I am willing to waste my allotted quota on posting comment in RJD room to clarify your mistaken idea. I might reply your comment not too soon because I had to drive from my house to drop my daughter off at her school first and then  to my office. Besides, I have to clear my work before I can get in RJD room to read topics and respond. Hope that you will be able to see my comment here after you wake up from your tired  sleep. I will proceed to criticize your erroneous  comments one by one.

1. ผมขอตอบคุณโบกรักท่อนนี้เป็นภาษไทยก่อนนะครับว่า ผมก็ขอสรุปเช่นกันครับว่า คุณโบกรักแปลว่าผิดครับ ผมแปลทั้งคำสั่งศาล ICJ  ไม่ได้แปลเป็นท่อนคำเดียวแบบที่คุณทำ อย่าลืมนะคับว่าคำสั่งศาลระบุชัดเจนว่า to the temple และ in the temple ในคำพิพากษาหนึ่งๆนั้น คุณต้องอ่านทั้งคำพิพากษา ไม่มีใครเขาเอาคำเดียวในประโยคมาอ้างได้แบบที่คุณทำหรอกครับ

K โบกรัก, I have to conclude that you have incorrectly interpreted the ICJ ’s order. To interpret the verdict you have to interpret the whole verdict not just only one word in that verdict. In this case, you wrongly picked up only the word “ access”  and neglected other words and phrases in that ICJ ’s order. You did not mention the phrases  “to the temple” and “in the temple” which specifically define the actual meaning of that ICJ ’s order.

None should pick up only one word in a verdict and claim that that word is representing the whole verdict. If this ridiculous practice ( like the one you have already done)  is practiced in everywhere, then the chaos would reign because everyone would pick up a different word  in a verdict and then interpret it differently.

2. K โบกรัก posted that “…access to or access in, no matter what the meaning of access is not  what you are talking. I will close that case since you accept that wording you are talking is mislead people who read your topic.”

Reply- I never admitted such thing. I insist that it is you that  ignorantly and mistakenly interpreted the ICJ’s order. It is you that are misleading people with your incorrect extrapolation of ICJ’s order.

K โบกรัก posted that  “I have to avoid wording vicinity since you did not talk in the first topic and the court never mention this word.”

Reply- I have already indicated that the word “vicinity” is not in the ICJ’order. This is of utmost importance. This means that the ICJ court assumes that Cambodia has right only and only at and in the temple not the surrounding area and not any other area on that Phra Vihere ‘s prominence.

3. K โบกรัก posted that “just look into your wording na krab ….จะเห็นว่า ไม่มีการพูดถึงการพัฒนาพื้นที่ตามที่กัมพูชาเดินเรื่องกับยูเนสโกเลย ดังนั้นที่มีข่าวออกมาว่า มีคำสั่งศาล ให้ไทยสนับสนุนการขั้นทะเบียนของกัมพูชา หรือให้ความร่วมมือกับกัมพูชาในการขึ้นทะเบียนยูเนสโก เช่นที่มีกล่าวในสยามรัฐหรือในบางกระทู้ จึงเป็นการล่าวอ้างที่คลาดเคลื่อน ไม่มีคำสั่งศาลเกี่ยวกับเรื่องมรดกโลกหรือยูเนสโกปรากฏไว้เลยครับ”

K โบกรัก posted that  “Please read your sentense very carefully, with common sense, you are telling people that Unesco did not announce it as world heritage or Unesco already announced as world heritage. For my common sense, you are telling that it is not world heritage yet. This is why i told you that you were wrong. When your refer to Siamrath, you have to refer it since the beginning because we are talking what you have said in the first topic krab.”

Reply- From my point of view, this is just a trivial subject that you tried to pick up to annoy me. I did post the phrase “ไม่มีการพูดถึงการพัฒนาพื้นที่ตามที่กัมพูชาเดินเรื่องกับยูเนสโก”. Don’t you see this?  I insist that I have to mention this because Siamrath and another people did mention it before. You can see this fact if you check the chronology of the involved comments.

3. K โบกรัก posted that  “The reason i ask you about correcting your topic because you told me that I answered you so fast without thinking. on your sight, you dont think yourself  write down your topic so fast, do you?

Reply - No comment for this.

K โบกรัก posted that  “the last question, what about my challenge for discussion in english krab. you claim and look down on me that i have low knowledge in english, dont you?”

Reply – Let’s cut the crap. It is not my habit to look down upon other people. If you want to discuss in English. Let’s do it . Only that we should not do this too frequent because it may be weird and others may perceive that we are trying to show off. That is not good for both you and me.

Bye.