2007-public-private pay gap was 48%!

dodgyme wrote: »

They can also have a good effect. Ever hear of the word pendulum? Ofcourse you did with your vast experience of history.

I clearly never stated that they cant have a good effect so why are you telling me something that was clear from my posts but not yours?


Yes, I have heard of the word pendulum, fascinating things. Did you know you can use them to calculate the acceleration due to gravity?


Have you ever heard that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them? If you look back at the history of your posts you will see you are making the same mistakes...lying about your posts and misrepresenting mine.


What was at issue above is that you clearly believe they are having a detrimental effect on our economy and as a consequence need to be broken. You subsequently denied that you said the unions needed to be broken. This was a lie given that you believe the unions are having a detrimental effect on our economy. If you think they are not having a detrimental effect on our economy then why are you complaining about them?

btw you're the one that brought history into it so I assumed you were the one with the vast historical knowledge?

dodgyme wrote: »

that would assume you know some.

Well you were the one that accused me of using flowery language! So you clearly think I do. Its hard to use flowery language without a vocabulary that extends beyond four or five letter words surely? Make up your mind..either you think I use flowery language or I possess a limited vocabulary.
You are tying yourself up in knots again and diminshing the impact of any good points you might have made.

dodgyme wrote: »

Really But what happens when you reach the top of the hill and have to fall downwards again?

Well I suppose if you use your pendulum to calculate the acceleration due to gravity and then do a little research around the concept and perhaps a little experimental work you might come to the conclusion that the force due to gravity will continue to act on you until you and you will continue downhill until an equal and opposite force (such as coming in contact with the earth or an obstacle) brings you to a halt.


The unions have not encountered their equivalent of the force due to gravity yet (the government has not provided it) and you are angry with the unions for flying too high??

dodgyme wrote: »

deflection argument? again, also look to the banker the builder the candle stick maker.

I suggested you direct your anger where it is mainly deserved and where it has a chance of changing the situation. The very situation you want changed. This is not a misdirection/banker/builder or candle stick maker argument. It is a logical argument.


Why get angry at the unions and expect them to change when you can get angry at your government and actually try to make them do what you want. Which I think in the first instance (and perhaps im wrong) is to not cave in to union demands and cut public sector pay.


I would have thought this was helpful, you are not going to reform or pressurize Beggs, O'Connor et al.....or their membership. As a member of the electorate you stand a chance of pressurizing elected government representatives to do what you want if enough of your fellow members of the electorate agree with you....shouldn't you use your energies to do this...it might actually achieve something. The elected government after all are the ones who are supposed to represent your interests as a taxpayer so you should be angry at them for not doing their job properly....never mind the banker or candlestick maker who look after their own interests first and foremost.

dodgyme wrote: »

I didnt suggest anything of the sort.

Sorry but Im afraid you did, either that or you cant formulate a sentence properly.
I will repost it again for you, please explain to me how the below post does not mean you somehow think that unions should be actively trying to reduce public sector wages in line with private sector wages. If you did mean something else then you have an exceptionally unclear way of expressing what you mean. Please see below....................again!

dodgyme wrote: »

Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions??

Go on just look at the last underlined section, then re-read what went before and tell me what it means? If you meant something else you should have no trouble telling me what that was. If you were just ranting and typed any old thing that came into your head then you cant blame me for interpreting your words the way I have..its very hard to see any other meaning.

dodgyme wrote: »

Jsut dealing withthe facts as I see them. A PS unwilling to see the road to damacus.

You will have to get used to the fact that your idea of enlightenment may be at odds with the ideas of some of your fellow man and for the record I dont think you can deal with facts at all, particularly facts which are critical of you.


I hope you are not going to claim in subsequent posts that you meant the geographical location.

dodgyme wrote: »

Stop trolling you know my opinions

Trolling? what are you on? Its not trolling if I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you were lying. This is not a controversial view or opinion I have, It is fact, I have proven it. Neither is it off topic or irrelevant as I am entitled to defend myself when you lie about your posts and misrepresent mine. Your behaviour is the behaviour of a troll.

and yes of course I know your opinions captain obvious, I merely bring them up because they prove that you were lying, something you still haven't admitted even though Ive proven it multiple times.

If you still think I have made a mistake then point out clearly where I am wrong.

dodgyme wrote: »

It was yesterday or possibly the day before but I think if the unions are detrimental to this countries future ability to prosper they should be crushed but if they are willing to play ball well that is hunky dory. i.e. tell their members to google what happened in latvia

How do you think they are going to play ball?


What sort of ball do you think they are going to willingly play?


What happened in Latvia is not an example of anyone doing anything willingly that's my whole point, they have to be forced to accept certain realities by a government who does not listen to them (or by an outside agency through a government).

Your stated they should be crushed if they were unwilling...clearly you think they are unwilling (otherwise why are you complaining about them)...you then told me you had never said you wanted to see them crushed...that was a lie..I called you on it. You still have not admitted you were lying.

dodgyme wrote: »

no I have more dignity then that
Infact I think you missed the point of the post there. Read back its not difficult to see what i was doing there.

So its not difficult to see what you were doing here but you wont explain the post I do have difficulty understanding? You know, the one where you state that you think the unions should be actively trying to reduce their members pay and conditions. I wonder why that is? Is it because you later denied you had said that and now you see you are wrong but you don't want to admit it.


I think a person that continues to post in the fashion you do has no dignity at all.

dodgyme wrote: »

You surely didnt expect special indoctrination. What were you training to be a freemason. Although I was asked to join I didnt bother. I read a history book the night of the indoctrination

No of course not, read back, its not that difficult to see what I was saying.....you seemed to think I received special PS training in "flowery language" as you put it...I was merely telling you there was no special training.....how do you twist that into an assumption that I expected a special indoctrination?

dodgyme wrote: »

the freemasons

The band or the society? It is hard to know with you. Are you taking your orders from the voices in your head?

dodgyme wrote: »

you did suggest it - never said it but did suggest it.

Please enlighten me once again and show me where anything Ive posted in this thread suggests in any way that I think the unions shouldnt change, that i think they should look for a 20% increase because they deserve it – nama – teaching our kids – frontline – that I think we should not worry about where the money comes from etc? (you were not even able to use proper sentences in your post it was just degenerate ranting, no wonder its so hard to know what you mean sometimes---your training does not seem to have included anything on conveying meaning through the medium of the English language never mind getting meaning out of what others write....if you did get training in these areas then why are you holding out on us?)

your original post is below for reference

dodgyme wrote: »

no they shouldnt change - they should look for 20% increase - they deserve it - front line - nama - teaching our kids - frontline did I say frontline dont worry about where the money comes from.

Also in relation to the above, I'm afraid that if I didn't type it out in black and white then I didn't suggest it. You are assuming I suggested it. I never suggested any of the things in your above post, how you could get that from my saying the unions power should be reduced is beyond me. Are you an inhabitant of opposite land?

Its in your head. That is your problem. You assumed I was saying something that I was not...learn to read peoples posts and respond to what they have written and actually mean rather than what you want them to mean so you can condescend to them. This would have the dual benefits of not wasting their time and yours.

And btw, that was yet another example of a lie and a misrepresentation of my opinion, but tell you what..... If you can prove I suggested that the unions should look for a 20% increase etc in this thread then you will have pulled off a feat greater than turning water into wine and I will be a true believer...you can think of yourself as my own personal Jesus and I will think of this thread as my road to Damascus.

dodgyme wrote: »

So it was a law degree the PS gave you . Your no perry mason!

No, no law degree. As I stated earlier the public service did not provide me with any on the job training or qualifications. I received all my education/training for the job before I entered the public service and some after I left.


What I did learn as part of my education was an ability to read and understand English, something you seem to be lacking as I have proven earlier many times (and Im not just saying that)


You accused me of trolling, most people would accept the below definition of trolling


“posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community “


I have not done this. I have simply defended myself from your misrepresentation of my posts and your continuous evasion and lying. Just because I am not willing to bow to your underhand tactics or let you have the last word does not make me a troll.


You in fact are the Troll because what you have been doing fits the above definition quite well.

dodgyme wrote: »

saying you proved does prove anything

Youre correct, whats your point? I did not just say I proved it, I actually went and proved it by quoting your posts. If I have been inaccurate then all you have to do is prove me wrong.

dodgyme wrote: »

so you want them crushed also. Thats what you are saying. Larkin would turn in his grave.

I did not say I wished to see them crushed, I did not imply it, I did not suggest it. You are the one who said this and then subsequently denied it.


How can you possibly turn a clear statement on my part that the unions should not be crushed but they should have their power reduced instead into a suggestion that I want them crushed.


That is what you said, then denied and now have admitted above. You see the bit where you typed “so you want them crushed also”? Earlier on you told me that was not what you wanted, the also bit kind of gives it away. Tying yourself up in knots again.

dodgyme wrote: »

so its not difficult to you but you have difficulty understanding ..hah? I think you might need special indoctrination

Could you please just re-read my post or the below quote from yourself (I have asked you to do this many times now and you continue to dodge the question) and tell me how this post does not mean that you think the unions should be actively trying to reduce their members pay and conditions. You denied that is what your post means so all you have to do now is explain what it does mean. Once again its the underlined bit at the end you should focus on

dodgyme wrote: »

Most of the Public believe that if the PS is overpaid by an average of 25% then the figure should be reduced by that amount by whatever means is necessary so as the PS is not overpaid by 'an average' of 25%. Again an issue for the PS and their unions. Is That not why you have unions? ?

You claim the above does not mean you think the unions function is to reduce public sector wages in line with private sector wages if the public sector wages are ahead. O.K. Fine, tell me what it does mean, that is all I am asking. That should not be too hard to do.

dodgyme wrote: »

I know nothing of the band called the freemasons and and I dont know of the society of freemason. I think you should leave the frateral organisation that is the freemasons out of it it you dont know who they are. Stick to the pendulums.

A society can be defined as:
“A long-standing group of people sharing cultural aspects such as language, dress, norms of behavior and artistic forms; A group of people who meet from time to time to engage in a common interest; The sum total of all voluntary interrelations between individuals etc”


Hardly worlds apart from what you describe as a fraternal organisation. Talk about splitting hairs!



Btw, Freemasonry has often been called a secret society, it tends to be Freemasons themselves that argue it could be more accurately called an esoteric society in that certain aspects of it are private. So what is your non-point above. I cant refer to them as a society when they in fact refer to themselves as a society.



You brought up the Freemasons first, now youre telling me to leave them out of it???? You appear to know less about them than I do. I would say stick to the history books but that would be assuming you have actually read or understood one at all prior to this evening.

dodgyme wrote: »

Originally Posted by amacca
I think the unions shouldnt change, they should look for a 20% increase because they deserve it – nama – teaching our kids – frontline – dont worry about where the money comes from etc

dodgyme wrote: »

sounds like you contradict yourself there

Thats an exceptionally low tactic, you have deliberately snipped out the first part of this section of my post to make it appear as if I had contradicted myself..... below is what I said in full, ive underlined the bit you removed in an attempt to utterly change the meaning of what I said



“Please enlighten me once again and show me where anything Ive posted in this thread suggests in any way that I think the unions shouldnt change, that i think they should look for a 20% increase “



Significantly different in meaning from what you posted. That was dishonest of you.
Very troll like behaviour. Stop wasting my time with yet another type of dishonesty.


I havent done anything like this to you so show a little character.

dodgyme wrote: »

the only medium you are interested is in your crystal ball where you make up what I say

If you think I am making up what you say then why cant you address my posts directly and simply disprove the things you think I am making up instead of evading my questions. And to think you accused me of misdirection???

dodgyme wrote: »

Really I though the water and wine stuff would be difficult to beat after all these years. If I turned water into wine and did it so there was 20% more wine by volume in comparison to the water well that would be a good trick, kinda like I make a point and you change it into something else and add 20% to it for good measure, like you have been at all along.

Youre the one who is changing other peoples points into something else.


Youre the one who subsequently lies about the points you make earlier........................... instead of evading prove me wrong. If Im lying it should be very easy for you to prove it.


You claimed in your last post that I suggested that the unions should look for a 20% increase (among other things), so I simply ask you to back up this claim and prove to me and other posters where I have in any way made the suggestion that the unions should look for a 20% increase.


You say I have suggested this, I say I have not suggested this. All you have to do is prove me wrong. If Im lying it should be easy for you to do, simply quote the post where I said or suggested that the unions should look for a 20% increase.


If you cant do this then Im afraid you will have to admit that this claim is a lie also.

dodgyme wrote: »

so why did you say they did

Having trouble reading again? I didn't. On a number of occasions I stated clearly that all my training and qualifications were received before I entered the job. After I left I also received more education at the same institutions all private sector workers are free to attend and frequently do.

Trolling again?

dodgyme wrote: »

What is this a punch and judy show. Great style of debate from you

Yours the one whose style of debate resembles that of a person with a head comprised entirely of wood.

dodgyme wrote: »

finally

Repeatedly....yet you continue to evade and dodge the question. I told you, I'm perfectly justified in replying. You lied about you're posts and misrepresented mine. I have a right to defend myself and I'm not willing to let you get the upperhand through harassment.

dodgyme wrote: »

The way in which you have misrepreesented everything I have said would split enough hairs to make a wig.

Now who is engaging in a Punch and Judy style debate?

You are in fact the one who engaged in misrepresentation and splitting hairs. What else could your post about fraternal organisation have been only splitting hairs? pathetic, you got caught out again.

dodgyme wrote: »

whats your fascination with the freemasons

Absolutely none whatsoever, you brought them up, remember? You then tried to correct my description of them...as it turned out you were splitting hairs in the extreme.

dodgyme wrote: »

I have done this pages back but you didnt listen

Perhaps in your head but not in your posts I'm afraid. You havent provide a single satisfactory response to proof of your repeated lies and misrepresentation of my posts.

If you are unable to explain clearly in english why you have posted the things you have and what they mean (given that they are not coherent sentences in some cases) then you have not addressed my posts directly. You are just evading and timewasting.

Among a litany of lies and misrepresentation I asked you where I suggested that unions should look for a 20% increase, you still have not responded to this!

dodgyme wrote: »

Your punch and judy show is getting tired at this stage

Again, you are the one who is engaging in and necessitating this style of debate, just answer the questions I asked about what I state are your lies.

If they are not lies, you should easily be able to prove me wrong. It is telling that you have not been able to.

Fred83 wrote: »

the goverment doesnt look after the best intrest of the country,the public sector is a golden goose for blatant waste of money,high pensions,and feck all in return,if it was a business it would had been shut down a long time ago because it doesnt produce must of an income,i have feeling the ordinary taxpayer will be brought back to the 1980's again of been taxed to death because the goverment is so scared of the unions of the public service that the taxpayer will be easier picking to make up for it...

Its certainly a possibility. The ordinary anythings always seems to bear the brunt of the extraordinary anythings mistakes first.

If they do continue to raise taxes on the majority it will be a killer.

However, even if it brings in a small amount of revenue compared to pay cuts I still think that the uber rich should pay their fair share and have all the tax loopholes they enjoy closed off fully. They should pay the same percentage of their income in tax somebody on a low or middle income does. This will still leave them much better off, after all they claim they are citizens of Ireland too.

Pay cuts should happen (not to the degree some posters on this thread seem to be advocating imo) along with a whole hell of a lot of other reforms or with a cast iron commitment to undertake these reforms.

the goverment doesnt look after the best intrest of the country,the public sector is a golden goose for blatant waste of money,high pensions

Typical poorly written predjudice. PS pensions at half your salary are reasonable, they haven't changed over the years and all private pension schemes have similar objectives.

if it was a business it would had been shut down a long time ago because it doesnt produce must of an income

The public sector produces things people want like education and health. Providing something that people want is exactly what many businesses have failed to do.