"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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

because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored
the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you
wouldnt...

The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.

todd specifically issued me a challenge. the challenge was that he could
prove re-enlistment was high. the only thing i am accusing him of is not
being able to prove it.


he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article
he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.

Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless.

well it has become pointless g

but he said he could prove it. i dont see the proof to back up his
statement. neither do you.

randy