On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.

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...

When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.