ANST - Membership Numbers

[Michael Tucker]

Greetings, Amerinda di Praga:

Your points are well taken. How about, instead:
> The generally downward trends are obvious and alarming TO ME.[1]

and:
> The trend is not 'alarming' nor obvious TO YOU.[2]

:-)

Yours,
Michael Silverhands

[1] My opinions are my own.
[2] Your mileage may vary.

amberd at flash.net wrote:
> 
> On Wed Feb 16 13:51:57 2000, > Michael Silverhands wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Burke! Good and interesting stuff.
> >
> > The generally downward trends are obvious and alarming. Overall, it looks
> like> I'm sure I'll have many questions as I digest the numbers (whether I post
> them,
> > or simply mutter them to myself, remains to be seen *grin*). I'd like to start
> > off with this:
> > membership peaked in '92, plunged in '93, partially recovered in '94 and '95,
> > and has somewhat leveled off since then.
> >
> 
> The trend is not 'alarming' nor obvious.  Your evaluation of the overall data
> is correct, but the trend is mostly driven by the baronies. Also make sure to
> notice that at the end of 93 and begining of 94 two baronies didn't report any
> data. Towards the end of 96 the baronies show a slight downward trend but the
> smaller groups are trending upward.  I didn't look to see if this was a result
> of small groups sprouting off from baronies.
> 
> There are several possible reasons for the drop in 93. Growth in previous years
> could have been to fast, BOD 'pay to play' conflict, US involvement in middle
> east conflict (we have a lot of military players).
> 
> A slow growth is healthy...
> 
> Amerinda di Praga
> (ps I did not look at 99 data)
>
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.