"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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.

I NEVER SAID THIS!! show me where i said re-enlistment was going down.

lets get this straight. here is what i said:

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. 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.

i specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...

randy