On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?

The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.

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

all i said is the % is falling. this is true.

The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.

and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...

Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.

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

Nor is it proof that it's falling.

so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.

And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?

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

the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'

Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?