I used to feel the same as you. But the short answer here is because the law chooses to focus on the welfare of the child over either of the parents. It isn't about being fair to the mother or the father. The mother and the father made the child. The child needs care. The mother and the father are the most reasonably responsible for its care.

Fair enough. Sounds like A is going to have to decide whether they talk to B directly, complain to the supervisor that B still isn't meeting expectations, or drop it. But keeping you in the middle isn't going to solve the problem and it needs to stop. You can say that firmly but nicely and with validation. (The validation is important to maintaining your relationship with A.)

At the end of the day, this sounds like a failure at the management level. If B is known to be underperforming, it's on management to either find a way to help B improve or replace B. Management's failure here is hurting all 3 of you. A has a right to be pissed. B needs guidance or the boot. And you need to be free of this mess.

I have a similar thing, but I got over it by committing to robbing every vendor of everything they have. Then there's no one to buy the stupid fork.

Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?

There's a lot of apolitical fundraising.

It blows my mind that so many questions in this community could be instantly answered by Google. Just typing "whinging" gives its definition and identifies it as British.

The question wasn't stupid. But OP was too lazy to even try and do their own research. Which ironically resulted in more work for them.

Yeah, but to be fair, that defeats the point OP is making by stating their sex frequency. If it's all relative, then his activity is irrelevant when discussing someone else's.

Excellent point. My apologies.

I think the WHO has slightly more credibility than any random Lenny user.

And no, your attitude is not called for. There's a legitimate body that had called the safety of aspartame into question. Whether it meets your standards is personal. But it's poor form to attack others for citing credible sources (a chemistry teacher is worth following up on for chem matters, which, in this case--again--led directly to a statement by the WHO).

You have simultaneously said it's both been studied excessively and acknowledged the WHO has said it needs more study.

Rando vs WHO. WHO wins. Aspartame may be dangerous. And, incidentally, so may working as a dry cleaner. Which seems like a good warning to put out there. Thank you angry, rude person trolling this thread.

Edit: just googled "cancer rates among dry cleaners" and wow... it seems a number of studies have demonstrated elevated cancer rates among dry cleaners. Here are a couple:

Sweden study

St Louis study

I think it's, "but my god is the journal itself atrocious"

They are definitely bad for your teeth. My dentist/wife does not like how much I drink them, but since she works on me for free I don't see a downside

Check out pandemic. It's a game where everyone wins or everyone loses.

Ah yes. The game of everlasting friendship.

You blocked my road! I needed to build on that spot! I'm trapped! You're picking me again for the baron? You do realize if you trade with them they're going to win, right?