posted
Military historians have an amusing rule of thumb for determining which army is most likely to win a war, the "Sukhomlinov Effect." Named after General Vladimir Sukhomlinov, the Russian Minister of War at the start of WWI, this rule holds that in any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms. Sukhomlinov himself was perhaps the most splendidly outfitted general of the war, with gold braid embroidery down to his knees.
The Dutch War of Independence, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, World War I, the Russian Revolution, World War II (in Europe), the several Arab-Israeli wars, Vietnam, the Falklands War, and the Afghan War were all lost by the side that had the snappier uniforms. There is more than a coincidence here, though the suggestion of a "law" at work is perhaps a bit facetious.
The Sukhomlinov Effect describes a common pathology of armies. Particularly in peacetime, armies tend to concern themselves more with appearance and style than fighting skill, which cannot, after all, be demonstrated. Men who "look" like generals--tall, rugged, handsome guys with broad shoulders and splendid posture who wear the uniform well--are more likely to be promoted than those with a real talent for war, since the latter may not meet the peacetime criteria. Although lots of outstanding commanders have been short, fat and slovenly (Ulysses S. Grant and Curtis LeMay, for example) they had to wait for a war before they could prove themselves. There is no known way to pick the most able generals in peacetime. As a result, despite a few notable exceptions, the generals who command at the onset of a war are rarely still in charge by its conclusion.
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, I have never heard of this, but I will likely try to bring it up in conversation this week...hehehe.
I know around work here someone passed around the "Murphy's Laws" of armed combat that had some gems like "Your rifle is made by the cheapest bidder" and "Friendly fire, isn't". But the one that was related to this effect is "No combat ready unit ever passed inspection and no inspection ready unit ever passed combat."
Thanks Senior for this, it will give me something to think about.
Posts: 2064 | From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at the beginning of WW I, the french army discovered to its dismay that snappy blue and red uniforms made perfect targets, compared to the germans dark green. So, the uniforms were changed to less visible ones. At least, that's what my history teacher taught me.
-------------------- "Kentoc'h Mervel !" Posts: 388 | From: France | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't buy the "pretty looking officers make peacetime generals" theory. Uniforms are uniform. If one General looks pretty, they all do. I do however buy, or at least see the reasoning behind, the idea that countries who focus on making their soldiers look like toy soldiers are probably training them to do the same. Let's see... Do I want to tell them to crawl around in the mud, or do I want them to wear these nice new uniforms in a parade in my honor... I think I'll have the parade. In that case, forget about the mud games next week as well, they'll need to practice their close order drill if they are to look good in front of the cameras.
-------------------- "Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..." Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a probable bias due to the following reasons:
a) A number of wars, like American Revolution, were won by rebels without any uniforms; however, those rebellions quashed are rarely remembered
b) The victorious army is remembered by the pictures of victorious soldiers, the defeated one - by the pre-war propaganda that obviously feature nicer uniforms
c) Nicer uniforms tend to be associated with monarchies, while democracies tend to win wars due to better economic development
I'm not sure if this law is present in Napoleonic wars, the Seven Year War or both World Wars.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ASL: I don't buy the "pretty looking officers make peacetime generals" theory. Uniforms are uniform. If one General looks pretty, they all do.
That is not true. Historically (at least through the end of WWII) generals could wear whatever they liked since they were exempt from rules concerning uniforms (who's going to be inspecting the general's uniform?) Traditionally (still today?), officers were/are responsible for supplying their own uniforms (unlike enlisted personnel).
Macarthur and Patton both made their uniforms up and both, on occasion, were pretty outlandish. (Macarthur had particularly garish uniforms prior to WWII)
A correlation has been proposed between the garishness of an American general's military uniform and his chances of becoming president. (More garish = less likely to be president)
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not true. Historically (at least through the end of WWII) generals could wear whatever they liked since they were exempt from rules concerning uniforms (who's going to be inspecting the general's uniform?)
This is definitely not true for USSR, and excluding it from the list would introduce a lot of bias in the results. And as far as expection goes - should I tell you the name or you'll guess?
As far as extending a correlation supposedly found in US Army to the international conflicts goes, I also don't think we can do this.
quote:Traditionally (still today?), officers were/are responsible for supplying their own uniforms (unlike enlisted personnel).
This rule is definitely not universal.
As far as picture goes, let's take a look at Japanese Leutenant General:
It's even less "fancy" than American. Should I remind you who won?
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is a complete nonsense to claim that during World War II (in Europe) Germans
quote:tend to concern themselves more with appearance and style than fighting skill, which cannot, after all, be demonstrated. Men who "look" like generals--tall, rugged, handsome guys with broad shoulders and splendid posture who wear the uniform well--are more likely to be promoted than those with a real talent for war, since the latter may not meet the peacetime criteria.
However, the whole list can be separated into several subgroups. Let's start with "rebels vs. regulars". The whole group contains: the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Vietnam, and the Afghan War. Obviously, regulars will have a better uniform. However, the problem is that any such rebellion is considered a "war" only in a case when it's successful (with a few exceptions, as usual). Otherwise, this is just a rebellion. Therefore, all "wars" coming from such category will have the winning side with worse uniform - otherwise they won't be wars, right?
The second group contains conflicts with so many countries involved that we are almost guaranteed to have a side with "fancy uniform" among losers and "plain uniforms" among winnters. Such conflicts include the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II. Saying "World War II (in Europe)" is outright cheating since we can't select "parts" of the war to count as a whole new war, otherwise we can just pick as many "wars" as we wish.
The remaining wars can be explained by any combination of reasons, since there are relatively few of those.
What also has to be noted that on a number of occasions listed above "fancy uniforms" had much more actual fighting experience than "plain uniforms".
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sure that those German generals one sometimes sees on TV over here have not been promoted due to their good looks. That is, I hope I can be sure...
-------------------- Movie characters never make typing mistakes. Posts: 586 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps you need to reread the OP. You're confusing two different things. In the opening paragraph, I wrote that the generals with prettier uniforms tended to be on the side that lost wars. Later on, I commented that during peacetime the spiffier looking guys were more likely to be promoted.
As for your "rebellions aren't wars unless they're successful" argument, I'm not buying it. When large numbers of armed men fight each other for years, I think that calling such a conflict a war is justifiable. Also, after the Tet '68 fiasco, the Vietnam War wasn't fought by the Viet Cong but rather by the North Vietnamese Army.
BTW, most military historians consider World War II in Europe and World War II in the Pacific as being different wars. Granted, the Americans and British Commonwealth fought in both wars, but the Germans and Japanese had little if anything to do with each other.
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one reminds me of the "Red Dwarf" episode where Rimmer is talking about military vistory being related to hair length - Short hair indicating victory in each case.
Ahh - found it:
RIMMER: Well I'm no stranger to the land of scoff. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why it is that every major battle in history has been won by the side with the shortest haircuts? KRYTEN: Oh, surely not, sir. RIMMER: Think about it, why did the US Cavalry beat the Indian Nation? Short back and sides versus girly hippy locks. The cavaliers and the roundheads.. one-nil to the pudding basins. Vietnam, crew cuts both sides... no score draw. KRYTEN: (Shakes head despairingly.) Oh, for a really world class psychiatrist.
-------------------- Check out my handmade pens Check back often because the page changes often Posts: 831 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you need to reread the OP. You're confusing two different things. In the opening paragraph, I wrote that the generals with prettier uniforms tended to be on the side that lost wars. Later on, I commented that during peacetime the spiffier looking guys were more likely to be promoted.
No, what I am reading is that:
quote:Military historians have an amusing rule of thumb for determining which army is most likely to win a war, the "Sukhomlinov Effect." Named after General Vladimir Sukhomlinov, the Russian Minister of War at the start of WWI, this rule holds that in any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms.
and further on I read the following rationale for such phenomenon:
quote:The Sukhomlinov Effect describes a common pathology of armies. Particularly in peacetime, armies tend to concern themselves more with appearance and style than fighting skill, which cannot, after all, be demonstrated. Men who "look" like generals--tall, rugged, handsome guys with broad shoulders and splendid posture who wear the uniform well--are more likely to be promoted than those with a real talent for war, since the latter may not meet the peacetime criteria.
I say that I doubt that such thing as "fancy uniforms lose more often" exists, and, often, the "fancy uniform" side actually fights more, thus rendering "peacetime criterion" somewhat questionable.
quote:As for your "rebellions aren't wars unless they're successful" argument, I'm not buying it. When large numbers of armed men fight each other for years, I think that calling such a conflict a war is justifiable.
We have American Revolution with approximately 7000 Americans dead (taken from Wikipedia); however, it is roughly comparable to any single revolution in Spring of Nations - and all of those were quashed. This just proves my point: there are a lot more unsuccessful rebellions with lots of people fighting over a long period of time by badly uniformed guys who still call themselves "an army", but that are never called "a war" because the guerrillas lost and it was just "a rebellion".
quote:BTW, most military historians consider World War II in Europe and World War II in the Pacific as being different wars.
BTW, so-called "Naporeonic wars" are called "wars" for a reason and have a winner and a loser in any given conflict. And on a number of occasions "fancy pants" actually won. We just can't take the whole campaign when we feel like it. This is data selection bias.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spring of Nations? The 1848 European uprisings weren't a war, they were a series of riots and other civil demonstrations. Yes, there was horrific violence on all sides. Tens of thousands were tortured and killed, mainly in reprisal by the various governments. But the 1848 Revolutions are so-called because they mainly took place during one year, 1848.
BTW, the Napoleonic Wars are so-called because there were several of them. Even the British, who were at war with the French longer than any other European power, were at peace for the 18 months prior to May 1803.
quote:...in any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms.
Other than claiming that revolutionaires didn't generally wear uniforms and showing your ignorance of the Vietnam War, you've done little to refute this statement.
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all well and good as far as history goes, but let's get more current. I propose that victory today must go to the side whose soldiers can hang the most crap on their weapons.
And since your average American M-4 can boast a nifty collapsabe stock, red dot aiming device, macho vertical front grip, night vision scope, custom 'patrol sling', stock mounted magazine pouch, triple-ganged magazines, grenade launcher, secret decoder ring in the pistol grip, MRE heater and combination bayonet/wire cutter/lawn edger, it's pretty clear who the big guys on the block must be!
And once we solve the battery problem and get the integrated X Box with heads-up display, the world will be ours for the taking. Ours! Bwahahahaha! OURS!
-------------------- Once a Warrior Prince Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even fiction tends to follow this trend, I always thought the Empire had cooler threads but Luke and the gang beat em anyway.
Guess the stormtroopers didnt have enough stuff attached to their guns...
-------------------- Thought for the day: "The rewards for leniency are treachery, and betrayal." Posts: 9 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Spring of Nations? The 1848 European uprisings weren't a war, they were a series of riots and other civil demonstrations.
Exactly. You just proved my point: they weren't wars for they were unsuccessful and thus they are "riots and other civil demonstrations". Actually, they were quased faster than separated groups of rebels could form an army. And, as I already told, when such conflict becomes "war" it means that things really got out of hand and the rebels will probably win.
quote:BTW, the Napoleonic Wars are so-called because there were several of them. Even the British, who were at war with the French longer than any other European power, were at peace for the 18 months prior to May 1803.
So true. Some of those were won by France, some of those were lost. In some cases, "fancy uniforms" won, in others, they were defeated. That's my point: in a conflict that diverse we can always find a pair among winners and losers when winners tend to wear better uniforms just by chance.
I'm actually curious as of who you consider to be "fancy uniforms" in Napoleonic Wars.
quote:Other than claiming that revolutionaires didn't generally wear uniforms and showing your ignorance of the Vietnam War, you've done little to refute this statement.
You have found very few instances of wars where "fancy uniforms" actually lost. That would be the English Civil War, several Arab-Israeli wars, Vietnam and Falklands war. Those conflicts represent just a tiny fraction of wars fought in XX century. Putting a logistic regression through these four points is a really, really long shot.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Other than claiming that revolutionaires didn't generally wear uniforms and showing your ignorance of the Vietnam War, you've done little to refute this statement.
You have found very few instances of wars where "fancy uniforms" actually lost. That would be the English Civil War, several Arab-Israeli wars, Vietnam and Falklands war. Those conflicts represent just a tiny fraction of wars fought in XX century. Putting a logistic regression through these four points is a really, really long shot.
Thanks for proving that you didn't pay attention to the OP. I'm not going to discuss this with you any more, because it appears to me that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the First Boer War, the British soldiers wore red uniforms with white bands crossing over the centre of their chest. The Boers, who were irregulars and had no uniforms, used to aim at this "X" and kill them at great distances. Red is not known as a good camouflage colour in the open veld.
After heavy losses by the British, they asked for a truce.
In the Second Boer War, the British had partially learnt from their mistakes and wore khaki uniforms, but all their officers were covered with gold braid. The Boers then shot all the British officers at the start of the battle. With no-one to give orders to them, the remaining soldiers were easily routed.
The British eventually learnt and removed all outward displays of rank. They eventually won the war by using up to 250 000 soldiers against the Boers' 30 000 and also using some questionable tactics against the civilian population.
In the end though, the army with the better uniforms won.
Posts: 305 | From: South Africa | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's odd, I had never heard of the First Boer War, or at least I had never heard of it referred to as that. I seem to recall it under its alternate name, the Transvaal War. But what do you know...
ETA: I do have a theory though. Specifically, that the reason the British won the second war is because it had the greater support from the British government and people. The second war also began disastrously for the British, but whereas during the first war they gave up quickly and decided it wasn't worth it, they choose to increase troops strengths during the second war and put the full weight of the Empire into it by drawing troops from other colonies to reinforce the inadequate numbers currently in the area.
ETA 2: While we're on the subject, what about the various Zulu Wars? Or even the Second Boer War. Sure, the British uniforms might not have been quite so bright, but I'd imagine they were still a damn spot more presentable than what the Boers were wearing.
-------------------- "Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..." Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think this theory is true for the most part, simply because of the psychological position is puts the army with the "fancier" uniform in.
What I mean is, with use of example; take a British colonial soldier, in the red tunic and all the trim. He has an inflated sense of ego, what with being from the mighty British Empire, who supplies it's army with admirable uniforms. He see's himself as superior. That could be a false sense of security. Which translates to the battlefield as.... well, I don't think having a false sense of security on any battlefield is a good thing.
Now take the army with a "lesser" uniform. The rebel. He see's this force, and knows he has to give it 110%.
One can also bring up the fact that the army with the fancier uniform, is most likely the aggressor. Which is psychological also, because if you rate the performance of a soldier fighting over a colony, and a rebel fighting for his homeland, it's easy to see who's putting more into it, and most likely will be the victor.
-------------------- Like Johnny says, I walk the line... Posts: 87 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy Jive: What I mean is, with use of example; take a British colonial soldier, in the red tunic and all the trim. He has an inflated sense of ego, what with being from the mighty British Empire, who supplies it's army with admirable uniforms. He see's himself as superior. That could be a false sense of security. Which translates to the battlefield as.... well, I don't think having a false sense of security on any battlefield is a good thing.
Now take the army with a "lesser" uniform. The rebel. He see's this force, and knows he has to give it 110%.
Now that's a stretch. Just because it "sounds reasonable" doesn't mean it's true. it also "sounds reasonable" to say that a better dressed force would probably have better financial backing and therefore better equipment as well and would have a clear advantage over their foe. It might also be said that clearly the force with the better uniforms would have a greater sense of pride and esprit d'corps.
You can make just about anything "sound reasonable," but you can often make the exact opposite proposition sound reasonable as well.
In any event, the more and more I think about this "Sukhomlinov Effect," the less and less I buy it. I think it plays upon typical images of Bannana Republic generals with chests full of shinny medals and cheesy ribbons who don't know thing one about fighting. I think it ignores their equally incompetent counter parts who don't get nearly as much face time but are jsut as incompetent. I think it's more likely that bad generals who dress pretty are more likely to have their pictures take than bad generals who don't dress pretty.
Senior, I think you're making the mistake of mixing up whose uniform you're judging depending upon which one supports your theory. For instance, maybe when you talk about Vietnam, you are comparing our typical image of the North Vietnamese soldier with the dress uniforms of American generals. But what did Vietnamese generals look like? I think you're doing the same thing with the Israelis vs. the Arabs. I have no doubt if Britain had lost the Falklands War, you'd be citing it as an example of this effect, despite the fact that you're already using it with the opposite outcome. You'd just compare British generals and soldiers to Aregntine soldiers instead of British Generals and soldiers to Argentine Generals.
ETA: I almost think (only "almost" because I don't have any hard facts to present) that a better measure of a particular side's chance of battlefield success would be by comparing their dress uniforms with their battle dress uniforms, or even just their battle dress uniforms without reguard to their dress uniforms. It shouldn't just be a matter of who has "nicer" looking uniforms, but a matter of whose uniforms are more appropriate for combat.
-------------------- "Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..." Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senior: This rule holds that in any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms.
Let's see - what does that tell us about the likely outcome of the "War Against Terror"?
-------------------- My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. - Pooh Bear Posts: 2209 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senior: This rule holds that in any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms.
Let's see - what does that tell us about the likely outcome of the "War Against Terror"?
I don't know about you, but I think that beard is pretty stylish, and that quasi-military look is so in. As for the turbine, that's just plain dazzling. And the under garments? Spotless white. The overall affect is stunning.
I predict a sound thrashing for the terrorists.
-------------------- "Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..." Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
And it's not just the uniforms. Look at the amount of facial hair on bin Laden! I tell you, he is headed straight for world domination! Run while you can, you clean shaven pretty-boys!
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ASL: ETA 2: While we're on the subject, what about the various Zulu Wars? Or even the Second Boer War. Sure, the British uniforms might not have been quite so bright, but I'd imagine they were still a damn spot more presentable than what the Boers were wearing.
You're right, the British had much better uniforms in the Second Boer War, and they won. So the theory must be changed to take into account the fact that an army with massive numerical superiority and a penchant for putting women and children in concentration camps will probably still win, despite their flashy clothes.
On the question of the Zulu Wars, it is debatable who had the more flashy dress:
The British won, but the decisive aspect was probably that the British had guns and the Zulu had spears. Well that's my opinion anway. Posts: 305 | From: South Africa | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Drainfluid: The British won, but the decisive aspect was probably that the British had guns and the Zulu had spears. Well that's my opinion anway.
Fools! Will you never learn! It wasn't a question of rifle vs. spear, per se. It was a matter of who hung the most crap off their weapons.
The Brit rifles had front sights, rear sights, slings, sling swivels, bayonets, cleaning rods, butt plates, a nice cartouche stamped on the stock and cow-hide protective covers over their fore-stocks, not to mention racy engravings of the Queen with the Kaiser secreted in the cap of the oil bottle
And what did the Zulus spears have? Maybe a feather or two. The poor bastards didn't have a chance.
-------------------- Once a Warrior Prince Posts: 496 | From: California | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The effect regarding fancy uniforms = military defeat has been discussed before amongst some of my friends.
Specifically though, we were discussing WW2 in Europe. The Germans knew how to dress their officers, that's for sure. It didn't particularly help them win the war in any way but we figured if there was a "Best Dressed" award, it would've gone to Germany.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: So... they needed more feathers?
The effect regarding fancy uniforms = military defeat has been discussed before amongst some of my friends.
Specifically though, we were discussing WW2 in Europe. The Germans knew how to dress their officers, that's for sure. It didn't particularly help them win the war in any way but we figured if there was a "Best Dressed" award, it would've gone to Germany.
In London in the late 1990's a restaurant opened decorated with obvious references to Nazi Germany and the uniforms of its soldiers. When asked why they had chosen this theme, the interior decorator said "Well, whatever else you say about Nazi Germany, you have to admit they had style."
Naturally this caused an uproar and I don't think the restaurant was open for long.
Still, I don't think he was wrong in his observation.
Posts: 305 | From: South Africa | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any given conflict the loser is most likely to be the side whose generals wear the prettiest uniforms
Does this mean the Boy Scouts could take out the Swiss Guard?
-------------------- "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Germans knew how to dress their officers, that's for sure. It didn't particularly help them win the war in any way but we figured if there was a "Best Dressed" award, it would've gone to Germany.
That's what you get when you have Hugo Boss doing the uniforms.
One might wonder why they had helmets that made them look like a walking penis, but that's probably also what you get when you let Hugo Boss do the designs.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thanks for proving that you didn't pay attention to the OP. I'm not going to discuss this with you any more, because it appears to me that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
OK, if you admit your loss, it's fine with me.
Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
Well,
I gotta say, after seeing the new Army BDUs, we are shoe-ins for any future war.
Posts: 195 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
