I read the article by Dr Bonner and was not convinced. I don't understand the chemistry but I do know how to check my facts. Dr Bonner claims that the shaving cream theory is supported by Dick Eastman. You can actually read Dick Eastman's comments on the subject at http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2005/05/tombstones_and_.html: "A newsletter reader wrote this week and asked about the wisdom of using shaving cream on tombstones. I have been reading about this topic occasionally for about thirty years and am still not clear on the answer." That does not sound like a recommendation to me. Dr Bonner's position sounds an awful like the cigarette companies: there is no proof that [insert name of product] causes damage. The problem with that position is that it is too late when the proof is found; the damage has been done. Scroll down the Google page after Dr Bonner's article and you will find other websites with positions on both sides of the argument. I am like Dick Eastman; I don't know which theory is right. But if Dr Bonner turns out to be wrong, it will be too late to say sorry. Mike More mikemore@rogers.com -----Original Message----- From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brock Way Sent: July 4, 2008 3:19 AM To: irl-co-donegal@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones Fair enough. However, part of the point of the page to which I pointed made is that shaving cream actually protects the stone from damage it already suffers anyway (stones don't last forever, even if they are never given any anthropogenic insult of any kind). Thus if the sake of the stone over the long term is the consideration, then an a priori belief that not using shaving cream is "safer" concomitant to the discounting of what would otherwise be the a priori belief that it helps preserve the stone is simply a good example of meritless bias, since both sides have the same identifiable claimed endpoint of their respective processes (namely stone preservation), and the same evidenciary basis (i.e., none). I subscribe to the view that no a priori bias should be assumed, and that when picking sides where both the claimed process endpoint and the produced evidence are the same, stick with those who are experts in the applicable field. In this case that would be chemists, geologists, and particularly geochemists. Brock Way > I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it > causes harm is not > the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I > don't *know* in > advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to > damage the stone or > not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that > both stones and shaving > creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can > never *know* in > advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It will be too > late after the damage is done. And since there are ways to > improve visibility > without any possibility of harm, why not use them! > > > Mike More > mikemore@rogers.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It looks like just another case of bias to me. If your fact-checking had been thorough, then rather than just finding the vacillating statements in 30 years made by Eastman that served your purpose, you would have doubtless found this gem also: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENIRE/1999-08/0934332663 "The first method is very simple: use shaving cream! First, wet the stone. Then cover a section of the stone with the moist cream and then scrape the excess cream off with a piece of Styrofoam. The cream goes into the inscription making it readable. The cream must be moist to work. Neither the Styrofoam nor the cream will damage the stone." Does it still not read enough like a recommendation to you? The part saying "use shaving cream!" is the key part. The "if Bonner is wrong" conception is similarly just bias. As pointed out in my last post, the equivalent contention can be made that shaving cream preserves the stone (except better fitting with the fundamentals of chemistry). So if you put people off from using shaving cream, then by the time the proof of the preservative nature of shaving cream turns up, it will be too late, as all those tombstones will have gone without its preserving effect in the interim, and degraded more than they would otherwise have done. So it is better to be safe than sorry, and use the shaving cream. You see? It is the other side of the same coin, and it is biased and unscientific to choose one over the other a priori. When it comes to understanding chemical properties, I still think I'll side with the chemists over the weed-pullers. Happy 4th Everyone! Brock Way --- On Fri, 7/4/08, Mike More <mikemore@rogers.com> wrote: > I read the article by Dr Bonner and was not convinced. I > don't understand > the chemistry but I do know how to check my facts. Dr > Bonner claims that the > shaving cream theory is supported by Dick Eastman. You can > actually read > Dick Eastman's comments on the subject at > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2005/05/tombstones_and_.html: > "A newsletter reader wrote this week and asked about > the wisdom of using > shaving cream on tombstones. I have been reading about this > topic > occasionally for about thirty years and am still not clear > on the answer." > That does not sound like a recommendation to me. > > Dr Bonner's position sounds an awful like the cigarette > companies: there is > no proof that [insert name of product] causes damage. The > problem with that > position is that it is too late when the proof is found; > the damage has been > done. > > Scroll down the Google page after Dr Bonner's article > and you will find > other websites with positions on both sides of the > argument. > > I am like Dick Eastman; I don't know which theory is > right. But if Dr Bonner > turns out to be wrong, it will be too late to say sorry. > > Mike More > mikemore@rogers.com