*affliction

I'm too lazy to correct that. Just pretend it's right.

Alan Davies and Bill Bailey together is just genius

Jonathan Creek - "the Tailor's Dummy" (4x03)

Desiree: What’s something you guys are better than Victoria at?

Alan: Mario Kart.

Guz: Yeah, video games.

Morgana: Emotional vulnerability.

Goodnight, Laika.

Space Dog, Alan Shapiro | From Wikipedia | Laika, Sarah Doyle | Space Patterns Painting, Katya Garipova | Laika, Ben Florin | Constellations, The Oh Hellos | First Dog in Space, Brennig Davies | Are You Scared Yet, Laika?, Gus Gresham | Pillars of Creation, James Webb Telescope | space dog., Basil Sai | Icarus, The Crane Wives | Quote via. Oleg Gazenko

Daily Prompt - 1925

Do you have a quote you live your life by or think of often? To pick one seems impossible. However, there are a few that prominently feature at pivotal points in my life. The most prominent, longest standing, ever since I was a wee itchy butt: “Just fucking do it, dammit” said in Jonathan Davis’ voice, from the beginning of Clown like right before the song starts. Not even lyrics. There are too…

View On WordPress

Year of the Bat - Number 16

Welcome to Year of the Bat! In honor of Kevin Conroy, Arleen Sorkin, and Richard Moll, I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Episodes of “Batman: The Animated Series” throughout this January. We’ve reached the halfway point of the countdown! TODAY’S EPISODE QUOTE: “Fear’s a prison, you see, and I’ve just broken out!” Number 16 is…Never Fear.

Out of all the Scarecrow’s appearances in B:TAS, this episode from the TNBA era is generally considered to be the best. It’s one of several stories taken directly from the comics, too, as the episode is (somewhat loosely) based on the comic tale “Fear For Sale.” The original comic was published in 1987, and was chiefly created by writer Mike W. Barr, and artist Alan Davis. While that story is really, REALLY freaking good – seriously, one of the Top 5 best Scarecrow comics, in my opinion, without question – I honestly think the Animated Series adaptation is even better. Not only that, but in some ways – despite the fact no one actually dies in this story (though several come awfully close) – I would argue the cartoon is darker than said comic, as well. Wrap your head around that! The premise focuses on the Scarecrow returning to Gotham City, presumably after a long dormancy, with a brand new form of his Fear Toxin: instead of the usual method of installing fear in people, causing them to hallucinate violent apparitions and have horrifying visions of their greatest phobias and traumas, this new gimmick TAKES AWAY people’s fear. Now, one may wonder, why is that such a bad thing? Well, here’s the thing: fear is a rational human response, intended to keep us out of danger. We run away from things that scare us, or stay alert for trouble in times of distress, for self-preservation’s sake; we avoid doing certain things at least partially because fear reminds us of the consequences of those actions. If you REMOVE fear…then a person has no restraints, no cares, and quite possibly no conscience. This is where things get interesting: while going undercover to try and figure out Scarecrow’s plans, Bruce gets a dose of the Anti-Fear Toxin himself. Batman becomes impulsive, thrillseeking…and, most alarming of all, homicidal. It’s therefore up to Robin to keep Batman from going down a path he must not travel, while also trying to stop the Scarecrow’s newest bid for power. The first thing most people talk about with this episode is Scarecrow himself, and for good reason. The character is given a brand new voice, provided by Jeffrey Combs for this outing, as well as a brand new look, which most people agree is far superior to the one from the first three seasons. While the Scarecrow is great in those earlier seasons, I do agree with the apparent majority that the version found in “Never Fear” is a superior rendition, simply because he’s much more creepy to behold and to hear. I was never really scared of the Scarecrow himself in his earlier outings, but this version is a whole new story. The uniqueness of his plan in this story is also worth commending, whether it’s based on an already-published comic or not. However, I think a lot of people underestimate what a good episode this is for Batman and Robin, as well. I may or may not have said this in an earlier entry, but I actually preferred Tim Drake as Robin over Dick Grayson, at least in the Animated Series. This episode is a great example of why. Robin really takes the spotlight and initiative here, as it’s ultimately really Tim that saves the day. There’s this great scene that I absolutely love, where Batman – under the influence of Scarecrow’s toxin – tries to convince Tim, after Robin ties him up to keep him from hurting people or running into trouble, to let him go. Kevin Conroy’s performance is so convincing, it almost tricks the viewer, as well as Robin himself, but Tim doesn’t take the bait. The two really do feel like partners here, in a lot of ways, and it’s a great tale for both. Whether you love it for the heroes or the villain, “Never Fear” is arguably the pinnacle of Scarecrow storytelling in the Animated Series. I say “arguably” because of one other episode I’ll get to later in the countdown…but that’s another story.

Tomorrow we move into the Top 15! Hint: “Kids these days. No respect.”

Chortle headlines roundup, anyone?

Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope. We're not doing this. Jeremy Hardy went in his late 50s, Paul Sinha's health is deteriorating, if we lose Mark Steel before his time then they'll have to just cancel Radio 4. Not doing that. Fuck that shit. He's only 63, that's younger than my parents. Absolutely not.

...The article does say the condition is treatable and he'll likely be okay after a while, so that's good. It also has some on-brand quotes from him that muse on mortality. Good man. We are not losing that one yet.

(Obviously... not to make a serious issue all about me and other lovers of Radio 4 or anything... I wish a speedy recovery and the best for him and his family and all that.)

I wasn't sure I was going to watch season 3 of this - not that seasons 1 or 2 were bad, but season 2 didn't keep my attention all that well (except when Joe Wilkinson and Jessica Hynes were on), I figured I get the idea and don't really need to see a lot more. But actually, that's quite a good lineup. Roisin Conaty is always funny. Add in Alan Davies, Guz Khan, and Chris McCausland - and yeah, I'll probably give Knockoff Taskmaster a watch again.

You know, I wondered about then when I watched the French and Saunders show. The constant fat jokes about Dawn French seemed okay because she was one of the writers, she was choosing to say it about herself, that makes it okay the same way it is when Jo Brand does it. But still, there really were a lot of them. And obviously comedians are pressured to make any feature about themselves into a USP, so just because she agreed to do the jokes doesn't mean she always wanted to. That show was funny, it's a pity to see this.

(Obligatory note that the headline, like most headlines, is a bit sensationalized, these Chortle headline round-ups are meant to be partly a joke about how the headlines don't really tell you anything and just throw a bunch of disparate facts in your face all at once, and you should really read the articles if you want to know stuff. But the information in the headline is basically accurate.)

The Aussies are coming! The Aussies are coming! With their excessive Rs after vowels and their mildly racist names for coolers!

(I briefly misread the Sam Campbell article's description as calling him a "Taskmaster winner", and had a split second of believing Chortle had somehow made a colossal blunder and accidentally posted a huge spoiler that made me very pleased.)

If they make that, I'll probably watch it. I might watch some of the Irish one because Aisling Bea and Catherine Bohart, even though the worst fucking person in the world is also on it.

I did watch the first two episodes of the Canadian one. Have I admitted that on here yet? It wasn't my finest hour - and it was just one hour, two episodes - when I watched reality TV on Amazon Prime. But Mae Martin was in it. Mae Martin was in it looking focused and intense as they tried not to laugh and for personal reasons I just had to see that. Then (spoiler alert, I guess) they were out after two episodes, so I didn't watch any further.

I have to admit I rather enjoyed it, though. The rest of the cast was also funny. It had Jon Lajoie, guy who made a bunch of funny videos when I was in high school that my friends and I used to quote all the time, then didn't make anything for like 12 years, then came back in 2020 with this absolute earworm that hit the perfect note of what we needed in early pandemic days:

Anyway, he was on the Canadian LOL show, and he was pretty entertaining. Also Colin Mochrie from Who's Line, which I used to watch as a kid. Tom Green, quite a good stand-up comedian who went to my high school (not at the same time or anything, he's much older than me, he's just the only famous person who ever went to my high school). K Trevor Wilson, aka Squirrly Dan from Letterkenny. Andrew Phung from Kim's Convenience. It was fun seeing the mishmash of Canadian comedy people from all these different things in one room. I guess would be less of a novelty in the UK, since we don't have panel shows here.

And I've got to admit, when I forced the judgmental "there is no logical reason why this is a higher form of entertainment than any other shit reality TV" part of my brain to turn off, I found the format pretty funny. I'd watch Irish people do that. I'd watch British people do it. I mean, I didn't love it enough to finish the show after Mae was gone. But I might go back to it at some point.

Still doing that, are we? Going with the cheeky term "peeing Tom" for men who spy on naked women without their consent? I don't object to Hugh Dennis playing the role obviously, they're not going to portray that as a guy we're supposed to like. Just not sure I love Chortle's word choice.

That's good. Put your minds at ease, people who are worried that Jim Davidson isn't mentoring aspiring comedians. Everything's okay.

I was about to say "Steve, what the fuck would you consider a 5-star show then?", but then I remembered that to be fair to Steve Bennett, the quality of this show does vary wildly depending what night you see it and who's in the audience. Don't turn up to this and derail it with heckles, everyone, even though you're allowed. The show in its proper form is brilliant.

I tried to ignore this one, I really did. But I'm sorry, that's too funny a headline not to include here. Sorry, Johnny. Bad luck.

Quotes for the Get Messy Season of Ideas. Collage, acrylic paint, Posca paint pens.

"No matter what people tell you , words and ideas can change the world." -Robin Williams

"A library is the delivery room for the birth of ideas, a place where history comes to life." -Norman Cousins

"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." -Linus Pauling

"The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom." -Lady Bird Johnson

"Creative thinking inspires ideas. Ideas inspire change." -Barbara Januszkiewicz

"Human history in essence is the history of ideas." -HG Wells

"There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt." -Audre Lorde

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." -John Cage

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." -Rumi

"Ideas have unhinged the gates of empire." -Paul P Harris

"Collaboration is being open to each other's ideas and benefiting from each other's perspectives in an open way." -Alan Menken

"Words are but the signs of ideas." -Samuel Johnson

"The best ideas start as conversations." -Jonathan Ive

"Ideas are fatal to caste." -EM Forster

"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." -Tom Smothers

"It is not once or twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world." -Aristotle

"I do not 'get' ideas; ideas get me." -Robertson Davies

"#but john had a pattern of asking for proof of commitment and pulling away once he’d got it" can you elaborate on this? I can't think of an example of it, off the top of my head

Yes! This is a very late response, both because life got away from me and because I wanted to think it through some more.

In the tag you quoted, I said "asking for proof", which I now think is too sweeping (I've updated my earlier tags to reflect this). It's may not be as clearcut that, or not verbalised that way. And it involves other people's expectations/choices: some of this is just about how intensely people sought John's approval. But even with all those caveats, I do find it striking how making a big commitment to John could lead to *loss* of closeness.

Some examples (unfortunately including the Beatles being ableist):

Stuart Sutcliffe wins his art prize, and gets talked into spending the money on a bass guitar so he can join John's band. It's a big commitment from Stu. So what happens? The band goes on tour to Scotland, where they all picked on Stu. “We were terrible,” John told Hunter Davies. “We'd tell Stu he couldn't sit with us, or eat with us. We'd tell him to go away, and he did.”

According to Davies, "At one hotel they stayed at, a variety show had just left. There had been a dwarf in the show and they found out which bed he had slept in and said that would have to be Stu's. They certainly weren't going to sleep in it. So Stu had to. 'That was how he learned to be with us,' says John. 'It was all stupid, but that was what we were like.'"

John frames the status drop as a rite of passage: making the commitment isn't enough, you have to go through being pushed away, too. And it's John doing it: it's not just Paul and George being jealous of the new guy, John is actively joining in.

Fast forward to Hamburg, where it's Paul's turn to drop down the pecking order. Fandom often focuses on Paul leaving his job at Massey and Coggins, but I think Hamburg is a much, much bigger turning point.

Paul's exam results were disappointing, but good enough for further education. That had been the family dream his whole life, particularly for his mother - that Paul would get a professional job that would lift the family into middle-class security. And other trusted adults agreed: Paul asked his favourite teacher Alan Durband for advice, and was told he should play it safe and get his qualifications.

Paul ignores this, rejects the future his family dreamed of and demanded for him, and goes to Hamburg. Where he finds himself out in the cold, unpopular, stuck in a windowless back bedroom. (Beds again: important for hierarchy and for bonding - see George insisting that Ringo roomed with Paul when he joined.) This happens right at the start of Hamburg, too. It's not just about getting distracted by the cool exis: this is the dynamic the Beatles brought with them.

This isn’t all John. The teenaged Beatles were a seething messy friendship group, a bunch of jealous rivals kicking out at someone else’s success. Both Stu in Scotland and Paul in Hamburg had reason to feel homesick and rejected. Those are hard feelings to have, and can make people harder to be around, especially when other friendships and opportunities are opening up. So there are other factors involved, but to me it does feel like a pattern.

I misremembered my next example, conflating two of Cynthia's later acid experiences. John asked her to try acid again: she had a horrible time, but he did stay close and try to comfort her. So that's an important example of John not pulling away, even if it didn't work out.

What I remembered was the last time Cynthia tried acid - I think spontaneously, rather than at John's encouragement. I'm fairly sure John was already high when this happened, which I'm sure affected his behaviour. It's still a brutal example of Cynthia pushing herself to fit in with John's world, and being knocked back. She takes acid:

“At Brian's house I followed John around, hoping he would comfort me as I went through what was, for me, a horrible experience. But he was not in a good mood: he glared at me and treated me as if I were a stranger. I felt desolate. Upstairs I found an open bedroom window and contemplated jumping out. For a few minutes, ending it all seemed like an easy solution…”

Then there's George. May Pang describes his anger at feeling he'd made multiple commitments to John:

“Then George’s anger really burst forth. ‘Where were you when I needed you!’ he snapped. It was the first of a series of explosions, each of them followed by moments of tense silence. ‘I did everything you said. But you weren’t there,’ he repeated. ‘You always knew how to reach me,’ John would reply evenly to each of these outbursts... George said that repeatedly in the past he had sung what John wanted him to sing, said what John wanted him to say. Because John wanted it, George had gone along with the decision to go with Allen Klein. In the nearly four years since, John had virtually ignored him, a fact that pained George deeply. George’s voice grew even more harsh as he blasted John for his sudden appearance, as if out of nowhere, to offer an evening’s worth of help. Yet again George said furiously, ‘I did everything you said, but you weren’t there.’”

I think there's miscommunication here, and mismatched expectations. George felt he'd made commitments and been frozen out; it may have seemed very different from John's perspective. But if John's not responsible for other people's choices, he's also not just standing there passively while all this happens. And if people felt they'd made big commitments, only to be knocked back, that's still part of the collective dynamic.

Quotes: Hunter Davies, The Beatles; Cynthia Lennon, John; May Pang, Loving John.

Always blame the dead; never the living! The normal practice of the British Establishment!

By Stanley Collymore  

I'm no monarchist: and that's literally neither an excuse nor a bitingly scathing condemnation, just a naturally candid explanation on my part, but evidently all the same, rather intelligently, very sensibly, and similarly logically, why I literally don't see, that a now dead Liz Windsor ought obviously really, to be truly dragged into, this latest mess surrounding and discernibly occasioned by her offspring even if, as we all do know, he was truly and effectively her favourite son! As obviously, it was Andrew who of his very own volition, crucially and effectively got involved with Jeffrey Epstein and significantly there's certainly no unequivocal   evidence, positive nor obviously very egregiously circumstantial, that anyone actually forced him into that close and significantly personal relationship that aptly existed, between both of them!

So whether guilty or not of any misdeeds Andrew was most undeniably very physically present and therefore unquestionably had some idea of what was evidently rather distinctly going on; and ought therefore, to have literally distanced himself from it all, at first sight! But, quite self-evidently and for his own personal reasons, he simply didn't! So obviously there was something, whatever it was, which was clearly interesting and likewise also quite beneficially compelling to actually have kept Andrew very genuinely   interested and also participatorily and simply committedly, involved as well, as implacably, interested in obviously what Jeffrey Epstein and an unswervingly dutiful moll, Ghislaine Maxwell were odiously and egregiously noxiously doing!

(C) Stanley V. Collymore 9 January 2024.

Author's Remarks: Mr Alan Dershowitz says? What an utterly sick joke! Seems that anyone can practice law in the USA, including the likes of Alan Dershowitz and Rudy Giuliani, and usually does! And to quote Mandy Rice Davies in the Profumo court case, Alan Dershowitz "would say that, wouldn't he?"

Sensibly, logically and most intelligently why would anyone literally pay millions to any person they publicly claim not to have ever met simply because their mummy told them to? Try fathoming that one out!  

Ah well! It's all about image and actually protecting the supposed sanctity, in the eyes of the gullible and distinctively very sycophantic serfs, of this allegedly quite divine monarchy at all costs. And all this public exhorting of Charles Windsor to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ requisite to the sinful brother of his Judas Iscariot, Andrew Windsor, is preposterously quite laughable if it wasn't, so bloody serious!

Undoubtedly Andrew was a spoilt rather overindulged child who unrestrictively was allowed to and even decently permitted to grow up to become a pompous middle aged man. But amongst the Windsor of both genders he's not alone in that!

Charles personally for over two decades had very close, personal relationships with noxiously, verminous, paedophiles in the form of Jimmy Savile and Bishop Peter Ball, to name just two among this coterie of paedophiles that infested the Windsor households across the board, had full and unhindered access to these peoples' homes and likewise their personal staff and other employees.

And had Diana not resolutely put her foot down Charles would have had Jimmy Savile as one of Harry's godfathers. As well, there's the issue of another odious paedophile who was commissioned to paint Liz Windsor's portrait. Where is that portrait now that the world knows what an evilly, vile paedophile Rolf Harris was? Damage limitation they've all like bat out of hell distanced themselves after Harris' conviction from it. Go do your research on the aforementioned and other rather sick behavioural patterns of the Windsor family, and not simply concentrate on one convenient bad apple, that fictitious stories about Meghan and Harry were quite racially used to cover up!

Then there's the irony of a serial and odiously adulterous pair, not a single apology in sight, happily going off to Church purely for show and the serfs swallowing it hook line and sinker. But I guess if the Church of which you're the hereditary Head, and founded both on murder and adultery was good enough for Henry VIII it should be equally so in the British feudal system that comprises the 21st Century.

Henry VIII had his blood lust and wanted request with Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, Charles his with Diana Spencer; as yet though no one has accused or thinks that Andrew has been complicit in or has actually had murder carried out on his behalf; has he Charles?

Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes and his depictions, detective fiction genre

Conan Doyle is a British writer and a physician. He was born in 1859 and died in 1930, so he grew up in the victorian era. He was born in Scotland, but he was sent to England at a young age to attend Jesuit preparatory school Holder Place in Lancashire and attended Stonyhurst College until 1875. from 1875 to 1876 he attended a school in Austria at the decision of his parents to perfect his German and broad his academics. Doyle moved around a lot when he was young, and also had a lot of careers. He didn’t stay in one place for too long. He had a career in the medical field, and began writing short stories whilst studying practical botany. His earliest work is “The Haunted Grange of Goeesthorpe” which was unsuccessfully submitted to Blackwood’s Magazine. He continued writing fiction and non fiction, writing academic articles in the British Medical Journal.

Doyle’s first work featuring the character Sherlock Holes along with Dr. Watson was “A Study in Scarlet”. This story gained little public interest when it first released in 1887 for the Beeton’s Christmas Annual. The title is derived from a quote from Sherlock, where he describes their investigation in the novel as his “study in scarlet”. this comes from “There’s the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it.” This shows that Sherlock as a character is an analytical character. using these kinds of metaphors shows that he has a genuine interest and motivation for detection. "A Study in Scarlet", scarlet is a colour associated with blood, passion and devotion. Sherlock is described to be excitable during an investigation, and his use of more emotive language written by Doyle shows that he has a passion for his career. "A Study in Scarlet" was also the first detective novel to have a magnifying glass shown as a tool for detective work, and the influence of this today is that stereotypical detective characters always have a magnifying glass on hand.

Sherlock Holmes is known for his intelligence in forensics and is very perceptive. he has a great understanding of chemistry, and uses it to his advantage. Forensic science wasn’t as developed as it is today, so he used methods such as analysing handwriting, gunpowder residue, and his general knowledge in chemistry to analyse blood.

Holmes is "disspationate and cold", yet still an eccentric man. he often tried to impress the observers of his investigations by leaving the reveal of his evidence until the end. he had a humour that was sarcastic, ironic and joked incessantly. he seemed to have a very diverse personality, being unemotional, using his head and not his heart, rarely laughed, had narrow habits and was cold. but was also known for having odd habits, such as weird scientific experiments and was considered excitable during investigation. This makes his character quite flexible, and i believe this could have been done on purpose, considering that 56 different short stories were written with Sherlock as the main character, having him being the exactly the same character each time with little depth and interest in hobbies and habits would do very little to attract readers. he had a lot of light moments and had “half humorous and half imp” manners kept his character interesting and unique.

because of this, Sherlock has been interpreted in many different ways along the years.

In “Sherlock Holmes” (1939-1946) Basil Rathbone portrays Sherlock accurately to the original portrayals of him. It is one of the only portrayals that stays accurate to the original portrayal and Rathbone’s performance is what gained the adaptation the highest rating, as it serves as a source of nostalgia for fans. Alan Barnes (a writer and editor) says that “Rathbone WAS Sherlock” and many other people such as the writer David Stuart Davies saying “the actor who had come closest to creating the definite Sherlock Holmes on screen”. telling us that this interpretation is as accurate to the original we have seen thus far. Although it is also argued Jeremy Brett is also one of the most definitive portrayals.

Although, there are portrayals that are different to this that stray from the original, such as "Elementary" (2012-2019). In Elementary, Sherlock is played by Johnny Lee Miller as a Sherlock of New York City. In this version, Sherlock is a recovering drug addict. Whilst in Sherlock Holmes Sherlock was using multiple different drugs, such as cocaine, it wasn't described he had any kind of recovery from drugs. This depiction creates a very different mood for the series, and the attitudes of Sherlock because of his recovery are very different to the original personality of Sherlock. The scenery being in the bustling modern NYC an Sherlock recovering from drugs create a dark and serious tone for the series to come and is different from the short stories portrayed by Conan Doyle. Conan Doyle's originals are set in 19h century Victorian England, whilst Elementary is set in 21st century America. These different time periods and locations contrast one another a lot and having the character belong in their time period means that Sherlock in this series can be quite problematic, with relapses, health problems and family murders. Johnny Lee Miller has the most portrayals of Sherlock done by a singular actor for the 7 season Elementary.

There are also depictions of Sherlock in the past and in the present, such as 'Young Sherlock Holmes' where the scenery falls back in time to Sherlock and Watson being teenagers. This creates a more light hearted tone as Nicholas Rowe shows a more charming take on Sherlock's character. This is different from Ian McKellen's "Mr. Holmes"(2015), where he plays Sherlock as a 93 year old with dementia. these two parallels show the flexibility of the Sherlock series and how his character can be interpreted in many different ways from Conan Doyle's writing. These two show Sherlock at the very start and at he very end of his detective career giving us many more interpretations of Sherlock's character.

Jonathan Creek (03 x 04)

*he literally lives in a windmill and tries to avoid as many people as possible

(but it's good advice - I'll give you that Jonathan)

Why Should You Hire a House Painter?

House painting is a great career for anyone who enjoys working with their hands. It can be a part-time or full-time job and can also lead to owning your own business.

A good painter knows how to take on any project with ease, so you can count on them to get the job done right. Here are a few of the benefits to hiring a professional house painter:

They Have All the Right Equipment

House painters apply paints, stains, wall coverings and ceiling textures in new construction and renovation. They are also responsible for surface preparation and cleanup.

They are also trained in the proper use of equipment such as power washers, scrapers, wire brushes, sanders and spray guns. These tools can make a house painter’s job faster and easier, and they ensure a more uniform finish.

In addition to all the above, a professional house painter will have a wide variety of quality paint brushes and rollers that are specifically designed for painting. These include the smaller ones for trims and corners, and the larger ones for large flat areas.

They Can Do the Job Faster

Whether it’s the paint color you’re after, or the trim around your door, a house painter can do the job faster and with more skill.

A professional knows how to navigate the pitfalls of a painting job and how to get the best results. They’ll use the right equipment, paint the right way and make sure that the finished product is something you’re proud to show off.

There are many types of skills that a House Painter must possess, from customer service to the right equipment and tools. Some of the more impressive ones include color vision, customer service, lighting etiquette and the ability to communicate with customers on a more personal level. It’s also important to note that the best house painters are typically quite expensive compared to other home improvement pros, so you might want to shop around for the right one for your job. In fact, you’ll find that you can often find a great deal on top-rated painters through online sites like Trusted House Painter.

They Can Give You a Better Quote

If you’re looking to hire a painting contractor, you need to make sure that they are offering you an accurate quote. This should be in writing and include the project scope, a completion timeline and costs for labor and materials.

If the painter is quoting per hour or per square foot, ask for a whole job price instead. This will allow you to negotiate a better deal with them for the amount of work they will do in your home.

You can also help them lower their prices by helping them with some prep work. This may be a small job like moving furniture or clearing a space of clutter, but it can save them some time when they come to paint your house.

They Can Give You a Better Finish

A house painter is often tasked with delivering a high-quality finish. Whether it's the application of a coat of satin or a coat of gloss, it's important to get the job done right.

The best house painters use quality paint and the most advanced tools to ensure that your home's exterior and interior look their best. They can also help you select a color that will work with your home's architecture and your lifestyle.

They can be difficult to find though, so make sure you do your research first. You can do this by using the internet to search for a house painter in your area. This will provide you with a list of several options that can suit your needs. You can also ask your friends and family for recommendations. Then, you can choose the one that is most likely to give you a great deal. Having a solid house painting plan will save you time and money in the long run, while ensuring that your home's new coat of paint looks as good as possible for years to come.

Alan's House Painting PO Box 2125 Davis, CA 95617 (530) 756-8188 https://alanshousepainting.net/

https://alanshousepainting.net

Alan's House Painting is a skilled and reputable painting business based in Davis, California. The business was started by Alan, a seasoned painter with over decades of expertise, and has developed a reputation for providing clients in the area with great painting services.

When it comes to each project, Alan’s House Painting prides itself on its attention to detail and individualised approach. The team aims to customise its services to fit each customer's specific demands since it is aware that each client has different needs. They collaborate closely with customers to comprehend their vision for the area and offer knowledgeable advice on colour choice, finish options, and other painting specifics.

The company offers a full range of painting services, including interior and exterior painting, cabinet refinishing, wallpaper removal, and drywall repair. They use only the highest quality paints and materials to ensure a long-lasting and flawless finish.

Alan's House Painting is committed to delivering outstanding customer service and workmanship on every project. The team is punctual, respectful, and tidy, ensuring that clients' homes and properties are left clean and organized at the end of each day. They also offer flexible scheduling options to accommodate clients' busy lifestyles.

Whether you're looking to freshen up a single room or transform the look of your entire home, Alan's House Painting has the experience and expertise to make your vision a reality. Contact them today to schedule a consultation and receive a free estimate for your painting project.

Contact us:

Alan's House Painting

PO Box 2125 Davis, CA 95617

(530) 756-8188

Find us on Google Map:

Our Social Presence:

Engravatar

Pinterest

“George of course always had his guitar, if apparently nothing else. He was even more fanatical about mastering it than Paul or John and was much better than they were. He hardly smiled onstage, he was so busy concentrating. But he wouldn’t try to do anything else for a long time, such as drawing. He thought he wasn’t clever enough.” - Hunter Davies

“I think anything – any good that ever come out of me is a blessing through that, and all the crap that comes out, that’s me. [...] The very first [Swami] who ever came to the West in 1800 was called Vivekananda, and he said in a book –  and this is something which I’ve slowly started to feel for myself which is that anything good that came in his life, that was all the divine blessings of his teacher, his guru, Sri Ramakrishna. And all the badness that came from him, that was him. And that’s what I’m saying, is that if any good comes out of my life or out of my music or out of my mouth then let the glories be to the Lord for blessing me with whatever talent or with whatever I have that is honest, but all the deceitfulness and all the lies which I am also pretty good at…that’s me.” - George Harrison (1974)

“I don’t understand. Why do you wait for me? I’m nobody.”               - George Harrison to some fans (1975)

"‘World of Stone’ speaks for itself: 'Wise men you won’t be, To follow the likes of me’. 'He was being very hard on himself at that time,’ Olivia [Harrison] reflects.” - Kevin Howlett

“He never said he was a saint, but he always said he was a sinner.” - Olivia Harrison

“I know I’m supposed to be a guitar player, but I don’t really feel like one. I’m not someone like, say, Eric Clapton. We can talk about him ’cause he’s my friend and I know about him, he’ll just plug in his guitar, listen to the tune and blow on it and be of a certain standard immediately. I have to figure out what I’m gonna do and maybe even learn a part. I’m just not that fluent with it.”     - George Harrison (1990)

“Many times he said, ‘I wish I knew more words,’ but perhaps all the words in the world, including the Sanskrit and mantras integral to his vocabulary, could not fully express his depth of feeling and realization.” - Olivia Harrison

“In my career, I’ve interviewed presidents and public figures from all industries. George was one of the most self-deprecating public figures I’ve ever met.” - Larry Kane

Ten: Adelaide was right. I had become a monster. It was as if I was one kind of person before Bowie Base (NOT a monster), and an altogether different type afterwards (A monster)

[From 'I, Partridge']