[QUOTE=t4terrific]

To qoute a line from a movie, "It's better to be dead and cool, than to be alive and uncool.
Know this line?

Well if Luke wasn't cool for you, how about Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid? Oops, forgot. They died in that one too.
How about Braveheart, damn it, he's gone too.

Everyone dies, it's how you lived that counts. A coward dies a thousand times, but a brave man tastes death but once.

KRW - plus he ate fifty eggs, no one can eat fifty eggs.

There's a difference between fighting for freedom, and being too cool for your own good. William Wallace wasn't cool, he was a warrior, and a leader of men. He died for his people and for his country. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid died because their past finally caught up with them. They were cornered and went out in a blaze of glory. They weren't being cool. They knew they were at death's door and decided to go out fighting. If they could have run and lived to fight another day they would have. They did it many times already.

My point is, that if you're going to be "cool", then you've got to win. You can lose and remain admirable if you're humble. Humble like Jesus, like William Wallace. If you're such a "cool guy", and you lose, well that just sucks. You shouldn't have been so "cool" maybe.

Tell that to Jesus. :eek:


KRW

Jesus wasn't trying to be "cool". He was a humble man who was serving mankind and his Father. He wasn't a "cool guy", he was quite the opposite. (From what I read anyway.)

There's a difference between fighting for freedom, and being too cool for your own good. William Wallace wasn't cool, he was a warrior, and a leader of men. He died for his people and for his country. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid died because their past finally caught up with them. They were cornered and went out in a blaze of glory. They weren't being cool. They knew they were at death's door and decided to go out fighting. If they could have run and lived to fight another day they would have. They did it many times already.

I'm thinking your only version of cool is NOT to lose.
As far as Butch and Sundance, They MIGHT have died in Bolivia, some evidence suggests otherwise. As far as William, his life did not make him cool? Since he was fighting for freedom and lost he was just a leader of men and a great warrior. Would that make George Whashington cool becase he did't become a martyr but became a president because he lived.

It's not a waste of life dying for what you believe. And you should stand up for what you believe. Win or lose, that's cool.

My point is, that if you're going to be "cool", then you've got to win. You can lose and remain admirable if you're humble. Humble like Jesus, like William Wallace. If you're such a "cool guy", and you lose, well that just sucks. You shouldn't have been so "cool" maybe.

I do hope you are humble

Jesus wasn't trying to be "cool". He was a humble man who was serving mankind and his Father. He wasn't a "cool guy", he was quite the opposite. (From what I read anyway.)

Humble is the perfect word, IF. Acording to the book, he knew he would die and how. Yet, he still did it. If it happened that way, I'd call that cool. If he was as huble as he was portrayed, no, he wouldn't consider it cool.

I'm thinking your only version of cool is NOT to lose.
As far as Butch and Sundance, They MIGHT have died in Bolivia, some evidence suggests otherwise. As far as William, his life did not make him cool? Since he was fighting for freedom and lost he was just a leader of men and a great warrior. Would that make George Whashington cool becase he did't become a martyr but became a president because he lived.

It's not a waste of life dying for what you believe. And you should stand up for what you believe. Win or lose, that's cool.



I do hope you are humble

No, cool (version #1, as in "he thinks he's so cool") is the way you act. It's also a state (version #2, as in "that's cool"). If you act cool (#1), but can't cut it, you suck. If you act humble and can't cut it, then you're still okay, and that's cool (#2). If you act cool (#1), but should be humble, then that sucks, and in the end you may get humbled. Being humble is cool (#2), but getting humbled sucks. I saw Paul Newman's character, in Cool Hand Luke, as a guy who was too cocky, and maybe should have been a little more humble and act a little less cool (#1). He paid for his pride. Dearly.

There is also a third phase of cool (#3). This one, to me is more of a calm. A cool phase, where nothing can shake you. You are in complete control of your emotions and can act with calculation. This phase could also be described as "calculatingly cold". When you say "cool" in an admirable way, this is what I think of. A person who is this calm -cool can still be very humble, but is able to maintain control of himself, and to a better extent, his environment. He is more likely to have success.

To me, cool (as in the act, or one who acts cool #1), is more akin to false pride and not so admirable. One who is in this category, is just looking to get humbled (that's not cool, the state #2).

William Wallace was cool (#2). He didn't act cool (#1). He acted in a manner more suitable to a man in his position. He didn't act cocky, like his shit didn't stink, or like he was better than everyone else. What he did and what he meant to people around him was cool (#2).

Now if you act cool (#1 or cocky) and you are able to win, or overcome, then nobody can really say anything because you were able to back it up. But if you can't back it up, then you suck, and need to get humbled.

I'm sure this makes a whole heaping pile of sense, but I just wanted to define my own mental view of the various possibilities of what I think about cool, and how different variations of the word affect how I think about particular scenarios.

To wrap things up...

The way I see it, Luke was cocky (cool #1). William Wallace was a hero (cool #2, as in "that's cool"). Clint Eastwood, as The Man With No Name and Steve McQueen, in Bullit were calculatingly cold (cool #3). That's cool (#2).

No, cool (version #1, as in "he thinks he's so cool") is the way you act. It's also a state (version #2, as in "that's cool"). If you act cool (#1), but can't cut it, you suck. If you act humble and can't cut it, then you're still okay, and that's cool (#2). If you act cool (#1), but should be humble, then that sucks, and in the end you may get humbled. Being humble is cool (#2), but getting humbled sucks. I saw Paul Newman's character, in Cool Hand Luke, as a guy who was too cocky, and maybe should have been a little more humble and act a little less cool (#1). He paid for his pride. Dearly.

There is also a third phase of cool (#3). This one, to me is more of a calm. A cool phase, where nothing can shake you. You are in complete control of your emotions and can act with calculation. This phase could also be described as "calculatingly cold". When you say "cool" in an admirable way, this is what I think of. A person who is this calm -cool can still be very humble, but is able to maintain control of himself, and to a better extent, his environment. He is more likely to have success.

To me, cool (as in the act, or one who acts cool #1), is more akin to false pride and not so admirable. One who is in this category, is just looking to get humbled (that's not cool, the state #2).

William Wallace was cool (#2). He didn't act cool (#1). He acted in a manner more suitable to a man in his position. He didn't act cocky, like his shit didn't stink, or like he was better than everyone else. What he did and what he meant to people around him was cool (#2).

Now if you act cool (#1 or cocky) and you are able to win, or overcome, then nobody can really say anything because you were able to back it up. But if you can't back it up, then you suck, and need to get humbled.

I'm sure this makes a whole heaping pile of sense, but I just wanted to define my own mental view of the various possibilities of what I think about cool, and how different variations of the word affect how I think about particular scenarios.

To wrap things up...

The way I see it, Luke was cocky (cool #1). William Wallace was a hero (cool #2, as in "that's cool"). Clint Eastwood, as The Man With No Name and Steve McQueen, in Bullit were calculatingly cold (cool #3). That's cool (#2).

Man, you've put some thought into this. So where would you classify the Fonz?

Man, you've put some thought into this. So where would you classify the Fonz?

He was Cool (#'s 1, 2, &3). Heeeeey.

He was Cool (#'s 1, 2, &3). Heeeeey.

KRW

Everyone dies...

Cool Hand Luke...

COo.oOL

[QUOTE=KRW]

Yeah, living is a little more important. Luke's dead, and he got run through the ringer in the process. Yeah, he was a man. He took evrything they threw at him, and never surrendered, but to me, cool means finishing cool too. Dying ain't cool, and losing ain't cool. Ain't ain't cool either, but I say it a lot, and type it sometimes too.

Luke was cool, but, to me, to be the coolest, you have to win in the end. I viewed him as finally being broken. He took on something that was too big for him, and lost in the end.

Based on your description, the other character you mentioned won in the end. He lost many battles, but won the war by outlasting his adversary. He kept getting beaten up, but he was willing to go on and on. His opponent had enough and basically quit or submitted. That's still a win. That's cool.

My point is, acting cool, or being slick, even when things go sour, doesn't make you cool. Cool is decided in the end, for me. Luke went down hard, and that makes me think, "Maybe he shouldn't have always been so slick after all. Maybe he should have been a little smarter." I'd rather a guy be humble and give it his all, than ultra slick. A humble guy can lose, yet not lose his dignity. A cool guy loses more than just a fight, he loses respect too.

Good movie, but the end ruined it for me.

When I first saw this post I thought Paul meant "Grosse Point Blanke."

What a great movie that was!

(-: