Dave Hinz writes:

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_.


Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?

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

Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army.
In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army
were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with
U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note
Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming
under fire with any kind of regularity.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower