hey, notice how much better this board works...

[Case_Closed]

Cool story, bro.

[foodserver]

You are absolutely incorrect.  Of course, education is a deliverable.  It is the same with charity organizations.

You're not understanding John, perhaps on purpose.  If you want an apples to apples comparison of public vs private charities the only way you get that is the formula I've already described. Arbitrarily assigning "administrative costs" makes any "comparison" meaningless. 

[johnhp]

You're not understanding John, perhaps on purpose.  If you want an apples to apples comparison of public vs private charities the only way you get that is the formula I've already described. Arbitrarily assigning "administrative costs" makes any "comparison" meaningless. 

You are obfuscating.  You have not even published the cformula used by the regional studies you cited someone citing someone as using.  Have you not figured out why regional studies would be higher than the average for all government assisatnce programs as you suggested.

i will give you this, you post as if you had not been caught fudging what was in the literature cited in the bibliography of the person cited by you.  The fact is you did and your bluster is just that, so much bluster.  Get over yourself and do your homework.

[foodserver]

   No one doubts the study except you and our little secret it that you doubt it not at all, nor do you even care.   I notice you've dropped my new nickname which is unfortunate.  By all means please feel free to help get the word out by calling me "70%".

I rather like that name and the opportunities it will afford for explanations...

[Case_Closed]

I notice you've dropped my new nickname which is unfortunate. 

I also was saddened by his discontinued use of this fabulously brilliant moniker.   

[johnhp]

  No one doubts the study except you and our little secret it that you doubt it not at all, nor do you even care.   I notice you've dropped my new nickname which is unfortunate.  By all means please feel free to help get the word out by calling me "70%".

I rather like that name and the opportunities it will afford for explanations...

i prefer referring to you as empty trunk, as you may know.  Doubting the study?  There is no "the study".  You have not produced a study.  You pretend to have produced a study but that is pure prevarication.  What you produced is a reference to a reference to several regional studies.  In addition, you pretended that the reputed findings of these studies were about administrative gosts generally, when they were not.  Indeed, of the two of us, i know more about your post than you do, empty trunk.

Now, of the two of us, i have been the only one to present actual studies, two of them.  You can either discuss them, which you will not, present the data from the regional studies from which you are twice removed, which you will not, or you can mewl one more time about some non-existent study and prevaricate about its contents, which you will.