Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-15-2012, 09:36 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Now look, pal, YOU said:



This statement indicates you knew nothing about the women's suffrage issue when you posted that.
Again with the nitpicking to avoid the point I'm making just so you can take pot shots at what I said. Look gal, YOU make assumptions about what I said that lead you to bogus conclusions. America at large DID make the statement, and rural America wasn't listening, to get behind the women's vote. THAT DIDN'T MEAN WOMEN DID NOT YET HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE. It meant that city attitudes then, just like city attitudes today about interracial marriage, WHICH IS ALREADY LEGAL, says let interracial marriage happen, stop trashing it with your backwards attitudes. And just like urban America said to rural America AFTER SEGREGATION WAS ABOLISHED to let blacks integrate into the schools and stop badmouthing the idea because of your socially backwards attitudes.

You seem hell bent to not understand that social attitudes, and social preaching of the urban progressive contingent to the rural backwards contingent IS NOT LIMITED TO WHEN THE SOCIAL ISSUE GAINED LEGAL SUCCESS. Long AFTER social issues have gained legal success, attitudes in some places REMAIN backwards, and when that happens in enough places to make it a national phenomenon, city voices are generally compelled to preach social progress to rural mindsets.

I have already said outright that WHEN something is promulgated into law is BESIDE the point of ATTITUDES towards that social issue existing after the fact of promulgation. Yet you seem to be disinterested in UNDERSTANDING that intellectual point and instead on nitpicking out of my posts and then straining it through your own prism to draw a conclusion about what I was saying, totally ignoring my own clarification OF what I was saying. Thus your conclusion is bogus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Ohiogirl81 and I have tried to educate you. It was not "American at large" telling rural American to get with the program and let women vote.
And I have tried to educate you. America at large telling rural America to get with the program and let women vote is NOT America at large telling rural America to pass women's suffrage in their legal processes. It IS America at large telling rural America to get with the program and change their lingering attitudes EVEN THOUGH WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, attitudes which seek to "put a woman in her place" and grumble against the gains in social power and freedom that women attained. America at large telling rural America to get with the program and let interracial marriage happen and change their lingering attitudes EVEN THOUGH DIFFERENT RACES HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, attitudes which seek to "make them stay with their own kind" and grumble against the gains in social freedom that minorities have attained.

I educate you over and over that my point is about ATTITUDES, not legal promulgation but you seem incapable of comprehending that. I tie past social issues to current ones to make the point, and you STILL seem incapable of comprehending. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act IS LAW NOW, makes a stride towards equal pay for equal work, yet the discussion and attitudes about equal pay STILL PERMEATE THE NATION, as evidenced by the second presidential debate and the national discourse surrounding it. In that discourse, progressive Americans preached to backwards Americans to LET WOMEN HAVE EQUAL PAY. That discussion happened even though Ledbetter WAS ALREADY LAW. I SPECIFICALLY talk about social attitudes which exist long after law has been promulgated and what tendencies exist in those attitudes long after law has been promulgated and what social preaching is done in an attempt to change those attitudes long after law has been promulgated, yet you INSIST on taking an example I used to make that point and FOCUSING ON THE TIMING OF ITS PROMULGATION.

But just as before, my articulating and clarifying will probably fall on deaf ears, or on a mind incapable of understanding the point. Long after gay marriage is the law throughout the US, urban voices will STILL tell rural America to get with the program and stop begrudging gays getting state marriage licenses because rural America will STILL HAVE THE BACKWARDS ATTITUDE that gays should not be able to get marriage licenses even though it will already have been legal fact. Same as it was with women's suffrage, same as it was with minority civil rights, same as it is with interracial marriage. But why am I here trying to make an intellectual point to somebody who cannot seem to grasp the basic premise but who instead insists on taking one example and UNTYING IT from my argument about social attitudes and instead tying it to HER OWN focus on the timing of legal promulgation? If you want to talk about timing of legal promulgation, fine, talk about it. But leave me and my posts out of it because me and my posts and the arguments therein have nothing to do with the timing of legal promulgation. (for the friggin umpteenth time)

Dang, what limited kind of mind can't grasp that social attitudes about and social preaching on an issue exist LONG AFTER that issue has been legally promulgated and that WHEN it was promulgated is irrelevant to the fact THAT attitudes still exist and are still preached? You'd think people would understand a concept as obvious as a social issue like Roe v. Wade, which is LAW now, NONETHELESS is still debated in America and has progressives preaching to conservatives about women's health rights. This is like me arguing that a woman's right to choose is a progressive issue, being preached to Republicans by Democrats, and somebody coming back with "But the woman who sued and her attorneys were card carrying Republicans and one of the justices who voted for it wasn't known as a progressive." Attitudes after the fact that permeate the national discussion stand on their own INDEPENDENT OF who it was that pushed the initial case or promulgated the law. If you can't understand that by now, and all signs point to you not understanding that by now, then I'm not sure you ever will.

Now PLEASE stop nitpicking over my posts and trying to twist my meaning about national social attitudes in the last few decades to fit your focus on when something was legally promulgated or who the first ones were to push the issue. Focus on origins of law if you want, just leave me and my posts out of it since it is irrelevant to my point. Let me get on with a discussion with folks actually interested in what I AM saying. And folks who can read examples and written conclusions about them and actually mentally ABSORB the stance being taken. Gee flippin whiz.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2012, 09:51 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What does that have to do with women's suffrage? Did you think, until you were enlightened by a couple of us ladies, that women just got the vote in say, 2008?
If I explained it to you again, it would probably go in one ear and out of the other, unabsorbed- based on your responses to date. If my drawing parallels to the black vote or to desegregation of schools or to interracial marriage or to Lilly Ledbetter or to a woman's right to choose doesn't clue you in by now, then I doubt me explaining further how the SAME applies to women's suffrage will give you the capacity to grasp the answer. I just explained again at length in my post above and I doubt it will give you the capacity to grasp the answer. Some people simply can't grasp some concepts. Oh well, life goes on and you do what you can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,721 posts, read 74,665,297 times
Reputation: 66662
It's clear, MantaRay, that there's some sort of chip on your shoulder which prevents a discussion based upon logic and fact, without emotional histrionics, and without changing the rules in the middle of the game.

You were the one to bring up women's rights. And whether you like it or not:
a) The women's rights movement began with women who lived in rural areas and/or small farming towns;
b) Rural Western states were the first to give women the right to vote; and
c) Quite a few states -- mostly in the West, and New York -- had granted women the right to vote before "America at large" ratified the 19th Amendment.

These facts blow your statement that social progress begins in cities right out of the water. Now if you would have qualified a specific time frame (because apparently the 19th Century is not "relevant" to social progress), or had admitted that there may be exceptions to your statements ... Well, then, that would be different and perhaps the exceptions to your argument could be discussed rationally and logically.

Alas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,179,658 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
Again with the nitpicking to avoid the point I'm making just so you can take pot shots at what I said. Look gal, YOU make assumptions about what I said that lead you to bogus conclusions. America at large DID make the statement, and rural America wasn't listening, to get behind the women's vote. THAT DIDN'T MEAN WOMEN DID NOT YET HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE. It meant that city attitudes then, just like city attitudes today about interracial marriage, WHICH IS ALREADY LEGAL, says let interracial marriage happen, stop trashing it with your backwards attitudes. And just like urban America said to rural America AFTER SEGREGATION WAS ABOLISHED to let blacks integrate into the schools and stop badmouthing the idea because of your socially backwards attitudes.

You seem hell bent to not understand that social attitudes, and social preaching of the urban progressive contingent to the rural backwards contingent IS NOT LIMITED TO WHEN THE SOCIAL ISSUE GAINED LEGAL SUCCESS. Long AFTER social issues have gained legal success, attitudes in some places REMAIN backwards, and when that happens in enough places to make it a national phenomenon, city voices are generally compelled to preach social progress to rural mindsets.

I have already said outright that WHEN something is promulgated into law is BESIDE the point of ATTITUDES towards that social issue existing after the fact of promulgation. Yet you seem to be disinterested in UNDERSTANDING that intellectual point and instead on nitpicking out of my posts and then straining it through your own prism to draw a conclusion about what I was saying, totally ignoring my own clarification OF what I was saying. Thus your conclusion is bogus.



And I have tried to educate you. America at large telling rural America to get with the program and let women vote is NOT America at large telling rural America to pass women's suffrage in their legal processes. It IS America at large telling rural America to get with the program and change their lingering attitudes EVEN THOUGH WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, attitudes which seek to "put a woman in her place" and grumble against the gains in social power and freedom that women attained. America at large telling rural America to get with the program and let interracial marriage happen and change their lingering attitudes EVEN THOUGH DIFFERENT RACES HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, attitudes which seek to "make them stay with their own kind" and grumble against the gains in social freedom that minorities have attained.

I educate you over and over that my point is about ATTITUDES, not legal promulgation but you seem incapable of comprehending that. I tie past social issues to current ones to make the point, and you STILL seem incapable of comprehending. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act IS LAW NOW, makes a stride towards equal pay for equal work, yet the discussion and attitudes about equal pay STILL PERMEATE THE NATION, as evidenced by the second presidential debate and the national discourse surrounding it. In that discourse, progressive Americans preached to backwards Americans to LET WOMEN HAVE EQUAL PAY. That discussion happened even though Ledbetter WAS ALREADY LAW. I SPECIFICALLY talk about social attitudes which exist long after law has been promulgated and what tendencies exist in those attitudes long after law has been promulgated and what social preaching is done in an attempt to change those attitudes long after law has been promulgated, yet you INSIST on taking an example I used to make that point and FOCUSING ON THE TIMING OF ITS PROMULGATION.

But just as before, my articulating and clarifying will probably fall on deaf ears, or on a mind incapable of understanding the point. Long after gay marriage is the law throughout the US, urban voices will STILL tell rural America to get with the program and stop begrudging gays getting state marriage licenses because rural America will STILL HAVE THE BACKWARDS ATTITUDE that gays should not be able to get marriage licenses even though it will already have been legal fact. Same as it was with women's suffrage, same as it was with minority civil rights, same as it is with interracial marriage. But why am I here trying to make an intellectual point to somebody who cannot seem to grasp the basic premise but who instead insists on taking one example and UNTYING IT from my argument about social attitudes and instead tying it to HER OWN focus on the timing of legal promulgation? If you want to talk about timing of legal promulgation, fine, talk about it. But leave me and my posts out of it because me and my posts and the arguments therein have nothing to do with the timing of legal promulgation. (for the friggin umpteenth time)

Dang, what limited kind of mind can't grasp that social attitudes about and social preaching on an issue exist LONG AFTER that issue has been legally promulgated and that WHEN it was promulgated is irrelevant to the fact THAT attitudes still exist and are still preached? You'd think people would understand a concept as obvious as a social issue like Roe v. Wade, which is LAW now, NONETHELESS is still debated in America and has progressives preaching to conservatives about women's health rights. This is like me arguing that a woman's right to choose is a progressive issue, being preached to Republicans by Democrats, and somebody coming back with "But the woman who sued and her attorneys were card carrying Republicans and one of the justices who voted for it wasn't known as a progressive." Attitudes after the fact that permeate the national discussion stand on their own INDEPENDENT OF who it was that pushed the initial case or promulgated the law. If you can't understand that by now, and all signs point to you not understanding that by now, then I'm not sure you ever will.

Now PLEASE stop nitpicking over my posts and trying to twist my meaning about national social attitudes in the last few decades to fit your focus on when something was legally promulgated or who the first ones were to push the issue. Focus on origins of law if you want, just leave me and my posts out of it since it is irrelevant to my point. Let me get on with a discussion with folks actually interested in what I AM saying. And folks who can read examples and written conclusions about them and actually mentally ABSORB the stance being taken. Gee flippin whiz.
If you want to know when women's voting had social success, I refer you to my grandmother and others in her rural area of northern Wisconsin. They couldn't wait to vote! My grandmother was a grown woman about to be married when women got the vote. She voted regularly the rest of her life, as did most of her friends and acquaintances.

It is not nitpicking to point out that women's suffrage was NOT a movement that came from the cities. I have not been discussing any other "national social attitudes" and if you had not posted that incorrect statement to begin with, I would not have attempted to correct you. I'm sorry the women's suffrage story does not fit your paradigm, but it is what it is.

I am still waiting for some enlightenment about present day Nebraska, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 11:34 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If you want to know when women's voting had social success,
That has nothing to do with my point, but sure, I'm open to hearing about the timing of women eagerly taking political power into their own hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I refer you to my grandmother and others in her rural area of northern Wisconsin. They couldn't wait to vote! My grandmother was a grown woman about to be married when women got the vote. She voted regularly the rest of her life, as did most of her friends and acquaintances.
Sounds like older women I have known from my rural ties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It is not nitpicking to point out that women's suffrage was NOT a movement that came from the cities.
To point it out to the general thread, of course it isn't nitpicking. But to respond to MY posts with that information as if it REBUTS something I said, and to INSIST on pressing the issue in direct response TO MY subsequent clarification OF my stance, and doing so by EXCERPTING parts of my posts TO issue that response to, that IS nitpicking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I have not been discussing any other "national social attitudes"
Your prerogative, of course. But I HAVE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
and if you had not posted that incorrect statement to begin with,
The statement was NOT incorrect in the context in which I was arguing it, again that context being ATTITUDES WELL AFTER THE FACT, not who or where the initial push or legal promulgation came from. Again likewise the national progressive Democratic push to argue to Republicans in favor of a woman's right to choose would still be the national progressive Democratic push even IF the woman suing for her rights in the case was a card carrying Republican, even if her attorneys who argued in front of the supreme court were card carrying Republicans, and even if one of the justices who decided in favor of choice was a card carrying Republican. Even if all that were the case, it would NOT be an incorrect statement to say that progressives are arguing to conservatives to just let women choose even though Roe v Wade is already law. Likewise it is not incorrect to say that progressives argued to conservatives to just let women vote even though women's suffrage was already law. But again, this intellectual point seems to be lost on you and you seem to be incapable of reading the statement I made in the context in which I made it, even AFTER I explain the context again and again and again and utilize a myriad of parallels TO explain it. The statement I posted was not incorrect. Attitudes were had well after the fact, and attitudes were preached well after the fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'm sorry the women's suffrage story does not fit your paradigm, but it is what it is.
It actually does. Just like with the black vote, rural men had more of a negative attitude towards it than urban men, well after the legality of the matter was established and blacks in both rural and urban areas eagerly voted. I didn't say rural women didn't eagerly vote, just as I didn't say rural blacks didn't eagerly vote. I said that social attitudes were more against both in rural mindsets versus urban mindsets amongst the states. And they were. And I'm sure rural gays will eagerly marry once the laws are passed in various states. But the social attitudes will still be more against gays marrying in the rural versus in the urban. And America at large will continue to prompt rural America to just let gays marry, even after state law tells them they can. And when that happens, claiming that it happened will not mean that rural gays did not eagerly marry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I am still waiting for some enlightenment about present day Nebraska, too.
Good. Maybe we can move on and stop holding up thread progress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 12:14 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
It's clear, MantaRay, that there's some sort of chip on your shoulder
Yes, and it's called stop forcing my statements to mean what YOU want them to mean and let ME determine what MY point is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
You were the one to bring up women's rights.
And black rights, and gay rights, and interracial marriage rights, and the right to choose. That has been well established by now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
These facts blow your statement that social progress begins in cities right out of the water.
Again you are so tightly focused on the BEGINNINGS or ORIGINS of social issues that your mind cannot accommodate argument on the NATIONAL ATTITUDES of social issues. I have said again and again that I am not talking about origins, I am talking about prevailing attitudes. And here you are again making an ORIGINS point in rebuttal against MY posts. Again, if you just WANT to talk about origins, fine. Just leave me and my posts out of it because they have NOTHING to do with origins.

Carlite completely understood the point and succinctly and intelligently posted the comment indicating such. But rather than you talk about the aspects you are interested in and let me define the aspects I'm interested in, you're hell bent on defining the meaning of my posts in the context of your aspects of interest. Thus your conclusions about my posts are bogus. And your inability to distinguish between origins vs. prevailing attitudes after the fact is obvious. Or I should say your continuing inability.

You can't seem to fathom that where a social issue BEGINS/ORIGINATES and which groups take up the attitudes pro and con on it nationally well AFTER the social issue has been settled by law are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Even after I've explained it ad nauseum. Other people are able to grasp it readily. Therefore, you can save the nitpicking of my posts that comes from your inability or unwillingness TO grasp it. Let me continue a discussion with people who CAN grasp it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Now if you would have qualified a specific time frame (because apparently the 19th Century is not "relevant" to social progress)
Gee flippin whiz, again with the obtuse argument. Let me make this acute:

1. Stating that the origins of a social issue is beside the point to observing the modern prevailing attitudes ON that social issue is NOT saying that the origins of a social issue is not relevant to SOCIAL PROGRESS in general. What you just did is like if I said that who sued and who argued in the Roe v. Wade case in court for a woman's right to choose is IRRELEVANT to the existence of modern prevailing attitudes by Democrats in favor of choice and by Republicans against choice- that those attitudes are what they are REGARDLESS of whether Democrat or Republican was the first to sue or make the legal argument in front of a judge- THEN YOU REPLY THAT I IMPLIED THAT ROE V. WADE IS NOT RELEVANT TO A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

2. To most people, my having said "the past few decades" would have been a big clue that the 19th century falls outside the scope of my point, and with good reason. Carlite got it and posted in accordance. To most people, my elaborating on how before my contextual time frame, political views were totally different anyway with Democrats being more anti-social progress and Republicans being more pro-social progress- that would have clued them in that what I AM talking about is NOT way back in the 19th century. Yet you're apparently not most people and apparently insist on arguing origins to rebut me DESPITE my having identified that time frame to be well OUTSIDE the origins time frame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,179,658 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
It actually does. Just like with the black vote, rural men had more of a negative attitude towards it than urban men, well after the legality of the matter was established and blacks in both rural and urban areas eagerly voted.
Show us a link to the bold. And please, do enlighten us about Nebraska. I'm dying to hear it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 02:33 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912
^^^Where did I say I can enlighten anybody about Nebraska? What are you talking about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,179,658 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
^^^Where did I say I can enlighten anybody about Nebraska? What are you talking about?
You expressed some innate knowledge of Nebraska right here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
Yes, and I still am interested in understanding what it is about Iowa that makes it so much different from, say, a Nebraska or South Dakota. I would say typical rural state, but some might want to bring an argument of Iowa being regionally different. Well Nebraska and South Dakota are rural state in the SAME region, but are politically different than Iowa. That was reflected in the Obama vote, and like you said in the idea of gay marriage. Something is unique and special about Iowa which bucks the trend and I'm keenly interested in knowing what it is.
So fill us in!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2012, 02:52 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,953,041 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
No idea about the Dakotas (although I do think of them as very socially conservative), but FWIW, Minnesota just had a major battle this past election over a proposed amendment to write one woman/one man marriage into the state constitution. It lost (and yes, there was a huge rural/urban split), but the role of religion was a BIG factor for both sides of the debate. There was no unified "religious people on this side" aspect, and here in the Twin Cities, many of the local churches and temples (not sure about other religious groups) were very, very active in addressing the issue of gay rights, or in this case the attempt to deny future gay rights, in a faith framework. There are a lot of very liberal, very religious people around here.
Good point. I happen to be a very religious person myself who has more liberal social views, so I can relate. But I also grew up in the urban fabric, so I believe that has influenced my having those social views. We rarely hear about people like myself, people like those you speak of, because the conservative religious folks get a lot of the attention. And just like you recognize the rural/urban split there on that issue, I also personally have observed a rural/urban difference in viewpoints among religious believers like myself. It adds to the idea that the urban environment tends to influence social philosophy more towards progressiveness, more towards equal rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
On another point, the gay rights issue can get complicated in that there are a lot of people out there who are definitely not liberal, yet who support gay rights for more libertarian reasons. I don't know what kind of rural/urban difference exists when it comes to libertarian views, but my guess would be that libertarians run more rural. Sometimes that would fall in line with positions liked by liberals, sometimes they'd fall in with conservatives.
Excellent point! I identify with various libertarian issues, even voted for Ron Paul in the past 2 presidential primaries even though I knew he didn't have a shot at winning and even though I disagree with a fair amount of his stances. Nonetheless, in THIS thread the libertarian factor had sorta slipped my mind, so I'm glad you highlighted it. Maybe libertarianism is a plausible explanation for why Iowa is different than Nebraska or South Dakota with regards to red/blue voting. I don't know. It would be nice if somebody from Iowa would chime in to shed some light. Maybe I'll search the Iowa threads to see if political tendencies is discussed there or if not, then start a topic inquiring about it. But I'm glad you made this point. I think it might be a solid clue to finding out what's up with Iowa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top