tailgater wrote:So when we see stats like "percentage of people retired" in a certain area or state, I guess we should "assume" it means only those people over the age 65?
why would you assume that? do you think one needs to be 65 to retire?
someone flailing around grasping at straws wrote:
And we can forget about the whole "percentage female" at schools.
... I'm just gonna give this a "huh"?
a desperate person trying to make excuses for 1 stupid mistake wrote:
How about percentage of "population" that are multi millionaires?
I guess we should only count those who are millionaires or better. Because you can't include anyone worth less than a million, right?
why? can you find a way that it would skew comparisons at all?
Remember... the reason one wouldn't count infants in comparisons of schooling is a high fecundity would then negatively skew a population's rank, in a manner which misrepresents the information the statistic is trying to convey.
Your examples above are in no way related to the reasons one would put age minimums on education statistics... they are, in fact:
finally you get something right wrote:Silly, of course.
and you still go on, with this nonsense that had nothing to do with the discussion wrote:
Point being, I did politely correct with an obvious reference to "population" being too loosely defined.
But now that I've shown your stats to be wrong even when eliminating "kids", I'm surprised you're still trying to appear as if you were correct.
OK. Not surprised.
dumbest part of your statement. I corrected my numbers. They still retained an enormous level of education when compared to KC. My basic statement was correct... KC is very poorly educated when compared to DC. I didn't go into the discussion knowing the specific education %'s, (one doesn't need to, to know DC has more people with advanced degrees)... so I wasn't tied to any specific value. This says more about you than me.
and he keeps going... with more stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand wrote:
And for the record, when I wrote "your what?", I did initially think you screwed up the grammar portion. I realized that wasn't the case prior to hitting send, but felt it was worth leaving because your structure was so abysmal. (I did get a chuckle hearing how you went through the same thought process above.)
yeah, it was terrible sentence structure... I admit it. It sounded conversational on first pass, but when I looked at it again it really didn't work that way.
