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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.com...
In article om,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
lets replace the sentence % of their goal with the word apple
since
you've
accused me of comparing apples to oranges. you got it? the
phrase
"% of
their goal" shall be replaced by the word 'apple'. so to
rephrase,
the
article gives you the apple for one year, and gives you the apple
for
the
next year, and you cant say that the apple has gone down or is
falling?

Your paraphrase conceals the problem, because it obscures the fact
that
the
goals themselves, and any change in them from one year to the next,
are
not
known. Let's stick with the original phrasing, please.

i knew i would lose you on this one.

No, Randy, you're the one that got lost. If you truly don't see that
your
paraphrase omitted a significant aspect of the situation, then there
is
no
point in discussing this any further, because you simply don't grasp
principles of logic well enough to debate the point.

Hint: your paraphrase omits the fact that it is not known whether this
year's
apples are the same variety or size as last year's apples, and by that
omission implies that they are the same. They may be, they may not be,
but
if
this is not known the comparison is meaningless, and thus, to most
people,
pointless as well.

and you accuse me of not having logic... the apple is the % of their
goal.

But it's not the same "apple" from one year to the next. So any comparison
between them is meaningless.

which is why im not drawing any comparasion except to say the % of their
goal has fallen. you have already conceded this point.


you are the one who keeps trying to toss the orange in there and saying
im
drawing some other conclusion based on it. my analogy stands quite well.

*You* are the one who tossed the orange in here, by making a comparison
between two different things. I never said you were trying to draw any
kind of
conclusion from the comparison, I only pointed out that the comparison is
utterly meaningless.

of course it is.


And your analogy is fatally flawed, as I have pointed out, because it uses
the
same name for things being compared, which are *not* the same. If you are
unable to see this, there is no point in further discussion.

what comparison am i making (please quote me) except to say that the %
of
their goal fell? where is the orange?

That *is* the comparison: saying "that the % of their goal fell" implies a
comparison to whatever it fell from.

no it doesnt. i think ive made this clear. this is the leap you are all
making that i do not agree with. it doesnt imply anything except that if
you compare the percentages, one is lower than the other, hence has fallen.

The orange is that the goal one year, and
the goal the next year, may or may not be the same, and thus comparisons
of
the percentages of the (possibly different) goals are without meaning.

the comparason of the percentages is meaningless except to say one is lower
than the other. i thought we were past this. this has been my point all
along. i NEVER claimed otherwise. others claimed i did and that is what i
have taken exception to.

todd had made the claim he used the article to provide the proof of his
claim that enlistment is high. that was todd. not me. i have specifically
stated several times that while the statement "the percent of their goal is
falling" is true, you cannot make any further assumptions. the irony here
is that you are using the same agruments i have made to show why todd
couldnt prove re-enlistment is up, to show that i cant prove its something
else. i never ever claimed it meant anything except that the percentages of
their goal were falling.

so in short, it sounds like we agree.

randy