Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:05:19 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

I always thought it was a sandwich.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:05:19 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

To you, but not necessarily:

hero, n.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave
deeds and noble qualities.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:34:20 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:54:32 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:28:19 -0500, tony cooper
wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:31:05 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero.

I was audited by the IRS a few years back. Where do I pick up my
medal?

They didn't give it to you? File a complaint!

It was what I filed that caused the audit.

Nice one.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:05:19 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

Not necessarily self-sacrifice...just the willingness to
self-sacrifice. Our usage of "hero" is pretty loose. The NYC firemen
that were involved in the post-9/11 activities are referred to as
heros. Yet, they were doing what they are expected to do in the job
they chose to take. I don't think that "heros" is correctly applied
here, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect what they do.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:05:19 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.
Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.
Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

To you, but not necessarily:

hero, n.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave
deeds and noble qualities.

Right. Everyone who happens to survive an incident doesn't necessarily
perform brave deeds. This definition says exactly what I said.

On 12/20/08 5:17 PMDec 20, "Stephen Henning" wrote:

"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.

By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.

No. It is how they respond that makes them heroes, not the circumstances
that they are in.

People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.

Huh? You'll have to explain that. Were all the people killed in Hiroshima
soldiers?

Savageduck wrote:
On 2008-12-20 16:31:05 -0800, John Navas said:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a bombing "heroes" when all
they did was be there, unknowingly.

By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary
conditions. People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.

Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then
do something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both
people are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary
conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Nope.
Anyone who lives through a horrible experience is a survivor.
If they help others extricate themselves from that horrible experience
regardless of the risk of jeopardizing their own safety, or losing their
lives, they could be called heros.
Respect has nothing to do with it.

Most real heros did not survive their heroic acts.
Those who have chosen a profession such as firefighter, or Coast Guard
rescue swimmer, have extensive training and perform what could be
described as heroic acts as a part of the normal expectation of their
work day, and they do not consider themseves heros.
From time to time they are put in situations which stretch their
"normal training envelope" and they act outside of their training safety
margins, and can and should be called hero.

Hero is over used in these times and needs to be left for the
extraordinary.

Nicely said. It's a word over used and highly diluted as the word
"tragedy" has been. It's now a tragedy if someone's dog gets hit by a car.

Also, "brave [often Americans, esp when referring to the WTCs demise]
who gave their lives", when those people gave nothing, but had life
stripped from them in gruesome ways.

Oh, shoot, back to photography....

--
john mcwilliams

In article ,
Cynicor wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

That is valor. Some heros just act as examples of courage in the face
of adversity.

I am involved with the Boy Scouts. We wrestle with this all the time.
If a life guard that is on duty saves a life, that is not being a hero,
it is doing their job, what is expected of them. If a ordinary person
does it, they are a hero, they are not expected to step forward. If a
Scout sees someone choking and does the Heimlich maneuver they are a
hero.

We separate heroism and valor.

It reminds me of what my boss used to say at review time. You did a
great job, that is what is expected of you, no bonus. If you get a
Nobel Prize or discover Cold Fusion, that is performance beyond
expectations. Being a hero is expected performance. Valor is beyond
that. It may involve risk to ones own life.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

Stephen Henning wrote:
In article ,
Cynicor wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:51:52 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in :

Stephen Henning wrote:
"RichA" wrote:

It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.
By definition, heros are ordinary people in extraordinary conditions.
People that are supposed to be bombed are called soldiers.
Well...they're ordinary people in extraordinary situations who then do
something unexpected and brave. If a gunman takes hostages and one
person cowers in a corner while the other overpowers them, both people
are not heroes just because they're both in extraordinary conditions.

Anyone that lives through a horrible experience is a hero. Claiming
otherwise without having been there done that is disrespectful.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The word "hero" involves courage and
self-sacrifice, not just survival.

That is valor. Some heros just act as examples of courage in the face
of adversity.

I am involved with the Boy Scouts. We wrestle with this all the time.
If a life guard that is on duty saves a life, that is not being a hero,
it is doing their job, what is expected of them. If a ordinary person
does it, they are a hero, they are not expected to step forward. If a
Scout sees someone choking and does the Heimlich maneuver they are a
hero.

We separate heroism and valor.

You *really* should go buy yourself a good dictionary of
the English language. Butchering the language when
teaching young people is not the right thing to do.

Valor is a subset of heroism, denoting courage against a
living opponent. Heroism encompasses virtually any form
of willful courage in the face of danger.

It reminds me of what my boss used to say at review time. You did a
great job, that is what is expected of you, no bonus. If you get a
Nobel Prize or discover Cold Fusion, that is performance beyond
expectations. Being a hero is expected performance. Valor is beyond
that. It may involve risk to ones own life.

That should be: you did the job... no bonus. But if you
did a *great* job, you'll be recognized appropriately.
It may be a pat on the back, a bonus, or a Nobel Prize,
depending on just how great.

I totally disagree that a lifeguard is not a hero for
saving a life (though it may not apply in every
instance). Such a person has purposely sought the
knowledge and experience necessary to be capable of
exercising courage in the face of danger, with the very
noble goal of assisting others who, lacking that
knowledge and ability, might suffer or die in some given
situation. That is mildly heroic even on a day when
nobody even goes into the water!

Police officers, EMT's, ER room nurses and doctors,
lifeguards, firemen, K-3 teachers, and housewifes with
children... all appear to qualify.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)