IME even the "premium" flats ain't always all that, or at least BM's not. We've had BM Regal Matte in a light midtone (BM Boardwalk) up in one room for almost two years. It STILL burnishes on cleaning (and I'm not scrubbing it with harsh cleaners and rough cheap sponges or the rather abrasive Magic Eraser, I wash gently with a soft cloth and mild soap) - I have poor balance and often steady myself against walls, and I have a cat and dog that both like to sit/rub against the walls, so the walls get grubby. Someone talked me into the matte insisting that it was totally washable, I wouldn't have used it otherwise. Thank goodness we have most of a gallon in the basement because we're going to have to put another coat on before the house goes on the market, it looks so tatty. My BM dealer says 80% of his customers love the Regal Matte, 20% hate it, and no one seems to be in-between. :-) We'll be using flats in the two bedrooms we're painting before we sell but that's because the paint was free and I don't examine the dentition of an equine received gratis. LOL And we'll let the realtor tout that it's the "new washable flat" (they're BM and C2) even if we've had a rotten experience with it.

Of course it is a hostess' obligation to try to make her guests comfortable and tolerate any variations they cause to the normal day to day routine of the house. This should not be too onerous for the hostess - because it is also incumbent upon the houseguests to do their best to make sure that they are pleasant, as little trouble as possible, and hopefully even do small things to show their appreciation for the hostess, if they can. Where I used to live, when my brother would come to visit he'd sleep on my sleeper sofa in the living room. As hostess, and one who got up earlier than him, I'd try to keep quiet so that he could sleep. In such a small place generally that meant I'd have to leave and run errands! When I'd return from errands, as guest, my brother would have sleeper sofa made back up and his personal belongings reasonably tidied up. Having or being a houseguest can be a bit stressful but so long as both parties try to think of what they can do to make it easier for the other person generally all goes fairly well. But, the problem here is that it sounds like the adult skids are not doing their part to follow any etiquette, and if only one party is expected to behave well (DannieB, by being expected to be an accommodating hostess) without any reciprocal attempts by the skids to be good guests, it is natural that she'd begin to feel put-upon and used. She's the hostess - she's not a maid, and she's being taken advantage of (letting their dog on someone's furniture?! Really?!) What if you're at work, and periodically someone runs over to doughnut shop across the street to get breakfast? A colleague might ask if you'd mind getting them a doughnut too, and offers to pay you. You, of course, say yes to the request and no to the offer of payment - it's a doughnut, for heaven's sake! And normally one doesn't quibble over who owes pocket change to whom. Fine - but what happens when ten months later you realize that you are always buying doughnuts for this one person? That person has never reciprocated? Yes, it's just a doughnut - but ten months worth of daily doughnuts start to add up, and no one likes to feel used. Most people are going to not say anything, not cause a scene - but just start quietly slipping out for doughnuts so the colleague doesn't know beforehand, and thus can't ask for another freebie at someone else's expense. DannieB has been putting up with this for twenty years. Her husband won't say anything, the "kids" can't be bothered, she can't tell the kids to go stay at a hotel - there are only two options left for her (well, three if you count divorce and/or murdering the skids, but they're both a bit extreme, LOL!). One is to keep putting up with this, and I'm unaware of any rule of etiquette which says that anyone is obligated to repeatedly put themselves into a position in which they know that they will be taken advantage of, anymore than doughnut person is required to keep announcing intentions to get doughnuts and thus cornered by good manners into buying them, or two, to remove herself from this equation by going to a hotel herself.

A Banned Book Week can bring about discussion of censorship, pros and cons -- look what we're doing. :-) And for that reason, I can hardly object. Yes, it's the marketing of it that bothers me; but I agree that the plethora of "Weeks" we have here in the U.S. dilutes whatever message is intended. Most people either won't care or they will pick up and repeat superficial arguments, such as: "Little Red Riding Hood was banned! Isn't that stupid?!" I didn't mean to imply that the publishing industry sponsors Banned Books Week, instead of the American Library Association, so thanks for clarifying that, Cindy, for our non-American RPers. However, the publishing industry has taken it up and run with it. My local Barnes & Noble makes a big deal out of it, as do several other booksellers I've seen; their motives I suspect are not entirely altruistic. And all the bookselling promotions I've seen, lazily or intentionally, omit the "Challenged" part, which is nigh unto misrepresentation if you ask me. In my opinion, we should be far more concerned about media concentration and manipulation of the masses than what parents want to see on school shelves.I couldn't agree more, venusia. I have some problems with the American Library Association's statements at their site. For example, they cite John Stuart Mill's On Liberty with this: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."The ALA, of course, is using J.S. Mill to bolster their argument against what they perceive as censorship; but they are ignoring the fact that beleaguering the act of challenging is also an attempt at censorship. In fact, their open statement is:Banned Books Week emphasizes the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.Yet, from the tone of their Q&As, it sounds as if they are deeming challengers as always wrongheaded.But because the history of the world is filled with banned books being the start...

Thanks Donna, the blue butterflies one I did in honor of my mom. Soon after her passing I, my sisters and my niece had some very interesting and touching blue butterfly experiences. Lisa how fortunate for you that you were introduced to the coloring. I first saw the use of coloring as therapy when my mom broke her hip. In the recovery facility they used it to help them relax and focus on something other than their pain and situation they were in. My mom enjoyed it very much even though her hands were twisted and deformed by Rheumatoid arthritis she was able to do some very pretty work. I am glad I decided to give it a try. Interestingly enough as a child I was never really into coloring and was not very good at it either. I feel your addiction pain lol.