Nepe asks: "A single word from you would do. Answer it in YES or NO. Did you take on the King in your stand up at Patan Dhoka ?" The answer is: YES. Remember, you were NOT in the audience that night. Remember, you obviously have NOT read the Kantipur report of 2 April 2004. Remember, I have asked you to verify the information yourself. So, the basis of your making that accusation is FALSE. Are you NOW going to say, "sorry" to me or are you going to engage in clever verbal gymnastics here, showing everyone that you now have no credibility whatsoever and that you are such a virulently partisan character who'd stoop low to make a public accusation even when you have NO case whatsoever? ****** Nepe wrote: "I am 99% sure that you did not." You are WRONG as usual. See above. *********** "Basis ? First of all, I have listened to a part of your presentation (the audio clip you provided)." Just because you listened to it does NOT mean anything. Provide a sound-bite and let Sajha visitors independently listen to it and then JUDGE the validity of the basis of your accusation. Since you have no credibility, your words do not mean anything. Since you made the accusation, you provide the evidence. If you CANNOT do that, then, you remain exposed as: a misleader a liar, and a political bigot Remember, I defend the truth, NOT your lies. ********** " Second, I have seen your monarchy-friendly views in Sajha almost on a daily basis for past 4 years (!)." You are WRONG here too. Rather than defending the monarchy, I have challenged some of some your pie-in-the-sky republican views. And I made those challenges in an academic sense, meaning that I am a firm believer that best ideas emerge when opinionated people take sharply opposing views to thrash out an issue. If everyone agreed with everyone else over everything, we would not have debates, but echo chambers full of "wah wahs". But obviously, given your Akhil background, you are someone who has ZERO respect for the nature of such debates, and, you CHOSE to propagandistically frame my comments as "monarchy friendly", and went on and on and on, trying to paint me as such. It's when you characterized a stand-up comedy show which you did not attend as "monarchy friendly", then, my worst suspicions about you came true. I mean, if you can publicly LIE about the nature of a program which you did NOT attend, and then try to get away with that lie in a brazen manner, then, you -- Deepak Khadka --are someone NOT to be trusted at all. If you had been a completely anonymous poster on Sajha, then, maybe your words would not have mattered much. But you have put a face, name and backgrtound to "Nepe", and all the trust invested in those entities are GONE now. I hope sajha visitors realize what Nepe has done to his own image. ************ Nepe wrote: "Third, I have seen how your political bias gets in to your art work. Do you remember our fight over 'I want my NTV' ? This piece of humor too was monarchy friendly." That 500-word humour piece was a recycled one, written and published in 1996, almost 10 years ago. It contained NOTHING about the monarchy, but made fun of a few Nepal TV programs. But only to someone as jaundiced as you are, such a humour piece which had NOTHING to do with monarchby can come across as being, ahem, "monarchy friendly". I have written 100s of other pieces that also contained NOTHING about the monarchy. But by your weird definition, because they contained nothing (negative) about the monarchy, I must then be a "monarchy friendly" person. Did't they teach you logic in the Middle East? ********** "If you are disparate to show that you can write monarchy-unfriendly humor too, don't turn me to Dixit or Luintel, instead turn to me, I can help you." Don't FLATTER yourself: You are the LAST person I'd turn to for writing humor. *********** Nepe wrote: "Your humor piece on Krishna Pahadi, 'In clear Conscience', in Nepali Times was a monarchy-unfriendly piece of some sort. I said humor because, although it was published as a 'Strictly Business' column, the content of the piece is such that it becomes a piece of humor when placed in a Business section. When I first read it, I was wondering how come this piece fitted into the business section. Then I thought it must be the editor's sense of humor." Fine. As a reader, you have a RIGHT to make such comments, and I defend your right in this spehere. I am NOT going to tell you how you should read my Nepali Times pieces. Thanks, though, for reading. FYI, my definition of "business" is BROAD enough to encompass issues and events that shed light on doing business in Nepal. This week, for example, I have written how political parties can use some business techniques to better craft and deliver their messages. Here, check it out: - http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue257/strictly_business.htm My next piece will deal with mobile phones and development in Nepal. oohi ashu