"I have rights!"



On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:19:44 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:05:56 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:51:43 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:59 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Your country elected him. That is how democracy works. He does
>> >represent
>> >> >> >you. That is the definition of democracy. You sound like another
>> >genius.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You simply haven't done your homework. I'm not american idiot.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Well then, if you are not an American idiot, just what sort of idiot
>are
>> >> >you?
>> >>
>> >> <HEH>
>> >>
>> >> He walked into that one!! ;o)
>> >
>> >I'm sure that Bill has already submitted an abuse report here.
>>
>> If he's not very careful I shall allegedly have to "killfile" him!!
>>
>> We've got the place to ourselves until the "triathlete" decides to
>> come back and tell us some more about her exploits!!
>>
>> No peeping Wendy!! ;o)
>
>Did I mention that I have been learning to play the piano over the past few
>months? I now know all the basic scales and what all the white keys and
>black keys do and those pedal things near the carpet. (I love challenges!)
>
>David . . . the concert pianist

Come on David, you know the rules, in order to call yourself a
"concert pianist" you must play in a concert, so go down the pub and
join in the next talent contest and qualify like Wendy had to!! ;o)

In the "triathlete" vein:

I'm a blacksmith with farrier skills, as I am able to shoe horses.

I ride the occasional Point to Point so I am a jockey.

I have been to the summit of Mount Snowdon (walked up with the
children some years ago) so I am a mountaineer.

I once auctioned the prizes left over after the tombola at a Rotary
function, so I am an auctioneer.

etc.
 
"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:19:44 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:05:56 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:51:43 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:59 GMT, "David"
<[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Your country elected him. That is how democracy works. He does
> >> >represent
> >> >> >> >you. That is the definition of democracy. You sound like another
> >> >genius.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You simply haven't done your homework. I'm not american idiot.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Well then, if you are not an American idiot, just what sort of
idiot
> >are
> >> >> >you?
> >> >>
> >> >> <HEH>
> >> >>
> >> >> He walked into that one!! ;o)
> >> >
> >> >I'm sure that Bill has already submitted an abuse report here.
> >>
> >> If he's not very careful I shall allegedly have to "killfile" him!!
> >>
> >> We've got the place to ourselves until the "triathlete" decides to
> >> come back and tell us some more about her exploits!!
> >>
> >> No peeping Wendy!! ;o)
> >
> >Did I mention that I have been learning to play the piano over the past
few
> >months? I now know all the basic scales and what all the white keys and
> >black keys do and those pedal things near the carpet. (I love
challenges!)
> >
> >David . . . the concert pianist
>
> Come on David, you know the rules, in order to call yourself a
> "concert pianist" you must play in a concert, so go down the pub and
> join in the next talent contest and qualify like Wendy had to!! ;o)
>
> In the "triathlete" vein:
>
> I'm a blacksmith with farrier skills, as I am able to shoe horses.
>
> I ride the occasional Point to Point so I am a jockey.
>
> I have been to the summit of Mount Snowdon (walked up with the
> children some years ago) so I am a mountaineer.
>
> I once auctioned the prizes left over after the tombola at a Rotary
> function, so I am an auctioneer.
>
> etc.

I once gave away a chicken in a raffle. Now I'm a poulterer.

>
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:50:40 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>That was a poor tack to take, and there was me thinking we had someone
>worth having some fun with!!

Sorry, I'm straight.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:01:49 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

>He walked into that one!! ;

Not really, it should read "I'm not an american, idiot."

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:33:09 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:


>Come on David, you know the rules, in order to call yourself a
>"concert pianist" you must play in a concert,


LMAO!

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:23:49 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Fine Donovan. So what? Any presidential victory no matter how slim is still
>A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT

Not when it's "bought" with oil money. GWB bought and paid for his
electoral votes by letting the oil suppliers go wild with prices
without worrying about repercussions.
In the first election he was appointed, not elected. In the
re-election he bought and paid for his votes.
Hardly a "major achievement."

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:46:00 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> It wasn't exactly a landslide.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well he didn't exactly eke in either
>> >>
>> >> Yes idiot, he did just "eke" in, by a few hundred votes. I guess you
>> >> "intellectually unequipped" were unable to follow the news after the
>> >> last two elections.
>> >
>> > Bush = 286 electoral votes
>> > The other ***** = 252 electoral votes
>>
>> If you understood how electoral votes work, you'd understand that this is
> not
>> a landslide.
>>
>> Take a look at some of these. You can go back much further if you like. If
> you
>> examine the results, you'll see that the electoral college result is among
> the
>> closest in the last century.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png
>
> Fine Donovan. So what?

So Bill is entirely correct in saying that he "eked" in.

> Any presidential victory no matter how slim is still A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT

Not the issue. You used the electoral margin to rebut Bill's argument that the
margin of victory was narrow. But it doesn't.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:23:49 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fine Donovan. So what? Any presidential victory no matter how slim is
still
> >A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT
>
> Not when it's "bought" with oil money. GWB bought and paid for his
> electoral votes by letting the oil suppliers go wild with prices
> without worrying about repercussions.
> In the first election he was appointed, not elected. In the
> re-election he bought and paid for his votes.
> Hardly a "major achievement."
>
> TBR

He is a bumbling idiot. The lowest intelligence of any president in history.
Yet he won two terms. Doesn;t say much for his opposition. (a win is a win
no matter how you want to rationalize it)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:40:37 -0500, John Hanson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
>>misc.fitness.weights:
[snip]
>>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>>>"bunky"?!!
>>
>>You deserve to be a subject.
>
> I've been subjected to that before! ;o)
>
> However, that is the way we have been brought up in this country ...

Current generation. It hasn't always been thus.

> ... and
> most of us don't want to bear arms, ...

That seems quite reasonable to me.

> ..., and neither do we want our police
> armed.

You're going to find this interesting. Did you know that a police
force, in the U.K., is a relatively recent thing? It's true. It
*used* to be the body of the people was expected to provide for the
common defense. In fact: The people of the U.K. objected mightily to
the suggestion of the formation of a police force. They feared
oppression. It was a compromise on the part of the government at the
time that the police would not be armed while, get this, the public
would be!

Btw: As the police presence has become increasingly pervasive, the
citizens increasingly disarmed, and the people not only not
encouraged to defend themselves and their neighbours, but actively
discouraged from doing so, crime in *all* categories has risen
steadily. The U.K.'s halcyon days of a non-violent and
world-renowned-crime-free society might have been a direct result of
the fact that armed citizens were everywhere!

>
[snip]
>
> If it aint broke don't fix it!

Some might argue that it didn't used to be broke, and now it is.

I ask this question of anti-gun people: If people didn't abuse
firearms, firearms were used only for lawful purposes, there would be
no need to control them, much-less ban them, would there? I ask
people to suspend disbelief and imagine just such a Utopian society,
for the purpose of considering this question. Anti-gun people
generally grudgingly answer "Yes, *but*..." "But," indeed! Here's
the irony: Whether as a result of increasingly restrictive anti-gun
policies, some other societal change(s) that paralleled them, or
what: Once-upon-a-time Brits were armed to the teeth, and the U.K.
crime rate was the lowest in the world, *bar* *none*.

It wasn't broke. Why'd they go and "fix" it?

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 
In article <[email protected]>,
The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Your country is broke. You don't even have the right to defend
>>yourselves.
>
> Apparently the lard has invaded the empty space between fat boys ears.
> The USA is FAR MORE broke than the UK, thanks to a moron in the white
> house.
[snip]

Um, as far as crime goes, that would be incorrect. It turns out that
the U.K. now leads the civilized world in nearly all categories of
personal crime (per capita). Shocked the hell out of me, when I read
it.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:46:00 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It wasn't exactly a landslide.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well he didn't exactly eke in either
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes idiot, he did just "eke" in, by a few hundred votes. I guess you
> >> >> "intellectually unequipped" were unable to follow the news after the
> >> >> last two elections.
> >> >
> >> > Bush = 286 electoral votes
> >> > The other ***** = 252 electoral votes
> >>
> >> If you understood how electoral votes work, you'd understand that this
is
> > not
> >> a landslide.
> >>
> >> Take a look at some of these. You can go back much further if you like.
If
> > you
> >> examine the results, you'll see that the electoral college result is
among
> > the
> >> closest in the last century.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1988-Large.png
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1992-Large.png
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege2000-Large.png
> >
> > Fine Donovan. So what?
>
> So Bill is entirely correct in saying that he "eked" in.
>
> > Any presidential victory no matter how slim is still A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT
>
> Not the issue. You used the electoral margin to rebut Bill's argument that
the
> margin of victory was narrow. But it doesn't.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Doesn't matter much. If you lose by a whisker or lose by a landslide you
still lost. And the fact that Bush did it twice . . . both flukes I know
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Peter Allen" <[email protected]> writes:
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> I heard an interesting piece of information the other day, and I
>> don't know if it's true. It was that the Christian Crusades were in
>> response to the ongoing Muslim crusade. I would like to learn more
>> about that. If true, and given our modern day circumstances, it
>> would make that period of time for Christianity look a lot less dark.
>>
>> Any confirmation on this?
>
> Not really true. On the other hand, the crusades never were really about
> Christianity either.
[Excellent capsule summary: snip]
>

That was most enlightening, and quite an interesting read, Peter.
Thank you!

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:27:53 -0000, [email protected] (Runs With Knives)
wrote:

>Um, as far as crime goes, that would be incorrect.

Totally irrelevant.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:38:24 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Doesn't matter much. If you lose by a whisker or lose by a landslide you
>still lost. And the fact that Bush did it twice . . . both flukes I know

It certainly does matter in a democracy. It clearly shows that the
majority of americans despise him. Remember only a small percentage of
US citizens voted, of them BARELY a majority won. That makes "GWB
mania" limited to less than 20% of the population of the USA.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> Auctioneering is not a competitive sport.

So what ? One who competes is participating in a competitive sport. Let me help
you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=triathlete

> An 'athlete'

Now you're changing the terms of the debate -- I take it from this that you are
conceding defeat on this point, and moving on to another point.

Anyway, I am happy to take the opposing position in this other debate.

> almost by definition is distinquished from the rest of the population by his
> ability

Here's the Merriam Webster entry. Note that the latin origin -- an "athlete" is
a contestant in an athletics competition. The level of skill of the contestants
is not part of the definition.

Main Entry: ath·lete
Pronunciation: 'ath-"lEt, ÷'a-th&-"lEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin athleta, from Greek athlEtEs, from
athlein to contend for a prize, from athlon prize, contest : a person who is
trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength,
agility, or stamina

> -not by the
> time this person spends at his sport. So if you have 'A' who spent his
> full time training for many years and the best he can do is a 10 minute
> mile -

First, one observation -- people who train seriously at distance running for
many years are rarely 10 minute milers. Those who do, and are still this slow,
are nearly always over 80 years of age (actually, could be more like 90+). I
wouldn't argue that these elderly athletes are "not athletes" just because their
times are slow.

> and a sedentary person who spends zero time training can do the mile
> in 6 minutes - it is simply ludicrous for "A" to refer to himself as an
> athlete. It is obscene in fact.

I don't really understand your point. Neither 10 minutes, nor 6 minutes is a
terribly impressive time, by competitive standards. So if competitive ability
is your definition, neither A nor B qualify.

So neither of these people are exceptionally talented. If person 'A' competes
in athletics competitions, then they could call themself an athlete. Keep in
mind that person 'A' is almost certainly either 80 years old, or has a wooden
leg, or something like that.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:

> Doesn't matter much. If you lose by a whisker or lose by a landslide you
> still lost. And the fact that Bush did it twice . . . both flukes I know

You're getting confused with Australian politics. The USA does not have a
"tyranny of the majority" system of government.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> Doesn't matter much. If you lose by a whisker or lose by a landslide you
> still lost. And the fact that Bush did it twice . . . both flukes I know

BTW, it also does matter in the sense that it demonstrates that you are *wrong*

Once again, when proven wrong, you change the topic and put forth something that
is not related to the original topic of discussion.

AGAIN, the question was, did he 'eke in' or not. You said he didn't. You were
wrong.

Now sit down and shut up.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
(snip)
>
> Of course the real answer is to find quickly an alternative energy
> source, and be free of the bastards for good. Close the borders, end
> immigration, repatriate those that don't want to 'fit in' and then we
> will be able to let them get on with "their own culture" and we can
> live peacefully in ours.
>
(snip)


A-MEN brother.

Ryan

>
 
On 2005-08-01, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> An auctioneer is a highly paid professional, and it is a recognised
> qualification.

Fair enough. But the same is not true of "triathlete". The dictionary says
"one who participates in triathlons".

> Dally is lots of things, including excitable, but a genuine
> "triathlete" she is not.

So for example, would you call me a "genuine" runner ? I run 80 miles a week
(which I suppose isn't really relevant), and my PRs for the mile, 5k, 10k and
marathon are 4:48, 17:25, 36:30, 2:58 (the records are quite a lot faster --
3:43, 12:36, 26:22 and 2:04).

> You'll be having her in the Iron Woman category next!

Well, not until she completes such an event. Let's not get ahead of ourselves
here.

> She's a fat fart that got a bee in her bonnet, got obsessed and now
> because she got through a basic trial at pitiful level she wants

She did finish in the top 50%, so she's no more "pitiful" than the majority of
tria.... I mean, "people who participate in triathlons".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> > Auctioneering is not a competitive sport.
>
> So what ? One who competes is participating in a competitive sport. Let me
help
> you:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=triathlete
>
> > An 'athlete'
>
> Now you're changing the terms of the debate -- I take it from this that
you are
> conceding defeat on this point, and moving on to another point.
>
> Anyway, I am happy to take the opposing position in this other debate.
>
> > almost by definition is distinquished from the rest of the population by
his
> > ability
>
> Here's the Merriam Webster entry. Note that the latin origin -- an
"athlete" is
> a contestant in an athletics competition. The level of skill of the
contestants
> is not part of the definition.
>
> Main Entry: ath·lete
> Pronunciation: 'ath-"lEt, ÷'a-th&-"lEt
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin athleta, from Greek athlEtEs, from
> athlein to contend for a prize, from athlon prize, contest : a person who
is
> trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical
strength,
> agility, or stamina
>
> > -not by the
> > time this person spends at his sport. So if you have 'A' who spent his
> > full time training for many years and the best he can do is a 10 minute
> > mile -
>
> First, one observation -- people who train seriously at distance running
for
> many years are rarely 10 minute milers. Those who do, and are still this
slow,
> are nearly always over 80 years of age (actually, could be more like 90+).
I
> wouldn't argue that these elderly athletes are "not athletes" just because
their
> times are slow.
>
> > and a sedentary person who spends zero time training can do the mile
> > in 6 minutes - it is simply ludicrous for "A" to refer to himself as an
> > athlete. It is obscene in fact.
>
> I don't really understand your point. Neither 10 minutes, nor 6 minutes is
a
> terribly impressive time, by competitive standards. So if competitive
ability
> is your definition, neither A nor B qualify.
>
> So neither of these people are exceptionally talented. If person 'A'
competes
> in athletics competitions, then they could call themself an athlete. Keep
in
> mind that person 'A' is almost certainly either 80 years old, or has a
wooden
> leg, or something like that.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

I took the figures of 10 mins and 6 mins to drive home the point - the
actual figures are not the issue. By your definition someone who trains a
lot and is damn slow can be called an athlete while someone who does not
train and who is just average (i.e. 6 mins) would not be called an athlete.
That is ludicrous. There has to be some accountability if a person wishes to
refer to themself as an athlete and that is in terms of accomplishment
relative to the rest of the population
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back