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.
this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
"I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA Today
story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96% fall
into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-15-iraq-troops_x.htm. The
story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year before,
but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they would
be reenlisting at that rate."
yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip
off right there.
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.
todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were
re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short
of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
proof that re-enlistment is high.
todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to defend
my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the answer
is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd backing
up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing up
my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to convince
todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
sorry todd. im not taking your bait.
and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you are
about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if you
want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your other
thing true.
i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
re-enlistment.
do what you have to do...
randy
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
> >> anything, Randy?
> >
> > because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored
the
> > numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you
wouldnt...
>
> The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
> basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
> thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
todd specifically issued me a challenge. the challenge was that he could
prove re-enlistment was high. the only thing i am accusing him of is not
being able to prove it.
>
> > he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article
he
> > provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.
>
> Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
> This has become circular and pointless.
well it has become pointless <g>
but he said he could prove it. i dont see the proof to back up his
statement. neither do you.
randy
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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.
Yes, we saw it.
> yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.
I'm guessing "tapdancing".
> 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.
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.
> 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.
It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.
> todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
> they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers were
> re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell short
> of their goal.
...which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
stop-loss order.
> i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
> proof that re-enlistment is high.
Nor is it proof that it's falling.
> i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
> evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
> re-enlistment.
Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.
>
> so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
> he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
> numbers?
The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.
>> It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
>> based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.
>
> all i said is the % is falling. this is true.
The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.
> and yes i agree. the
> numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
> CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...
Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.
>> > i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
>> > proof that re-enlistment is high.
>>
>> Nor is it proof that it's falling.
>
> so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
> meaningless.
And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?
>> Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
>> numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.
>
> the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
> hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
> you...'
Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
anything, Randy?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:49:22 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
>> anything, Randy?
>
> because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
> numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...
The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
> he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
> provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.
Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
This has become circular and pointless.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
snipped
> Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer
> Army.
> In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army
> were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with
> U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note
> Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming
> under fire with any kind of regularity.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
> D. Eisenhower
Although the vast majority of the Navy is not under direct fire there
is some evidence that the extended. and more often deployments, and
more back to back sea tours is effecting USN retention. Part of this is
the experiment of not bringing ships home but leaving them deployed
then swapping the whole crew out in an overseas location. On the plus
side it keeps an asset in theater much longer by cutting off the month
transit time on each side but it cuts down on port calls and makes the
crew do more in depth maintence on the ship.
A significant reason for me getting of active duty was getting married
and looking at the previous three years I had been gone 150 days year
one, 210 year two and 270 year three. Of course, in my 9 years in the
Naval Reserve I got recalled for Bosnia, Kosovo, three trip to Northern
Watch and one to Southern watch but such was the bureden for getting to
fly a high demand low density asset.
Allen
Catonsville, MD
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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.
Dave Hinz writes:
>> because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
>> numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...
>
>The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
>basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
>thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
>
Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?
>> he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
>> provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.
>
>Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
>This has become circular and pointless
Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army.
In fact, without the draft in earlier years, reenlistment rates for the Army
were generally not great. More meaningful comparisons might be made with
U.S.M.C. and Air Force reenlistment rates at the current time. I don't note
Navy here because, in general, enlisted personnel in the Navy aren't coming
under fire with any kind of regularity.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
> ><[email protected]> 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
On 14 Jul 2004 21:18:28 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz writes:
>
>>The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
>>basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
>>thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
>
> Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?
Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.
>>Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
>>This has become circular and pointless
>
> Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the all-volunteer Army.
Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling
into the wind.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:53:13 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?
>
> dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment
> rates were low (which i never did),
Now wait just a second here. I said that you bringing this up when we
were talking about enlistment rates was, what were the words, "irrelevant
at best and disingenous at worst" I think. It's like seeing this:
Todd: "Idaho farmers claim that potato sales are doing well."
Randy: "But McDonalds has missed their french fry sales goal this year, but
beat it last year".
Why bring up french fry sales goal performance in the context of potato
sales, if not to try to argue against the original statement?
> and used the exact same arguments i made
> to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then
> he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im
> picking on a slow child or something...
There ya go, go for the personal attack, that always helps your cause.
> as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap
> my way around it.
Riiiiight. Counter a statement with a fuzzy response, and _I_ am the
one spewing garbage when I call you on it.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:06:07 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.
>
> is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i
> brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it.
FFS, Randy, "quoted it" rather than "cited it" then?
Seems it's always word-games with you, Randy. I can't see the point.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:26:46 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:12:00 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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>
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:32:08 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:42:10 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 danced the same dance with him last week, Doug. He'll keep going
until you stop. Just another line (4, actually, but who's counting)
in the killfile now.
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
><[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >> 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
>
> >
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:e%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (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.
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >> 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
>
> >
>
>
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> 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
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (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
> >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
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 14 Jul 2004 21:18:28 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Dave Hinz writes:
> >
> >>The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
> >>basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
> >>thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
> >
> > Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?
>
> Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.
is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i
brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it. i simply
carried it over to this thread. it was his 'proof' that enlistment rates
went down. i know you read the other thread because of your tap dancing
references. did you simply forget or are you being purposefully obtuse?
>
> >>Nope, nor are they proof that the re-enlistment rate is going down.
> >>This has become circular and pointless
> >
> > Reenlistment rates havwe always bounced around a lot in the
all-volunteer Army.
>
> Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling
> into the wind.
duh
randy
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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)
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
>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.
On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> 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.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
> >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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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)
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)
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
><[email protected]> 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.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 20 Jul 2004 12:31:39 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
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
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:26:46 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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.
In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:12:00 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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
> 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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz writes:
>
> >> because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored
the
> >> numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you
wouldnt...
> >
> >The only reason I'm "attacking" you is because you're accusing Todd of
> >basing statements on meaningless data, while doing _exactly the same
> >thing_ with _exactly the same meaningless data_.
> >
>
> Then why didn' t you call Todd down for the same offense?
dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment
rates were low (which i never did), and used the exact same arguments i made
to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then
he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im
picking on a slow child or something...
as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap
my way around it.
so anyway. i dont know who im trying to convince.
randy
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> 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
>
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:e%[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] (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 <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, "xrongor" <[email protected]> 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.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >> Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.
>
> lets get this straight. here is what i said:
>
> 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 specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
> you saying thats not true? probably...
When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:16:41 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
> because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
> face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
> that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
> say if they use a nice font.
While I'm the last person to post a grammar, speeling, or punctuation flame,
I must say that it doesn't make your message more likely to convince
anyone if you can't be bothered to at least attempt to get those right.
Hard to tell if the writer is ignorant, or just careless, but either way
it doesn't add anything to the effectiveness.
Before you jump all over me for this, I've more than several times
said the same sort of thing to people I agree with - "You're not helping
our cause with that sort of message" kind of posts.
> im not going to change the way ive
> posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
> respectability.
Your choice, of course. The reader's choice on how to interpret the
lack of whatever, of course.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we
would
> > all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
> fresh
> > aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics <g>
> >
> > peace.
> >
> > randy
>
> Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
> garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)
ill put little green wigs on the asparagas. you wont notice the difference
<g>
but seriously. its easy to get caught up in internet arguments, but the
forum isnt very good for extended discussion, and what takes 10 pages to try
and make clear so nobody is misunderstanding each other would probably take
1 minute in real life. i dont hate you, and i hope you dont hate me. we
just dont agree about iraq. and we arent alone... i certainly dont have
all the answers.
ok ok. ill get the brocoli, but it will have to be from the store!
ttyl
randy
Well, not to diminish their efforts, but becoming a rifleman is hardly a
career choice. It's a young, single man's field.
Promotions and bonuses tied to the "needs of the service" are used to
overcome shortages in the skilled fields, as well as lowering the testing
threshold for entry into them. This almost guarantees an ebb and flow as
incentives fill a field at a certain level, then shed personnel at the next
level because it is overmanned. The service has an up or out policy which
denies reenlistment to those who fail promotion, even though it will not
promote unless the position exists.
Add the outside world into the equation, and it becomes even more
complicated.
Then there are the purely bone-headed policies which drive people out. One
of the best co-pilots I even had was an EE by training. As the end of his
commitment approached, the Air Force was offering bonuses for EEs, since
there was a shortage. Long story short, the wings he wore were more
important than the "needs" of the service. With no shortage of UPT grads to
take his place, he could not work in his preferred field, but left the
service. Even happened to a navigator I flew with. All he wanted to do was
change aircraft, not "waste his expensive training."
I, for one, am amazed at the levels they're able to maintain with long
unaccompanied tours and more in the offing.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > Yet another:
> >
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm>
>
> ...and a few counters:
>
> <http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm>
> <http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm>
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) [email protected] (xrongor) puts
out:
<snip of a bunch of stuff, mostly speculation it would seem, that I'm
totally ignoring> for starters the title of the article is: 'iraq duty
deters re-enlistment'. this should be the tip off right there. <snip>
Dunno about that. I reenlisted just before I voluntered for Nam.
In fact, might have reenlisted to volunteer, don't really recall. All
of the people I had deep respect for had been, at least once, some
twice, and several were going back, for second, or third tours. They
thought pretty highly of me, so seemed like the proper thing to do at
the time. Found out it was a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want
to live there. I would suspect the reasons for a lot of the present
day reenlistments are for similar reasons. It's always nice to to get
out of the house for a bit.
JOAT
We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> for the record, im sure you are all fine people and in real life we would
> all have a gas. hell i'd even cook todd up a nice rib steak and some
fresh
> aspharagas from the garden. and we wouldnt talk about politics <g>
>
> peace.
>
> randy
Can we skip the asparagus? I don't suppose there is any broccoli in that
garden? If you get the charcoal going, I'll bring the steaks. ;-)
todd
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) [email protected] (xrongor) puts
out:
<snip> claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting <snip>
OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?
Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.
JOAT
We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Yet another:
>> <http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm>
>
>...and a few counters:
>
><http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm>
><http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm>
>
These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about
soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).
scott
"xrongor" <[email protected]> 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.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
> >
> > this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
> > "I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
> Today
> > story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
> fall
> > into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-15-iraq-troops_x.htm.
The
> > story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
> before,
> > but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
> > number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
> would
> > be reenlisting at that rate."
> >
> >
> > yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the
title
> > of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
> tip
> > off right there.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
> find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
> right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
> So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
> percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
> number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
> the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.
>
> > todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not
think
> > they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
> were
> > re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
> short
> > of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
> isnt
> > proof that re-enlistment is high.
> >
> > todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
> defend
> > my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
> answer
> > is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
> backing
> > up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me
backing
> up
> > my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
> convince
> > todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
> > sorry todd. im not taking your bait.
>
> Translation: I don't have any basis for my argument, but that won't stop
me
> from shooting off.
>
> > and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion
is
> > the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
> are
> > about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
> you
> > want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
> > issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
> other
> > thing true.
>
> You're the one who supports a near-immediate pullout and tells us you know
> more than anyone in a position of authority on the subject. I'm just
trying
> to find out if you're just blowing smoke up everyone's keister (or is it
> "kiester"?) or if you really know what that will mean on the ground.
>
> todd
todd, you have nothing to say. you started with very high re-enlistment, it
fell down to only high, and you havent made your case at all.
goodbye.
randy
I can't speak for the Army and what their personnel force is at or headed,
but the Navy has just released a message allowing personnel to exit the
service 12 months early due to overmanning concerns. What was really
unusual about this message was that there were very few restrictions placed
on any of the Navy "ratings", just about any and all could be eligible.
Re-enlistment is up, recruiting up, reserve requests to convert to active is
up
(which has all led to promotion rates dropping) and a need to let some
people
go. But like I said this is the Navy not the Army.
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
> "I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
> story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
> into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-15-iraq-troops_x.htm. The
> story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
> but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
> number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
> be reenlisting at that rate."
>
>
> yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
> of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
> off right there.
>
> 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.
>
> todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
> they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
> re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
> of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
> proof that re-enlistment is high.
>
> todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
> my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
> is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
> up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing
up
> my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
> todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
> sorry todd. im not taking your bait.
>
> and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
> the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
> about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
> want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
> issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
> thing true.
>
> i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
> evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
> re-enlistment.
>
> do what you have to do...
>
> randy
>
>
>
call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight
because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets
face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then
that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to
say if they use a nice font. then we have to make letterheads and fancy
sigs to promote our image of worthiness. im not going to change the way ive
posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of
respectability.
that said, you're probably right <g>
randy
"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor" <[email protected]>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
> your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)
>
> >to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make
sure
> >to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
> >States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence
you
> >are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us
means
> >U.S.
> >
> >randy
> >
>
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:25:30 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Yes, we saw it.
>
> > yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed.
>
> I'm guessing "tapdancing".
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree. considering
he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
numbers?
>
> > 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.
>
> It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
> based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.
all i said is the % is falling. this is true. and yes i agree. the
numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...
>
> > todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not
think
> > they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
> > re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
> > of their goal.
>
> ...which may have moved, and which most likely *did* move due to the
> stop-loss order.
maybe, maybe not. im just going on the proof todd gave.
>
> > i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
> > proof that re-enlistment is high.
>
> Nor is it proof that it's falling.
so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
meaningless.
>
> > i have accepted the challenge, and this is my rebuttal to what you call
> > evidence. i do not feel that falling short of their goal is high
> > re-enlistment.
>
> Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
> numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.
the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing. he
hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
you...'
randy
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> this was the evidence he used to prove it along with his comments:
> "I know exactly where this is headed, but here it is. There was a USA
Today
> story from April which pegged the re-enlistment rate at 96%. Does 96%
fall
> into your scale for "high"? Here is the link to the story.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-15-iraq-troops_x.htm. The
> story goes on to say that the rate is lower than it had been a year
before,
> but any way you want to slice it, 96% is a big number. If a significant
> number of troops felt they were wasting their time, I don't think they
would
> be reenlisting at that rate."
>
>
> yes todd you do know exactly where this is headed. for starters the title
> of the article is: 'iraq duty deters re-enlistment'. this should be the
tip
> off right there.
>
> 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.
Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.
> todd asked me in that thread if i would admit that the troops do not think
> they are wasting their time over there if he could prove that soldiers
were
> re-enlisting at a high rate. i dont see any proof of that. they fell
short
> of their goal. i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly
isnt
> proof that re-enlistment is high.
>
> todd has tried to divert attention from his statement by asking me to
defend
> my position that the us should pull all the troops out of iraq. the
answer
> is still no. it is my opinion. there is a difference between todd
backing
> up an implied figure (high) that he put out there as FACT, and me backing
up
> my opinion. i will back up my opinion by voting and not trying to
convince
> todd of the unprovable. thats exactly the trap he wants me to fall in.
> sorry todd. im not taking your bait.
Translation: I don't have any basis for my argument, but that won't stop me
from shooting off.
> and just so we are clear... just because i wont prove that my opinion is
> the actual factual best way, that in no way detracts from how wrong you
are
> about the troop re-enlistment rates. they are two seperate issues. if
you
> want to attack me for not responding, feel free. but dont tie these two
> issues together as if my refusal to prove one thing somehow makes your
other
> thing true.
You're the one who supports a near-immediate pullout and tells us you know
more than anyone in a position of authority on the subject. I'm just trying
to find out if you're just blowing smoke up everyone's keister (or is it
"kiester"?) or if you really know what that will mean on the ground.
todd
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:57:11 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.
> >
> > lets get this straight. here is what i said:
> >
> > 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 specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal.
are
> > you saying thats not true? probably...
>
> When the topic is number of re-enlistments and you throw in a "it's
> falling" comment, yeah, it's irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst.
so my statement isnt false. in fact its absolutely true according to the
article.. is it irrelevant? considering the article was used to show troop
re-enlistment is high, i think it is completely relevant. at best the ONLY
information you can get from the article at all is that its falling compared
to last years goal (which is exactly what i said, and considering the title
of the article and the numbers provided, it was clearly the point of the
article, do you hate the writer too?), and at worse, no information at all.
clearly there is no proof there that re-enlistment is high.
come on dave... the article was titled "iraq duty deters re-enlistment'
let's get your position clear. do you think the article provided proves
that troop re-enlistment is high? let down your guard for 1 minute and
answer honestly.
randy
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
> >find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
> >right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
> >So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
> >percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
> >number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
> >the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.
>
> According to this source:
>
> <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml>
>
> As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
> a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
> is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
> re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
> told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their
feet"
> and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.
So, your source is a disgruntled colonel who isn't even in the Army any
more?
> If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.
Maybe they just feel like they need every person that they have available.
The reason we got onto this whole business in the first place was Randy
asserting that the troops believe they are wasting their time. I asserted
that based on the re-enlistment numbers I heard that there wasn't a lot of
evidence for that. After looking for backup on the reported numbers, I
can't find any good, raw data. But let's say for the sake of argument that
the re-enlistment rate is not what we want. Based on soldiers I have heard
that have been in Iraq, they are proud of the job they're doing and believe
it is important. That said, many of them, especially Guard troops and
reservists who didn't think they would be deployed for as long as they have,
want to get back home, and I don't blame them for that. For those men and
women, I don't believe it is a reflection on their commitment to our cause
as it is a desire to get back to their civilian lives. I'm sure few of them
would rather be in Iraq than back home, but most of them understand they are
doing a very important job.
todd
> scott
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) [email protected] (xrongor) puts
> out:
> <snip> claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting <snip>
>
> OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning
> as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military)
> also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?
>
> Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.
>
> JOAT
>
to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
U.S.
randy
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:05:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Yet another:
> <http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm>
...and a few counters:
<http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft.htm>
<http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm>
-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 provides:
><http://usmilitary.about.com/b/a/067605.htm>
Air Force reenlistment rates are always significantly higher than those for the
Army. There are a variety of reasons for that, including more technical
training, no need for grunts, less need for front line discipline, and on.
Oddly enough, Marine Corps rates are also higher, usually significantly.
I'm not sure reenlistment rates reflect satisfaction within the military as to
their mission as much as they reflect the economy at a particular period, along
with visible opportunities to advance within any of the services...added to
pride of service. Reenlistment bonuses help, too, though not as much as the
military might like.
Oddly enough, the Air Force and Navy are both planning reductions in personnel
numbers next year--I seem to recall the Air Force getting ready to drop 5600
people from their overall roles. The Army is looking to, as they say, turn
"Blue To Green". They want anyone over E5 who is released in the program.
For a general look at military matters, try military.com.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:08:19 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about
> soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).
The second is about the Air Force. The first link was about the military
in general. Take a minute and read all four parts in the first link.
-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 second is about the Air Force. The first link was about the military
>in general. Take a minute and read all four parts in the first link.
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.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
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
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> writes:
>Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
>find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
>right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
>So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
>percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
>number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
>the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.
According to this source:
<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml>
As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.
---
If everyone was re-uping, the stop-loss orders wouldn't be necessary.
scott
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.
> >
> > so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
> > he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
> > numbers?
>
> The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
> You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
> showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
> history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
> a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.
>
> >> It also means that your "its falling" statement is wrong, because it's
> >> based on the same meaningless figures. Try again.
> >
> > all i said is the % is falling. this is true.
>
> The percent of meeting the goal is falling. That might mean re-enlistment
> is up, and with the stop-loss order, that could very well be the case.
>
> > and yes i agree. the
> > numbers todd provided to back up his statement are meaningless. they
> > CERTAINLY dont prove re-enlistment is high...
>
> Nor do the prove it's falling, as you tried to claim.
>
> >> > i dont think theres much argument here. this certainly isnt
> >> > proof that re-enlistment is high.
> >>
> >> Nor is it proof that it's falling.
> >
> > so we are back to this again. the numbers todd used to prove it are
> > meaningless.
>
> And yet you use those same numbers to say "the percentage is going down".
> How can you not see that you're being inconsistant?
>
> >> Not a very good rebuttal, Randy, to base your statements on the same
> >> numbers that you're pointing out are faulty.
> >
> > the only statement im making is that the numbers todd used mean nothing.
he
> > hasnt proven anything. it was his challenge. 'if i can prove it will
> > you...'
>
> Then why do you compare 106% of X, to 96% of Y, as if it means
> anything, Randy?
because its the only nubers that were provided as proof. if i ignored the
numbers you would have attacked me for that too. dont say you wouldnt...
he said he could prove the numbers were high. do you think the article he
provided is proof the numbers are high? i dont.
randy
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:37:30 -0600, xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Faulty logic. You have no raw numbers, just relative ones.
> >
> > so in other words todds numbers are meaningless. yes i agree.
considering
> > he was going to prove something, how can he prove it with meaningless
> > numbers?
>
> The same stands for your deductions based on those same numbers.
> You said that missing the goal (going from 106% to 96% of the goal)
> showed re-enlistment was going down, when without knowing the
> history of that goal and how/if it changed between years, yours is
> a meaningless conclusion to draw from no data.
I NEVER SAID THIS!! show me where i said re-enlistment was going down.
lets get this straight. here is what i said:
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 specifically qualified it and said compared to their enlistment goal. are
you saying thats not true? probably...
randy
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor" <[email protected]>
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make
your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)
>to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure
>to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United
>States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you
>are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means
>U.S.
>
>randy
>
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Let's try a little logic here. If the raw numbers are available, I can't
>>find them. But we know that the military has a high demand for troops,
>>right? Otherwise, they wouldn't be calling up Guard and Reserve troops.
>>So, I think it's safe to assume that their goal is a reasonably high
>>percentage of the total deployed. So, 96% of a big number is still a big
>>number. Not as big as 106%, but still big. Of course, you'll argue that
>>the goal must have been about 50%, right? That makes perfect sense.
>
>According to this source:
>
><http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/stop-j04.shtml>
>
>As for the mood in the army itself, retired US Army Col. David Hackworth,
>a vocal critic of the Pentagon and the White House, suggests the reality
>is "exactly 180 degrees out" from what official sources are saying about
>re-enlistment rates. He asserts, based on "what hundreds of soldiers have
>told me during the past few weeks," that troops "are voting with their feet"
>and preparing to leave the military in large numbers.
>
Yet another:
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040614-army-re-enlistment.htm>
scott