shaving cream "harming" tombstones

[Brock Way]

Dave Hinz wrote:

Right. Let's take a chemical made for an entirely
different purpose and apply it to a gravestone,
and hopefully maybe it won't hurt anything.
Sorry, but I'm not going to condone such behavior.
Next comes the
"I scrape it with a sawblade" crowd, I suppose.

My response:

Using a material that is made for one purpose, and
applying it to another is the hallmark of cleverness,
not evil. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
using a material for some purpose, in spite of it
having been developed for another.

But more to the point, the idea that next comes the "I
scrape it with a sawblade" crowd is the worst form of
red herring argument. Nobody has suggested using a
sawblade, and it is absurd to suppose that it will be
'next' in any scenario. The shaving cream usage
proponents could just as well argue, "Hey, you can't
get close enough to breathe on the stone, because
carbon dioxide in respiration might cause chemical
weathering of the stone" will be 'next', if we allow
this wrong-headed view of shaving cream usage to take
hold.

Dave continues with:

Sorry, but I reject the use of _potentially_ harmful
chemicals when
there are non-intrusive ways to accomplish the same
thing.

My reply:

Do you also object to going outside because you could
_potentially_ be hit by lightning? The issue is not
what is "potential", but what is "likely". And shaving
cream insult to a stone is about as likely as being
hit by lightning. It is shaving cream, after all.

Dave concludes with:

Or if you don't want to vandalize someone's
gravestone.

My reply:

You have a very different definition of "vandalize"
than do I. The definition of "vandalize" according to
my dictionary requires an outcome of "permanent
damage". Since shaving cream causes no permanent
damage, it is therefore impossible to vandalize a
stone with it.

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

Brock Way





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[f/fgeorge]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Brock
Way) wrote:

My reply:

You have a very different definition of "vandalize"
than do I. The definition of "vandalize" according to
my dictionary requires an outcome of "permanent
damage". Since shaving cream causes no permanent
damage, it is therefore impossible to vandalize a
stone with it.

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

Brock Way

IF you use Menthol shave cream it CAN harm the stone! It seems

checmicals that give it that "stingy" feeling do not stay just on the
outside of the stone but work their way into the stone and cause it to
crack when the freeze and thaw cycles come.
Regular shave cream seems to be okay though. Just use a piece of paper
or cardboard when you scrape it off since they are softer than the
stone.

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2005-04-07, John Zillwood <[email protected]> wrote:

I have seen arguments from both sides of the issue and have come to the
conclusion that until there is definitive proof that shaving cream causes no
harm I will refrain from its use. The point is not that harm must be proven
but that no harm be proven and I don't think any of us will be around long
enough to judge the possible stearate damage in 30, 40, 50 years time.

Like the hypocratic oath, "First, do no harm." Distilled water, a mirror
and a light source will quite often suffice. My 2 cents worth

But, doesn't _distilled_ water leach out minerals from the
stone, simply because it's distilled so that it has (almost)
no dissolved minerals in it? less than 1/2

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[John Zillwood]

---- Original Message ----
From: "Brock Way" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: shaving cream "harming" tombstones
<Lots snipped>

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

I have seen arguments from both sides of the issue and have come to the
conclusion that until there is definitive proof that shaving cream causes no
harm I will refrain from its use. The point is not that harm must be proven
but that no harm be proven and I don't think any of us will be around long
enough to judge the possible stearate damage in 30, 40, 50 years time.

Like the hypocratic oath, "First, do no harm." Distilled water, a mirror
and a light source will quite often suffice. My 2 cents worth

Regards.
John Zillwood
[email protected]

[Lesley Robertson]

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

You have a very different definition of "vandalize"
than do I. The definition of "vandalize" according to
my dictionary requires an outcome of "permanent
damage". Since shaving cream causes no permanent
damage, it is therefore impossible to vandalize a
stone with it.

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

Why is it harebrained? You think that because it's safe on skin it's safe on

stone? There's plenty of evidence that this is not true. Shaving cream
contains all sorts of ingredients - lipids, other moisturising agents, etc -
which stay on the stone long after the user has left and encourage bacterial
growth. As they metabolise the fates, etc, these bacteria produce acids
which gradually erode the stones. As cream gets trapped in microfractures,
more bacteria grow in the cracks, produce more acid and increase the damage.
They also provide an easier habitat for the bacteria that oxidise nitrogen
and sulphur compounds in the air and produce acids from those. I've even
seen "a quick spray of shaving foam" suggested on gardening programmes to
encourage growth of lichens, etc, on new pots and to "age" concrete "garden
statues".
Just because you can't see an instant effect, doesn't mean that you are not
doing damage. Shaving foam does indeed cause long-term, permanent damage, so
the dictionary definition of "vandalism" shows that Dave used it correctly.
The emphasis is on "long term" - you won't see the damage you do today, or
even next week, but it's there.
I hope that you enjoy the photos you make.
Lesley Robertson

[Brock Way]

John,

Let me see if I understand this correctly...if
arguments have been made for both sides, then in the
absence of proof, you will refrain from said activity?

I guess that means that you won't be getting close
enough to a stone to breathe on it. After all, the
argument has been made that breathing on a stone
results in the chemical weathering of stone due to the
carbon dioxide in the breath. I hope your distilled
water, mirror, and light works well in conjunction
with a telescope.

Moreover, you make mention of "stearate damage". This
is pretty much what I was talking about last time when
I mentioned hare-brained rationales. Many people fear
shaving cream on stones because of stearic acid on the
basis that it is an acid. And since hydrochloric acid
degrades stones, then shouldn't stearic acid? The
answer is a resounding "no". First of all hydrochloric
acid is one of the strongest acids on the planet and
is a mineral acid. Stearic acid, on the other hand, is
an organic acid, and is so weak that its acidity can't
even be measured - it has to be approximated by
interpolation within the series of other organic
acids. Furthermore, shaving cream is not 100% stearic
acid - rather it is a minor component of shaving
cream. Furthermore, shaving cream is pH balanced
precisely in order to counteract this affect. And
finally, shaving cream is an emulsion - stearic acid
isn't even soluble in water.

Stearate acid in 30, 40 or 50 years? How often do you
expect the stone to be shaving creamed? Something
tells me that it will be less than the 5,000 odd times
I have "shaving creamed" my bathroom sink over the
years; and I will still give you $10 if you can find
even the slightest hint at damage there. In fact, I
have twin sinks (made of same material as many
tombstones), and I would be willing to bet that you
couldn't even tell me which one I used.

Standard practice of logic dictates that primary
assertion carries the burden of proof. The assertion
is that shaving cream harms stone. Anyone who wants to
try to turn this around, and say that it is common
sense that shaving cream harms stone, and the burden
is to show that shaving cream does not harm stone, I
have this to say...

'We are talking about shaving cream.' Unless you use
"3-Mile Island" brand shaving cream, it isn't going to
harm a stone.

Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that in the
original piece which says shaving cream is harmful, it
also points out that stearic acid was composed partly
of hydrogen atoms, and, hydrogen being explosive,
causes an explosion risk to tombstones. Gee, I wonder
why they leave that part out nowadays.

It is only sensible to refrain from activity where
arguments have been made for both sides when the
argument against use isn't complete nonsense.

Yes...first...do no harm. Bring out the leeches, doc,
and if that doesn't work, maybe a good old-fashioned
blood-letting will. Do no harm indeed.

Brock Way

I have seen arguments from both sides of the issue
and have come to the
conclusion that until there is definitive proof that
shaving cream causes no
harm I will refrain from its use. The point is not
that harm must be proven
but that no harm be proven and I don't think any of
us will be around long
enough to judge the possible stearate damage in 30,
40, 50 years time.

Like the hypocratic oath, "First, do no harm."
Distilled water, a mirror
and a light source will quite often suffice. My 2
cents worth

Regards.
John Zillwood
[email protected]

__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

[f/fgeorge]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:16:39 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

You have a very different definition of "vandalize"
than do I. The definition of "vandalize" according to
my dictionary requires an outcome of "permanent
damage". Since shaving cream causes no permanent
damage, it is therefore impossible to vandalize a
stone with it.

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

Why is it harebrained? You think that because it's safe on skin it's safe on
stone? There's plenty of evidence that this is not true. Shaving cream
contains all sorts of ingredients - lipids, other moisturising agents, etc -
which stay on the stone long after the user has left and encourage bacterial
growth. As they metabolise the fates, etc, these bacteria produce acids
which gradually erode the stones. As cream gets trapped in microfractures,
more bacteria grow in the cracks, produce more acid and increase the damage.
They also provide an easier habitat for the bacteria that oxidise nitrogen
and sulphur compounds in the air and produce acids from those. I've even
seen "a quick spray of shaving foam" suggested on gardening programmes to
encourage growth of lichens, etc, on new pots and to "age" concrete "garden
statues".
Just because you can't see an instant effect, doesn't mean that you are not
doing damage. Shaving foam does indeed cause long-term, permanent damage, so
the dictionary definition of "vandalism" shows that Dave used it correctly.
The emphasis is on "long term" - you won't see the damage you do today, or
even next week, but it's there.
I hope that you enjoy the photos you make.
Lesley Robertson

So you are saying that in order to preserve an otherwise unreadable

headstone it is still NOT acceptable to use shaving cream? Because
THAT is what this whole discussion is about, if one could read it
clearly, shaving cream would not be needed!
I think that to "preserve" the inscription an analysis needs to be
done using the most uptodate a person has and then using that data
make an informed choice. If the ONLY way to see the inscription is to
use shaving cream, then use the cream! If there are other ways, such
as a small paint brush and a cup of water, then use that. BUT the
inscription NEEDS to be preserved for our descendants! That IS why we
do genealogy isn't it? So someone else dosn't have to do it again!

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

Right. Let's take a chemical made for an entirely
different purpose and apply it to a gravestone,
and hopefully maybe it won't hurt anything.
Sorry, but I'm not going to condone such behavior.
Next comes the
"I scrape it with a sawblade" crowd, I suppose.

My response:

Using a material that is made for one purpose, and
applying it to another is the hallmark of cleverness,
not evil. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
using a material for some purpose, in spite of it
having been developed for another.

That's an overgeneralization.

But more to the point, the idea that next comes the "I
scrape it with a sawblade" crowd is the worst form of
red herring argument. Nobody has suggested using a
sawblade, and it is absurd to suppose that it will be
'next' in any scenario.

You're new here, I take it? That technique invariably comes
up when we're on this topic.

The shaving cream usage
proponents could just as well argue, "Hey, you can't
get close enough to breathe on the stone, because
carbon dioxide in respiration might cause chemical
weathering of the stone" will be 'next', if we allow
this wrong-headed view of shaving cream usage to take
hold.

And you accuse _me_ of using a red-herring. Wow.

Dave continues with:

Sorry, but I reject the use of _potentially_ harmful
chemicals when
there are non-intrusive ways to accomplish the same
thing.

My reply:

(by the way, the quoting with > and >> works well, you don't
really need to do the play-by-play "and then he said" stuff).

Do you also object to going outside because you could
_potentially_ be hit by lightning? The issue is not
what is "potential", but what is "likely". And shaving
cream insult to a stone is about as likely as being
hit by lightning. It is shaving cream, after all.

And you feel that you understand the chemistry of shaving cream,
and of each of the varieties of stone that tombstones are cut from,
that you're able to make such a blanket statement with such
confidence? Can you please explain the chemistry involved?

Dave concludes with:

Or if you don't want to vandalize someone's
gravestone.

My reply:

You have a very different definition of "vandalize"
than do I. The definition of "vandalize" according to
my dictionary requires an outcome of "permanent
damage". Since shaving cream causes no permanent
damage,

Please back up your claim. And I also question your definitino
of vantalize involving only "permanent damage".

it is therefore impossible to vandalize a
stone with it.

Please back up your claim.

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary.

Please cite that evidence. It's obvious you think you have
some.

In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

You know, your opinions might have more weight if you'd not
started with namecalling with your initial post. But, please,
post your evidence. Maybe everything I've read is wrong, and you
know better. What's your source, what's your evidence, and please
explain the chemistry.

Dave Hinz

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:56:34 GMT, f/fgeorge <[email protected]> wrote:

So you are saying that in order to preserve an otherwise unreadable
headstone it is still NOT acceptable to use shaving cream? Because
THAT is what this whole discussion is about, if one could read it
clearly, shaving cream would not be needed!

Not necessarily. I brought up shaving cream in context of a method I
read about and want to try, involving using four digital photographs,
each with a flash from a different angle, that are manipulated together
in photoshop. If you 'subtract' the images from each other, the
difference will be the shadows that change with flash angle. Which will
be direct measurements of the depth of the inscriptions.

My point was, and is, that it's not worth risking a stone by applying
a chemical to it, when it's possible to get that same information
with non-destructive, optical means.

I think that to "preserve" the inscription an analysis needs to be
done using the most uptodate a person has and then using that data
make an informed choice. If the ONLY way to see the inscription is to
use shaving cream, then use the cream! If there are other ways, such
as a small paint brush and a cup of water, then use that. BUT the
inscription NEEDS to be preserved for our descendants! That IS why we
do genealogy isn't it? So someone else dosn't have to do it again!

And if the person getting the information doesn't put it where it can
be found, it's as good as lost anyway. But that's a different topic.

[Gene]

I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

Brock Way





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

I have to suppoert Dave here. The shaving cream is harmful to older

stones. See http://www.savinggraves.org/education/p ... bbings.htm.
Here is just a small quote;

"A NOTE ABOUT SHAVING CREAM, FLOUR OR CHALK
A word of advice, DON'T use shaving cream , chalk, flour or anything
else on tombstones!. These have many ingredients harmful to tombstones
(like butane) and in some cases can be abrasive. There are a number of
websites that promote this method, with one going so far as to assure
that the shaving cream will not harm the stone. Please do not attempt
this as you WILL be causing a great of damage to the stone and even by
washing it after you are finished you will not remove all of the
material that you have placed on the stone. More detailed information on
why not to use shaving cream on a stone can be found here."

Another quote, perhaps more importantly, is;

"Please note this practice has been regulated or banned in some states
and in many cemeteries (particularly in colonial graveyards) due to the
damage it can cause to the stone. For example, please see Section 289:22
of the State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes."

Wether you believe it is harmful or not, if it is illegal that is the
end of the argument, unless you are willing to risk a stiff fine.

And as a side note; your definition of vandalism may work for you but
Law Enforcement uses the definition as prescribed by the law in the
pertinent jurisdiction. Generally, if you change something without
permission, even if YOU believe it makes that something better, you are
still guilty of vandalism.

I realize this will probably not sway you, but that was not my intent.
My purpose in responding was to let other people know the pit falls
befor they follow your advise.

With respectful dis-agreement,
Gene

[Herman Viaene]

John Zillwood wrote:

---- Original Message ----
From: "Brock Way" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: shaving cream "harming" tombstones
Lots snipped
I think there are too many people who read
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook at some websites, and
take it to be logical rationale. There is no evidence
that shaving cream causes any harm to tombstones, and
*ALL* the evidence is to the contrary. In the absence
of evidence, the only thing left to state is the
rationale itself. A careful examination of the
rationale will reveal that it is hare-brained. Please
don't fall for poppycock, just because it is presented
at a website which has a name which seems like it
should be authoritative.

I have seen arguments from both sides of the issue and have come to the
conclusion that until there is definitive proof that shaving cream causes
no
harm I will refrain from its use. The point is not that harm must be
proven but that no harm be proven and I don't think any of us will be
around long enough to judge the possible stearate damage in 30, 40, 50
years time.

You fall in the same age-old trap that all quacks use all the time: harms
has not been proven, but .... and then follow a series of unchecked claims.

The plain truth is that, when you follow this type of reasoning, "no harm"
CANN'T EVER .. EVER be proven, because someone will allways be able to
dream up some circumstance, combination etc ... that never has been tried
before. A product, device .... can be used in such unnumberable different
ways that testing them all is beyond any possible human effort and
lifetime.
So think carefully what you want to do, test what you think is reasonable
- or rely on other people's knowledge and experience - and live with the
thought that sometime - somewhere - somehow something could go a little
wrong. That should be enough to keep your mind alert!!

Herman Viaene

[cecilia]

Some lettering on stones is filled with black stuff.

Does this delay erosion and other degradation?

More particularly, for a softish stone cut 50 years ago, from which the
black stuff was removed by a now-dead family member, should we consider
putting it back? Or even having the lettering (which has softened)
re-cut?

[Brock Way]

Leslie Robertson wrote:

You think that because it's safe on skin it's safe
on stone?

No. Its safety for use on stone is independent of its
effect on skin.

There's plenty of evidence that this is not
true.

Really? I've never seen any. Care to produce some? I
have seen lots of CLAIMS of damage, but I have never
seen anyone who could produce evidence, in spite of it
seemingly being so abundant.

Shaving cream
contains all sorts of ingredients - lipids, other
moisturising agents, etc -
which stay on the stone long after the user has left
and encourage bacterial
growth.

Wrong. The shaving cream comes off easily with water.
The notion that it any residue stays is false.
Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension, or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.

As they metabolise the fates, etc, these
bacteria produce acids
which gradually erode the stones. As cream gets
trapped in microfractures,
more bacteria grow in the cracks, produce more acid
and increase the damage.
They also provide an easier habitat for the bacteria
that oxidise nitrogen
and sulphur compounds in the air and produce acids
from those.

The above is the pseudoscientific gobbledygook I
mentioned earlier. I could write a similar spiel on
how carbon dioxide and water vapor from breath cause
carbonation (a type of stone chemical weathering)...it
would be similarly false.

I've even
seen "a quick spray of shaving foam" suggested on
gardening programmes to
encourage growth of lichens, etc, on new pots and to
"age" concrete "garden
statues".

This is mordant activity which is irrelevant if you
wash it off. Furthermore, I never suggested that
shaving cream causes no harm to ANY surface. For
example, I wouldn't recommend it for tombstones made
from car paint.

Shaving foam does indeed cause
long-term, permanent damage, so
the dictionary definition of "vandalism" shows that
Dave used it correctly.

Your premise is false. It does no long-term damage.
Dave's usage would be correct only if your premise was
true...but it isn't.

Brock Way



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

[Brock Way]

I wrote:

The shaving cream usage
proponents could just as well argue
snip

Dave replied with:

And you accuse _me_ of using a red-herring. Wow.

My reply:

Yup...wow is right. I am glad you see by my example
what a red herring your original argument was by my
analogous usage of what the proponents *could* argue,
by similarity.

Dave then write:

And you feel that you understand the chemistry of
shaving cream,

My reply:

Well, yeah, considering I wrote my doctoral
dissertation partly on the chromatographic properties
of organic species on materials such as those used to
make tombstones...I would say, yeah, I feel like I've
got a pretty good handle on it.

Can you please explain the chemistry
involved?

Sure, shaving cream + tombstone = no rxn (viz., no
reaction)

Please cite that evidence. It's obvious you think
you have some.

I guess you missed the part of my post where I discuss
how the original assertion carries the burden of
proof. The burden is on you to show that harm is done.

Brock Way




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[dn09848]

Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension, or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.

Are you saying bacteria can not grow in emulsions?

Per Harald

[Lesley Robertson]

"f/fgeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

So you are saying that in order to preserve an otherwise unreadable
headstone it is still NOT acceptable to use shaving cream? Because
THAT is what this whole discussion is about, if one could read it
clearly, shaving cream would not be needed!

No, the discussion is about people putting things on stones to suit their
own photographic needs quickly. Most stones can be read with a bit of help
from water sprays and angled light.

I think that to "preserve" the inscription an analysis needs to be
done using the most uptodate a person has and then using that data
make an informed choice. If the ONLY way to see the inscription is to
use shaving cream, then use the cream! If there are other ways, such
as a small paint brush and a cup of water, then use that. BUT the
inscription NEEDS to be preserved for our descendants! That IS why we
do genealogy isn't it? So someone else dosn't have to do it again!

How many people check with local archives and FHS to see whether the burial

ground has been transcribed before spraying stuff over the stones? I know of
a case in the burial ground I'm currently working on where a lady from the
village found that her family stones had been liberally coated with chalk
by someone, presumably to get photos. The stone had then been rained on and
baked in the sun, and it was almost impossible to get the while streaks off
without damaging the surface. Had the "researchers" bothered to check, they
would have found that the indscriptions are all included in a book that's
freely on sale. Had they asked in the village, she'd have been happy to give
them more info. Instead, they preferred to get their quick pics and move on.
Lesley Robertson

[Lesley Robertson]

"Per Harald Jonson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Brock Waywrote:
Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension, or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.


Are you saying bacteria can not grow in emulsions?

That's what he's saying. Funny, isn't it?

Came as a big surprise to one of our research groups! They're now wondering
what their bugs have been growing in for all these years!
Lesley Robertson

[Lesley Robertson]

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Leslie Robertson wrote:

You're even correcting my spelling of my name???

As they metabolise the fates, etc, these
bacteria produce acids
which gradually erode the stones. As cream gets
trapped in microfractures,
more bacteria grow in the cracks, produce more acid
and increase the damage.
They also provide an easier habitat for the bacteria
that oxidise nitrogen
and sulphur compounds in the air and produce acids
from those.

The above is the pseudoscientific gobbledygook I
mentioned earlier. I could write a similar spiel on
how carbon dioxide and water vapor from breath cause
carbonation (a type of stone chemical weathering)...it
would be similarly false.

Perhaps you'd better start doing some reading? Here's a good place to start.

Admittedly it's about catherdrals, but the problem is the same:
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/j ... 2-003.html

I've rad both of these, and know the authors:
Bock, E., and W.Sand. 1993. A review: The microbiology of masonry
deterioration. Journal of Applied Bacteriology74:503-14.

Braun, R. C., and M. J. G.Wilson. 1970. The removal of atmospheric sulphur
by building stones. Atmospheric Environment4:371-78.

Lesley Robertson

[jillaine]

um...

does this group have a moderator?

I thought this group was about genealogy computing?

thanks.

[Kay Archer]

"jillaine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

um...

does this group have a moderator?

No.

soc.genealogy.methods does.
The soc.genealogy.surnames.* hierarchy also does, but those groups are not
currently in use.

I thought this group was about genealogy computing?

Welcome to usenet. Your mileage may vary. (g).

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:31:36 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Leslie Robertson wrote:

You think that because it's safe on skin it's safe
on stone?

No. Its safety for use on stone is independent of its
effect on skin.

There's plenty of evidence that this is not
true.

Really? I've never seen any. Care to produce some? I
have seen lots of CLAIMS of damage, but I have never
seen anyone who could produce evidence, in spite of it
seemingly being so abundant.

I notice the request for you to do the same seems to have
gone ignored (by you). Why would that be? You claimed that
there was evidence that it's safe. I'm looking forward to
reading those cites.

Wrong. The shaving cream comes off easily with water.
The notion that it any residue stays is false.

Never shaved, have you.

Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension, or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.

Right. Emulsions are regularly used as sterile fields. (sheesh).

As they metabolise the fates, etc, these
bacteria produce acids
which gradually erode the stones. As cream gets
trapped in microfractures,
more bacteria grow in the cracks, produce more acid
and increase the damage.
They also provide an easier habitat for the bacteria
that oxidise nitrogen
and sulphur compounds in the air and produce acids
from those.

The above is the pseudoscientific gobbledygook I
mentioned earlier. I could write a similar spiel on
how carbon dioxide and water vapor from breath cause
carbonation (a type of stone chemical weathering)...it
would be similarly false.

Until you provide a cite, anything you write is equally
suspect. And by the way, a cite doesn't mean something that
_you_ wrote.

I've even
seen "a quick spray of shaving foam" suggested on
gardening programmes to
encourage growth of lichens, etc, on new pots and to
"age" concrete "garden
statues".

This is mordant activity which is irrelevant if you
wash it off. Furthermore, I never suggested that
shaving cream causes no harm to ANY surface. For
example, I wouldn't recommend it for tombstones made
from car paint.

Yet you seem to claim that a garden statue is significantly
different than all types of tombstones. Interesting theory.
How does the rock know it's a statue rather than a tombstone,
I wonder?

Shaving foam does indeed cause
long-term, permanent damage, so
the dictionary definition of "vandalism" shows that
Dave used it correctly.

Your premise is false. It does no long-term damage.
Dave's usage would be correct only if your premise was
true...but it isn't.

And then you showed some, you know, evidence rather than
repeating the same opinion. Or not.

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:05:03 +0000 (UTC), Per Harald Jonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Brock Waywrote:
Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension, or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.

Are you saying bacteria can not grow in emulsions?

Yup, that's what he's saying. Nobel Prize material, that.

[Dave Hinz]

On 8 Apr 2005 05:51:33 -0700, jillaine <[email protected]> wrote:

um...
does this group have a moderator?

Nope. soc.genealogy.methods does, though.

I thought this group was about genealogy computing?

The group is. The threads with a subjects about tombstones and
shaving cream are about tombstones and shaving cream.

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 06:42:29 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

I wrote:

The shaving cream usage
proponents could just as well argue
snip

Dave replied with:

And you accuse _me_ of using a red-herring. Wow.

My reply:

Yup...wow is right. I am glad you see by my example
what a red herring your original argument was by my
analogous usage of what the proponents *could* argue,
by similarity.

In other words, "you caught me so I'm going to pretend it
was intentional". Gotcha.

Dave then write:

And you feel that you understand the chemistry of
shaving cream,

My reply:

Well, yeah, considering I wrote my doctoral
dissertation partly on the chromatographic properties
of organic species on materials such as those used to
make tombstones...I would say, yeah, I feel like I've
got a pretty good handle on it.

Great. Now show us some cites. You should be familiar with
what a peer-reviewed cite is, after all. Show us some to back
up your opinions.

Can you please explain the chemistry
involved?

Sure, shaving cream + tombstone = no rxn (viz., no
reaction)

Gosh, thanks awfully Doc. I'm ever so impressed.

Please cite that evidence. It's obvious you think
you have some.

I guess you missed the part of my post where I discuss
how the original assertion carries the burden of
proof. The burden is on you to show that harm is done.

"because I said so" is not a cite, Doc. You said (in the part you
snipped just now) "the evidence is clear". What's the evidence,
O wise and glorious PHD Chemist?

[Robert Heiling]

jillaine wrote:

um...

does this group have a moderator?

Dozens of them. You're the most recent.

I thought this group was about genealogy computing?

thanks.

It is. The thread began on a computing topic and discussion became
focused on a side issue. FYI It's called "thread drift". You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

HTH
Bob

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:35:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

jillaine wrote:

um...

does this group have a moderator?

Dozens of them. You're the most recent.

I thought this group was about genealogy computing?

thanks.

It is. The thread began on a computing topic and discussion became
focused on a side issue. FYI It's called "thread drift". You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

And, arguably, it ties into the recurring "preservation of physical
data storage media" thread. For the record, I wouldn't use shaving
cream on CD-R's, either.

[Robert Heiling]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:35:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
jillaine wrote:
snip> You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

And, arguably, it ties into the recurring "preservation of physical
data storage media" thread. For the record, I wouldn't use shaving
cream on CD-R's, either.

Wouldn't that really cream the drive!<vbg>

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:00:13 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:35:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
jillaine wrote:
snip> You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

And, arguably, it ties into the recurring "preservation of physical
data storage media" thread. For the record, I wouldn't use shaving
cream on CD-R's, either.

Wouldn't that really cream the drive!<vbg

Leaves it smelling nice, too. Might need to be re-foam-matted, though.


Dave "sorry about that, a little." Hinz

[Robert Heiling]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:00:13 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:35:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
jillaine wrote:
snip> You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

And, arguably, it ties into the recurring "preservation of physical
data storage media" thread. For the record, I wouldn't use shaving
cream on CD-R's, either.

Wouldn't that really cream the drive!<vbg

Leaves it smelling nice, too. Might need to be re-foam-matted, though.

I not sure if I should raise or let it go.

Bob

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Heiling <[email protected]> writes:

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:00:13 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:35:51 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
jillaine wrote:
snip> You would
normally be able to trace the thread back, but in this case there is a
spoilsport who begins a new physical thread with every one of his posts.

And, arguably, it ties into the recurring "preservation of physical
data storage media" thread. For the record, I wouldn't use shaving
cream on CD-R's, either.

Wouldn't that really cream the drive!<vbg

Leaves it smelling nice, too. Might need to be re-foam-matted, though.

I not sure if I should raise or let it go.

Bob

The line foams at the rear! Foam what it's worth, I hope you don't start

foaming at the mouth about this.

The other Bob (Swell Ol' Bob)
--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:48:29 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Heiling <[email protected]> writes:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:00:13 -0700, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
Wouldn't that really cream the drive!<vbg
Leaves it smelling nice, too. Might need to be re-foam-matted, though.
I not sure if I should raise or let it go.

The line foams at the rear! Foam what it's worth, I hope you don't start
foaming at the mouth about this.

There ya go, it's all starting to gel now.

[Brock Way]

In other words, "you caught me so I'm going to
pretend it
was intentional". Gotcha.

Pretend? How could it possibly be taken as anything
*other* than an intentional red herring argument? What
I wrote was:

"Nobody has suggested using a
sawblade, and it is absurd to suppose that it will be
'next' in any scenario. The shaving cream usage
proponents could just as well argue, "Hey, you can't
get close enough to breathe on the stone, because
carbon dioxide in respiration might cause chemical
weathering of the stone" will be 'next', if we allow
this wrong-headed view of shaving cream usage to take
hold."

The whole point of the sentence structure including
"just as well" is to purposefully draw an equivalence
between the two, the first part having already been
called a red herring.

I am still waiting on your citation of evidence which
supports your original assertion.

Brock Way







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

[jillaine]

ahem... i'm *so* glad I could help get this topic back on track...

[Brenda Gardenhire]

have u tried a little vinegar with soft brush.it workf fine...doesnt
harm [email protected]

[Doug McDonald]

Brenda Gardenhire wrote:

have u tried a little vinegar with soft brush.it workf fine...doesnt
harm [email protected]

GAG!! This one clearly is a troll: marble is soluble in vinegar.

It will actually dissolve, completely though slowly.

Doug McDonald