You just made another 4 posts, well under the word limit, and STILL have not explained why MAWOTE matters, something you've been asked to do for weeks now. Why bother to reply at all? Most of what you say is irrelevant, or has been answered (a long time ago).

In the hopes of actually getting some kind of engagement, I'm going to limit this post to a single issue, so that you don't have any excuses to ramble on irrelevant stuff when you next deign to reply. Here it is, make sure to read this part carefully:
*Why does MAWOTE matter? Why does a relative decrease matter at all? Please see above posts if you're confused why I'm asking this, particularly the example of Joe. If this still isn't simple enough for you to follow, I can try step by step drawings in crayon.

Riddler,

Yes, I have just made ‘another 4 posts, well under the word limit, and STILL have not explained why MAWOTE matters, something [I’ve] been asked to do for weeks now’.

I have explained this many times (first of all on 2/3 and again in my previous post, just before yours). As you have made comments along the lines of ‘I skimmed your post, but I didn't read it.’ (3.56:38pm, 24/2), I will explain again. I will deal with my first priority first. When I have finished dealing with my first priority, I will move onto my second. I did this once before but you gave me cause to return to my first, just as you have done this time, so I am not going to start on my second prematurely.

Most of what I say is not irrelevant and has not been answered; e.g., that there are 36 years from 1975 to 2011, not 35 years. I will save even you the task of skimming through a further account. But I will not glide over your claim as if it is true.

I don’t ‘ramble’. I give reasoned responses based on specific evidence, rather than just make claims that are not supported by evidence. Thus, I have quoted specific figures on teacher pay, the CPI, MAOTE, departmental school choice policies, trainee teacher ability, etc. What I say is ‘relevant’. What you call an ‘excuse’ is your posting of inaccurate information that I have said many times I will correct.

I have also explained why MAOTE matters (9/2, 10/2, 11/2, 12/2 and maybe in other posts). You are entitled to day that you disagree with my explanation, but you are not entitled to say that I have not given one.

Now, if you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.

When you suddenly announced that you didn't really believe there had been an increase, something that made you seem like an idiot for having wasted so much time on it, many of the sub-arguments within that became moot, because you had conceded the very argument that made them relevant. Understandably, given the speed with which you crawl along, I have elected not to focus on irrelevant issues, and tried to address points that you don't concede.

I looked at your post on the 8th of Feb, and there is nothing in it which explains why a relative cut matters (it also contains one of your many standing falsehoods, which I've waited to deal with one at a time since you've slow, namely your ridiculous claim that there is a link between entry scores and decreasing pay, which is an even more odd one, since you have since conceded there was no actual cut, only a relative cut). Nor can I find anything in your other posts that explains why a relative cut is in any way relevant, nor why MAWOTE matters.

I await an explanation of why relative cuts matter if the pay is the same in real terms, but I feel confident I won't get given it.

That should obviously say decrease, not increase.

Riddler,

‘If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims… ( 20/3)

But you couldn’t.

I did not ‘suddenly announce that [1] didn't really believe there had been an increase*.’ (20/3) Read my first post again. I have always said there was a relative pay cut.

(*Corrected as per your correction.)

I have not ‘conceded’ that ‘there was no actual cut, only a relative cut’. That is why I said on 6/2, ‘a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent’. From day one, I have said ‘relative’, so you really ought to stop pretending that I have ‘suddenly’ changed or that I have ‘conceded’ no real pay cut, given that I never claimed one in the first place.

It is not a ’falsehood’ that there is a connection between falling relative pay and falling teacher training entry scores.

You are right to feel confident that you won’t get another explanation of why relative pay matters. That tells me you understood my previous reply. After all, if you posted a number of falsehoods and expected a reply to the substantive point that you keep claiming you want to discuss, that would indicate that you did not understand what I had just said.

If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.

Your newest post is the lamest excuse you've used this thread, and I don't say that lightly. Either you're the least funny joke account of all time, or you're trying desperately to stall, and/or invent an excuse to get out of the argument. I suppose you "beat" most people by wearing them down, talking loudly, and stalling, but by this stage I guess you've realised those tried and true tactics won't work.

Your latest post refuses to explain why relative pay matters, or even to quote the part where you supposedly explained it already. This represents a new low for you.

I am likewise confused why you couldn't have explained why MAWOTE mattered already, why you need to create some set of conditions for my new post in the future, as opposed to just explaining now. Of course there isn't going to be an explanation given, just like we never got one for relative pay, because you're a lying weasel who just exhausted the last dregs of their credibility.

Feel free to bluster in your reply, but unless you can direct me to where you explained the reason relative pay mattered it probably won't be worth replying to. I'm glad I got the chance to argue with you, you remind everyone here of the values, intelligence and cause of the teacher's union, and why they will have to hold their gorge each time they think of their advocates.