Ashu, Being a third rate scientist is no crime, abusing an academic theory is. And the later is what we are discussing here. Let's keep the discussion limited to that for now. Shall we ? So, you are maintaining that your theory that taking part in the election will strengthen political parties in their conflict with the King is consistent with Schelling's theory ? Let's check your proof. You wrote: >Here's the logic: ...No one expects the parties to take part in the elections. First, this is a wrong assumption, actually a deceitful assumption which I will explain shortly. Second, your conclusion regarding taking part in the election is based solely on this assumption and behold.. this assumption itself does not derive from Schelling's theory ! So, Mr. First rate scholar, what you actually were doing is pretending to use Schelling's theory only to sound credible when in fact you were drawing a deceitful conclusion from a deceitful assumption. Let's get back to your assumption. " No one expects the parties to take part in the elections" Are you saying that when the King in last October announced his directive to conduct parliamentary election by 2063 saal, (6 months earlier than his initial self-mandate of 3 years completes), he was sure it is not going to be participated by the political parties ? In other words, the King announced the election expecting that political parties are not going to take part in it ? He had some other purpose in his mind which will be destroyed if political parties take part in the election ? Ashu, you are either a genius which nobody understands, that because your assumption is so weird, or an insider who knows King's mind which nobody knows. Otherwise, all the political observers and commentators I have heard and read are saying the incentive to the King for the election is to get LEGITIMACY to all of his action and thus strengthen his position in future bargaining. As the chance for bargaining is getting slimmer and slimmer (with increasingly stronger public voice for finishing monarchy off) instead, the King is disparate for legitimacy. That's why he is not even waiting for his three years of self-mandate to complete. That's why he is disparate for an election legitimized by the participation of major political parties. But Ashu is saying the opposite. He is implying that the King is disparate for an election NOT PARTICIPATED by the seven parties for some reason and so taking part in the election by them would be a blow to King's plot. And all this derives from Schelling and his game theory ! Man, it's your own game theory, not Shelling's. **** **** **** You accused that I have been selective. >You have -- in your self-selective fashion -- POUNCED >on ONLY the "election" suggestion, while keeping quiet >about the "republican" recommendation. Are you blind or what ? Did you not read the opening lines of my first posting ? Let me reproduce them. I wrote: "It does not take Schelling to see that bringing staunch republicans in the leadership will make our political parties stronger. The strength of political parties is the mass and recent demonstrations have clearly shown that the mass rallies only behind the slogan of republic. And let us not forget that the Maoists came to this point of their strength riding the wagon of republic." What do you want more than this ? Let me elaborate a little bit. My point is that the DETERMINING FACTOR for winning in this conflict is the MASS SUPPORT and nothing else. No matter what game the three players play, if that does not win the MASS SUPPORT, nobody is going to win. The stalemate will continue. In other words, our political conflict is beyond the game and game theory to resolve, if you exclude the MASS in the equation. And that's exactly how you were presenting the case- excluding the MASS and assuming you can reach to a resolution through maneuvering, through playing game. No. Mass support is name of the game. And your 'republican' recommendation was a part of that game, not Schelling's game and certainly not a game of "unpredictability". Republican does not stand for "unpredictability". It stands for " unambiguity " and "determination" for LOKTANTRA the mass is rallying behind, hence the strength it brings. __