|
When I was on my gap year in South America, I contracted a very nasty case of diarrhoea - so bad that I suspect it may have actually been dysentry. This state lasted for about the last three weeks of a 4 month trip, and was at its peak during my final bus journey from La Paz (Bolivia) to Lima (Peru) - a journey of about 28 hours. Coach journeys this long were a common feature throughout the trip, so I was not too bothered by the prospect... despite having spent significant amounts of time leaking at both ends for the last week in Bolivia. While on the bus to Lima, I was struck with the need 'to go' I went to the toilet and did my business. Imagine my horror to find that there was no toilet paper in the cramped toilet. I had to make do with items from my wallet: business cards, receipts, even banknotes from countries I was not going to revisit. While all this was going on, somebody started hammering on the door. My limited spanish provided an anguished "Que pasa?!" but it obviously did not placate my antagonist. They literally kicked the door in and dragged me out, shouting at me all the time. French was the first foreign language I ever learned, and in a stressful situation it seems to be what my mind reverts to; the resulting mix of French and Spanish was totally meaningless, so even though I was trying to say "Please explain what is wrong," "Can I help clean up" etc. was not received well. I spent the rest of the journey sitting in shame by myself, trying to avoid eye contact with anyone. We were also delayed by at least an hour by replacing of the blue fluid in the toilet. So: Why is it not acceptible to poo poo in a chemical toilet?
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 00:49 |
|
|
|
| # ? Nov 20, 2009 22:17 |
|
|
Is the answer going to be anything but "the chemical they were using didn't break down feces"? Since it was on a bus in a possibly poor area I imagine the chemical didn't do much more than neutralize urine smells (something to react with ammonia) and if you pooped in it then it'd just be 28 hours of sitting on a bus with some poop in a pail in the back of the bus.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 00:59 |
|
|
It's acceptable to poo poo in a chemical toilet, but not a chemical toilet on a bus. The poo poo stays inside the bus when you're riding it. The poo poo ferments and frolics from the heat from the engine and even outside. It creates a horrid smell in the bathroom, which other patrons have to deal with when they have to pee. Also, the smell can leave the bathroom and torture the people sitting in the back. I took a 12 hour bus ride to Toronto and our bus driver explained this very thoroughly.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 01:01 |
|
|
Ummm...A toilet is a toilet, unless it was designed as a urinal which wouldn't make sense on a bus. Chemical toilets are designed for both types of bodily waste. I highly doubt you were dragged out for making GBS threads in a toilet on a bus that entails a 28 hour trip. Who knows? Maybe he was just as desperate to poo poo as you. (EDIT:) ^I guess I've always been on some priviledged bus rides. ContraBoss fucked around with this message at Nov 08, 2009 around 01:12 |
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 01:09 |
|
|
ContraBoss posted:Chemical toilets are designed for both types of bodily waste. An ideal one is, a random one on a random bus in South America may or may not be up to the standard that it can disinfect feces with any real efficiency. If they got so mad it could be that the whole system they set up was a tank and some weak chemicals and a little plug to pull to drain it, so if you poop in there someone has to go and fish it out since it won't go out the plug hole. A better bus will have a better system.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 01:18 |
|
|
This would be an awesome plot for an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 01:19 |
|
|
Did you get your pants up before they dragged you out?
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 02:55 |
|
|
It probably just smelled really loving bad, man.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 04:17 |
|
|
I went on a lot of bus trips in marching band and at the start of every trip, whoever was in charge of each bus would remind everyone that there is NO making GBS threads ON THE BUS unless it's a dire emergency. There were a few times when someone snuck into another bus to poo poo in their toilet and I can confirm that it smells loving terrible until the toilet is emptied and makes the seats in the back unusable.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 04:28 |
|
|
artard posted:This would be an awesome plot for an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm Seconded. Picturing this situation happening to Larry David somehow makes it go from "Huh" to completely and totally hilarious.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 04:38 |
|
|
Griz posted:I went on a lot of bus trips in marching band and at the start of every trip, whoever was in charge of each bus would remind everyone that there is NO making GBS threads ON THE BUS unless it's a dire emergency. I can agree with this, though I always found it pretty stupid (in High School marching band, at least) that there was always a group of kids who just had to sit in the back because it was just so cool and unsupervised and then would complain when people used the toilet. If there are no other seats, its one thing, but when you choose the seats near the toilet, what do you expect?
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 04:57 |
|
|
That's pretty loving horrible, man. I've never so much as seen a "chemical toilet", let alone needed to poo poo in one, but if I have the shits and it's the only designated poop-holder, you bet your rear end I'm making a deposit at the porcelain bank. The fact that someone interrupted you, mid-wipe? I'm a soloist when it comes to using the crapper. I'd be holed up in South American prison laaawd, South American prison got me down, because I'd have teed off on that fucker. The absurdity of the whole situation pisses me off. They expect you to hold your poo poo for 28 hours? gently caress no. I'd poo poo on their face. Literally.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 06:57 |
|
|
PainBreak posted:That's pretty loving horrible, man. I've never so much as seen a "chemical toilet", let alone needed to poo poo in one, but if I have the shits and it's the only designated poop-holder, you bet your rear end I'm making a deposit at the porcelain bank. Where do you live where they don't have porta-potties at concerts and construction sites and July 4th fireworks? That's what a "chemical toilet" is.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 07:04 |
|
|
If it's not your toilet and it's not your event, just poo poo in it anyway, then get the gently caress out of there.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 07:24 |
|
|
The toilet on the bus could have handled you pooping in it - port-a-pottys are chemical toilets and you can poop in those. The difference is a port-a-potty is outdoors and a bus toilet is in a sealed-off bus. Pooping in one won't break it, it'll just inconvenience future traveler's noses.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 09:58 |
|
|
eriddy posted:The toilet on the bus could have handled you pooping in it - port-a-pottys are chemical toilets and you can poop in those. The difference is a port-a-potty is outdoors and a bus toilet is in a sealed-off bus. Pooping in one won't break it, it'll just inconvenience future traveler's noses. RVs use the same toilet technology and airplanes use something at least vaguely similar. Yet in those cases, I haven't heard of someone stinking up the vehicle by doing Number Two (assuming everything is working properly, at least). Why would a bus be that much different?
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 13:38 |
|
|
If a bus has a lovely toilet thats no fault of mine, if I have to poop I have to poop.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 13:59 |
|
|
Cockmaster posted:RVs use the same toilet technology and airplanes use something at least vaguely similar. Yet in those cases, I haven't heard of someone stinking up the vehicle by doing Number Two (assuming everything is working properly, at least). Why would a bus be that much different? Because airplanes are taken better care of and more carefully designed than buses? There is different chemicals you can use and different amounts of chemicals with a 400 dollar plane ticket they are going to afford to actually buy something nice and keep it working well and keep all the chemicals mixed right. On a random bus ride they are going to use the one batch of watered down chemical for weeks as long as it can mostly cover ammonia. Plus airplanes have absolutely vital air circulation systems while a bus toilet will have maybe a fan that may or may not be burned out.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 16:53 |
|
|
Griz posted:Where do you live where they don't have porta-potties at concerts and construction sites and July 4th fireworks? That's what a "chemical toilet" is. I'm pretty sure port-a-potties run off of magic, not chemicals.
|
| # ? Nov 08, 2009 20:32 |
|
|
PainBreak posted:I'm pretty sure port-a-potties run off of magic, not chemicals. Then why would someone be upset if you tip one? I would want magic on me 
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 07:03 |
|
|
Having traveled extensively in the developing world, my guess is that there was just some unspoken rule that all bathroom business (or at least the serious business) take place during regular rest stops. So really more of a social taboo than anything else.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 12:57 |
|
|
Yeah but did they really pound on the door and drag a man out of the toilet while he was making GBS threads for a simple social taboo? I mean I don't know maybe breaking down the bathroom door and dragging a stranger off the toilet is not a big deal in South America but I doubt it. EDIT: Also, we should bomb South America more they are getting uppity IMO.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 13:28 |
|
|
I don't disagree, but defecating in (or merely using, it is unclear) the bus john was apparently serious enough for someone to physically remove him from the toilet and then stop the bus for an hour to replace the blue liquid. And the other passengers were apparently OK with the idea of being delayed for an hour over this. And on top of it all, the bus had to use its emergency supply of replacement blue fluid, which clearly was not budgeted (since nobody would defecate on a bus, apparently. . . ). Any Peruvians ITT?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 13:52 |
|
|
I don't know if it was an immediate need to go, but if it was they should be really glad you didn't just go in your pants right there on the seat.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 17:32 |
|
|
The fact that they broke down the door to rip you out of there means that they could tell from outside. If your poo poo was smelling outside the bathroom just seconds after you started, what makes you think the people on the bus wanted to smell it for the next 28 hours?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 19:21 |
|
|
Offer them a choice next time. You can either poo poo on the seat, or the thing specifically designed to handle poo poo. I'm pretty sure it will smell far less awful if you curled one off (or in your case, squirted it out) in the bathroom and not on your loving seat. The gently caress do they expect you to do, shove a cork in there for 28 hours?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 21:59 |
|
|
If they didn't want you to poo poo there, I would think there would have been some kind of obvious indication. Now, some may argue that the fact that there was no toilet paper was indication enough. Was there no toilet paper because the bus was OUT of toilet paper, or was there actually no place for toilet paper to ever have existed at all? However I'm with the others above, If I have to poo poo, the closest thing-that-holds-yuck is getting shat in.
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 22:44 |
|
|
QuartzImage posted:If they didn't want you to poo poo there, I would think there would have been some kind of obvious indication. How would any girls pee with no toilet paper?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 22:56 |
|
|
I have given this thought, then come to the conclusion that if I had to use toilet paper even if I only had to pee, I would probably carry it with me at all times. Especially if it was socially acceptable for me to carry around a giant sack-o-crap all the time. As to why there would be no toilet paper even for the women folk there, dunno, maybe everyone running bus companies in South America is a chauvinist pig?
|
| # ? Nov 09, 2009 23:20 |
|
|
So did you get to pull up your pants or not?
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 00:28 |
|
|
This is why I avoid 3+ hour bus trips in developing countries
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 00:46 |
|
|
Alterian posted:How would any girls pee with no toilet paper? We suck it up and sit there for a bit till it dries out. Basically the same as dudes since you guys get some of it down your leg anyway from what I've heard. Actually most girls carry some kinda napkin or some drat thing with em, so...
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 00:49 |
|
|
Yeah, everyone traveling in the developing world tends to carry toilet paper/napkins with them. Or if they don't, they quickly learn to do so!
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2009 02:00 |
|
Rate Thread:
