"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:26:46 -0600, xrongor wrote:
I can't see the point.

duh

...in continuing to play word games with someone who uses the same
article to make their points, as they criticize another for using.

Nice creative snipping, by the way. I notice you completely ignored
the french fries analogy. Why would that be, Randy, because I called
you on it and you don't care to acknowledge same?

jeez, the irony is so thick here i cant stand it any more...
he dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot now does he.

but lets get back to the heart of it. what started it all:
me:
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.

dave:
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The
re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

me again:
i never said anything about the raw numbers. if it was 106% of their goal
one year, then 96 the next year, the conclusion to be drawn is that the
percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down, hence it is falling.
this what i said to begin with as you can see clearly in the paragraph above
as copied from my original post, and have continued to try and drum into
your head dave. i NEVER claimed the actual numbers were falling, or that
the article proved they were falling, and in fact pointed this out in the
next paragraph in my original post:

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.

do you see that dave? i said myself that the numbers are not pure and that
no further comparason can be made.

here's an analogy that is actually relevant:
todd: its sunny outside
randy: no its not, the article you provided doesnt not prove it is sunny.
dave: see randy, you cant prove its raining beacuse that article doesnt
prove it
randy: i never claimed it was raining, it might be snowing or hailing. its
just not sunny.
dave: yes you did
randy: no i didnt
repeat...

randy