I am surprised by the level of blasé attitude some writers offer in this thread. An oven door shattering is terrifying and should not happen. If the manufacturer knows this to be a common defect, then they need to address this through materials processing. Glass is a very well understood material which we've been perfecting for 2000 years. As a glass blower I know that there are times when materials are not stable because of processing or impurities in the glass, or what the glass is designed to do, but an oven door should be designed to withstand the high heats which we know it will encounter. It is not the same thing as taking a handblown wine glass and having it shatter in the dishwasher. We know the wine glass will shatter because it isn't made of glass that is able to withstand that kind of contraction and expansion. It is outrageous that GE would even suggest charging someone and treat this as a minimal inconvenience. My oven door shattered 8 days after installing a brand new GE Cafe double oven. This is unacceptable, full stop. The glass dust which is now throughout the oven cannot simply be vacuumed away with any level of assurance that would ever make me think I could cook in the oven without glass dust circulating. Glass dust as small as .05µm is dangerous. That's like suggesting I should vacuum off the glass bench and be able to make a sandwich on it. This is absolutely outrageous.

mogator, thanks for your reply. The problem with Saloom is that the warranty excludes checks and then includes the language that checks are natural. I noticed the checks right after the table was delivered (I wasn't home when it was delivered) but they were so tiny and I thought I had a year to see if they really were a problem, so I didn't pursue it at that time. And then 4 months after I got the table, I found out that the warranty specifically excluded checks (see my December 2006 post in the furniture forum, linked above). I'm sure I asked the store about the warranty when I purchased my table, but a copy of the warranty was never given to me and I didn't read it until December of 2006 when I checked Saloom's web site for care instructions--I take full responsibility for not having asked for a copy of the warranty and reading it myself (although I think a copy of the warranty should have been given to me when the table was delivered). However, the exclusion of checks, coupled with the language in the warranty that checks are natural etc., makes you think that there is nothing wrong with excluding checks from the warranty and really does make a customer think that they can't pursue a warranty claim if they get a check in their table. I sent my letter to the furniture company in August because, whether checks are natural or not, I really thought that it was wrong for a new table to have them and I wanted the company to know that and, if checks are not covered by the warranty, then I thought the furniture store should have inspected the table for checks before they delivered it to me. The language in the warranty about checks being natural is what makes customers like me who experience problems with checks to not vigorously pursue them as a warranty claim. And now I learn that the language in the warranty is deceptive and that checks can be caused by defects in workmanship or material and it really is not fair to put 100% of the liability for checks on the customer. I think that my statements that Saloom's warranty is not as broad as the warranties of other manufacturers of similar quality, that Saloom's warranty includes deceptive language about the cause of checks, and that Saloom has no customer service department are accurate and I think people should know about those things if they are considering purchasing a Saloom table. I think Saloom tables are pretty and, except for the checks, I'm happy with the quality of my table and chairs. However, I can tell it won't be long before the finish starts chipping off by the checks and then my one year and 5 month old table will be an eyesore which just isn't right. I, too, thought that the Saloom tables were nicer than the Canadel tables, but I can tell you that I would rather have a Canadel table without checks than my Saloom table with the checks. I understand that Saloom wants customers to pursue warranty claims though the dealer, but Saloom could still have an email address where customers can send their questions/comments/complaints, even if all Saloom does is forward them to the dealer and tell you to contact the dealer. Canadel, Ethan Allen, Stickley, Thomasville, Century, Bernhardt, etc. all have contact information on their websites. Dealers are not always the easiest people to deal with and when you have a problem like mine that appears to be a tiny problem and seems to be excluded by the warranty, it is nice to be able to email the manufacturer with your concerns. It sounds like you have spoken to the woman who called me--LOL!

Posted by christyinco: "Lilylore - what do you think of Beverly27's layout suggestion?" Sorry, I am a little late coming back to the discussion. I thought her arrangement was brilliant when I saw it drawn out, but I would switch the dressers. I like aktillery's mock up, with the mirror behind the lamp and the way she has the curtain panel, it doesn't look bad, either with or without the curtain. I don't really like heavy items above a headboard, like the star mirror. My thought it this: if the piece does come loose from the wall, will it fall straight down behind the bed? or will it get stuck in the head board and possibly break or bounce off of it -that's why I believe that anything over a head board should not stick out too much. The last thing I want is to do wake up in a dark room with shattered mirror on my face. And even if it is cemented in place and no chance of falling in an earthquake, It is still that visual calamity about to happen that I find too unsettling in a bedroom. I would switch the chests of drawers. First of all I would put the long drawers to the left of the bed where it was, I think it would look less imposing when you came in. The tall high boy can go against the wall ('opposite' the bed to right as you enter) but if I put a dresser there I would center it on the wall. The tallboy could go back where it was beside the window, because I think it balanced the windows nicely. In that case you can leave the doggie bed on the 'opposite' wall, but perhaps introduce a small bench or stool, to sit when you put your socks on. I don't mind if art doesn't match the textiles in the room. If you love the birch paintings, I think they would be lovely and all the more better for not being matchy matchy. Art shouldn't be chosen because it matches a room, the room should support the art. But I also like the idea of the surreal landscape, it could be very calming.

Under no circumstances should a piece of mirror “lean” anywhere. This is a killer. Mirror is nothing more than 1/4” glass with silver on its back. It is not stable unless it is attached to the wall with mirror mastic, golf ball size globs in the recommended coverage. I cannot stress enough that mirror cannot safely lean against a wall, even if it is in a frame. If it slips and falls onto a person, death or disfigurement will be the result. And the price of $2544.00 is nonsense. You cannot ship that mirror without crating it unless you have a glass truck. A good glass company can give you a real and reasonable price on furnishing and installing with mirror mastic to your wall.