[SpamCop-List] Re: Lying with statistics (was Re: turning spammy servers off)

[Porpoise]

"Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody at spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:42EE4B55.8BC8E01E at spamcop.net...
> Porpoise wrote:
>>
>> That's not actually correct - 100% less of anything is 0
>>
>> If you're talking about the % movement from 3 (which is now the 100% 
>> figure)
>> to 2, then the percentage reduction is 1-2/3*100 =  33.333333' . 
>> Whichever
>> direction you're going in, the *starting* figure is always 100%.
>
> Well, I did rename this subject "lying with statistics".  :-)
>
> 200 bananas is 100 bananas less than 300 bananas, correct?

Correct

>
> 200 people is 100 people less than 300 people, correct?

Correct

>
> 200 zorkmids is 100 zorkmids less than 300 zorkmids, correct?

Correct

>
> Therefore...
>
> 200 percent is 100 percent less than 300 percent.
>

Mmmm....Sort of......... But only if it's applied to something - such as 
200% of 50 bananas (100) is 100% of 50 bananas (50) less than 300% of 50 
bananas (150). Unless it is "of" something, it is meaningless. In the same 
way - 50 bananas - 100% of 50 bananas = 0

For example:

<Math101>
1.  If I have 10 apples and I decide to give you 100% of them, how many am I 
left with?

2. If I have 10 apples and I decide to give you 300% of them, how many do I 
have left?

3. If I have 10 apples and I decide to give you 200% of them, how many am I 
left with?
</Math101>