On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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.

You don't know the _VALUE_ of the variable. FFS, Randy, it's all
word-games with you, isn't it.

just to be clear dave, are you disagreeing with the statement 'the
percentage of their enlistment goal has gone down?

I'm not disagreeing with anything, Randy. You're completely right,
about everything. Your words are unambiguous, your intentions are
completely pure, and you're free to have the last word. You win,
O wise and glorious Randy. Gosh, I'm so impressed by your wisdom.

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.

Missing a sales goal is equivalent to the 106% vs. 96%. Farmer income
is equivalent to the hard number which is re-enlistment rate. Got
it now? It's not really that tough, Randy. Two different things.

I'm sure you have a really good response to all this, but I won't
see it. Go ahead and crow about how I couldn't handle you or
whatever, you probably can't help yourself. plonk