2008 Hawk Display Aircraft - 6592-W.jpg (1/1)

[RustY©]

[Canuck[_3_]]

"RustY©" > wrote in message
53...

Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?

Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
military. GRRRR!!!!

Nick

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RustY©" > wrote in message
> 53...
>
> Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?
>
> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
> military. GRRRR!!!!

It's all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, airframe life and spares. The
aircraft is not obsolete, given that it fits its assigned role, sufficient
airframe life remains, as do necessary spares. The benefit derived from the
Snowbirds is questionable; their effect on recruitment has never been proven.
The people who say, "I wanted to join ever since I saw the Snowbirds as a
kid," would likely still join.

If Canada were to equip the Snowbirds with Hawks, they would be difficult to
distinguish from the Red Arrows.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[®i©ardo]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "Canuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "RustY©" > wrote in message
>> 53...
>>
>> Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
>> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
>> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
>> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
>> military. GRRRR!!!!
>
> It's all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, airframe life and spares. The
> aircraft is not obsolete, given that it fits its assigned role, sufficient
> airframe life remains, as do necessary spares. The benefit derived from the
> Snowbirds is questionable; their effect on recruitment has never been proven.
> The people who say, "I wanted to join ever since I saw the Snowbirds as a
> kid," would likely still join.
>
> If Canada were to equip the Snowbirds with Hawks, they would be difficult to
> distinguish from the Red Arrows.

Why? They don't have to be painted red!

[Neil Hoskins]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RustY©" > wrote in message
> 53...
>
> Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?

You must be new. He's been braving the Welsh hills (where men are men and
sheep are scared) for years to bring us these. ;-)

>
> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
> military. GRRRR!!!!
>
> Nick
>

It's a tricky one. Personally I never quite forgave the Red Arrows for
switching from the Gnat, as I found it a far more attractive aeroplane than
the Hawk.

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Canuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "RustY©" > wrote in message
>> 53...
>>
>> Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
>> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
>> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
>> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
>> military. GRRRR!!!!
>
> It's all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, airframe life and spares. The
> aircraft is not obsolete, given that it fits its assigned role, sufficient
> airframe life remains, as do necessary spares. The benefit derived from
> the Snowbirds is questionable; their effect on recruitment has never been
> proven. The people who say, "I wanted to join ever since I saw the
> Snowbirds as a kid," would likely still join.

Really? The airforce does not use the Tutor any longer for training
purposes. The airframe has been around for a very long time and should be
retired as soon as possible. If it wasn't good enough for training purposes,
how can it possibly be good enough for an aerobatic team? The benefit from
the Snowbirds is far from questionable. It is one of the few symbols of the
Canadian armed forces that all Canadians and people around the world can
identify. If I were making the decisions, I'd get some Hawks and hold a
national colour scheme contest and allow people to submit their own new
colour scheme for the Snowbirds. It would get people interested and excited
about being Canadian. We have far too few symbols which bind this nation
together.

> If Canada were to equip the Snowbirds with Hawks, they would be difficult
> to distinguish from the Red Arrows.

Hardly. The colour scheme would be different and the manouvers would be
different. How often have you seen the Red Arrows in Canada or the United
States? I've been going to air shows for years and have yet to see them
other than on a DVD. Just because they would fly the same aircraft does not
mean it would have an identical effect.

Nick

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Neil Hoskins" > wrote in message
...
>> You must be new. He's been braving the Welsh hills (where men are men
>> and
> sheep are scared) for years to bring us these. ;-)

Yeah, I'm a bit of a newbie on here. I've posted before and shared some of
my photos. Those photos are very impressive. I wonder if he has any Typhoon
shots of a similar quality.....

>> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
>> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
>> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
>> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
>> military. GRRRR!!!!
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> It's a tricky one. Personally I never quite forgave the Red Arrows for
> switching from the Gnat, as I found it a far more attractive aeroplane
> than the Hawk.

People often have a soft spot for a particular aircraft and/or version of a
display team and it is difficult to accept the changes that occur. In the
case of the Snowbirds, the Tutor has served them well but I really do think
it is time to move on. Ultimately, it would be nice to see them in either
Hawks or to take those mothballed CF-18s out of storage and slap some paint
on them and get them back up and flying. I hate to see such a fine aircraft
rotting away.

Nick

[Maple1]

Your Joking right?

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

>
> If Canada were to equip the Snowbirds with Hawks, they would be difficult to
> distinguish from the Red Arrows.

[RustY ©]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>

> Those photos are very impressive. I wonder if he has any Typhoon
> shots of a similar quality.....
>

These shots are not particularly good but it is a rare beast at low level.
One of the display aircraft took a bird a few years ago so now these are not
tasked for low level until after the show season. Typhoons are also quite
rare at l/l but I have posted a few. Today it was German tonkas - I'll post
those soon.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Canuck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "RustY©" > wrote in message
>>> 53...
>>>
>>> Awesome low level shots. Did you get these yourself?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be great if the Canadian Government actually bought some of
>>> these aircraft for the Snowbirds? Currently, they are doing some sort of
>>> leasing/sharing thing for training purposes but the Snowbirds soldier on
>>> with obsolete aircraft not used by any other branch of the Canadian
>>> military. GRRRR!!!!
>>
>> It's all a matter of cost-benefit analysis, airframe life and spares. The
>> aircraft is not obsolete, given that it fits its assigned role, sufficient
>> airframe life remains, as do necessary spares. The benefit derived from the
>> Snowbirds is questionable; their effect on recruitment has never been
>> proven. The people who say, "I wanted to join ever since I saw the
>> Snowbirds as a kid," would likely still join.
>
> Really? The airforce does not use the Tutor any longer for training
> purposes. The airframe has been around for a very long time and should be
> retired as soon as possible.

Why? Your point isn't proven.

> If it wasn't good enough for training purposes, how can it possibly be good
> enough for an aerobatic team?

Because an aerobatic team's purpose is distinct from that of a training
system.

> The benefit from the Snowbirds is far from questionable. It is one of the
> few symbols of the Canadian armed forces that all Canadians and people
> around the world can identify.

You are missing out on the idea of _benefit_!

> If I were making the decisions, I'd get some Hawks and hold a national
> colour scheme contest and allow people to submit their own new colour scheme
> for the Snowbirds. It would get people interested and excited about being
> Canadian. We have far too few symbols which bind this nation together.
>
>> If Canada were to equip the Snowbirds with Hawks, they would be difficult
>> to distinguish from the Red Arrows.
>
> Hardly. The colour scheme would be different and the manouvers would be
> different. How often have you seen the Red Arrows in Canada or the United
> States? I've been going to air shows for years and have yet to see them
> other than on a DVD. Just because they would fly the same aircraft does not
> mean it would have an identical effect.

The aircraft is the basis of the show; it is the stage on which the pilots
perform. Paint scheme is irrelevant. To suggest that it matters is... well...
stupid.

You haven't shown any relevance in the Snowbird show that relates to the
current operational environment for CF pilots. What do Snowbirds do that
enhances operational capability? Quantify it!

Snowbirds are pretty, but they are militarily irrelevant -- useless, even.
**** 'em. Let's spend the fuel on CF-188 ops.

(Geez, Nick, have you ever been paid to wear a uniform, or are you a wannabe?)
--
Andrew Chaplin
Anti-Aircraft Artilleryman
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Maple1" > wrote in message
...
>
> [You're] Joking right?

Not at all, I have thought for year that the Snowturds were an expensive way
to turn fuel into noise.

They turned my buddy, Bob Drake, into worm food.

I remain unconvinced that they serve any military purpose.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Maple1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> [You're] Joking right?
>
> Not at all, I have thought for year that the Snowturds were an expensive way
> to turn fuel into noise.
>
> They turned my buddy, Bob Drake, into worm food.
>
> I remain unconvinced that they serve any military purpose.

Excuse me, brain fade effects. Bob was killed formation flying in a CC-130.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850329-0&lang=en
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850329-1&lang=en
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Dingo[_4_]]

"Neil Hoskins" > wrote in message
...

> It's a tricky one. Personally I never quite forgave the Red Arrows for
> switching from the Gnat, as I found it a far more attractive aeroplane
> than the Hawk.

I'm with you on that, Neil, although I do not dislike the Hawk. From my B&W
days here's a snap I took back around the mid-1960's at the Elstree Air
Show.

Showing my vintage I s'pose, but my favourite display team were the
111 Squadron "Black Arrows". The attached shows them on the way up in one of
their 22 a/c loops.
~~
Dingo ;~)

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Maple1" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> [You're] Joking right?
>
> Not at all, I have thought for year that the Snowturds were an expensive
> way to turn fuel into noise.
>
> They turned my buddy, Bob Drake, into worm food.
>
> I remain unconvinced that they serve any military purpose.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable. What is
not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for Canada in
general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to understand about
that?

Nick

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message

> (Geez, Nick, have you ever been paid to wear a uniform, or are you a
> wannabe?)

No, I'm not a wannabe. I'm a Political Scientist who specializes in
strategic studies and international relations. I've trained to become a
pilot but due to health reasons am not a pilot. I still love
aircraft/aviation/aerospace and photography in genral and I know the
relevance of national symbols and having good will ambassadors such as the
Snowbirds.

Insults and half baked theories do not cut it. Clean it up or don't bother
replying.

Nick

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maple1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> [You're] Joking right?
>>
>> Not at all, I have thought for year that the Snowturds were an expensive
>> way to turn fuel into noise.
>>
>> They turned my buddy, Bob Drake, into worm food.
>>
>> I remain unconvinced that they serve any military purpose.
>
> They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable. What is
> not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for Canada in
> general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to understand about
> that?

How does it relate to force effectiveness? Anything that does not contribute
to the mission of the Forces of protect the interests of the Canadian state,
and I can find no way that the Snowbirds contribute to the mission, is
non-essential. Any non-essential activity that costs money should be cut.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>
>> (Geez, Nick, have you ever been paid to wear a uniform, or are you a
>> wannabe?)
>
> No, I'm not a wannabe. I'm a Political Scientist who specializes in
> strategic studies and international relations. I've trained to become a
> pilot but due to health reasons am not a pilot. I still love
> aircraft/aviation/aerospace and photography in genral and I know the
> relevance of national symbols and having good will ambassadors such as the
> Snowbirds.
>
> Insults and half baked theories do not cut it. Clean it up or don't bother
> replying.

You have just confessed that you are, at least, a "wanted-to-be." From your
remark about "the relevance of national symbols and having good will
ambassadors," I take it that you cannot quantify the benefit.

I am a retired artillery officer with 27 years service, mostly in AD units,
and a degree in history. I served as a staff wallah in NDHQ and have an
understanding of how it works. If we are using Tutors rather than Hawks, then
you can be fairly certain that someone working for the Chief of the Air Staff
has done the sums and figured out that retaining the Tutor is cheaper. They
certainly know -- to the dollar -- how much more money they would have to work
with if it were not politically ill-viewed to dump the Snowbirds. Because of
the political sensitivity surrounding the Snowbirds, they get used as a poison
pill every time someone threatens to cut CAS's budget.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message

>> They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable. What
>> is not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for Canada
>> in general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to understand
>> about that?
>
> How does it relate to force effectiveness? Anything that does not
> contribute to the mission of the Forces of protect the interests of the
> Canadian state, and I can find no way that the Snowbirds contribute to the
> mission, is non-essential. Any non-essential activity that costs money
> should be cut.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

In whose opinion??? The Snowbirds are not non-essential. I repeat: they are
a symbol of Canada and act as good will ambassadors for our country. They
enhance Canadian unity. How is this non-essential?

Nick

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>
>>> They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable. What
>>> is not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for Canada in
>>> general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to understand
>>> about that?
>>
>> How does it relate to force effectiveness? Anything that does not
>> contribute to the mission of the Forces of protect the interests of the
>> Canadian state, and I can find no way that the Snowbirds contribute to the
>> mission, is non-essential. Any non-essential activity that costs money
>> should be cut.
>
> In whose opinion??? The Snowbirds are not non-essential. I repeat: they are
> a symbol of Canada and act as good will ambassadors for our country. They
> enhance Canadian unity. How is this non-essential?

Because they are part of the Canadian Forces, and the symbolism and goodwill
has no direct connection, nor can one quantify a contribution, to the
generation of forces that can, either through action or their existence,
"defend Canada and Canadian interests and values while contributing to
international peace and security," the role of the CF laid down in the plans
at http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/strategic_e.asp. The notion that the
Snowbirds "enhance Canadian unity" is highly debatable, if not downright
preposterous. The aircraft are pretty and their pilots are talented, but the
money thrown at them could fund hundreds of billets for people in the arms and
technical trades, and those are what we need in the field. The Snowbirds fall
on the circus side of the "bread and circuses" balance sheet. I am reminded of
the sign on the Armaments Section of 434 "Bluenose" Squadron, my battery's
neighbours in Chatham: "Pilots do it better but without armament it wouldn't
be of any military significance."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Canuck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable.
>>>> What is not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for
>>>> Canada in general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to
>>>> understand about that?
>>>
>>> How does it relate to force effectiveness? Anything that does not
>>> contribute to the mission of the Forces of protect the interests of the
>>> Canadian state, and I can find no way that the Snowbirds contribute to
>>> the mission, is non-essential. Any non-essential activity that costs
>>> money should be cut.
>>
>> In whose opinion??? The Snowbirds are not non-essential. I repeat: they
>> are a symbol of Canada and act as good will ambassadors for our country.
>> They enhance Canadian unity. How is this non-essential?
>
> Because they are part of the Canadian Forces, and the symbolism and
> goodwill has no direct connection, nor can one quantify a contribution, to
> the generation of forces that can, either through action or their
> existence, "defend Canada and Canadian interests and values while
> contributing to international peace and security," the role of the CF laid
> down in the plans at http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/strategic_e.asp. The
> notion that the Snowbirds "enhance Canadian unity" is highly debatable, if
> not downright preposterous. The aircraft are pretty and their pilots are
> talented, but the money thrown at them could fund hundreds of billets for
> people in the arms and technical trades, and those are what we need in the
> field. The Snowbirds fall on the circus side of the "bread and circuses"
> balance sheet. I am reminded of the sign on the Armaments Section of 434
> "Bluenose" Squadron, my battery's neighbours in Chatham: "Pilots do it
> better but without armament it wouldn't be of any military significance."
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

So.... the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows, ad infinitum should just
pack it in?

Nick

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Canuck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> They MAY encourage recruitment for the military. That is debatable. What
>>>>> is not debatable that they are a symbol for the military and for Canada
>>>>> in general. Canada and Canadians need this. What is so hard to
>>>>> understand about that?
>>>>
>>>> How does it relate to force effectiveness? Anything that does not
>>>> contribute to the mission of the Forces of protect the interests of the
>>>> Canadian state, and I can find no way that the Snowbirds contribute to
>>>> the mission, is non-essential. Any non-essential activity that costs
>>>> money should be cut.
>>>
>>> In whose opinion??? The Snowbirds are not non-essential. I repeat: they
>>> are a symbol of Canada and act as good will ambassadors for our country.
>>> They enhance Canadian unity. How is this non-essential?
>>
>> Because they are part of the Canadian Forces, and the symbolism and
>> goodwill has no direct connection, nor can one quantify a contribution, to
>> the generation of forces that can, either through action or their
>> existence, "defend Canada and Canadian interests and values while
>> contributing to international peace and security," the role of the CF laid
>> down in the plans at http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/strategic_e.asp. The
>> notion that the Snowbirds "enhance Canadian unity" is highly debatable, if
>> not downright preposterous. The aircraft are pretty and their pilots are
>> talented, but the money thrown at them could fund hundreds of billets for
>> people in the arms and technical trades, and those are what we need in the
>> field. The Snowbirds fall on the circus side of the "bread and circuses"
>> balance sheet. I am reminded of the sign on the Armaments Section of 434
>> "Bluenose" Squadron, my battery's neighbours in Chatham: "Pilots do it
>> better but without armament it wouldn't be of any military significance."
>
> So.... the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows, ad infinitum should just
> pack it in?

Yes, unless the case can be made for their contribution to the mission of the
service that fields them.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Canuck[_3_]]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message


>> So.... the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows, ad infinitum should
>> just pack it in?
>
> Yes, unless the case can be made for their contribution to the mission of
> the service that fields them.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

You are taking a very narrow view of things. Perhaps you work for Air
Canada? No frills....pay for your peanuts...pillow...luggage?

The Snowbirds are an extension of the air force. They do not have a combat
purpose. That is self evident. They serve a different purpose as do any of
the other aerobatic teams out there. You know that. File it under
nationalism/patriotism/recruitment as well as international goodwill. The
Canadian military is out there doing disaster relief. The Canadian military
is out there doing peace "keeping" and other missions. These are not combat
missions yet they exist side by side with the combat role. It goes with the
territory.

Nick

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Canuck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> So.... the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Red Arrows, ad infinitum should just
>>> pack it in?
>>
>> Yes, unless the case can be made for their contribution to the mission of
>> the service that fields them.
>
> You are taking a very narrow view of things. Perhaps you work for Air
> Canada? No frills....pay for your peanuts...pillow...luggage?
>
> The Snowbirds are an extension of the air force. They do not have a combat
> purpose. That is self evident.

That's my point. The mission of the CF is combat, or the threat of combat.

> They serve a different purpose as do any of the other aerobatic teams out
> there. You know that. File it under nationalism/patriotism/recruitment as
> well as international goodwill.

You still have not shown how it contributes to the CF's mission.

> The Canadian military is out there doing disaster relief.

Disaster missions are (arguably) contributions to international stabilility,
part of the mission of the CF. They go over well with the Canadian public,
while allowing the CF to keep its hand in.

> The Canadian military is out there doing peace "keeping" and other missions.
> These are not combat missions yet they exist side by side with the combat
> role. It goes with the territory.

Peacekeeping is a form of warfare using the avoidance of decisive engagements.
We go in there proclaiming our neutrality, but always aware of our interest.

You do not appear to differentiate between tasks and the overall mission of
the CF. Having done UNEF II, UNFICYP, ONUSAL and UNTSO, I can tell you that
the peacekeeping sold to you as Canada's benign mission are actually a mailed
fist in a velvet glove out there to crush anyone who would interfere with
Canadian interests. If you have done peacekeeping, you know that you are a
tripwire, and that an ally's carrier group, or something like, lurking over
the horizon will back you up past the point where your nose bleeds.

Been there, done that, bought my mum several spoons.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)