THE STOOL VOLUME ISSUE

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Stool volume
Date: 15 Jun 1995 21:36:44 GMT

Lately I've been thinking quite a bit about the volume of my stools. Specifically, I'd like to find a way to obtain extremely accurate measurements of the size and dimensions of my stools. To date, I've devised two methods, each suited to a particular form of bowel movement.

For cases involving diarrhea, the solution is obvious. By shitting into a bucket, then iteratively pouring the contents of the bucket into a measuring cup, I'm able to obtain reasonably accurate volume measurements. Still, not all of it lands in the measuring cup, and I'm never able to completely scrape the bucket clean during the final pass. This introduces a degree of inaccuracy that I'm not comfortable with. The same method applies to loose stools, although a bit more work is involved. Chunks which are more solidified must be pressed into the measuring cup by hand. Two problems arise (obviously): 1) some of the shit is pressed into my fingernails, jeopardizing the procedure, and 2) my hands are frequently covered with paper cuts, and the loose turds have a caustic, burning effect that was at first pleasurable, but has since become tiresome. Both of these problems have been circumnavigated to some extent through the use of rubber latex gloves, but problem 1 is not completely resolved, since it is difficult to completely remove the shit from the gloves and get it into the measuring cup for a reading. I've categorized this problem with the bucket scraping problem, for obvious reasons.

The second method I've devised is suited to a highly specialized form of stool. Those stools which are nearly perfectly cylindrical can be measured with simple geometry. A cross-sectional area measurement is taken and multiplied by the length of the stool. The first problem with this approach is that the ends are usually tapered. I've worked around this by cutting off both ends and measuring the center section of the stool. The ends are then measured using the formula for the volume of a cone:

(Pi x (r**2) x h)/ 3

Where the ** notation is used for exponentiation, in this case for squaring the radius of the base, and h is the height of the stool cone. When the sum of the volumes of the two cones is added to the volume of the center stool cylinder, a fairly accurate measurement is obtained. Still, the assumptions that the stool is a perfect cylinder, and that its tapered ends are perfect cones renders the method imperfect, to say the least.

To summarize, I've created two methods for stool volume measurement. Both are imperfect, and both are suitable only for a very narrow class of stool subjects.

While reflecting on this last night, I reached the conclusion that I would also like comprehensive density data for my stools. I'm not interested in just calculating the macro density for the entire stool; that would be simple. What I need is a comprehensive analysis of each bowel movement:

I want a graphical representation of the density at each point in the stool, plotted in three-dimensional space. At my epiphanic moment, the idea of tomography struck me. Of course! Why hadn't I thought of that sooner? With the right X-ray equipment, and a Silicon Graphics workstation, my volume measurements could be made an order of magnitude more accurate, plus I would get reliable density data in the bargain.

Today I began the procurement process for the necessary equipment, but there are still problems. One cannot expect a bowel movement to fall from one's ass without experiencing some variance in its shape upon splashdown. Stools are quite malleable (as I have demonstrated empirically with my bucket experiment). No, what I want are measurements taken in real time at the exact instant the stools emerge from my anus, preferably at time increments in the picosecond range. I can then use state of the art imaging software to assemble the samples into a complete analysis (pardon the pun).

To this end, I propose a commode, equipped with catscanning gear, and a fiber optic connection with sufficient throughput for streaming the real-time data to a WORM disk networked with the SGI workstation, or to the workstation directly (I'm open to any architectural recommendations; but cost is not a factor).
-Joe Newman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: testa@starbase.neosoft.com (Andrew J. Testa)
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 01:36:26 GMT

The entity known as Joe Newman (gunther@bga.com) posted:

[flush, so to speak]

-Joe Newman

Not bad, Mr. Newman. Not bad at all. But the catscanning gear will bulk up your commode to the point here it may just be too uncomfortable to remain still for the time needed. I'd like to propose another method, if I may, that uses less bulky equipment and would be more pleasurable. As preparation, you'll want to ingest a good quantity of iron filings along with your food. A good double handfull of pistachios will help smooth out the consistancy variations.

1. Carefully wrap your commode in about a dozen layers of large gauge copper wire.

2. run a circuit to the largest industrial grade generator you can find.

3. Tap your SGI into a good DA converter to pull in both time and voltage

Now, upon taking a shit, switch on the power and the data aquisition suite. You should feel the induction force pulling on the stool, unless you reversed your polarity, in which case you just had one HELL of a belch. Clean the wall.

Assuming correct polarity, the induction forces will suck that stool right out of you. Your sphincter will provide resistance, unless you're one of "Bob"'s "anointed", and that resistance to the force will cause a back voltage that can be measured. By analysis of this fluctualtion, you can calculate the density variations throughout the stool, the variations in time due to its deformation, and velocity. Good luck.
--
/ Xenu stole my lunch money \
/ Andy Testa (KoX) I'm OT! I could KILL you with \
\ testa@hou.moc.com a thought! BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAA! /
\ Contributing to the downfall of Scientology since 1995. /

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 05:26:52 GMT

In article <3rqn6q$grc@uuneo.neosoft.com>, testa@starbase.neosoft.com says...

Not bad, Mr. Newman. Not bad at all. But the catscanning gear will bulk up your commode to the point here it may just be too uncomfortable to remain still for the time needed. I'd like to propose another method, if I may, that uses less bulky equipment and would be more pleasurable. As prep- aration, you'll want to ingest a good quantity of iron filings along with your food. A good double handfull of pistachios will help smooth out the consistancy variations.

1. Carefully wrap your commode in about a dozen layers of large gauge copper wire.

2. run a circuit to the largest industrial grade generator you can find.

3. Tap your SGI into a good DA converter to pull in both time and voltage

This is cost effective, but it introduces two probe effects. First, it requires a change in diet, and therefore it effects the very turds for which I'm attempting to gather data.

Second, the induction forces pulling on the stool could easily alter its morphology. It's bad enough that gravity is affecting its shape; do we really need to introduce electromagnetic forces?

It's not that I don't appreciate your suggestion; I just would like to make the measurements in as pure an environment as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Joe Newman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 07:57:59 -0400

In article <3rq95c$5qf@giga.bga.com>, gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman) wrote:

The answer to the question of volume is to mark the waterline on the toilet before and after excremeditation, then calculate the difference in volume. I detect two problems with this technique that you would need to iron out:

- There is the possibility of air pockets in your stool, and I suspect that you would want to eliminate these pockets. The presence of air pockets suggests the other problem:

- Not all stools sink like you would expect them to. This is a problem that I don't have an easy answer on. You could possibly use a different fluid in your toilet, but I really can't recommend any particular replacement. Another approach might be to attach weights to your stool so that they do sink, but you need to follow a very careful diet for this technique to be reliable. Certainly, it is a problem in the case of diarhhea.

Another problem might be in the act of calculating the difference in volume in your toilet. You may want to invest in a bowl that follows a more regular shape, like a cone. The good ones come with graduations to make studies such as yours easier to perform. Look for the ones with the included Vernier caliper attachment for more accurate measurements; the extra cost is well worth it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY WORK? QUIT YOUR JOB! SLACK OFF!

Tap your abnormality potential. Unleash your weirdness. Send $1 for
more information than you can handle.

The SubGenius Foundation
P. O. Box 140306
Dallas, TX 75214

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: funt@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Funt!)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 19:45:52 GMT

Thus spake Joe Newman:

Lately I've been thinking quite a bit about the volume of my stools.

Aw, shucky-darn, why couldn't that have made its way into your Chronicle feature?
--
Funt!-O-Matic:
"Where fair is foul and foul's our fare,
and where we're all hepped-up on goofballs."
http://www.eden.com/~funt/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: JFWRIGHT@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:51:14 GMT

In <3rq95c$5qf@giga.bga.com> gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman) writes:

Lately I've been thinking quite a bit about the volume of my stools.

(I'm open to any architectural recommendations; but cost is not a factor).

-Joe Newman

In my opinion, stool volume is less important than the weight. Maybe you could devise a formula for weight * (stool type) = stool volume. Maybe if you put a bucket on a scale, zeroed the scale, and then moved your bowels into the bucket you could begin to see the relationship between stool area and weight. Consider this please.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com (Mitch Aigner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Stool volume
Date: 16 Jun 1995 16:10:26 -0700

Joe Newman's unscientific attempts to measure the volume and density of his stools deleted

Geez, Joe. It's not that tough. You get a large bucket (or beaker) that hasmarkings on the side to indicate volume. Or just get a bucket and mark ityourself. Sometimes metal cooking pots have volume markings stamped in the side.You need to weigh the empty bucket you intend to make the deposit in.Write down the weight.

Take a large kitchen measuring cup (I have one that can handle 1 quart) and fill it up exactly to the 1 quart line with water. Weigh this too. Write down the weight.

So now the procedure is simple:

1) excremeditate over the bucket

2) put the bucket on your bathroom scale

3) pour in exactly 1 qt. of water

- the stool will displace some of the water. Make sure that the sample is completly under water.

4) look at the volume marking on the side of the bucket and subtract 1 qt. to get volume of sample.

5) look at weight and subtract weight of empty bucket and weight of 1 qt.water to get weight of sample.

6) density = weight / volume.

Simple isn't it.

Doesn't matter if it's a runny one or a rock-solid ceramic-busting torpedo.

Note: If it's a 'floater' you may have to push it down with a toothpick to make sure that it's completely submerged before taking the volume measurement. For the weight measurement, it doesn't matter.

Good luck with your experiments --- sincerely, MR. SCIENCE

--
.......... costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars ..........
Yes, I speak for Tektronix. Buy our products or we'll break your knee-caps !
The only opinions expressed here are those which my wife permits me to have.
Guns don't kill people,.. it's those damn criminals! Ban baseball bats now!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 23:43:59 GMT

gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman) wrote:
<about measuring difficulties>

You COULD just tape a baggie to your ass, no splash, no shape distortion (since it doesn't fall...it oozes gently) and since the average sandwich bag weighs about 2gms, (You'd have to weigh the freezer size beforehand etc.) then you'd have an accurate volume weight as well.

gland to be of help,
Tarla
--
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,
A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986
http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 17 Jun 1995 01:17:36 GMT

In article <3rt312$e5b@wu.cse.tek.com>, mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com says...

Take a large kitchen measuring cup (I have one that can handle 1 quart) and fill it up exactly to the 1 quart line with water. Weigh this too. Write down the weight.

So now the procedure is simple:

1) excremeditate over the bucket

2) put the bucket on your bathroom scale

3) pour in exactly 1 qt. of water

- the stool will displace some of the water. Make sure that the sample is completly under water.

4) look at the volume marking on the side of the bucket and subtract 1 qt. to get volume of sample.

5) look at weight and subtract weight of empty bucket and weight of 1 qt.water to get weight of sample.

6) density = weight / volume.

Simple isn't it.

Doesn't matter if it's a runny one or a rock-solid ceramic-busting torpedo.

Good luck with your experiments --- sincerely, MR. SCIENCE

Why, you upstart. It's obvious you didn't read my requirements. A toothpick indeed! That will completely destroy any hope for accurate density measurements. Doesn't Tektronix make measurement devices? Sure density = w/v. That doesn't tell me the relative densities between point A and point B. Reverend Duchez has already spoken eloquently to the problem of air pockets within the stool. And what of corn?

Please, aren't there any real scientists in this forum?

Harumph,

Joe Newman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: thescum@unix.infoserve.net (Byron Jacquot)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 17 Jun 1995 02:31:38 GMT

While all of this scientific gear can be a lot of fun, there is a somwwhat sompler method to tell how much you have passed, but it doesnt give you the volume.

Using an extremely accurate scale, you can weigh yourself before and after taking a crap, and the difference of wieghts is the weight of your movement. From the data you have already obtained, you can multiply the weight by the density (you DID remember to get this, right?) and figure just how much you did.

Of course, it isnt nearly as much fun as the other methods.

You could also get another valve put in your toilet, to keep the bowl from draining into the sewer. You could measure the volume of water displaced, and possibly graduate the inside with a series of lines.

Maybe you should stick to the expensive equipment.

THESCUM@unix.infoserve.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Glenn.Knickerbocker@bbs.mhv.net (Glenn Knickerbocker)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 17 Jun 1995 16:35:29 GMT

Mitch Aigner (mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com) wrote:

No bad science here, please, Doctor. If you push it down with a toothpick while weighing it, you're adding the weight of the additional water it displaces.

In fact, don't even bother weighing the floater at all. The volume it displaces while floating tells you its weight.

HEY! Here's the ticket. Shit into a big-ass paper cup (assuming you have a big ass). Float it in a bucket of water and mark the water line on the cup. Fill another cup the same size with water and pour it over the shit till the first cup is full (pushing the shit down into the cup if it floats). Mark the water line on THAT cup. The first cup tells you the weight; the second tells you the volume.

--Not R

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 18 Jun 1995 19:24:24 GMT

On Sat. Jun 17, 1995, gunther@bga.com told All:

Good luck with your experiments --- sincerely, MR. SCIENCE

Why, you upstart. It's obvious you didn't read my requirements. A toothpick indeed! That will completely destroy any hope for accurate density measurements.

Please, aren't there any real scientists in this forum?

Yeah, but behavioral, not physical. You want to know what the fascination we Yetish have with shit, whether emergentiles or rewardians are more entertained by its manipulation, whether regular excremediatation results in a higher satisfaction level, I can do that. But fiddling with turds just ain't in the stars for me. No behavior to measure. Not even with 440 volts run through them. Well, that's my hypothesis anyway -- I've never tried it.

* 2qwk! 1.26b3 * Wasting time is an important part of living.

--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:09:04 GMT

dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski) wrote:

gc> Please, aren't there any real scientists in this forum?

Okay then...let's get into a little behavioral science. I've discovered an interesting factoid. Men take much longer to dump than women do. Even when given a proven shit-speeder, they CHOOSE to take the slow route. Example: I live with the SubGenius Buddha. The man is so incredibly balanced, and so incredibly independant that he's even more Yeti than I want to think about. But the man spends at least 1/2 hour each day in the Excremeditation Chamber. I learned, many years ago, about a way to avoid 'rroids, and increase the stool volume passage of each incident. All it takes is a 12" footstool.( When you raise the level of your knees above the level of your stomach, your stomach muscles do the work, and you don't have to strain.) Since that time (20 yrs ago.) every roommate I've ever had (female) has taken to this technique like a SubG to prairie squid, even going so far as to incorporate the use of "the stool" in their own homes later. BUT every husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain.

-- Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,
A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986
http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: testa@starbase.neosoft.com (Andrew J. Testa)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 19 Jun 1995 16:33:35 GMT

Mistress TarlaStar (bmyers@ionet.net) posted:

BUT every husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain.

Mistress,

If I may be so bold, you fail to grasp the male perspective entirely. While I'd be among the first to throw my worthless body into the path of your red leather stiletto heels to prevent them from contacting a mud puddle, I must educate you on the male excremeditation experience. In your description, it is plain that you and your friends have one purpose in the Chamber: Float a log and get the hell out, with a minimum of gas and embarrassing "potty noises". While this is indeed the main intent of the Chamber, there is SO much more to be gained from its use. It is the SOLE place on Earth where a man can SAFELY, and without ANY prying eyes, sip his coffee, squeeze out the errant loaf, peruse the latest issue of Big Butts and Squids, bask in the glow of his own anal gas, and fondle his yeti spore sac all SIMULTANEOUSLY. It is truly a religious experience that must be savored to truly be appreciated. It is worth the inevitable pain of the dreaded "poop leg" and the unsightly red ring on your ass. If it weren't for these drawbacks, hell, I'd probably never leave.

--
/ Xenu stole my lunch money \
/ Andy Testa (KoX) I'm OT! I could KILL you with \
\ testa@hou.moc.com a thought! BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAA! /
\ Contributing to the downfall of Scientology since 1995. /

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:51:45 GMT

testa@starbase.neosoft.com (Andrew J. Testa) wrote:

Mistress,

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've cleared a room with a post-egg and broccoli leg lifter or two (I'm even one of those lucky souls who can pyroflatulate...and can still be convinced, with enough pleading, to "light one up" now and then)...but WALLOWING in it in a closed chamber, is just more than any Yeti should be forced to bear.

While this is indeed the main intent of the Chamber, there is SO much more to be gained from its use. It is the SOLE place on Earth where a man can SAFELY, and without ANY prying eyes, sip his coffee, squeeze out the errant loaf, peruse the latest issue of Big Butts and Squids, bask in the glow of his own anal gas, and fondle his yeti spore sac all SIMULTANEOUSLY. It is truly a religious experience that must be savored to truly be appreciated. It is worth the inevitable pain of the dreaded "poop leg" and the unsightly red ring on your ass. If it weren't for these drawbacks, hell, I'd probably never leave.

Well, I'll stop complaining about the length of time you boys spend on the can, if you can get the others to stop bitching about us going to the bathroom in pairs. We all know you do it when we're gone.

Where's Michelle? I have to powder my nose...

--
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,
A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986
http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 19 Jun 1995 20:59:48 GMT

On Mon. Jun 19, 1995, bmyers@ionet.net told All:

Okay then...let's get into a little behavioral science. I've discovered an interesting factoid. Men take much longer to dump than women do. Even when given a proven shit-speeder, they CHOOSE to take the slow route. Example: I live with the SubGenius Buddha. The man is so incredibly balanced, and so incredibly independant that he's even more Yeti than I want to think about. But the man spends at least 1/2 hour each day in the Excremeditation Chamber. I learned, many years ago, about a way to avoid 'rroids, and increase the stool volume passage of each incident. All it takes is a 12" footstool.( When you raise the level of your knees above the level of your stomach, your stomach muscles do the work, and you don't have to strain.) Since that time (20 yrs ago.) every roommate I've ever had (female) has taken to this technique like a SubG to prarie squid, even going so far as to incorporate the use of "the stool" in their own homes later. BUT every husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain. --

Excremeditation relies on the sensory deprivation/replacement to be had from locking yourself in a little room (aside: consider the privacy factor) with very little distraction. Replacing the common visual/aural sensory overload with a tactile/olafactory stimulus initiates a synethesiac sequence that leads to an altered state of awareness. You can't rush a rush. Consider it a solo sweat lodge.

Or, try the social explanation: girls aren't SUPPOSED to stay in there a long time, because it's DIRTY. Not to mention frequently an enormous amount of trouble. Why do females have 5 times the incidence of bladder and kidney infections? They're not supposed to go to the bathroom, because it's not lady-like, and it's too damn much trouble with all that elastic and plastic junk strapped to their lower half. The urine volume distends the bladder, choking off the blood supply and reducing the ability of the immune system to do its job. And when you DO have to go, by Gobbs you'd better hurry before someone realizes you have orifices that aren't being used in a PROPER and FEMININE fashion. They might not want to give you babies if they know that you actually EXCRETE from those places. Icky!

Besides, guys need roids and other self-inflicted discomforts to not talk about. It's not enough just to be strong and silent, you have to be strong and silent ABOUT something which makes you want to whine piteously. No proof of effort and ability without adversity.

The social goofousities cancel each other out, leaving us with only one proactive stance -- The High and The Solitude.

I need a new drug.
So I can get some peace.
I wanna make -- feces.
Don't make me rush and do
one fece.

I want a new drug.
I wanna smell up the house.
I want to get some quiet time,
and not hear you
bitch and grouse.

I got a new drug.
Now let me ponder fate.
I wanna forget my wordly cares,
just let me excre-
meditate.

We examine these issues carefully. Guess where?

(@ @)\DynaSoar\___, Yetii Genetii Research InstiToot
ll ll SubGenius Church of Scienfictiontology
Clench of The One True Pipe Dream, Terran Occupation Forces
DynaSoar, Tibetian Rantarian, Chaplain - dynasor@infi.net
'Praise "0100 0010 0110 1111 0110 0010"' -- MWOWM

* 2qwk! 1.26b3 * It takes a long time to understand nothing.

--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: IDGHTMS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Terry Saunders)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 19:27

and Mutha Tarla inquires in her no-nonsense way:

Okay then...let's get into a little behavioral science. I'vediscovered an interesting factoid. Men take much longer to dump than women do. Even when given a proven shit-speeder, they CHOOSE to take the slow route. Example: I live with the SubGenius Buddha. The man is so incredibly balanced, and so incredibly independant that he's even more Yeti than I want to think about. But the man spends at least 1/2 hour each day in the Excremeditation Chamber. I learned, many years ago, about a way to avoid 'rroids, and increase the stool volume passage of each incident. All it takes is a 12" footstool.( When you raise the level of your knees above the level of your stomach, your stomach muscles do the work, and you don't have to strain.) Since that time (20 yrs ago.) every roommate I've ever had (female) has taken to this technique like a SubG to prairie squid, even going so far as to incorporate the use of "the stool" in their own homes later. BUT every husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain.

Boy, you asked one of the universal questions this time. I have wondered on this many a time. Bob works in mysterious ways is the only explanation that I can think of.

Anyone else??
Terry aka Ma Grapple

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: pkitty@netcom.com (Purple Kitty)
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:16:52 GMT

TarlaStar (bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:

Okay then...let's get into a little behavioral science. I've discovered an interesting factoid. Men take much longer to dump than women do. Even when given a proven shit-speeder, they CHOOSE to take the slow route. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain.

You're actually asking WHY certain people prefer to spend a maximum amount of time excremeditating? Heck, maybe it's just a quick and dirty <plop> for you, but to ME (e.g.), it's a bidaily ritual, involving much thought, concentration, and inner focus. Hell, just taking a two-minute shit is about as rewarding as a two-minute sexual encounter! Given a choice between two hours of inner reflection or two minutes of bowel movement, I'll take the two hours...
--

Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian

Meow!

* Are you abnormal? Then you are probably BETTER than most people! *
* ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK! For info send $1 to *
* The Church of the SubGenius / P.O. Box 140306 / Dallas, TX 75214 *

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com (Mitch Aigner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Stool volume
Date: 20 Jun 1995 18:14:11 -0700

Subject: Re: Stool volume

In article <3rt312$e5b@wu.cse.tek.com>, mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com says...

<< Mitch Aigner's extremely scientific solution deleted >>

Doesn't matter if it's a runny one or a rock-solid ceramic-busting torpedo.

Good luck with your experiments --- sincerely, MR. SCIENCE

Please, aren't there any real scientists in this forum?

Harumph,

Joe Newman

How dare you question my scientific method, you slimy sack of squashed squid scrotums. I have more degrees than a thermometer, you putrid pile of pickled pig peckers. Hell,.. I've achieved cold fusion in my kitchen with nothing more than a bottle of Habanero Chili Sauce and some hamster jizm, you worthless wagon of withered wombat weenies. They laughed at me at MIT, they scoffed at my theories on 'sci.physics', but I'll show 'em.... they'll pay... HAHAHAHA...

< insert maniacal laughter here >

< insert sound of bolt slamming closed on .30 caliber assault weapon here >

But I digress.

Anyway, it's not my fault. The water displacement method for the measurement of the density of materials that I described was invented by Archimedes at around 200 BC. I merely stole it and re-published it under my name (which is, of course the real scientific method). So in reality, I'm completely innocent, and the real blame lies on some dead guy. (Important advice to other would-be scientists and politicians: The best scapegoats are dead guys,... it worked in Iran-Contra didn't it!... it was all William Casey's fault!).

Yes, I'd be delighted to sell you lots of our measurement products. They won't help in your experiments, but they are certainly very hi-tech and would look really really cool in your lab (impress your friends !!!).

What you really need is a CAT scanner. Then you would be able to get cross- sectional density plots of every bit of the test material. And with computer image enhancement, picking out air pockets (as well as identifying the contents of your last meal) could be an automated process.

But enough of that. I have to go milk the hamsters again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 21 Jun 1995 03:20:54 GMT

In article <3s7rp3$fsn@wu.cse.tek.com>, mitcha@wu.cse.tek.com says...

What you really need is a CAT scanner. Then you would be able to get cross-sectional density plots of every bit of the test material. And with computer image enhancement, picking out air pockets (as well as identifying the contents of your last meal) could be an automated process.

Finally we're getting somewhere. But a problem remains: If the CAT scanner is sampling at a fixed frequency, how will the samples be correlated with time? Stools do not extrude at constant velocity throughout the bowel movement. Perhaps a series of optoelectric sensors could suffice, but I have serious doubts as to whether they would provide adequate resolution.

-Joe Newman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 21 Jun 1995 20:17:39 GMT

On Wed. Jun 21, 1995, gunther@bga.com told All:

What you really need is a CAT scanner. Then you would be able to get cross-sectional density plots of every bit of the test material. And with computer image enhancement, picking out air pockets (as well as identifying the contents of your last meal) could be an automated process.

gc>Finally we're getting somewhere. But a problem remains: If the CAT scanner is sampling at a fixed frequency, how will the samples be correlated with time? Stools do not extrude at constant velocity throughout the bowel movement. Perhaps a series of optoelectric sensors could suffice, but I have serious doubts as to whether they would provide adequate resolution.

If you're going to CAT them, there's no need to extrude them first. You can image them in vivo. Density measurements can be done from the contrast measurements on the image, and volume is easily computed from the image by the CAT controller. A series of CATs done following a particular meal could also follow the path and measure the conversion process. Some simple differential equations could serve to determine the pre-ingestion proportion that is non-convertable, thus providing a measure of what foods are in fact "like shit". So, we can strap you down to the CAT table and feed you things like McDonald's socalledburgers and see how little they change in the process. If you're still worried about getting good resolution, we can halt peristalisis for a while with some morphine.

Now this is all going to depend on whether they're compressed or not in vivo. So we can just CAT them in vivo and them CAT them alone and compare. Of course we'll have to CAT you completely empty to get a proper subtraction factor for the imager.

We could also do some time lapse CATs, taking an image over and over during the entire digestion process, and tying the images together as video frames. Can't imagine what it'd do to answer your question, but it'd make great footage for the infomercial.

* 2qwk! 1.26b3 * A witty saying proves nothing. -- Voltaire

--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 21 Jun 1995 23:28:08 GMT

In article <3s9up3$plh@lucy.infi.net>, dynasor@infi.net says...

Okay, you win. But only because of the morphine.

-Joe Newman

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 22 Jun 1995 04:34:20 GMT

On Wed. Jun 21, 1995, gunther@bga.com told All:

Okay, you win. But only because of the morphine.

Great. It's the least I could do for someone about to eat McDonald's itain'treallyburgers.

I heard back in the 70's that they put a laxative in them because if they stay in you too long they'd make you sick. Not sure what the morphine will do in this case.

But what the hell . . . LET'S DO SCIENCE!

Bring me the instruments. And the drugs. And the BIG RED STRAPS.

--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <Unknown> (gggor)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 22 Jun 1995 05:19:33 GMT

In article <3s3t1k$n5q@ionews.ionet.net>, bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar) says:

dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski) wrote:

Please, aren't there any real scientists in this forum?

Yeah, but behavioral, not physical. You want to know what the fascination we Yetish have with shit, whether emergentiles or rewardians are more...

...you don't have to strain.) Since that time (20 yrs ago.) every roommate I've ever had (female) has taken to this technique like a SubG to prarie squid, even going so far as to incorporate the use of "the stool" in their own homes later. BUT every husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour, while their legs go to sleep, than have a gutblowout of about 2 minutes duration. I don't get it. Please explain.
--
Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,

Depends if your legs are long enough to reach the floor or not. Also and one who considers themself the Mario Andretti of high-speed, high octane excremeditation, I have noticed that the chambers of those SG males who DO spend a lot of time on the stool are always stocked with a great deal of fascinating reading material...I never have much to read in my sacred throne room (Philo was very disgruntled) because I'm never in there long enough...but when I am somewhere else (Stang's place for instance) I find that the length of my excremeditational devotions increases in direct proportion to the amount of interesting reading material available. I also think that there is something about the sense of total privacy or isolation (and in some cases distance from the kids) that makes a lot of us want to chill out and read a while, even after the ceremony itself is long finished.While I realize this far from an all-encompassing answer I do hope that I have said sheds perhaps a little more light on the subject...a question, what if we put terminals in each excremediation chamber, would there be an 'online offering' for "Bob"?

GG (always willing to discuss sacred matters) Gordon M.M.
Gggreenhelle Inc., Pty., Ltd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: cspencer@news.gate.net (MrSluggo)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 22 Jun 1995 10:36:16 -0400

(gggor) (Unknown) wrote:
In article <3s3t1k$n5q@ionews.ionet.net>, bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar) says:
dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski) wrote:
Please, aren't there any...
Yeah, but behavioral, not...
...husband I've had, refuses to do so. They'd rather sit on the toilet for half an hour,...

A salient point. I once took 3 hours for a simple sphincter dilation, all because of a Dr. Bronners Soap bottle label.

On a related scatological matter, what is with the euphemisms? "Bowel Movement" was always one of my faves. Yeah, I suppose my bowels do some moving to squeeze and shape that massive nitro-loaf, but hell, my heart beats, my lungs breathe (carefully), etc etc. I guess it does sound rather elegant... and now for "A Bowel Movement in G minor". I love it when the Doc asks whether my bowels have moved. Aw, hell Doc, I forgot to walk the darn things yesterday.

What about "take a shit"? Hell, everyone knows Yetis take no shit, they GIVE shit (they don't give "a" shit, that would be miserly)."I have to relieve myself". Why, are you on duty?

Another thing, why do they call it a "bathroom"? I've seen a lot of "bathrooms" with no bath, but rarely a "bathroom" with no shitter. A "bathroom" with no bath is called a "half-bath". Where, in the shitter or the sink?!

Ut oh, con calls. Hi ho... hi ho...

-MrSluggo <---grasshopper ---> ant ant ant ant ant

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.slack
From: ap944@lafn.org (Zoogz Rift)
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 20:04:25 GMT

LAST CALL FOR ZR T-SHIRTS!!!

--
>> ZOOGZ RIFT (The Liquid Moamo) alt.fan.zoogz-rift <<
>> E-mail for INFO <ap944@lafn.org> regarding: <<
>> ZR T-SHIRT special (offer expires 6/30!) - FREE ZR TAPE CATALOG <<
>> ZR ALBUM & PRO WRESTLING INFO - ZR PROMO PAK! - TOUR UPDATES <<

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.slack
From: ac118@lafn.org (Matthew Carey)
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 04:39:18 GMT

In a previous article, cspencer@news.gate.net (MrSluggo) says:

"Bath" or "B.A.T.H." comes from when people used to call outhouses the "Booboo And Teetee House." That eventually was shortened to "BATH" and then when indoor plumbing was invented people could no longer call these chambers "houses." That's when they began to call them "Bath ROOMs."

"Taking a bath" did not come into popular use as an idiom until the invention of the bath "tub." I suggest you read H.L. Mencken's extensive writings on the subject of the invention of the bathtub, as they are pretty much the only information on the subject and are quite exhaustive at that.

--
Rev. Matthew A. Carey vision temple : tarzana california
18653 Ventura Blvd., Suite #379 "WE ARE NOT AN OCCULT"
Tarzana, CA 91356 Dealers of fine religious materials.
-- protecting the first amendment through vigorous daily excercise --

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 23:39:35
Subject: Re: Stool volume
From: iceknife@ashram.com (ICEKNIFE)

either measure water displacement in the bowl (inacurate)

or just get a really good scientific scale, add your containment receptacle,and line it with the largest cake decoration bag you can find. Zero out the scale, and then shit directly into the bag...

now you get the weight, and it's all ready for easy transfer to other measuring devices or containers, no mess, no hassle, and if you use a decorative tip, you can create delightful turd rosettes, swirls, and write lovely things as well!

You owe me money for this.

MICEKNIGHT

... SINNOVATIONS UNLIMITED : SASE & $1 to P.O.BOX 140306 DALLAS TX 75214

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gunther@bga.com (Joe Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Subject: Re: Stool volume
Date: 23 Jun 1995 12:55:15 GMT

In article <8701@ashram.com>, iceknife@ashram.com says...

either measure water displacement in the bowl (inacurate) or just get a really good scientific scale, add your containment receptacle, and line it with the largest cake decoration bag you can find. Zero out the scale, and then shit directly into the bag...

You owe me money for this.

Send me a bill, and I'll pass it on to my accountant.

Joe Newman

Back to document index

Original file name: Stool volume

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.