Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Sulla & the Gender Edictum
From:	"Drusus Aeneas Apollonius Cygnus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045166091007146202033082190" >jaro@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 19:42:34 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: M. Apollonius Formosanus <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
To: novaroma <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 6:58 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Sulla & the Gender Edictum
>
>The fact of the matter is that we have here one very
>outstanding Nova Roman. I could only wish that he would of
>his own accord refine the Gender Edictum a bit to reflect
>the legitimate personal concerns of the transsexuals who
>were, are, and may be among us. Such a voluntary refinement
>of the Edictum, taking into account both new legal
>information and the popular will, would make our Censor's
>already admirable record - perfect. But let's not snipe at
>him just because we disagree with him on one issue out of
>many.

Hear Hear!

Drusus Aeneas Apollonius Cygnus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Forum Space
From:
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 20:39:28 EDT

In a message dated 5/18/00 10:53:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=114212192185078031172218175036129208" >drenn--------...</--------; writes:

<< Approx. how much space would be required to build a forum? Where would it
need to be built? Are there any architectural plans currently? Please be
patient with my incessant questions, and I may have hit on an idea.
>>

Interesting question! Forums were different sizes in different places. A
smaller town would have a smaller forum than a more major urban area.
However, several acres would definitely be needed as a general rule of thumb.
In even a moderate area there would need be room for a few civic buildings, a
couple of temples, and area for shops. May I ask what your idea is?

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Duty and Honor
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 20:54:33 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, Omnes;

Some time ago I was reminded that one can be too complimentary, and too
gushing over accomplishments that are expected of an officer of any
organization. The rush of comments regarding our esteemed Censor Sulla
Felix might be construed to be such an outpouring, save for one small
item. His work accomplishments, as listed, are very impressive, and he
has in fact labored hard for NR.

Do I agree with everything he has done, or the manner he has done it?
No I have not, however, I think enough of his work and of him
personnally, and of his post as Censor, and of his record in the Cursus
Honorium, and of his rank of Senator, and of his long term public
service to NR that exceeds my own, that when I disagree, I believe I can
say that my disagreements were with him personnally, and not on the list
so as to embarrass anyone other than those particularly involved.

I sometimes wonder whether the comments and accusations I read are
directed at the individual indicated, or whether they are directed at a
mirror to reflect to others the importance and concern of your feelings
and your outrages. I have in the few years and the several thousand
messages that have crossed my web screen not seen the necessity to make
public denunciations more than a very few times, and when I do, as a
Magistrate, I want to send the message that in my opinion such a rebuke
is necessary for NR and for the citizens of NR as indicated in my Oath
of Office.

We are engaged in the building of a micronation here--do you suppose for
one moment that angry public words will be forgotten over the years??
If you do, think again! Do you suppose that your angry, sarcastic, and
agonizing words go unnoticed? Two years ago, in a period of great
tumoil, I was accused of some pretty horrible things, which have stayed
with me to this day--and I can still hear those words echoing down the
halls of Nova Roma from the past as clearly as if they had been uttered
yesterday!! No, my friends, such do NOT go away, they fester, and they
bleed, ad in time they all come back to you in spades!!! You have seen
around you, the evidences that such are undesirable--and I tell you now,
as though you needed to be reminded, that every such utterance is like
driving a spike into the bottom of the ship on which you sail.
Eventually the ship must founder, unless a way can be devised to prevent
such attacks on our ship-nation.

I ask you please to consider what you write--consider that anger and
sarcasm have no place here and the outrages that you feel toward any
indvidual should be taken to that individual, not to the list. My
Colleague and I, Q. Fabius Maximus, have agreed to have a go at a
self-monitoring list. We have both been heavily criticised for that
effort, because in the view of many, the citizens of NR do not have the
ability or determination to make such a list a thing of reality. The
Senior Consul and I disagree with that view --BUT-- every verbal slam,
every sarcastic remark, every outragous statement, and every public
complaint about the words or actions of another, put one more bullet in
our opponents arsenal.

So I ask you all to consider what you say, consider the damage that you
do, in the saying, and ask yourself this small question-----

What will you do, when the individual that you snipe today, may be in a
position to do you a great service tomorrow?

That thought seldom surfaces until one has been through the
experience--but the question, I do assure you my friends, is well worth
the consideration!!

I have done!!

Valete, Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Forum Space
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 21:01:34 -0400 (EDT)

Salve;

In regard to the size of the forum, I would also remind you of the
necessity of continuous security, which is not a construction
consideration totally, but dueto the nature of the effort must be
rendered safe from vandalism, and the attacks of those who are ignorant
of the intents of the micronation, which could be considerable in
degree, and in consideration.

Vale, Respectfully'
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	May we have a list moderator please?
From:
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 21:21:46 EDT

Salvete,

As a Senator and Pontifex of Nova Roma, I publicly implore our Consuls to
appoint a moderator for the Nova Roma list. Over the past few weeks
discussion in this forum has been deliberately allowed to slip into
uncontrolled argument which has cost Nova Roma at least one valued Citizen,
general disgust at the state of our community, and now slander against
individuals and magistrates.

Both of our Consuls have shown themselves to be intelligent, hardworking and
responsible men, dedicated to the furtherance of Nova Roma. I ask that their
admirable talents now be turned to this most vital forum. We have had at
least one credible volunteer for list moderation, from Patricia Cassia who
has served in this capacity before. Or, if it is the Consuls' wish to appoint
a different individual, let that be done as soon as possible. No doubt there
would be one or two others willing to share this much-needed duty... if it
would be authorized.

There have been few recent problems that couldn't have been lessened, if not
solved outright, by having someone responsible for the list. Someone to
remind people about Dignitas, and simple common courtesy. Someone to post the
basic guidelines for participation and answer questions for new people.
Someone to step in and ask that some threads be taken to private e-mail.
Someone to in the most extreme cases, put people's posts on "by approval
only" if they refuse to conduct themselves with civility.

It is my profound hope that other Citizens will join me in asking the Consuls
and Senate to see this job done with speed. I am not asking for censorship -
only sense. It has become all too plain that conversation without any sort of
guideline and structure has not been healthy, and does not seem likely to
become so.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus, Proconsul of the Nova Britannia Provincia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A list moderator please?
From:
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 21:37:44 EDT

In a message dated 5/18/2000 6:23:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------; writes:

<< t is my profound hope that other Citizens will join me in asking the
Consuls
and Senate to see this job done with speed. I am not asking for censorship -
only sense. It has become all too plain that conversation without any sort
of
guideline and structure has not been healthy, and does not seem likely to
become so.
>>
Salvete!
You request has been heard. The Senate will decide on the person. I must
confess I find myself disappointed by the response of my request to NR's
populace to police themselves.
Both my colleague and I agree, that the time for the experiment is over, and
a moderator will be appointed.
You have no one to blame but yourselves, Nova Roma.
Valete!
Q. Fabius Maximus

Subject:	List Moderator
From:
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 21:47:31 EDT

Salvete Omnes,

I heartily endorse the suggestion that a Moderator be appointed for this List.

Valete,
Acadianus Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderator
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 02:20:07 GMT

Salve Esteemed Consuls et.al:
I, too, feel the need to have appointed a Moderator for Nova Roma Forum
communications.

We are all human, and it is, apparently, very easy to get carried away in
the heat of making our point, succumbing to very unkind statements
and accusations....and the very reading of posts of this nature is
upsetting. One doesn't have to resort to "verbal mudslinging"
to present their thoughts.

And further, the Forum should be a place where citizens are comfortable
posting an idea, point of view, etc. without getting "their head snapped
off".

Valete in Amicitia,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=243158113150082031172168000208172253098145044009209130152" >--------i--------dr----------------</--------;
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] List Moderator
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:47:31 EDT
>
>Salvete Omnes,
>
>I heartily endorse the suggestion that a Moderator be appointed for this
>List.
>
>Valete,
>Acadianus Draco

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: List Moderation
From:
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 22:24:06 EDT

In --------ss--------d-------- 5/18/00 6:39:14 PM P--------ic D--------ght Time, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=061044104089235135169082190036" >sfp55@--------</--------;
writes:

<< You request has been heard. The Senate will decide on the person.

Cassius:
Many thanks, Consul Quintus Fabius! :)

Q. Fabius:
I must confess I find myself disappointed by the response of my request to
NR's
populace to police themselves.

Cassius:
Truly, there's little need for disappointment. The problems we've been having
are quite common. A list can police itself adequately best only when it
consists of long-term members, and new membership is artificially limited.
And then only if it's not too large! We have a very large list which has
constant membership flux , (three to five people a day) and there are always
new folks who don't know what's acceptable here and what isn't.

Q. Fabius:
Both my colleague and I agree, that the time for the experiment is over, and
a moderator will be appointed.

Cassius:
Were the people and/or Senate informed that there was an experiment in
progress? (I was away from e-mail during much of this time.) If there was a
posting about this, and a hoped-for result, perhaps it should have been
communicated periodically so that there would be a known goal to strive for?

Q. Fabius:
You have no one to blame but yourselves, Nova Roma. >>

Cassius:
Hopefully there will be neither guilt or hard feelings about the situation.
The vast majority of our list subscribers have remained both courteous and
civil! Others are relatively new and may not have received adequate ground
rules about what behavior is accepted here. Some folks are simply a little
too passionate in the way they express themselves, and need to be reminded to
tone it down a little now and again.

All major Internet lists continually face these same issues. It is almost
universal policy to maintain one or more moderators to help communication
flow smoothly. Lack of a moderator doesn't necessarily equal more individual
freedom but it does guarantee that people will have less idea of what is
supposed to go on, or how to participate in events.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	List Moderator
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 22:28:40 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, Pontifex Maximus and Senator Marcus Cassius Julianus, and NR
Citizens;

In response to my honored Senate Colleague and the Most Honored Pontifex
Maximus, I stand in Forum to answer his concerns as best I can.

Most Honored Sir, I am as well aware as you of the past recent turmoil
on this list, and for that reason have addressed those concerns directly
to the Citizens of NR just moments before receiving your message.

I cannot necessarily agree that the list usage has declined that much
recently. it has been at that stage, in my estimation, for some time.
You mention the loss of two citizens, that might have been modified by
the presence of a moderator, and I am afraid that I must again disagree
in that myself and the Senior Consul did everything that a Moderator
could have done to no avail in one case. In the second case the action
had been coming for better than a year, as you well know having suffered
the stings of accusation from such, and in spite of numerous messages
including those of my own and those of the Senior Consul expressing our
friendship and desire that they not leave, they did so anyway.

However, please allow me to point out Honored Sir, that of the two other
gentlemen who resigned their citizenship and posts, the first is now
back in NR, because of the great outpouring of support for the
gentleman, which in my humble view supports the thesis that the Citizens
of Nova Roma are quite able to maintain thier own list without the
necessity of a moderator appointed for the task. The second gentleman
is at this moment reconsidering the resignation of his elected posts,
again because of an outpouring of support for his situation again from
the NR Citizens. I believe that also is indicative that the Citizens
have the abilty and will to accomplish the task that the Consuls have
asked of them.

That such is a difficult task to do, I do not disagree--that such will
take some time, I do not disagree, however, it is my hope that such will
come about--New Citizens are being greeted and thier questions are being
answered. New names on the list are asking more intelligent questions
and making more useful statements, and have indicated on many occasions
that perhaps such language as you and I both do not wish to see is not
appropriate. Again, I believe that to be an indication of the actions
of the citizens. Just recently, I have recieved three applications from
new Citizens who wish to develop new Provinces and several new citizens
who seek to work for the benefit of NR, all of whom have been answered
and the situation explained, and two new citizens who have indicated to
wish to stand for elected office. Thirty or forty people have provided
unasked thier support for Censor Sulla Felix, all of which certainly
must indicate a significant change in the attitude of the Citizens of
NR. Two new Sodalitas' are in the process of being developed to propose
to the Senate, as a result of an upsurge of interest in such by new
citizens. I am told that the College of Pontiffs is so busy with the
processing of the backlog of applications for religious posts, that
routine matters must be shelved for the moment as a result. Of that
success you are certainly aware!

Censor Suffectus Merrullus has sparked an immediate and tremendous
interest in the Gens and new people are asking many new interesting
questions regarding such, and Pontiff Graecus has imbued the
micro-nation with a new and fervant desire to pursue the holidays and
religious days, far better than my poor attempt to do so just a few
short months ago. Sir, I am thrilled with the tremendous new enthusiasm
indicated by our citizens and thier unique and most interesting ideas.
True, there is still some static on the station , but I see that being
put away slowly but surely in the face of this new revolution.

However, I may well be wrong, as I must bow to your greater experience,
and to your greater understanding of Nova Roman Citizens due to your
high office and your depth of intellect. If I am wrong, and if the Nova
Roma Citizens wish to have a moderator, then they have but to let me
know. Instead of concerning yourseltves with ideas that are remote to
the question that lies before us, I ask that you (the NR Citizens) turn
your attention to this question momentarily that my Most Honored
Colleague and I humbly bring before you. Just few words in a message
will help immeasureably in reducing this question to a manageable
effort.

I wish to take this opportunity, Pontifex Maximus et Senator Julianus,
to thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your
well-thought out remarks and concerns. Futher, I wish also to thank you
most humbly for the kind words of praise, undeserved, but much
appreciated. My appreciation for your time and effort is both deep and
most sincere.

Valete, With Great Respect;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Consul et Senator

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On Pater
From:	"Rick Brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=189212253108160085015199190036129" >trog99@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 20:19:48 PDT

Salve Marcus Cornelius Felix et. al:

Very well said, Felix. I join you in applauding the hard work and
dedication of our Pater, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix as Censor.

I have problems with the Gender Edicta as well, which Pater and I have
spoken openly about. I wish things could have gone down a little
differently for all parties concerned, I truly do.

I know for a fact that he puts in alot of hours and effort with Censorial
duties, and does far more than I think I would do chasing down prospective
citizens, for proper citizenship information.

But one of the reasons I am very proud to call him "Pater" is that his
regard for his gens members is not dependent on our agreeing with him on
everything at all times. Open communication is encouraged in our gens, and
he is extremely attentive to his family in Nova Roma. This is relected by
the large size of his gens.

Again, very well said, Marcus Cornelius Felix :) :)

Valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo



>From: w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: NR list <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] (no subject)
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:41:53 -0700
>
>Salve Marcus Cornelius Felix pontitff and house priest of the Cornelia
>Greets most of you.
>I must also publicly manifest my confidence on the work of Censor Lucius
>Cornelius
>Sulla. The hard work of a man for this Respublica cannot be forgotten at
>the
>first political or philosophical disagreement.I think he has done more
>work in his office of Censor then any other person.
>Now mind you I have disagreement with his laws that he has passed , But
>as I am of his Gen I do not feel i could say anything till now.
>but his work in office is to me of very high level even if some of the
>laws he has passed would not have been worded that way if i was Censor
>but as i am not censor it will pass i think. he has made the Office of
>censor much beeter then when he fould it.
>Vale
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>72% off on Name brand Watches!
>Come and buy today and get free shipping!
><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958675057/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958675057/</a>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: List Moderator
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 03:30:15 -0000

Salvete Quirites.
Salve Audens Consul.

I respond to Consul Audens request for a few words on his post.
I agree with you Audens. The Republic is actually doing well.
Cassius said something in
this direction when he said that there is no room or need for
feelings
of guilt, or such. As
has been said, Nova Roma is constantly growing, and constantly
getting
repeats, useful, of
things that have been said before. Ruckuses like the recent have
taken place when there
has been a moderator. And the moderators the list has had have never
shut off an on
going debate. Though they did step in if things got too rough, or
too
repetitious. Just the
same, I think it is a good idea to have at least one list moderator
on
duty. One might think
of it as having a watch on the quarterdeck in port. The Officer of
the Deck (OOD) is not
really needed to keep the crew in line. But the OOD is there to keep
interlopers from
barging in. And to pass the word in case there is a problem -- in
our
case it would be
something like Egroups informing us of temporary outages. [I recall
the quarterdeck
watch passing the word that shore water or power would be shut off
for
periods of time.
Usually when the plant was down.]

I hope my opinions have not been out of line. Or too long winded.
I thank You for your thoughts and service, Audens.

Bene vale.
Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.





--- In <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>, jmath669642reng@w... wrote:
> Salvete, Pontifex Maximus and Senator Marcus Cassius Julianus, and
NR
> Citizens;
>
> In response to my honored Senate Colleague and the Most Honored
Pontifex
> Maximus, I stand in Forum to answer his concerns as best I can.
>
> Most Honored Sir, I am as well aware as you of the past recent
turmoil
> on this list, and for that reason have addressed those concerns
directly
> to the Citizens of NR just moments before receiving your message.
>
> I cannot necessarily agree that the list usage has declined that
much
> recently. it has been at that stage, in my estimation, for some
time.
> You mention the loss of two citizens, that might have been modified
by
> the presence of a moderator, and I am afraid that I must again
disagree
> in that myself and the Senior Consul did everything that a Moderator
> could have done to no avail in one case. In the second case the
action
> had been coming for better than a year, as you well know having
suffered
> the stings of accusation from such, and in spite of numerous
messages
> including those of my own and those of the Senior Consul expressing
our
> friendship and desire that they not leave, they did so anyway.
>
> However, please allow me to point out Honored Sir, that of the two
other
> gentlemen who resigned their citizenship and posts, the first is now
> back in NR, because of the great outpouring of support for the
> gentleman, which in my humble view supports the thesis that the
Citizens
> of Nova Roma are quite able to maintain thier own list without the
> necessity of a moderator appointed for the task. The second
gentleman
> is at this moment reconsidering the resignation of his elected
posts,
> again because of an outpouring of support for his situation again
from
> the NR Citizens. I believe that also is indicative that the
Citizens
> have the abilty and will to accomplish the task that the Consuls
have
> asked of them.
>
> That such is a difficult task to do, I do not disagree--that such
will
> take some time, I do not disagree, however, it is my hope that such
will
> come about--New Citizens are being greeted and thier questions are
being
> answered. New names on the list are asking more intelligent
questions
> and making more useful statements, and have indicated on many
occasions
> that perhaps such language as you and I both do not wish to see is
not
> appropriate. Again, I believe that to be an indication of the
actions
> of the citizens. Just recently, I have recieved three applications
from
> new Citizens who wish to develop new Provinces and several new
citizens
> who seek to work for the benefit of NR, all of whom have been
answered
> and the situation explained, and two new citizens who have
indicated
to
> wish to stand for elected office. Thirty or forty people have
provided
> unasked thier support for Censor Sulla Felix, all of which certainly
> must indicate a significant change in the attitude of the Citizens
of
> NR. Two new Sodalitas' are in the process of being developed to
propose
> to the Senate, as a result of an upsurge of interest in such by new
> citizens. I am told that the College of Pontiffs is so busy with
the
> processing of the backlog of applications for religious posts, that
> routine matters must be shelved for the moment as a result. Of that
> success you are certainly aware!
>
> Censor Suffectus Merrullus has sparked an immediate and tremendous
> interest in the Gens and new people are asking many new interesting
> questions regarding such, and Pontiff Graecus has imbued the
> micro-nation with a new and fervant desire to pursue the holidays
and
> religious days, far better than my poor attempt to do so just a few
> short months ago. Sir, I am thrilled with the tremendous new
enthusiasm
> indicated by our citizens and thier unique and most interesting
ideas.
> True, there is still some static on the station , but I see that
being
> put away slowly but surely in the face of this new revolution.
>
> However, I may well be wrong, as I must bow to your greater
experience,
> and to your greater understanding of Nova Roman Citizens due to your
> high office and your depth of intellect. If I am wrong, and if the
Nova
> Roma Citizens wish to have a moderator, then they have but to let me
> know. Instead of concerning yourseltves with ideas that are remote
to
> the question that lies before us, I ask that you (the NR Citizens)
turn
> your attention to this question momentarily that my Most Honored
> Colleague and I humbly bring before you. Just few words in a
message
> will help immeasureably in reducing this question to a manageable
> effort.
>
> I wish to take this opportunity, Pontifex Maximus et Senator
Julianus,
> to thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your
> well-thought out remarks and concerns. Futher, I wish also to
thank
you
> most humbly for the kind words of praise, undeserved, but much
> appreciated. My appreciation for your time and effort is both deep
and
> most sincere.
>
> Valete, With Great Respect;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
> Consul et Senator
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 20:52:47 -0700

in the letter below Tacitus tells us of his Hate of Gays , and that i
would guess he thinks they have a special interest groups!
he says " I wish no harm to come against homosexuals" but then goes on
to say that"do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
biologically unfounded" a bunch of crap! ( also something he has used in
his post)
how is beening gay biologically unfounded?
also i find people who do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
biologically unfounded to be VILE Repulsive and VERY
disturbing are but a few widely vocal persons would Use NR for Hate all
under the guise of what is being proposed as being better for NR.
you sir started this I will never reply to you in email but at all times
in posts to the list, you are EVIL and I am a pontitff so go stuff your
hate where the sun does not lookinto
Marcus Cornelius Felix

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:12:16 -0400
From: Micha--------arconi <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=101166219009175162090005175108006077163098057046209130" >TacitusMagnus@--------</a>
Subject: Re: Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!

Just because Nova Roma strives to revive that of ancient Rome does
not mean
that there be a need for a 'third gender' -- even if there where a
'third gender'
within Rome during certain times of history. This whole idea of 'third
gender' is
a bunch of crap! If your genetically a MAN or WOMEN then so be it! Face
the
truth, and if unable to, seek profession help. Do not place guilt on
Sulla for
his actions are just for the betterment of Nova Roma as a whole -- not
special
interest groups! And did not Augustus ban or punish individuals that
were
involved in same sex relations? I wish no harm to come against
homosexuals -- I
do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and biologically unfounded.
What I
do find disturbing are but a few widely vocal activist that use Nova
Roma for
their own personally gratification all under the guise of what is being
proposed
as being better for NR.

Tacitus

Subject:	(no subject)
From:	w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 20:55:57 -0700

Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic heritage, gender,
religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

Subject:	Gentes Debate
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 05:55:04 +0200

Salvete Omnes!

We have been asked by Censor et Senator Merullus to
comment on proposed Senate debate relating to the
improvement of the gentile structure and functioning. My
comments are:

1. Don't even think of adding elements to make citizenship
applications more difficult or aversive. No fees, certainly,
and no long waits for processing applications. A neophyte
period might be made to work, if it were structured
adequately, but is it really needful? We want Nova Roma to
*grow*!

2. Applicants now are encouraged to think of their name
early in their application, and this name-selection task is
more obvious to newcomers than the task of joining a gens
that will give them their nomen. Perhaps the structure of
the questionaire could be redesigned so that a gens would be
chosen BEFORE a name - then the nomen would be known and the
self-naming task would become simply adding a praenomen and
a cognomen. This would work better psychologically, I think.

3. When I joined, I felt a certain doubt about the welcome I
would really get in the gentes, as I had a picture of their
being geographically remote and probably very clannish (a
gens is like a clan, after all!). This contributed to my
decision to found my own.

4. Although for the above reasons and my choice of name
(reflecting a religious affinity), and my remoteness (in
Polonia), I chose to found my own gens, I have already
beyond hope gained a second member and believe that I may
find more members here in Latinist circles over the coming
few months. If I had been limited or restricted in some way
in founding a gens, this could not have happened.

5. It would be useful to the new members to have a guide to
the existing gentes telling in some detail what each is
about in terms of the kinds of activities, religious focus,
geographical preferences, etc.

The sentiment that much, at least, of our future lies in our
gentes, provinciae and sodalicia is, I think, true. The
central institutions that unite us will become greater as
they have more to unite.

And the idea of a guidebook for patres et matres familias is
very appealing indeed - but I hope that it will certainly be
available on-line. Ordering and paying for paper materials
from here is very problematic.]

Valete!

M. Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Founding Triumvir, Sodalitas Latinitatis

Silesia, Polonia
----------------------------------------------
ICQ# 61698049
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] May we have a list moderator please?
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 00:20:57 EDT

I concur with this request.

Lucius Sergius Australicus
(opinionated) Tribunus Plebis ;-)


On 5/18/00 8:21 PM <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------; (<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------;) wrote:

>Salvete,
>
>As a Senator and Pontifex of Nova Roma, I publicly implore our Consuls to
>appoint a moderator for the Nova Roma list. Over the past few weeks
>discussion in this forum has been deliberately allowed to slip into
>uncontrolled argument which has cost Nova Roma at least one valued Citizen,
>general disgust at the state of our community, and now slander against
>individuals and magistrates.
>
>Both of our Consuls have shown themselves to be intelligent, hardworking and
>responsible men, dedicated to the furtherance of Nova Roma. I ask that their
>admirable talents now be turned to this most vital forum. We have had at
>least one credible volunteer for list moderation, from Patricia Cassia who
>has served in this capacity before. Or, if it is the Consuls' wish to
>appoint
>a different individual, let that be done as soon as possible. No doubt there
>would be one or two others willing to share this much-needed duty... if it
>would be authorized.
>
>There have been few recent problems that couldn't have been lessened, if not
>solved outright, by having someone responsible for the list. Someone to
>remind people about Dignitas, and simple common courtesy. Someone to post
>the
>basic guidelines for participation and answer questions for new people.
>Someone to step in and ask that some threads be taken to private e-mail.
>Someone to in the most extreme cases, put people's posts on "by approval
>only" if they refuse to conduct themselves with civility.
>
>It is my profound hope that other Citizens will join me in asking the
>Consuls
>and Senate to see this job done with speed. I am not asking for censorship -
>only sense. It has become all too plain that conversation without any sort
>of
>guideline and structure has not been healthy, and does not seem likely to
>become so.
>
>Valete,
>
>Marcus Cassius Julianus
>Senator, Pontifex Maximus, Proconsul of the Nova Britannia Provincia


certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)

Subject:	The Real Hypatia
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 00:28:57 EDT

I recently read the book 'Hypatia of Alexandria', by Maria Dzielska, Prof.
of Ancient Roman History at Jagiellonian University, Krakow. It is a very
enlightening and interesting book.

Dzielska goes back to the primary sources for Hypatia's life, the letters
of her student Synesius, the History of Socrates Scholasticus, and several
others. And in so doing, Dzielska sweeps away the many myths and legends
which have come to be associated with Hypatia.

The myth: Hypatia, the young, beautiful mathematician/philosopher, devout
pagan worshipper, is murdered by a Christian mob for her feminism, her love
of learning, her sensuousness, her stubborn devotion to the old gods. She is
a martyr and victim of religious bigotry. Perhaps the biggest insult to the
memory of Hypatia was a pornographic movie, 'Heavenly Hypatia', in which porn
'actress' Hypatia Lee {who took her professional show-biz name after our
Hypatia} portrays Hypatia in an afterlife, centuries after her death, where
she teaches the newly arrived the arts of having sex. She goes back to earth
to work for world peace by getting the female president of the US and the
male USSR primier to fall into bed together, while Hypatia indulges in a
little lesbianism on the side.

The real Hypatia which emerges from the ancient primary sources startles
all who know nothing but the myth.

Hypatia was not a young woman when she was murdered. She could not have
been younger than 45 and Dzielska makes a good case that she was actually
about 60 years of age. She was in no way a sensualist. She was a virgin,
and remained one till the day she died. Her neo-platonic philosophy
disenchanted her with the material world. A pagan source records that when a
student proffessed to be in love with her, she pulled out her sanitary napkin
and said, "This is what you really love young man, but you do not love beauty
for it's own sake".
Far from being hated by the Christian community, she had several Christian
students in her inner circle. At least two of them became Bishops in the
Orthodox Church {as opposed to the Arian sect} While the Patriarch
Theophilus, working with Imperial authorities, was closing down the pagan
temples and destroying the Serapium, Hypatia went her way unhindered,
remained on good terms with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and the
intellectual upperclass of ALexandria. She did not support the pagans
defending the Serapium. In later times, the pagan crowd did not rally around
or support Hypatia. There is no record, even in the pagan source material,
that she ever visited a pagan temple or made sacrifice or offered worship to
any deity.
Could she have been a Christian, in some sense? This is unlikely, as the
church would have claimed her in later histories. There is a possibility she
was an Arian Christian, suggested by Philostorgius of Cappadocia, who was a
contemporary of Hypatia. But while this is not impossible, it is likely a
claim made by an Arian writer to cast blame for her death on the orthodox
rivals. And most of our sources are in fact Christian; why did they not
refer to her as an Arian if she was in fact one?

The events leading to her death began with the coming of Cyril to the
Patriarchal throne of Alexandria. Alexandria was a city known for hot heads
and violence and riots.
Some Jews ambushed and killed some Christians; Cyril led an armed mob to the
Jewish section and drove the Jews out of the city. This action enraged
another Christian---the city magistrate Orestes, who complained to the
Emperor. This began the bitter feud between Orestes and Cyril. Orestes was
attacked by a group of desert monks loyal to Cyril; they were driven off by
another likely Christian group loyal to Orestes. Cyril, advised by some
followers to make peace with the magistrate, sent a peace delegation to
Orestes. Orestes did not accept.

The power struggle in Alexandria was between two Christian factions.
One led by Cyril and largly supported by the clergy, the other by Orestes and
the upperclass Christians, and allied with the Jews who were driven out of
the city in the earlier battles.
During this power struggle, Hypatia entered into alliance with Orestes. She
was well known in the aristocratic intellectual circles, and her support
strengthened Orestes side.

One large segment of society was not supporting Hypatia; the common,
lower class citizenry. Most of them likely did not even know who she was.
She did not direct her teaching to them, focusing instead on her small inner
circle, and gave public lectures only on general topics. From the letters of
her loving student Synesius, we get a glimpse of her inner circle;
aristocratic, wealthy, well positioned, from influential families. And
Hypatia's circle was elitist. They held to the notion which still exists in
some cirlces today, that the common people could not be educated and that
what we call "liberal education", and the secret philosophical and
mathematical arts should not be taught to them. as the common herd lacked the
intelligence to acquire it.

To this segment, Cyrils agents spread propaganda designed to make the
people fear her. They charged her with witchcraft, a prohibition which went
back to the Twelve Tables. The pagan community also did not support Hypatia,
remembering her lack of support during the crackdown under Theophilus.

The sources do not agree on when or where her death took place. But on
one March day in the year 415, Hypatia was murdered. Her death was an
assasination in a most bitter political showdown. Did Cyril personally order
the assasination? We do not have the evidence that would convict him in a
court. It cannot be denied that he did contribute to the events which
culminated in her death with the propaganda campaign.

Maria Dzielska's book is published by Harvard, copyright 1995. It is
documented, footnoted, and includes a description of the primary source
documents.


Gaius Lupinius Festus

Subject:	"Biologically Unfounded?"
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 04:48:20 GMT

Salve, Tacitus, et.al:

Just to note, one cannot say that homosexuality is "biologically unfounded".
Studies have shown the existance of homosexual behaviour in other ranks of
the animal kingdom...these ranks, I'm sure, are not making a conscious
decision regarding their actions....just one supportive bit of evidence to
render being gay as a "state of being"...and not something people do to
cheese other people off.

At any rate, I thought people were welcome to join Nova Roma regardless of
sexual orientation.

In which case, Tacitus, it is not appropriate that we discuss your negative
opinion of homosexuality on the NR list.

Valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo


Vale,
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Divina Hypatia
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 01:30:30 EDT

Salve Feste, et Salvete Omnes,

Thanks for the terrific posting, Feste. That sort of material is a genuine
delight to read, and immensely profitable as well. I would really like to
see a compilation of tales like this, if we could track more of them down.
It might even make an interesting little booklet if it could be put together
-- a sort of Martyrology of the Religio Romana.

Bene vale, Feste, et valete concives,
Acadianus Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 01:32:34 EDT

Thank you, but was Hypatia a religious martyr? Her life and death makes her
look more like a woman who got to close to power politics.


Festus

Subject:	No to List Moderators.
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:18:48 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

Our esteemed Junior Consul Marcus Minucius Audens has
recently expressed his doubts about the desirability of a
list moderator. I once would have disagreed with him, but
now I wish to write in his support.

I cannot help but notice in his words the important fact
that *the Consuls have been doing this labour already*. I
presume that a warning from a Consul carries more weight
than one from a mere list moderator. I therefore conclude
that we perhaps need a tougher policy with abusive people -
say, a ten-day banning from the list for anyone meriting a
second letter of warning within any thirty-day period -, but
if we are going to do so, would it not be better if our
elected supreme magistrates did it, not one or more
appointees? We don't need a list moderater per se, we need
Comitas and Dignitas on our list.

I think another matter worthy of consideration is
posting the rules of debate, so that they are clear to all
and part of our common civic culture.

We should:

1. Draw up such rules as unambiguously as possible, and with
warning as to the possible penalty of banning.
2. Automatically send them to all new list subscribers
3. Send them anew to all list members on the Kalends of
every month.

CAN WE NOT TRY THIS BEFORE APPOINTING A LIST ADMINISTRATOR?

I humbly urge the Magistrates and the Senate to
establish such a system for a trial period before
considering the appointment of a list moderator.

Marcus Audens wrote:
I cannot necessarily agree that the list usage has declined
that much
recently. it has been at that stage, in my estimation, for
some time.
You mention the loss of two citizens, that might have been
modified by
the presence of a moderator, and I am afraid that I must
again disagree
in that myself and the Senior Consul did everything that a
Moderator
could have done to no avail in one case. In the second case
the action
had been coming for better than a year, as you well know
having suffered
the stings of accusation from such, and in spite of numerous
messages
including those of my own and those of the Senior Consul
expressing
our friendship and desire that they not leave, they did so
anyway.

M. Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Founding Triumvir, Sodalitas Latinitatis
Silesia, Polonia

-----------------------------------------
ICQ# 61698049
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 00:23:24 -0700

Actually in my opinion, I think our Praetors should be the moderators. The
are the law enforcement arm of the government, and to give them something to
do, I think this would be a capable task for them. (And I must be honest,
C. Marius Merullus mentioned this to me in a phone conversation and the more
I think about this...the more I like it.)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Our esteemed Junior Consul Marcus Minucius Audens has
> recently expressed his doubts about the desirability of a
> list moderator. I once would have disagreed with him, but
> now I wish to write in his support.
>
> I cannot help but notice in his words the important fact
> that *the Consuls have been doing this labour already*. I
> presume that a warning from a Consul carries more weight
> than one from a mere list moderator. I therefore conclude
> that we perhaps need a tougher policy with abusive people -
> say, a ten-day banning from the list for anyone meriting a
> second letter of warning within any thirty-day period -, but
> if we are going to do so, would it not be better if our
> elected supreme magistrates did it, not one or more
> appointees? We don't need a list moderater per se, we need
> Comitas and Dignitas on our list.
>
> I think another matter worthy of consideration is
> posting the rules of debate, so that they are clear to all
> and part of our common civic culture.
>
> We should:
>
> 1. Draw up such rules as unambiguously as possible, and with
> warning as to the possible penalty of banning.
> 2. Automatically send them to all new list subscribers
> 3. Send them anew to all list members on the Kalends of
> every month.
>
> CAN WE NOT TRY THIS BEFORE APPOINTING A LIST ADMINISTRATOR?
>
> I humbly urge the Magistrates and the Senate to
> establish such a system for a trial period before
> considering the appointment of a list moderator.
>
> Marcus Audens wrote:
> I cannot necessarily agree that the list usage has declined
> that much
> recently. it has been at that stage, in my estimation, for
> some time.
> You mention the loss of two citizens, that might have been
> modified by
> the presence of a moderator, and I am afraid that I must
> again disagree
> in that myself and the Senior Consul did everything that a
> Moderator
> could have done to no avail in one case. In the second case
> the action
> had been coming for better than a year, as you well know
> having suffered
> the stings of accusation from such, and in spite of numerous
> messages
> including those of my own and those of the Senior Consul
> expressing
> our friendship and desire that they not leave, they did so
> anyway.
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus,
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> Founding Triumvir, Sodalitas Latinitatis
> Silesia, Polonia
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ICQ# 61698049
> Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> [Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry
> experiments.
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4051/6/_/61050/_/958720746/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4051/6/_/61050/_/958720746/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:47:28 +0100

Salve Feste

Thank you very much for your good posting on Hypatia. In fact I only knew
the Myth (but the same happens with the saints in every religion, isn't
it?).
But I am not fanatic. I prefer to hear the true story of the Saints and I
believe that the true strory honours them more than a simple myth. Hypatia
was human. She was a philosopher but human. As such she had contradictions
of thought. But despite her true story, I cannot help having some admiration
for that pagan human saint. Yes, because the Saints are human and must be
honoured as such, not as Gods.

Festus, I'm going to keep your posting in my religious folder.... And who
knows... Maybe buy the book. But only after I buy the 10 or 11 other books
on Roman Religion that are waiting in the queue. =)

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia


>Thank you, but was Hypatia a religious martyr? Her life and death makes
her
>look more like a woman who got to close to power politics.
>
>
>Festus
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>72% off on Name brand Watches!
>Come and buy today and get free shipping!
><a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958714361/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4011/6/_/61050/_/958714361/</a>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:50:04 +0100

Salvete omnes

As Praetor I'm ready to carry my duty as list moderator.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor


-----Original Message-----
From: Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.


>Actually in my opinion, I think our Praetors should be the moderators. The
>are the law enforcement arm of the government, and to give them something
to
>do, I think this would be a capable task for them. (And I must be honest,
>C. Marius Merullus mentioned this to me in a phone conversation and the
more
>I think about this...the more I like it.)
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Censor

Subject:	Re: The Real Hypatia
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 07:31:49 EDT

In a message dated 5/18/00 9:29:52 PM Pa----------------ylight Time, <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
writes:

<< Dzielska goes back to the primary sources for Hypatia's life, the letters
of her student Synesius, the History of Socrates Scholasticus, and several
others. And in so doing, Dzielska sweeps away the many myths and legends
which have come to be associated with Hypatia. >>

<<Far from being hated by the Christian community, she had several Christian
students in her inner circle. At least two of them became Bishops in the
Orthodox Church {as opposed to the Arian sect} While the Patriarch
Theophilus, working with Imperial authorities, was closing down the pagan
temples and destroying the Serapium, Hypatia went her way unhindered,
remained on good terms with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and the
intellectual upperclass of ALexandria. She did not support the pagans
defending the Serapium. In later times, the pagan crowd did not rally around
or support Hypatia. There is no record, even in the pagan source material,
that she ever visited a pagan temple or made sacrifice or offered worship to
any deity. >>

Salvete,

The book was indeed a good one, especially since it had some wonderful
overviews of Neoplatonism and the Mystery Religions.

However, in my opinion, the author is clueless about Hypatia's interactions/
supposed support of Christianity. In Dzielska's mind, any sort of cooperation
with a ruling Christian regime equals full support for that system, and not
openly supporting some Pagan effort equals full non-support.

I don't know anyone else, but I feel that Hypatia's world was not too unlike
our own. Her times were ruled by Christianity, and it was dangerous
(eventually fatal!) to not be a Christian. Hypatia was not a follower of
Christ, but was obviously able to tolerate the system since she was
intelligent enough to realize that all religious systems worship the same
deity even if some can have hurtful doctrine at times.

I am a Pagan. In fact, I'm Pontifex Maximus here in Nova Roma. I live in a
small town and interact with Christians every day. Christians who would *not*
be understanding or supportive of my personal religious choice. Do I revile
these people? Act against them at every turn to show religious solidarity
with other Pagans? Of course not. I'm friendly to everyone, often work
with/do favors for ministers, and generally try to be a good Citizen. If
there were an angry Pagan demonstration (the gods forbid!) here in my home
town, I would not participate.

Yet if anyone described me as Dzielska did Hypatia: "Friendly to Christians,
indifferent to Pagans", they would be wholly wrong. I do everything I can to
bring equality and religious tolerance, to teach and spread information about
the Gods, without causing problems in my community and getting myself killed
by angry neighbors. My choice, and fairly obviously Hypatia's choice. Hypatia
was in fact older and very intelligent... having friends in high places in
the Christian community would be a wonderful asset. (Wow! Her Neoplatonist
students as Bishops! Way to go, Hypatia!)

Like ALL books by modern authors, this one must be taken with a grain of
salt. Primary resources are always best. It is too easy for a modern author,
who has NOTHING personally in common with their subject of study, to jump to
totally errant conclusions simply through any lack of inner feeling or
empathy. Dzielska obviously never asked herself, "What would an intelligent
and influential Pagan teacher do to try and keep herself and her school of
philosophy safe in a world becoming ever more increasingly hostile to
non-Christians?"

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gender Compromise
From:	"Drusus Aeneas Apollonius Cygnus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045166091007146202033082190" >jaro@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 07:13:12 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Gender Compromise



>In other words, a person can present themselves as either male or female,
on
>the board and at functions. Am I understanding you correctly?
>
>If so, where is the compromise? What you describe is already supported by
>supporters of the edict and rejected by those opposed to the edict. Unless
I
>am misunderstanding you, there is nothing new here.
>
>Maybe you could clarify?
>
>Gaius Lupinius Festus
>
Honorable Festus,
To clarify as I hoped was accomplished in my "compromise" post is the
difference between sex (biological charactaristics) and gender identity
(which is in the mind).

The edict states "...if you are male your Roman name must reflect your
physical gender. Just as if you are female your Roman Name must reflect
your physical gender..."

It is the word "physical" with which I am taking issue.

That's all I'm going to say about that. Please refer to my previous post
for further clarification.

Valete
Drusus Aeneas Apollonius Cygnus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	"Robert Williamson" <a href="/post/no--------ma?protectID=194233250056127134015037190036129" >robert@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 11:19:15 -0400

Salve: Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I didn't see the word "hate"
in any of Tacitus's message. And yes of course homosexuals have Special
Interest Groups. I can think of a few right this moment. They are "Queer
Nation", "NAMBLA" and of course one of their support groups "PFLAG". NAMBLA
is especially disturbing, as it stands for the North American Man - Boy Love
Association. This is an organization that promotes homosexual relations
between adult men and under age boys. So yes, they certainly have special
interest groups. (And I have three pre-teen sons, so I am particularily
sickened by NAMBLA.) There are many other groups that I can't think of at
the moment. They have spent the past thirty years or so promoting their
lifestyle as "normal", and "healthy". With multiple partners, Gay Bowel
Syndrome, "Slurp Ramps" "mud rolling", (you don't want to know about that,)
etc., etc., It is somewhat discusting to say the least. But if they kept it
to themselves, and didn't work to try and change our attitude and our
children's attitude towards it, I wouldn't care what they did. The problem
is the amount of influence they have. They have certainly greater influence
then the numbers would warrant. Pax Vobiscum ... Appius Marcellus Cato
----- Original Message -----
From: w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
To: NR list <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:52 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays


> in the letter below Tacitus tells us of his Hate of Gays , and that i
> would guess he thinks they have a special interest groups!
> he says " I wish no harm to come against homosexuals" but then goes on
> to say that"do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> biologically unfounded" a bunch of crap! ( also something he has used in
> his post)
> how is beening gay biologically unfounded?
> also i find people who do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> biologically unfounded to be VILE Repulsive and VERY
> disturbing are but a few widely vocal persons would Use NR for Hate all
> under the guise of what is being proposed as being better for NR.
> you sir started this I will never reply to you in email but at all times
> in posts to the list, you are EVIL and I am a pontitff so go stuff your
> hate where the sun does not lookinto
> Marcus Cornelius Felix
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:12:16 -0400
> From: Micha--------arconi <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=101166219009175162090005175108006077163098057046209130" >TacitusMagnus@--------</a>
> Subject: Re: Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!
>
> Just because Nova Roma strives to revive that of ancient Rome does
> not mean
> that there be a need for a 'third gender' -- even if there where a
> 'third gender'
> within Rome during certain times of history. This whole idea of 'third
> gender' is
> a bunch of crap! If your genetically a MAN or WOMEN then so be it! Face
> the
> truth, and if unable to, seek profession help. Do not place guilt on
> Sulla for
> his actions are just for the betterment of Nova Roma as a whole -- not
> special
> interest groups! And did not Augustus ban or punish individuals that
> were
> involved in same sex relations? I wish no harm to come against
> homosexuals -- I
> do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and biologically unfounded.
> What I
> do find disturbing are but a few widely vocal activist that use Nova
> Roma for
> their own personally gratification all under the guise of what is being
> proposed
> as being better for NR.
>
> Tacitus
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Over 1,000 solutions for allergies & asthma-gazoontite.com! Shop now!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	"Alexis V Sneller" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=061071192078018198218098203160129208071" >snellera@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:31:15 -0400 (EDT)

As a brand-new citizen, I have to say that I'm taken aback and rather dismayed
by the sheer volume of posts to this listserve about things that, as far as I
can tell, have nothing to do with ancient Rome.

People who wish to air their views on gays, NAMBLA, hermaphrodites and
transgendered people certainly have the right to do so, but I believe the
common interest here is ancient Rome, not gay rights or lack thereof. If
someone wants to discuss homosexuality in ancient Rome, that would be a
different story.

In short, I've found the bickering here rivals that of SCA...and that's saying
quite a bit. I am vastly disappointed.

Lollia Aemilia Sabina

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:19:10 -0500 (CDT)

> Salve: Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I didn't see the word "hate"
> in any of Tacitus's message.

It's quite clear what his attitude is, not only from the recent message,
but also from what he sent to Dexippus last month.

> And yes of course homosexuals have Special Interest Groups. I can think
> of a few right this moment. They are "Queer Nation", "NAMBLA"

NAMBLA is universally despised by the rest of the community (gay and
straight). They should not be considered representative of anyone
other than themselves.

Octavius


--
M. Octavius Germanicus
kCurule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	"Robert Williamson" <a href="/post/no--------ma?protectID=194233250056127134015037190036129" >robert@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 13:27:40 -0400

Salvé: Please allow me to apologize for my last post being off the topic for
this list. I felt that I had to speak up in defence of Tacitus after he was
accused of hatred, when in fact he had merely expressed discust with
something that many of us sincerely believe is in fact discusting,
regardless of it being a "politically incorrect thought crime" to believe as
we do on the issue in question. In future I will try to keep my posts on
topic about Nova Roma and ancient Rome. Pax Vobiscum ... Appius Marcellus
Cato
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexis V Sneller <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=061071192078018198218098203160129208071" >snellera@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays


> As a brand-new citizen, I have to say that I'm taken aback and rather
dismayed
> by the sheer volume of posts to this listserve about things that, as far
as I
> can tell, have nothing to do with ancient Rome.
>
> People who wish to air their views on gays, NAMBLA, hermaphrodites and
> transgendered people certainly have the right to do so, but I believe the
> common interest here is ancient Rome, not gay rights or lack thereof. If
> someone wants to discuss homosexuality in ancient Rome, that would be a
> different story.
>
> In short, I've found the bickering here rivals that of SCA...and that's
saying
> quite a bit. I am vastly disappointed.
>
> Lollia Aemilia Sabina
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/958743078/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/958743078/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] No to List Moderators.
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:31:54 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete,

> Our esteemed Junior Consul Marcus Minucius Audens has
> recently expressed his doubts about the desirability of a
> list moderator. I once would have disagreed with him, but
> now I wish to write in his support.

I also must weigh in on the side of an unmoderated list. As this is
the primary place where the future of Nova Roma is determined, imposing
artificial controls on the discussion will lead to stagnation.

The debates can get acrimonious at times -- as they did in Roma Antiqua.
The passion that such arguments bring forth can only strengthen the
State.

When the personal attacks become excessive, and an argument degenerates
into name-calling, then the Praetors should step in and reprimand those
citizens whose behaviour is inappropriate. But, in my opinion, this
should be reserved for those situations where reasoned debate is
no longer taking place.

I don't think any of our recent arguments have been sufficiently
out-of-control to warrant such action.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:	"Robert Williamson" <a href="/post/no--------ma?protectID=194233250056127134015037190036129" >robert@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 13:55:47 -0400

Salvé Germanicus: I must admit that I missed Tacitus's message to Dexippus,
so perhaps I underestimate his feelings. However, not everyone in the gay
community despise NAMBLA, although I am sure many do. NAMBLA is a member in
good standing in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and actively
supports Gay an Lesbian "rights" as well as the "rights" of all sexual
minorities. I'm not sure if this would include necrophiliacs, but it
wouldn't surprise me in this day and age. With all due respect, Pax Vobiscum
... Appius Marcellus Cato
----- Original Message -----
From: Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays


>
> > Salve: Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I didn't see the word
"hate"
> > in any of Tacitus's message.
>
> It's quite clear what his attitude is, not only from the recent message,
> but also from what he sent to Dexippus last month.
>
> > And yes of course homosexuals have Special Interest Groups. I can think
> > of a few right this moment. They are "Queer Nation", "NAMBLA"
>
> NAMBLA is universally despised by the rest of the community (gay and
> straight). They should not be considered representative of anyone
> other than themselves.
>
> Octavius
>
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> kCurule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> <a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/958746022/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/958746022/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Subject:	ATTN: Praetorian warning
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 15:58:58 +0100

Salvete cives

By the powers conferred to be by the Senatus Populosque Romanus, I make the
following warning:
****************************************************************************
****

To discuss how Roman society treated or thought about social groups on an
historical perspective is within the topic of this list. To discuss sexual
behaviours in a modern context is not.

I therefore DEMAND the following behaviours on the list:

a) Not to offend any member of the list (this includes non-citizens).
b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member of
the list.
c) Not to declare personal orientations or behaviours.
d) To limit the discussion of gender to the context of the ancient Roman
civilisation.

As to point d), for a question of correctness and to combat misinformation,
defamation and sacrilege, I demand further:
- Not to make any statement without presenting a primary source or good
secondary source (the complete reference including author, work, chapter,
paragraph, etc.) as proof.

In case my demands are not obeyed I shall enact them as an official edict
together with the respective penalties incurred on their violation. These
can go as far as the removal from this mailing list for a time dependent on
the offense.

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 11:34:14 -0400

Firstly, describe what is EVIL? Just because a person does not agree with
the actions of homosexuals that then makes this person evil?


Tacitus

william wheeler wrote:

> in the letter below Tacitus tells us of his Hate of Gays , and that i
> would guess he thinks they have a special interest groups!
> he says " I wish no harm to come against homosexuals" but then goes on
> to say that"do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> biologically unfounded" a bunch of crap! ( also something he has used in
> his post)
> how is beening gay biologically unfounded?
> also i find people who do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> biologically unfounded to be VILE Repulsive and VERY
> disturbing are but a few widely vocal persons would Use NR for Hate all
> under the guise of what is being proposed as being better for NR.
> you sir started this I will never reply to you in email but at all times
> in posts to the list, you are EVIL and I am a pontitff so go stuff your
> hate where the sun does not lookinto
> Marcus Cornelius Felix
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:12:16 -0400
> From: Micha--------arconi <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=101166219009175162090005175108006077163098057046209130" >TacitusMagnus@--------</a>
> Subject: Re: Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!
>
> Just because Nova Roma strives to revive that of ancient Rome does
> not mean
> that there be a need for a 'third gender' -- even if there where a
> 'third gender'
> within Rome during certain times of history. This whole idea of 'third
> gender' is
> a bunch of crap! If your genetically a MAN or WOMEN then so be it! Face
> the
> truth, and if unable to, seek profession help. Do not place guilt on
> Sulla for
> his actions are just for the betterment of Nova Roma as a whole -- not
> special
> interest groups! And did not Augustus ban or punish individuals that
> were
> involved in same sex relations? I wish no harm to come against
> homosexuals -- I
> do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and biologically unfounded.
> What I
> do find disturbing are but a few widely vocal activist that use Nova
> Roma for
> their own personally gratification all under the guise of what is being
> proposed
> as being better for NR.
>
> Tacitus
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Over 1,000 solutions for allergies & asthma-gazoontite.com! Shop now!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 11:42:23 -0400

So rightly said!!! And we are starting to see the same influences appearing
hence forth with Nova Roma!

Tacitus

Robert Williamson wrote:

> Salve: Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I didn't see the word "hate"
> in any of Tacitus's message. And yes of course homosexuals have Special
> Interest Groups. I can think of a few right this moment. They are "Queer
> Nation", "NAMBLA" and of course one of their support groups "PFLAG". NAMBLA
> is especially disturbing, as it stands for the North American Man - Boy Love
> Association. This is an organization that promotes homosexual relations
> between adult men and under age boys. So yes, they certainly have special
> interest groups. (And I have three pre-teen sons, so I am particularily
> sickened by NAMBLA.) There are many other groups that I can't think of at
> the moment. They have spent the past thirty years or so promoting their
> lifestyle as "normal", and "healthy". With multiple partners, Gay Bowel
> Syndrome, "Slurp Ramps" "mud rolling", (you don't want to know about that,)
> etc., etc., It is somewhat discusting to say the least. But if they kept it
> to themselves, and didn't work to try and change our attitude and our
> children's attitude towards it, I wouldn't care what they did. The problem
> is the amount of influence they have. They have certainly greater influence
> then the numbers would warrant. Pax Vobiscum ... Appius Marcellus Cato
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
> To: NR list <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 11:52 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Tacitus Hate of gays
>
> > in the letter below Tacitus tells us of his Hate of Gays , and that i
> > would guess he thinks they have a special interest groups!
> > he says " I wish no harm to come against homosexuals" but then goes on
> > to say that"do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> > biologically unfounded" a bunch of crap! ( also something he has used in
> > his post)
> > how is beening gay biologically unfounded?
> > also i find people who do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> > biologically unfounded to be VILE Repulsive and VERY
> > disturbing are but a few widely vocal persons would Use NR for Hate all
> > under the guise of what is being proposed as being better for NR.
> > you sir started this I will never reply to you in email but at all times
> > in posts to the list, you are EVIL and I am a pontitff so go stuff your
> > hate where the sun does not lookinto
> > Marcus Cornelius Felix
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:12:16 -0400
> > From: Micha--------arconi <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=101166219009175162090005175108006077163098057046209130" >TacitusMagnus@--------</a>
> > Subject: Re: Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!
> >
> > Just because Nova Roma strives to revive that of ancient Rome does
> > not mean
> > that there be a need for a 'third gender' -- even if there where a
> > 'third gender'
> > within Rome during certain times of history. This whole idea of 'third
> > gender' is
> > a bunch of crap! If your genetically a MAN or WOMEN then so be it! Face
> > the
> > truth, and if unable to, seek profession help. Do not place guilt on
> > Sulla for
> > his actions are just for the betterment of Nova Roma as a whole -- not
> > special
> > interest groups! And did not Augustus ban or punish individuals that
> > were
> > involved in same sex relations? I wish no harm to come against
> > homosexuals -- I
> > do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and biologically unfounded.
> > What I
> > do find disturbing are but a few widely vocal activist that use Nova
> > Roma for
> > their own personally gratification all under the guise of what is being
> > proposed
> > as being better for NR.
> >
> > Tacitus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Over 1,000 solutions for allergies & asthma-gazoontite.com! Shop now!
> > <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958708104/</a>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry
> experiments.
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4051/6/_/61050/_/958738991/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4051/6/_/61050/_/958738991/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Prospective Citizen Introduces himself.
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 15:46:43 GMT

Ave Decius Aucelius Sebastianus!

Welcome to the Nova Roma List

Pompeia Cornelia Strabo



>From: "R--------ll Drenn--------34; <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=114212192185078031172218175036129208" >drenn--------...</--------;
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Prospective Citizen Introduces himself.
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:10:29 -0500
>
>Salve!
>
>I am Decius Aucelius Sebastianus, and I am very pleased to make your
>aquaintance. I am writing as a short introduction for myself to you. I am
>24
>years old, and live in Texas. I am a Body Piercer who has graduated from
>one
>of the Police Academies in San Antonio, and am currently seeking Law
>Enforcement employment. I have always been fascinated by Roman life,
>culture, Religion, and Military stratix.
>
>Vale
>DAS
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: No to List Moderators.
From:	"RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:23:54 -0400

Salvete Marce Octavi et alii

This is of course the type of list moderation that is being proposed.
Someone has to have the authority and ability to decide, as you say, that
"reasoned debate is no longer taking place" and then act on the decision
with a warning, or other measure where warnings have already been issued.
Right now, anyone can subscribe to this list and basically bomb us, in our
own forum, with infinite posts about Jerry Springer or whatever else pops
into their heads.

Nova Roma had a list moderator for what, 18 months? P Cassia and Fimbria
were not too oppressive in my recollection, nor will the next curator be,
I'm sure.

And part of the responsibility of a curator sermonum is to compose the
welcome message that new people receive upon subscription to this list.
That welcome message used to contain (and may still, I don't know) a set of
guidelines about what is, and is not, acceptable speech on this list.

Valete

C Marius Merullus

>
>When the personal attacks become excessive, and an argument degenerates
>into name-calling, then the Praetors should step in and reprimand those
>citizens whose behaviour is inappropriate. But, in my opinion, this
>should be reserved for those situations where reasoned debate is
>no longer taking place.
>
>I don't think any of our recent arguments have been sufficiently
>out-of-control to warrant such action.
>

Subject:	RE Tacitus
From:	w--------am wheeler <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=125075047121158135036082190036" >wuffa@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 09:38:16 -0700

well i guess he has won as NR is not a pagan safe list i will go
when the Gay hateing anipagan shit has stoped i will think about comeing
back
I am not quiting i am still a CIVII BUT THE PAIN OF READING THE NR LIST
IS TOO MUCH
in the CP i here by vote not here till this shit is done

Subject:	ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 17:33:22 +0100

Salvete cives

Due to the fact that my last demands were ignored, being that two messages
were deliberately posted after my warning, I hereby enact the following as
an Edict.

*******************************Praetorian Edict
00050901****************************

I hereby decree that all citizens and non-citizens will obey to the
following clauses when posting to the NR mailing list, <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
:

a) Not to use insult or defame any member of the list.
b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member of
the list.
c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
d) To limit the discussion of sexuality, gender and closely related topics
to the context of the ancient Roman civilisation.
e) When discussing sexuality, gender and closely related topics to the
context of the ancient Roman civilisation, for a question of correctness and
to avoid misinformation, postumous defamation and sacrilege, the members of
the list are forbidden to present any statement without justifying with a
reference to a primary source or good secondary source (the reference shall
be as complete as possible including author, work, chapter, paragraph,
etc.).

The violation of the clauses is subject to expulsion from the mailing list
for a time correspondent to the clause violated as follows:

- Violation of clause a): between 1 and 2 years;
- Violation of clause b): between 6 months and 1 year;
- Violation of clause c): between 6 months and 1 year;
- Violation of clause d): between 4 and 6 months;
- Violation of clause e): between 4 and 6 months.

Notes:
-Violation of this edict by citizens will be judged by the Comitia
Centuriata.
-Violation of this edict by non-citizens will be judged by the Praetor
alone.

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:13:58 -0500 (CDT)

Salve, Graece Praetor,

> c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.

So someone would be in violation if they posted "I am transgendered" or
"I am a Roman Pagan" or "I am a Christian"?

> The violation of the clauses is subject to expulsion from the mailing list
> for a time correspondent to the clause violated as follows:

Are these penalties for a first offense, or for continued offenses after
having been warned?

> - Violation of clause a): between 1 and 2 years;
> - Violation of clause b): between 6 months and 1 year;
> - Violation of clause c): between 6 months and 1 year;
> - Violation of clause d): between 4 and 6 months;
> - Violation of clause e): between 4 and 6 months.

I find all of these unreasonably long. Six months is a very long time
period in "Internet time"; someone exiled for six months will probably
never return. An exile from the list is efficively an exile from
Nova Roma altogether; what's the purpose of claiming to be a member
at all if one is excluded from the only significant means of
communication?

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 18:09:19 +0100

Salve Octavi

>> c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
>
>So someone would be in violation if they posted "I am transgendered" or
>"I am a Roman Pagan" or "I am a Christian"?
Exactly.

>> The violation of the clauses is subject to expulsion from the mailing
list
>> for a time correspondent to the clause violated as follows:
>
>Are these penalties for a first offense, or for continued offenses after
>having been warned?
First offense. People have already been warned.

>> - Violation of clause a): between 1 and 2 years;
>> - Violation of clause b): between 6 months and 1 year;
>> - Violation of clause c): between 6 months and 1 year;
>> - Violation of clause d): between 4 and 6 months;
>> - Violation of clause e): between 4 and 6 months.
>
>I find all of these unreasonably long. Six months is a very long time
>period in "Internet time"; someone exiled for six months will probably
>never return. An exile from the list is efficively an exile from
>Nova Roma altogether; what's the purpose of claiming to be a member
>at all if one is excluded from the only significant means of
>communication?
Emergency demands. I shall re-evaluate the situation after I find things to
be more calm.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:23:24 -0500 (CDT)

>
> >> c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
> >
> >So someone would be in violation if they posted "I am transgendered" or
> >"I am a Roman Pagan" or "I am a Christian"?
> Exactly.

This is unreasonable. Can we say nothing whatsoever about our own lives?
Are we to be automatons, devoid of any distinguishing characteristics?

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 18:13:29 +0100

Salve Octavi

>An exile from the list is efficively an exile from
>Nova Roma altogether; what's the purpose of claiming to be a member
>at all if one is excluded from the only significant means of
>communication?
Expulsion is from this list. The message board and other lists can still be
used.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 18:14:57 +0100

Salve Octavi

>> >> c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
>> >
>> >So someone would be in violation if they posted "I am transgendered" or
>> >"I am a Roman Pagan" or "I am a Christian"?
>> Exactly.
>
>This is unreasonable. Can we say nothing whatsoever about our own lives?
>Are we to be automatons, devoid of any distinguishing characteristics?
Use private email for those things.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor



<--------lass="msghead"> &l--------href="/pos--------varoma?pro--------ID=034166250009056116130232203056129208071" &g--------bienus@--------&l--------&g--------td>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:58:34 US/Central

Salve Graece.

> Emergency demands. I shall re-evaluate the situation after I find things to
> be more calm.

So, you are effectively declaring a moratorium on all possibly controversial
conversation in this forum until such time as you think things have calmed
down? This seems a bit much.

Also, Octavius is correct when he calls this list "the only significant means
of communication" for our community. To be cut off from this list is awfully
close to exile, and six months is quite a long time.

Vale,
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian warning
From:	"Doug Barr" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114015211254158209218218186036129208" >dhkbarr@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 10:46:46 -0700

Salve Graece:

A couple of comments.

I find the wording of "c" a little open-ended. What constitutes declaration
of orientation? If I were a lesbian, would I have to merely refrain from
stating that I'm a big ol' carpet-munching bull-dyke, or would mentioning my
female partner be considered in itself a declaration of orientation and get
me bounced from the list?

And "a" is going to be rather hard to enforce -- people do get offended by
what other people say.

I do think enforcing a basic level of civility -- and how about just plain
"good manners," archaic concept though that may be -- is a good idea,
though. And I *really* like the requirement for sources, it may weed out
some of what my Druid list refers to as "fluffy-bunnies."

> I therefore DEMAND the following behaviours on the list:
>
> a) Not to offend any member of the list (this includes non-citizens).
> b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member of
> the list.
> c) Not to declare personal orientations or behaviours.
> d) To limit the discussion of gender to the context of the ancient Roman
> civilisation.
>
> As to point d), for a question of correctness and to combat
misinformation,
> defamation and sacrilege, I demand further:
> - Not to make any statement without presenting a primary source or good
> secondary source (the complete reference including author, work, chapter,
> paragraph, etc.) as proof.
>
> In case my demands are not obeyed I shall enact them as an official edict
> together with the respective penalties incurred on their violation. These
> can go as far as the removal from this mailing list for a time dependent
on
> the offense.
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Praetor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 13:27:27 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete Labiene et Graece,

> > Emergency demands. I shall re-evaluate the situation after I find things to
> > be more calm.

> So, you are effectively declaring a moratorium on all possibly controversial
> conversation in this forum until such time as you think things have calmed
> down? This seems a bit much.

That is the core of my objection to the edict; the cure is *much* worse
than the disease. While I can see the need to discourage personal
attacks upon an opponent, to be exiled for a year for a first offence
is far too severe.

Should Cicero have been exiled for his oration against Catilina?

The prohibition against "declarations" about oneself is even worse;
when confronted with bigotry, a transgendered or gay citizen can
no longer even reveal *why* he was offended by it!

An edict is a permanent thing, until it is overturned. Six months from
now, if a new citizen should happen to mention in his introduction
letter that he is gay, will the Comitia Centuriata be immediately
convened to boot the offender off the list? I need not point out how
absurd that would be... yet if this is not done, then we have a law
that is selectively enforced at the whim of the Praetors.

> Also, Octavius is correct when he calls this list "the only significant means
> of communication" for our community. To be cut off from this list is awfully
> close to exile, and six months is quite a long time.

Everything of significance that happens within Nova Roma happens on this
list (or the Senate's private list). The web-based message board gets
only a few posts a day. The Religio list is active, but its focus
is limited, and non-Pagan citizens would find little of interest there.
Being cut off from the main mailing list effectively bars one from
any meaningful participation in the affairs of Nova Roma or any
interaction with most of its citizens.

Esteemed praetor, I beg you, revoke your edict. The current argument
will eventually die out on its own, but a bad law would remain with
us for years.

Valete, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
<a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Repost: NovaRoma List Policies and Procedures (LONG)
From:	Mariu--------mbria <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 13:48:06 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete omnes...

I originally published this in late October of last year, immediately
after someone had inadvertently posted a virus hoax. Several
Listmembers began clamoring for the Magistrates to issue an edictum of
some kind to prohibit that sort of thing (You know...? Twenty years
from now we are going to be absolutely astounded at the triviality of
the things for which we used to demand virtual blood...!); I was
Curator Sermonem at the time, and this was my response.


<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
From: Mariu--------mbria <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a>
Subject: NovaRoma List Policies and Procedures (LONG)
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>

Salve, Papiri Iuste, et salvete omnes...

> I thought Nova Roma was ruled by law, not webmasters ...

Nova Roma is indeed ruled by law; and no edict could govern my List
moderatorship half so stringently as I have seen fit to govern myself.
Consul Sulla knows, and Ericius Propraetor's comments indicate he at
least suspects, what my normal procedure is: a warning-letter (the
matter usually ends there), followed only if necessary by setting the
subscription to [moderated], then unsubscribing, with banning (in which
the offender is prohibited from ever resubscribing under the same
address) only as an extreme last resort. Since I took over the List, I
have issued maybe half-a-dozen warnings; set one subscription to
[moderated]; and have had no need or call to use the third and fourth
options whatsoever.

For the record, I don't think the recent chain letter was any big deal.
People pass these things on, a lot of times out of a desire to help;
respected Citizens have posted virus-warnings that turned out to be
hoaxes. So what?

As of this writing, the poster's subscription is still active and
unmoderated. I have e-mailed Decius Iunius an explanation of my usual
methods, and am waiting to hear if he wants me to make a specific
exception in this case.

On a related issue, Diana Aventina has asked:
> I do have a question regarding this list being totally open and
> available to anyone who stumbles across it on Onelist. Isn't it
> possible for someone to sign up on this list using a Roman name,
> posting very controversial emails and wreaking havoc amongst the
> citizens? Has this ever happened?

That sort of thing has indeed happened; we get one of those every four
to six months or so, and it's happened once-and-a-half on my watch. I
believe Martianus Gangalius, when he was working on the Annales Novae
Romae, was about to weave for posterity the tale of Marconius Romanus,
a fundamentalist Christian who unaccountably saw fit to join NR and
then flame the Religio Romana. I was not Curator at the time; my howls
of protest echoed just as loudly as anyone else's, the more so because
he was making my religion look bad (I, too, am a Christian, but no
fundamentalist; and I find such characters acutely-embarassing).

More recent occurances were when a discussion of East Timor flared up
into a hurling of racial and religious epithets (I *was* Curator by
then); and the odd half-flap, when an ill-behaved 'outside observer'
accused me of manipulating the List-traffic to secure a particular
candidate's election. (That did not flare up precisely because, for
anyone that knows me [which is most of the List regulars], the
accusation was so patently unbelievable.)

Which brings me to another issue that gets kicked around from time to
time... We have often asked ourselves whether the NovaRoma E-List
ought to be restricted to Citizens only. Generally the question comes
up right after a hit-and-run situation such as Diana asks about and I
have described. In every case, we have decided against banning
non-Cives from subscribing. The reasons? --Chiefly, that we wish
prospective members to have a chance to check out Nova Roma by being
able to lurk on the List for a time; but also, sometimes our non-Cives
contibute a sorely-needed third-party perspective to our discussions
and general goings-on! The same 'observer' cited above had also said,
in an earlier post:

> We are seeing a living, breathing Rome slowly coming into existence
> against all the odds. [snip]...Sometimes you just need an outsider's
> opinion to get you to realize what a wonderful thing you are
> attempting to do here.

I think it was worth a minor 'texturing' of my dignitas on the election
thing to be able to be reminded of this. Ita est!

<---- End Forwarded Message ---->

***********************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria / Legio VI Victrix |>[SPQR]<|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> |\=/|
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Historical Re-Creationist, `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
and Citizen of Rome ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman...it's hard work, but _|_| / _/_| /`(
*somebody's* gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'

Subject:	Re: Third Gender
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:06:31 PDT

Salutem Qiritibus:

I have promised both Consuls, and publicly on this List, that I will remain
silent about the gender issue while it is sub Senatus Consulta.

I therefore reply here purely to satisfy Gryllus' request for (and anyone
else's possible interest in) primary sources for the scholarly work by
Dominic Monserrat, one of a collection of essays on divers topics of Roman
interest and commissioned by the Open University:

>Where, in what source did D. Monserrat find the definition of a third
>gender?

GALEN, 'On the Seed 1: Opera Omnia 4.569) (Kuhn, C.G. (Ed. & Trans.)
(1964-5)'Galen, Opera Omnia' (first published 1821-33), Georg Olms
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim.

>It is useless to talk about these things based on mere speculation with no
>supporting original sources.


- I agree.

Bene valete,

Vado.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia
From:	Marcus Traianus Valerius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029166091098194233050061175001147090048144091189251099013193116131142076083" >marcustrajanvalerius@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 12:07:52 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Antonius Gryllus Graecus,

>I buy the 10 or 11 other books on Roman Religion that

>are waiting in the queue. =)


Could you possiable e-mail me a list of those books.
I have been a pratcing Wiccan for going on 15 years
now. I use the Greco/Roman Dieties but am at a loss
for books on the Roman Religion.

Thanks.


=====
Multas felicitates!
Marcus Traianus Valerius
Citizen Of Nova Roma
*********************************************************
E-Mail         : <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=174166091098194233143061175001147090010144091189251099013193116131142076083" >MarcusTrajanValerius@--------</a>
Home Page : www.geocities.com/marcustrajanvalerius
*********************************************************

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
<a href="http://im.yahoo.com/" target="_top" >http://im.yahoo.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 19:15:45 -0000

Antonius Gryllus Graecus, Praetor.

The wording of your edict is extremely excessive. I strongly urge
you
to withdraw in order to re-tool it and then issue something that
better accomplishes what you hope for. The goal you are after is one
that we all understand, but this edict is just too much.

Freedom of speech might not have been the norm 2000 years ago, but in
this, the XXVIII century after the founding of the City, it is a fact
of life. We are not, after all, a re-enactment or a role playing
group. We have to, we wish to, rebuild Roma in a new epoch and for
the future.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator of Nova Roma.
Pontifex.
Augur.
Paterfamilias of gens Aelia.
Former Propraetor of California Provinica (retired after two terms).

--- In <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>, "Antonio Grilo" amg@c... wrote:
> Salvete cives
>
> Due to the fact that my last demands were ignored, being that two
messages
> were deliberately posted after my warning, I hereby enact the
following as
> an Edict.
>
> *******************************Praetorian Edict
> 00050901****************************
>
> I hereby decree that all citizens and non-citizens will obey to the
> following clauses when posting to the NR mailing list,
<a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> :
>
> a) Not to use insult or defame any member of the list.
> b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any
member of
> the list.
> c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
> d) To limit the discussion of sexuality, gender and closely related
topics
> to the context of the ancient Roman civilisation.
> e) When discussing sexuality, gender and closely related topics to
the
> context of the ancient Roman civilisation, for a question of
correctness and
> to avoid misinformation, postumous defamation and sacrilege, the
members of
> the list are forbidden to present any statement without justifying
with a
> reference to a primary source or good secondary source (the
reference shall
> be as complete as possible including author, work, chapter,
paragraph,
> etc.).
>
> The violation of the clauses is subject to expulsion from the
mailing list
> for a time correspondent to the clause violated as follows:
>
> - Violation of clause a): between 1 and 2 years;
> - Violation of clause b): between 6 months and 1 year;
> - Violation of clause c): between 6 months and 1 year;
> - Violation of clause d): between 4 and 6 months;
> - Violation of clause e): between 4 and 6 months.
>
> Notes:
> -Violation of this edict by citizens will be judged by the Comitia
> Centuriata.
> -Violation of this edict by non-citizens will be judged by the
Praetor
> alone.
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Praetor

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 15:36:28 -0400

Salvete omnes!

I appreciate what Graecus is trying to do with this Edict, but I'm sorry =
to
say that I think it causes more problems than it solves, or at least
doesn't solve the core problem.

What is Nova Roma? When I joined, the idea seemed to be as a micronation =
to
reconstruct the RELIGIO and to reconstruct the REPUBLIC for the condition=
s
of today (Capitals here & below to substitute for the lack of italics, no=
t
to shout). The Constitution explicitly disavowed the idea that this
entailed accepting the systematic patriarchalism (literally, not in the
wide feminist sense) and gender discrimination which characterised Roma
Antiqua, or the anti-homosexual views which some academic authors claim t=
o
find in Roman sources (They're apparently there, e.g., in Juvenal; but ma=
ny
recent authors, e.g. Boswell, Halperin, etc., doubt how representative
Juvenal's sentiments are and/or what they actually mean & refer to). On t=
he
contrary, NR was in these social matters to be a modern group which
internalised the no-discrimination and privacy rights developed in modern=

human rights ideas & international conventions.

This project (as it seemed to an outsider reading NR's pages and joining
the list for the first time) also involved the study and discussion of
classical roman culture, military affairs, law, family life, etc. So thou=
gh
NR was a pagan and republican group there was space in it for all who lov=
ed
Roma Antiqua and her heritage whether or not they were personally committ=
ed
to the Religio.

If, however, we are a RECONSTRUCTIONIST group, (or even just simply a
religious group) we cannot avoid confronting issues of the implication of=

our religion for issues disputed at the present day. All the more if we a=
re
a micronation we cannot avoid confronting issues of the requirements of o=
ur
citizenship and the proper scope and applicability of our laws.

We will have sharp disagreements, but we have to face up to these. We do
have to discuss in a civilized manner without defamatory posts like Vado'=
s
imputations of misconduct against Sulla (if there's anything to it, Civis=
,
take it to the Praetors, don't just say it on the list), Festus'
imputations of mental illness against the Meakers and later against Fimbr=
ia
(such imputations can never be justified) or "Tacitus" and Cato's
antihomosexual smears (these are directly unconstitutional). This far
Graecus is quite right.

But we cannot discuss ONLY what can be alleged from classical authorities=

and how things were in antiquity. Otherwise we cease to be a
reconstructionist group and become merely a classical studies group. And
I'm sorry, there are plenty of classical studies groups around. This is n=
ot
an adequate purpose to justify the existence of NR.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

Subject:	Praetorian Edict
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 15:52:26 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, Citizens;

I have spoken to the Senior Consul just moments ago and appraised him of
the subject document. I have sent a message to Praetor Graecus to
consider withdrawing or modifying his Edictum with the agreement of the
Senior Consul. I write these words to let you know this action is
working due to the time limit that certain Consul activities have
imposed upon them.

Vale, Respectfully
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=219166219098224057015097190036129" >cacc72@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 21:29:50 -0000

LOL!

Octavius, you definitely have MY vote if you wish to run for Congress!




--- In <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>, Marcus Octavius Germanicus haase@c...
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Michael Marconi wrote:
>
> >This whole idea of 'third gender' is a bunch of crap!
>
> Thank you, Professor. Your well-researched, logical argument will
surely
> put an end to this debate.
>
> > homosexuals -- I do believe their actions are vile, repulsive and
> > biologically unfounded.
>
> The debate wasn't even about homosexuals, yet you felt the need to
> point this out. Any particular reason?
>
> Is your attitude perhaps a cover for something? Such bigotry often
> comes from closet cases who hate what they see in themselves.
>
> Octavius
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> <a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Quotes Vado Does Not Want You To See!
From:	cacc <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=219166219098224057015097190036129" >cacc72@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)

LOL!

Octavius, you definitely you have my vote if you ever
intend to run for Congress!


--- Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, Michael Marconi wrote:
>
> >This whole idea of 'third gender' is a bunch of
> crap!
>
> Thank you, Professor. Your well-researched, logical
> argument will surely
> put an end to this debate.
>
> > homosexuals -- I do believe their actions are
> vile, repulsive and
> > biologically unfounded.
>
> The debate wasn't even about homosexuals, yet you
> felt the need to
> point this out. Any particular reason?
>
> Is your attitude perhaps a cover for something?
> Such bigotry often
> comes from closet cases who hate what they see in
> themselves.
>
> Octavius
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> <a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
<a href="http://im.yahoo.com/" target="_top" >http://im.yahoo.com/</a>

Subject:	New Clause for Prat. Edict
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 19:01:27 EDT

Clause F---making less than flattering remarks about the Praetorian Edict

Penalty---death

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Scuse per il Disturbo2
From:	"M G" <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230212192112185190015225190036129" >--------co@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 01:54:43 +0300

----- Original Message -----
From: Guido Costantini <a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230128180163056135105082190036" >--------e@--------</a>


Gentile signor Guido,
lei ha scritto che ha cercato di
entrare in contatto con tutti gli italiani presenti in NR.

Sulla lista, specie un mesetto fa, ci sono stato spesso anche io, Marcus
Prometheus, ed anzi, io Le avevo scritto anche un messaggio a
<a hre--------post/novaroma?protectID=230128180163056135105082190036" >--------e@--------</a> subito dopo il Suo primo apparire sulla lista.

Scusandomi molto e sinceramente per il disturbo che senza volere, forse
potrei arrecarLe, se Lei volesse farmi la cortesia di una breve risposta,
vorrei sapere se Lei lo ha ricevuto e come e' suo diritto non ha ritenuto di
dargli seguito, oppure se Lei non lo ha ricevuto per niente.

Nel primo caso Le garantisco che non La disturbero' oltre con messaggi fuori
lista.
Nel secondo caso intenderei permettermi di prendere di nuovo contatto con
Lei, se
(e fino a quando) Le facesse piacere.

Rispettosamente Suo
Marcus Prometheus
Italiano che vive in Romania