Shree5 wrote: "मैले बुझे अनुसार पूर्णत: खुल्ला नभएको कारण नै त्यही हो जुन यही थ्रेडमा नै देखिदैँछ, बाहिर त यस्तो टोकाटोक हुन्छ भने त्यो ठाउँ पुरै खुल्ला भए केही "ईनर्जी" त आफ्नो वचावटमै खर्च गर्न पर्ने हुन जान्छ । र अति नै सँक्रमण हुन थाल्यो भने त्यस्ता खास उद्देश्यको लागि बनाईएको ठाउँको उद्देश्यकै sanctity मै असर पर्छ सक्छ कि त?" This is a dangerous argument for any self-styled democrat to make. Why? Because even the non-democrats will use this very same argument to justify their every move. Democracy IS, after all, पुरै खुल्ला all the time. Democracy IS, after all, पुरै खुल्ला all the time. That's what democracy is. Democracy is NOT hanging out with "like-minded people", and wah-wahing one another's deep thoughts. Democracy is accepting that it's OK to hang out with people whose guts you passionately hate without trading blows with them. That said, Nepe wrote about there being "a heated discussion on corruption in Nepal". If so, is it not then curiously self-serving on his part to peddle ONLY his view here, while NOT posting others' views from that CLOSED forum? Why call something a heated discussion, and then present only one side of that discussion? The point is: Democracy, openness and transparency are the BEST disinfectants for any PUBLIC discussion. True, some agenda might be hijacked by some people some of the time. But the price of democracy is NOT enclosure of like-minded people so that they can wallow in some closed, antiseptic experience. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance to learn how to deal (and NOT avoid) the thari-thari ka kich-kich that comes with the part and parcel of democracy. oohi ashu