On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:
this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

Yes, we saw it.

yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.

I'm guessing "tapdancing".

but lets move on. the 96% number is not a pure number. it doesnt mean 96%
of the soldiers re-signed their papers, it means only 96% of their goal was
met. as compared to 106% the year before. so when compared to their
re-enlistment goal, its falling.

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

the article makes no mention of what the
actual number of troops the 106% represented nor does it provide any numbers
for the rate during other wars/situations so no further comparasson can be
made.

It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.

todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short
of their goal.

....which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.

i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.

Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.

Dave Hinz