8 Comments

1. Bob says:

   January 6, 2012 at 10:51 am

   Why did you omit the explanation, which is that this is because of a regulatory failure? The implication is that the collecting agency is at fault, which is not the case
2. Degen says:

   January 6, 2012 at 11:43 am

   Standard operating procedure. Why provide actual context when misdirection and innuendo are so much more effective? Where statistical cherry-picking isn’t enough, we get fake math (1300% increase!).

   This is the state of scholarship in Canada right now? What an international embarrassment.
3. Joe says:

   January 6, 2012 at 12:44 pm

   @Degen
   Funny you should call someone out for misdirection with such a childish ad hominem attack.
4. Darryl says:

   January 6, 2012 at 1:10 pm

   I do believe the the 1300% figure is accurate and relates Degen’s use of hyperbole in his arguments.
5. Ki says:

   January 6, 2012 at 4:02 pm

   @Bob
   Because ultimately that’s not overly important. For whatever reason, it failed. If you want to know more, you can read more, that’s the point of the hyperlink. And ultimately, this is not a blog post but a “Hey, you should read this!”. But hey, let’s be like Degan and pretend it’s a vast conspiracy.
6. end user says:

   January 7, 2012 at 8:51 pm

   >Degen said:
   …
   Standard operating procedure.

   Ahh Degan’s standard operating procedure is to come out of the wood work and shoot first into the crowd then hide.
7. Anon-K says:

   January 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm

   @Darryl
   The 1300% figure is accurate, within what it is intended to represent. From Degen’s past postings, and my own view on it, is that the 1300% figure is often placed out of context here, or given in a misleading manner.

   The 1300% represents the increase on a PORTION of the copying levy as proposed by the collective. What is normally failed to be mentioned here is that this represents a smallish component of the overall per-student levy, and in fact the proposal also called to drop certain portions of the levy.

   Subsequent posting by Dr Geist showed the overall expected impact to be not 1300% but ~450%. To put it into simple terms, if the levy was $10 per student (the actual number escapes me right now), to claim a 1300% increase would take it to either $130 or $140 (depending on if it represents the increase or the new fee). However the experience with the university cited meant that the fee went from $10 to $45.40.

   So, while 1300% is technically correct, within the context given it misleads the reader.
8. Darryl says:

   January 10, 2012 at 1:40 pm

   Thanks Anon-K. Your right, and your post will help give background for anyone else reading this blog entry. However, my explanation was funnier while being no less accurate.

   🙂