View Single Post
Old 12-28-2007, 07:17 AM   #14
cruelpupet
Admiral
 
cruelpupet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon54
So you're saying that what they realy mean is that 17% of kids today would've been in the 95th percentile X years ago? That would make sense, but it should be stated differently. If read literally, as written, it's wrong.

I still think you are reading it wrong. The way i read it is the literal way, which does make sense. There is no problem with saying that there is a population of 17% in the upper 5% range. It only means that the population sampled does not fit where you want the curve to be, ie. more kids are fatter then they are supposed to be.
__________________
Am I alone here? Is that it?
Am I the only one who sees.

Maybe we can learn to be just like him.
Wear a little uniform.
Yes, sir.
No, sir.
Thank you, sir.
cruelpupet is offline   Reply With Quote