Esther; First you do not mention the link to the hoax site for others to judge the validity of the information. I work with historic textiles and am therefore extremely conscious of the need for good conservation methods on anything. Our credo is "When in doubt...don't". Because something seems safe, doesn't make it chemically so. I have also worked with a gravestone conservator who is strictly against the use of shaving cream. There are non-intrusive alternatives so I would refer you to the post and links within the link below for further consideration of your hoax site. It is from Brec Morton, a geologist, on MO-CEMETERIES. Jan Thomas Textile Specialist, Historian and Independent Researcher Mr. Morton writes: "I was reading an editorial in "Heritage Quest" by Leland K. Meitzler about why he continues to use shaving cream to enhance his photos of tombstones. Many people in this group know that I am an activist AGAINST this practice, because the stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3 that makes up typical marble stones. Since most people are not experts in the different gravestone types, as a geologist by training I suggested people stay away from shaving cream on tombstones altogether. If it's bad for a car finish, it's bad for a tombstone. Mr. Meitzler was clearly referring to my Internet articles in his editorial. He wrote: "The gentleman has a point, in that shaving cream contains stearic acid, putting the shaving cream in the pH 5 range. This makes it a rather acid substance. It was stated that it is even more acid than acid rain! I'm sorry, but acid rain has been a problem since the inception of the industrial revolution. It has gone on day after day, with little let-up. The use of shaving cream, wiped across the face of a headstone, and then washed off doesn't even seem to be in the same league....For my own part, I'll continue to use shaving cream, because it works better than any other medium for allowing us to read headstones that are otherwise illegible. I use small amounts of it....after photographing the stone, I then wash the shaving cream from the stone..." [Meitzler does not report on what has already worked its way into the stone] Geologist Morton's reply: First of all, let me comment on the above. Then let me add some new research on the matter. Comments: 1) I'm glad he called me a "gentleman". Very few people say that about me ;-) 2) The time of reaction is very brief, as anyone who has mixed baking soda with vinegar will attest to. The damage commences within seconds of initial contact. Even acid rain works the same way. It is not the length of time that matters so much as it is the fact that you add the acid to the stone in the first place. 3) Acid rain comes and goes. In one rainstorm, the drops could be acidic. In the next they could be alkaline. I know here in North Texas, the rains are almost always alkaline. I know this because everytime it rains, I have to add acid to my pool to balance it. Recently, great strides have been made reducing air polution, which is the leading cause of acid rain. Why would Mr. Meitzler want to exacerbate a known problem that may have been arrested? 4) Shaving cream may be an easier medium to work with, but should laziness be the reason we damage gravestones for future generations? Now for some new research into this problem... My son took on this idea for his Science Fair project this year. And he came to some interesting conclusions. He took sample tiles of fresh polished rock that he knew was used for gravestones in our area. Then he subjected them to various acid tests. He also went to different cemeteries and recorded the amount of erosion based on the assumption that the stone was the same age as the date the person died. For the igneous crystalline rocks, such as granite or black granite (actually called diabase), acid caused no visible damage. Some of the sandstone headstones showed damage and some not. This was related to the composition of the intergrain cement that holds the sand together. Some cement was made of CaCO3 and showed the most chemical weathering. Now for the marble stones, which seem to make up the majority of the gravestones in our area.... Obviously, there were significant chemical weathering effects that were visible. Even new stones were not immune. At the very least, the polish was completely removed from the stone, indicating at least 1 mm of surface disintigration had occurred. He soaked the fresh tiles in an acid bath of pH 3 for five minutes. He observed a minimum of 3 mm of surface disintigration, sometimes more. This represented the equivalent of about 50-100 years of chemical weathering. The point was that it took only 5 minutes to reproduce years of weathering! He also tried using shaving cream (Gillette Foamy). It is admittedly less acidic then his experimental acid bath. In five minutes, it had completely removed the polish from the marble. This indicates a minimum of about 1 mm of surface disintigration. Since old gravestone carvings are typically only 3-5 mm deep, shaving cream causes significant damage to marble stones. Even if you only leave it on the stone for the length of time necessary to take a photograph, the damage is done! One millimeter of damage may be hard to notice, but it is real damage nonetheless. Why damage something needlessly? Will our future generations thank us because, in our haste and convenience, we have actively contributed towards a gravestone that will become illegible sooner? This was something that was meant for them to read, as well. The bottom line is this: DON'T USE SHAVING CREAM ON TOMBSTONES! Please check the following link on misinformation on this subject. _http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm_ (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) In a message dated 10/30/2006 9:29:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, gravinggranny@yahoo.com writes: the idea that shaving cream harms tombstones really is a hoax, and that's why I posted to this list, because a lot of people have been taken in by the hoax and have never been exposed to the information which exposes this fraud. This is the point of the hoax webpage that was set up, because just like the ban DHMO website, it looks convincing when you read it, but the authors are snickering at all the people who fall for it. That's why I am glad the shaving cream expose was posted, even if I don't use shaving cream myself.

Jan, You are simply posting more of the hoax. You list (see below) a supposed "experiment" that is characterized as "new research on the matter". It is supposed to show that 5 minutes of shaving cream led to 1mm of surface disintegration. This is ridiculous. Do the math. At 1mm per 5 minutes means that a 4" stone would be completely dissolved in 8 hours! Are we really supposed to believe that a stone can be completely dissolved by shaving cream in 8 hours, based on this "new research on the matter"? This is absurd. Furthermore, the notion that stearic acid will dissolve stone is SIMPLY FALSE. That is exactly what the hoax is all about. It is the intention of saying that stearic acid will react with stone the same exact way hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid will. It doesn't. It never has, and it never will. Stearic acid and hydrochloric have different properties. Hydrochloric acid will dissolve stone, and stearic acid will not. Simply put, Brec Morton is wrong. He believes that stearic acid behaves as a strong mineral acid when it is actually a weak organic acid. Brec Morton doesn't even understand the pH of rain in his own area. By his own post he claims most rains in North Texas are alkaline (as evidenced by his swimming pool pH balance, evidently), when any cursory investigation into the matter shows that far from being "almost always alkaline", as is his claim (see below), the truth of the matter is that the annual precipitation-weighted mean hydrogen ion concentration as pH in Nor! th Texas is between 5.3 and 5.5, in other words, acidic. Unfortunately, Brec Morton has rather stepped out of his area of expertise, and unmasked himself as being frightfully unknowledgeable in the area of chemistry by showing his fundamental misunderstanding of the pH scale, a lack of ability to distinguish the chemical reactivities of different kinds of acids, and finally in promoting an "experiment" his conclusion regarding which is not even remotely plausible. Simply restating the hoax doesn't make it any less of a hoax. At the crux of this hoax is the belief that stearic acid behaves the same a hydrochloric acid. It doesn't. It is a different acid, with different chemical properties. It simply doesn't dissolve stone, and people who claim that it does are in clear error, whether they are "a geologist" or not. Esther S. ----- Original Message ---- From: "TEXTIQUE@aol.com" <TEXTIQUE@aol.com> To: ohallen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 12:44:41 PM Subject: Re: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones-my last response Esther; First you do not mention the link to the hoax site for others to judge the validity of the information. I work with historic textiles and am therefore extremely conscious of the need for good conservation methods on anything. Our credo is "When in doubt...don't". Because something seems safe, doesn't make it chemically so. I have also worked with a gravestone conservator who is strictly against the use of shaving cream. There are non-intrusive alternatives so I would refer you to the post and links within the link below for further consideration of your hoax site. It is from Brec Morton, a geologist, on MO-CEMETERIES. Jan Thomas Textile Specialist, Historian and Independent Researcher Mr. Morton writes: "I was reading an editorial in "Heritage Quest" by Leland K. Meitzler about why he continues to use shaving cream to enhance his photos of tombstones. Many people in this group know that I am an activist AGAINST this practice, because the stearic acid in the shaving cream will dissolve MgCO3/CaCO3 that makes up typical marble stones. Since most people are not experts in the different gravestone types, as a geologist by training I suggested people stay away from shaving cream on tombstones altogether. If it's bad for a car finish, it's bad for a tombstone. Mr. Meitzler was clearly referring to my Internet articles in his editorial. He wrote: "The gentleman has a point, in that shaving cream contains stearic acid, putting the shaving cream in the pH 5 range. This makes it a rather acid substance. It was stated that it is even more acid than acid rain! I'm sorry, but acid rain has been a problem since the inception of the industrial revolution. It has gone on day after day, with little let-up. The use of shaving cream, wiped across the face of a headstone, and then washed off doesn't even seem to be in the same league....For my own part, I'll continue to use shaving cream, because it works better than any other medium for allowing us to read headstones that are otherwise illegible. I use small amounts of it....after photographing the stone, I then wash the shaving cream from the stone..." [Meitzler does not report on what has already worked its way into the stone] Geologist Morton's reply: First of all, let me comment on the above. Then let me add some new research on the matter. Comments: 1) I'm glad he called me a "gentleman". Very few people say that about me ;-) 2) The time of reaction is very brief, as anyone who has mixed baking soda with vinegar will attest to. The damage commences within seconds of initial contact. Even acid rain works the same way. It is not the length of time that matters so much as it is the fact that you add the acid to the stone in the first place. 3) Acid rain comes and goes. In one rainstorm, the drops could be acidic. In the next they could be alkaline. I know here in North Texas, the rains are almost always alkaline. I know this because everytime it rains, I have to add acid to my pool to balance it. Recently, great strides have been made reducing air polution, which is the leading cause of acid rain. Why would Mr. Meitzler want to exacerbate a known problem that may have been arrested? 4) Shaving cream may be an easier medium to work with, but should laziness be the reason we damage gravestones for future generations? Now for some new research into this problem... My son took on this idea for his Science Fair project this year. And he came to some interesting conclusions. He took sample tiles of fresh polished rock that he knew was used for gravestones in our area. Then he subjected them to various acid tests. He also went to different cemeteries and recorded the amount of erosion based on the assumption that the stone was the same age as the date the person died. For the igneous crystalline rocks, such as granite or black granite (actually called diabase), acid caused no visible damage. Some of the sandstone headstones showed damage and some not. This was related to the composition of the intergrain cement that holds the sand together. Some cement was made of CaCO3 and showed the most chemical weathering. Now for the marble stones, which seem to make up the majority of the gravestones in our area.... Obviously, there were significant chemical weathering effects that were visible. Even new stones were not immune. At the very least, the polish was completely removed from the stone, indicating at least 1 mm of surface disintigration had occurred. He soaked the fresh tiles in an acid bath of pH 3 for five minutes. He observed a minimum of 3 mm of surface disintigration, sometimes more. This represented the equivalent of about 50-100 years of chemical weathering. The point was that it took only 5 minutes to reproduce years of weathering! He also tried using shaving cream (Gillette Foamy). It is admittedly less acidic then his experimental acid bath. In five minutes, it had completely removed the polish from the marble. This indicates a minimum of about 1 mm of surface disintigration. Since old gravestone carvings are typically only 3-5 mm deep, shaving cream causes significant damage to marble stones. Even if you only leave it on the stone for the length of time necessary to take a photograph, the damage is done! One millimeter of damage may be hard to notice, but it is real damage nonetheless. Why damage something needlessly? Will our future generations thank us because, in our haste and convenience, we have actively contributed towards a gravestone that will become illegible sooner? This was something that was meant for them to read, as well. The bottom line is this: DON'T USE SHAVING CREAM ON TOMBSTONES! Please check the following link on misinformation on this subject. _http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm_ (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/shavingcream.htm) In a message dated 10/30/2006 9:29:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, gravinggranny@yahoo.com writes: the idea that shaving cream harms tombstones really is a hoax, and that's why I posted to this list, because a lot of people have been taken in by the hoax and have never been exposed to the information which exposes this fraud. This is the point of the hoax webpage that was set up, because just like the ban DHMO website, it looks convincing when you read it, but the authors are snickering at all the people who fall for it. That's why I am glad the shaving cream expose was posted, even if I don't use shaving cream myself. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

----- Original Message ---- From: Kenneth Graham gram9876@hotmail.com >>>As family historians, I think we have a responsibility to preserve and protect our family artifacts and, at least, do no further harm to tombstones. This web page provides alternatives to traditional rubbings and recommends that we do NOT use chalk or flour or shaving cream on tombstones: http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/alternative.htm That's the problem with this site - the "information" presented therein about shaving cream is based on the known hoax. That's the whole point of the page that was first posted here. There is no reason to believe that shaving cream harms tombstones, and, if the rationale at the above site is followed to its logical conclusion, then the result is that the stone is PRESERVED, not further harmed. >>>This web page also has links to other pages discussing the use of chalk, flour, shaving cream and other substances. They recommend against using these substances. Using chalk, flour or shaving cream leaves residues on the gravestone despite our best intentions to wash them off. These residues may harm tombstones in other ways than those mentioned in the "hoax" article. Again, this is simply conjecture without any supporting evidence. There has never been any evidence shown that they leave any residue. There is only the suggestion that it might. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that any residue, even if it does persist, is harmful. It could just as well be beneficial to the stone. Esther S.

Might have attented the German Reformed Church on Wayne St. Many German immigrants (including my ancestors the Schnugg/Snooks) were members there. Pam ----- Original Message ----- From: Lilly Martin To: ohallen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [OHALLEN] Looking for a Church Hello, Since we are discussing churches: would anyone remember St. Paul's Evangelical Church? My ancestors lived in Perry twsp, Lima, OH. They are both buried at St. Paul's Evangelical Cemetery on St. Johns and Breese Rd. I am not certain if the Cemetery is connected to a Church? Or perhaps is only a Protestant Cemetery, and not actually affilated with a church? My ancestors were German immigrants, and lived in Lima Oh at least from 1880 to 1902 and 1905 when they each died there. Given that location, where would a German immigrant couple attend church? Best regards, Lilly Martin ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Easter you are right there is no paint on tomb stones, but I am sticking to using nothing but the rubbing on old stones like I have for 20 years, I am not taking any chances. Gloria

Thank you all for this interesting discussion. Archeological sites, such as those having stone monuments in Guatemala, have laws banning the practice of rubbings because of erosion and other damage that can be done to the stones. Many states in the US also have regulations against taking rubbings of tombstones. As family historians, I think we have a responsibility to preserve and protect our family artifacts and, at least, do no further harm to tombstones. This web page provides alternatives to traditional rubbings and recommends that we do NOT use chalk or flour or shaving cream on tombstones: http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/alternative.htm This web page also has links to other pages discussing the use of chalk, flour, shaving cream and other substances. They recommend against using these substances. Using chalk, flour or shaving cream leaves residues on the gravestone despite our best intentions to wash them off. These residues may harm tombstones in other ways than those mentioned in the "hoax" article. Traditional rubbings also can harm stones. Two alternatives they recommend is the aluminum foil method, which was mentioned by someone else in this thread, and viewing "negatives" of digital photos. They also recommend different viewing methods that may make it easier to read the information on the stone so that you can simply write it down. These alternative methods allow us to document the information on tombstones without harming the stones. Let's use them. My two cents. Ken >From: "Gloria Motter" <jgmott@roadrunner.com> >Reply-To: ohallen@rootsweb.com >To: <ohallen@rootsweb.com> >Subject: Re: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones-my last response >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:05:45 -0500 > >Easter you are right there is no paint on tomb stones, but I am sticking to >using nothing but the rubbing on old stones like I have for 20 years, I am >not taking any chances. > >Gloria > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001

I have not followed this thread completely but this is what I do and get very good results. I take a small container of flour and use a soft sponge. I coat the sponge heavily with flour on one side and gently spread and or mash the flour on to the stone. Then very lightly brush off the excess and generally you can read the stone very good. Does no good if you need a marking but I can then photograph the stone with the dates readable with the flour in the grooves. Rod At 09:10 PM 10/29/2006, you wrote: >I don't think Chalk is harmful if you use the "kids" play caulk. But >I sure wouldn't use shaving cream at all! >Has anyone seen what it does to car paint or leave it on your wind >shield in the sun? >Shaving cream is a no-no on stones. > > >I've used large chalk on it's side. and it comes off in a rain. >I hope it doesen't damage the stone. Opion please > >Frank > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gloria, I don't use shaving cream either. In fact, I don't use anything but a camera and in some cases a shade. Frankly, I have found the tombstone inscriptions to be in error so much that the documentary nature of them pales in comparison to the reason I am there in the first place, which is to honor my ancestors...so that my so-many-greats grandma and grandpa will see me from On High and say to each other, lookee there, it's Esther come to have a peek at our final resting place, how 'bout that. But the idea that shaving cream harms tombstones really is a hoax, and that's why I posted to this list, because a lot of people have been taken in by the hoax and have never been exposed to the information which exposes this fraud. This is the point of the hoax webpage that was set up, because just like the ban DHMO website, it looks convincing when you read it, but the authors are snickering at all the people who fall for it. That's why I am glad the shaving cream expose was posted, even if I don't use shaving cream myself. Esther S. ----- Original Message ---- From: Gloria Motter <jgmott@roadrunner.com> To: ohallen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 10:05:45 AM Subject: Re: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones-my last response Easter you are right there is no paint on tomb stones, but I am sticking to using nothing but the rubbing on old stones like I have for 20 years, I am not taking any chances. Gloria ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think in my last post I ascribed quotes to Frank Conner in error. I was following the quoting used here: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/OHALLEN/2006-10/1162219278 When Gloria responded to Frank, she didn't distinguish her own text from Frank's original by indent or other device. So when Rod replied, the 2nd level reply was indistinguishable from the first. I think I should have ascribed the text to Gloria, not Frank. Sorry Frank! Esther S.

Frank wrote: >But I sure wouldn't use shaving cream at all! >Has anyone seen what it does to car paint or leave it on your wind >shield in the sun? This is a specious argument, nobody's tombstone is made of car paint. This is exactly like the counter-argument of people putting it on their face without harm. Tombstones are similarly not made of flesh. The standard is not what will happen with shaving cream on paint or flesh, but on stone. And as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that it will harm stone. In fact, all the arguments that I have seen EVEN IF TRUE suggest that shaving cream would protect the stone, not harm it. >Shaving cream is a no-no on stones. On what basis? Because it harms paint? I agree that shaving cream should not be put on tombstones made of paint. Esther S.

I don't think Chalk is harmful if you use the "kids" play caulk. But I sure wouldn't use shaving cream at all! Has anyone seen what it does to car paint or leave it on your wind shield in the sun? Shaving cream is a no-no on stones. I've used large chalk on it's side. and it comes off in a rain. I hope it doesen't damage the stone. Opion please Frank

The U. B. Church building on High Street is now for sale. The did merge with the Methodist. My daughter lives in Lima and her Grandma went to U. B. at Spring and Union Streets. They merged with Faith Methodist on Bellefontaine Ave. The U. B. church building at Spring and Union Streets is for sale. I have messed with her mind and now she is trying to think.......will let you know. Tootsie On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:57:19 -0500, Marguerite Crist Calvin <cristcalvin@ohiohills.com> wrote: > When I lived up there it was changed to United Methodist when they > merged. Not sure of the status now. M Calvin > > > >> My great-grandparents, James and Pearl >> CUSTER attended a church in Lima called >> High St. U.B. Church, which was written about >> in the Lima Daily News in 1912. >> Is this church still around? I couldn't find it >> in an Ohio Church Directory. >> >> Shari in Ohio >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Lord, keep your arm around my shoulder and Your hand over my mouth.

When I lived up there it was changed to United Methodist when they merged. Not sure of the status now. M Calvin >My great-grandparents, James and Pearl >CUSTER attended a church in Lima called >High St. U.B. Church, which was written about >in the Lima Daily News in 1912. >Is this church still around? I couldn't find it >in an Ohio Church Directory. > >Shari in Ohio > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I use foil and a soft brush. I read cemeteries for various societies all the time, and there have maybe 6 that I absolutely couldn't read. I DON"T put anything on a tombstone especially the old ones. For what its worth. Margaret Calvin formerly of Putnam co > I've used large chalk on it's side. and it comes off in a rain. >I hope it doesen't damage the stone. Opion please > >Frank >> >> I am sorry but shaving cream on older stones is not a good idea, >> nothing should be put on the stones that you couldn't put in your >> mouth. I tend to believe the experts on this one. >> That person does not know what the damage may be done due to using >> shaving cream lets say in 25 years or less after using. Many stones >> were made of softer rock and unless it was made by "Rock Of Ages", I >> am against anything being tried other than rubbing the stone the old >> fashion way or taking a photo and use the negative effect to get a >> reading. >> There is such a loss due to the elements alone (I know my mother's >> stone of only 13 years is looking pretty bad in Woodlawn cemetery in >> Lima.........I think due to the oil refinery) >> Gloria >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com> >> To: <OHALLEN@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:30 PM >> Subject: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones Being Harmful-Hoax >> >> >> >> >_http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html_ > >> >> >(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html) > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I've used large chalk on it's side. and it comes off in a rain. I hope it doesen't damage the stone. Opion please Frank > > I am sorry but shaving cream on older stones is not a good idea, > nothing should be put on the stones that you couldn't put in your > mouth. I tend to believe the experts on this one. > That person does not know what the damage may be done due to using > shaving cream lets say in 25 years or less after using. Many stones > were made of softer rock and unless it was made by "Rock Of Ages", I > am against anything being tried other than rubbing the stone the old > fashion way or taking a photo and use the negative effect to get a > reading. > There is such a loss due to the elements alone (I know my mother's > stone of only 13 years is looking pretty bad in Woodlawn cemetery in > Lima.........I think due to the oil refinery) > Gloria > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com> > To: <OHALLEN@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:30 PM > Subject: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones Being Harmful-Hoax > > > > _http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html_ > > (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html) > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Sending a hint.. I searched for years for my Grandparents Obits who died in Allen County per their Death Cert. but no one could come up with it. and a sweet lady on line asked what town did they live and I gave her Spencerville and she checked the Library there and I had it the next day Fc

I am sorry but shaving cream on older stones is not a good idea, nothing should be put on the stones that you couldn't put in your mouth. I tend to believe the experts on this one. That person does not know what the damage may be done due to using shaving cream lets say in 25 years or less after using. Many stones were made of softer rock and unless it was made by "Rock Of Ages", I am against anything being tried other than rubbing the stone the old fashion way or taking a photo and use the negative effect to get a reading. There is such a loss due to the elements alone (I know my mother's stone of only 13 years is looking pretty bad in Woodlawn cemetery in Lima.........I think due to the oil refinery) Gloria ----- Original Message ----- From: <CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com> To: <OHALLEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:30 PM Subject: [OHALLEN] Shaving Cream on Tombstones Being Harmful-Hoax _http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html_ (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gbonner/misc/shavingcream.html)

You're welcome. Debbie Carder Mayes http://allencogenealogysociety.homestead.com/Main.html www.tribalpages.com/tribes/deb6102 www.tribalpages.com/tribes/dac6102 www.rootsweb.com/~ohallen/ ----- Original Message ----- From: <CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com> To: <ohallen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [OHALLEN] Virgil Ulrich & Marcine J. Ulrich Ball > > In a message dated 10/28/2006 9:39:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > dcarder2@woh.rr.com writes: > > Yes, I sent the obits. > Debbie Carder Mayes > > http://allencogenealogysociety.homestead.com/Main.html > > > Ok, thanks Debbie. > > Charlotte > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In a message dated 10/28/2006 9:39:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcarder2@woh.rr.com writes: Yes, I sent the obits. Debbie Carder Mayes http://allencogenealogysociety.homestead.com/Main.html Ok, thanks Debbie. Charlotte

Yes, I sent the obits. Debbie Carder Mayes http://allencogenealogysociety.homestead.com/Main.html www.tribalpages.com/tribes/deb6102 www.tribalpages.com/tribes/dac6102 www.rootsweb.com/~ohallen/ ----- Original Message ----- From: <CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com> To: <OHALLEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:24 PM Subject: [OHALLEN] Virgil Ulrich & Marcine J. Ulrich Ball > Hello, > > Did the person who needed the obituary look-up for Virgil Ulrich and > Marcine > J. Ulrich Ball ever get them? > > I got them today but I can't read the e-mail address on my printed copy of > the e-mail, because my printer messed up. > > Thanks and let me know. > > Charlotte > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OHALLEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message