EVERYONE: It seems as though every new advance in technology is accompanied by abuses,as, the ethical"instruction manual",as it were, is generally not "shipped" with the technology in question. Digital retouching on a mass scale and avaliable to the general public is, I think, a good example. Brand new and just trying its wings.What are your thoughts on a code of ethics as regards the use of these powerful programs? Are there image manipulations which are "out of Bounds" or is all protected free expression? Is it a matter of personal choice or are there higher considerations to contemplate and use as guides? This is a serious subject, I think, and everyone from beginner to seasoned Pro should weigh in on it. A photo is a very powerful thing for good and for not so good uses. What is your take on this? Tom

I generally consider copyrighted material off limits but in a few cases were friends and family were concerned, I have crossed that line. I made no money on it and it's not something I would do for just anyone. I wouldn't want anyone to undercut me that way so I try not to do it to others. But you are right, where do we cross the line? It's a tough question.
DJ

we draw the line at money.

that is obvious I would have thought. As long one is not trying to profit from an image, and gives credit to the original artist/photographer I don't see the issue. Blatant plagerism, where one intentionally steals an image in order to profit from is wrong and should be frowned upon. generally speaking, most artists allow use of their work as long as it is not used commercially, i.e. for making money. Most artists appreciate the extra awareness created by people using their work I would think.

Common sense rules as always..

just my 0.2cents ~Vp~

Well, there's absolute ethics (ie: law, copyright, privacy, etc.) and relative (or personal). You've all seen the hoops I jump through to stay within the law here. The personal ethics are trickier.

I was recently emailed via my biz site by a hunter that wanted me to take a picture of him with a large animal he'd killed and remove a deep shadow and retouch out the antlers. I suspected something was up about the antlers, but mostly I was just repelled by the photo. I emailed him back with my apologies, refusing the job.

He wrote a very long, calm letter telling me exactly how stupid I was and how dishonest my website was (since I didn't explicitly state "no murdered animal retouching" or something).

Even if I was a big fan of hunting I'd have been hesitant about the antler thing, and would have needed that cleared up first.

I recently was asked what it would cost to take two pictures and combine them. It seems they were of a husband and wife who got along well enough to have two kids then, although never divorcing, kept out of each others way for the next 40 years. No pictures of them together were ever taken as they BOTH refused to be photographed together. One of their children now wants a picture of them together and both are still alive and adament about NO PICTURES. Currently I am sitting on the fence about this one. Any ideas? Tom

how 'bout the golden rule. really.

Well, if you know the opinion of the subjects, who technically own their likenesses, you'd probably be better off heeding that.

That's a toughy, though.

I rather doubt I will be seeing the folks again as the price I quoted was predictably more than they were willing to pay, read that as anything over $5 = TOO HIGH. But I wanted some input anyhow. Ethics are a quagmire of emotion,legality and common sense with a healthy dollop of higher considerations thrown in, and to avoid getting tangled in that web I like to find out what others think and what their suggestions are. What helps one can certainly help all. Tom

Well I just had to make one last stop at the forum before I head for cool Colorado.

Tom,

I love the anything more than $5...we really are from the same type of area. Even down to the couple who avoided each other for 40 years...have a couple just like that here. I guess I would probably suggest to the kids that maybe using a picture fram that holds 2 pictures and put one of each parent in there might be the best route to go. They could have the background blurred and have them vingetted (sp?) and a matting put in and it would really dress it up. This is of course if it's a picture they have taken and have the negatives. If they don't have pictures of the parents they've taken then just putting them in the frame without retouching would still work. As I believe DJ said in another forum, everyone today is sue crazy and I do believe this to be very true. I stick with the rule of thumb that if they have no negative then they sign a release.

Doug,

Good choice on the antler decision. Sounds like someone was trying for a Boone and Crockett rating which is the cream of the crop in the hunting world. I have a customer who not too long ago received a B&C rating on a buck he killed...but luckily it was his buck and the picture was definitely not manipulated.

The work we all do is a specialized type of thing that a few customers will try to use for their own not so legitimate purposes. Just one of those things in life I guess where we have to ask questions and then ask more questions and be extra careful.

See you all when I get back.

chris,
i wish you were stopping by one more one more time because i think yours is a beautiful and creative suggestion.

i'm in $5 country too, by the way.:rolleyes: whatcha gonna do?

I suspect you hit it on the head about the Boone and Crockett Chris. For the small amount some folks want to pay it is tempting to give them a burned stick, some colored clay and tell them to draw a reproduction of their photo on the nearest cave wall. Tom

i had this sudden image of you standing on your porch, tearing your hair, beating your chest, yelling "philistines! philistines! philistines! i'm surrounded by philistines!"

make that bellowing

Okay -- everyone who is *not* in $5.00 or under territory, stand up. Did you hear me? Stand up! Where did everyone go? ;)

Ed

I live in one of the ritziest towns in the US and $5 is just toooo much to spend. (OK not in it exactly more like in the outskirts of it) Now maybe if I had a French Designer Label on my work that would be different. Hey.... maybe I'm on to something here.:lol:
DJ

I hate to tell you this Debbie, but I think you'd have to change your last name. :D

Ed

I only wish I had enough hair to tear!!! Tom

How's this? Priceless Moments by Dubois. Just a few letter modifications and I go from Chech to French. and voila'
DJ

Or DeJais :)

If you made it Dupuis, you could be one of my distant relatives. :)

Ed

Chris; GOOD POINT---QUESTION,QUESTION,QUESTION. Has anyone out there been approached to do "ORWELLIAN" type work,ie, manipulate a photo in a manner that seemed somewhat suspect? The power of even the most basic photo manipulation program is pretty great and those of us who use them have a responsibility to use our skills, no matter at what level they are in a, well, responsible manner. Whats your input everyone--no matter if you have 20 years or 2 minutes experience in this field your input is needed. Tom

Hi Tom,

I agree. Everyone should use their skills in a responsible manner. There might be times when you just have a bad feeling about something, and in instances like that, I think you just have to go with what your gut feeling is. Unfortunately, there are those who use these skills to produce illegal or immoral images. There is more to life than the almighty dollar in my opinion, and self respect is one of those things.

Ed

Why not try the double christian name approach much beloved by hairdressers?

Perhaps "Adrian John Imaging" or "Henry Paul Concepts":)

Edgeley, Good idea! Something along those lines does have a "flare" and would tend to keep your business name in thought as it is just unusual enough to spark interest. Thanks for the input! Tom

Tom....your username :eek: ...it's perfect!:D

Tom

On a more serious note, I am in complete agreement. I have refused requests that may have caused distress to an individual. Without going into detail, one request involved the manipulation of an individual's physical characteristics... I don't mean someones:) !!!!

Edge

p.s. I just LOVE these smilies! :D

Edgeley, I know what you mean there. As a "joke" I was contacted to do some "Orwellian" type work involving a man and an ex girl friend. NO WAY. My feelings are that Just because it can be done does not mean it SHOULD be done. Legal reprecussions aside, to establish Photo restore/retouch as an honorable profession and hobby that kinda stuff has got to be refused, if we dont police ourselves then all is lost. Tom

amen

I think one of the more worrying trends in recent years is the willingness of the Press to indulge in manipulation in order to degrade and demean the subjects of their articles.

In the UK, some tabloids have the mentality that "anything goes" as long as you increase the sale of newspapers. Worse still, there are numerous sites on the Net that are actively engaged in the manipulation of "factual" images and passing them off as legitimate. Also, I'm afraid that generally people accept information from this quarter without question

It's a sad, sorry state of affairs...

Edge:sad:

EXACTLY---- I have a saying taped to my desk that reads "FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY IS SIMPLY ANARCHY". It is distressing to note the erosion of principal which has slowly been destroying the creditability of the press. I would hate to see the cynical attitude the public has towards that institution spill over to what we do!!! Tom

Wow, you guys brought up an aspect I hadn't thought of. It is possible for someone to have manipulation done to a photo with ulterior motives. Blackmail, you name it. Scary. What's to say we would even recognize it as such either? Say someone brought you 2 photos. Said one was of 2 friends and wanted the other person from the second photo put in it to unite 3 old buddies. But in reality he may be setting up a compromising photo to use against someone. Unless the photos are obvious in their content, ie, porn or such, you would have no way of knowing you just aided a criminal. Of course, that's highly unlikley to happen but even putting a guy and girl in a photo could be creating a broken relationship down the road if you don't know who you are dealing with. Are you so sure you will be able to recognize the situation when or if it occurs? Kind of makes you think of the power we have here and how easy it could be to overstep that line even unwittingly.
DJ

THATS exactly what I mean by "ORWELLIAN"!! I really dont know how you could prevent your skills from being abused by someone with less than honorable intentions but asking lots of questions, relying on "gut " feelings, reading the body language of the client and turning away the job if anything seems even a little "funny" all might help, and having some sort of contract which spells out the job, relation of the client to the parties in the picture etc., might help cover you from legal hassles. Tom

The unintentional aiding of someone when providing a service is something few of us have thought about. I agree -- something needs to be in the agreement to release you of any responsibility, if that's possible.

Ed

ANYONE: If you are working on a photo which has a very real historical value as a singular view of a recognized Historical incident and there is damage which includes destruction of portions of it , how would you handle the restore? Are there things you wouldnot do and why? Tom

I'm not sure I would even attempt to restore something like the "Dead Sea Scrolls" or the "Magna Carta" by trying to scan it on a $200 flatbed scanner. :D
I think I will just save those high end jobs for the real pros.
DJ

AHhhh----BUT WHAT IS A PRO? What if someone came to you with a photo of,say, the aftermath of a natural disaster ,and the photo had pieces of image data missing. Remember, this is a unique historical document of a well known incident--a head is missing, you cant quite make out parts of the background, etc.. How would you go about restoring this? What would your thoughts be concerning a plan of action? WHY? The answers to a whole bunch of tricky and as yet only dimly formulated questions lie down this road. Questions which we as the vanguard of a new industry are going to have to answer at some time or other. Tom

Maybe my avatar would've been more representative of my character if I chose a Chicken. :D

If a historical doument was missing a face and I cloned another one in it's place. (Assuming no other image of the person was available to copy from) Wouldn't I then be falsely altering that document? Maybe there is a point where restoration shouldn't be done. Or I could try to peice in a chunk of words that may or may not be the true words. In situations like that, I would say preserve what you have. Make a copy to save against further destruction but leave it as is. I think historical value is different than sentimental value. I may be wrong. It's a tough call.
DJ

Dj, EXACTLY!!! At what point, even when dealing with a sentimental photo do you come up to the "line" that says. "this far and no further". You see, ORWELLIAN photo restore is to me the most nightmarish and dangerous aspect of this business. In George Orwells novel, 1984, the manipulation of documents was actually the job of a government agency charged with re-writing history. Now, if you have, say, a written document saying one thing and a restored photo showing something completely different, which to trust? Is the document correct because it was NOT restored or is the photo because it WAS and otherwise hidden detail brought out---or was it created? Without guide lines established by the people doing this work I fear that respectability, trust and general acceptance of this work will be a long time coming. It is not uncommon for folks to say to me when I tell them I do Computer Photo restoration work," Oh like swapping heads and that?" We have to get the word out BY EXAMPLE, that the Supermarket Tabloid type photo junk, (You know: "Woman who smoked gives birth to two headed lizard baby with butt at end of spine" sort of thing,) IS NOT what we do and IS NOT legitimate Photo restoration/repair. Thoughts anyone, Dj? Tom

Debbie and Tom,

I think you both hit the bulls-eye on that one. Where is the line? I agree that historical documents need to be preserved in a fashion that is representative of the original. Added words, people, or whatever, make the document non-historical. But then, I suppose you could get into the fact that simply by doing it digitally, it might have lost some of it's significance. For instance, if you copy a Daugerrotype, and correct the tonal values only, it might well be an excellent example of what the original was like. BUT - it is no longer a Daugerrotype! It might be very good indeed, but it is no longer an example of the first widely known photographic process.

You two have my head spinning on this one, and it's relatively early in the morning. Take it easy on me! :D

Ed

Good point ED, but is the historical value, a trancendental value, affected. Does a copy of say the Constitution of the United States loose any that compared to the original, if the copy is exact? tom

Yes but in our business, the original stays the same. Even if we changed things the daugerrotype is still there untouched. All we do is try to bring out the image that is to faded to appreciate.

As to the value of a document copied in perfect order, the meaning is still there in the words but the phisical worth has dropped significantly with the copy. You'd you pay full price for a copy of an original?

As for creating forgeries, that has been done for as long as man has been around. It didn't take the digital age to make that a possibility. It's been done to religious icons and in the art world and we have been trying to safeguard our money by trying to add features that make counterfieting more difficult. There will always be those motivated by greed and dishonesty, we can only live by our own code of ethics. It's just the world we live in and things won't change because we are more advanced.
DJ

Dj, Good points. I am really,though, not as concerned with the money value of copy vs original ( although there is an interesting thread contained therein) as I am in preserving the original in an improved but still accurate state. The problem of forgeries, as you so accurately point out, is probably never going to go away. However the well meaning but misguided restoration of an old photo is a somewhat different can of worms. When do you STOP restoring and START admiring? Tom

Ahhh.... but then beauty and art are in the eyes of the beholders. I have a client who wants her black and whites made color because to her they seem more real. Yet there are those who prefere the simple beauty and contrast to a good black and white. It boils down to who is paying and what they want to see in the final outcome. As long as the original is left alone I don't think there's that much to worry about. What of the restorers who do work on the originals themselves? Wouldn't this question apply more to them since they are infact changing the one and only? Who can answer such a question? It's a real thinker hey?
DJ

AH yes, but consider: Changing the mode,from color to BW or vice versa, doesnot affect the Historical content of the image, as in the actual objects placement,composition, shape,size, etc.. Many Museums and collectors may perfer displaying retouched/restored images as should something happen---oh well, lots more where that came from, instead of AARRGHHHHHH. Since the original will never be put on public display, folks will only have the retouched/restored version to examine and what they see they will accept as accurate, thus....When to stop working on such an image and when to start enjoying? Tom

Oh yes, the Colorization question is going to have its own thread methinks. What an interesting can of worms there. This IS FUN!!!Tom

Hey, this has turned out to be quite a thread. It seems to me that when we are talking about restoration of historical documents, we should be thinking about restoration while using the same techniques as were used on the original. When something of great historical value is copied, then worked on, it would IMHO, be just that -- a retouched copy of the document, as would be the case with a Daugerrotype or a piece of work by Monet. It has not been restored to it's original state, or even close to it. Maybe restoration has different meanings, depending on the type of original? What are your thoughts on this? How far back do we go, and how accurate do they need to be to be called restorations?

Ed

Good post ED, there are many winding paths through this forest and I think that if we dont examine them and get each others input there could be problems arise at some point in time. Ethical considerations are not just an abstract idea--they will ,do and SHOULD guide our decisions when we formulate a plan of action for restoring a photo or document. I tend, on historic or plainly antique stuff to only sharpen and remove obvious mold,scratches,stains etc. BUT only if they are isolated to areas where no objects/people are located, At those areas I will OCCASIONALLY do light cloning but ONLY if it willnot cover, blur or in any other way degrade the image or ADD to it in a way which could change the meaning the photo is representing. I often get queasy about restoring portions of damaged carpet images etc., as the value of them as regards what type, pattern it is,and so forth can be vital to accurate dating and as a source of information for researchers. Tom

I think you're so right Tom. And among researchers, you might include genealogists who could be looking for certain tell tale signs about an era long gone. Chris gave one example about the photo that someone thought was from 1914, but he knew that it was more like 1917 or 1918. Changing a photograph could really play havoc with any kind of research.

Ed

BINGO. It is beginning to appear that along with the joy of this work there are some serious responsibilities. Lets say someone comes to you and wants you to do some restore work on a photo that would alter it in a rather major way and that the restore is to be sent to a relative looking for info AND that a competitor of yours had refused to do the work the customer wanted done And that there was, say, a $250 price tag in it and you could do the job in an hour. Any thoughts folks? Tom

Hey, you could start with Teddy Roosevelt---oops he's already got one---uh---ANDREW JACKSON!! GO for it!. Actually the first words I was reported to have said were " NOW SUPPOSE THAT..." I love playing Devils Advocate! Seriously, I have been approached to do work which was similar to what I described by a well meaning customer who wanted to send a "very nice" copy to a relative researching the family tree. Nothing underhanded there, the lady simply wanted the photo to look nice which included removing about 3 other family members and assorted relatives whom, the client thought, were not importiant. Now, she didnt offer large compensation and had NOT been refused service by anyone else and I explained to her that for the purposes of research of the type her relative was doing, it was best to just sharpen things up a bit remove some minor scratches and adjust the tone. She was happy with that once she understood WHY you dont start turning a piece of family history into a "FRANKENPICTURE" especially as the whole purpose in this case was to see the faces. As to the unethical,underhanded and down right illegal things---As this technology continues to grow in popularity and refinement, these things are going to assume a very large role in how we do our work---and for whom. As has been said on this thread by others, the potential to cause great harm to people is very real. Everyone who takes the time to develop the skills necessary to do exquisitely detailed work IS going to face a situation similar to this where ethics are tested by money. Better to be prepared with an answer backed by firm conviction than to be caught Flat footed. I admire you mercenary approach!! Subtle but effective. Tom

Unfortunately that's true Tom. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones because I don't put a great deal of value on money or tangible things. Give me my family and friends, enough to live modestly, and health, and I'm a happy camper. That doesn't mean that I never want anything newer or better, only that I probably wouldn't have as hard a time refusing a shady job as *some* others might have. I think there will be *many* people who will misuse their talents that way. I think we all know that if it's only money we're after, it would be easy enough to make a small fortune rather easily if you let your morals slip.

Ed

Once you compromise your ethics and values for the mere consideration of money, you are on a downward slope and so is your business. As word gets out that "so-and-so" is not too picky about what they will do for cash, you are going to get some pretty disreputable types coming to you---AND the decient type people will begin avoiding you. Its a fact that cannot be denied. It may be hard at first to refuse to do certain kinds of work,especially when funds are tight, but in the long run it will reap handsome rewards. Business is more than money--It is a responsibility as well-----to yourself and to your community. Tom

Well said!

Ed

ED, You know, there is one very powerful tool common to all image editing programs which no book or class no matter how comprehensive pays much attention to and that is the "REMOVE REALITY" tool, which is really too bad since its misuse destroys ALL your work, self respect,community support and hurts people you dont even know. I sometimes wish that along with all the other tools, instructors would take a little more time discussing this one. Probably wont happen though. Not "politically correct" or something. Tom

Excellent post! Most people don't even consider that tool.

Ed

That "Remove Reallity" tool comes in quite handy when replacing a leg or arm missing in action. Don't we advertise that ability in our ads that claim we can remove people from scenes? Such as an unwanted X? It's a tight rope of decission here where to draw the line. Did we really change history by removing an unwanted person from a scene when that family no longer wishes to look at him? He was still there whether their photo shows it or not. Or is borrowing parts from other photos compromising the integrity of the original photo regardless of the condition it's in? If so, then just what are we here to do in the first place?
DJ

Dj, You hit the point exactly when you said " A tightrope of decision" . Removing unwanted persons from a photo is changing the reality which the particular photo depicts as, even though an original still exists ( unless it is destroyed after the copy is made) the copy is likely the one to be displayed and circulated thus giving those who see it the impression that the only people present at that time and specific place were those pictured. From the stand point of a future researcher that photo is worse than misleading, it is almost useless as what else is not correct about it. Look for example at books from antiquity which have been translated and copied countless times,the copyists sometimes helpfully inserting sentences and entire passages which were not part of the original ,this then being recopied until it becomes difficult to sort out the real from the appended. I am personally loath to removing data like that,regardless of the motivation of the customer. Now I am NOT saying I am right, I feel that if a customer wants something like that done, that is their business and I willnot judge them or a digital restorer who does that. I just wont. To me altering a photograph so as to change the entire context in which it was created goes more to the "SPECIAL EFFECT" line rather than Restore.Restore means to me the "cleaning up" of a photo without changing the essential nature of what was there when it was made. Now there is nothing wrong with "special effect" photos--provided they are identified as such so as not to give the impression of being an exact copy of the original---there's the Orwellian theme again- but say putting the picture of a dead relative in a photo which was taken after they had passed on sort of gives me a chill unless done as say a part of a collage or something like that. To see Aunt Martha standing next to the Bride and Groom when she had been deceased for 10 years before the Wedding picture was taken well..... The family that wants a persona non grata removed--Thats their business. I just wont do it. I will gladly refer them on. I guess I'm hung up on the historical and future value of of restored photos kept as close to the original as possible. Again, I dont think I'm necessarily right or wrong--that is just where my comfort zone is. Replacing a missing arm or leg as part of a restore is to me acceptable, providing that you know for a fact that the individual was not an amputee. This is ment seriously as many Civil War Vets were just that, and if you are working on a picture which dates even as late as the mid 1920's there were still some Civil war vets around as well as those from other conflicts. Trying to explain to a less than amused customer how Grandfather Alfred suddenly grew a new arm to replace the one he lost years earlier at Shilo could be worse than embarrasing--it could hurt you and your business reputation. Pardon the rather protracted diatribe, Tom

You have a very valid point in the things you are saying.

My roomie, in her photocropping frenzy has come across photos of people she didn't even know, and has even come across some family "secrets" because of them. Some fairly simple (oh, that was your friend you met at camp that you never saw again), to strange (that's a cousin who got adopted and we don't see him anymore), to surreal (Oh! HIM! That's an uncle we don't talk about.) and generally those are pictures that are simply thrown away.

one way or another, a family will alter their history to their satisfaction.

unfortunately, we're a disposable culture, in which if something doesn't fit just nicely in our little frame, it's simply cut out.

Rick

Rick, Excellent points!! Which raises the question, since all families will alter their history to their own satisfaction( a MOST insightful and true observation,Rick), should we even worry about preserving the factual context of the photos we work on or simply follow the clients directions, whatever they may be, or do we have a higher responsibility to future generations who hopefully will see our work or something in between? Tom

Wow! I go away for a couple of hours, and come home to this? It could be a nightmare to make guidelines for everyone to follow. IMHO, each and every one of us has to find their own comfort level with this type of situation. While you might find that deleting or replacing something in one photograph is beneficial to all concerned, you might consider it taboo to another similar photo. Where do you draw the line? I tend to agree with Tom in part of how I might handle a situation. To change something that might make a research impossible or improbable, I don't think I would do that either. But I don't think it is easy to always know what part of the photo that might be. In Ms. Eismann's book on restoration, she has an example of a young woman who wanted to be in a photo with her father, who had passed away. Ms. Eismann made that possible, although I guess you could say that she misrepresented history. If that job came to me, I would do the same as she did -- make the young woman happy. There comes a time when you must be the judge about the possibility of hindering research. Most of the time, I think common sense will pave the way. Historical items are a completely different thing. In my opinion, they should *never* be altered if it means changing the contents of the item.

Ed

Ed, excellent points. Also, placing a sticker on the back of the photo listing who did the work and what was done would, in my opinion anyway, alleviate much of anxiety one might feel about doing certain drastic manipulations, as the documentation provided leaves no doubt about the photo. Also, The purpose of this thread ISNOT to embarass or anger anyone or to pontificate. It is to stir up thought. Along with the freedom this work provides are responsibilities to exercise that freedom wisely, but if you dont Think about it, you will never come to any solutions to the potential problems discussed which you can apply as the need arises. Along with the fun comes some not so fun stuff and this is part of the latter. I am VERY grateful to everyone who has provided input as I have been able to reconcile certain ethical questions which had been bothering me, and I hope others have as well. Again, a heartfelt thanks. Tom

Stickers are not archival and will cause eventual damage to the print.

Quite correct. I was not specific enough I fear. A label made from archival storage sleeve material, written on with a pigment based ink pen and secured with archival adhesive would serve to inform any future researchers, etc. that this photo had undergone specific manipulations, which in itsself could be of historical interest,while preventing damage to the print from acids, etc., contained in the normal type label material. Thanks for pointing that out. I was in a hurry and forgot that importiant point. Tom

While I think that is a good idea, what I would suggest is that BOTH the original and altered pictures be supplied on disc with notations made to both (the beauty of Photoshop little features hardly anyone knows about) AND to simply print some thing in the back of the altered photo and simply tell the customer; "This is simply for future reference for your family." along with "refer to CD notations."


Granted, some users might just transfer CD's, to get rid of a txt information file, but few know about the notation files that Photoshop has, and I'm sure other programs have the same capability.

Rick

<tosses pennies on table>

Rick,

<pickin' up the pennies> :) Good idea! That's why we need so many heads around here -- to bring up alternate ways of doing things.

Ed

Rick, Thank you. Excellent idea and well stated. Tom

Ed and Tom,


It's the presence of greatness that inspires greatness in others. :)



I just find it a sad shame that we (as a society on this side of the pond) have a tendency to just throw away our heritage when it no longer suits us.

In europe and other countries, our miscolored past is often not looked upon with great pride, but at least proves that our ancestors were also human.


Rick

<tosses two pennies on the table>

Rick, Very well put. It is the warts and blemishes as well as the shining moments which define us as individuals and as a society. Tom