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]

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

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

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

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