# Your Personal Space



## MJS (May 19, 2008)

I'm sure everyone has a comfort zone that they like to keep when talking to someone. How close do you allow someone to get to you before you start to feel a bit uneasy? 

Now, its one thing if its family. During the holidays, at least in my family, when we have everyone get together for Christmas, the place is packed. So of course, if you're trying to talk to someone who you havent seen in a while, it may be necessary to get up close and personal, because a) its hard to hear with everyone else talking and b) there is limited room, so you need to be right near the person.

In this case, I'm talking about someone you don't know, or someone who, while you know them, you still prefer that they maintain a distance while speaking with you.

For myself, I like arms reach. This still gives you some room to move or react should things get out of hand. 

Looking forward to your thoughts! 

Mike


----------



## MahaKaal (May 19, 2008)

Elbow distance


----------



## terryl965 (May 19, 2008)

Anything closer than three feet makes me nervous


----------



## morph4me (May 19, 2008)

I like about 4-5 feet for a person my size, farther for a taller person, a little closer for a shorter person.  That gives me at least one step before he can hit or kick me with any kind of penetration, unless he has something that extends his reach.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2008)

For me it depends largely upon my first impression of the person and where I am at the moment. 
I've had total strangers walk up and get very close, like body to body contact, put their arm around my shoulders and speak very closely to my face. I was a bit uneasy but allowed it because I didn't have cause to fear and where I was was "supposedly" a safe place and nobody was going to do any harm to anyone else. But at the first opportunity I managed to create the space of two or three feet between us in a polite and respectful way that we both understood. 

I've been in crowds, large and small. Had people bustle up close to me on busses, subway cars and the like. In restaurants, movie theater lines and so on. Fact of life, you're going to get crowded and you're gonna get bumped, touched and brushed up against. Often times you can't avoid it. Deal with it and go on. Be ready for anything however, expect the unexpected. 

The ONE place that no-one can touch is my mind. The space I create in there is impenetrable. No matter how close physically someone gets to me they can't get past that barrier I've built up. I can let them but it'll be to my choosing.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 19, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I like about 4-5 feet for a person my size, farther for a taller person, a little closer for a shorter person.  That gives me at least one step before he can hit or kick me with any kind of penetration, unless he has something that extends his reach.



Yeah, I was thinking "roundhouse distance" myself


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2008)

To be honest I have no personal space, it doesn't bother me how close people get, I don't find it threatening. I think it's why as a woman I've never been bothered about grappling. I'm used to Europeans especially Mediterranean Europeans to whom private space and indeed privacy don't actually mean much lol! They are also generally very tactile as I am.
If someone means you harm them coming in close does actually make it harder for them to hit or kick you and it's as easy (or not) to deal with them as it is someone at a distance.


----------



## Ahriman (May 19, 2008)

Now that's an interesting thing. I don't like letting someone I don't know well closer than about 1.5-2m.

Tez3, what you said is a part of one of my favourites paradoxes. If the attacker is close to me, he (or she) won't be able to generate that much force, but is close enough for stabs or grappling, both with very minimal telegraphing. If the attacker is at a distance, the movement he may make is easier to notice, but he can generate a tremendous amount of force.
Now as I always prepare for the worst scenario_ (that's a knife attack - against a determined gunner only a few have chance... or should I call it luck? Either way, I don't feel myself trained or lucky enough to ever try it)_, so I prefer them to be farther away. If a knife attack is out of the possibility list for some reason, they could come closer - but a knife is never out of the list, so they stay there. If for some reason they must be closer, I try to keep the environment in my mind for easier evasion if required. Now if there isn't any free space and I have someone very close to me... then I screwed up something. Those are the cases when I make sure that at least one of my hands is on the grip of at least one weapon and start speaking to ease the problems. Now if I don't have space, don't have weapons and I have someone in my face, I screwed up miserably. That's when luck comes into play as an unarmed and/or unprepared and/or undetermined attacker is LUCK, nothing else.
This may be very different for those cultures where private space is less important, but here when you're outside elevators and public transportation and someone goes very close to you it means a high possibility of trouble.
...
Hm, did I say before that I don't really trust humans?


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 19, 2008)

It depends greatly on where I am and the situation at hand.
At work , I have to be shoulder to shoulder  or even head to head much of the time so I accept that. In a bar I know that shoulder to shoulder may be what is going to happen but I still prefer to be 3 feet or so away when talking there.
On the street I do not want strangers to get within 5 feet if we are talking. I will ( and have) put my hand up in a stop movement to keep them at that distance till I assess the situation


----------



## KenpoTex (May 19, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> It depends greatly on where I am and the situation at hand.
> At work , I have to be shoulder to shoulder or even head to head much of the time so I accept that. In a bar I know that shoulder to shoulder may be what is going to happen but I still prefer to be 3 feet or so away when talking there.
> On the street I do not want strangers to get within 5 feet if we are talking. I will ( and have) put my hand up in a stop movement to keep them at that distance till I assess the situation


that's pretty much my take on the issue.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 19, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> It depends greatly on where I am and the situation at hand.
> At work , I have to be shoulder to shoulder or even head to head much of the time so I accept that. In a bar I know that shoulder to shoulder may be what is going to happen but I still prefer to be 3 feet or so away when talking there.
> On the street I do not want strangers to get within 5 feet if we are talking. I will ( and have) put my hand up in a stop movement to keep them at that distance till I assess the situation


 

This is my feeling as well.

I noticed that my comfort space in the US is much larger than in China too. It is a cultural thing I guess as well.


----------



## zDom (May 19, 2008)

MJS said:


> For myself, I like arms reach. This still gives you some room to move or react should things get out of hand.



Me too.

I may permit closer depending on the situation &#8212; a crowded company Christmas party, for example. Or making my way through a crowd when it is unreasonable to expect that large of a personal space.

But I am more on edge, more alert, in these situations.

If there is an obvious threat, however, I will  CREATE that distance, even in a crowded situation.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 19, 2008)

Its interesting to see how many people, when considering personal space, immediately think of combat ranges.  Nothing wrong with that, it makes sense, but to me combat range and personal space are two different things.

It always brings to mind a cartoon which depicts the personal space of three different countries.  In the first frame are Chinese people shoulder to shoulder with each other.  In the second frame are some Americans about 5m apart.  In the last frame are two Australians on hilltops far from each other.  This might explain why our cities are so spread out.

I have found, through interaction with people from many different countries, that the idea of personal space varies considerably, but within very obvious general guidelines.  People from more populace countries have a smaller personal space than those from less populated countries.  

My own personal space is pretty damn big, about 3-5m depending on who the other people are.  That is not the distance I would feel comfortable engaging someone in combat though, I look to get a lot closer.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 19, 2008)

One's personal space is dictated by ones capabilty to react as well as the circumstances.

As the Tuller drill showed, for an 'average' person it took 1.5 seconds for a person to go through the whole OODA loop cycle and react to a man rushing them with a knife, draw a concealed handgun, and stop the attacker. The attacker, it turns out, could make 7 yards in that time! A rather large amout of personal space, right?

On the other hand, circumstances really do dictate ones personal space. Times like late at night, or in a bad part of town, or alone with a stranger, all call for more personal space than say, at the office in the day.

Normaly I perfer 2 ft personal space (unless she is a hot chick...;-) But if I'm at a stop-n-shop at 2 AM, unknown part of town, the personal space is much greater, not to mention I look for indicators something is wrong.

Start realisticly testing how fast you can react to a given situation, without any pre-clues something is going down. Might suprise you.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?


----------



## KenpoTex (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?


 
No, it's because there are violent people out there and maintaining more of a reactionary gap _when dealing_ _with people you don't know_ might give you the time you need to effectively respond if they are planning to attack you.

I don't expect people I meet at parties/work/social gatherings to stay 5 feet away but there is no reason for me to let the guy at the gas-station get any closer.


----------



## Hawke (May 20, 2008)

I personally do not like total strangers getting too close to me.

When I travel I notice that culturally some people like to get close.  

Sometimes you're at a crowded place like a concert or a popular movie and have to accept extremely close contact.

When I get an uneasy feeling I prefer to move myself away.  I like around 8 to 10 feet.  I guess it's because I live in a violent society, but I do not amp myself constantly.  

Be aware, but stay calm.


----------



## samurai69 (May 20, 2008)

In the UK i would reckon on two equual 3/4 arms lengths as the natural personal space for an adult conversation if you didnt know the other person and maybe as a natural prsonal space still of a good arms length, even in a fairly noisey invironment

but here in portugal the natural personal distance is way closer almost nose to nose even with someone you dont know, for example all men that have been introduced only once will always hand shake and people are so much more tactile

i still feel uncomfortable at these closer distances but have changed the way i use basic natural fences and guards when i am talking to people in the nosier environments.



.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

samurai69 said:


> In the UK i would reckon on two equual 3/4 arms lengths as the natural personal space for an adult conversation if you didnt know the other person and maybe as a natural prsonal space still of a good arms length, even in a fairly noisey invironment
> 
> but here in portugal the natural personal distance is way closer almost nose to nose even with someone you dont know, for example all men that have been introduced only once will always hand shake and people are so much more tactile
> 
> ...


----------



## morph4me (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?


 
I don't think it's that we assume that we will be attacked all the time, it's more of the recognition that the possibility of attack exists all the time. Looking both ways before you cross the street doesn't assume that you will be hit by a car every time you step into the street, just makes sure you see the cars coming.


----------



## Ahriman (May 20, 2008)

I simply prefer to be ready for nothing for years to being unprepared for the moment it'd be important. I do make mistakes as I'm a human, but I try to avoid it. There always will be a criminal section of humanity and their percentage won't make their presence more or less relevant. They are those who may kill or maim you or others if you don't care. The time intervals between confrontations are a matter of caution and luck, and as I said before, I don't like relying on luck.
...
And I don't trust humans.

Edited to add: morph4me, I like your car analogue much.  Looking both ways is so natural that most don't even recognise it, but it's just as well a sign of "paranoia" as being cautious with strangers. After all, if everyone would be nice people following the laws then you shouldn't have to check for reckless drivers. Or for possible attackers.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2008)

Great replies everyone!!  Keep 'em coming!

A few things I'd loke to comment on.

1) Regarding my OP.  Yes, in some cases, being in close proximity with others is unavoidable.  Go to a concert, movie, fair, the mall during a holiday season, NYC, etc and yes, you'll be wall to wall at times.  I was referring more to when you're dealing with a confrontation.  Of course, even if the visual clues are not there and its a casual convo. with someone that you don't know, I still prefer to have some space.  Afterall, I dont know this person and sure, they could be harmless, but you never know.

2) Regarding this post from Tez:
_I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?_

Sadly, in todays world, violence seems to be getting worse every day.  The city just north of me pretty much has a shooting or mult. shootings on a daily basis.  Street crime is high.  Do I frequent bad areas?  Any area can be bad, some worse than others, but I do my best to stay out of bars, clubs, etc.  I'm not a paranoid person, but I like to be aware and do what I can to minimize something bad happening to me.  Hey, if its gonna happen its gonna happen, but if I can prevent something, if I can avoid a bad situation, etc., I'm going to do it.


----------



## samurai69 (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> In the societies where closeness is the norm it's more likely that if you were to be attacked the attacker would keep their distance at first rather than come close.


 

I have to say i havenbt noticed that too much here so far, but will try and be aware of its nature

.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

samurai69 said:


> I have to say i havenbt noticed that too much here so far, but will try and be aware of its nature
> 
> .


 
People who are about to do you harm don't want to become 'involved' with you, it's easier to attack a stranger than a person known to you. Thats why of course if you can engage a potential attacker and continue talking to them it becomes increasingly difficult for them to harm someone who is becoming 'human' to them. It's a rough guide of course but sometimes talking your way out of a situation is your best option.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?


 
No, it's a sign of an independant mind. As has been written, "I'm the master of my fate, and captian of my soul".

Last time I used any violence was in the Virgin Islands, where gun control is complete. That was almost 20 years ago. But I know it can happen,  in any society.

Deaf


----------



## Ahriman (May 20, 2008)

Tez3, I have a very light case of psychopathy, and I find it hard to see others as "people". I know less than ten people I consider "humans". Other members of the human race are just that - members of the human race. I might consider them as friends and I'm able to speak with them for looong hours, but would they ever attack me _(some get a bit agressive when drunk so I speak from experience)_, I strike back in the same manner as I'd do with strangers. Lucky for them that none of those attacks were even close to life threatening.
...
Now consider the amount of psychopaths _(and the seriousness of their case)_ when it comes to criminals.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I find it interesting that so many people are so defensive and assume all the time that they will be attacked. Is it a sign that you come from violent societies?



Well, I haven't been attacked since grade school, and although I take martial arts, I don't really have it in mind for immediate defense use.

That said, I realize that much of this outlook comes from context and circumstance.  Others may have very good reasons apart from a "violent society" for feeling a little more vigilant.  Past victims of attacks for instance, those at a serious disadvantage, or those living in bad areas or with at-risk jobs.  Remember, your own country has a big problem with violent assaults and crime, and could be considered "violent", yet you don't have this fear and don't understand those who do.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> No, it's a sign of an independant mind. As has been written, "I'm the master of my fate, and captian of my soul".
> 
> Last time I used any violence was in the Virgin Islands, where gun control is complete. That was almost 20 years ago. But I know it can happen, in any society.
> 
> Deaf


 
So are you saying that those of us who like people and don't mind their proximity aren't of independant minds? Of course violence can happen anyway but actually the majority of murders and violence happen between people that know or are related to each other rather than between complete strangers.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 20, 2008)

Tez3,

An independent mind is someone who has confidence in themselves. Confidence they can handle whatever comes their way. You get this partaly by training, part by the values that are installed. It cannot be faked, either you have it or you don't.

Training in such weapons as firearms gives a huge boost of ones feelings they can alter the outcome of whatever happens to them. No I'm not talking about gang bangers or criminals, but the honest, decent, hard working folk. This leads to ones willing to think for themselves and venture out for themselves. They start asking 'why' and 'why not'. Coupled with that good values that have been instilled by their families, churchs, communities and you end up with a real bunch of tough nuts to crack.

Oh, and I like people. Work around them all day. Have many a friend. And there my personal spaces shrinks cause I know I'm around people I can trust.

But at 2 am, in the bad part of town, well I don't know who is whom or what their intentions are. That is where your personal space expands. You keep them at a distance and that is where you don't turn your back on someone your gut tells you are up to no good.

Deaf


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> This leads to ones willing to think for themselves and venture out for themselves. They start asking 'why' and 'why not'. Coupled with that good values that have been instilled by their families, churchs, communities and you end up with a real bunch of tough nuts to crack.



*sigh*  I only wish this were true.  No, I'm afraid these folks have their own blind spots, which makes them all too willing to believe irrational things in certain areas.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Of course violence can happen anyway but actually the majority of murders and violence happen between people that know or are related to each other rather than between complete strangers.


 
With all due respect, I don't think I can agree with this 100%.  While there may be some cases where this is true, there are many crimes that happen in which the victim does not know the attacker.  There were 2 pretty violent home invasions in my state recently and the victims did not know the attackers.  I'd also say that many of the street level armed robberies that take place here are done by people who do not know their victims.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> *sigh* I only wish this were true. No, I'm afraid these folks have their own blind spots, which makes them all too willing to believe irrational things in certain areas.


 
Everyone is human, Empty Hands. Having an independant mind or posession of weapons does not make one prefect.

Please explain what irrational things they are all to often willing to believe.

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

MJS said:


> With all due respect, I don't think I can agree with this 100%. While there may be some cases where this is true, there are many crimes that happen in which the victim does not know the attacker. There were 2 pretty violent home invasions in my state recently and the victims did not know the attackers. I'd also say that many of the street level armed robberies that take place here are done by people who do not know their victims.


 

Well I did say the majority not all! :wink2:

I don't think being armed necessarily gives you more confidence as such, it can give you a false confidence that leads to you getting into a situation that if you weren't armed you'd run a mile from. It's too much of a generalisation to say being armed will give you confidence.
I don't believe either that all values instilled into you are necessarily good ones, again that's a generralisation. We have a political party over here called the British National Party, they are basically Nazis. the values those members instill into their offspring are hardly likely to be good ones. Many churches teach hatred too, we have a small church near us who preach and believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ among other interesting things. Surely independant thinking people have actually thought things out for themselves and their beliefs aren't engendered by carrying weapons or their upbringing but of literally thinking for themselves.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 21, 2008)

I am certainly not going to add anything of use to this conversation and I apologize for the intrusion but I have wanted to give this response since my first post.

I only need enough Personal Space to swing my battle axe. 

Thank You, I feel better now and I will scurry off and not bother you again. :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am certainly not going to add anything of use to this conversation and I apologize for the intrusion but I have wanted to give this response since my first post.
> 
> I only need enough Personal Space to swing my battle axe.
> 
> Thank You, I feel better now and I will scurry off and not bother you again. :asian:


 
OOh a man with a battle axe, does your wife mind you calling her mother that?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 21, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Please explain what irrational things they are all to often willing to believe.



Well, this is a generality for this demographic, it does not apply to all.  This group showed admirable skepticism about the Clinton administration's heavy handed police tactics in incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco.  However, when a guy they liked got in the door (Bush), they were willing to suspend that skepticism and embrace, excuse and defend some of the same or worse police tactics used by the Bush administration.  If Clinton had proposed domestic spying programs and unlimited wiretapping authority for the executive, these folks would have gone nuts.


----------



## MJS (May 21, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Well I did say the majority not all! :wink2:
> 
> I don't think being armed necessarily gives you more confidence as such, it can give you a false confidence that leads to you getting into a situation that if you weren't armed you'd run a mile from. It's too much of a generalisation to say being armed will give you confidence.


 
Hey Tez, 

Just for clarification, I wasn't talking about the defender being armed, I was talking about the bad guy being armed, with a gun or knife.  But, going with what you said, I agree.  If the good guy wants to carry a weapon for self defense purposes, thats fine, but, as you said, just because its being carried, doesn't, IMHO, mean success or that the weapon will even be able to be pulled.

Mike


----------



## Ahriman (May 21, 2008)

[off]
Xue Sheng, when my knee is really killing me, I DO go walking using a 190 cm poleaxe as a walking aid. It doesn't take that much space to get moving.  
[/off]
Having a weapon only gives confidence when you know that at any given moment you can draw and utilize it. Now constantly taking care of it _(grip-hand distance, grip position, distance of closest possible opponent) _would require a *constantly* focused mind, which is a hard thing even if speaking mildly. If you have that mind capacity, fine, otherwise you shouldn't be more confident than you would be in an unarmed setting.

Edited to add: The above_ (esp. the "Having a weapon only gives confidence...")_ is only true if you have a self-critical mind. Criminals don't tend to have one.


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Well, this is a generality for this demographic, it does not apply to all. This group showed admirable skepticism about the Clinton administration's heavy handed police tactics in incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco. However, when a guy they liked got in the door (Bush), they were willing to suspend that skepticism and embrace, excuse and defend some of the same or worse police tactics used by the Bush administration. If Clinton had proposed domestic spying programs and unlimited wiretapping authority for the executive, these folks would have gone nuts.


 
So the Bush Admin. ended up burning down a compound with lots of children (not war, but a police action?) Or shot a woman with a baby in her arms (again, not during war, but a police action?) Note: I think Reno didn't think what happened, would happen as for Waco but when it's on your watch, it's on your watch.

And if you go visit Instapundint, Glenn Reynolds, you will see lots of conservitives don't like the wiretapping either. But a conserative is not the same as a Libertarian (and THEY are very independant minded!)

But, Clinton didn't have 9/11 on his plate either (well Clinton did have the first trade center bombing, the Cole, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed all still doing nothing but talk, but when the Alfred Murrah Federal Building was bombed they did crack down on farmers using fertilizer.)

Deaf


----------



## MJS (May 21, 2008)

Hmm..what does Bush and politics have to do with this thread?


----------



## kidswarrior (May 21, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I only need enough Personal Space to swing my battle axe.


Coulda used one today when at the end of school (for those who don't' know, I teach adjudicated kids--those with probation officers, police records, etc.), and four gangsta-looking young adults showed up to give one kid a ride. All good, except they were lurking (yeah, lurking) just out of sight (I happened to step out at just the right time and see one of them), and the kid they were there for (I found by talking to them) had been in a verbal altercation with another kid during school. So, he'd obviously used a smuggled cell phone to call his older homies.

I went back to class, kept all the kids (we have an isolated , one-room site, no security officer or even proctors, no principal, no one at all but my female assistant), and called PD. They said they had no cars available at the time  and pretty much dismissed the whole thing. I told them, fine, I'll handle it. :angry: In the meantime, my assistant was releasing students one at a time to any parents who showed up, the other parties who were in possible danger from this group got a ride from one of the kid's mother, and I kept the 'problem' child till last. 

Cops showed up 15 minutes later. I'da rather had the battle ax.


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2008)

MJS said:


> Hmm..what does Bush and politics have to do with this thread?


 
I was wondering that, one minute there's a discussion on carrying weapons etc the next I thought I was on the wrong thread!


----------



## exile (May 21, 2008)

Just to answer the OP question4 feet absolutely is the closest I'll tolerate (apart from e.g. a crowded NYC subway, which is a different culture completely), and anything closer than 6 feet is when I start going from yellow to the high end of orange in milliseconds. I prefer distance in most situations, especially when anyone outside my family and fairly small circle of good friends is involved. Maybe it's a personality thingI'm happiest when I have a certain number of solitary hours in a day, which alas doesn't happen that muchbut I _hate_ it when people I don't know appear to be needlessly getting within that 6' radius.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 22, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> [off]
> Xue Sheng, when my knee is really killing me, I DO go walking using a 190 cm poleaxe as a walking aid. It doesn't take that much space to get moving.
> [/off]
> Having a weapon only gives confidence when you know that at any given moment you can draw and utilize it. Now constantly taking care of it _(grip-hand distance, grip position, distance of closest possible opponent) _would require a *constantly* focused mind, which is a hard thing even if speaking mildly. If you have that mind capacity, fine, otherwise you shouldn't be more confident than you would be in an unarmed setting.
> ...


 
Actually, I was not serious, I was kidding. I know this will likely surprise many here but I do not even own a Battle Axe 




kidswarrior said:


> Cops showed up 15 minutes later. I'da rather had the battle ax.




This one is nice  so is this one


----------



## kidswarrior (May 22, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually, I was not serious, I was kidding. I know this will likely surprise many here but I do not even own a Battle Axe
> 
> This one is nice  so is this one


Yeah, beautiful. I'd take either. If only they'd ship to California. :rules:

So, I just keep working with the sticks: 6 foot hiking stick, 4 foot shillelagh, 3 foot shillelagh, crook'd cane, and kubotan. I guess that relates to the OP and how much personal space I like. If there are four of them and one of me, I like 15-20 feet unless it all turns south, then I guess it's just whoever comes within striking distance first gets it first.  There's a very dark side of me tonight that wants to say of this scenario, It's better to give than receive. But I won't say any such thing. My wife would be appalled.


----------

