Maruyama et al. (2011) noted; “Some researchers insist that the Dabie-Su Lu metamorphic belt, which was formed by the North China-South China collision, and the Sangun metamorphic belt of Japan were generated along the same trench, based on their similar radiometric ages (Ishiwatari and Tsujimori, 2003; Ernst et al., 2007). This idea is completely wrong.” Omori and Isozaki (2011) also criticized these papers as “a synthesis that misleads to cause confusion” and “a strange paleogeographic reconstruction” using the same logic. These criticisms are based on the idea that the continental collision-type (A-type) and oceanic subduction-type (B-type; also called Cordilleran-type or Pacific-type) orogenic belts are different and exclusive of each other. However, it is evident that both A- and B-type processes took place simultaneously along each of the Appalachian-Caledonian and Hercynian belts (Maruyama et al., 1996), and the Himalayan continental collision and Indonesian oceanic subduction are currently occurring along the same plate boundary. We provide an objective discussion to counter those criticisms, and point out some discrepancies in the large-scale superficial nappe model of Omori and Isozaki (2011) for the geology of Korea. We believe that our “Yaeyama promontory” hypothesis has inspired constructive international discussions about the configuration of the Earliest Mesozoic collision belt in East Asia, and we think our sinuous configuration model still persists.