Is it legal for venues or promoters to make up any rules they want?

[TheGayTent]

Induced labour can be more painful than a natural labour.

It's not something you would choose for ease or laziness.

That said, I very rarely spend money on bottled water

[eFestivals]

Neil you are an idiot

I said tap water can taste better than bottled water. I also said bottled water can taste better than bottled water. Its only your trying to paint my opinion as saying one is better than the other.

I would opt for bottled water over tap water a venue though (depending on the brand on sale) as I know what's in the bottled water and I dislike certain regional water

But do feel free to keep telling us its all the same when the facts and your own posts say different.

yep, you know what all bottled water tastes like, and you know without drinking it that the tap water in the venue will taste worse than the bottled water they sell but where you've yet to see what brand of bottled water they sell but you'll buy it anyway in the belief that it's better.

And you think it's me that's the idiot?

If your taste buds are so sensitive that your night out will be ruined by drinking the tap water, I'm surprised you don't have a job as a taster somewhere - there's people crying out for skills like that.

Or perhaps it's just that you've fallen for marketing bollocks, and your taste buds are not as good as you think.

Let's do a Barry taste test. Here's betting he can't identify what is bottled water and what isn't.

(given that this same taste test has been done countless times with some of the best tasters in the business and none can tell, it's a sure bet that Barry can't either).

[eFestivals]

I just posted the quote...

where's the mention of the c-section? Oh look, it's not there and Barry has made it up.

And guess what? Being induced means that less pushing is standardly required than when not induced - because the woman dilates to the fullest extent that they will when they might otherwise not.

[eFestivals]

A c-section is the only procedure which results in less pushing.

bullshit.

If you're trying to push a ten pence piece thru a penny sized hole, that takes a fuck of a lot of pushing.

If that penny sized hole is widened to be the size of a ten pence piece, it takes no pushing.

People get induced for more reasons than to start the labour; they also get induced when labour has started but dilation hasn't happened.

(says the person who sat thru a 53 hour labour).

All women will dilate to the amount required with or without induction.

if that were true, c-sections would never have come to exist.

The point is tho: dilation doesn't always perfectly time-fit with labour.

And if dilation is less than it might otherwise be, that means more pushing is required. If dilation is increased artificially, less pushing is required because there's less to resist the pushing.

(and funnily enough, a huge chunk of deliveries use a method of artificially dilating, even if it's just by a bit of 'tickling')

Now that you've had a basic physics and biology lesson, shall we move on?

Edited July 30, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

From nhs.uk :

"Induced labour is usually more painful than spontaneous labour (labour that starts on its own)"

IMO, though I have had no desire in the past to check (I rely on my taste buds), bottled water is in the main no better than tap water - and again IMO people who buy tap water are wasting their hard earned...

[eFestivals]

Neil knows better

nothing of that addresses what you're disputing, and neither does it say "always".

[eFestivals]

They don't like women going over 42 weeks for many reasons. That is why the first induce them and if that fails they almost always then go to c-section. Idiot

c-sections are normally done for breech births and the like - where the dilation is not enough for the object trying to go thru it.

Which is rather at odds with your statement that "All women will dilate to the amount required with or without induction.".

My initial comment about Kate was meant only flippantly, but if you're going to call me out as speaking boillocks, it least not be speaking bollocks yourself, eh?

[eFestivals]

You are posting so much unbacked up bullshit I have never heard before I don't know where to start.

no more or less than you, as happens - if we were both posting bullshit. But I'm sure we can at least agree that only one person is.

The idea that being induced results in less pushing has no grounding from what I can see. Feel free to back it up otherwise it makes no logical sense.

A pregnant woman doesn't necessarily dilate or fully dilate at the time of labour starting. The two things are not 100% irrevocably tied together.

So if a woman goes into labour before they've started to dilate or have only dilated a little, then a midwife might (or at least: might have in the past) induce the birth to start or speed up dilation.

I believe it's also pretty normal for a midwife to 'tickle' inside a woman giving birth to artificially increase dilation (that's how it was told to me by a midwife when my kid was born, anyhow).

In both cases the purpose is to increase dilation which reduces resistance to the birth - and so the birth requires less pushing as a result.

(I'm not speaking as any expert here, so i'm sure any midwife could rip that apart for wrong terminology and misunderstandings about how and why exactly things are done. But I am speaking from the experience of having witnessed a birth where labour had started but there was little or no dilation going on, and where the birth was induced to help the dilation process along - and which meant less pushing than if that hadn't of happened).

[TheGayTent]

Induced labour tends to mean the woman experiences strong contractions much sooner. Notwithstanding that, the cervix in induced women tends not to be as soft and open as that of a woman experiencing a natural labour. Hence induced labour can be more painful than a natural labour.

That's what a bit of googling shows anyway - I am not an expert!

Must be some efestival ladies that have experienced both?

Edited July 30, 2013 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

I think you are getting yourself in a twist here Neil...

First you had a nasty pop at a young girl giving birth.

yeah, it was awful of me to suggest she was too posh to push, as a flippant throwaway comment. Nasty nasty nasty. Never has such a nasty thing happened in the history of the world.

You are painting a picture of the women dilating and the baby just sliding out

Nope, not at all. I'm merely standing behind the factual accuracy of my words against the factual inaccuracies of your own.

The real reality is that being induced is MORE painful.

The real reality is that you're making it up, yet again.

It depends on the circumstances. Becoming dilated via being induced is a hell of a lot LESS painful than being in the same circumstance without being artificially dilated.

You are making claims for all circumstances. I'm merely pointing out that what you say does not apply in all circumstances.

The idea that gel actuals loosens the women up more than the natural body body process is where I believe you are totally wrong. During a normal birth the women will dilate better than a women who is being artificially triggered.

and yet not all births are "normal", and not everyone has the same "natural body body process".

------

First off you took what was meant nothing more than flippantly as something meant with full medical accuracy, and then you claim full medical accuracy for what you're making up. You couldn't make it up (except you already have ).

[eFestivals]

Induced labour tends to mean the woman experiences strong contractions much sooner. Notwithstanding that, the cervix in induced women tends not to be as soft and open as that of a woman experiencing a natural labour. Hence induced labour can be more painful than a natural labour.

makes sense to me, and doesn't go against anything I've said.

The important words within what you've said is "a woman experiencing a natural labour". The point is that not every expectant mother experiences 'natural labour' which is precisely the reason for the existence of things like inducing a birth.

[eFestivals]

anyway ... bottled water is a con.

[TheGayTent]

The important words within what you've said is "a woman experiencing a natural labour". The point is that not every expectant mother experiences 'natural labour' which is precisely the reason for the existence of things like inducing a birth.

[TheGayTent]

anyway ... bottled water is a con.

[eFestivals]

Yes, quite.

But the existence of things like labour induction isn't for Princesses who are too posh to push...

It can be, but probably wasn't in this case.

As I keep pointing out, it was meant nothing more than flippantly. It's only Barry's stupidity with his own claims of medical accuracy that has caused it to be dragged up here.

[TheGayTent]

It can be, but probably wasn't in this case.

Edited July 30, 2013 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

wtf...

You said it opens it more and reduces the pushing ? Your a fucking mad if you think that doesn't go against what you said LMAO

It *DOES* dilate a woman more and so reduce the pushing. What aren't you getting?

Are you thinking women are induced for no reason, that it's all slipping out nicely already?

I don't know if Kate was induced or not (there were conflicting reports), but if she was induced it's likely to have reduced the effort she'd have need to make to give birth at the same time. You know, caused her to push less than she'd otherwise had to.

People are induced for a reason, and that reason is that nature isn't doing everything it should be doing.

[eFestivals]

Like I said... IDIOT

says the idiot that takes a line about the "natural" process and then think it always applies exactly the same when the process is not fully natural.

What I think you might NOW be getting at ...

... is something else you've just made up.

Edited July 30, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So unwinding your madness again... She was too posh to do an impossible push and should waited longer for the pregnancy to develop into a medical emergency or worse...

Fantastic work

yep, you've outdone your normal self here ... and all as a way to avoid your sucker-ism for marketing being talked about.

[eFestivals]

LMAO - Every way we spin what you said you was talking bollocks

nope, it was factually accurate tho rather stupid for any literal application.

As opposed to your doings, which were both unfactual and stupid.

As for the marketing thing. Again you tried twisting one way and then back and then undid yourself when you admitted that bottle water can be very different then tap water Due to the mineral content and source

water is water is water is water. It makes as good as no difference if you get it from a tap or a bottle.

Yes, there can be differences in taste - for either. Nothing of that difference in taste is because of "quality" or "better", but only because any source of good water is 'contaminated' (not in a bad way) by the environment from which it is collected.

There is no source of bottled water in the UK where you can't get the same tasting water out of a tap. And that's because water is water is water; there is nothing worthwhile about bottled water.

Oh the wonderful world of Neil So what happened to that job ? Why you back here?

posting for the fun of it. My employment plans are the same as they've been for the last 3-ish months.

That's yet another attacked you've failed with. Now, are you going to get over yourself?

Edited July 30, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

An "attack" More of a ribbing

Just because you keep repeating stuff like water is water is water doesn't make it right

and just cos it comes in a bottle and requires money to be handed over at the time of purchase doesn't make it better.

I've seen you moan about the price of petrol, but you think paying twice as much for water is worth it.

Edited July 30, 2013 by eFestivals