On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:17:14 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:


The first link was about a draft, written by a former AF 1st Sgt., who
served his entire time in the volunteer military. Given that combination,
I'm not at all sure he's the best source for an opinion stating the draft
will never come back. He can't see how it would be done, but, then, he
doesn't appear to know how it WAS done for upwards of 30 years. When it
comes back, expect the same screw-ups and dissatisfactions and complaints,
tripled, because women will now be included.

I think it boils down to the fact that we have as many people in the
military as the budgeteers (congress and senate) are willing to support.
And if more are needed, there are enough volunteers available without
reinstating the draft unless we're going to double or triple the size of
our military.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

Doug Winterburn responds:

The first link was about a draft, written by a former AF 1st Sgt., who
served his entire time in the volunteer military. Given that combination,
I'm not at all sure he's the best source for an opinion stating the draft
will never come back. He can't see how it would be done, but, then, he
doesn't appear to know how it WAS done for upwards of 30 years. When it
comes back, expect the same screw-ups and dissatisfactions and complaints,
tripled, because women will now be included.

I think it boils down to the fact that we have as many people in the
military as the budgeteers (congress and senate) are willing to support.
And if more are needed, there are enough volunteers available without
reinstating the draft unless we're going to double or triple the size of
our military.

From what I've read, some major increase in size is both necessary and
justified. We have troops scattered all around the world, in not spots, warm
spots and chilly spots. Some of those troops have been in place for over a
year, and some are being returned for a second year, with no indication of when
the rotations might be over. This kind of thing was semi-acceptable during
WWII, when draftees were signed up for the duration plus six months, but in
today's more truculent society, it isn't working all that well. Again, from
what I read.

The obvious cure is the simplest, and it is expensive: more troops. That's not
to necessarily put more troops on the ground in various hot spots, but it is to
put different troops on the ground, giving those who have been there, done that
and worn the T shirt something more than 8 or 10 or 12 weeks as a reprieve.

Congress may or may not approve more money for such a step, but sooner or
later, constantly rotating people into situations where they may get killed is
going to affect morale much worse than it already has. When that happens, you
end up with a de facto draft anyway--which we have at least in part now, with
retention of people who were on their way out, and by calling up inactive
reservists. It's only a short step to a draft, which is probably going to be
accompanied by a slowing of pay raises, slower promotion, etc. as beginning
cost cutting measures.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:26:46 -0600, xrongor wrote:
I can't see the point.

duh

...in continuing to play word games with someone who uses the same
article to make their points, as they criticize another for using.

Nice creative snipping, by the way. I notice you completely ignored
the french fries analogy. Why would that be, Randy, because I called
you on it and you don't care to acknowledge same?

jeez, the irony is so thick here i cant stand it any more...
he dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot now does he.

but lets get back to the heart of it. what started it all:
me:
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.

dave:
Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones. The
re-enlistment
goal last year could have been 50% of the people, and this year the
goal may be 100%. The actual reenlistment rates compared to meeting or
missing the goal tell you exactly nothing about the actual numbers.

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.
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:

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.

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

here's an analogy that is actually relevant:
todd: its sunny outside
randy: no its not, the article you provided doesnt not prove it is sunny.
dave: see randy, you cant prove its raining beacuse that article doesnt
prove it
randy: i never claimed it was raining, it might be snowing or hailing. its
just not sunny.
dave: yes you did
randy: no i didnt
repeat...

randy

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?

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.

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.

"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

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

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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.

snippy dave again. snips what he doesnt like or cant understand.

i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill
assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you
are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i
NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that
re-enlistment was high.

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

ploink or not, i know youll google it. you never answered my questions.
your fundamental premise has been that i claimed the numbers showed the
re-enlistment rates were falling. i never claimed that and you couldnt show
me where i did. you have judiciously snipped my posts to alter reality.
this one included.

no steak for you man...

randy

I think you are both off on looking at the numbers and USA Today is
hardly a source worthy of credibility on the subject.
Listen, after 18 years in the military I've heard numbers and percentages
every year and it comes down to this:
Numbers go up and down on recruitment and re-enlistment ALL THE TIME.
The biggest short falls in these areas during my tenure occurred during
times of
relative peace. But it really occurs in cycles. Sometimes we recruit and
re-enlist more than what the speculated need is and some times we fall
short.
( I have yet to see us hit it right on the nose).
Then 20 years later (the time in for retirement eligibility) you see an
exodus
reflecting those short falls or excesses. Falling 4% below need or getting
6%
more than expected is hardly cause for concern. Judging the military's
morale
based on these numbers is naive to say the least and silly to be more
accurate.
During times of shortfalls we offer incentives to stay in and during times
of excess
we offer incentives to get out, and in between that we do whatever necessary
to keep the level of manning where congress wants it (i.e. adjusting for
force reductions
or expansions). Right now the trend is a reduction in the active duty
forces and
an increase on the role of the reserve forces. Even with all that is going
on
right now, all branches are looking at force reduction in most areas.


"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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.

snippy dave again. snips what he doesnt like or cant understand.

i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill
assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you
are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i
NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that
re-enlistment was high.

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

ploink or not, i know youll google it. you never answered my questions.
your fundamental premise has been that i claimed the numbers showed the
re-enlistment rates were falling. i never claimed that and you couldnt
show
me where i did. you have judiciously snipped my posts to alter reality.
this one included.

no steak for you man...

randy

I think you are both off on looking at the numbers and USA Today is
hardly a source worthy of credibility on the subject.
Listen, after 18 years in the military I've heard numbers and percentages
every year and it comes down to this:
Numbers go up and down on recruitment and re-enlistment ALL THE TIME.
The biggest short falls in these areas during my tenure occurred during
times of
relative peace. But it really occurs in cycles. Sometimes we recruit and
re-enlist more than what the speculated need is and some times we fall
short.
( I have yet to see us hit it right on the nose).
Then 20 years later (the time in for retirement eligibility) you see an
exodus
reflecting those short falls or excesses. Falling 4% below need or getting
6%
more than expected is hardly cause for concern. Judging the military's
morale
based on these numbers is naive to say the least and silly to be more
accurate.
During times of shortfalls we offer incentives to stay in and during times
of excess
we offer incentives to get out, and in between that we do whatever necessary
to keep the level of manning where congress wants it (i.e. adjusting for
force reductions
or expansions). Right now the trend is a reduction in the active duty
forces and
an increase on the role of the reserve forces. Even with all that is going
on
right now, all branches are looking at force reduction in most areas.


"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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.

snippy dave again. snips what he doesnt like or cant understand.

i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill
assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you
are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i
NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that
re-enlistment was high.

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

ploink or not, i know youll google it. you never answered my questions.
your fundamental premise has been that i claimed the numbers showed the
re-enlistment rates were falling. i never claimed that and you couldnt
show
me where i did. you have judiciously snipped my posts to alter reality.
this one included.

no steak for you man...

randy

"xrongor" wrote:

this was started in a thread called 'one last time' and will be finished
here in this one.

in a different thread, todd fatheree has made the claim that us soldiers are
re-enlisting in the army at a 'high' rate.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, but I've heard this
mis-statistic quoted to suggest that military retention and
recruitment is up, or that military morale is high.

I think our troops deserve our respect for the fine job they are
doing. But anyone who follows the news or has relatives on active
duty (as I do) would know that there is a broad stop-loss in effect
for most of the military, and that recalls have even been issued for
recently retired IRR military. The reason stop-loss and recall orders
are issued is obvious: more troops are needed than are currently
available by normal means.

Regardless of political viewpoint, people should understand that our
regular military, reserves, and guard are stretched very thin.

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.

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.

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.

--
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.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

i know what i said. i said the % had dropped. you dont disagree so ill
assume you agree with that point. its you that plays the word games. you
are trying to claim i am using that to prove re-enlistment went down. i
NEVER made such a claim. i only said that it was not proof that
re-enlistment was high.

It's not proof of _anything_at_all_. Can't you understand that?

--
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.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:32:08 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
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.

Of course it is, but he's gonna go off on you now about "That's not what
I mean" while repeating it.

I predict it'll be the same circular stuff he gave me, but I'll only
see your posts so it might actually be entertaining this time.

Dave Hinz

"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

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.

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.


can we agree that this is the crux of the disagreement? that you think that
my comparing the %ages of their goal from two different years means
absolutely nothing and i think it means that the percentage of their goal is
falling? all else seems to come from this from what i can tell...

if not, what is the crux of the issue?

randy

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.


can we agree that this is the crux of the disagreement? that you think that
my comparing the %ages of their goal from two different years means
absolutely nothing and i think it means that the percentage of their goal is
falling? all else seems to come from this from what i can tell...

Pretty close, anyway...

if not, what is the crux of the issue?

If I might put it in a nutshell, the crux of the issue is your failure to
comprehend that the comparison is meaningless, because the crucial data
required to put it in context is missing.

--
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.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
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.


can we agree that this is the crux of the disagreement? that you think
that
my comparing the %ages of their goal from two different years means
absolutely nothing and i think it means that the percentage of their goal
is
falling? all else seems to come from this from what i can tell...

Pretty close, anyway...

if not, what is the crux of the issue?

If I might put it in a nutshell, the crux of the issue is your failure to
comprehend that the comparison is meaningless, because the crucial data
required to put it in context is missing.

im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of the two
years is meaningless?

the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different years. we
agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can agree
that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?

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?

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not actual
numbers.

randy

In article , "xrongor" wrote:
im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of the two
years is meaningless?

Yes. I think I said that before.

the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different years. we
agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can agree
that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?

Yes.

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.

The incomplete numbers equally well support _both_ of these statements:

a) the percentage of goal achievement is falling
b) the goal itself is rising

and hence it is not possible to derive _any_ meaningful conclusion, in the
absence of further data.

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

--
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.

Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let all this
die, because it is essentially meaningless (because the statistic is
meaningless and mildly misleading and was probably intended to be so).

Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)

On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:
Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let all this
die,

Well, the OP hasn't continued with it for a week as Fred has.

This is solving an equation with two variables. R1 is last year's
reenlistment number, R2 is this year's. Unsolvable mathematically, look:

R1 R2
--- ? ---
106 96

Can't reduce it, can't solve it. Meaningless to compare.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self
wrote:
Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

yes i know it doesnt. ive tried for 10 posts to get you to admit that the %
is falling. by saying 'so what' you appear to concede this point to me.
yes it is TOTALLY accurate to say the % is falling. and yes it is TOTALLY
accurate to say you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

do you see?

now dave. what did i ever claim it meant except that it was NOT proof that
enlistment was rising? please provide the sentence where i said 'because
the % is falling i can conclude xxxxx"

randy

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:
im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of the
two
years is meaningless?

Yes. I think I said that before.

the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different years.
we
agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can
agree
that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?

Yes.

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.


The incomplete numbers equally well support _both_ of these statements:

a) the percentage of goal achievement is falling
b) the goal itself is rising

and hence it is not possible to derive _any_ meaningful conclusion, in the
absence of further data.

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

the term 'so what' implies that you agree. the only claim i made was that
the percent is falling.

here is where your logic breaks down.

what did i ever claim it meant? please quote me and tell me where i ever
drew a conclusion that said something like 'because the % is falling this
must be true...."

randy

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let all
this
die, because it is essentially meaningless (because the statistic is
meaningless and mildly misleading and was probably intended to be so).

i did not make similiar claims. todd claimed the article was proof
re-enlistment was 'high'. i think ive made it pretty clear i wasnt making
ANY claims except the % of their goal was falling and that the article did
not provide proof of todd's claim.

randy


Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares
that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:
im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of the
two
years is meaningless?

Yes. I think I said that before.

the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different years.
we
agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can
agree
that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?

Yes.

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.


The incomplete numbers equally well support _both_ of these statements:

a) the percentage of goal achievement is falling
b) the goal itself is rising

and hence it is not possible to derive _any_ meaningful conclusion, in the
absence of further data.

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

the term 'so what' implies that you agree. the only claim i made was that
the percent is falling.

*Here* is where you lose me: I must confess I don't see the purpose in your
continuing to cite a figure that you now appear to agree is meaningless.

here is where your logic breaks down.

Huh?

what did i ever claim it meant? please quote me and tell me where i ever
drew a conclusion that said something like 'because the % is falling this
must be true...."

Silly me, I guess I just assumed that because you keep repeating it, you must
think it means _something_. Now I'm wondering why you keep repeating
something that you know doesn't mean anything.

--
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.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self
wrote:
Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

yes i know it doesnt. ive tried for 10 posts to get you to admit that the %
is falling. by saying 'so what' you appear to concede this point to me.
yes it is TOTALLY accurate to say the % is falling. and yes it is TOTALLY
accurate to say you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

do you see?

What I *don't* see is why you keep repeating a figure that you now admit is
without foundation for drawing any conclusions. If it's meaningless, why do
you keep harping on it?

--
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.

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.

--
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.

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "xrongor"
wrote:
im trying to get this really clear. you are saying my comparison of
the
two
years is meaningless?

Yes. I think I said that before.

the article gives you the percent of their goal for two different
years.
we
agree on this? lets not get into what it means yet, just that we can
agree
that the article provides those numbers. can we do that?

Yes.

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.

you know this isnt true. you've just jumped in a hole defending your
position and cant get out gracefully. its ok. i understand. stick to your
guns.



The incomplete numbers equally well support _both_ of these statements:

a) the percentage of goal achievement is falling
b) the goal itself is rising

and hence it is not possible to derive _any_ meaningful conclusion, in
the
absence of further data.

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

the term 'so what' implies that you agree. the only claim i made was
that
the percent is falling.

*Here* is where you lose me: I must confess I don't see the purpose in
your
continuing to cite a figure that you now appear to agree is meaningless.

here is where your logic breaks down.

Huh?

what did i ever claim it meant? please quote me and tell me where i ever
drew a conclusion that said something like 'because the % is falling this
must be true...."

Silly me, I guess I just assumed that because you keep repeating it, you
must
think it means _something_. Now I'm wondering why you keep repeating
something that you know doesn't mean anything.

why did you/people keep accusing me of assigning meaning to it? ive been
wondering that for like 4 days now...

if that stops, i will stop. if it continues, i will continue. im not
driving this thing, im just stopping you guys from assigning false
statements to me.

randy

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

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self
wrote:
Doug Miller respons:

because that is the only claim i made. the PERCENT is falling, not
actual
numbers.

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

yes i know it doesnt. ive tried for 10 posts to get you to admit that
the %
is falling. by saying 'so what' you appear to concede this point to me.
yes it is TOTALLY accurate to say the % is falling. and yes it is
TOTALLY
accurate to say you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

do you see?

What I *don't* see is why you keep repeating a figure that you now admit
is
without foundation for drawing any conclusions. If it's meaningless, why
do
you keep harping on it?

why do you guys keep harping on me for assigning meaning to it when i didnt?

randy

randy responds:

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let all
this
die, because it is essentially meaningless (because the statistic is
meaningless and mildly misleading and was probably intended to be so).

i did not make similiar claims. todd claimed the article was proof
re-enlistment was 'high'. i think ive made it pretty clear i wasnt making
ANY claims except the % of their goal was falling and that the article did
not provide proof of todd's claim.

And you're arguing continuously over a meaningless stat in a meaningless
manner. I hoped there would be some sense interjected here by someone, but,
obviously, that hope is forlorn. The thread dies for me right now.

Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
randy responds:

SO WHAT?? That doesn't mean a damn thing, unless you know what it's a
percentage OF. And you don't.

Yabbut, the OP made similar claims. Jump him, too. Or, better yet, let
all
this
die, because it is essentially meaningless (because the statistic is
meaningless and mildly misleading and was probably intended to be so).

i did not make similiar claims. todd claimed the article was proof
re-enlistment was 'high'. i think ive made it pretty clear i wasnt
making
ANY claims except the % of their goal was falling and that the article
did
not provide proof of todd's claim.

And you're arguing continuously over a meaningless stat in a meaningless
manner. I hoped there would be some sense interjected here by someone,
but,
obviously, that hope is forlorn. The thread dies for me right now.

no, i am arguing that people are claiming i said something i didnt. if you
think im arguing anything else you have missed the point. but hey. you're
not alone.

randy

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.

jeez you wonder why i keep repeating myself.

hint: this is what i said in the original post:

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.

although i did spell comparison wrong i think i made it pretty clear.

randy

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.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.
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.

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

randy

In article , "xrongor" wrote:
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.

jeez you wonder why i keep repeating myself.

hint: this is what i said in the original post:

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.

Even the *initial* comparison is meaningless, as you have already admitted,
which leaves one wondering why you keep repeating it.

--
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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

--
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.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.com...

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.

you know this isnt true. you've just jumped in a hole defending your
position and cant get out gracefully. its ok. i understand. stick to your
guns.

I've already explained the fatal flaws in your analogy at least twice, and I
won't repeat them here.

--
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.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

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


[...] and yes it is TOTALLY
accurate to say you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

do you see?

What I *don't* see is why you keep repeating a figure that you now admit
is
without foundation for drawing any conclusions. If it's meaningless, why
do
you keep harping on it?

why do you guys keep harping on me for assigning meaning to it when i didnt?

Why do you keep repeating something that you admit [see above] is meaningless?

--
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.

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
And you're arguing continuously over a meaningless stat in a meaningless
manner. I hoped there would be some sense interjected here by someone,
but,
obviously, that hope is forlorn. The thread dies for me right now.

no, i am arguing that people are claiming i said something i didnt.

If that's what you're arguing, then you need to go back and re-read the posts
as many times as needed, until you understand what the argument is about.

if you
think im arguing anything else you have missed the point. but hey. you're
not alone.

That's true enough: you have consistently missed the point throughout the
entire thread.

--
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.

"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

In article , "xrongor" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

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.

Conceded what? It's a meaningless comparison.


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.

Then why do you insist on repeating it?


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'm afraid the discussion must end for me at this point. I see no purpose in
continuing a debate with a person who is unable or unwilling to see the
comparison implicit in that statement.

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.

I'll try one last time: since you do not know what the raw numbers are,
comparing the percentages is of no value, and any statements about the
differences in those percentages have no meaning.

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.

You still haven't caught on, have you? It's not "meaningless except...", it's
meaningless, period. "To say one is lower than the other" is meaningless,
because you don't know what you're comparing.

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.

You can't even make *that* assumption. It's meaningless, because the goals may
have changed, and you don't know what they are.

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.

It doesn't even mean that. It doesn't mean anything at all.

so in short, it sounds like we agree.

I don't think so... You seem to think there's some meaning in that comparison.

--
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.