From the web site that Brock pointed to, I find this question and answer and one that I had wondered about myself before going there. If so dangerous to tombstones why is it so safe for shaving on a human skin??? Question 1: I understand shaving cream contains stearic acid. With a name like that, it really has to be corrosive, doesn't it? Answer 1: Uhm, this is shaving cream we are talking about here. Does it feel corrosive when you put it on your skin? Is it really reasonable to think that shaving cream is going to cause stone to melt, when it does nothing even to your own skin? At 02:02 PM 3/7/2007, you wrote: >No they haven't, and no they don't. They simply >re-iterate the same claim. There is no page anywhere >within the gravestonestudies domain that even PRETENDS >to be the result of any scientific investigation of >any kind. And if you disagree with this, then answer >this simple question...what did they measure? The >answer, of course, is "nothing". They didn't measure >anything. They simply re-iterated the same >evidenceless claim. > >Yet another re-iteration of the same claim is not >evidence. > >There is a difference between EVIDENCE and CLAIM. You >know that, right? So how about a little less pointing >to websites that make claims, and a little more >pointing to websites that demonstrate the claim is >true? > >Brock Way > > > >--- Mary Douglass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I refer you to the web site of the Association of > > Gravestone Studies. > > http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ They have done the > > studies and have > > the evidence. > > > > Brock Way wrote: > > > This is simply yet another re-iteration of the > > same > > > baseless claim. Nobody is suggesting that there is > > a > > > shortage of internet sites that claim shaving > > cream > > > damages headstones. That is not the contention. > > The > > > contention is that NONE of these sites give any > > > EVIDENCE that shows the assertion to be true. > > That's > > > the point. > > > > > > Moreover, it has already been shown to be a hoax, > > just > > > like the "ban dhmo" hoax. > > > > > > You know, there really is a difference between a > > claim > > > on the one hand, and evidence supporting the claim > > on > > > the other. So far, we only have claim. No > > evidence. > > > > > > Brock Way > > > > > > > > > --- Janice Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> There is a chemical in the substance or the > > aerosol > > >> that permanently damages the stone. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > The fish are biting. > > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > > Marketing. > > > > > >http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > to [email protected] with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > > the body of the message > > > > > > __________ NOD32 1860 (20061109) Information > > __________ > > > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus > > system. > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mary Douglass, CG > > Your Kansas research specialist > > URL: www.historical-matters.com > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > to [email protected] with the word > > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > > the body of the message > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Don't pick lemons. >See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. >http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi I am searching this line but I am searching for SARAH ARNOLD. b abt 1808. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:12 PM Subject: [ILMACOUP] Susannah "Susan" Arnold Sharp Dial > > Please any suggestions are welcome. > > > Have hit a brick wall for over two years now on my 2nd great grandmother > Susannah "Susan" Arnold Sharp Dial. According to what I know to date is > she was > either born in TN or IL source: census abt 1822. Her parents may be > Hopson > Arnold and Avery Nix. > > She first married John Wiley Sharp b. abt 1822 in TN they married on 24 > Feb > 1841 in Macoupin County. They had 8 children to my knowledge. John died > abt > Jul 1858. > > Susan then married Ashford Dial b.14 Mar 1809, Ohio on 29 Nov 1862 in > Macoupin County. They had one child Mary Rozella Dial b. 17 Dec 1865 > (this is my > great grandmother). Susan & Ashford are the parents she listed on her > marriage application. > > I have not been able to locate Susan or Mary in any census in 1870 or > 1880. > I don't know why neither of them are not with Ashford who is living in > Sangamon County in 1870 & 1880. > > This was a 2nd marriage for both Susan & Ashford. They both had children > from their previous marriages. > > I did find this at Ancestry.com but don't know if it is my Susan it would > explain why I don't find her in the census. But then I still don't know > where > Mary is? > Name: Susan Dial > Gender: Female > Race: White > Marital Status: Married > Place of Birth: Illinois > Estimated birth year: abt 1825 > Age: 45 > Month of Death: Aug > Cause of Death: Consumption > Place of Death: (City, County, State) > Loami, Sangamon, Illinois > Census Year: 1870 > (source: Ancestry.com. U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, > 1850-1880) > > > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

I refer you to the web site of the Association of Gravestone Studies. http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ They have done the studies and have the evidence. Brock Way wrote: > This is simply yet another re-iteration of the same > baseless claim. Nobody is suggesting that there is a > shortage of internet sites that claim shaving cream > damages headstones. That is not the contention. The > contention is that NONE of these sites give any > EVIDENCE that shows the assertion to be true. That's > the point. > > Moreover, it has already been shown to be a hoax, just > like the "ban dhmo" hoax. > > You know, there really is a difference between a claim > on the one hand, and evidence supporting the claim on > the other. So far, we only have claim. No evidence. > > Brock Way > > > --- Janice Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> There is a chemical in the substance or the aerosol >> that permanently damages the stone. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 1860 (20061109) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > > -- Mary Douglass, CG Your Kansas research specialist URL: www.historical-matters.com

Please any suggestions are welcome. Have hit a brick wall for over two years now on my 2nd great grandmother Susannah "Susan" Arnold Sharp Dial. According to what I know to date is she was either born in TN or IL source: census abt 1822. Her parents may be Hopson Arnold and Avery Nix. She first married John Wiley Sharp b. abt 1822 in TN they married on 24 Feb 1841 in Macoupin County. They had 8 children to my knowledge. John died abt Jul 1858. Susan then married Ashford Dial b.14 Mar 1809, Ohio on 29 Nov 1862 in Macoupin County. They had one child Mary Rozella Dial b. 17 Dec 1865 (this is my great grandmother). Susan & Ashford are the parents she listed on her marriage application. I have not been able to locate Susan or Mary in any census in 1870 or 1880. I don't know why neither of them are not with Ashford who is living in Sangamon County in 1870 & 1880. This was a 2nd marriage for both Susan & Ashford. They both had children from their previous marriages. I did find this at Ancestry.com but don't know if it is my Susan it would explain why I don't find her in the census. But then I still don't know where Mary is? Name: Susan Dial Gender: Female Race: White Marital Status: Married Place of Birth: Illinois Estimated birth year: abt 1825 Age: 45 Month of Death: Aug Cause of Death: Consumption Place of Death: (City, County, State) Loami, Sangamon, Illinois Census Year: 1870 (source: Ancestry.com. U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1880) <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

It seems that some people want to continue the discussion of using or not using shaving cream on gravestones. If you wish to do that, fine, but please correspond privately so that you don't end up having some of us unsubscribing. I'm sure that Gloria and Kathy do not want to lose any subscribers. This list is for Macoupin Co IL research and it's time to get back that subject rather than a general subject which is more appropriately open for discussion on another list that Rootsweb provides such as general genealogical research. Debbi ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

No they haven't, and no they don't. They simply re-iterate the same claim. There is no page anywhere within the gravestonestudies domain that even PRETENDS to be the result of any scientific investigation of any kind. And if you disagree with this, then answer this simple question...what did they measure? The answer, of course, is "nothing". They didn't measure anything. They simply re-iterated the same evidenceless claim. Yet another re-iteration of the same claim is not evidence. There is a difference between EVIDENCE and CLAIM. You know that, right? So how about a little less pointing to websites that make claims, and a little more pointing to websites that demonstrate the claim is true? Brock Way --- Mary Douglass <[email protected]> wrote: > I refer you to the web site of the Association of > Gravestone Studies. > http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ They have done the > studies and have > the evidence. > > Brock Way wrote: > > This is simply yet another re-iteration of the > same > > baseless claim. Nobody is suggesting that there is > a > > shortage of internet sites that claim shaving > cream > > damages headstones. That is not the contention. > The > > contention is that NONE of these sites give any > > EVIDENCE that shows the assertion to be true. > That's > > the point. > > > > Moreover, it has already been shown to be a hoax, > just > > like the "ban dhmo" hoax. > > > > You know, there really is a difference between a > claim > > on the one hand, and evidence supporting the claim > on > > the other. So far, we only have claim. No > evidence. > > > > Brock Way > > > > > > --- Janice Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> There is a chemical in the substance or the > aerosol > >> that permanently damages the stone. > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > The fish are biting. > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search > Marketing. > > > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > > > > __________ NOD32 1860 (20061109) Information > __________ > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus > system. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mary Douglass, CG > Your Kansas research specialist > URL: www.historical-matters.com > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

Thank you all for your input but enough please. Here is a link for anyone interested in the pros and cons of shaving cream on headstones. _http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm_ (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) I have used shaving cream not knowing and I guess the test of time will tell if I did any harm. (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

In a message dated 3/7/2007 7:28:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I wrote: "I do know shaving cream leaves a long lasting stain, if not an etching, on cement." It is not a cleaner stain as Brock Way suggests, it is darker than the surrounding walkway cement. We were hopeful the sun would eventually "bleach it out", but it took many years before it was visibly gone when dry. When wet, it still appeared as a darker than the cement stain even after more than ten years. It was written in shaving cream in the Fall of 1979, it was still visible when wet when we moved in 1992. I could call the current owners to "perform an experiment" to see if it still remains when wet today...I know they mentioned something about it a few years ago so I can safely assume it was still visible when wet ... say some twenty years. Linda R.F. Arnold Menifee, California P.S. Although the girlfriend-boyfriend relationship dissolved long before the message, we still consider her a part of our family even today although she may never appear in our Family Tree. The message she wrote was: "I love you, Doug!" <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

In a message dated 3/7/2007 5:41:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ In response to Brock Way's comments, I shall make none. However, regarding the Shaving Cream messages I would like to say this: While I have never used shaving cream on a tombstone and no doubt ever will. I do know shaving cream leaves a long lasting stain, if not an etching, on cement. When my son was in high school, his then girl friend wrote on our cement walkway a loving message in shaving cream. That message could still be seen at more than five years later when dry. It is good they are still friends because it still comes through when hosing down the walkway and that was more than ten years ago. I don't know what brand of shaving cream she used but it must have been powerful. Linda R.F. Arnold Menifee, California <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't talk about it any more. However, just like you did, I will (in spite of said ironic comment to the contrary) nevertheless also append to my message a URL for the edification of others. Here is a link which analyzes the various claims made about shaving cream, and how it interacts with tombstones: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html Brock Way --- [email protected] wrote: > Thank you all for your input but enough please. > > Here is a link for anyone interested in the pros and > cons of shaving cream > on headstones. > > _http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm_ > > (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) > > > > I have used shaving cream not knowing and I guess > the test of time will tell > if I did any harm. > > > > > > > > (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) > > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> > AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

This is simply yet another re-iteration of the same baseless claim. Nobody is suggesting that there is a shortage of internet sites that claim shaving cream damages headstones. That is not the contention. The contention is that NONE of these sites give any EVIDENCE that shows the assertion to be true. That's the point. Moreover, it has already been shown to be a hoax, just like the "ban dhmo" hoax. You know, there really is a difference between a claim on the one hand, and evidence supporting the claim on the other. So far, we only have claim. No evidence. Brock Way --- Janice Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a chemical in the substance or the aerosol > that permanently damages the stone. ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

Genealogy societies and professional genealogists DO NOT reccommend shaving cream for clarifying gravestone carvings! For the reasons, just look it up the internet. There is a chemical in the substance or the aerosol that permanently damages the stone. If you are a sincere and earnest genealogist, you will NEVER reccomend this method to prepare a very old stone for a photgraph or ever use it yourself. Research the issue --you will discover safer and more genealogically friendly methods. There are entire chapters in books on this topic that reveal the alternative methods. Jan Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote: If by "a stain", you mean "a clean spot(s) surrounded by less-clean areas", then I suspect what you say is true. Obviously shaving cream does not dicolor tombstones in this way, or people wouldn't use it, and pictures would abound like the case you describe where people could show pictures of tombstones discolored only over the lettering, and not on the uninscribed areas. In fact, if this were the case, someone would have simply performed the experiment and published the resulting measurements for all to see...then there would be no debate at all about it. The reason this has never been done is because the whole notion is a hoax. Brock Way --- [email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 3/7/2007 5:41:01 A.M. Pacific > Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ > > > > In response to Brock Way's comments, I shall make > none. > > However, regarding the Shaving Cream messages I > would like to say this: > > While I have never used shaving cream on a tombstone > and no doubt ever will. > I do know shaving cream leaves a long lasting > stain, if not an etching, on > cement. When my son was in high school, his then > girl friend wrote on our > cement walkway a loving message in shaving cream. > That message could still be > seen at more than five years later when dry. It is > good they are still > friends because it still comes through when hosing > down the walkway and that was > more than ten years ago. I don't know what brand > of shaving cream she used > but it must have been powerful. > > Linda R.F. Arnold > Menifee, California > ************************************** > AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Jan G. Miller [email protected]

If by "a stain", you mean "a clean spot(s) surrounded by less-clean areas", then I suspect what you say is true. Obviously shaving cream does not dicolor tombstones in this way, or people wouldn't use it, and pictures would abound like the case you describe where people could show pictures of tombstones discolored only over the lettering, and not on the uninscribed areas. In fact, if this were the case, someone would have simply performed the experiment and published the resulting measurements for all to see...then there would be no debate at all about it. The reason this has never been done is because the whole notion is a hoax. Brock Way --- [email protected] wrote: > > In a message dated 3/7/2007 5:41:01 A.M. Pacific > Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ > > > > In response to Brock Way's comments, I shall make > none. > > However, regarding the Shaving Cream messages I > would like to say this: > > While I have never used shaving cream on a tombstone > and no doubt ever will. > I do know shaving cream leaves a long lasting > stain, if not an etching, on > cement. When my son was in high school, his then > girl friend wrote on our > cement walkway a loving message in shaving cream. > That message could still be > seen at more than five years later when dry. It is > good they are still > friends because it still comes through when hosing > down the walkway and that was > more than ten years ago. I don't know what brand > of shaving cream she used > but it must have been powerful. > > Linda R.F. Arnold > Menifee, California > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> > AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

This is nonsense. Two claims are made here, neither of which have any evidenciary support whatsoever. 1. Shaving cream leaves behind an oily residue: What evidence shows a residue is left behind? I have seen a lot of *CLAIMS* that a residue is left behind, but I have never seen anyone actually show that a residue is ACTUALLY left behind. What experiment was ever done that even had as an intention to show a residue persists, and what technique was used to show it? The answer is...none. The experiment has never been done. 2. The residue attracts bacteria Please...what experiment showed that bacteria were more likely to come in contact with the stone after being shaving creamed? What bacteria can metabolize shaving cream (an emulsion)? Please cite any source that shows the data. Please remember when doing genealogy, even in things somewhat tangent to it...genealogy without documentation is mythology. I really wish people would do some actual research before spreading ridiculous old wives tales. The idea that shaving cream harms tombstones is a HOAX brought to you by the same people who brought you the "ban dhmo" hoax. My experience is that people who believe this balderdash also have a lot of Cherokee Princesses in their pedigree. Brock Way Mary wrote: Shaving cream leaves behind an oily residue that attracts damaging bacteria and will eventually flake off layers of the stone. The only thing that should be used on a tombstone is plain water. The Association of Gravestone Studies has more on this subject. http://www.gravestonestudies.org/ Mary Douglass, CG ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

Be aware that marriages in Missouri, at least in the 1930s, were recorded where the license was issued, NOT where the marriage took place. I'm still looking for my parents' marriage license -- married in St. Charles, but who knows where license was issued. Because of my dad's job, they lived in many places in Missouri, but with Alton, IL, as their home base. Jan _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx

You might try the IGI online at for marriages in St. Louis, St. Louis County, Missouri. I know many of my Macoupin County people went there to be married and have found quite a few of mine there. The Extracted Marriage Records are a part of the IGI. While I generally do not accept the IGI records as being high on the reliable source list (because many are hear-say), I do accept the Extracted Records as reliable. They are found amongst the "regular" IGI. The URL for the IGI is through _www.familysearch.org_ (http://www.familysearch.org) . Generally the extracted record gives the Microfilm number from which the original record was extracted. By copying the Microfilm number also, you can obtain the original record in that manner. There is a program currently in progress where they are extracting records and the extractions will become more numerous and I assume will also be put into the IGI files. Linda R. F. Arnold Menifee, California Messages: Extracted marriage record for locality listed in the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the marriage date. <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Jan True about the the marriage place being different from that where issued, but that can be true in almost every marriage. For Macoupin - issued in Carlinville but married in places such as Benld, Gillespie, Brighton, Mt Olive, etc. There is also the possibility that the minister or judge or justice of the peace did not return the marriage license to the county for filing. The counties were suppose to mark the record as "not returned" if a certain time period has passed. Don't know what that period length was but I would imagine that a month might have been the maximum for filing. Have you tried Lincoln Co MO for the record? I had an aunt who got married there and she was from Macoupin Co IL. When I located her record the employees told me that back in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's a lot of couples from IL came over to Troy (Lincoln MO) to get their license and married within the county or a neighboring county. Debbi Geer ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

Information regarding St Louis County and St Louis City in Missouri - St Louis City is not part of St Louis County. Throughout the City's history it has been an independent city, then part of the county, then an independent city, then part of the county and finally for decades has been an independent city again. The City does not report to the County government for any purposes. It does however work with the County when an issue will benefit the region. The City for its entire history has maintained its own marriage records. I was told at one time that even when it was part of the County, it did not have the marriage records filed with the County's office (Recorder of Deeds). So if you have someone in your family that was born, died or got married in the City, you will have to contact the City office which maintains those records. Someone who was born, died or got married in the County will have their records in Clayton in the appropriate office. The City also has a different set of charges for their records. Debbi ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

St. Louis County, 41 S. Central Ave., Clayton, MO 63105. 314-615-5000 http://www.stlouisco.com/ I got this information from /Ancestry's Red Book/ and from Googling /County of St. Louis MO/. This works for all counties. Mary Douglass [email protected] wrote: > Who would I contact in order to get a marriage license from across the river > in MO. (St Louis county) or near by counties for my grandparents 1896. Would > appreciate phone # and address. > > Contact Joyce at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > > Thank you > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 2095 (20070305) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > > -- Mary Douglass, CG Your Kansas research specialist URL: www.historical-matters.com

Scroll down about halfway for info on marriage records.... http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/recorder.htm#native Kim Kolk [email protected] Researching DEBEE, HAHNENKAMP, KOLK, WEISS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Bring Back The Chief! Tell the BOT how you feel! Email them at [email protected] Sign the Loyalty to the Chief Petition at http:// www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/987672837?ltl=1171846330 On Mar 5, 2007, at 2:10 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 01:31:18 EST > From: [email protected] > Subject: [ILMACOUP] Locate marriage license > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Who would I contact in order to get a marriage license from across > the river > in MO. (St Louis county) or near by counties for my grandparents > 1896. Would > appreciate phone # and address. > > Contact Joyce at [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > > Thank you > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now > offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com.