to bring that up as a "coincidence" so I'll just throw it out and shoot it down right now "so wh everat!". Now we can get back to intelligent discussion of hopefully the actual topic as the question that started all the "hostilities" wasn't even on topic to begin with.
> 
> Salute.



Get over it and yourself, if you ever come to Washington look me up!!!!!!!


----------



## Doc

The truth is, almost everyone "taught" in Pasadena at one time or another including myself. Teaching a class or three was not unusal. But if someone asks me if I taught at Pasadena, I assume they are asking if I ran the school or was a part of its regular teaching staff. I did not, and neither was he.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

kenpotroop said:


> Get over it and yourself, if you ever come to Washington look me up!!!!!!!


 
Ummm What? Look you up for what purpose? Depending on the answer it may be worth the trip as I have another Kenpoist in Washington I'm already due to visit in a short while.  A little more info Bryant?

Random side note: I've yet to say anything derogatory about you, I simply disagreed with your comments and your methods of "proving" your point.  SO what warranted the "get over..." comment?  Excellent example you're setting here with the humility and all.  Again my apologies for offending you by daring to have an opposing view.

Salute.


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3

Dragondog1 said:


> Yup..true...I just joined and only posted twice on this topic (this makes three posts...yeah!). I was perusing the web yesterday...saw this forum which sparked my interest since it was a pic of my BB testing/promotion and thought it was interesting that everyone was trying to name who was in the pic, so I joined so I could 'join' in the discussion. Its also a good way to say hi to some old friends (Rick Hughes[yeah it was your 2nd black test], Ron 'Doc' Chapel, and others..).
> 
> It wasn't until afterward that I realized there was a 'second' discussion going on. Which, I agree, is WAY off topic. I knew Jim Mitchell during his 'Parker days'...even taught at his San Diego Parker school for a short time in '79 before we parted ways and I started training with Frank at Pasadena.
> 
> Now...back to the point of this discussion...did we get all people in the picture identified? And hey..not only who were they ...but where are they all now? I know where some are..but not all..


 
Well I was just trying to figure out where Doc's hair went...but then I looked in the mirror and realized I needed to be concerned with finding my own.


----------



## Dragondog1

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Well I was just trying to figure out where Doc's hair went...but then I looked in the mirror and realized I needed to be concerned with finding my own.


Ha! OK that's funny


----------



## kenpotroop

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Ummm What? Look you up for what purpose? Depending on the answer it may be worth the trip as I have another Kenpoist in Washington I'm already due to visit in a short while.  A little more info Bryant?
> 
> Random side note: I've yet to say anything derogatory about you, I simply disagreed with your comments and your methods of "proving" your point.  SO what warranted the "get over..." comment?  Excellent example you're setting here with the humility and all.  Again my apologies for offending you by daring to have an opposing view.
> 
> Salute.



I would love to meet you in person and not for the reason you are thinking, that would solve nothing.  We sound like a bunch of high schoolers. I will send you an email.


----------



## kenpotroop

Doc said:


> The truth is, almost everyone "taught" in Pasadena at one time or another including myself. Teaching a class or three was not unusal. But if someone asks me if I taught at Pasadena, I assume they are asking if I ran the school or was anythinga part of its regular teaching staff. I did not, and neither was he.



Thanks


----------



## Doc

Ed Parker never had a a school that was a "franchise." He did have loose business agreements with some, but only actually owned two schools. Santa Monica, which became West L.A. when it moved accross the street, and Pasadena.


----------



## KenpoVortex

So who are the rest of the people in the photo?


----------



## kidswarrior

Doc said:


> Thank you for displaying your ratiionale and feelings. You are of course entitled to your opinion even though you weren't there. And as far as where the BS lies, perhaps you should look a tad closer to home. My only displeasure is you took us through this cherade of seeking information, when if the answer didn't agree with what you were already told, it would be regarded as BS. Under these circumstances, why even ask the question (3 times). Clearly you were looking for comfirmation of what you thought you already knew. Unfortunately, to put it politely, you and your source of information are both incorrect. There are plenty of people around who can verify my answer, who were actually there. Having faith in an instructor is commendable. *Having blind faith in anything and everything a man says, is stupid and dangerous and smacks of a cult-like mentality.*


Please don't tell my students that, tho, OK?  I've just about got them trained to think I know everything. :lol: Sorry, OT, now back to business and identifying people in the photo....


----------



## Doc

kidswarrior said:


> Please don't tell my students that, tho, OK?  I've just about got them trained to think I know everything. :lol: Sorry, OT, now back to business and identifying people in the photo....



As long as you don't tell my grand daughters. (My daughters are already lost)


----------

