Had a pleasant conversation with David Wonham. He thought my use of certain adjectives to describe his actions with the Chimzcuk money’s, museum and name were disturbing. He said he was advised to take legal action.
Although I told him I deleted them and would keep them off permanently. He thought that was insufficient and I should retract them and explain why I retracted them. I warned him that although I would retract the words as mischaracterizations of what he did, My retraction would have to include an explanation and replacement characterization that I felt he would dislike equally. He insisted I continue and so here it is:
It seems the city did not protect the name Chimzcuk based on legal advice that the name could not be trademarked in the future. It seems now that this legal advice was bad as the name was trademarked by the “Chimczuk Museum inc”.
I do not question David Wonham’s right to do what he did, I do not question the benevolent intent that he maintains he has for doing what he did. I do not question that he did what he did with warning and transparantly. I probably shouldn’t use the words stolen or hijacking to characterize his actions.
However, what is the proper characterization and description of what he did? Who died and made him sole arbiter of how the Chimczuk money gets spent. Mr. Chimczuk died but did not leave David Wonham in charge.
David Wonham says he did this to protect the money. He has appointed himself benevolent dictator over money that belongs to the city of Windsor. Moneys belonging to Windsorites.
Problem is that I didn’t elect David Wonham, last I heard, few even voted for him. What happens if he has a change of heart? What happens if he gets hit by a bus or struck by lightning? Is the money still safe? Maybe so maybe not. Maybe the name gets auctioned off to the highest bidder, maybe it falls into disreputable hands.
David Wonham may have good intentions, I hear that the road to hell is paved with them. He says he’s protected us from the potential of someone with far worse intentions seizing the name. The problem is that he’s not giving the name up. If he gave it to the Greater Windsor Community Foundation, I’d be a bit more trusting. It doesn’t help that he made himself a political figure by running for mayor. Makes you question if anything the mayor he lost to by so much would have any proposal be subject to biase.
But why should the mayor or anyone in the city submit anything to this self appointed/anointed Chimczuk expert?
Personally, I’d object to even having to submit anything to David Wonham. I’d rather see the money sit there and rot before I legitimized him having any say over it. Why such a hard stand? If I died and some strange unelected person tries to anoint themselves arbiter over moneys I gave the public I’d be turning in my grave
What made him worthy of having the right to do this? The exact same skills held by a cybersquatter or in the example he used with me “they guy in russia who sat on starbucks name”
I find his action to take the name defensible, I find his actions to hold on to this name that should belong to the city despicable. I find him an opportunist, rationalizing his actions in the name of “the city did wrong first”, file that one in the two wrongs don’t make a right.
A warning to those who want to donate to the city in their will. Watch your name, watch the wording of your will. I’m sure there’s a David Wonham out there waiting to seize control over your good name as well.
I assume that takes care of covering the retraction and apology for the use of the term stolen or hijacking. I’m open to any other comments that describe better what was done to the name Chimczuk by David Wonham