Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Once-Ler

  1. The best solution after trying:


    scripting my own in AppleScript - easy language but tedious scripting and I had difficulty finding the available classes and how they change over the course of program use according to user-input (namely, selection of text)


    OpenOffice - did not support the VBA-side scripts for remove softies or TOC

    NeoOffice - similar story though, were it to support my template, this is by far the smallest, most effecient office suite for the Mac I've used.


    some templates for 08 - worked alright but without VBA scripting, it was difficult



    So, after all this, I just tried going to an older version of Word (04). Templates work flawlessly, it seems to load and quit faster than Word 08, AND navigation of 04 is more intuitive than '08 (at least, for me as a recent Windows-transplant).


    Just thought I might document my solutions in case others confront this problem.

  2. I am looking for an evidence production template compatible with office 08 for mac that also provides two things:

    1. keyboard shortcuts for it's macros (underline, highlight, and other formatting)

    2. a "remove soft returns" macro which eliminates the pesky thin columns of text that you often copy and paste.


    if anyone has something that meets this description, let me know.


  3. The "bottom" for bid-seeking teams at KCKCC is bound to be HUGE and despite while Caucus also has a sizable bottom, it's bound to be nothing like KCKCC where a great many of the debaters will be getting their first "circuit style" experience or at least their only annual one (arguably so given the heavy influence of regional practices so of which don't make sense to the larger community caused by the utilization of coaches in the judging pool).


    In short, teams looking to go out on this weekend and pick the easier tournament to recieve a bid at will meet you in KC (not that this is the only reason for attending; obviously it's close, cheap, and a well-run tournament as I recall). Teams looking for a tournament that might match their at-large application a little better or looking to evade the unknown variables known as "Coach from Bumblefuck A" will meet you in Iowa (ugh). Neither tournament is "better" but I imagine the experiences vary greatly.

  4. Almost all tournaments demand that you have some form of "adult" chaperone for coverage/insurance purposes. Surely you have someone cool over a certian age (or looking a certain age). Fuck, any college student at all will do. Try dangling money in front of them or something.


    If you can get school approval for the event then your coach might be willing to sign a paper allowing you to use your parent/gaurdian to take you to a school event (all schools have these forms all the time) meaning that you can compete under your school's name with a school authorized sponser (your parent gaurdian) and retain your TOC bid(s) if you aquire them.


    These things are less stringent than they appear on paper and tournaments and their directors have some really important shit going on; if you have a responsible enough looking adult with you who is willing to sign things, look official, and not take shit, you'll be fine.


    Edit: My response might be cavilierly dismissive. This is based on my experience with tournaments and their directors in the Mid West and South. I can't imagine anyone in your region would be more worried about these things than people here though.

  5. I'm looking to supplement my judging payment with coaching/strategy/generally helpful comments for your teams at the Greenhill tournament. The rounds at Grapevine probably illustrated how useful having critical arguments this year in this circuit would be. For schools that need some help with the K (answering or making), I can be very helpful and even produce a few strategies before rounds and before the tournament.


    Contact me for details.

    johntheempire <at> gmail.com


    John Cook.

  6. As far as the 500 mile rule is concerned, most tournaments really won't look into it if it seems reasonable. Lauren, I believe you're from a major metropolitan area in Texas (I'd refrain from saying which in these forums) but there are certainly tournaments near you Kansas teams can attend (St. Marks, Colleyville, Greenhill, Grapevine [though, good luck getting any Kansas team willing to travel that early]).


    Likewise, I'm sure if you're creative you can get from your school to the border in 500ish. A very uncreative google map from the general metroplitan area to my hometown (10 miles north of the KS/OK border) gets you 573 and has all sorts of jagged lines, etc. Very do-able.


    Also, if someone could post a more full schedule of tournaments, it'd be much apprciated. I'll be making a more concerted effort to judge while in Kansas this year. Sorry everyone.

  7. Whoa there, "Time Cube/Zizek"?! Paragons usually seperate things that are at least remotely similar. Zizek does serious academic work in the field of Lacanian pyschoanalysis and dabbles in mixing it with Marxian analysis of politics and economic structures. Gene Ray wrote the hate filled time cube website, published a few affiliate website, and called it good. Other than the fact that they are both tubby, kinda strange looking guys, I'm not sure why anyone would consider them equal.


    I'll stop arguing with you about the importance of credentials when it comes to philosophical reflection on sociopolitcal conditions. We obviously disagree. I suppose in your high-level debates, they matter. I have never had credentials questioned in such a way as you are describing. Given that the author aims not to make market fluxuation predictions or any other predictions for that matter, I suggest that the qualification aren't of supreme importance.


    For consideration, an excerpt from the intro which may help exemplify the type of work the author does throughout the book:


    There is, however, a deeper connection between energy and religion. Energy is not just a commodity to be measured, stockpiled, sold, consumed, wasted. And religion is not just a method of resisting a relentless movement of production-consumption, nor is it merely a means of providing a stable alternative (God) that can ground society in the absence of (or against) the delusive subjectivity of the “age of the world picture.” Energy may in fact be a profoundly religious issue—energy in its vastness, its violence, its defiance, its elusiveness, its expenditure. And religion may be an event not of the establishment of God, or of his patronage of humankind, but of his death, his void at the peak of values and purposes. God’s death, in effect, may very well be inseparable from the movement of the violent expenditure of energy, all types of energy.

    The French writer Georges Bataille (1897—1962) put forward a social model that sees religion and human existence as inextricable, and the religious experience — sacrifice — as entailing the profligate wastage of energy But therein lie the central questions: Which religion? And which energy?

    This book is about Bataille’s take on these issues and my version of what Bataille’s take would be if it were extrapolated to the twenty-first century Bataille died a long time ago, ages ago it seems, but one can perhaps rewrite him, all the while recognizing certain limitations of his approach, in an attempt to understand the possibilities of the future in a post—fossil fuel era. That’s what I try to do in this book. Bataille is hardly the last word on anything, but he is rare—in fact, unique—among twentieth- century thinkers in that he put energy at the forefront of his thinking of society: we are energy, our very being consists of the expenditure of quantities of energy. In this Bataille anticipates scientists like Howard Odum, who in a very precise way calculate the amounts of energy that go into a given product, a given lifestyle, and so on (and calculate as well how we can work to make the processes of production and consumption more efficient, given the scarcity of recoverable fuels). But Bataille is about more than simply quantifying energy; indeed, his approach both sees energy at the basis of all human activity, of the human, and puts into question the dominion of quantifiable, usable energy. That is precisely where religion comes in, since God, or religious “experience,” entails not purposive activity—the kind that would involve energy supplies quantified and then used with a goal in mind—but rather activity of the instant that leads nowhere, has no use, and is unconditioned by the demands of anyone or anything else: sovereign, in Bataille’s sense. Such sovereign activity involves an energy resistant to easy use—the unleashing of an energy that is characterized (if that is the word) by its insubordination to human purposes, its defiance of the very human tendency to refine its easy use.

    My consideration of Bataille, then, will necessarily involve a critique of the notions of energy and religion that characterize our epoch—an epoch in for some interesting times as cheaply available energy from fossil fuels grows scarcer and scarcer. It will attempt to imagine how other notions of energy and religion will provide an alternative means of living in an era in which the truth of fossil fuel, and revealed religion, comes into question. Another model of spending, based on what Bataille called an “economy on the scale of the universe,” seems appropriate at a time when a certain human profligacy has revealed itself to be an ecological and cultural dead end. Bataille’s importance, however, stems from the fact that he puts forward a model of society that does not renounce profligate spending, but affirms it. What is affirmed, however, is a different spending—a different energy, a different religion—and that difference perhaps means the difference between the simple meltdown of a civilization and its possible continuation, but on a very different “scale.”



    On the other hand, an ever more counterproductive orientation will assert itself in the years ahead. Such an orientation sees energy as an adjunct of, at best, a certain humanism: we spend to establish and maintain our independent, purpose-driven selves, our freedom as consumers, spenders of certain (rather lavish, given available reserves) quantities of refined energy, This model is doubly humanistic in that not only is the beneficiary the “free” self of Man; the human spirit itself is incessantly invoked to get us out of the jam. We are told over and over again that the human mind alone produces energy: when reserves are short, there is always a genius who comes along and devises some technology that turns things around, makes even more energy available, and so on.6 Technology transcends energy, in other words, and reflects the human mind’s infinite ability to derive energy from virtually nothing. We always find more efficient ways to derive energy from available fuels, and in doing so, we always are able to produce more fuel to produce more and higher quality energy. James Watt’s steam engine was first used to drain coal mines, producing more coal, which in turn could be used by more (and more efficient) steam engines to produce transportation (steam trains), electricity; and so on. And petroleum, an even more productive and efficient source of energy, replaced coal, and it will no doubt soon be replaced by something else, yet to be discovered. At this point we move from a historical account to a kind of uncritical faith in the capacity of human genius.

    Fossil fuels, then, entail a double humanism: they are burned to serve, to magnify, to glorify the human or (what amounts to the same thing) the human in the automobile (“freedom,” “happiness,” etc.) as transcendental referent, and they are produced solely through the free exercise of the mind and will.

    One can argue that the religion that confronts the fossil fuel—driven civilization of Man is equally grounded in the demands of a human subjectivity. People demand salvation, an ultimate purpose for which they are consuming so much fuel: I spend, or waste, so that I will ultimately be saved. Conversely, energy inputs are available because God has blessed me with them; the faithful are rewarded with a healthy, fertile, and energy- rich environment. God is the ultimate meaning of all that I think and do. There is no distinction between my personal belief and belief sanctioned by society, derived from a literal reading of a holy Book , this version of religious belief even more authority, law is grounded not in man but in God himself; literalism serves as a satisfying alternative to humanism.


    [stoekl, , “bataille’s peak: energy, waste, and postsustainability”, p. xii-xiv]

    • Upvote 2

  8. Synergy is right; if you hold one position at one point in life, it probably represents the totality of you qualified areas of experience. For example, an anonymous, satirical web troll is probably not qualified to speak about substantive academic work.


    Interestingly enough, I never claimed he was "qualified" to speak about international peak oil issues. I simply said his application of Bataille was concerned with things that are central to the topic which generally makes for a good source of critical literature for debate.


    Stop being pissy. It's a good book. Read it. If you disagree, no major loss other than your time (which seems none too precious).



    Jesus, Shayan's post during the time my window was idle in the quick response box is making me look over-protected now. Oh well.


    Edit2 - More Books:

    Also of note


    Norman K. Swazo - Crisis Theory and World Order: Heideggerian Reflections

    Robert Kirkman - Skeptical Environmentalism: The Limits of Philosophy and Science.

    Robertson et. al - Future Natural: Nature, Science, Culture [Questia]

  9. http://www.amazon.com/Batailles-Peak-Energy-Religion-Postsustainability/dp/0816648190


    "As the price of oil climbs toward $100 a barrel, our impending post-fossil fuel future appears to offer two alternatives: a bleak existence defined by scarcity and sacrifice or one in which humanity places its faith in technological solutions with unforeseen consequences. Are there other ways to imagine life in an era that will be characterized by resource depletion?


    The French intellectual Georges Bataille saw energy as the basis of all human activity—the essence of the human—and he envisioned a society that, instead of renouncing profligate spending, would embrace a more radical type of energy expenditure: la dépense, or “spending without return.” In Bataille’s Peak, Allan Stoekl demonstrates how a close reading of Bataille—in the wake of Giordano Bruno and the Marquis de Sade— can help us rethink not only energy and consumption, but also such related topics as the city, the body, eroticism, and religion. Through these cases, Stoekl identifies the differences between waste, which Bataille condemned, and expenditure, which he celebrated.


    The challenge of living in the twenty-first century, Stoekl argues, will be to comprehend—without recourse to austerity and self-denial—the inevitable and necessary shift from a civilization founded on waste to one based on Bataillean expenditure." (from Amazon)


    so yeah... that...


    I cannot recommend this book enough. I had already cut it for the high school topic before the ag topic was decided for college. Much of this work speaks to the heart of next year's HS resolution. A wonderful and unique interpretation of Bataille to the current energy debate. One of, if not the best book I have read all year.

  • Create New...