Jacques Vallee

[Christopher O'Brien]

No, the concept of the trickster does not make as much sense as science. What a silly statement. Science has produced results. The trickster is just a useless hypothesis which can't be refuted because any attack on it can be blamed on the trickster himself! It gets nobody any closer to the truth. Anything we don't understand we just blame on the trickster? If that's the answer, let's just shut down reasoned inquiry and stop pretending we're ever going to get anywhere. Yep, I listen to the Paracast. It's very entertaining, especially the ads. I listen to it in hopes of hearing any progress at all in explaining the paranormal. But I have so far waited in vain. There has been absolutely no progress in getting at the truth of UFOs and if Vallee is one of our most esteemed thinkers, there probably never will be. Give me one example of where Vallee has added to our store of knowledge of the way the world really works. I don't mean speculation, theorizing, pattern-building, tale-spinning or any of his very entertaining folkloric mumbo-jumbo, but just one real speck of truth he's discovered that is now a useful part of human knowledge.

Close-minded ringers? I reckon I'm as open-minded as the next fellow, but I have to admit that belief is a thing that I do not give lightly. If you say that there's a trickster, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you have to give me some proof. I'm waiting...

Do your research. Cultural anthropology IS a branch of science, last time I checked. Perhaps you should read my book and study my arguments before making blanket condemnations with a sniff and a sneer. Oh, and while you're at it, re-acquaint yourself with Jung's work; Lewis Hyde's The Trickster Makes this World; Paul Radin's The Trickster, George Hanson's The Trickster and the Paranormal, etc,. I could go on and on, but what's the use? You aren't up to speed with this hidden subject which permeates our lives everyday.

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------

I think however that the problem with the whole trickster concept is this simple: it's a cop-out. Can't explain something? The trickster did it! If someone wanted to make the case that the trickster is a specific entity who engages in a particular behaviour then I'm interested in hearing about it. But if the argument is that the trickster is this nigh-universally present, all-powerful entity that just seems to like fucking around with people for the hell of it then why not just say "God" or "Satan"? Otherwise how at the end of the day is it anything other than paranormal fundamentalism?

Wrong. Read my book before you attempt to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head or beliefs in my heart. You too obviously need to get yourself up2speed on the subject...

 

[MacDaddy]

So you're going to stand by your statement that the concept of the trickster makes about as much sense as science?

I'd be interested to find out how many on this forum agree with that statement.

People have always seen mysterious and puzzling things. Given enough data, science has always provided rational and non-paranormal explanations for each of them: thunder and lightning and earthquakes and metal falling from the skies and falling stars and supernovae and fossilized monsters. Not everything has been explained. Much of what we consider unexplained on this forum is based on data provided by human beings who are not very reliable. But in each and every case where enough data has been collected to provide a conclusion, it's always led to non-paranormal explanations. No ghosts. No aliens. No ESP. No mind control. No trickster. Isn't this suggestive to you? There has never been a case to prove the existence of these things. It would be WONDERFUL if there were.

I hear you. I get it. A Harry Potter world would be so much more filled with wonder than one governed only by the stubborn and unyielding laws of physics. But wishing doesn't make it so. I don't wish to stomp on the sense of wonder of anyone in this forum, but I would like someone to make some rational arguments about why you believe what you believe, because I would honestly love to be convinced. Anyone who steps on your pet theories is ridiculed or told to go to the Randi site. Yet you draw the line too. Many of you talk about the silly stuff that "poisons the well," the exopolitics guys, Stephen Greer, Billy Maier. Well, I happen to put the trickster on that side of the ledger, too. And, no, I won't waste any time reading the work of someone who believes that the trickster makes more sense than science. That's just silly, no matter how many books you've read or written. You have poisoned your own well.

If you truly believe that there is a trickster at work, there is no end to the things you'll believe. A trickster can explain how Mohammed rode up to heaven on a horse in front of witnesses. It MIGHT be a better bet that this is story made up to amaze the faithful and for the sheer joy of story-telling. A trickster can explain how the Angel Moroni revealed the true history of America to Joseph Smith. It MIGHT be a better bet that ol' Joe was infected with the religious mania of the day and made up the whole story at least in part because he had a need for attention and a taste for young women, not to mention variety. Millions of people may be abducted by tricksterish UFOs each and every year, leaving no unambiguous evidence of the ordeal. It MIGHT be a better bet that the human brain is wired in such a way that some people are prone to imagine and dream these scenarios, especially when the culture at large is so permeated with these stories now. If you truly believe in a trickster, you really can't discount the stories of people who report seeing fairies. Leprechauns just might exist: on what basis can you exclude them, given the existence of a trickster? Could not a trickster manifest a man in a red suit riding a sleigh through the night sky? You can't count it out.

I enjoy the Paracast and talking to other listeners. Let's try to keep it civil and have a good time. I'm interested in your comments.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

People have always seen mysterious and puzzling things. Given enough data, science has always provided rational and non-paranormal explanations for each of them: thunder and lightning and earthquakes and metal falling from the skies and falling stars and supernovae and fossilized monsters. Not everything has been explained. Much of what we consider unexplained on this forum is based on data provided by human beings who are not very reliable. But in each and every case where enough data has been collected to provide a conclusion, it's always led to non-paranormal explanations. No ghosts. No aliens. No ESP. No mind control. No trickster. Isn't this suggestive to you? There has never been a case to prove the existence of these things. It would be WONDERFUL if there were.

I actually agree with some of what you've been saying in your posts (without the apparent anger, though). Science has always been our primary instrument to make sense of the world, to turn what was incredible and unexplainable into a coherent frame. The problem with the UFO phenomenon is that the object of experimentation and analysis hasn't yet been defined, much less organized. We have great witness testimonies, radar tracking data and even physical traces but, in the end, that evidence has never been catalogued and scrutinized in order to allow real scientific analysis to begin. Who's to blame? Scientists themselves, for starters. In some ways science has become a dogmatic establishment whose cogwheels move slowly, specially when tackling problematic subjects.
I still believe in Science and its methods as the only valid way to get some actual results out of UFO investigation, even if it is to completely disprove the phenomenon as a whole. But then again, the current instruments of science may not be the right ones for the job at hand. Also I don't think there's enough articulation between exact and social sciences to allow a wide-ranging approach to this enigma. Maybe the scientific method, as we know it, is inappropriate for this task (sometimes I think that applying our current science to the UFO problem is like trying to observe a bacteria with a telescope - the instruments just aren't right).

 

[red_pill_junkie]

But for the small amount of time Dr. Vallee was able to participate, I enjoyed the show a lot. I'm eagerly waiting for him to return as guests, as well as hearing his young partner Chris who co-wrote this most recent book with him.

Listening to the show made me wonder if Vallee hadn't been indirectly responsible for the absence of "disclosure" in the last decades. Allow me to elaborate:

During the 50s and 60s the available data gathered from sightings might have seemed to suggest that a more open contact (or an impending invasion!) was very near in the horizon. Certainly that was the conclusion reached by Keyhoe, and it might have been shared by some of the people secretly investigating UFOs inside the intelligence world.

But... maybe, just maybe, someone inside that intelligence world decided to pick a copy of "Passport to Magonia" one day, and then rushed to inform his superiors that no further plan to "come clean" with the American public about what the government really knew (or didn't know) concerning UFOs was needed, because here was this bright French scientist who made a compelling case showing this phenomenon --whatever it is-- has been interacting with humans for a very, very, VERY long time.

And so the powers at be could keep ignoring those pesky ufologists that demanded and "end to secrecy". UFOs would keep being reported, and yet the world would keep turning as it ever has. Thanks a lot, Dr. Vallee!

PS: I haven't read Chris book yet (I'm planning to, though!) but I for one like his choice of the title. The world "stalking" seemed like a subtle hat tip to the works of Castañeda

 

[CapnG]

Wrong. Read my book before you attempt to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head or beliefs in my heart. You too obviously need to get yourself up2speed on the subject...

"up2speed"? This isn't twitter, you can write complete words here.

My complaint wasn't leveled specifically at you Chris, just at the idea of the Trickster in general but if you insist on taking it personally and think it's so very unreasonable then enlighten me, when have you EVER run across a paranormal situation where your first response wasn't "It's the Trickster!"? Because that certainly seems to be the case in your tenure at the paracast.

And if that IS the case, then my criticism stands and I don't care what Jung et al wrote about the subject, simply writing about something doesn't make it real or true.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

... when have you EVER run across a paranormal situation where your first response wasn't "It's the Trickster!"?

I have never said( or believe) that EVERY paranormal situation is the work (or play, or whatever) of the Trickster. True, I have personally experienced phenomenal events that do appear on the surface to be involved with some sort of tricksterish manifestation of phenomena, but so have countless other human beings for thousands of years.

I don't care what Jung et al wrote about the subject, simply writing about something doesn't make it real or true.

So, you'd rather remain ignorant of the subject and operate from a place of "dis"-belief. That's the pot calling the kettle black IMO. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing! At least I'm attempting to look at the inexplicable in a new and creative fashion. You "believe" in the existence of subatomic particles, right? Have you ever seen one? Science "believes" that the universe was created by a "big bang," but that event was caused by some kind of singularity which tells me science has to "believe" in a pre big-bang causal element. Can you define consciousness? Science is unable to define it, yet the very act of reading this suggests that consciousness is real, not imagined... or is it? Since the Age of Reason, science has failed to fully investigate all kinds of inexplicable events and subjects because of personal bias. The subject of "rocks falling from the sky" comes to mind. Prior to the discovery of meteorites the very idea was scoffed at by mainstream academia for decades. Arguments against the existence of the paranormal is just the latest example of this sort of close-mindedness. BTW: a true seeker does their homework before casting aside the subject, and the names I mentioned are all PhD scientists who have spent years researching and investigating the trickster archetype. Perhaps you should bring yourself UP TO SPEED (happy?) and learn why the subject of the trickster--one of many archetypes found in the collective human consciousness-- is important.

 

[CapnG]

I have never said( or believe) that EVERY paranormal situation is the work (or play, or whatever) of the Trickster. True, I have personally experienced phenomenal events that do appear on the surface to be involved with some sort of tricksterish manifestation of phenomena, but so have countless other human beings for thousands of years.

All I'm saying is that that is not the impression one gets from listening to the show.

So, you'd rather remain ignorant of the subject and operate from a place of "dis"-belief. That's the pot calling the kettle black IMO. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing! At least I'm attempting to look at the inexplicable in a new and creative fashion.

Didn't you just said "so have countless other human beings for thousands of years."? How's that "new" exactly?

You "believe" in the existence of subatomic particles, right? Have you ever seen one? Science "believes" that the universe was created by a "big bang," but that event was caused by some kind of singularity which tells me science has to "believe" in a pre big-bang causal element. Can you define consciousness? Science is unable to define it, yet the very act of reading this suggests that consciousness is real, not imagined... or is it?

I'm glad you put belief in quotes at the start there because it illustrates a key difference between science and superstition: science is based ON something.All those things you mentioned are theorized to exist for a reason. And the word that is missing from all these examples is "yet". They have yet to be proven be science. They will be. Eventually, inexerably, inevitably.

Since the Age of Reason, science has failed to fully investigate all kinds of inexplicable events and subjects because of personal bias. The subject of "rocks falling from the sky" comes to mind. Prior to the discovery of meteorites the very idea was scoffed at by mainstream academia for decades.

And then it self-corrected as science always does.

Arguments against the existence of the paranormal is just the latest example of this sort of close-mindedness.

An argument against the trickster hypothesis is not an argument against the existence of the paranormal, it's an argument against an easy, lazy, simplistic one-off answer that can be slapped onto ANY paranormal event.

BTW: a true seeker does their homework before casting aside the subject, and the names I mentioned are all PhD scientists who have spent years researching and investigating the trickster archetype.

But hang on you just crapped all over science and therfore all over scientists, so by your OWN standard why should I take their word for it no matter how many letters follow their names? And even if they are PhD scientists, they can still be wrong.

Perhaps you should bring yourself UP TO SPEED (happy?) and learn why the subject of the trickster--one of many archetypes found in the collective human consciousness-- is important.

Because I've already learned all I care to. Yes, it's an archetype. So? There are lots of archetypal figures in our collective history, the Great Hero, The Enemy, etc - doesn't mean they really exist.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

There are lots of archetypal figures in our collective history, the Great Hero, The Enemy, etc - doesn't mean they really exist.

Oh really? lol You don't watch enough TV...
*quackquackquack*

 

[trainedobserver]

It would be helpful if science did get involved in the study of the paranormal at least substantially more than it does now.

I think one of the problems is that real science requires a "falsifiable" hypothesis. That is to say if the hypothesis were false, there would be some way of demonstrating that fact in an observable experiment.

Oh, and I forgot. Good show guys! (applause sign blinks)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I haven't been posting a lot lately because I've been busy, but I'm glad to see another skeptic on the site like MacDaddy that doesn't pull any punches. Chris, CapnG brings up fantastic counter points to all your arguments and all you can say is:

Oh really? lol You don't watch enough TV... *quackquackquack*

For the record, as it stands, there's no Trickster. It's a ridiculous concept.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

For the record, as it stands, there's no Trickster. It's a ridiculous concept.

Ahh, the Angel has spoketh, we salute your pontification that reveals a complete, utter naivete and razor thin reality view.
Like I told big mac and cap, YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR RESEARCH so how can you possibly know?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Ahh, the Angel has spoketh, we salute your pontification that reveals a complete, utter naivete and razor thin reality view.
Like I told big mac and cap, YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR RESEARCH so how can you possibly know?

Chris, c'mon.
Every time someone disagrees with you just come back with the whole "you haven't done your research" line. As it stands, nothing proves that the concept of a "trickster" is one that's based in reality. It's a silly concept. Something happens and we say, "It must be the Trickster!!!" Totally ridiculous.

 

[trainedobserver]

For the record, as it stands, there's no Trickster. It's a ridiculous concept.

(Gasps and stumbles backwards into the corner) Just what Loki would have you think no doubt!

 

[Kandinsky]

The Trickster as an archetype is a genuine aspect of the human consciousness and duly noted in historical and contemporary mythology, folklore and literature. Whether it has a physical manifestation is anyone's guess as far as I can tell. Where Chris explains that 'Trickster energy' is the means of disturbing the status quo by some unknown means or instrumentality is where I struggle to accept it. Taken to its smallest societal influence, it suggests that our progress is dictated by 'trickster energy.' It seems to bypass the notion that humans are creative and capable of initiative without the need of a paranormal agency.

Take for example the Sufragette Movement of the late 19th/early 20th Century. The status quo took a battering, adapted and moved on to encompass a new reality of *improved* sexual equality. Likewise European Trade Union movements of the 18th Century. These represent sea changes driven by individuals acting in concert under social and environmental pressures. Do we attribute these examples to the Trickster?

If we do, at what point does human free will and creative thinking become instrumental in our progress? If we don't accept the Trickster had an influence in these endeavours...at what point does the Trickster's influence begin? Is there an 'excluded middle' or borderlands where Trickster influence bleeds into the influence of Man?

Is it possible that many 'anomalous experiences' are just representations of abnormal psychology or reactions to genuine environmental conditions? Pareidolia can be a part of the perceived reality of people according to a spectrum of severity. Likewise, some people see synchronicity as a daily occurance that gradually becomes a confirmation bias. Others never have an unusual experience in their lives and who's to say that their reality isn't closer to actual reality?

There's a lot of question marks up there, because they deserve asking. I'm naturally cautious about attributing human achievments (successes and failures) to outside, speculative agencies....tricksters, aliens, gods and spirits alike. There's undoubtedly, in my experience, some unknown quantities at play on the outskirts of human consciousness and experience. Folk will agree or disagree about that, it's just my take on it. Sourcing these anomalous events/experiences to one overarching concept or origin is likely to be tempting, but presumptious...

 

[trainedobserver]

There's undoubtedly, in my experience, some unknown quantities at play on the outskirts of human consciousness and experience. Folk will agree or disagree about that, it's just my take on it. Sourcing these anomalous events/experiences to one overarching concept or origin is likely to be tempting, but presumptious...

Well said.

 

[Kieran]

I haven't been posting a lot lately because I've been busy, but I'm glad to see another skeptic on the site like MacDaddy that doesn't pull any punches. Chris, CapnG brings up fantastic counter points to all your arguments and all you can say is:

Hi Angel welcome back. Having another Skeptic on the site is cool, but I haven't been impressed at all with MacDaddy as you have. He is just mouthing off to himself, people here responded to his posts, but all I have seen since is more mouthing off, it seems other people are doing the work for him, yet he is the one who brought up those issues in the first place. Well personally for me, I like MacDaddy to get more involved in the discussion, then just posting opinions and more opinions, that just becomes a pointless exercise in the end!

If I am honest, Skeptics, kind of annoy me, they tend to ignore evidence, just because it does not suit their point of view.

But, I was impressed with Lance, even though he got on my nerves at times, but you got to hand to him, Lance knew, the ins and outs of UFO subject better than lot of people. Though I have to raise this issue again, were is his "Solution" that was promised months back by him, in which he said he might have answer or solution to what was seen by Kelly Johnston in 1953?

Lance, is fully entitled to have a opposite opinion to me, for starters. But, Lance never denied he was a skeptic. He posted objections on Paranormal topics, which again he was fully entitled to do so.

Now Angel, this you have to understand is important, and it is important more so now, because of this thread, we have another skeptic arguing for the non-reality of the UFO subject, so if Lance truly believes in his heart mind and soul UFO's don't exist, this sighting should be easily explained no problem at all, the non explaining from Him (he has no solution) and I have no reason to believe he has found a solution that might make sense to many of us ( well Angel the length of time doesn't give me any hope) that in my opinion further proves Skeptics, have no answers and it about time Skeptics shout up, and started looking at the subject of UFO'S seriously for once?

Sorry, for going off topic, but I believe it was important to raise the issue!

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

The Trickster as an archetype is a genuine aspect of the human consciousness and duly noted in historical and contemporary mythology, folklore and literature. Whether it has a physical manifestation is anyone's guess as far as I can tell. Where Chris explains that 'Trickster energy' is the means of disturbing the status quo by some unknown means or instrumentality is where I struggle to accept it. Taken to its smallest societal influence, it suggests that our progress is dictated by 'trickster energy.' It seems to bypass the notion that humans are creative and capable of initiative without the need of a paranormal agency.

Take for example the Sufragette Movement of the late 19th/early 20th Century. The status quo took a battering, adapted and moved on to encompass a new reality of *improved* sexual equality. Likewise European Trade Union movements of the 18th Century. These represent sea changes driven by individuals acting in concert under social and environmental pressures. Do we attribute these examples to the Trickster?

If we do, at what point does human free will and creative thinking become instrumental in our progress? If we don't accept the Trickster had an influence in these endeavours...at what point does the Trickster's influence begin? Is there an 'excluded middle' or borderlands where Trickster influence bleeds into the influence of Man?

Is it possible that many 'anomalous experiences' are just representations of abnormal psychology or reactions to genuine environmental conditions? Pareidolia can be a part of the perceived reality of people according to a spectrum of severity. Likewise, some people see synchronicity as a daily occurance that gradually becomes a confirmation bias. Others never have an unusual experience in their lives and who's to say that their reality isn't closer to actual reality?

There's a lot of question marks up there, because they deserve asking. I'm naturally cautious about attributing human achievments (successes and failures) to outside, speculative agencies....tricksters, aliens, gods and spirits alike. There's undoubtedly, in my experience, some unknown quantities at play on the outskirts of human consciousness and experience. Folk will agree or disagree about that, it's just my take on it. Sourcing these anomalous events/experiences to one overarching concept or origin is likely to be tempting, but presumptious...

You raised some interesting points in your post, while I did not agree on everything you said, it was a good post.

 

[CapnG]

Oh really? lol You don't watch enough TV...
*quackquackquack*

And here I was thinking I watch too much tv... evidently I don't watch nearly enough to translate the concept of deus ex machina into a real world proxy called "the trickster" it seems.

However, if all this pissing in your personal sandbox is just too irritiating Chris, perhaps you should just think of those of us who disagree with your trickster fetish as simply manifestations of that same trickster, prodding you into not to be so complacent in your acceptance of the trickster idea.

And good luck escaping from that mobius.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris, c'mon.
Every time someone disagrees with you just come back with the whole "you haven't done your research" line. As it stands, nothing proves that the concept of a "trickster" is one that's based in reality. It's a silly concept. Something happens and we say, "It must be the Trickster!!!" Totally ridiculous.

How can you pass judgment on something, anything, any subject that you are obviously unable to even properly define, let alone understand? It is glaringly obvious to me that you have next to no idea what "the trickster" (as a concept) actually entails, and instead of finding out, its much easier for you to sneer that it is "totally ridiculous" with the implied suggestion that I have no critical thinking abilities. So when I say "do your research" kind and gentle Angel, what I am suggesting is admit to your intellectual dishonesty, put on your bi-focals, do a little work and expand your thinking before making ridiculous statements such as "It's a silly concept," or "nothing proves that the concept of a "trickster" is one that's based in reality." I am fairly certain that if you do some research you would not dismiss this difficult subject so readily with such prejudice.

 

[tyder001]

I haven't really looked into the "Trickster" aspect so maybe I misunderstand what you guys are arguing about here. To me (and I have admitted I am not well versed in it.) what I get is that some people think there is a spiritual or interdimensional presence interfacing with mankind. That sometime they manifest as a UFO and sometime as "Little People" or even Djinn. I don't know that Chris it trying to say it's an actual "personage." But, maybe he is since I'm not real sure. I will say this. I have not personally seen anything that convinces me of the reality of a off planet presence in the cosmos. I have had my own personal experience with "paranormal" reality but even that is something I think "science" will catch up to. Although, when they do it won't be as simple as a brain fart or as religous as a glimpse of heaven. I personally do believe in the human soul but I don't beleive in religion or dogma. I am intriegued (scuse muh spellin) by the NDE and work of people such as Chris Carter and Von Lommel in Europe. I don't mind "discussing" the paranormal with a skeptic becaue in actuallty I'm a pretty skeptical person myself. But, I get annoyed at people who dismiss all of human hope and searching as simply a fairy tale. I get annoyed with fundi Christians that label everything the devil or resort to beating you over the head with a bible. I also get annoyed with so called skeptics that yell "Science" as if it is a "thing" you can hold in your hand instead of a mulitude of human diciplines. It's just another form of religious bulling at that point. I respect Angel and Trained Observer although I have had some heated discussions with both of em at times. Will again I'm sure. Macdady did not impress me (not that he has to) because he simply came in roaring and acting contentious instead of introducing himself to the forum in a civil manner. I get the fact that some folks feel like they have to have the scientific method to prove everything. But, I also get the fact that people such as Sir Rodger Penrose and Sir John Echols and other really,really smart folks are not reductionist. Not bible thumping Christians but not reductionsist either. But, ya know what? It wouldn't matter to me anyway. I am simply not a materialist reductionsist. Similar to the well known skeptic who said in speaking of the paranormal "Even if it were true I wouldn't believe it." Belive it or not I read that in a book published by Scientific American but I can't find it right now. So, either I need to find it and give you a link or I guess you can decide to believe or not believe me. Doesn't really matter. There is ample evidence that something is going on in human and earthly life that is more than we have measured with a test tube. But, what it is and how to define it is still not something I can say for sure. I call myself a Christian Agnostic because I know that "I AM" and I know that I'm not a by product of a chemical process in the brain. But, like all of us I'll cross that "river" when I come to it.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

And here I was thinking I watch too much tv... evidently I don't watch nearly enough to translate the concept of deus ex machina into a real world proxy called "the trickster" it seems.

However, if all this pissing in your personal sandbox is just too irritiating Chris, perhaps you should just think of those of us who disagree with your trickster fetish as simply manifestations of that same trickster, prodding you into not to be so complacent in your acceptance of the trickster idea.

And good luck escaping from that mobius.

Easy. First of all, the trickster is one of a constellation of archetypes that deep exist within the collective human unconscious. It is a liminal, causal element within culture that manifests as an amoral, non-judgemental force without a self-aware agenda. YOU, my demon friend are extremely judgmental. You have an agenda, therefore, you and the other boo-birds are not the trickster. You have tricksterish qualities, but they only lean toward the part of the trickster that most of us would perceive as the "fool." As to pissing in my personal sandbox (? weird analogy, dude, but you are entitled to your languaging), go use the toilet or, at least be polite and go behind the bushes. And don't forget to shake your pee-pee and for Lucifer's sake be sanitary & go wash your hands...