Forum Romanum


Subject:	NO to the Praetorian Edictum.
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 02:37:29 +0200

SALVETE QUIRITES!

There have recently been certain posts here which seem to
express the opinion that discussing issues of modern sexual
ethics and politics is foreign to the natural and proper
functioning of this list.

Some decades ago the social psychologist Eric Berne (famous
for his popularising book "Games People Play") divided the
functionings of social organisations into two parts: the
Group Activity and the Group Process.

The Group Activity is what the group ostensibly exists to
do. In our case, no doubt, that to a large extent involves
discussing ancient Roman affairs.

The Group Process is all the other processes which are
necessary to keep the group together and functioning as a
group. For us that must include everything necessary to make
democratic political decisions on every issue necessary in a
microstate.

That microstate is not in any way separable from the rest of
the world, and it must deal with many of the same problems
as the rest of the world it inhabits. At this moment we have
an intolerable situation in which citizens of our Republic
(and very active, good and widely liked and respected ones
at that) are being denied their natural right to participate
among us in freedom and dignity because of the details of
their sexuality.

Whether in a chess club or a ministate, members have to
stand up and make a noise when things like this happen, and
not stop until the issue is righted. This is a moral
imperative and a democratic necessity. It cannot be
considered irrelevant to the project of Nova Roma to speak
up as much as may be necessary to make Nova Roma a just
place for all.

If anyone thinks that is off topic, then it seems to me that
that person would be better off in a more scholarly and
secluded place. This is the Forum Novoromanum, and it is
here people come to see justice done. Sometimes loudly -
when others refuse to listen.

It seems to me that an even more urgent matter has arisen,
however, than that of sexual discrimination. I speak of the
Edictum of the Praetor. UNDER WHAT PROVISION OF THE NOVA
ROMAN CONSTITUTION OR UNDER WHAT LEX PASSED BY THE PEOPLE
OF NOVA ROMA IS THE PRAETOR GIVEN THE POWER TO THROW MEMBERS
OUT OF THIS FORUM FOR THE EXPRESSION OF ETHICAL AND
POLITICAL OPINIONS?

If he were properly authorised by a Lex, and if it were a
matter of expelling only those who were personally insulting
others, and if the terms of the suspensions from the list
was less draconian, THEN I would probably support the idea.
But those provisions are not being met. Rather, people are
being threatened with the most extreme penalties for simply
discussing the living political topics of the day, necessary
to keep the control of the Republic in the hands of its
citizens. This is improper and unacceptable.

QUIRETES, I submit to you that the greatest menace to the
well-being of Nova Roma at this moment is the Praetorian
Edictum. If we cannot discuss the subjects we must discuss
in order to maintain our control over our collective
political life, then the whole engine of progress and the
whole infrastructure of democratic free speech and popular
government will be injured or destroyed.

It is obvious that individual magistrates using their legal
powers of individual action and legislation are causing us
as a society great harm. There should be more consultation
*in advance* between them and the Senate and between the
Senate and the People. Arbitrary use of power will bring
power into disrespect.

THIS PRAETORIAN EDICTUM MUST BE RESCINDED, AND IT IS
DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE ANY OTHER TOPIC WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
UPON THIS LIST UNTIL THIS HAS BEEN EFFECTED.

Will the Consuls and the Senate not take action to secure
our democratic rights of free speech? As our friend says:
"Libertas inestimabilis res est."

Valete!

M. Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfmilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Founding Triumvir, Sodalitas Latinitatis,
Civis Liberae Novae Romae

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


Subject:	Newbie
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 20:50:06 -0400

I stumbled across the Nova Roma site the other day. I am interested in
what it is you are doing. I confess to now very little about Roman
traditions. My background is mostly in Norse traditions of Migration era
and latter. I am very interested in anyone who attempts to accurately
recreate a historical religion. I am in Maryland and would be interested if
there are any activities in this area. I look forward to learning from this
list.

Cheers,
Scott


Subject:	Petition to the Tribunes (was Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 23:23:40 -0400

Salvete,

It was with great sadness that I read this edictum.

While I am certain that our esteemed Praetor, Antonius Gryllus Graecus,
believed he was acting with the best interests of our Republic at heart, I
am equally certain that in doing so he has grossly exceeded his authority as
Praetor and has violated one of the most fundamental guarantees of our
Constitution; the right to free expression in public forums.

As a member of the Senate, sitting Proconsul, and the Collegium Augurum, I
hereby make an official petition to our Tribunes of the Plebs-- Gnaeus
Tarquinius Caesar and Lucius Sergius Australicus (who are both listed on our
official website as acting in that capacity)-- to act according to their
authority under paragraph IV.A.7.a. of our Constitution.

I believe that Antonius Gryllus Graecus has blatantly and obviously violated
paragraph II.B.4. of our Constitution, which states that Citizens possess:

"The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the
right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the
State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably
moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

In my opinion (as the person who wrote the Constitutional passage in
question), the edictum as enacted by the Praetor completely contradicts the
letter and spirit of this provision. If the Praetor does not voluntarily
unmake his own edictum, I urge you to act according to your duty.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Senator, Proconsul, et Augur

----- Original Message -----
From: Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:33 PM
Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901

> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Up to 60% OFF food!
> Buy Now and Shipping is Free.
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4016/6/_/61050/_/958754678/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4016/6/_/61050/_/958754678/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 23:46:50 -0400

Salve,

Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> wrote:

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

Aft--------ucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> wrot--------r>
> >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.)

I realize that my state of semi-retirement has left me somewhat out of the
loop, but I must ask, when was the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri overturned?
Paragraph II of that legally-enacted law states that the job of email list
administrator belongs to one of the Vigintisexviri-- specifically the
Curator Sermo.

Should our esteemed Praetor, Antonius Gryllus Graecus, wish to stand for
this most vital position, then all well and good; let a legally-convened
election be conducted.

But I say NO! to a magistrate who wishes to usurp the lawfully-delegated
powers of another, even if that magistracy should happen to be vacant at the
moment. Even with the blessing of a sitting Censor! We have a position
designed to fill the job; let's fill it, not ignore it. We cannot go around
ignoring laws because they are inconvenient; that attitude led to the crisis
of last summer.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Senator, Proconsul, et Augur


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 20:47:42 -0700

Well Germancius, we just had an election and no one stood for the post.
Considering that no one stood for the post. It makes sense to me....after
explained to me by my colleague that the Praetors should do it. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> wrote:
>
> > As Praetor I'm ready to carry my duty as list moderator.
>
> Aft--------ucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> wrot--------font>
>
> > >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.)
>
> I realize that my state of semi-retirement has left me somewhat out of the
> loop, but I must ask, when was the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri overturned?
> Paragraph II of that legally-enacted law states that the job of email list
> administrator belongs to one of the Vigintisexviri-- specifically the
> Curator Sermo.
>
> Should our esteemed Praetor, Antonius Gryllus Graecus, wish to stand for
> this most vital position, then all well and good; let a legally-convened
> election be conducted.
>
> But I say NO! to a magistrate who wishes to usurp the lawfully-delegated
> powers of another, even if that magistracy should happen to be vacant at the
> moment. Even with the blessing of a sitting Censor! We have a position
> designed to fill the job; let's fill it, not ignore it. We cannot go around
> ignoring laws because they are inconvenient; that attitude led to the crisis
> of last summer.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Senator, Proconsul, et Augur
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
> Remember the good 'ol days
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/958794587/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/6/_/61050/_/958794587/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 00:04:17 -0400

Salve,

Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> wrot--------r>

> Well Germancius, we just had an election and no one stood for the post.
> Considering that no one stood for the post. It makes sense to me....after
> explained to me by my colleague that the Praetors should do it. :)

If no one stood for the post, then perhaps the post should just go vacant.
Seems to have been the will of the People, as well as the will of the
Praetors (neither of whom bothered to stand for the post, but who seem happy
to just have its power fall into their lap).

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Annoyed at being dragged back into it all...


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 21:07:25 -0700

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Lucius Corn--------s Sulla <a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=243128192154082190130232203077129208071" >al--------us@--------</a> wrot--------font>
>
> > Well Germancius, we just had an election and no one stood for the post.
> > Considering that no one stood for the post. It makes sense to me....after
> > explained to me by my colleague that the Praetors should do it. :)
>
> If no one stood for the post, then perhaps the post should just go vacant.
> Seems to have been the will of the People, as well as the will of the
> Praetors (neither of whom bothered to stand for the post, but who seem happy
> to just have its power fall into their lap).
>

I understand that....but the post is vacant now...and look at the situation the
List as at times gotten too. Many people are calling for List moderation.
Since no one stood for the post..and the Praetors are the law enforcment portion
of the government, it seems plausible, and not necessarily illegal, that the
Praetors should usurp that authority til a List Moderator is elected. Remember
the Preators were elected by the People just as the list moderator.

> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Annoyed at being dragged back into it all...
>

Sulla Felix
I agree....with your sentiment too... hehehe :)

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Save 75% on Products!
> Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958795616/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958795616/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject:	Libertas inaestimabilis res est
From:	"A. Artorius Arius Sarmaticus" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061166091213158134036102228219114187071048139" >sarmaticus@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 04:17:11 -0000

Salvete omnes,

I am agree with this message of M. Apollonius Formosanus' and other
criticisms of the "Praetorian Edictum". Who will dicide what is
offensive and insulting for a person and what is not? Marcus
Prometheus' messages re "East-West" stuff _were_ insulting for
Alexander Probus, but nodody else here didn't think so. Dexippus'
posts about my "theft" of my employers' internet time in January or
February _were_ insulting (for) me, but nobody else gave a sh.., save
for perhaps one person... Who will dicide? Quis custodiet quis
custodit (sorry for wrong spelling here;-))? This all is undemocratic.

And I wonder where is the regular defender of free speach in this
forum, Marcus Prometheus, now?

AVLVS ARTORIVS ARIVS SARMATICVS
Civis et barbarvs Nov=E6 Rom=E6
Propraetor Sarmati=E6 Provinci=E6

Libertas inaestimabilis res est

Vale(te) in pace

--- In <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" bvm3@y...
wrote:
> SALVETE QUIRITES!
>
> There have recently been certain posts here which seem to
> express the opinion that discussing issues of modern sexual
> ethics and politics is foreign to the natural and proper
> functioning of this list.
>
> Some decades ago the social psychologist Eric Berne (famous
> for his popularising book "Games People Play") divided the
> functionings of social organisations into two parts: the
> Group Activity and the Group Process.
>
> The Group Activity is what the group ostensibly exists to
> do. In our case, no doubt, that to a large extent involves
> discussing ancient Roman affairs.
>
> The Group Process is all the other processes which are
> necessary to keep the group together and functioning as a
> group. For us that must include everything necessary to make
> democratic political decisions on every issue necessary in a
> microstate.
>
> That microstate is not in any way separable from the rest of
> the world, and it must deal with many of the same problems
> as the rest of the world it inhabits. At this moment we have
> an intolerable situation in which citizens of our Republic
> (and very active, good and widely liked and respected ones
> at that) are being denied their natural right to participate
> among us in freedom and dignity because of the details of
> their sexuality.
>
> Whether in a chess club or a ministate, members have to
> stand up and make a noise when things like this happen, and
> not stop until the issue is righted. This is a moral
> imperative and a democratic necessity. It cannot be
> considered irrelevant to the project of Nova Roma to speak
> up as much as may be necessary to make Nova Roma a just
> place for all.
>
> If anyone thinks that is off topic, then it seems to me that
> that person would be better off in a more scholarly and
> secluded place. This is the Forum Novoromanum, and it is
> here people come to see justice done. Sometimes loudly -
> when others refuse to listen.
>
> It seems to me that an even more urgent matter has arisen,
> however, than that of sexual discrimination. I speak of the
> Edictum of the Praetor. UNDER WHAT PROVISION OF THE NOVA
> ROMAN CONSTITUTION OR UNDER WHAT LEX PASSED BY THE PEOPLE
> OF NOVA ROMA IS THE PRAETOR GIVEN THE POWER TO THROW MEMBERS
> OUT OF THIS FORUM FOR THE EXPRESSION OF ETHICAL AND
> POLITICAL OPINIONS?
>
> If he were properly authorised by a Lex, and if it were a
> matter of expelling only those who were personally insulting
> others, and if the terms of the suspensions from the list
> was less draconian, THEN I would probably support the idea.
> But those provisions are not being met. Rather, people are
> being threatened with the most extreme penalties for simply
> discussing the living political topics of the day, necessary
> to keep the control of the Republic in the hands of its
> citizens. This is improper and unacceptable.
>
> QUIRETES, I submit to you that the greatest menace to the
> well-being of Nova Roma at this moment is the Praetorian
> Edictum. If we cannot discuss the subjects we must discuss
> in order to maintain our control over our collective
> political life, then the whole engine of progress and the
> whole infrastructure of democratic free speech and popular
> government will be injured or destroyed.
>
> It is obvious that individual magistrates using their legal
> powers of individual action and legislation are causing us
> as a society great harm. There should be more consultation
> *in advance* between them and the Senate and between the
> Senate and the People. Arbitrary use of power will bring
> power into disrespect.
>
> THIS PRAETORIAN EDICTUM MUST BE RESCINDED, AND IT IS
> DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE ANY OTHER TOPIC WORTHY OF DISCUSSION
> UPON THIS LIST UNTIL THIS HAS BEEN EFFECTED.
>
> Will the Consuls and the Senate not take action to secure
> our democratic rights of free speech? As our friend says:
> "Libertas inestimabilis res est."
>
> Valete!
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus,
> Paterfmilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> Founding Triumvir, Sodalitas Latinitatis,
> Civis Liberae Novae Romae
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ICQ# 61698049
> Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> [Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]


Subject:	RE: Petition to the Tribunes
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 21:44:10 -0700

Salvete Quirites.

I add my voice and my name to the petition that Flavius Vedius
Germanicus has put forward.
Tribunes, your intercessio would be the least disruptive way to deal
with the gross violation of the Constitution of Nova Roma that
Antonius Gryllus Graecus has committed by his edict. Graecus has not
chosen to withdraw it himself, as he has been requested to, so it is
now up to you. If you do not act soon there can not but be further
repercussions.

Valete.
Caius Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Pontifex. Augur. Retired Propraetor of California and
Nevada.

--- In <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"

germa--------s@-------- wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> It was with great sadness that I read this edictum.
>
> While I am certain that our esteemed Praetor, Antonius Gryllus
Graecus,
> believed he was acting with the best interests of our Republic at
heart, I
> am equally certain that in doing so he has grossly exceeded his
authority as
> Praetor and has violated one of the most fundamental guarantees of
our
> Constitution; the right to free expression in public forums.
> As a member of the Senate, sitting Proconsul, and the Collegium
Augurum, I
> hereby make an official petition to our Tribunes of the Plebs--
Gnaeus
> Tarquinius Caesar and Lucius Sergius Australicus (who are both
listed on our
> official website as acting in that capacity)-- to act according to
their
> authority under paragraph IV.A.7.a. of our Constitution.
>
> I believe that Antonius Gryllus Graecus has blatantly and obviously
violated
> paragraph II.B.4. of our Constitution, which states that Citizens
possess:
>
> "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
the
> right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State.
Such
> communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted
by the
> State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to
the
> Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be
reasonably
> moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"
>
> In my opinion (as the person who wrote the Constitutional passage in

> question), the edictum as enacted by the Praetor completely
contradicts the
> letter and spirit of this provision. If the Praetor does not
voluntarily
> unmake his own edictum, I urge you to act according to your duty.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Senator, Proconsul, et Augur
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Antonio Grilo amg@--------
> To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:33 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
>
>
> > 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] RE: Petition to the Tribunes
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 23:54:42 -0500 (CDT)

> Tribunes, your intercessio would be the least disruptive way to deal
> with the gross violation of the Constitution of Nova Roma that
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus has committed by his edict. Graecus has not
> chosen to withdraw it himself, as he has been requested to, so it is
> now up to you.

In fairness to Graecus, I must point out that he lives in a timezone
several hours ahead of most of us, and has probably slept through
most of the clamor. We should not criticize his failure to withdraw
the edict until he's had a chance to see the objections.

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] New Clause for Prat. Edict
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 23:58:07 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 19 May 2000 <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a> wrote:

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

This is rather unfortunate, as there are no other Nova Roman magistrates
in my immediate area. I guess I'm going to have to preside over my own
crucifixion. (Hammering in the last nail is always the hardest part...)

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] New Clause for Prat. Edict
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 01:04:50 EDT

In a message dated 5/20/00 12:59:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a> writes:

<< I guess I'm going to have to preside over my own
crucifixion. (Hammering in the last nail is always the hardest part...) >>

No no no.....you are a Roman Citizen, and so therefore cannot be crucified.
It is the ax for you!

Festus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] RE: Petition to the Tribunes
From:
Date:	Fri, 19 May 2000 22:27:12 -0700

That is absolutely correct. Remember folks, he is Governor of Lusitania
(sp.) that correspondes to Portugal. Give him time to wake up!

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> > Tribunes, your intercessio would be the least disruptive way to deal
> > with the gross violation of the Constitution of Nova Roma that
> > Antonius Gryllus Graecus has committed by his edict. Graecus has not
> > chosen to withdraw it himself, as he has been requested to, so it is
> > now up to you.
>
> In fairness to Graecus, I must point out that he lives in a timezone
> several hours ahead of most of us, and has probably slept through
> most of the clamor. We should not criticize his failure to withdraw
> the edict until he's had a chance to see the objections.
>
> Octavius
>
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> <a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Over 1,000 solutions for allergies & asthma-gazoontite.com! Shop now!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958798531/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4193/6/_/61050/_/958798531/</a>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] RE: Petition to the Tribunes
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 01:34:00 EDT

Agreed. I am awaiting morning (I'm in U. S. Central Daylight Time) and
word from my colleague, Gn. Tarquinius Caesar, before acting on this
matter. In the meantime, perhaps our valued Pontifex and Praetor will
reconsider his rash pronouncements.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis

On 5/19/00 11:54 PM Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------(<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>) wrote:

>
>> Tribunes, your intercessio would be the least disruptive way to deal
>> with the gross violation of the Constitution of Nova Roma that
>> Antonius Gryllus Graecus has committed by his edict. Graecus has not
>> chosen to withdraw it himself, as he has been requested to, so it is
>> now up to you.
>
>In fairness to Graecus, I must point out that he lives in a timezone
>several hours ahead of most of us, and has probably slept through
>most of the clamor. We should not criticize his failure to withdraw
>the edict until he's had a chance to see the objections.
>
>Octavius
>
>M. Octavius Germanicus
>Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
>Microsoft delenda est!
><a href="http://www.graveyards.com/" target="_top" >http://www.graveyards.com/</a>

sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

(I think some people in togas are plotting against me.)

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 01:10:15 -0500

Salvete.

> > If no one stood for the post, then perhaps the post should just go
> vacant.

Actually, the consules asked for people to privately declare their
desire to stand for the post, which I did in a message to Q Fabius. Due
to the request for private correspondence on the matter, and the fact
that the post was never listed as being on the ballot we recently held,
I assumed that they were asking for people who were willing to act as
curator sermo pro tem, in order to put their names before the Senate's
next session as per Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri.

"Should the position be vacant, and suitable and willing candidates are
available, an election shall be held within thirty days in the comitia
populi tributa; otherwise the Senate shall have the authority to appoint
a curator sermo pro tem until such an election can be held."

> I understand that....but the post is vacant now...and look at the
> situation the
> List as at times gotten too. Many people are calling for List
> moderation.
> Since no one stood for the post..and the Praetors are the law
> enforcment portion
> of the government, it seems plausible, and not necessarily illegal,
> that the
> Praetors should usurp that authority til a List Moderator is elected.
> Remember
> the Preators were elected by the People just as the list moderator.

As per LVV above, the Senate should appoint a curator sermo pro tem, to
serve until such time as an election can reasonably be held.

Valete,
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 02:30:07 -0400

Salve,

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
> To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:33 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
>
> > 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.

You're an idiot for trying to push this through.

> > b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member
of
> > the list.

My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS.

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

I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS.

> > 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.

Seems like I'm up for suspension for between 1 and 2 years. Yikes!

You want to uphold your edictum, tough guy? Suspend me from the list for two
years. I dare you.

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

If you think your edictum is legally valid, you'll have me up before the
Comitia Centuriata. Otherwise, save yourself a whole world of embrassment
and nullify your edictum. Lest there be any question, I make the following
statements specifically to activate your edictum:

"You're an idiot for trying to push this through." (violates section A)
"My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS."
(violates section B)
"I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS" (violates section C)

Expell me. I dare you.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Senator, Proconsul, et Augur


Subject:	ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00052001
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:25:26 +0100

Salvete cives et magistrati

I'm sorry but only now I am able to answer your statements. I'm sending this
privately to you.

I'd like you to know that I have acted in good faith to stop the devouring
fire that was destroying the good mood in our mailing list. I was also
concerned by having some people using the list to announce their sexual
preferences in the hope of getting mates for having sex. Considering that
our list is neither of the alt.sex.wanted type nor of the alt.sex at all, I
decided to move in order to stop the exodus of good citizens due to too much
out-of-topic threads (in fact almost exclusively sexual, which is an amazing
source for psychological study though it is also out-of-topic here) . My
intention was not to uphold the Edict for a long time interval. I don't like
to tell what people shall and shall not talk about. My intention was just to
stop the most dangerous threads which were inflaming our nation, and this is
within II.B.4:
"The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the
right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such
communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the
State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably
moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

As can see, I've not forbidden people to criticize magistrates!
As you can see, I've noted the powers of the Comitia Centuriata to
materialize my decisions!
'Per Iovem'! How can they accuse me of aspiring to Dictatorship?

I recognise that my Praetorian Edict 00051901 had too harsh penalties (it's
the first time I enact such a thing) and lack of clarity. But I cannot stop
from enacting something. And if some demagoges - who are always waiting for
the next opportunity to became the heros of the Respublica, though sometimes
they show no respect for the rights of the citizens who oppose them - want
to defy my authority, destroy my dignitas and "raze my house", so be it! I
have no fear to be destroyed for the Respublica. And I will not be as coward
as to resign this difficult post!

I have received many private letters of concerned citizens who did not agree
with my terms. People of Rome, I'm proud of you!
You have explained your objections, you have sugested changes, A THING THAT
SOME MAGISTRATES AND SENATORS WERE UNABLE TO DO!
You have understood my good intentions, A THING THAT SOME MAGISTRATES AND
SENATORS WERE UNABLE TO DO!
You have not defied the authority of my office, A THING THAT SOME
MAGISTRATES AND SENATORS WERE UNABLE TO DO!
Finally , you have not insulted me for nothing, you have shown that the
Respublica is a reality, A THING THAT SOME MAGISTRATES AND SENATORS WERE
UNABLE TO DO!

People of Rome, based on your concerns, objections and sugestions, I enact
the following edict... And if the Tribunes want to veto it, let it be! The
final judgement will come in the end of the year.

*******************************Praetorian Edict
00052001****************************
This edict totally replaces Edict 00051901.

I hereby decree that from May 21st 12:00 (official time of Nova Roma), until
May 27th 12:00 (offcial time of Nova Roma) 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 insult or defame any member of the list.
b) Not to assign any sexual orientations or behaviours to any member of
the list.
c) Not to declare any personal sexual orientations or behaviours.
d) To limit the discussion of sexuality, gender and closely related topics
in the context of the ancient Roman civilisation.
e) When discussing sexuality, gender and closely related topics in 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 6 months and 1 year;
- Violation of clause b): maximum 1 month;
- Violation of clause c): maximum 1week;
- Violation of clause d): maximum 1 month;
- Violation of clause e): maximum 1 week.

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 Praetors.

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor


Subject:	ATTN: Announcement from Antonius Gryllus Graecus
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:36:03 +0100

Salvete omnes

As you may already know I have no computer on Saturday afternoon and Sunday
morning. As such, I will only be available to answer your emails as well as
answer postings in the Forum, on Monday.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:43:27 +0100

Salve Marce Traiane Valeri

>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.

Well, the best books I have are in French, but some good books in English
can also be found. For example you can look for books by Robert Turcan
(though many are in French). The following are my preferred and provide a
very good background on Roman ritual and sacrifice:

- Robert Turcan, "Rome et ses dieux", La vie Quotidienne, Hachette, 1998
- John Scheid, "La Religion des Romains", Armand Colin

I'm sure that you will find them in bookstrores in France, e.g.
<a href="http://www.bol.fr/" target="_top" >http://www.bol.fr/</a>

Amazon.com has also some titles by Robert Turcan, but I think these are more
turnet towards the foreign cults rather than traditional cults.
Nevertheless, they are also good quality.

If you want to become an expert... Well... Go to
<a href="http://www.ecole-francaise.it/" target="_top" >http://www.ecole-francaise.it/</a>

there you can find many books by John Scheid and other authors.

Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem XII Kalendas Iunius (May 21st)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 12:22:03 +0100

Salvete omnes

Tomorrow I will not be here, and thus I post today the religious note for
tomorrow.
*****************************************************************

This is a dies nefastus publicus (NP), a day for special religious
observance on which no legal action or public business can take place.

Today is the Agonalia of Maius, dedicated to Vediovis. The Rex Sacrorum
sacrifices a ram at the Regia.

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Newbie
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 13:07:50 +0100

Salve, Scott!

> I stumbled across the Nova Roma site the other day. I am interested in
> what it is you are doing. I confess to now very little about Roman
> traditions. My background is mostly in Norse traditions of Migration era
> and latter. I am very interested in anyone who attempts to accurately
> recreate a historical religion. I am in Maryland and would be interested
if
> there are any activities in this area. I look forward to learning from
this
> list.

NovaRoma has its own e-mail list for discussions, questions and answers on
the Religio Romana:
mailto:<a href="mailto:ReligioRomana@--------" >ReligioRomana@--------</a>. There is also mailto:<a href="mailto:Religio2@--------" >Religio2@--------</a>,
run by a Hellene ex-citizen (Pythia), where more generally Classical,
mediterranean religious matters are discussed. Feel free to join either.

Currently (as you may have noticed) there is a bit of unpleasantness going
on in our Main List Forum, so right now it's not an ideal place for
newcomers to get sensible replies to their questions.
(Please don't be put off NR by this - it happens from time to time).

Your statement about 'recreating' an historical religion evinces a problem
many of us Roman pagans experience on the practical side of our
spirituality: what was done in the ancient Roman world is fairly well
recorded and therefore researchable (although pieces of the jigsaw are
missing, so to speak), but the question arises: what is appropriate to
continue, and what to change, to make the practice of the Religio practical
in the age we live in? This is something we're having to learn as we go
along, trial and error. Some of us are fairly conservative in our practices
or beliefs, some liberal. Some are conservative in their outward ritual, but
liberal in their beliefs, others, vice versa. The main good thing about it
all (for me) is that there's no dogma.

I've been doing public and private rituals (in Britannia) for three years
now. If you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer to the best of
my ability, or if I can't, to refer you to someone I know who can. There
are, for example, citizens who worship the gods of Rome and the Aesir and
Vanir concurrently.

As to activities in Maryland - I know that the Prefect of the XXIV Legion
lives there. His name is Gallio - you'll find him on the Album Civium (Roll
of Citizens) on the NR website. He'd be a good start.

Hope this helps. Bene vale,

N. Moravius Vado.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] RE: Petition to the Tribunes
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 07:55:49 -0500 (CDT)

On S--------20 M--------000 <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:

> Agreed. I am awaiting morning (I'm in U. S. Central Daylight Time) and
> word from my colleague, Gn. Tarquinius Caesar, before acting on this
> matter. In the meantime, perhaps our valued Pontifex and Praetor will
> reconsider his rash pronouncements.

Tarquinius Caesar resigned last week (whereupon several people asked
him to stay)... is he still willing and able to act in this capacity?

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] List Moderators.
From:	Marcus Pap--------s Justus <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 09:34:43 -0600

Salvete,

I've been a denizen of various email lists dealing with the ancient world
for well over a decade now and I think I can weigh in on this subject with
some advice that won't satisfy the various hues and cries which are being
hurled, but might make folks understand what they're up against. Once a
list is established and has been functioning for a long time, a large chunk
of its members believe themselves to be mature enough to be 'self
policing', and for the most part, that is true. Troublemakers are always a
very small minority of the population of any list ... sometimes they are
intentional troublemakers, sometimes they aren't. Whatever the case, the
troublemakers -- especially in an American context -- will always resort to
claims of 'freedom of speech' as their defense. Unfortunately, populations
from cultures which are more restrained (e.g. Canada, various nations in
Europe), where freedom of speech tends to be restrained when it begins to
impinge on the rights of others to the benefits of other things under the
rubric of freedom, tend to suffer because they inherently realize that
'freedom of speech' does not imply a 'right to be heard by those who don't
want to hear it'. But that's a cultural thing. Nova Roma has to decide
whether it does want untrammelled freedom of speech a la the US or, in the
lack of genuine Roman values (such as gravitas, which is the sort of thing
which would naturally restrain folks), whether it wants to impose on a
fellow citizen the position of moderator, which is essentially dooming that
person to mounds and mounds of criticism.

Here's a case in point: a few years ago I was asked to moderate the largest
list which deals with the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. When I
was appointed, there were some rumblings, but no big deal. Then, when a
certain person posted a note on a topic which the list owner and I had
decided was not proper subject matter, I wrote that person privately and
asked her (nicely) to stay on topic. She reponded by posting my note to the
list, which brought out hoards of 'free speech' advocates who publicly made
me responsible for practically every evil under the sun and branded me a
dictator, nazi, etc. (and keep in mind, many of these folks are respected
academics). Needless to say, I stepped down from the position ...

Another case in point: I run a rather large number of email lists -- most
of the announcement variety. I have one, however, devoted to ancient Egypt
which fairly regularly gets quite rancorous. I'm very reluctant to step in
as moderator (I realize that emotion is a part of academic discussion to a
certain degree), but as moderator, I come under great pressure from
listmembers (writing in public and private) to put this or that individual
under moderation (individuals can be moderated as well as whole lists with
egroups/onelist) and it seems rather unfair at times. Then when you do
finally take the step, you get the hoards of email in public and private
criticizing you for restricting free speech.

The point of all this is that you're dooming whoever becomes moderator to a
life of obscurity and unpopularity. You are pretty much ensuring that they
cannot aspire to a political career in Nova Roma or any other 'public'
function. You should seriously think about rewarding the person who takes
up the task with Patrician status and various other privileges just on this
basis alone.You also put this person at risk from the senatorial elite here
... what happens if it is one of our magistrates who is in need of
moderation? Do you think they will not take that as a personal offense (as
would anyone else)?

Nova Romans: think long and hard when you demand a moderator. If you're
thinking of becoming the moderator, think long and hard about whether you
*really* are up to it. It isn't a cakewalk and you will likely alienate a
huge chunk of people you consider to be friends ...

mpj


Subject:	With all due respect to the Praetor
From:	"Shelly Mohnkern" <a href="/post/novaro--------rotectID=061015192078018028015154190036129" >shelly@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 10:04:58 -0400

Greetings:

I find your edict to be a bit harsh, in that it is virtually impossible to
do all you ask.
You ask us not to offend. Well, we try, but no-one is perfect. To many of
some religions, my very belief system is seen as an affront or offense,
thought it is intended as neither, of course. It is merely what I believe.
You ask us not identify others with personal orientations or behaviors, or
to identify ourselves as such. I thought one of the purposes of Nova Roma
was to renew Roman paganism... yet we are unable to identify ourselves as
participants in the very religio we seek to re-establish? I always thought
that Nova Roma was MORE than just a LARP. We are not caricatures, we are
people. If you read the description of the requirements to be a member of
the Religio, you will note that they ask those who would be clergy to
practice the faith in our everyday (outside NR) lives! If we cannot discuss
these beliefs that we hold anywhere but on the Religio list, then so be
it... but you are depriving the populace of NR with a valuable resource...
the learning experience and growth involved in the reconstruction of a VITAL
part of society, religion. As for other orientations and/or behaviors,
again, my NR personae is more than a character I "put on" before talking to
you all... it is the Roman version of ME, not a paper cut out. I would not
want to have to hide the "real me" from my fellow citizens. Let the citizens
judge who and what they would speak of... trust me, if someone offends, the
citizens as a whole usually rise up in defense, and it brings us closer
together.

I understand, and applaud, what you are trying to do, but I feel you take
too much on yourself. One man or woman can not achieve world peace on their
own, we have to come together as a society to do so. Also, this list is MORE
than simply a site to post educational findings, with the proper citations.
While I agree one should not state anything as absolute fact without the
ability to back it up, this forum (as it were) is our marketplace... it is a
place to meet, to discuss, to speculate, to dream, and to learn. It is for
discussion of our world, our beliefs, our deities, and our place in it all.
Please do not shut open discussion down.

In HER name,

Rosa Lusoria Gemina Mala

a side note: none of what I said should be taken as an endorsement of flame
wars and open bigotry, or of hate. I DO NOT approve, and hope that as Romans
we can rise above such pettiness. This is NOVA Roma... we should try to
evolve. Blessings.


Subject:	Strife on this list
From:	Megas-Rob--------n <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232178182078116015056190036129" >amgunn@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 08:07:09 -0500

Avete Omnes,

Venii scripsit:

Howdy, there was a mention recently that this list was a might contentious, comparing it to the
level of e-strife usually reserved for SCA* listwars. Folks, Romans are PEACEFUL compared to the
hoo-haws I've witnessed on fully Pagan and Heathen lists. At least in Nova Roma we get Cives
bringing fact and sources into the discussions, plus we all recover our Dignitas and Decorum after
awhile.

The benefit to these heated discussions (yes, there is one), they can be likened to a good, strong
fermentation where the gunk rises to the top where it can be skimmed off leaving behind the purest
of wines.

A Bad result, we do lose Cives who have made (will make) valuable contributions to the building of
Nova Roma.

mea sententia

In Amicus sub Fidelis - Venii

*SCA: the Society for Creative Anachronism - an organization, somewhat fantastical (I'm allowed,
I've played SCA since 1975), mostly historical, which concentrates on the pre-17th Century culture
of Western Europe and cultures which could have come into contact therewith. Not, as some would
have, strictly a re-creation group like the Civil War or Roman Legion folks. Unlike Historical
groups, the SCA is history a la carte, re-creating "the Middle Ages as they should have been." (To
quote an introductory pamphlet.)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] List Moderators.
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 10:12:47 -0400 (EDT)

Salve, Marcus Papirus Justus;

I thank you for the posting of your experience as well as the content of
your enciteful message. You have said in a calm and unruffled way what
I attemped to say some hours ago. I thank you for your supporting
message. I believe in our two former list moderators, they have endured
some of what you describe, to the point in one case where she has been
forced to resign her position, and in the other, she chose to move out
of the task for a space although fhe has again volunteered her services
in this venue.

It appears that Nova Roma is not yet ready for self-moderation if the
E-Mail traffic responses are to be considered. Of course a dozen
pro-Moderator messages against a handful of messages against a
Moderator, in a group numbering almost 200 is not exactly telling!!

However, the Consuls have decided that we will
have a Moderator, and now all we have to do is to select one, after we
straighten out a few small items that have cropped up in the meantime.

Vale, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


Subject:	An Ancient Letter
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:35:16 EDT

Salvete,

I found this in a New Testament commentary by the late Prof. William
Barclay of the University of Glasgow. It is a letter written by a soldier
named Apion to his father Epimachus, and was written from Misenum. I do not
know a date for this letter.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit;and that things are going well
with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother. I thank my Lord
Serapis that he kept me safe while I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I
got to Misenum I got my journey money from Caesar---three gold pieces. And
things are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line,
first to let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly,
that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because of
that hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest
greetings, and my brothers, and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a
little picture of myself paintwed by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius
Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos
Daimon's boy, and Turbo, Gallonius's son".

Barclay cites G. Milligan, 'Selections from the Greek papyri', 36 as his
source for this letter.

Gaius Lupinius Festus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:35:22 -0400 (EDT)

Salve, Conscript Fathers et Nova Roma Citizens;

I stand in Forum to address the subject Edict. It is close upon the 24
hour mark to the time the subject edict was recieved by myself. I have
sent a message to the Senate Fathers and to the Nova Roma List
explaining that Praetor and Pontiff Graecus has been notified, and asked
to withdraw his subject Edict, by both the Consuls.

I have in my possession sufficient Messages from concerned magistrates
and citizens regarding the subject Edict to consider that the Edict must
be nuetralized until it can be edited, and modified to the agreement of
both the NR Citizens and the NR Magistrates for effective use within NR.
At this point I have heard no reply to my message to Pontiff Graecus.
My assumption is that, as on so many previous occasions, his answer
simply is delayed in transmission and has not reached me as yet, but the
deadline draws nigh, and I must be sure.

Therefore to insure that the strident requests of the NR Citizens and
Magistrate are met, I hearby VETO the subject Edict at this date and
time.

My apologies for this action to Pontiff Graecus, and any who may think
that I have overstepped my authority. However, apparently the
circumstances compounded by time and distance seem to force this action
upon me. I have taken this action on the following accounts:

--The apparent disapproval of a large body of the NR Citizenship;

--My personal belief that the wordng of the Edict both in rule and
penalty must be modified, before it can be used in NR;

--The apparent disapproval of given members of the Senate, whose specfic
knowledge in the composition of Leges and Edicts in Nova Roma exceeds my
own.

I have done, and I state again my Consular VETO of the subject Edict for
the reasons and the circumstances cited. This action is taken in the
sincere hope that it fulfills the statement of my Oath of Office and
will find favor in the sight of the Gods of Rome, The Nova Roman Senate,
and the Citizens of Nova Roma all for whom I feel the strongest respect
and admiration.

Valete, With the Greatest Respect;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Consul et Senator.

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 12:09:33 EDT

Salve Consul,

I thank you for very appropriately nullifying the highly improper and
noxious edict in question. You did not overstep your authority -- it is
stated very clearly in the Constitution. It is the Praetor who clearly
overstepped his authority.

I was on the verge of making a similar pronouncement as Tribune, but in
the absence of word from my colleague (who may have even carried through
on his resignation), my veto would have been toothless due to the new
Constitution limiting the tribunician veto to being applied jointly.
Yours was therefore the only remaining remedy that could be applied in a
timely manner.

On the subject of my colleague: if Gnaeus Tarquinius has carried through
on his intent to resign, then we need a replacement for him. Under our
present Constitution, a single Tribunus Plebis can only call the Senate
and the Comitia Plebis Tributa into session and act as the "Peter
Jennings" of Nova Roma reporting news from the Senate. That is hardly
much of a job.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis (alone but still opinionated)

On 5/20/00 10:35 AM Marcus Minucius Audens (<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>)
wrote:

>Salve, Conscript Fathers et Nova Roma Citizens;
>
>I stand in Forum to address the subject Edict. It is close upon the 24
>hour mark to the time the subject edict was recieved by myself. I have
>sent a message to the Senate Fathers and to the Nova Roma List
>explaining that Praetor and Pontiff Graecus has been notified, and asked
>to withdraw his subject Edict, by both the Consuls.
>
>I have in my possession sufficient Messages from concerned magistrates
>and citizens regarding the subject Edict to consider that the Edict must
>be nuetralized until it can be edited, and modified to the agreement of
>both the NR Citizens and the NR Magistrates for effective use within NR.
>At this point I have heard no reply to my message to Pontiff Graecus.
>My assumption is that, as on so many previous occasions, his answer
>simply is delayed in transmission and has not reached me as yet, but the
>deadline draws nigh, and I must be sure.
>
>Therefore to insure that the strident requests of the NR Citizens and
>Magistrate are met, I hearby VETO the subject Edict at this date and
>time.
>
>My apologies for this action to Pontiff Graecus, and any who may think
>that I have overstepped my authority. However, apparently the
>circumstances compounded by time and distance seem to force this action
>upon me. I have taken this action on the following accounts:
>
>--The apparent disapproval of a large body of the NR Citizenship;
>
>--My personal belief that the wordng of the Edict both in rule and
>penalty must be modified, before it can be used in NR;
>
>--The apparent disapproval of given members of the Senate, whose specfic
>knowledge in the composition of Leges and Edicts in Nova Roma exceeds my
>own.
>
>I have done, and I state again my Consular VETO of the subject Edict for
>the reasons and the circumstances cited. This action is taken in the
>sincere hope that it fulfills the statement of my Oath of Office and
>will find favor in the sight of the Gods of Rome, The Nova Roman Senate,
>and the Citizens of Nova Roma all for whom I feel the strongest respect
>and admiration.
>
>Valete, With the Greatest Respect;
>
>Marcus Minucius Audens
>Consul et Senator.

nullae satisfactionis potiri non possum.

(I can't get no satisfaction.)


Subject:	Civil Disobedience [was Re: ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901]
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 09:24:26 -0700

Salvete, Quirites.

I was trying to make contact with many of my fellow magistrates last night, and
thoroughly annoying not a few of them, because I wanted to "exhaust all normal
means available" before I went along this path. Flavius Vedius Germanicus seems
to have led the way. As I followed him into Nova Roma [!?!] I will follow him
here. Graecus has posted this day. He has not rescinded his edict. He has, in
effect, reissued it. He says he will not be available for a few days. LIBERTAS
can not wait in a holding cell. I pray that the second Tribune of the People,
Gn. Tracings Caesar is able to look at his email and see that he has a job to
do. Of course, if he has not actually rescinded his resumption of his office
then the sole Tribune can impose INTERCESSIO.
In the meantime I wish to show the People of Nova Roma that their magistrates
are taking a stand of sorts. {A Toga is not made for a sit-in.}

>a) Not to insult or defame any member of the list.
Graecus is being a silly jackass about this. (onager=jackass)
[that was the hard one - I do not like to be blatantly insulting]

>b) Not to assign any sexual orientations or behaviours to any member of
>the list.
The magistrates, the overwhelming number of Nova Roma are a bunch of flagrant
heterosexuals. They do all the "Things" that heterosexuals are said to do. Oh,
sure, not all at the same time. And some probably exert "some" restraint in
their sweaty activities. Also some of the men dress in skirts and will travel
miles to get together with other heterosexual men so they can wear their skirts
together and parade around in their "outfits." There are even some of these
*heterosexuals* who have procreated and even show pictures of their offspring to
other people. In fact I beleive that Antonius Grillus Graecus is one of those
heterosexual people.

> c) Not to declare any personal sexual orientations or behaviours.
I am a heterosexual. At least predominantly so. Perhaps it has come from
living in San Francisco for over 30 years, but I admit that I can now tell
(often) when a man is what would be called good looking. At least I am usually
correct when I tell a female friend that she should checkout so-and-so, and she
says that he is indeed good looking. I have even had an active part in getting
people together. When I saw "Gladiator" I sat in a section with a lot of gay
men. In my defense, though such is pointless, I think they were looking at
other things of Mr. Crowe's than his sword action[?]. I know that I am
predominantly heterosexual in that I must be careful not to walk into lamp posts
when outside in hot weather -- my attention is often grabbed by beautiful
females in very pleasant attire. I could go on, but I do not want to overly
disgust anybody.

>d) To limit the discussion of sexuality, gender and closely related topics
>in the context of the ancient Roman civilization.
At first I thought this was a hard one to cross. Then I realized I did it in
the above paragraph. Except the part about sitting with the guys watching
"Gladiator". That was related to ancient Roman civilization. Of course I could
go on about C. Iulius Caesar, and C. Valerius Catullus, and Juvenal.

>e) When discussing sexuality, gender and closely related topics in 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.).
Caesar, the Imperator and Dictator, was most likely bisexual in his youth,
though maybe not. The same goes for M. Antonius, who played at being married to
a male friend. Catullus was bisexual. Juvenal sure sounds like a homophobe,
but maybe he was just p*ssed at some freedman who had a hand in his exile. I
could give some sources for these. I could dig through my books for sources
that are not ready to mind. But I refuse to. Other than not giving them being
the point of this act, it is also stiffeling to discussion to have to cite
everything like a doctoral thesis when one is conversing with friends. We refer
to the works when further info is requested. To front load a few bushels of
references in a conversation is stiffeling and boorish. Anyone who tries to
make such a requirement a virtual law, punishable by exile, is a jerk. Oh!
We're back to "a)"!
-------
Footnote: "jerk" is a rather mild term that is a bit synonymous with "annoying
person".

Vivant Libertas.
Ave Roma Immortalis.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Pontifex. Augur.
Paterfamilias of gens Aelia.
Retired Propraetor of California and Nevada.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:30:07 -0400

> From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a> > Subject: Re: ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
>
> Salve,
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
> > To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:33 PM
> > Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
> >
> > > 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.
>
> You're an idiot for trying to push this through.
>
> > > b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member
> of
> > > the list.
>
> My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS.
>
> > > c) Not to declare any personal orientations or behaviours.
>
> I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Seems like I'm up for suspension for between 1 and 2 years. Yikes!
>
> You want to uphold your edictum, tough guy? Suspend me from the list for two
> years. I dare you.
>
> > > Notes:
> > > -Violation of this edict by citizens will be judged by the Comitia
> Centuriata.
>
> If you think your edictum is legally valid, you'll have me up before the
> Comitia Centuriata. Otherwise, save yourself a whole world of embrassment
> and nullify your edictum. Lest there be any question, I make the following
> statements specifically to activate your edictum:
>
> "You're an idiot for trying to push this through." (violates section A)
> "My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS."
> (violates section B)
> "I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS" (violates section C)
>
> Expell me. I dare you.
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Senator, Proconsul, et Augur
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 09:31:53 -0700

Salvete, Quirites.

I graciously thank M. Minucius Audens Consul for his action on this
matter. I similarly thank L. Sergius Australicus Tribune for voicing
his approval of the Consuls' action.

I offer my apologies to all that I may have been annoying to in these
last 24 hours (particularly Consul Audens). I know they understand
the reasons.

Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Pontifex. Augur. Senator.
-------------------
Libertas. Dignitas. Pietas. Prudentia.

<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=226107192180229130130232031248147208071048" >LSergAust@--------</--------; wrote:

> Salve Consul,
>
> I thank you for very appropriately nullifying the highly improper
> and
> noxious edict in question. You did not overstep your authority -- it
> is
> stated very clearly in the Constitution. It is the Praetor who
> clearly
> overstepped his authority.
>
> I was on the verge of making a similar pronouncement as Tribune, but
> in
> the absence of word from my colleague (who may have even carried
> through
> on his resignation), my veto would have been toothless due to the
> new
> Constitution limiting the tribunician veto to being applied jointly.
>
> Yours was therefore the only remaining remedy that could be applied
> in a
> timely manner.
>
> On the subject of my colleague: if Gnaeus Tarquinius has carried
> through
> on his intent to resign, then we need a replacement for him. Under
> our
> present Constitution, a single Tribunus Plebis can only call the
> Senate
> and the Comitia Plebis Tributa into session and act as the "Peter
> Jennings" of Nova Roma reporting news from the Senate. That is
> hardly
> much of a job.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Sergius Australicus
> Tribunus Plebis (alone but still opinionated)
>
> On 5/20/00 10:35 AM Marcus Minucius Audens
> (<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>)
> wrote:
>
> >Salve, Conscript Fathers et Nova Roma Citizens;
> >
> >I stand in Forum to address the subject Edict. It is close upon
> the 24
> >hour mark to the time the subject edict was recieved by myself. I
> have
> >sent a message to the Senate Fathers and to the Nova Roma List
> >explaining that Praetor and Pontiff Graecus has been notified, and
> asked
> >to withdraw his subject Edict, by both the Consuls.
> >
> >I have in my possession sufficient Messages from concerned
> magistrates
> >and citizens regarding the subject Edict to consider that the Edict
> must
> >be nuetralized until it can be edited, and modified to the
> agreement of
> >both the NR Citizens and the NR Magistrates for effective use
> within NR.
> >At this point I have heard no reply to my message to Pontiff
> Graecus.
> >My assumption is that, as on so many previous occasions, his answer
>
> >simply is delayed in transmission and has not reached me as yet,
> but the
> >deadline draws nigh, and I must be sure.
> >
> >Therefore to insure that the strident requests of the NR Citizens
> and
> >Magistrate are met, I hearby VETO the subject Edict at this date
> and
> >time.
> >
> >My apologies for this action to Pontiff Graecus, and any who may
> think
> >that I have overstepped my authority. However, apparently the
> >circumstances compounded by time and distance seem to force this
> action
> >upon me. I have taken this action on the following accounts:
> >
> >--The apparent disapproval of a large body of the NR Citizenship;
> >
> >--My personal belief that the wordng of the Edict both in rule and
> >penalty must be modified, before it can be used in NR;
> >
> >--The apparent disapproval of given members of the Senate, whose
> specfic
> >knowledge in the composition of Leges and Edicts in Nova Roma
> exceeds my
> >own.
> >
> >I have done, and I state again my Consular VETO of the subject
> Edict for
> >the reasons and the circumstances cited. This action is taken in
> the
> >sincere hope that it fulfills the statement of my Oath of Office
> and
> >will find favor in the sight of the Gods of Rome, The Nova Roman
> Senate,
> >and the Citizens of Nova Roma all for whom I feel the strongest
> respect
> >and admiration.
> >
> >Valete, With the Greatest Respect;
> >
> >Marcus Minucius Audens
> >Consul et Senator.
>
>
> nullae satisfactionis potiri non possum.
>
> (I can't get no satisfaction.)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	What is done is done
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=226028211237082190172248203043129208071" >Lykaion1@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 12:39:20 EDT

Salvete,

The Consul has vetoed the Praetorian edict. There is no longer any need
for rancor or for disparigning remarks of the Praetor Graecus. The matter is
being handled.

Thanks to Consul Audens for taking the appropriate action. And let us
have no hard feelings towards Praetor Graecus. A bad edict does not make a
bad man!

One personal note to Praetor Gracus; Thank you for the compliment on my
Hypatia post. I also printed out two of your own posts; the one on the
alleged third gender, and the post on Sol Invictus which I found on the
Religio list archives.

Gaius Lupinius Festus


Subject:	ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 12:56:19 -0400

Salvete, Quirites

I was actually so surprised that such a thing was being done, I didn't know what to 'say'! So I wrote to the Tribunes
Tribunus Plebis: Gnaeus Tarquinius Caesar
Tribunus Plebis: Lucius Sergius Australicus

and the Consules
Consul: Quintus Fabius Maximus
Consul: Marcus Minucius Audens

and 'suggested that they 'Veto' Graecus' ill-conceived 'edict'. I neglected to include Graecus' colleague Praetor: Marcus Iunius Iulianus

all of whom can veto (I forbid) this "Praetorian Edict 00050901"

I don't really have a problem with the goal of this 'edict' but I do have a problem with the edict. As has been eloquently stated by others 'the cure is far worse than the 'illness''.

So, I find that I must join Germanicus in his act of 'civil disobedience'

"You're an idiot for trying to push this through." (violates section A)
"My wife (Irene Afrania Lentula) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS."
(violates section B)
"I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS" (violates section C)

Expell me. I dare you.

Ita est.

Valete Quitrites, Mar nos protegas
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Senator, Flamen Martialis, Pontifex, Augur

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:30:07 -0400
From: "Flavius Vedius Germa--------s" <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=123056091213158116036102228219114090071048139" >germa--------s@--------</a>
Subject: Re: ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901

Salve,

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
> To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:33 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901
>
> > 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.

You're an idiot for trying to push this through.

> > b) Not to assign any personal orientations or behaviours to any member
of
> > the list.

My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS.

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

I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS.

> > 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.

Seems like I'm up for suspension for between 1 and 2 years. Yikes!

You want to uphold your edictum, tough guy? Suspend me from the list for two
years. I dare you.

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

If you think your edictum is legally valid, you'll have me up before the
Comitia Centuriata. Otherwise, save yourself a whole world of embrassment
and nullify your edictum. Lest there be any question, I make the following
statements specifically to activate your edictum:

"You're an idiot for trying to push this through." (violates section A)
"My wife (Priscillia Vedia Serena) is a heterosexual. She likes GUYS."
(violates section B)
"I am heterosexual. I like GIRLS" (violates section C)

Expell me. I dare you.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Senator, Proconsul, et Augur

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	And Now for Something Completely Different.
From:	Mar--------O--------ius Germani--------<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=180075219163056135025082190036" >hu----------------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 11:56:14 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete Cives,

Rather than dwell on our current political struggle, I'd like to provide
a more pleasant topic. I invite everyone to look at the prototype for
a new, dynamic Album Civium:

<a href="http://spqr.konoko.net/bin/view" target="_top" >http://spqr.konoko.net/bin/view</a>

and a new citizenship application:

<a href="http://spqr.konoko.net/bin/apply" target="_top" >http://spqr.konoko.net/bin/apply</a>

Suggestions for improvements are welcome. I hope to deploy these tools
for real within the next month.

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:	New graphic
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 10:05:42 -0700

I added another photo to the graphics file on the Egroups page for
this list (and the Senate list and the CollPont list and the
California Provincia list). It is from the Maecenas site. It is a
1988 photo of the sacred fig tree, grape vine and olive tree that are
in the Forum Romanum.

On the Maecenas site there is also a photo of these sacred plants
several years before. I would like to see what they look like now.
Preferably in person, but a photo will do. Do any of you world
travelers have one? [nudge -- wink]

Valete.
Ericius.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00052001
From:	<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 13:57:23 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, Honored Fathers and Citizens of Nova Roma;

I am now in receipt of the response of Pontiff and Praetor Graecus to my
message of request of yesterday to withdraw his Edict, some 25 minutes
after the 24 hour Veto Deadline for the Edict of yesterday. In this
message Pontiff / Praetor Graecus explains his intentions to a much
greater degree, and includes a second Edict (00052001), saying that this
second Edict "totally replaces" Edict 00051901 of yesterday.

Unfortunately, I see no difference in the Edict rules of 00052001 from
those of Edict rules 00051901. The only difference appears to be in the
content of the penalties which have been modified to some extent.

It is my belief that the rules as reposted in the New Praetorian Edict
as well as the old one being the same, still do not effectively meet the
needs of Nova Roma. They are, in my opinion, far too general and
unspecific to be used on the Onelist. As the rules stand, it is my
observation, that any Citizen of NR may very easily violate one or more
of these rules by an innocent statement thereby incurring a possible
sentence of expulsion. This fact has been graphically demonstrated
elsewhere by three members of the Nova Roma Senate. Several other
citizens have also objected to the wording on the same basis. I have
submitted the rules as wriiten in the second edict to some additional
personages of my personal aquaintaince who possess very keen and logical
minds, who have also indicated that as written these rules cannot hope
to effectively serve Nova Roma if they are to be viewed realistically.
On the basis of these comments and the comments of the Citizens of Nova
Roma, I now contemplate the following action:

Pontiff / Praetor Graecus has indicated that he will be unable to
respond to further messages until Monday morning, and one of the NR
Tribunes having resigned his post has not as yet posted any notice of
re-consideration rendering the action of the lone Tribune not totally
effective. I have not heard or seen any response to the Pratorean Edict
Concern from the second Praetor. which again leaves it, at this moment,
to the Consuls to take further action, if any is to be taken.

Therefore, in regard to Praetorian Edict #2 (00052001) I forward these
messages:

Pontiff / Praetor Graecus:

I most sincerely ask Pontiff / Praetor Graecus to withdraw this second
Edict before Sunday 11:25 A. M. (EDT+5-----6:25 A.M. EDT-5). Failing
that, it is my intent to VETO your second Edict, essentially for the
same reasons the first Edict was VETOED.

Senior Consul:

If you disagree with the above intent, I ask that you contact me with
your comments before the stated deadline.

Conscript Fathers / Magistrates;

Your comments as to the suitbility of the above intended action for the
second time is most cordially invited.

Citizens of NR;

Your comments regarding this situation are welcome. I pledge that I
will read all received prior to making my final decision.

My purpose in this lengthy and very wordy message is to, quite frankly,
try and establish a way around the time barrier for the VETO action if
at all possible, or establish some secondary optional action. I do not
see any clear way to do this and I call upon all who have a concern for
this situation to address your comments to me, briefly if possible, as I
anticipate a lengthy reading task.

As a reminder I have set a time limit for my final response for Sunday
6:25 A.M. (EST), but since sleep will be a vital consideration in this
schedule, I hope to be able to make my decision by midnight tonight at
the latest. I will be away from home for some hours today, but will
return well before midnight

Valete, With the Utmost Respect and a special thank-you to those who
have supported my actions to date;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Consul et Senator

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Civil Disobedience [was Re: ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00050901]
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 13:10:28 -0500

Salve Caius Ericius!

Loved your post. I'm not certain a lone Tribune's intercessio would count
-- the Constitution is silent on the case of having only one tribune, but
Marcus Minucius has taken care of the matter anyway.

Perhaps if the need arises again, I'll put your theory of the lone
tribune to the test.

Vale,

Lucius Sergius Australicus
Tribunus Plebis

On 5/20/00 11:24 AM Raz-------- (<a hr--------/post/novaroma?prot--------D=194166216056078116169218163036129208" >raz--------@--------</a>) wrot--------r>
>Salvete, Quirites.
>
>I was trying to make contact with many of my fellow magistrates last
>night, and
>thoroughly annoying not a few of them, because I wanted to "exhaust all
>normal
>means available" before I went along this path. Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>seems
>to have led the way. As I followed him into Nova Roma [!?!] I will follow
>him
>here. Graecus has posted this day. He has not rescinded his edict. He
>has, in
>effect, reissued it. He says he will not be available for a few days.
>LIBERTAS
>can not wait in a holding cell. I pray that the second Tribune of the
>People,
>Gn. Tracings Caesar is able to look at his email and see that he has a job to
>do. Of course, if he has not actually rescinded his resumption of his office
>then the sole Tribune can impose INTERCESSIO.


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00052001
From:	Mike Ma--------r <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 14:13:33 -0400

Salvete!

The new version of Graecus' Edict is much better because it has a clear t=
ime limit and =

a more limited scope. However, it is still open to the fundamental object=
ions raised to the first version.

1) Graecus justifies the Edict in part as follows:

>I was also concerned by having some people using the list to announce th=
eir sexual
>preferences in the hope of getting mates for having sex. =

Where on earth is the evidence for this? =

2) Graecus writes:

> I decided to move in order to stop the exodus of good citizens due to t=
oo much
>out-of-topic threads (in fact almost exclusively sexual, which is an ama=
zing
>source for psychological study though it is also out-of-topic here). =

But the issue at the core of the debate is the Edict issued by the Censor=
Sulla as =

to rules relating to names adopted by citizens, which has led several cit=
izens to resign. =

There is absolutely no way that this can possibly be considered off-topic=
.

Some (not all) supporters of Sulla's Edict have argued that criticism of =
the Edict is =

off-topic because it's "PC" or "failing to uphold roman mores" or whateve=
r. But Nova Roma =

is a membership organisation which has rules intended to be applicable to=
the =

twenty-eighth century after the founding of the City, when we now live. M=
atters of the =

proper scope and interpretation of those rules cannot be off-topic.

The problem is that Graecus' justification of his Edict risks taking side=
s in the discussion =

of Sulla's Edict, i.e. upholding the views of the proper scope of discuss=
ion in NR of one group =

of the supporters of Sulla's Edict.

3) The same goes for parts of the Edict itself:

>a) Not to insult or defame any member of the list.

Is fine.

>b) Not to assign any sexual orientations or behaviours to any member of
>the list.

Is also fine, at least if the "assigning" is done without the prior conse=
nt of the person =

discussed.

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

Why not? "Declaring", known among gay men and lesbians as "coming out", i=
s a political act, =

not one done primarily in search of partners. More specifically related t=
o this discussion.
Several people have argued that since Fimbria has resigned the whole issu=
e is moot and should =

be dropped. Suppose Aulus Aegerius / Aula Aegeria (roman law writers for =
"John Doe; I hope no-one has taken =

the name, if so no reference to you is intended) were to pop up & say "Bu=
t I'm a pre-op TS, so =

it affects me". Is this an offence?

>d) To limit the discussion of sexuality, gender and closely related topi=
cs
>in the context of the ancient Roman civilisation.

But this is the whole question. Is NR to be a classical civilization stud=
y group, which =

could reasonably impose such a rule, or a live reconstructionist group, f=
or which present-day
questions also have to be approached within roman pagan and republican pr=
inciples? If it's the =

latter we really can't have such a rule.

>e) When discussing sexuality, gender and closely related topics in 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 sh=
all
>be as complete as possible including author, work, chapter, paragraph,
>etc.).

This is OK as long as "as complete AS POSSIBLE" means what it says. Other=
wise comment on these =

topics on the list would be de facto restricted to academics.

Regrettably, I still think the tribunes should veto the revised Edict.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister=


Subject:	Re: Audens! [ATTN: Praetorian Edict 00052001]
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 12:46:58 -0700

Salvete Consuls et Quirites.

I am mainly addressing Audens Consul. You asked for a response, this
is it. Briefly:

I approve of the tack you are taking.

There.

I know you are staying in touch with the Senior Consul as much as your
mutual scedules allow. Hence my addressing the both of you. You
happen to have Point. It might seem thankless. You do have my
thanks.

Bene valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Pontifex. Augur.

<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> --------e:

> Salvete, Honored Fathers and Citizens of Nova Roma;
>
> I am now in receipt of the response of Pontiff and Praetor Graecus
> to my
> message of request of yesterday to withdraw his Edict, some 25
> minutes
> after the 24 hour Veto Deadline for the Edict of yesterday. In this
>
> message Pontiff / Praetor Graecus explains his intentions to a much
> greater degree, and includes a second Edict (00052001), saying that
> this
> second Edict "totally replaces" Edict 00051901 of yesterday.
>
> Unfortunately, I see no difference in the Edict rules of 00052001
> from
> those of Edict rules 00051901. The only difference appears to be in
> the
> content of the penalties which have been modified to some extent.
>
> It is my belief that the rules as reposted in the New Praetorian
> Edict
> as well as the old one being the same, still do not effectively meet
> the
> needs of Nova Roma. They are, in my opinion, far too general and
> unspecific to be used on the Onelist. As the rules stand, it is my
> observation, that any Citizen of NR may very easily violate one or
> more
> of these rules by an innocent statement thereby incurring a possible
>
> sentence of expulsion. This fact has been graphically demonstrated
> elsewhere by three members of the Nova Roma Senate. Several other
> citizens have also objected to the wording on the same basis. I
> have
> submitted the rules as wriiten in the second edict to some
> additional
> personages of my personal aquaintaince who possess very keen and
> logical
> minds, who have also indicated that as written these rules cannot
> hope
> to effectively serve Nova Roma if they are to be viewed
> realistically.
> On the basis of these comments and the comments of the Citizens of
> Nova
> Roma, I now contemplate the following action:
>
> Pontiff / Praetor Graecus has indicated that he will be unable to
> respond to further messages until Monday morning, and one of the NR
> Tribunes having resigned his post has not as yet posted any notice
> of
> re-consideration rendering the action of the lone Tribune not
> totally
> effective. I have not heard or seen any response to the Pratorean
> Edict
> Concern from the second Praetor. which again leaves it, at this
> moment,
> to the Consuls to take further action, if any is to be taken.
>
> Therefore, in regard to Praetorian Edict #2 (00052001) I forward
> these
> messages:
>
> Pontiff / Praetor Graecus:
>
> I most sincerely ask Pontiff / Praetor Graecus to withdraw this
> second
> Edict before Sunday 11:25 A. M. (EDT+5-----6:25 A.M. EDT-5).
> Failing
> that, it is my intent to VETO your second Edict, essentially for the
>
> same reasons the first Edict was VETOED.
>
> Senior Consul:
>
> If you disagree with the above intent, I ask that you contact me
> with
> your comments before the stated deadline.
>
> Conscript Fathers / Magistrates;
>
> Your comments as to the suitbility of the above intended action for
> the
> second time is most cordially invited.
>
> Citizens of NR;
>
> Your comments regarding this situation are welcome. I pledge that I
>
> will read all received prior to making my final decision.
>
> My purpose in this lengthy and very wordy message is to, quite
> frankly,
> try and establish a way around the time barrier for the VETO action
> if
> at all possible, or establish some secondary optional action. I do
> not
> see any clear way to do this and I call upon all who have a concern
> for
> this situation to address your comments to me, briefly if possible,
> as I
> anticipate a lengthy reading task.
>
> As a reminder I have set a time limit for my final response for
> Sunday
> 6:25 A.M. (EST), but since sleep will be a vital consideration in
> this
> schedule, I hope to be able to make my decision by midnight tonight
> at
> the latest. I will be away from home for some hours today, but will
>
> return well before midnight
>
> Valete, With the Utmost Respect and a special thank-you to those who
>
> have supported my actions to date;
>
> Marcus Minucius Audens
> Consul et Senator
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] And Now for Something Completely Different.
From:
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 16:04:52 EDT

Salve Octavius!

Wow! I am really impressed by the new Album Civium and the new application.
Excellent job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A note that I would like to add, not against your new system because it is
also missing from the current Album. Pater familias and Mater Familias
should also be listed on the Album Civium because they currently are only
listed on the Album Gentium which does not state their Tribe, Century, and
Century Points as the Album Civium does.

Vale,

Iulius Titinius Antonius

"Second star to the right and straight on till morning."


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Divina Hypatia
From:	Marcus Traianus Valerius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=029166091098194233050061175001147090048144091189251099013193116131142076083" >marcustrajanvalerius@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 15:09:20 -0700 (PDT)

Many thanks.

--- Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> wrote:
> Salve Marce Traiane Valeri
>
> >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.
>
> Well, the best books I have are in French, but some
> good books in English
> can also be found. For example you can look for
> books by Robert Turcan
> (though many are in French). The following are my
> preferred and provide a
> very good background on Roman ritual and sacrifice:
>
> - Robert Turcan, "Rome et ses dieux", La vie
> Quotidienne, Hachette, 1998
> - John Scheid, "La Religion des Romains", Armand
> Colin
>
> I'm sure that you will find them in bookstrores in
> France, e.g.
> <a href="http://www.bol.fr/" target="_top" >http://www.bol.fr/</a>
>
> Amazon.com has also some titles by Robert Turcan,
> but I think these are more
> turnet towards the foreign cults rather than
> traditional cults.
> Nevertheless, they are also good quality.
>
> If you want to become an expert... Well... Go to
> <a href="http://www.ecole-francaise.it/" target="_top" >http://www.ecole-francaise.it/</a>
>
> there you can find many books by John Scheid and
> other authors.
>
> Vale
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Pontifex
>
>
>
>
>
>

=====
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: [novaroma] Great Lakes Provincial cives and to any other interested in community
From:	"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a>
Date:	Sat, 20 May 2000 23:40:52 GMT

Salve, Gaius Drusus:

This sounds great! :)

I am a cive from Ontario Canada....not terribly far from Wisconsin. I am
not sure if I can commit to another out-of-town venture this year...I am
going to Roman Days. But from the looks of posts subsequent to yours, it
looks like several civites are quite interested. In the off-chance I can
get away again, I would appreciate your keeping the list posted on your
finalized plans.

Thanks and Bene Vale!
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

>From: <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=114056113185089095081021203102129208071" >dean6886@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Great Lakes Provincial cives and to any other
>interested in community
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:55:26 -0500 (CDT)
>
>
>Salve!!!
>
>
> Who would be interested in a physical meeting / get together later
>this summer or early fall???
>
> I was thinking about a certain large and scenic Wisconsin State
>Park where camping is available and inexpensive motels abound. Do we
>have enough interest ( at least 8-10 plus people confirmed )?
>
> There's plenty we could do in this senario. It would make a great
>weekend getaway and a way for us to socialize. Anything from a brief
>meeting on anything relevent to Nova Roma of the day, people bringing in
>books or coins, artifacts, etc., a card party, a nature hike, or even a
>ritual, and there's a swimming beach to boot. It's about establishing
>ourselves as a community.
>
> As governor of the Great Lakes Provincia I think now is the perfect
>time to make plans for some type of social event rather than just
>listening to whining and bitching on this newsgroup all summer. Anyone
>favorable to this type of idea before I go on and on????
>Any ideas to go along with this?
>
>Gaius Drusus Domitianus
>
>
>

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