Nepe ji writes: "Anyway, so, basically, anybody who questions the monarchy was a Maoist to GP ji". another inconsistency in his writing: "First of all you are a royalist and your opposition to the Maoists is related to your support to another evil". Nepe ji calls me "Royalist" just because I am not supporting Maoists. He uses the same yard stick that he accuses of me using it. Is not it a funny comment, Nepe sir? At one point he wrote:"I assume GPji is a royalist (ASSUME because he has not directly said it)". Here, the tones in these paragraphs are different. In one paragraph he assumes, you can assume, and his assumptions are based on me not supporting Maoists. Thats OK to assume. "Bhako bheeeeeeeeeeee ke hunthyo ke". "Bheeeeeeeeeee is not problem to me". But, the way he stamps me as royalist is troubling to me the way he accuses of me using the same yard stick to measure him. Anyway, Nepe ji you are really violent and you accuse and give names and adjectives to peoples who are reluctant to support Maoists, but oppose Maoist atrocities.. You use various adjectives so fast and its like a wild fire. My suggestion to you to give references whenever you want to prove something someone said. If you can cite the reference, better not write it. I have seen you twisting the things what I have said in completely different manner that suits your need, example: in the case of Daman Nath Dhungana. GP