Dear University lecturers - get back to work

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

That's not the key point, liar. You see, I call you a liar with evidence. Contrary to your lie, active DB schemes do exist in private sector. It was you who said that the "acitve DB schemes really don't exist anymore" in private sector. And no, the open ones, at least the ones that I know about, are not reducing benefits for the future accrual.

How many do you know about?

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie about the above.

Maybe the nuance of the English language is lost on you. The use of the word ‘really’ in that sentence is very important. It means something different than when the word is omitted.

[amusingduck]

jjlynn27 said:

That's not the key point, liar. You see, I call you a liar with evidence. Contrary to your lie, active DB schemes do exist in private sector. It was you who said that the "acitve DB schemes really don't exist anymore" in private sector. And no, the open ones, at least the ones that I know about, are not reducing benefits for the future accrual.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to lie about the above.



ETA; lol, keep editing your post, that'll make you less of a liar.

There's a big difference between they "really don't" exist and they "don't really" exist, you've quoted both so far?

[sidicks]

amusingduck said:

There's a big difference between they "really don't" exist and they "don't really" exist, you've quoted both so far?

It appears that I actually said the latter, which most people understand is quite different than the former (or when the word ‘really’ is omitted altogether).

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

Maybe the nuance of the English language is lost on you. The use of the word ‘really’ in that sentence is very important. It means something different than when the word is omitted.

It's totally ok. You'll shortly have one of the groupies to agree with you. But I do enjoy your editing. The rather simple fact is that contrary to your claim, DB pensions do exist in the private sector. Your obsession with the public sector, as demonstrated with your own quotes on different threads is for you to figure out why.

I do find constant whining about what others are getting rather sad. Not surprising, but sad.

[travel is dangerous]

Public sector workers should not be allowed nice cars, why shouldn't we pay them less? an old banger is just as good and it's not right that tax payers money shouldn't be allowing people to drive around shiny cars that many people can't have themselves.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

Maybe the nuance of the English language is lost on you. The use of the word ‘really’ in that sentence is very important. It means something different than when the word is omitted.

It's totally ok. You'll shortly have one of the groupies to agree with you. But I do enjoy your editing. The rather simple fact is that contrary to your claim, DB pensions do exist in the private sector.

Sorry you don’t understand the nuance of the language or the context of the discussion.

jjlynn27 said:

Your obsession with the public sector, as demonstrated with your own quotes on different threads is for you to figure out why.

I do find constant whining about what others are getting rather sad. Not surprising, but sad.

You didn’t answer about your extensive experience of DB schemes.

[sidicks]

travel is dangerous said:

Public sector workers should not be allowed nice cars, why shouldn't we pay them less? an old banger is just as good and it's not right that tax payers money shouldn't be allowing people to drive around shiny cars that many people can't have themselves.

Wow, the lecturers really are keen to go for the ignorant straw man argument this week!

[200Plus Club]

i find it astounding one person can spend all their time going on about pensions like this on a forum. There is more to life than arguing on 'tinternet about the same thing, 24/7 surely? If it annoys you so much Siddicks, why dont you lobby an MP or do something proactive perhaps, and have a little rest from reminding everyone you are a "pensions expert"?

My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality. The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.

[sidicks]

200Plus Club said:

i find it astounding one person can spend all their time going on about pensions like this on a forum. There is more to life than arguing on 'tinternet about the same thing, 24/7 surely? If it annoys you so much Siddicks, why dont you lobby an MP or do something proactive perhaps, and have a little rest from reminding everyone you are a "pensions expert"?

I find it astounding that you can claim something that is demonstrably untrue. Maybe it takes you much longer to form sentences than the rest of us?

200Plus Club said:

My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality.

The reality also being that she will have paid very much less than ‘sod all’ into it. So no idea what your point is.

200PlusClub said:

The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.

I don’t believe anyone on here is supportive of current levels of University Vice Chancellor remuneration.

[JagLover]

200Plus Club said:

My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality. The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.

I just wonder how you are defining "sod all"

I also have some exposure to this due to the pension due to my wife for her 4 years spent working in a job which had the LGPS.

In relation to her salary, and years of contribution, I wouldn't describe what she will received as "sod all". It will actually make a useful contribution to our finances in retirement.

[markcoznottz]

travel is dangerous said:

Public sector workers should not be allowed nice cars, why shouldn't we pay them less? an old banger is just as good and it's not right that tax payers money shouldn't be allowing people to drive around shiny cars that many people can't have themselves.

Infantile st.

[200Plus Club]

sidicks said:

200Plus Club said:

i find it astounding one person can spend all their time going on about pensions like this on a forum. There is more to life than arguing on 'tinternet about the same thing, 24/7 surely? If it annoys you so much Siddicks, why dont you lobby an MP or do something proactive perhaps, and have a little rest from reminding everyone you are a "pensions expert"?

I find it astounding that you can claim something that is demonstrably untrue. Maybe it takes you much longer to form sentences than the rest of us?

200Plus Club said:

My wife is in this scheme and will get close to sod all out of it, being part time. thats the reality.

The reality also being that she will have paid very much less than ‘sod all’ into it. So no idea what your point is.

200PlusClub said:

The only people doing well are the vice chancellors on £300-400k pa plus their pension pot, and it appears no one on here is able to change that.

I don’t believe anyone on here is supportive of current levels of University Vice Chancellor remuneration.

why are you so rude and so obnoxious on every reply? its the internet, you wont win prizes, and people think you are a cock, rightly or wrongly, given how you respond daily to people. you carry on, with your life, as it is. I looked at your posting history, and its non stop, how good you are at pensions, and how you love to tell people how bad they are, but done in a very obnoxious manner.

Edited by 200Plus Club on Thursday 22 March 14:50

[sidicks]

200Plus Club said:

why are you so rude and so obnoxious on every reply? its the internet, you wont win prizes, and people think you are a cock, rightly or wrongly, given how you respond daily to people. you carry on, with your life, as it is.

Maybe take a look at the tone of your previous post?

[200Plus Club]

sidicks said:

Why are you determined to comment on things you don’t understand?

i can identify a pedantic obnoxious fool when i see one :-)

[200Plus Club]

sidicks said:

200Plus Club said:

why are you so rude and so obnoxious on every reply? its the internet, you wont win prizes, and people think you are a cock, rightly or wrongly, given how you respond daily to people. you carry on, with your life, as it is.

Maybe take a look at the tone of your previous post?

hey nicely and quickly edited, well done

[sidicks]

200Plus Club said:

why are you so rude and so obnoxious on every reply?

Your reply was rude first.

200Plus Club said:

its the internet, you wont win prizes, and people think you are a cock, rightly or wrongly, given how you respond daily to people. you carry on, with your life, as it is.

See above.

200Plus Club said:

I looked at your posting history, and its non stop, how good you are at pensions, and how you love to tell people how bad they are, but done in a very obnoxious manner.

I’m sure that you must see understanding the issue under discussion as a bad thing. Other people would seek to learn from those who know what they are talking about.

I simply respond in the same tone as the posts that I am responding to. People that post in a friendly manner are responded to in the same way. Conversely...

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 22 March 15:00

[200Plus Club]

sidicks said:

200Plus Club said:

why are you so rude and so obnoxious on every reply?

Your reply was rude first.

200Plus Club said:

its the internet, you wont win prizes, and people think you are a cock, rightly or wrongly, given how you respond daily to people. you carry on, with your life, as it is.

See above.

200Plus Club said:

I looked at your posting history, and its non stop, how good you are at pensions, and how you love to tell people how bad they are, but done in a very obnoxious manner.

I’m sure that you must see understanding the issue under discussion as a bad thing. Other people would seek to learn from those who know what they are talking about.

reference was to your general posting nature, literally non stop lecturing people about how thick they are on pensions, and how good you are. have a look at some of the thousands of similar posts you made previously.
ttfn

[sidicks]

200Plus Club said:

reference was to your general posting nature, literally non stop lecturing people about how thick they are on pensions, and how good you are. have a look at some of the thousands of similar posts you made previously.
ttfn

No one should be embarrassed about not understanding a subject. There are a huge range of things I know little about, however I tend not to try and post about them on the internet. Indeed, I’d be asking for help and listening to those who were knowledgable on the topic.

When people pretend to know more than they do and (repeatedly) make false claims, then they get treated accordingly.

[drainbrain]

Methinks, time to resurrect Sid's special thread...... . Get him back under control....

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

Methinks, time to resurrect Sid's special thread...... . Get him back under control....

Methinks that first you should read the actual thread and identify who has been abusive.