Highfly, Let's put the matter of general anonymous arrogance aside. Because anonymous cyber arrogance does not count as real arrogance. Because real arrogance comes with a distinct price, but anonymous cyber arrogance is free. I also don't give importance to anonymous I agree/I disagree type of statements. Because agreement/disagreement does not make sense without identity. The only thing that does not require real identity to matter is idea- ideas that are shared with good faith. Although the overwhelming majority of posters and their postings in Sajha, more so these days, belong to the first two categories, there is still a tiny space in Sajha filled by ideas. This is the only thing that has kept me in Sajha. But I disgressed. Now on ideas, I don't know about Dariwal, but what happened to Highfly who promised to read my ideas, on the sustainable and fair alternative to both the Gyanendraism and the Maoism, which I have explained in a great detail (40,000 words !) - http://www.sajha.com/sajha/html/column.cfm?extraid=622 some excerpts: A just and permanent solution to the Maoist problem There is no doubt that we, the Nepali people, should do everything to stop Maoist from making Nepal a guinea pig of the second communist experiment of our history. There are only two ways we can do that, either by a forced foreign military intervention or by an honest political sensibility. ???????. Some people may still be hopeful of Fujimori brand of solution, but the fact that Nepali Shining Path Comrade are not fighting against a bourgeois democracy but against a Monarchy and that Peru's wound is still open makes it very unconvincing option. And let us not forget our security forces already have failed us, well, of course for reasons explainable. Then, the only option left is an honest political solution. Now, some people might be feeling very uncomfortable with the adjective 'honest', which is natural, because honesty is an alien culture to us. Our culture is 'might is right'. Our culture is a tolerance to hanky panky of the mighty one. But friends, sometimes we should give up our culture. For our survival's sake. Ke garne ? Banchnai paryo ! So let's do it. Let's go to this.. our first experiment with honesty, this maiden voyage of truth, our pratham sahavaas with our future on an uncorrupted bed of bravery and sincerity. One of the most popular phrases in the circle of civil society, particularly among those 'conflict management experts', since the first talk between the government and the Maoists took place, has been 'COMPROMISE'. I understand the diplomatic value of this phrase and that that's what happens eventually to the parties of a conflict. However, I feel this phrase is not serving it's purpose in the context of our conflict. As a matter of fact, I think, this phrase is doing the opposite- frightening the parties of the conflict and misleading the people. A king is a king. He does not compromise. Got that ? He can sacrifice for the good of his subjects. ??.. Maoists are great revolutionaries, for ?? 'compromise'. That's a revisionism, that's a bourgeoisie ploy. Now the ordinary people. When you say compromise.. compromise.. possibly what message goes to them ? That both parties we are talking about have legitimate positions. That they have a minor and solvable, but not a major and unsolvable disagreement. That the parties' slight flexibilities are all what is needed to solve the problem. That the people are supposed to accept them when they make an agreement between themselves. That that is even not a question. That people's huge participation has neither room nor is necessary in the process. And so on. So I think 'SACRIFICE' is the phrase of the day. It is sexier, more powerful and telling than that dull phrase 'COMPROMISE'. Now the honest, truthful, fair, fearless, bloodless, peaceful, democratic, economic and permanent solution to the Maoist problem and the answer to the other side of the coin, the question of the Monarchy. ??.. (For more, click the link above)