BSA membership drops by over 400,000 in 2005 redeaux

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

[for some reason, I can't post in the original thread now]

 

Ed writes:

I read fine Merlyn. You just can't dance real well.

 

No Ed, you can't read footnotes. If you want, you can write to Dave and ask him what he meant. Since I've been corresponding with him (plus I can read footnotes), I know he was referring to the US Census estimates for males 5-17.

 

You're basing your statements on numbers that aren't factual!

 

I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are.

 

Wait! Didn't you post the statement "The The actual losses will probably be higher" was from your pals web site.

 

Yes; I was wrong. I thought you were still referring to the figures on bsa-discrimination, because you referred to this statement as confirming that my numbers were "not actual", instead of a post I wrote 11 days earlier. Miki101 claims to have "actual numbers", but he refuses to post any of them.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Miki101 14]

Merl writes:

 

"I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are."

 

Thanks Merl, that's all that you needed to say.

 

You've been checkmated.

 

David C. Scott

 

 

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

The date stamper on this page is working again, which means posts written today and tomorrow will be inserted into the existing threads which were one day off - in a word, a mess. This should straighten out on Saturday. You can still posts to old threads, you just have to look in the time-stamped order, instead of last on the thread. They are just going to be jumbled.

[Beavah 205]

"I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are."

 

Yah, right.

 

Never, ever take statistics or research presented by an advocacy group at face value. Even when they aren't deliberately misrepresenting, the inherent bias leads to bad skew because of selectivity in what is chosen for inclusion/reporting.

 

Dat's true of any advocacy group - Red, Blue, or Purple. It is also true, but to a lesser extent, of any "research" performed by an "independent" agency which is funded by an advocacy group.