> Unfortunately, it's reasoning like that that will keep people voting for "the lesser of two evils". That's rarely a good way to make a decision. Imagine if you had someone standing in front of you and someone behing you. The guy in front slugged you in the stomach everytime you moved forward. The guy behind you beat you in the butt everytime you backed up. Some people decide to go forward, reasoning that if they're going to be hit they want to see when it's coming. Others step backward reasoning that it doesn't hurt as much to get hit on the butt. Either way they get hit. Then there are the people that decide to stand still since they don't like getting hit (ignoring the fact that they'll never get anywhere that way). Is it reasonable to keep moving forward, backward or standing still? Personally, I'd step to the side to get around them since the current strategy isn't getting me where I want to be.<

Bad analogy. Only the democrats are hurting me.< G >
As for your flawed analogy, I'd move forward into the punch. In Judo they teach you to move toward the punch so that the arm never clears the plane of the body. By being close and restricting the aggressor's ability to get maximum energy into the punch, you lessen the threat and you can then do what you will to them. So, I'd move into the punch, turn the aggressor and twist his/her neck while kicking their feet out from under them and allowing the earth to rise up and smite them. This takes about 2 seconds and the aggressor from the rear can then be dealt with one-to-one.*g* Your turn!