Vishontar-jee, This may or may not be a good thing to bring it up here because what I am wanting to share is again not about politics but about the logic system you employ. I actually have a few serious complains (objection if you like) of ACADEMIC nature regarding your writing. You might recall my objection to your casual use of the term "science" a long time ago. My other complains are along the same academic line. But first, a minor but a totally deceptive logic you have just employed. Let me quote you: "Statistically good and bad are equally distributed among royalists as well as non-royalist." Let me illustrate how deceptive your statement is by contrasting it with a sensible and correct question for the thing in dispute here. The more correct question in my view would be: With everything else being equal, who would be less aware and less in tune with the change Nepal is going through today ? The answer does not matter. I mean you are most welcome say it would be a non-royalist. It's your view. I would respect that. What I can not respect is that you are confusing your readers (and may be yourself too) by omitting two fundamental essentials here. One, the required condition "With everything else being equal" (because it makes no sense to compare, let's say, celibacy of one individual to the generosity of another individual) and, the second, that the difference at the fundamental level is awareness and the distinction of good/bad comes from one's willingness to acknowledge the level of awareness. To put it in simpler terms, a royalist (of course the real one) of today is a person who is simply refusing to acknowledge that he/she is out of loop of today's reality of Nepal in comparison to a situation of a republican. There is no point comparing other things. There is no point comparing apples and oranges. That simply will be a deception. Now, if you don't mind, I would like to share my other goonasos (not related to this thread). 1. When you report something (like historical facts you have shared in many threads), you always and willingly mix up "objective facts" and "subjective thoughts", so nobody knows what is coming from other, hopefully reliable, source and what is coming from you own imagination. I believe you are in some academic field (or at least you are exposed to the academic norms/practices somehow). In that case, I fail to understand why don't practice simple practice of revealing the source of the facts you are reporting. When you are sharing your personal view, you must begin with saying "I think...". When you are sharing information you got from certain source, mention the source. If you really want to keep the source secret, fine, just say "It is reported...". But for God's sake don't keep your readers in darkness or let them get confused and, in cases where they are applicable, take your pure personal opinion to historical facts. So, my humble request is, please do not mix the subjectivity with the objectivity in your otherwise pretty informative and thought-provoking writings. I often like to cut the chase, so I did not write, otherwise you must know I have a tremendous respect for you and very keen interest in your views and writings. My respect and interest is what made me write this. I am sure you understand this. This much this time. Humbly yours, Nepe