"it sounded like you were sticking up for the BF completely."

Sorry if I wasn't clear. All I'm sticking up for is not assuming things.

"all we have to go on is what the LW says that the BF says."

'zactly! Plus we have a bunch of unanswered questions.

"I agree with you that BF needs to learn the consequences. If you give your SO a couple of closets, and you refuse to stay over at their place, and you allow them to "semi-move" in, then you are basically telling the SO that you are ready for key-level commitment."

Not necessarily. BF may just be trying to find out where LW's limits are. IOW, he'll just keep asking for more until she says no.

Or he may not understand how illogical and one-sided his "preferences" are. That's not a reason to dump him, it's a reason to Just Say No.

"Like I said about my own BF- it took him 2 years to be ready for me to leave stuff at his house, but he didn't invite me to do that until he WAS ready to give me a key as well."

That's him; this BF may not be experienced enough to know what makes sense and what doesn't.

"I think the bottom line here is that the LW isn't asking to move stuff in and get a key. The stuff is already in. She just wants a key to get to her stuff."

Maybe. It sounds to me like she had stuff at BF's, and then took it all home, and BF wants her to shlep all her stuff all over town in a bag much of the time. 'That doesn't work for me' is the short answer.

"If he doesn't want that level of commitment, then he shouldn't allow her stuff to be there in the first place."

*She* shouldn't allow her stuff to be there, either.

"(Personally, tho, I think this dude is craptastic.)"

Maybe BF just needs to be told NO, he's not going to get all his preferences from LW.

are the answer. Previous suggestions of this are 100% right.

An old beach towel can be the Flag. When it's flying, the pool is open to nonresidents, when it's down, the pool is closed. End of story; rules apply to everyone who doesn't live in the house.

The Sign explains the pool rules in big block letters. Rule 1 is about the flag, Rule 2 is about not swimming alone, Rule 3 is about diving in the shallow end, Rule 4 is about running, etc.

These things make a big difference when it comes to liability and proper pool behavior.

The cousin can call and ask "is the flag flying?" if they live any distance.

This also works to get people out of the pool. All you do is lower the flag.

LW and hubby have to stand up to the cousin and explain/enforce the new rules, but they're the same for everyone, not just the cousin.

Do it now before it gets warmer.

"Why is there such a consensus that the LW ought to take control and draw a line around what she owns even at the expense of family relations?"

Because it's partly her pool, not the extended family's pool.

"I do not see any real harm or loss of happiness to the LW based on her letter. She doesn't report that they're creating huge messes or terrible noise."

No, but she has lost privacy. The cousins show up at all sorts of times unannounced. Yes that's rude, but the cousins

don't get it.

"What she is really upset about is the fact that at some point in the future she may want to use the pool all alone and God forbid, someone else might be in there."

And there's *NOTHING* wrong with that. Having a pool and sharing it does not mean it's open all the time.

"This is about a perception - or fear - of scarcity. She is an affluent woman with a 'luxurious' pool, yet she is terrified that by letting others use it she will somehow lose out."

I don't see that at all. What I see is that she doesn't want the cousins around all the time using the pool. Some of the time is OK.

The pool is on private property. LW and spouse are responsible for it, legally, financially, environmentally, etc. It's *their* pool. That means LW doesn't have to share it all the time.

What LW has now is a responsibility for the pool without the authority to limit its use. That's just wrong.

The reason for this RE/financial mess is simple: the folks who changed the rules so that anyone with a pulse could get a seven-figure ARM didn't know or care about why the old rules existed. Nor could they imagine things going horribly wrong.

How many years ago was "Mission Accomplished"?

GK comes from, and speaks for, that all-too-modest part of American culture which says "Don't do dumb things; there may be bad consequences" and "If nobody does it that way, there's probably a very good reason".

Winter does that to a person; it's a safe bet that GWB never went through a real winter in a place like Maine, Minnesota or Syracuse.

Spelling and grammar really are good indicators. Compare a speech by FDR or Winston Churchill with anything from the Current Occupant for an example. Have a bucket handy.

There are dimmable CFLs. There are CFLs that work in the cold. There are CFLs that have very white light and lots of it. There are CFLs that are very reliable. There are CFLs that don't emit radio noise.

The trouble is that you have to look for them, and often find them by experiment. A lot of the info you really want isn't always on the package.

What's really needed isn't a ban on incandescents; it's an education/information requirement for CFLs that answers those questions clearly.