In article , "xrongor" wrote:

doug, the information provided in that article means exactly one thing. as
measured by the percent of their goal, the rate is falling.

Wrong -- it doesn't mean a damn thing, because it's comparing apples and
oranges. It doesn't state what the goal is this year, or what it was last
year, so any comparison of the rates of meeting those goals is completely
without meaning at all. It doesn't measure anything, and it doesn't mean
anything. Nothing. You can draw _no_ conclusions at all, because the data is
incomplete.

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?

Yes, I do disagree -- you think that means something (not clear what, but you
obviously think it's meaningful in some respect), and in fact it does not mean
anything at all.

what i keep arguing about is that you guys are putting words in my mouth.

Nobody's putting words in your mouth.

see the problem here is that you are reading dave's snipped posts which give
the appearance im saying something i never said.

Incorrect assumption. I have read everything you've posted in this thread.

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 '

Yet you continue to cite this as though it actually meant something. It
doesn't.

did i ever say that you can draw any conclusions from the fact the % of
their goal is falling? no.

In fact, the figures provided don't even support _that_ conclusion. Unless you
know what the actual goals were, you can't draw _any_ meaningful conclusions
from the percent-of-achievement figures.

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'?

Never mind "further comparassons [sic]" -- I'm telling you that the _initial_
comparison 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?

I have nothing to "back up", Randy. I never made any claims that you said, or
didn't say, any particular thing. The _entire_ substance of my participation
in this thread has been to attempt to show to you that the figures you cited,
and any comparisons between them, are meaningless, because the data is
incomplete.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.