Interesting Statistic

[celticdog]

In the July issue of Playboy magazine on page 27, there is the following statement:

In a recent 12-month period, Walt Disney World employees reported 773 injuries - enough to affect 40% of the 1,900 actors who play costumed characters at the theme parks.

I didn't realize that so many cast memebrs were getting hurt and that there are 1900 people doing characters.

 

[sbkline]

In the July issue of Playboy magazine on page 27, there is the following statement:

In a recent 12-month period, Walt Disney World employees reported 773 injuries - enough to affect 40% of the 1,900 actors who play costumed characters at the theme parks.

I didn't realize that so many cast memebrs were getting hurt and that there are 1900 people doing characters.

So it IS possible that some people might read Playboy for the articles! :ROFLOL:

 

[mousermerf]

OMG! Its enough injuries to affect 15,460% of the people who work at the Coffee Shop near the universe of Energy!

See how mixing numbers comes with fascinating statistics?

In reality - the numbers equate to only 1% of all CMs at WDW being injured.

 

[Craig & Lisa]

So it IS possible that some people might read Playboy for the articles! :ROFLOL:

Articles? ................ What articles? :shrug: :ROFLOL:

 

[fizzle75]

So it IS possible that some people might read Playboy for the articles! :ROFLOL:

Articles? ................ What articles? :shrug: :ROFLOL:

I was thinking the EXACT same thing!:lol:

 

[Champion]

In the July issue of Playboy magazine on page 27, there is the following statement:

Is that the one with Amanda Beard?

 

[SteveUK]

I'm watching to see how long this lasts. Anybody want a bet? My money is the chop within the next hour.

 

[hrcollectibles]

:ROFLOL: There are articles???? Since when??

 

[maggiegrace1]

I love Playboy!

 

[fizzle75]

I love Playboy!

Seeing "I love Playboy" under your your baby's picture is kinda freaky!:lol:

 

[Disneybird]

So it IS possible that some people might read Playboy for the articles! :ROFLOL:

I'm so glad to know that my husband was telling me the truth all those years ago when he said he was just buying them for the articles. I'll have to apologize to him tonight for doubting his word.

 

[disneydudette]

BF: Howard Stern's gonna have an article in one of the upcoming issues of Playboy
Me: Oh yeah? which one?
BF: Not sure, so I just bought the year subscription... this way I won't miss it



If he reads this... I know I'll get:

BF: Hey! did you hear about the WDW article in playboy
Me: yup...
BF: Guess this means I'll have to renew my subscription for the year to see if they publish anymore...

 

[CleveRocks]

Honestly, I get sick of it when people truly believe that many people DON'T get Playboy for the articles. Even 25 years ago, there were many more publications available that showed much more skin than Playboy. The average Playboy has 3 pictorials with a total of about 20 pages or so out of a total of more than 250 pages or so. Believe me, there have been total smut magazines out there for many years that have nude photos on about 95 of every 100 pages.

People who don't believe that many (but of course not all) people get Playboy for the articles have probably never seen a Playboy except for the cover. And many of the above people who HAVE looked probably keyed in only on the photos and didn't notice much else ... well, we all know what's on their minds.

In the mid-1980s, my high school newspaper faculty advisor was an ultra-ultra feminist woman, as well as a very unattractive heterosexual. With the school's blessing (a big city public high school), she bought a Playboy subscription for our newspaper office (I described her to make sure no one thought she got the magazine for her own pleasure). She cut out the photos, but had us all LEARN from the magazine. She said Playboy had the best features (i.e., non-news) writing in the country, and to this day I still believe her.

Sorry to interject seriousness into a fun discussion, but it just hit one of my hot button issues.

 

[Rayray]

That is the most ridiculous way I have ever seen someone create a "statistic." Since not all of the cm's are actors, it ain't a real stat.

I got a stat for ya that I just made up (and bet is true) - less that 1% of Playboy readers actually read the articles!:ROFLOL:

 

[Harry456]

darn, this being a Disney Forum and seeing you guys older than I (19 years) i thought if a slip and say a dirty word or innuendo i thought i would get scorn and banned! i see that isn't a problem anymore!! :ROFLOL:
​

 

[jmani56]

WDW has about 60,000 employees, so that number is very small. Also, Disney counts EVERYTHING as an injury, even little cuts.

 

[maggiegrace1]

Seeing "I love Playboy" under your your baby's picture is kinda freaky!:lol:

:lol:
She is one of the Future "Girl's Next Door"

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

:lol:
She is one of the Future "Girl's Next Door"

I just looked out my door - where is she ?

By the way - why buy Playboy when you can surf the net - there's more "articles" on the net than in 12 months of Playboy

 

[Kadee]

That is the most ridiculous way I have ever seen someone create a "statistic." Since not all of the cm's are actors, it ain't a real stat.

I got a stat for ya that I just made up (and bet is true) - less that 1% of Playboy readers actually read the articles!:ROFLOL:

EXACTLY what I was thinking! Statistics are skewed or misrepresented all the time. Sad.

Can't comment on the second statement.....:lookaroun :lol:

 

[MattyFresh]

EXACTLY what I was thinking! Statistics are skewed or misrepresented all the time. Sad.

Can't comment on the second statement.....:lookaroun :lol:

After taking a few stats classes you realize that everytime you see a stat it has been skewed to whatever arguement is trying to be made. They could do a study with how many people hate Disney and come up with overwhelming numbers to say that most people don't like disney.