"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:12:00 -0600, xrongor wrote:

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.

Falling relative to an unknown variable, is meaningless. Can you at least
see that?

the variable i am referring to is not unknown. the variable reffered to in
this statement is the % of their goal. we know that variable in both
situations and it went down from one year to the next.

just to be clear dave, are you disagreeing with the statement 'the
percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down?
are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate
term?

i am not claiming this means more or less actual people. never did. in
fact i think i this it very clear. lets see what happens when i put back in
what you snipped:

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.

what part of that statement is unclear to you?


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:

So why would you bring up McDonalds french fry sales goal performance
when the topic is Idaho farmer income? From here, it looks like you
are bringing up an irrelevant measurement to distort the issue.

i really have no idea what basis you are using to draw this conclusion.
this is all in your head.


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

And yet you keep making it.

no dave, you just keep accusing me of it.

if there is anything else to be said, please answer these questions:

are you disagreeing with the statement 'the percentage of their enlistment
goal has gone down?
are you claiming that even if it did 'go down' that falling is an inaccurate
term?
what part of the statement 'no further comparassons can be made' is unclear?
do you think the article supports todds case that re-enlistment rates are
high?

randy