I think my post has been vastly misunderstood. And please don't mistake this for an apology. I do not believe one is warranted, and I still stand by what I said. However, it does seem that a little clarification is in order.
I was not insinuating that he saved the child so that he would get something in return. This is a simplistic, and inaccurate, interpretation of what I was saying. I'm not arguing that the ACT of saving a child was a great thing. And I'm not saying that his motive was just to get credit. What I was offended by was the fact that he was so concerned about not hearing a "thank you" from the parent. Now, if my child were saved from drowning by a stranger, would I be grateful and want to thank the person? I'd like to think that I would. In fact, I would imagine I'd be so grateful that I'd probably want to do something spectacular for the individual just to show my gratitude. On the flip side, however, if I saved a child, my primary concern would be the well-being of the child. I highly doubt that the thought of whether or not I got a "thank you" would even enter my mind. And I think I'd be a little more understanding if the parents paid attention to nothing else but the child for the rest of the vacation.
Based on all this, I just found it kind of tacky that he even cared about being thanked by the parents. How could he possibly know what was going on in the parents' minds?? But taking it a step further, he shared this story under the classification of simply an "annoying guest". What has this world come to when a person finds it "annoying" that someone doesn't thank you after their child nearly died??
So if I'm to be jumped on by other members, or even banned from the boards for my remarks, then so be it. I'm not sure I want to be a member of a community where other members would so viciously side with someone who is clearly thinking of himself and not even attempting to understand how the parents must have felt.