Highfly, I do not relate a poster's anonymity to degree of his/her patriotism. So this does not concern me. [ However, I will take this opportunity to let arrogant anonymous posters, a lot of them have mushroomed these days, know everybody knows that anonymity is the cheapest way to afford arrogance in the cyberworld. ] Now back to our topic. I had asserted two things, Highfly. 1. you did not get (understand) the Editorial. 2. The displeasure you displayed towards the editorial was not your pure concern for the common people in Nepal. First the Editorial. The Editorial did not, I repeat, it did not call for blocking Nepal's lifeline of foreign support. It merely called for giving warning of doing so [as a psychological and moral pressure] to the King and his loyal Generals for reversing King's autocratic rule. See ? They were not calling for making common people's life more miserable by blockade right away. They were upto making greedy Gyanendra's life miserable my letting him know he is as isolated from the world and unacceptable as Saddam Hussain once was. Now, see for yourself, how your displeasure to the Washington Post was not your pure concern for the common people of Nepal, but was for yourself being challenged in supporting the Saddamic regime of Gyanendra Maharaj. Now for your statement implying that you are supporting this Saddamic regime because you believe this is bringing peace and stability, I do not have much to say except that this is no different than to believe that the communist regime of the Maoists will bring peace and stability if they come to power. Very true but only if we don't care about the type of peace and stability.