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 96Can't reduce it, can't solve it. Meaningless to compare.
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
i knew i would lose you on this one.
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
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
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.
*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.Huh?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
why do you guys keep harping on me for assigning meaning to it when i didnt?
randy
randy responds:
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)
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
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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
which is why im not drawing any comparasion except to say the % of their goal has fallen. you have already conceded this point.
of course it is.
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 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
Conceded what? It's a meaningless comparison.
Then why do you insist on repeating it?
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'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.
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.
You can't even make *that* assumption. It's meaningless, because the goals may have changed, and you don't know what they are.
It doesn't even mean that. It doesn't mean anything at all.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.