In a message dated 3/7/2008 4:49:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time I understand that the ocjection didn't give a reason It sounds like the reason for the objection was left blank -------------------------------------- Tilman and Lynne, I looked back at my post and realized I didn't put the reason for the objection. I got the same reason that Nan did: << that these messages were off-topic because they're architectural, not genealogy, >> Marilyn **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

One more "voice" on this issue? So, architectural in nature... I'd still say LEAVE them because individual hands built each -- whether my, yours or someone else's gr-gr-gr-gr grandfather (or uncle). I post old location photos and do "walking" descriptions inside and out for any location I have personally seen. People love it. I happen to have the ONLY known photo of a church MANY of my ancestors built abt. 1860. By many, I mean the families of L-A-N-E, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y (both my 4th & 5th gr-gr grands), plus about 20 related families. Luckily, the church their fathers built in ca. 1832 still stands and last year, *I* got to sit on the original benches all members had used since that time. (how cool) It still has it's original outhouse (unused) and a porta potty nearby (still no indoor plumbing). I can't tell you how thrilled I felt to see and touch the walls "my" family built. Of course, I skipped visiting the outhouse-- a 2 seater. So... even "architecture" adds to family history--- if it's your family's woodworker, carpenter, mason, etc. who built the place. Judy On 3/7/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I looked back at my post and realized I didn't put the reason for the > objection. > > I got the same reason that Nan did: << that these messages were > off-topic > because they're architectural, not genealogy, >> > > Marilyn