"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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.

so my statement isnt false. in fact its absolutely true according to the
article.. is it irrelevant? considering the article was used to show troop
re-enlistment is high, i think it is completely relevant. at best the ONLY
information you can get from the article at all is that its falling compared
to last years goal (which is exactly what i said, and considering the title
of the article and the numbers provided, it was clearly the point of the
article, do you hate the writer too?), and at worse, no information at all.
clearly there is no proof there that re-enlistment is high.

come on dave... the article was titled "iraq duty deters re-enlistment'

let's get your position clear. do you think the article provided proves
that troop re-enlistment is high? let down your guard for 1 minute and
answer honestly.

randy