"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:

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.

But without knowing what the goals for the two years are, the change in
percentage is utterly meaningless.

which is what ive said all along.


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?

He's claiming that absolutely no meaningful inferences can be drawn from
that
datum, because the information is grossly incomplete.

Example: suppose that last year, the goal was to have 50K soldiers
re-enlist,
and actual re-enlistment was 53 K; now suppose that this year, the goal is
75K, and actual is 72K. Although actual re-enlistment *rose* by 36%,
the "percent of goal" declined from 106% to 96% -- which illustrates the
reason that comparing percentages of different values is meaningless,
without
knowing the actual values.

sure you cannot draw a meaningful conclusion. but you can draw a
conclusion. the one i began with. sigh. lets go back to the beginning:

"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 am not claiming this means more or less actual people. never did.

But you continue to argue as though it must mean *something* when, in the
absence of any additionaly information, it is in fact utterly meaningless.

doug, the information provided in that article means exactly one thing. as
measured by the percent of their goal, the rate is falling. thats what i
said, thats what im continuing to say and its true. they list the percent
for two different years, one is lower. between those years, it fell. thats
all it means. do you disagree?

what i keep arguing about is that you guys are putting words in my mouth.
see the problem here is that you are reading dave's snipped posts which give
the appearance im saying something i never said.

did i ever say it means the actual number of solidiers re-enlisting is
falling? no. in fact i stated the opposite : '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 '

did i ever say that you can draw any conclusions from the fact the % of
their goal is falling? no. in fact i specifically stated the opposite.
'no further comparasson can be made' is it that much of a stretch to get
you to agree that 'no further comparasson can be made' is basically the same
as saying 'the data is meaningless'?

so in short, back up your claims of what i have said with quotes please of
intact paragaraphs from posts that i made in this thread. i tried to get
dave to about 10 times and he wont. will you?

randy