Because that's what it is.

It's Cock AGAINST Cock.

The Cocks are Fighting.

Cock AGAINST Cock.

What else are two MEN going to do during sex?

They can either assume heterosexualized 'sex roles' -- top and bottom, butch / femme --

or they can both be --

MEN!!!!!!!!!!!

If they're both MEN they're gonna Fight with their Cocks -- because that's what Male sexuality is.

It's AGGRESSIVE.

It can't be any other way.

Right now the whole "males who have sex with males" world has been taken over by "people" who HATE Men and Manliness.

They HATE Men

and Masculinity

and Manliness.

And they're using "sex" between males -- to destroy men.

That's their goal.

So many of the guys there are not manly enough for me.

No kidding.

It's a "gay" group.

They're indoctrinated into UN-manliness.

They're TAUGHT to be femmy.

You'll never find what you want from those sorts of males.

Who really are NOT male any longer.

They still have penises -- but -- they won't for long.

What do I mean by that?

The LOGIC of their culture is for them to become fe-males -- in some way or another.

They can't do that at the moment and retain sexual function.

But sooner or later that'll be possible -- there'll be surgery that converts a penis into a fully functioning clit and vagina.

And that's what they'll do.

Or, NW, there'll be surgery that puts erectile tissue into the anus.

And then they won't need their penises.

They won't keep them, NW, because mentally and emotionally those fags are anti-Man.

AND a number of them are into anal and looking to pick someone up for it, even though it's strictly not allowed at an event. It becomes a total turn off. Some guys will ask you if you ever fuck. Butt fuckers are persistent.

Right.

Because their culture tells them to be persistent.

To push and pursue and pressure and coerce.

To do whatever it takes to get their shitsticks in your ass.

To never let up.

They're told that buttfuck is an entitlement.

And if they don't get it, to feel angry and wronged.

And to push all the harder, to threaten and blackmail and nag and demand -- until they do get it.

That's what they do.

We have post after post on the site describing that.

The most recent being Polyamorous in Portland:

On our first few nights together he made love to me like we'd been together for years. Then he started getting angry because I wouldn't give him anal sex [sic]. Our love making dropped off dramatically after that, even though he had other men who gave it [anal] to him.

Here's what another guy said in an email:

I attribute my not having a partner to the fact that I've always preferred mutual j/o and rubbing. This wasn't the norm. Penetration was the order of the day. Yes, I've succumbed to anal -- you know what -- I'd be a hypocrite if I stated otherwise. But I hated it; yet it was the closest I could get to some semblance of intimacy, if you will. Plus, after the anal submission, I often felt useless and/or less than. Man, it was awful. I felt debased.

He did anal because it "was the order of the day."

He "succumbed to anal."

But he "hated it."

It left him feeling "useless and debased."

And isn't that a grand tribute to anal and the analists.

What despicable creatures they are.

To FORCE a fellow "gay" male to do something which leaves him feeling so horrible.

Which is why, NW, I've said to you before that you should REPORT the shitfaeries to the guy who runs the Jacks.

You've never said you do that.

And my feeling is you think it's wrong to do that -- that it's snitching.

NO.

NW, those shitqueens are your enemy -- every one of them.

You're at war with them.

Just like you're at war with the Islamo-fascists.

Look at these demonstrators and think about it:

That's what they -- in this case I mean the buttboys -- believe.

They think they should be free to stuff anal up everyone's butt.

And that NO ONE should be free to say NO.

Or be free to practice Frot.

Or free to criticize anal.

This is from Jason's post:

In my case, I've spent almost ten years up till now not totally feeling like I fit into the gay community because of how much weight is put on anal sex: it was a HUGE point of dissent for me. And I have to say that I really felt the grips of "anal tyranny," which fucked with my self-esteem a good amount. I always felt so childish because time passed and time passed and I never, never got over how off-putting anal sex was. The pain, the pressure, the smell, the soreness, the sick feeling it gave me, the way it made me feel afterwards -- unfulfilled, used, let down, filthy, ashamed.

I've been the victim of good deal of head games. I spent almost four years in a relationship with someone who I think pretty clearly resented me for never wanting to have anal. So often I got messages that not doing anal was not enough, that there was no satisfaction unless the holy, manmade pinnacle of homosexuality was practiced. "We don't have sex!! You don't see that as a problem?!" (We don't have ANY sex??) "You'll like it." (Not likely.) "It'll be so hot once you like it." (Sure.) So great: there was one point of contention and source of distress in that relationship, not to mention what a huge weight it was to always have that expectation hanging over me. In my eyes, my aversion to anal also had plenty to do with his desires to date other people while we were doing long-distance. To my knowledge he didn't do this, but the implicit rationale was still crystal clear for me. And it messed with my head.

. . .

[In young adulthood] I had a great experience with a guy. We fooled around on occasion, and while I didn't usually get much enjoyment out of it on my end, there was one night where it was like the Fourth of July. I never knew how powerful it was to cum by dick-rubbing, how wrapped up in it you could get when you're sweating and your breath is in sync with the other guy.

So keeping those thoughts in mind really ... um, comforted me. That was how I conceived of sex with men, you know? As an expression of masculinity. With sweat, playful aggression, and hormones raging. But I came to never think of those things as sex. Not only had I been "corrected" numerous times in my life that 'sex' is only what happens when there's penetration to the point where I accepted it, but I had over time also internalized the anal doctrine, so that what I had done before and enjoyed immensely was reduced to child's play and even something UNmasculine. You bet I thought of it just the opposite deep down, but I also thought I was wrong.

Notice that Jason was "corrected numerous times that 'sex' is only what happens when there's anal penetration";

That he internalized the analist doctrine.

That he began denigrating Frot and thinking of it as child's play, etc.

Through spreading those sorts of cultural messages -- and practices -- the analists fully intend for buttfuck to dominate the world.

Dr Green just told me about an "AIDS Activist" group in Africa -- mainly white -- who are pushing anal and saying that HIV should be seen "as a virus that can be transmitted in many ways."

NOT true.

At least 90% and most people think 99% of HIV infection among males who have sex with males is due to -- ANAL.

It's the anal.

And look at these bozos.

The buttboys have already said outright that I should be put in jail.

They censor and silence us wherever they can.

They flag our posts, they scrub our posts, they keep us out of the print media.

They're the buttfuck dictators and sex police of your world.

Which they intend to dominate and control completely.

And they DO NOT CARE how many people get fucked over or DIE along the way.

In their insane lust for anal, they've already killed millions of their fellow "gay" males.

That killing continues even as I type these words.

In the US alone, each and every day, 73 "gay" males get infected with HIV -- by 73 other "gay" males.

That's who does the infecting.

"Gay" males.

Shitfaeries.

They infect each other.

NW, there is not ONE of those buttboys at those events who wouldn't take you home, fuck you, and give you HIV -- and not lose one second's sleep over it.

They'd fuck you, and forget you.

And if they gave you HIV, it would be your fault.

That's how they "think."

So -- they are your enemy.

And -- if you keep going to the events -- which it sounds like you won't -- but if you do -- you should report each and every one of them every time it happens to the Jacks' organizer.

Now -- he may not do anything about it --

and that wouldn't surprise me.

But you should NOT, through your silence, help those guys use a group dedicated to JO as a way of recruiting guys into anal.

And thus effeminizing them.

FIGHT BACK.

They are utter assholes.

And they're anti-Man.

They're contemptible.

And that's what they should get from you -- contempt.

I always reject them in an instant.

Get outta here!

Good!

For me, I get a hard cock when I tie-up with some guy who has biceps, pecs, and good trapezius muscles like a wrestler. And we start muscling each other around buck naked. THEN my cock gets excited.

RIGHT!

I just cannot get turned up by a thin, unmanly guy, ESPECIALLY if he acts femmy. It totally turns me off.

Of course it does.

Warrior NW -- you're a MAN.

Men are into the Manliness of Men;

and the femininity of Women.

I know -- you don't feel anything for Women.

But in a properly run culture you would.

As I've told you, at Sparta the guys lived in barracks.

They spent the vast majority of their time with other Men.

And with their dicks out.

Because of that, Lycurgus, their law-giver, had the girls learn to wrestle -- nude -- and learn to throw the javelin and discus -- nude -- both to toughen their bodies and make them strong for pregnancy and childbirth, and to do away with effeminacy and "sheltered upbringing":

He made the young girls no less than the young men grow used to walking nude in processions, as well as to dancing and singing at certain festivals with the young men looking on.

In other words, he displayed the girls, who had strong, athletic bodies, nude -- in front of the boys.

Lygurgus did that as a means of encouraging the young men to marry:

There were these inducements to marry. I mean the processions of girls, and the nudity, and the competitions which the young men watched, attracted by a compulsion not of an intellectual type, but (as Plato says), a sexual one.

Clearly, then, in a pre-heterosexualized culture like Sparta's, in which, as classicist Michael Grant says, "the ethos was homosexual [sic]"; but which we would say was simply normatively Manly and Man2Man -- the state had to make sure that the boys would develop an interest in women.

In other words, if the *norm* is guys spending virtually all of their time with other guys, and also having love affairs with those guys --

if that's normative --

then the state has to make an effort to insure that the boys develop an interest in women -- and marry.

And having done that, the lives of the Men have also to be arranged so that their interest in women is maintained.

Which makes what our society calls "heterosexuality" look far less automatic, axiomatic, or inevitable -- than it's presumed to be.

So:

At Sparta, a newly-married Man would quietly leave his barracks -- his all-male group -- after dinner and go off and fuck his wife.

Then he'd come back to the barracks and sleep with the other Men.

The custom was to capture women for marriage -- not when they were slight or immature, but when they were in their prime and ripe for it. The so-called 'bridesmaid' took charge of the captured girl. She first shaved her head to the scalp, then dressed her in a man's cloak and sandals, and laid her down alone on a mattress in the dark. The bridegroom -- who was not drunk and thus not impotent, but sober as always -- first had dinner in the men's messes, then would slip in, undo her belt, lift her and carry her to the bed. After spending only a short time with her, he would part discreetly so as to sleep wherever he usually did along with the other young men.

And this continued to be his practice thereafter: while spending the day with his male contemporaries, and going to sleep with them, he would warily visit his bride in secret . . . It was not just for a short period that young men would do this, but for long enough that some might even have children before they saw their own wives in daylight.

Such intercourse was not only an exercise in self-control and moderation, but also meant that partners were fertile physically, always fresh for love, and ready for intercourse rather than being sated and pale from unrestricted sexual activity. Moreover, some lingering glow of desire and affection was always left in both.

~ Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, translated by Talbot

So NW -- Men derive their Masculinity from contact with other Men -- from contact with the Male Group.

A wise culture ensures that they have LOTS of that contact -- throughout their lives, and especially in boyhood.

It's what my foreign friend says:

Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all boys should have. An otherwise masculine identified man who is deprived of membership in a masculine male group / bond during his growing years will be less than 1/4 naturally masculine than if he had such an opportunity. Boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him.

Let's replay that:

"Boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right."

It's their NATURAL RIGHT.

You have a right to that.

"The masculinity of men flows from their group. It's like their natural masculinity combines and gets manifold when masculine identified men unite. The camaraderie, mutual understanding, support, playing together, learning the ways of the world as a male, dealing with roughs and toughs of life together --- they all help to develop the natural masculinity that exists within him."

That's what Sparta was --

the boys lived in "herds" -- small groups which were run by an older boy who was supervised by the MEN.

Every adult male Spartan had the right to intervene with any of the boys and their herds.

And they were encouraged to Fight each other.

Constantly.

And that was Sparta.

But -- as you can see from the excerpts from Lucian in The Secret Craft of Warriorhood -- even in a place like Athens, the male group and fighting was crucial to the raising of boys.

NW, this was the rule ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Until very recently, the whole world was a Warriordom.

All MEN were Warriors.

And all boys were raised to be Warriors.

So -- let's come back to this word "herd" -- in Spartan Greek, it's Boua.

Which derives from the Greek word for Bull.

These were herds of bull-calves.

Eager to Fight -- and become MEN.

Plutarch:

[In their herds, the boys were] accustomed to live together and be brought up together, playing and learning as a group. The captaincy of the Herd was conferred upon the boy who displayed the soundest judgement and the best fighting spirit. The others kept their eyes on him, responded to his instructions, and endured their punishments from him, so that altogether this training served as practice in learning ready obedience. Moreover, as they exercised, boys were constantly watched by their elders, who were always spurring them on to fight and contend with one another; in this their chief object was to get to know each boy's character, in particular how bold he was, and how far he was likely to stand his ground in combat and struggle.

~ Life of Lycurgus, translated by Talbot

Fighting, Struggle, and Strife, then, was part of the daily training of the youths.

As it was, it must be said, in every polis.

Plutarch even uses the word "philo-neikia" --

Philo = love of

So:

Philo-sophia = love of wisdom;

While philo-neikia = love of strife, love of combat, love of fighting.

And that's what the Men wanted to see in the Boys -- the Love of Strife, the Love of Fighting.

I have thought that way since I was a very small boy.

Of course you have.

That's because you're a Man.

It's built-in to you.

You've wanted it all your life.

It's why wrestling around on the grass in grade school,

or wrestling on the mats in high school or college

always hardened up my cock.

Right.

NW, ALL guys get HARD wrestling.

It's part of being a guy.

I can't see it any other way.

Right.

And you shouldn't have to see it any other way.

You're seeing it right.

NW -- I really appreciate your permission to post this email.

Because too many of our guys just do not get it.

They need to hear it -- from you.

From Warrior NW.

Now, NW --

You also talked about two Fighters sharing Cocks after their Fight.

And I said Right --

Fighters sharing Cock.

Men sharing Manhood.

This is something else we need to talk about in light of your disaffection with and from groups like the Jacks.

And while you may not like hearing this, NW, it's the truth.

Historically and cross-culturally, MEN are NOT promiscuous with MEN.

When a Fighter shared his Cock --

When a Man shared his Manhood --

It was with ONE other MAN.

And in private.

Not in a group.

That's another problem -- a huge problem -- with the Jacks.

It takes a dyadic, Two Man, MAN2MAN and MAN AGAINST MAN, Manly and Masculine act --

Cock Combat -- Phallic Fight --

and puts it into a "gay male" and promiscuous setting.

What it is, NW, is a "modern" -- that is, gay-ized -- take on a traditional Male-Male activity.

And because "gay" = promiscuous, the Jacks are "promiscuous."

But that's not the way guys relate to guys.

Guys are one-on-one with each other.

Traditionally and cross-culturally.

They may be promiscuous with Women.

But MANLY MEN are NOT promiscuous with other Men.

Promiscuity is for whores.

Who are either females, or anally-receptive transvestite males, or anally-receptive castrated males -- eunuchs.

Think about it.

In societies in which Men are promiscuous with Women -- like the Middle East -- they have harems -- aggregations of females.

You put a male into a harem-like setting -- and you de-masculinize him.

MEN have to be INDIVIDUALS.

NW --

Two STRONG INDIVIDUALS --

TWO BULLS --

can and will --

FIGHT EACH OTHER.

That's why the Fight Sports are all one-on-one.

It's true the Spartans had group Fights.

But as you know, in that sort of Gang Fight, what happens is that the guys self-select their opponent -- based on height and weight -- so that it's a fair Fight.

And it's still ONE-ON-ONE.

That's what Men need.

MEN need the MALE CONTEST -- THE AGON.

Which is ONE Man's strenuous physical struggle to overcome ONE other Man.

That's what a Fight is.

Two MEN Struggling to bring their Manhood to Perfection:

That's what a Fight is.

TWO Men Struggling to bring their Manhood to Perfection.

And that's what Man2Man sex has to be.

And it has to be One-on-One.

One-Against-One.

Two Men.

Two Cocks.

One Against the Other.

When you turn it into a group activity -- it "promiscu-izes" it -- and promiscuity DILUTES MASCULINITY.

Just the way it is.

I don't know if you understand that -- but --

the Male's Aggression has to focus on ONE other Male.

Otherwise, the aggression is scattered and diluted --

and so is the Aggressor's Masculinity.

What the Greeks called his Andragathia -- Andros = Man; Agathos = Good, Excellence, Virtue; Andragathia = Manly Excellence.

So -- this is what you said at the beginning of your email:

what has always turned me on was the sensation of some kind of aggression from another dude while going cock2cock

What has always turned you on is the sensation of Aggression from ANOTHER DUDE --

not a bunch of dudes --

but an-other = one other dude --

while going cock2cock.

Cock Against Cock is an Aggressive, Manly, Masculine, and Man Against Man activity.

Man Against Man = Two Men.

Authentic Fighting -- like Authentic Sex -- between Men is One-on-One.

The one place you see group fights in our culture is -- pro-wrestling.

And that's completely fake.

And they do it, in part, to lessen the Man2Man eroticism which is so prominent in pro-wrestling.

To push the Eros aside, and emphasize the Agon.

But TRUE MAN2MAN has to have both -- Agon and Eros.

Which is why when you look at authentic ONE-ON-ONE FIGHTING, ONE-ON-ONE MMA -- the Eroticism is inescapable.

And that's because it's ONE-ON-ONE.

ONE-AGAINST-ONE.

So, NW, this is what you said:

When two guys Fight, the blood spilled down their bodies mixed with their sweat is really a turn on. Then the sweat and blood mixes as they grapple around and it's like a mingling of manliness,

The mingling of manblood and mansweat.

It's just as sweet as the mingling of mancum and mansperm when guys cum together, cock2cock.

Only men can really enjoy that mingling of blood, sweat, and cum.

Sooner or later it will become the norm for fighters to share cocks after their fights...They probably already do. And we just don't hear about it----yet.

Right.

So -- TWO guys FIGHT.

They Sweat.

They Bleed.

ManSweat.

ManBlood.

Then the sweat and blood mixes as they grapple around and it's like a mingling of manliness,

The mingling of manblood and mansweat.

It's just as sweet as the mingling of mancum and mansperm when guys cum together, cock2cock.

Right.

And sweetest of all is the Mingling of ManBlood and ManSweat and ManCum --

When Two Men Fight Sweat Bleed and Cum Together.

TWO MEN.

MAN2MAN.

MAN AGAINST MAN.

Now:

I know my foreign friend says

Masculine male groups and bonds play an extremely important role in the development of physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of natural masculinity. As such they are an important part of the positive environment that all boys should have.

But, you'll notice, he's talking about children.

Boys.

Boys have a natural tendency to seek to join male-only groups, and it's their natural right.

But there comes that time, that magical moment in the life of the Man -- perhaps even when he's still a ManBoy --

when he puts the male group of childhood aside so as to engage in True Man2Man -- with one other Man.

Man Against Man.

It's only then that the True Mingling of ManBlood and ManSweat and ManCum can occur.

When Two Men Fight Sweat Bleed and Cum Together.

So -- don't dilute your Masculinity, don't dilute your Manliness, don't dilute your Aggression.

Go COCK AGAINST COCK with ONE other guy.

Everything else is analism.

I don't care if it calls itself Radical Faeries or New York Jacks or Alternative Gays or -- anything else.

It's all the same deal.

It's all built upon promiscuity.

Which is unManly.

Most of our guys understand that anal is unManly.

But they get taken in by promiscuity because they see bands of Warriors -- such as in pics from World War II or our current wars -- and they think, that's Manly -- which it is.

But -- the guys in those pics are not engaging in group sex.

That's not what you see.

Not at all.

Yes, they've banded together to fight a common enemy.

That's so.

But the most intense BONDING takes place at the one-on-one level:

Even when the guys are in groups:

The most intense bond is one-on-one.

Because that's how Men are.

They want and need that one-on-one bond.

And then they start wrestling --

Because they want and need the male body contact.

In a male way.

In a way that's Aggressive.

The Greeks understood all that.

They had their guys wrestle together from a very early age.

Wrestling was a Contest -- an Agon.

Out of those agones there developed one-on-one relationships.

Love affairs.

Agon led to Eros.

And --

As we saw in The Secret Craft of Warriorhood, those relationships had a military function.

The love affair was also a Contest.

Because all of Greek life was a Contest.

The love affair was a Competition of Courage.

As Prof Lendon says, grouped together in military units,

lovers competed with each other and dreaded to be shamed in the presence of those they loved.

Eros was very consciously put in the service of Ares.

Ares created Eros.

Eros served Ares.

And from Eros' service of Ares came Areté -- Manly Prowess, Manly Valour --

as seen in Aristeia -- acts of Heroism.

So -- Ares and Agon create Eros.

Eros serves both Ares and Agon.

In fact, Ares and Agon work *together* to create Eros -- which then serves them both.

Now:

The ultimate military unit is the dyad -- Two Guys -- one-on-one --

Competing in Courage while Fighting FOR each other.

Sexual promiscuity, as we saw in Polyamorous in Portland, dissolves and destroys the bonds between Men.

And not only that.

It destroys Manliness.

Men did not evolve, nor were they designed or created, to be promiscuous with other Men.

They are meant to form a Warrior Bond -- with one other Man.

They are meant to both Fight him and Love him.

And that happens most archetypally in Gilgamesh -- the world's first epic.

Enkidu and Gilgamesh meet, Fight, Love.

We see that in the Greeks too.

For years I've used this little ancient Greek bas-relief on our pages:

When you look at it more closely, you can see that one guy is bigger than the other:

Which suggests very strongly that they're Lovers.

So guys -- ideally, the Warrior Bond is formed through a Fight.

A Passage through Rage to Love.

Love, says Aeschylus, is the Fight's Holy Consummation.

And he's right.

While Warrior NW speaks of the mingling of Sweat, Blood, and Cum.

And he's right too.

So -- don't be fooled by the charlatans and frauds out there who tell you that you can be sexual with any number of partners and that the sex will somehow deepen the bond with each.

NO.

That's a LIE.

Promiscuity always -- ALWAYS -- whether it's "concurrent" -- as in a group like the Jacks --

or "serial" -- one partner, then another partner, then another, etc --

DESTROYS.

Promiscuity destroys the loving bonds between Men.

Only a Bond which is totally exclusive sexually and emotionally, physically and spiritually -- will endure.

Life is tough.

Bad things happen.

The longer you live, the more likely you are to experience those bad things.

When, as we saw in Polyamorous in Portland, one of our guys was facing homelessness, his promiscuous "boyfriend" refused to help him.

Which was completely predictable.

Our guy was just a toy -- a piece of meat -- to that male.

That our guy still has a roof over his head is because of his "EX" -- a Man with whom he had a *relationship* twenty years ago -- and who came to his rescue.

That's not surprising.

Our position -- my position -- on issues such as promiscuity vs Fidelity is well and thoroughly thought out, and the product of both my life experience and my research.

Masculine, MANLY, Men are not meant to be promiscuous with other Men.

They are meant to be Faithful.

Life is hard.

Life is uncertain.

As Xenophon, quoting Sokrates, says:

You may plant a field well; but you know not who shall gather the fruits: you may build a house well; but you know not who shall dwell in it: able to command, you cannot know whether it is profitable to command: versed in statecraft, you know not whether it is profitable to guide the state: though, for your delight, you marry a pretty woman, you cannot tell whether she will bring you sorrow: though you form a party among men mighty in the state, you know not whether they will cause you to be driven from the state.

You know not.

You don't know.

Life is hard, life is uncertain, bad things happen to the best of us.

A True and Manly Love, Forged in the Fire of ManFight and Sealed with the Sacred Elixir of ManSweat - ManBlood - ManCum is your one true and best bulwark.

Don't let the analists and religious fanatics destroy it.

Which means -- stop dithering.

Because by the time you're homeless or mortally ill or in the depths of depression --

it'll be too late.

FIGHT BACK.

FIGHT BACK NOW.

NOW.

WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

I thank Warrior NW for this post and for his brave and honest life.

Bill Weintraub

December 17, 2010

© All material Copyright 2010 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Reply from:

Warrior MAN Brian Hulme

Re: The Mingling of ManSweat and ManBlood

12-22-10

When Warrior NW writes a posting I know it will be something GOOD, but I was not ready for just how good this time, WOW! as I read what NW said, I liked it, then I felt something stirring in my jeans, yes I was getting what you in the U.S.A. call "a boner" or, as we on this side of the pond, would say "a hard on".

If this is what happens just reading about it then I can not wait -- may The Warrior God bring me a Man into my life to experience the "combative and aggressive" LOVE that two MEN can have in EROS. But if I must wait then from what NW tells me it will be worth the wait -- so I guess I need some Warrior self control in the mean time.

Warrior Love to you Bill, and Patrick, and not forgetting NW, and also a good Christmas to all Warriors,

Brian