tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post364588423484673019..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1876 - Watanabe Kouki's "Opinion on Matsushima - 1"Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-74454552516433243002012-04-30T12:50:41.075+09:002012-04-30T12:50:41.075+09:00sloww:I decided not to respond to your illogical c...<i>sloww:I decided not to respond to your illogical comment because it's waste of time, but I can't help telling you the right thing.</i><br /><br />I understand that you don't want to know the truth.<br /><br /><i>sloww:Watanabe became to know Matsushima(Dokdo) from the document, but he never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".</i><br /><br />International law gives priority to the actual over the nominal thing. Watanabe's Matsuhima is actual Liancourt Rocks.<br /><b>"homines id quod volunt credunt"</b>opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-668742365944192972012-04-28T23:08:21.842+09:002012-04-28T23:08:21.842+09:00Sloww wrote:
Watanabe's personal opinion is n...Sloww wrote:<br /><br /><i>Watanabe's personal opinion is not worth my time. I have more important things to do in this blog.</i><br /><br />More important things? Such as ignoring the obvious and making unsupported claims that I am trying to distort the facts?Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-21286996078927068542012-04-28T18:10:57.492+09:002012-04-28T18:10:57.492+09:00Gerry Bevers,
An ordinary people can't pick u...Gerry Bevers,<br /><br />An ordinary people can't pick up each piece of wording of Watanabe's and fabricate them for the purpose of misleading. <br /><br />It's impossible for you to prove "Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese." because he didn't say it.<br /><br />Believe whatever you like if you feel comfortable with it, but misleading the readers is immoral.<br /><br />Watanabe's personal opinion is not worth my time. I have more important things to do in this blog.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-33647560314061204402012-04-28T09:45:14.146+09:002012-04-28T09:45:14.146+09:00Sloww wrote:
You should tell your readers Japanes...Sloww wrote:<br /><br /><i>You should tell your readers Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo) and Mutoh's Matsushima(Ulleongdo) are not same islands.</i><br /><br />As he wrote in his letter, Watanabe believed there were two islands, "Oki's Matsushima" and Takeshima (Ulleungdo). He said if Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima was referring to Ulleungdo, then it belonged to Korea. However, if it were Oki's Matsushima, then "it must belong to Japan," as he wrote in his first letter. Also, later in his second letter he wrote the following.<br /><br /><i>Moreover, the names "Matsushima" and "Takeshima" are, of course, Japanese names. From that we can assume that they were seen as Japanese islands. <br /><br />Next, in regard to our country's relationship with Korea, the late Shogunate did not quarreling, so it gave Takeshima to Korea based only on the fact that it was geographically closer and because it appeared on their map as Ulleungdo. <br /><br />However, there are two islands, Matsushima and Takeshima. <b>Since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Chosun cannot possibly deny that it belongs to Japan.</b></i><br /><br />Watanabe was unsure of the location of Mutoh's Matsushima, but he definitely considered "Oki's Matsushima" to be Japanese territory because of its history and its being closer to Japan than to Korea. <br /><br />That is why in his letter Watanabe seemed so interested in the distances between the islands. He calculated 40 ri from "Oki's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and 40 ri more from Takeshima to the Korean mainland. That would be 80 ri from Oki's Matsushima to the Korean mainland compared to only 60 ri from Oki Prefecture to Oki's Matsushima.<br /><br />It doesn't take a genius, Sloww, to read what Watanabe, himself, wrote: "Since Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) is closer to our country than Takeshima (Ulleungdo), Chosun cannot possibly deny that it belongs to Japan."Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-84366880119269510252012-04-28T08:00:06.219+09:002012-04-28T08:00:06.219+09:00Gerry Bevers,
You are genius on distorting docume...Gerry Bevers,<br /><br />You are genius on distorting documents even Japanese ones. It looks like your purpose of blogging is misleading the readers, not telling the truth. The biggest victim of your misleading is Japanese readers.<br /><br />The Matsushima being talked about in Watanabe's letter is not Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo). It is the Matshushima Mutoh wrongly referred to in his petition. The Matsushima in Mutoh's petition is the Ulleongdo. Mutoh was confused about the names of two islands. You should tell your readers Japanese traditional Matsushima(Dokdo) and Mutoh's Matsushima(Ulleongdo) are not same islands.<br /><br />When Watanabe said "If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.", he did mean the other islands than Takeshima, no matter what it is, must belong to Japan. It didn't specifically mean Dokdo. He had no interest in Dokdo at all. Anyway, he was such a greedy imperial Japanese expansionist.<br /><br />I'm sure even some Japanese people know you are misleading and they are ashamed of the fact you are on Japanese side. Of course, the pro-Japanese people especially in this blog is an exception. They must be proud of your clever work of distortion.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-33254714086597636752012-04-28T01:03:53.884+09:002012-04-28T01:03:53.884+09:00"The Imperial Gazetteer" (1855):
DAGELE...<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=8ewDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA793&dq=imperial+gazetteer+dagelet&hl=en&ei=_8KaT4D7C-qi2gWo0_TgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">"The Imperial Gazetteer" (1855)</a>:<br /><br /><i><b>DAGELET</b>. an isl. Sea of Japan, between isl. Niphon and the penisnsula of Corea; lat. (N.E. point) 37º 25' N.; lon. 130º 56' E. (a.); so named by La Perouse, who visited it in 1787. It is about 9 m. in circumference, and the shore is environed by a perpendicular wall of rock. It is covered up to the summits of its highest evelations with wood.</i>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-51814102338422954702012-04-28T00:15:37.874+09:002012-04-28T00:15:37.874+09:00Sloww wrote:
There's no clue Watanabe believ...Sloww wrote: <br /><br /><i>There's no clue Watanabe believed Matsushima was Oki's firmly enough to say "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."as Gerry Bevers misled. "Oki's Matsushima" was not what Watanabe said. Watanabe was just citing the document he heard.</i><br /><br />Watanabe said, "Therefore, if the Matsushima being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan."<br /><br />"Oki's Matsushima" was not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), so that means that Watanabe believed that Oki's Matsushima "must belong to Japan."<br /><br />In the meantime, Koreans also believed Liancourt Rocks (Oki's Matsushima) to be Japanese, even though they never traveled there and did not know anything about it, other than that it was a small, "insignificant island connected to Japanese territory" that was visible in the distance to the southeast of Ulleungdo.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-65140800330053047932012-04-27T23:47:16.495+09:002012-04-27T23:47:16.495+09:00The following is the 4th paragraph of Watanabe'...The following is the 4th paragraph of Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:<br /><br /><i><b>Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 4)</b><br /><br />Also, “<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=d_45AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA594&lpg=PA594&dq=Lippincott%E2%80%99s+Pronouncing+Gazetteer+Dagelet&source=bl&ots=jDu6O_RVVg&sig=Ll0R1A5CZei3C52kD2qynEAkPHs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ja-aT4OROMTL2QW6nMGYDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Lippincott’s Pronouncing Gazetteer</a>” says that Dagelet is a small island in the Sea of Japan that is exactly between Japan and Korea. It has a circumference of 8 ri and is positioned at 37 degrees 25 minutes north latitude and 130 degrees 56 minutes east longitude. If you look this up on a map, the location of the island labeled as Dagelet, or Matsushima, on the British navigational chart seems to be the same in both books.</i>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-12429643708347819342012-04-27T09:12:21.488+09:002012-04-27T09:12:21.488+09:00opp,
I decided not to respond to your illogical c...opp,<br /><br />I decided not to respond to your illogical comment because it's waste of time, but I can't help telling you the right thing.<br /><br />Watanabe became to know Matsushima(Dokdo) from the document, but he never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese".slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-86876919230338019072012-04-27T04:15:21.320+09:002012-04-27T04:15:21.320+09:00sloww
Watanabe seemed to get acquainted with Japa...sloww <br /><i>Watanabe seemed to get acquainted with Japanese traditional Matsushima, but it seems he still had no interest in it.</i><br /><br />He had much interest.<br />若シ外國ノ問ニ逢フ又答フル所ヲ知ラス、若我物トセン歟之ニ關スル義務ナカルヘカフス之ヲ朝鮮ニ歸セン歟、外國ニ主意セサルヲ得ス、是再考ス所以ナリ<br /><br /><i>Watanabe never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."</i><br /><br />Japanese traditional Matsushima is Liancourt Rocks and he said Japanese.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-53939031680842892502012-04-27T03:50:21.243+09:002012-04-27T03:50:21.243+09:00sloww
What I care is the intelligent readers who c...sloww<br /><i>What I care is the intelligent readers who can tell the truth from the false made by the pro-Japanese people like you.</i><br /><br />Why did your intelligent readers ignore the Watanabe's 2nd proposal? Why was the your intelligent reader's interraption contradictory to the 2nd proposal? <br />people will see only what they want to see.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-14227241510579354902012-04-26T20:48:56.666+09:002012-04-26T20:48:56.666+09:00In Watanabe's second letter introduced by Gerr...In Watanabe's second letter introduced by Gerry Bevers, I could find "Oki's Matsushima" only twice, which is far from Watanabe's keeping referring Dokdo as Oki's Matsushima. <br /><br />There's no clue Watanabe believed Matsushima was Oki's firmly enough to say "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."as Gerry Bevers misled. "Oki's Matsushima" was not what Watanabe said. Watanabe was just citing the document he heard. He was citing the content of 竹島図説 published in 1751(?), which is far from suggesting "Oki's Matsushima" was generally accepted knowledge. The expression "Oki's Matsushima" was used by the Japanese fishermen who trespassed to Ulleongdo.<br /><br />Believing and saying is different from citing. "Matsushima is Japanese." is different from "I heard Takeshima is to the north of the Oki's Matsushima."<br /><br />When writing his second letter, Watanabe seemed to get acquainted with Japanese traditional Matsushima, but it seems he still had no interest in it. His main concern was figuring out what Mutoh's Matsushima was.<br /><br />Watanabe never said "Liancourt Rocks are Japanese."slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-15114576783600645852012-04-26T14:50:19.249+09:002012-04-26T14:50:19.249+09:00The following is the third paragraph from Watanabe...The following is the third paragraph from Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:<br /><br /><i><b>Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 3)</b><br /><br />If we look at Western texts, the British “Imperial Gazetteer” says that Dagelet Island (pronounced as “Dazera”), namely Matsushima, is an island in the Sea of Japan that is situated between the Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula. Its northwest corner is at 137 degrees (should read “37 degrees”) 25 minutes north latitude and 130 degrees 56 minutes east longitude (Greenwich means). It was named by La Pérouse in 1787. It has a coastline of sheer cliffs and is approximately 9 ri around. It is covered by dense forest up to its highest point.</i>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-59270712913232264892012-04-26T11:22:10.254+09:002012-04-26T11:22:10.254+09:00The following is the second paragraph from Watanab...The following is the second paragraph from Watanabe's second letter (1876) concerning Matsushima:<br /><br /><i><b>Concerning Matsushima 2 (part 2)</b><br /><br />However, it is also written that it is about 60 ri by ship from Oki’s Fukushima (福島), also called Fukuura (福浦), to Matsushima, and then about 40 ri from Matsushima to Takeshima. Moreover, it is about 40 ri from Takeshima on to Korea. This is based on the story of an old man who in the 1724, the 9th year of Kyoho (亨保), testified that he had sailed there several times. When asked he said, “The distance from the village of 目三柳 in Aimi County (會見郡) of Houki Province (伯州) to Oki’s Dogo Island (隠岐ノ後島 is between 35 and 36 ri. Using this distance one can guess the distance from Takeshima to the mountains of Korea to be about 40 ri.” Based on this, there definitely seems to be two islands.</i>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-72445805752260979122012-04-26T00:13:52.784+09:002012-04-26T00:13:52.784+09:00The following is the first part of Watanabe's ...The following is the first part of Watanabe's second letter. Notice how he kept referring to Liancourt Rocks as "Oki's Matsushima," in a way that suggested it was generally accepted knowledge. He also probably referred to it as "Oki's Matsushima" to distinguish it from the mysterious Matsushima in Mutoh's petition:<br /><br /><i><b>Concerning Matsushima 2</b><br /><br />I have heard that Matsushima (松島) and Takeshima (竹島) are just two names for the same island, Takeshima, which is called Ulleungdo in Korea. However, I have also heard from the Governor of the Tottori Prefecture that there are, indeed, two islands. According to writings by Toda Takayoshi (戶田敬義), Katou (加藤), and Ken Kanamori (金森謙), there is an island called Takeshima about 40 ri to the north of the West Island (西島) of Oki’s Matsushima (隱岐囯松島) . West Island is just a small island of Matsushima that islanders call “Next Island” (次島). Also, it is said that Takeshima is about 140 ri by ship from Yonago in Houki Province (伯州米子). They say that you can sail from Yonago to Izumo (出雲) and then on past Oki’s Matsushima (隠岐丿松島) to reach Takeshima.</i>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-51013542069629012332012-04-25T11:31:07.391+09:002012-04-25T11:31:07.391+09:00opp,
I don't care whatever you say. You have...opp, <br /><br />I don't care whatever you say. You have proved yourself you are such a unintelligent poster of this blog full of distortion. <br /><br /><br />What I care is the intelligent readers who can tell the truth from the false made by the pro-Japanese people like you.<br /><br /><br />I had a nice talk with you. It was fun to read your very illogical thinking.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-55889198837705976512012-04-24T13:55:22.437+09:002012-04-24T13:55:22.437+09:00Poor Sloww would believe this propaganda site.
htt...Poor Sloww would believe this propaganda site.<br />http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-watanabe-koukis-confusion-about-matsushima-%E6%9D%BE%E5%B3%B6<br /><br />This propaganda site disguised Watanabe's 2nd proposition and wrote the distorted interpretation(essay). The comment of sloww and jk6411 is a copy of this site. Probably, they will not be able to read the original text and do not have the ability to detect concealment and fabrication. Then, pitiful they cannot but believe the fabrication interpretation.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-32072532680429088792012-04-24T06:42:52.574+09:002012-04-24T06:42:52.574+09:00jk6411 wrote:
So, there were various views within...jk6411 wrote:<br /><br /><i>So, there were various views within MOFA concerning Matsushima.<br />Watanabe's was simply one of them.<br />So.. why should we care so much about what he said?</i><br /><br />No, Mr. Watanabe's "letter" was summarizing the different views at the Foreign Ministry concerning Mutoh's mysterious Matsushima, which was why he started it with the following paragraph:<br /><br /><i>There are several brief descriptions of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in past records, but there are no discussions of Matsushima. However, these days people are talking a great deal about Matsushima. There are various views. Some say that it is two islands, and some say that it is one island with two names, but I have not heard that it has been decided either way.</i><br /><br />Also, in his closing paragraph, he used the pronoun "we," not "I."Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-84686142552018146472012-04-24T01:11:54.030+09:002012-04-24T01:11:54.030+09:00Opp wrote:
Since there is no date in the text, it...Opp wrote:<br /><br /><i>Since there is no date in the text, it is unknown.</i><br /><br />Yes, the exact dates of the Watanabe letters are unknown since they were undated, but we know they were written between July 1876 and December 31, 1876. <br /><br />We know the Watanabe letters were written after July 1876 because it was reported in the 竹島考証 that the first letter was written in response to Mutoh's July 1876 petition. And we know Watanabe's letter was written before December 31, 1876 because immediately after Watanabe's second letter, the following was written:<br /><br /><i> "In November of the same year, 瀨脇壽人, Deputy Director for Trade at the Vladivostok Harbor, went to Russia and was also thinking about Matsushima...."</i><br /><br />Since 瀨脇壽人 went to Russia in November 1876, the phrase "in ... the same year" tells us that Watanabe's letters were written in 1876. Also, the documents in that section of the 竹島考証 seem to be in chronological order. Watanabe's second letter was "Item No. 12, and "Item No. 13" was a letter dated December 19, 1876, which suggests that Watanabe's letters were written before December 19, 1876.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-48771436790671711602012-04-23T12:29:01.408+09:002012-04-23T12:29:01.408+09:00Sloww:Watanabe's personal opinion seems to be ...<i>Sloww:Watanabe's personal opinion seems to be very important to you, but his opinion turned out to be not important.</i><br /><br /><br />I have not said such a thing, though I said that presumption of another island including opinion of Tanabe or Watanabe did not affect present Takeshima's sovereignty according to the international law. Although sovereignty is not influenced , I said that your interpretation about the recognition of Watanabe was wrong. <br /><br /><i>Sloww: He never imagined "Matsushima" being talked about could be Liancourt Rocks, even in his dream. To Watanabe, "it" should have been great looking island like Ulleongdo. If he said "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory", why didn't he take any meaure to make it Japanese territory? It was because Liancourt Rocks were not new Matsushima in his mind. He didn't care about Hornet Rocks at all.</i><br /><br /><br /><i>Sloww:Tanabe Taichi's opinion</i><br />This is Tanabe’s personal opinion according to your standard. What kind of relation does the opinion of Tanabe have with the your above wrong interpretation about the recognition of Watanabe?opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-11418434884765652292012-04-23T10:20:35.451+09:002012-04-23T10:20:35.451+09:00opp,
You failed to prove I was wrong. You don...opp,<br /><br /><br />You failed to prove I was wrong. You don't know even what I exactly said. Nevertheless, I fully understand what you want to believe and insist.<br /><br />Watanabe's personal opinion seems to be very important to you, but his opinion turned out to be not important.<br /><br />Don't forget there were other MOFA official's opinions such as Tanabe Taichi's. <br /><br />Tanabe Taichi's opinion is :<br /><br />"I have heard that Japanese use the name "Matsushima," but the actual name is "Usan(=Dokdo)," which is part of Joseon's Ulleungdo (蔚陵島). Concerning Joseon's ownership of Ulleungdo (蔚陵島), there was a dispute during the old government (Tokugawa) when, after exchanging several documents to support our claims, we agreed to give it up, a fact that is permanently written in our two histories. To dispatch someone to inspect without any reason is like counting another's treasure, and trespassing into a neighbor's territory." (Translation by Gerry Bevers in http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1877-different-japanese-views-on.html)slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-27570494754700703842012-04-22T21:25:48.666+09:002012-04-22T21:25:48.666+09:00Watanabe knew existence of Matsushima(Liancourt Ro...Watanabe knew existence of Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) with the geographical features correctly. He also understood confusion of the name correctly. And he thought that Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) was a Japanese territory. 2nd Watanabe's recommendation proves these facts.<br /><br /><i>Sloww: He never imagined "Matsushima" being talked about could be Liancourt Rocks, even in his dream. To Watanabe, "it" should have been great looking island like Ulleongdo. If he said "Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory", why didn't he take any meaure to make it Japanese territory? It was because Liancourt Rocks were not new Matsushima in his mind. He didn't care about Hornet Rocks at all.</i><br /><br />If Sloww has read the 2nd Watanabe's recommendation, he did not make such a mistake.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-71427743161822153672012-04-22T20:33:37.314+09:002012-04-22T20:33:37.314+09:00>I wrote he didn't know exactly the ownersh...>I wrote he didn't know exactly the ownership of Matsushima.<br /><br />I cannot think that you read the 2nd Watanabe's recommendation.<br /><br />1.The Matsuhima is not other Matsushima which was also called as Takeshima, whose Korean name is Ulleungdo.<br />2.The former Shimane governor knows the Matsushima.<br />3.Around of the Matsuhima is 1.5 ri<br />4.The Matsuhima is written at the southernmost of the Rossian maps.<br />5.The Matsushima is drawn also on the British, Weimar and French map.<br />6.Since the Matsushima is small compared with Takeshima, books of our country didn’t describe the island.<br />7.Dispute with Chosun is also only Takeshima. (The Matsuhima didn’t contain the despute)<br />8.The Matsushima is different although the Shogunate made Takeshima the Korean territory.<br /><br />Watanabe said this Matsuhima is Japanese territory.<br />He didn't know local administrative boundaries in Japan but he knew that the Matsushima is Japanese territory.<br /><br />The zone of local administration doesn't mean the country border.<br /><br />Wrong: he didn't know exactly the state ownership of Matsushima<br /><br />Correct: he knew that the local ownership about Matsushima was not decided, though the state ownership is Japan.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-35302879283431982092012-04-22T07:48:11.775+09:002012-04-22T07:48:11.775+09:00opp,
What was my interpretation? You should have ...opp,<br /><br />What was my interpretation? You should have written in detail what and how I interpreted.<br /><br />In Watanabe's letter posted above, I said he had no idea about Japanese Matsushima. In his other letter written later, it seems he became to know about Japanese Matsushima. I didn't say his later letter shows Watanabe didn't know the existence of Japanese Matsushima. I wrote he didn't know exactly the ownership of Matsushima.<br /><br />You should have read my comments carefully befor interpreting them as you want.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-63330687000992296912012-04-22T00:09:40.558+09:002012-04-22T00:09:40.558+09:00sloww
If your interpretation is right, "Japan...sloww<br />If your interpretation is right, "Japanese Matsushima" does not Liancourt Rocks. However, Watanabe has concluded that Japanese Matsushima exists.<br /><br />In order to take consistency of this, Matsushima other than a Liancourt Rocks or Ulleungdo has to exist. Then I here you about Japanese Matsushima which Watanabe referred according to your interpretation.opphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01174343282738727130noreply@blogger.com