I guess it depends on why you write a blog.

If it is to persuade people of your views through discussion or bring about an exchange that might tease out and illuminate an issue then I would suggest encouraging comments is pretty essential, even comments you disagree with. Dismantling someone’s ridiculous position through a reasoned argument is far more effective that Yah Boo Sucks. All too often the aggressive tone and nature of the comments made on Dublin Opinion cuts the discussion dead. Remember the Desmond Fennell comments? http://dublinopinion.com/2007/09/10/john-waters-and-the-addiction-to-the-reactionaries-type-blues/

If you want to blast out in messianic megaphone style to only the true believers, then comments don’t really matter. You can replace the square box where readers can enter text at the end of each page with a button that says ‘I wholeheartedly agree with the above opinion’. Good luck with that.

Why would I take advice from an anonymous right-winger like you? It’s a bit like Ciaran Cannon leaving a comment.

Actually, not really. Ciaran Cannon would probably use his name instead of hiding behind a persona.

Oh well, I’ve always wondered if a comment counts if it’s in relation to someone who, well, doesn’t exist. Can you talk with a fictional character?

And what happens when the fictional character gets snotty? That’s a bit of a strange one, isn’t it?

Even more weird than that, when an anonymous little right-wing commentator who has created his own little fictional name gets all moralistic. Stomping his anonymous little feet, typing his anonymous little comments, so confident of the validity of his anonymous little right-wing opinions that he dare not assign his real name to them?

This is all very meta.

The mainstream media especially RTE have had a huge hand in this. It’s an easy one to stoke. And there are valid and passionate points to be made on both sides. Bug bears and mindsets that are entrenched and which the boom could only ever paper over.

The part that leaves me, a grown adult leaving pissy little teenage comments in response to points like gerards is the feeling that while we have this well rehersed punch-up over public sector pay and pensions (I mention my pension levy, you mention my holidays, swing your partner and dosey do) somewhere underneath the cloud of fists and boots bugs bunny is slipping out the bottom and having a laugh eating a carrot we’re all paying for.

If I’m honest thats why I get pissy. This almost pathological debate about who shares the pain, how much pain….pass the nipple-clamps….is one we’ve all been put to like children to keep us occupied while the adults go spend our college money in the bookies.

I’m not trying to rude Thriftcriminal, but what is simple about what you just said? I can’t understand it and I think I’m a reasonably intelligent person. However, going back to your previous comment, you mention that you wholeheartedly agree with Eddie Hobbes appellation of “pension apartheid”. Checking out his blog on the subject I see he starts his post with this:

Are your advisors nuts? It’s already proven that runaway public sector pay hit insane levels during the tenure of last Government. Like for like pay is at least 25% more than in the private sector. But switch to pensions and the contrast goes off the chart.

From this it is clear to see which side his bread is buttered on and Hobbs is being cavalier with the facts in the rest of his post as well. To take one example, in arguing that public sector pensions should be reduced he says:

In the private sector 90% of employers who are trying to guarantee pensions to their staff have schemes that are underfunded and are in deficit.

Looking over at Jim Stewart’s post on Pension reform he says:

In addition, pension funds are subject to annual average charges of 1.5% per annum (Green Paper, p. 142). This means that annual charges amount to a substantial proportion of the cost of tax reliefs (50% in 2003).

As a result, due to charges (which are largely independent of investment performance) and losses on investments, many of those contributing to a defined contribution (DC) type scheme over a ten year period, even with tax relief (at 41%), may have been better off investing their pension contribution in a deposit account which does not attract tax relief*. Those who paid tax at the standard rate and who invested in a deposit account savings scheme over the past ten years would be substantially better off.

That is, the problems with pensions in the private sector has more to do with how the market is structured then it has to do with how public sector pensions are organised.

“I care not how the inequality is addressed, but I want to see it addressed.”

Fair enough. But to me, all I see is you setting yourself up to be taken for a fool.

And as far as analysis goes, your stance is the very negation of analysis. In fact, you’re rejecting analysis in favour of a solution - which, to me, is pretty bizarre.

what that tells me, Thriftcriminal, is that there’s no point me giving you an analysis such as the one above, because you plainly don’t want one. All you want is a “solution.” No analysis, just solutions. I don’t see how that is in any way desirable or helpful, but if that’s what you want, there are plenty of websites and blogs that can help you out there. But if that’s what you want, I’m afraid you’ve hit a dead end with me. Try politics.ie or something.