Nepe, You call yourself a scientist, but continuously display an utterly unscientific temperament. In any case, your calling yourself a scientist to comment on Nepal-related matters is simply some sort of intimidation tactics (the way some columnists in Nepal drop references to great Greek/Roman philosophers when they have, at least with this reader, absolutely no insights to share). Let me explain what I mean by pointing out the specifics to you. ****** You write: "Kul Chandra Gautam, who has professional obligation for being as unbiased as possible, invaraibly writes in all of his article the following (not exact words) : "The republican sentiments, particularly in Nepali youths, are GROWING everyday" My comment: With all due respect to Gautam-ji, it's scientifically correct to say that when it comes to commenting on Nepal-related matters, Gautam-ji's is just ANOTHER opinion like yours and mine and anyone else's. That Gautam-ji works for the United Nations in New York does NOT willy-nilly lend his Nepal-related comments an ADDITIONAL dose of credibility. Nepe's ABUSING Gautam-ji's UN credentials to argue for the validity of that appealing-to-Nepe statement is a crass display of Nepe's own desperate attempt to latch on to anything that moves for republicanism (careful scientific caution be damned!) If anything, I'd argue that, all things being equal, I would tend to agree with Akhilesh's views in that Akhilesh, a practising journalist, is MORE LIKELY to have talked with a greater variety of people in the course of his work in Nepal to get closer to the ground realities than Mr. Gautam in New York. But, you see, for purely political reasons, Nepe dismisses Akhilesh's observations while bolsters Gautam-ji's observation. Yet he has the gall to call himself a scientist! Else, the same logic he applied to dismiss Akhilesh's observations would have been suitable to ignore Gautam-ji's observations too. *********************** Nepe is RIGHT to say that Q 26 is a badly phrased question. Still, looking at the available answers for people to pick from, it's hard to see -- in scientific terms -- how SIGNIFICANTLY the results would have changed had the phrasing been more neutral. I went and checked the evidence. On his Sajha posting above though, I find that Nepe was typically less than forthcoming (no surprise there!). The PRECISE question was: "What type of monarchy should there be in Nepal? [Read options loudly]" OPTIONS available were: (and these were missing from Nepe's posting above): a) Absolute monarchy (5.5 per cent) b) Monarchy more active than at present (17.2 per cent) c) Fully constitutional monrachy (53.4 per cent) d) Monarchy less active than present (4.5 per cent) e) Monarchy is not necessary (4.9 per cent) f) Don't want to disclose (0.4 per cent) g) Don't know/Can'tsay (14.1 per cent) In other words, scientifically speaking, it's NOT that clear-cut (as Nepe implies) that the answers would have changed much had the question been phrased more neutrally. So? The idea that most Nepalis appear to be for monarchy seems to be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the poll. But since Nepe dislikes that conclusion, he focusses SELECTIVELY on the supposed khattam-ness of the question, and paints the whole thing with a black brush. *********** Nepe writes: "First, approach. When you are studying something that is rapidly changing, what is more informative and helpful, the TREND or some one point data ?" This is a ridiculous comment. This shows that despite being a so-called scientist, Nepe slept through his stat classes, and knows nothing about polls. A poll, by definition, is a SNAP SHOT of public opinion at one point in time. No thoughtful person would ever mistake a poll for a movie or for a running commentary. That's why in the US, during the months leading up to presidential elections, there are so many latest polls one after another (or latest snap shots of the voters' thoughts!). This particular poll, taken during Nov-Dec 2004 and published in March 2005, MERELY provides a SNAP SHOT of the national mood of that time. That's all. Maybe the mood has indeed changed by much now. Maybe it hasn't. A scientifically honest thing to say would be: Whatever the change is in whichever direction by however much, we just don't know. Sure, we can extrapolate a bit from the polls, but that would be just that: an extrapolation. That is why, it's stupid of Nepe to: (a) demand that the poll do more than what it was set up to do; and (b) mix what he perceives to be true with what he thinks the poll failed to do a la comparing apples to oranges. ***************** To his credit, Pramod Aryal seems to be making some SPECULATIONS (he calls them opinions) about the middling 80 percent. Is Pramod right? I don't know. Maybe he's right; maybe he isn't. Scientifically speaking, unless there's another poll that fleshes out the thought process of that middling 80 per cent in greater detail, ALL we have is a bunch of speculations. And that's fine. But look at Nepe, because the speculations FIT IN with his preconceived political notions, he jumps up and down and tries to pass them off as the truth. Yet this guy calls himself a scientist when it comes to commenting on Nepal-related matters? BOTTOM LINE? Nepe may be a scientist in terms of his earned degree. But a science degree in and of otself is NOT a guarantee for the maintenance of cautious and intellectually honest scientific temperament. Nepe is a prime example of this. That is why, when it comes to abusing evidence to tilt the politics-related kura-kani in his favour, Nepe is NO diiferent from any other politician. And that's not surprising. But that said, should he STILL be a republican? Yes, he should, while giving space to other VARIOUS views out there. oohi ashu