World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers (page 8)

cedars

slimboyfat

Admit it, what you proposed was a "net increase" was actually a "gross increase" (without deductions).

Or have I slipped into a parallel universe where the laws of physics and maths no longer apply?

Cedars

slimboyfat

I argue that there's nothing "net" about it, because you haven't deducted anything, other than the 2010 figure, which has no place being added to another year's figure anyway in this context.

This 14,197 increase figure results from all additions (new publishers and reactivated publishers) minus all deductions (deaths and those who stop publishing for various reasons) hence is the net change. The gross increase would simply be the number of additional publishers without deducting deaths, inactivity, and defections. You are seriously getting yourself in mental contortions over what should be very straightforward.

cedars

sir82

Sorry, but you're wrong. You're assuming baptisms represent "gross increase". That's not how it works. Many in the publisher figures are unbaptized pubs who actually get baptized the same year.

Cedars

cedars

slimboyfat

This 14,197 increase figure results from all additions (new publishers and reactivated publishers) minus all deductions (deaths and those who stop publishing for various reasons) hence is the net change.

Wrong, that is not how the figure was arrived at. It was arrived at by subtracting 2011 average publishers from 2010 average publishers. It's a straightforward "difference". I has no right to being called a "net increase". Increase, yes. "Net"? No.

Cedars

00DAD

Sorry guys, I was editing my post not know that there had already been responses.

Here's what I added:

I suggested in an earlier post that Cedars use average annual death rates for these countries to try and arrive at an estimate for the number of JWs that Quit Publishing for what ever reason. For example, in Brazil it is estimated that there are 6.38 Deaths/1,000 people of the population. So we can estimate how many Brazilian JWs died:

720,896/1,000 = 720.896 x 6.38 = 4,600 Dead Brazilian JWs in 2011

This leaves 8,628 Brazilian JWs unaccounted for. Where are they? They are clearly missing, but where, no one knows. Other than the possibility of lateral movement from one country to the next they would have to fall into the categories of Inactive, Fading, DF'd or DA'd. (I suppose alien abductions and The Rapture are other possibilities, but let's not go there.)

And again, the movement from one country to another would NOT change the World Wide Total and is likely statistically insignificant for larger countries unless there is some mass exodus from a particular country. In that case you would have probably heard about it and could take that into consideration.

00DAD

slimboyfat

Wrong, that is not how the figure was arrived at. It was arrived at by subtracting 2011 average publishers from 2010 average publishers.

I know where you got the figures. That's not the point. Those factors I identified are necessarily implicit in the differential between the two years' figures.

cedars

00DAD, you've just slated my calculation methods in front of slimboyfat, but you're still using them in the figures you're mentioning.

720,896/1,000 = 720.896 x 6.38 = 4,600 Dead Brazilian JWs in 2011

This leaves 8,628 Brazilian JWs unaccounted for.

8,628 + 4,600 = 13,228

If you're gonna slate my accounting skills, at least be consistent!!!

Cedars

slimboyfat

Sorry, gotta side with SBF on this one.

No need to be sorry, it's a no brainer, as they say.

cedars

slimboyfat

I know where you got the figures. That's not the point.

It's precisely the point. If you think where the figures come from is irrelevant, then what are you even arguing about in the first place?

Those factors I identified are necessarily implicit in the differential between the two years' figures.

They're as implicit as you believe them to be. You consider them crucial, I don't. Either way, my equation isn't "wrong".

You've side-stepped your way out of being proven wrong mathematically thanks to a handy diversion from 00DAD, but I saw your slight of hand, don't worry about that.

Cedars

slimboyfat

Did you read sir82's post?

Sleight of hand? I am trying to help you understand that a net increase cannot be described as a net reduction, that is all.

World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

Share this