That makes sense. I wouldn't exceed your 'card' level relationship until you are invited to do so. It's very likely that one of the things you are being assessed for by this kid is your ability to abide within stated limitations on the relationship. Contacting them with memes and articles indicates and inability to respect a stated boundary. Instead show him that you *do* have the ability to respect boundaries that another person states, even when they are painful for you. This will show that your skills are growing and you are becoming more safe.

Oh! Since you *are* at a relationship level where perfunctory cards are acceptable -- might I suggest that this is an excellent phase of life for you to revive the old fashioned tradition of thank you cards? You could send one back to them after each recognition of a birthday. That's like an extra, 3-5x per year when you can make a positive contact! (Plus it would remind them that their cards are meaningful on your end, which might encourage them to remember each of their siblings instead of being forgetful of some of them.)

I'd send one back, with "Thank you for your card. Merry Christmas to you too!" This clarifies that (a) you did not 'contact them' on your own initiative, but are trying to reciprocate what you are seeing, and ( b ) that you are thankful for even their most perfunctory contact. You still have a lot of feelings to sort out regarding the incident at the wedding, and your mixed feelings that include a bit of a dark side (like maybe: resentment, minor retribution, and/or desire for some level of control within the relationship, your own childhood as a basis for relevant comparison, etc.). It's probably for the best that you are on 'Christmas card terms' for now, until you are able to process those things and get yourself towards a more healthy perspective. Having a 'perfunctory card' relationship is not a "both ways" thing. It's just a level of relationship. It means that you are free to reply-in-kind (with perfunctory cards for each occasion) but not welcome to initiate and contact of a more significant nature (including not writing non-perfunctory things in the cards). Isn't it nice to know that you are forgiven? And that you are wished-well with kind thoughts multiple times per year? With a no-contact adult child, I don't think that's nothing. This is not "just a child wanting control" -- this is an *adult* recognizing that they *have* control. That's not the same thing. An adult's control of how and when they choose to be in a relationship an aspect of their rightful agency as a human being. It is right and proper. It belongs to them, no one should, in any way attempt to interfere with it. That's hard for you, because you weren't raised with a sense of proper rights and freedoms belonging to people simply because they are human. And it's 100x harder for you because this person's freedom is being used to hurt and reject you. You need someone to hug you through this and comfort you in your legitimate pain... but you don't need to judge your kid to do that. You can just be hurt. Your pain matters. You matter. It's not about control.

Man, I think I'm too blunt. I'd be tempted to say, "Nobody likes being criticized, Angie." -- on repeat, like a broken record, every time it comes up. There's nothing like a bit of negative reinforcement. If someone is already violating social norms, I have no qualms about also violating social norms to tell them so.

This sounds awful. I don't know what's wrong with social conventions. Among family surely you can say, "(Reply to something logistical), and I was hoping you would ask how I am feeling. The covid is really uncomfortable, but hopefully it won't last too long. (Something else innocuous.)" How are people supposed to meet each other's relational expectations/needs/hopes if we always shrink from so much as mentioning our hopes to one another? There's no data that anything is even slightly wrong. How can anyone respond to no data?

I think that sort of thing is generally fine in healthy relationships -- but you don't have to be "bonkers" to not want your kids' images and info being spread without your knowledge and consent. Therefore if a relationship is already rocky, it's super wise not to rock the boat with *any* potential mis-step. Even if it's 'probably fine'.

The house hippo commercial was made when I was a kid, and the perfect age for it. I've absolutely never forgotten it. We used to love it whenever it came on during our kids shows.

Good! It sounds like your xh going to have more "fun" asking (and paying) his lawyer to do useless things to try to control your life. *And* he's going to make sure you see more of your son! I don't know if you've got enough 'feeling of distance' from him yet -- but eventually it can be amusing to watch control freaks tie themselves in knots then spin in circles to try to control stuff (people) that they have no power over. About NOLA, statistics are what they are, but it doesn't mean that all the people who live there are in danger all the time. It's another feature of your xh's distorted thinking, and it's why he never liked your sense of adventure and willingness to enjoy NOLA during your marriage. It must be so nice to be free and not have to make 'compromise' decisions with someone else's irrational perspectives! As for the kids, maybe it's worth talking about the real math of crime statistics, and how, yes, crime is 'more likely' some places than others -- but it's still rare, and safety is fairly easy to achieve with ordinary precautions. You might say, "Lots of people overreact to crime information, but it's really just information. It doesn't mean that nobody should live here. It's a great place to live." They may need some reassurance. But regular visits as they begin to feel familiar and safe to the kids will also contribute to their sense of wellbeing.

That's great! Good hosts (and good people in general) don't push alcohol onto other folks. I'm really glad your host was not only someone with basic manners, but someone with a host plan for people who aren't drinking -- and a pretty glass too!

If he gets "the usual" 5-10 day version of covid this time, I agree with most posters that the probability is that 14 days is sufficient for him to both feel well enough to travel, and for it to be microbiologically safe for others to have him travelling. Testing will help confirm that. I'd say he should wear a mask anyways during crowded circumstances like planes and lineups (which has been current advice for everyone for a long time now, anyways). The tricky bit is what to do if his symptoms stick around. On what day, with which symptoms, will you feel the need to call this off? I suggest making some cut-off criteria for yourself now (while you are thinking objectively and compassionately) so that if 'push comes to shove' you will know the right thing to do.

It seems to me like maybe, if they were to react to just the allegation that their drink has contributed to deaths by stopping sales immediately -- that their reaction could be used in the argument that they are at fault. It could seem like an admission of guilt. They probably need to maintain that they don't consider their product to blame... and they probably will, until proven otherwise.

Do we know: Are these the new/current signs (in response to the first lawsuit) or are they the original signs (that were in place when the alleged victims made their choice to drink it)?

It really seems like a situation of improper signage, more than anything. People drink energy drinks: but it is difficult to drink an individually packaged energy drink without knowing that it contains caffeine and other unregulated stimulants. It's also difficult to drink more than one serving without knowing you are drinking more than one serving. Something about the 'look and feel' of a lemonade drink, in a free-flowing dispenser, with large cups available (especially with their 'frequent sipper' (?) unlimited drink plan) is distracting enough that the "charged" branding isn't having enough impact. Maybe people feel that it's 'caffeinated like a coke or a coffee' but not excessively. Or maybe people just don't associate lemonade and caffeine at all, in spite of the "charged" label. It's not difficult to understand both sides of this issue. On the one hand, the marketer is not telling lies. In fact, they are trying to tell people the 'good' features of a "charged" beverage -- that it's full of stimulants. How much messaging is enough? On the other hand, putting a cup right next to a free-self-refill dispenser that is 10mg shy of the known *maximum* safe daily serving for an adult (and completely unsafe for children and folks with conditions) seems irresponsible. I'm fascinated to see how the courts divide up the culpable responsibility here.

It just seems like this whole set of conflicts is an elaborate competition of who among you-all seems to be best able to predict the future. Since none of you can predict the future, I suggest, firmly, that most of you stop trying. And let the one person with hiring/firing power just go ahead and implement whichever choices seem best in her eyes. When the future comes to pass will be well-soon-enough to be dealing with it. There's no sense in pre-caring about harm or hardship that hasn't happened yet, might not happen, and won't need any response whatsoever until/unless it does happen... and is not much additional difficulty to respond to if it does come to pass. (I mean to say: it might result in needing new staff or a better care plan. Which is exact what is needed now. So there's no delta between the current situation and the situation at the future situation at trailing edge of a different potentially unsuitable helper.)

I think there are some reasonable solutions for "kid sharing" between this family and yours -- in the future. I don't think it's quite time yet. To be able to facilitate this you really need to be able to briefly glimpse these folks and keep your polite face on. You need to at least be able to say or text businesslike messages around timings and pickup/drop off contact. It doesn't sound like you are ready for that. And that's fine. You aren't hurting your children by holding off for another month or two (while these wounds scab over a little more). I wouldn't try to do this until you feel like your 'cool and distant' skills are in place. The last thing you need is drama on top of what has already passed between you.

I can't get your linked article to load. Could you tell me which particular contents of this book do you think aren't coming though clearly in the common sense media description? Is there something that makes it suitable for 12-13yos (7th grade?) but not 11yos?

So she used this story to "encourage" that local school board to ban scholastic book fairs? That sounds like she took up some time at that meeting with her absurd story, but did it have any impact? What is the goal of this kind of activism? It's true that many 'coming of age' books for tweens and teens have details in them that feel lively and sexy for their target audience. I personally remember experiencing 'romance novel feelings' arising from books in my school library as I was growing up. These are appropriate things to explore in the privacy of literature and they are perfectly normal feelings to feel while reading. In fact, reading published works of fiction, written for teens and tweens, is a very safe space -- as opposed to exploring on you tube, or other parts of the internet that 11yos may access out of curiosity. It's also true that nobody wants kindergarteners to accidentally read detailed descriptions of sexual activities in a book that's not age-appropriate for them. Surely reasonable people can handle both sides of this issue and work towards reasonable solutions? In my opinion, 11yo is not too young to think about sex or experience sexual feelings while reading. But 8th grade seems to overshoot the target a little -- is there a practical reason for that age grouping?

Has he given you reason to believe he's not telling you the plain ordinary truth in his statements? Does he have an expectation that you will make guesses about what he really means? To me, this seems like a normal guy who has more time some days than other days, and wants to see his girlfriend whenever it works out to do that. It sounds like he forecasts possible dates/times (so you and he can make plans) but keeps things a little tentative (because his life requires flexibility) and confirms the plans closer to the actual time. If he 'runs hot and cold' for you, I affirm you in trusting your own gut. Of all of us, you are the only person who actually knows this guy. You're the expert here. But from data alone, I don't really see it, myself.

Or it might be completely accurate, and it makes you unhappy enough to hope that it's not accurate. I suggest you check the track record of the person you are thinking of. Either the two factors that feel correlated to you are actually correlated in real life, or they are not. So: in the past, when communication drops from this person, did you find that they did or did not continue to want to see you with the same level of enthusiasm? Did you find that their enthusiasm, pro-active planning, happiness of seeing you, frequency of meeting, etc, was generally going up and down in tandem with the level of communication? (Or is this the first communication reduction? If so, just hold off on assessing it as 'more than' reduced communication/attention, and wait to see if it is also a reduction in enthusiasm, etc, as you are inclined to interpret it.)

Well, I think "very dangerous" is a serious overstatement, or probably representative of a misunderstanding of what people mean by 'relationships'. If my supervisor doesn't reply to emails until weeks after the fact. Okay, then. I stop needing, wanting, or expecting prompt communication from someone who is not a prompt communicator. I phone them if I need a quick turn around, otherwise I give them lots of lead time. No one has been harmed. We just had a thread for my sake about how it's unlikely that my spouse will even change his behaviour and urgency about washing dishes. So I decided aluminum pans are going to have a greater role in my kitchen life. (BTW, thanks for that, everybody.) I really *do* know how to need/want less from folks. Accepting the imperfections of my life is a tough slog at various moments, but overall, I think I like the results. Decreasing interdependence and increasing independent isn't the warmest or most vulnerable step to take in a relationship, but it's one I only take if I am experiencing pain. It's definitely not coming from a 'scared to be left' place. It usually comes from a perspective of wanting to get the most *that is actually available* out of all of my relationships, without feeling beat-up in the process. I can see now that you are talking primarily about romantic partners during the maybe-maybe-not phase of things. I have very little (and *very* juvenile) experience of romance at the dating stage, and I wouldn't have really contributed if I knew that was the main topic. I thought we were talking about ourselves as centres of dozens of relationships with people who matter to us. (If I was giving dating advice, I'd definitely say to hold out for high standards, ask for what you want, and look hard for someone who 'naturally' (without much prompting) has a relationship style and life circumstances that suits your needs. And be ready to walk away. People rarely have permanent whole-life-and-personality makeovers in response to a simple conversation. No matter how much someone likes you, they will usually be approximately as capable of doing things in the future as they are currently demonstrating in the present. It's not that "people don't change" -- it's just that deep change is usually pretty gradual or requires professional help/guidance.)

I'm not sure if I'm passive-aggressive or not -- but I often respond to hurtful behaviour from others with boundaries, distance, or new ways of thinking about the relationship. I don't really feel a need to tell them my decisions and reasoning, unless they notice and ask. (And if they do notice and ask, sometimes I lie.) My primary motive in making changes like that would be to help myself cope: hopefully without attracting any attention or pressing any demands on the other party. I just make myself need/want less. Then I can move past the hurt and be satisfied in the relationship again.

This really sounds like two people, who are not you, are having a difficult employer-employee relationship. They each have the power and the potential to be quite seriously unfair to one another... but neither of them are you. I think you should advise the employer to give either notice or severance pay -- since that's an ethically right decision -- but you can't enforce it, and if these two parties decided to start this relationship without a contract... that's not awesome, but it's not the end of the world. Advise them to write and sign a contract with their new employee (if they get one).

I think your explanations are practically perfect! What a skilled educator of youngsters you are! All that's really needed is repetition and consistency. Maybe pare down some of the explanations to shorter 'catch phrases' for briefer interactions -- but, really, your existing catch phrase ('not a preschool word') is perfectly adequate. I don't think these kids need so much a 'better explanation' than simply going over the existing explanation the required number of times.

It's terrible to be in a position that you need to reach for loans from people who think they know your life better than you do! It makes all of your decisions into discussions!!! If you do what he wants (start in a hotel) do you think he will loan you the money to make a more permanent home after the job actually starts?

No. I've tried.