91Èȱ¬

I think your regulars have already told you and the web editors, in their responses to the format change on other blogs that have already migrated, as well as here:
/blogs/theeditors/2011/05/our_next_step_in_news_blogging.html?postId=108713430

The new format is an effective method for silencing all debate.

What it will not do is fix the problems with our 'system' - shooting the messenger is always ineffective! The new format sets out to silence all debate.

If only house prices would fall as quickly as 91Èȱ¬ character counts.

Economics is a complex subject that often requires extended explanations.

A limit of 400 characters will probably reduce the quality of debate. That would be a shame.

I cannot understand the logic behind this decision - it seems utterly pointless!

400 characters? When you make stupid rules like this, people will just find ways around them. People will start using text talk like Twitter. C U L8R LMAO : (

Would now be a good time to ask for that pay rise because you have no idea how bad your pages look without the services of a really good window cleaner.

Stephanie,

91Èȱ¬ cut's eh, like giving your Dad half a piano, Good Luck.

It's all a matter of XPDNC.

Have been out of the UK for two long months, without you or Mr P, until a few hours ago...to return to a 400 character limitation on comment. This can hardly be ideal for an economics' blog.

Try 1000 characters instead Ms F...to allow for inflation.

My biggest problem with the new format is not my earnest endeavor to be pithy, but finding the right place to comment. 91Èȱ¬ must come up with some better system to tell the public where the bloggers have gone. I found Stephanopoulos yesterday under business, after I had checked a half dozen other places.
Please, it's bad enough being pithy, tell me where to put my pithiness.