| Subject: |
Re: List Moderators. |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 21:07:28 EDT |
|
In a message dated 5/21/00 4:50:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> --------es:
<< In regard to the "forced" resignation of Maria / Marius Fimbria, some of
her posts have referred to a personal feeling that the stresses of being
a moderater, may have had something to do with the resignation. While
it is true that I do not personnally know Fimbria, and have not met her
face to face, I do not believe that I know anyone well enough to be
absolutely positive in regard to their total range of motives for
action. My words were couched in that aspect. Of course, I may well be
mistaken, I often am, it seems, to be corrected just as often by my
peers, but in this particular case, I believe I would rather be assured
of my error by Fimbria herself rather than a third party.
>>
Salvete,
The answer of course is that Marius has neither died or dropped off the face
of the earth... She's quite contactable by Email.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
|
| Subject: |
Magistrates & Citizens |
| From: |
"Mo P'ei-li" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 03:23:15 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites!
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
> I endorse wholeheartedly this very sensible proposal of
M. Apollonius
> Formosanus:
> to me, the whole idea of day-to-day legislation by
one-man edicta without a
> constitutional check other than the Tribunician or
Consular veto
> (especially when it is doubtful whether the legislation
exceeds that issuing
> magistrate's imperium) is going to be a constant source
of friction.
Salve.
Well unfortuantely it shouldn't be just a "one-person"
Edicta. The whole
purpose of having dual magestrial position is specifically a
check on that.
Unfortunately, we should not blame the magistrate for that
situation
when a colleague leaves, resigns, or disappears. What that
speaks too is lack of dedication of the elected official,
and we should compliment and praise the official who does
act....for at least he/she DOES.
Many times in Nova Roma's past we have had magistrates who
are
elected and either disappear, vanish or resign their post.
This means that the sole magistrate must pick up the pace
and work twice as hard. Again, the only way to resolve this
is to have the PEOPLE of Nova Roma take a vested interest in
the vacant political positions and run for office. So, if
you want to prevent situations where you disagree with
Edictas, it should be apart of your duty to Run for office
and see for yourself the degree of responsibilty that each
position takes. Dont just sit in the sidelines and bitch.
Get involved.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
------------------------------
Sulla is right, of course, there are supposed to be
colleagues, and the Romans of old put them there precisely
as a check on the particular enthusiasms or blindnesses that
might make any particular individual misjudge from time to
time. And Sulla is also right (as he usually is) that if a
magistrate's colleague vanishes to the gods alone know
where, the remaining magistrate is to be pitied rather than
criticised for carrying on as well as he can. (And for the
most part Sulla did that brilliantly.)
It is not enough, of course. Two persons can very easily
think too much alike sometimes. We are assured that Sulla
takes advice from a circle of collaborators. That is good.
But again it is not enough. Does his circle have
transsexuals in it? I had the impression that he had a
transsexual nomenclator, whom he removed from that position.
(If I am misinformed, I apologise.)
In any case, there are more representatives of every variety
of expertise and every shade of opinion in the whole
populace than in any circle of advisors. And for that reason
I believe that consultative pre-postings of proposed edicta
would be an excellent custom for us to adopt. Not in a
really urgent crisis and not for minor technicalities
(although how much harm could it do even then?), but for the
ordinary edictum.
As for running for office and taking responsibility, I quite
agree. It seems to me that many who have agreed with my
positions on the Gender Edictum and on the consultative
pre-posting proposal are individuals who were and are active
as magistrates and pro-magistrates. If the good Censor is
thinking of *me*, let me assure him that among the many ways
I intend to serve Nova Roma is by undertaking a political
career when the time is ripe. Since I have been a civis the
only elections have been for Aedile and Censor. I do not
feel I have the special capabilities to be a good aedile,
and I am not so shameless as to venture to begin my cursus
honorum with the Censorship! Furthermore there were already
other superior candidates for these posts, and I very much
wished to support Merullus, who is indeed making a fine
Censor.
It is worrying to think, though, that only magistrates can
have any influence, and that if at any moment one is out of
office he is on that account virtually disenfranchised! ALL
citizens have a right and sometimes even a duty to speak up
and try to accomplish certain political ends. In my case I
have tried to speak up against what I perceive as the
injustice of letting transsexuals be caught up in a law that
is supposed, according to its maker, to be simply directed
at frivolous rôle players. I do not think that being a
private citizen makes my work towards this end any less
valuable than if I were at this moment a magistrate. Nor
that of any other private citizen. We are not just sniping
here; we are working at making Nova Roma juster and better.
Having abundant candidates for office and every office full
would not be very satisfactory if at all times between
elections the ordinary citizenry were passive and
uninvolved. *Somebody* has to keep watch over the
politicians in office!
Valete!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: List Moderators. |
| From: |
Marcus Pap--------s Justus <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197166104009127132130232203026129208071" >pap--------s@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 21:31:57 -0600 |
|
At 03:46 PM 5/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Cassius:
>As I understand it we have a few people willing to take up the job right
>now... all are magistrates already and have political careers. Oddly enough
>this is probably a good thing, since a magistrate must be polite, fair and
>even handed if they wish to maintain public support. Such qualities are also
>crucial to good list moderation.
Yes, but here's where it will get troublesome (and again I have personal
experience to fall back on). Suppose you have a situation where there is a
bit of inimicitia between a couple of magistrates, one of whom is the
moderator and one of whom gets involved in a discussion which devolves into
ad hominems. No matter how noble the motive of the moderator in restoring
list order, there will be a large contingent of folks who will believe any
action taken to be personally motivated, even if it genuinely wasn't. Then
your moderator might find him/herself the subject of the ad hominems.
That said, I wouldn't mind standing for moderator myself, if it were an
election thing. Lord knows I can't stand for anything else ... (it's an
oath thing).
mpj
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Some Better Rules |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 21:44:03 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;
My Senatorial Colleague Germanicus has the right of it, in my humble
estimation. Each of us, as I have indicated before, have our "outrage"
level and no amount of tuning will reach a "frequency" suitable to all.
In the recent unpleasantness there were two or three posts that I
recieved from colleagues which I considered to be very bothersome to me
personnally, simply because of my perceptions of how things ought to be.
However, I held my tongue (since it usually gets me in trouble anyhow)
and within a few hours additional posts came in revealing that these
same individuals were not in the least upset with me. Boy, am I glad I
didn't "go after them" as I should have been quite embarrassed!!!
I have read the proposed list of rules for moderation on the Onelist,
but in every case where the author uses an adjective to describe a noted
condition not to venture upon, I could ask him to "define such", meaning
of course to what degree or extent. Consider the term "pagan." The
word itself is seemingly inoxuous and has a specific meaning or set of
meanings in the English Language. My mother-in-law (strong Baptist that
she is) literally foams at the mouth when she hears the word used by me,
and my good friend down the street thinks it refers only to those having
"something" to do with the old Norse Religion. How do you legislate a
difference that vast??
Well just be polite, you say--I have a very good friend who is so
skillful with the English language he can skin you out of your socks
verbally, not spill a drop of blood, and leave you feeling totally
defeated and worthless--polite???? Oh Yes, to a fault!!
Try this as an experiment-- take any adjective from the list above
mentioned, define it, and send it along, and I will bet you I can return
it with some facet of unsuitability that has been evidenced on One list.
I agree with Germanicus in that this list does not and should not
guarantee that you are not offended, but in that possible offense is
usually a lesson "lurking" indicating that maybe you are just a tad too
sensitive about a given range of views and common items of exchage in
this Roman World. I would remind you again , as have so many before me
done, that the Roman World is very different from ours--it is a world
that crucified non-Romans, and cut off the heads, or beat them to death
with rods, for offences against the state. Those items alone should
make you think before you get too offended at any given item. The
Romans gave us much in law, poetry, religion, and construction of
magnificent works, etc. but they also had games in which men were killed
for sport, and slaves were kept in bondage. This is a different culture
we are studying and tolerance is the best medicine for what ails you,
both in regrd to Roman topics an potential friends on the Onelist.
Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Ontario Event; |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 22:27:19 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete, Citizens;
The above gentleman is interested in the subject event mentioned here
some time ago, Would someone be so kind as to contact him and give him
some details on the event? Thank-You!!
Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: Better Rules: Replies to Comments |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 04:48:53 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites!
Lucius Sergius Australicus wrote:
Salve Marcus Apollonius
You have done an outstanding job of formulating reasonable
rules, but I
think it might be better to try to specify what sort of
posts would be
ruled "off-topic" rather than to attempt to define a
limiting set of
on-topic subjects. Better yet, I would leave out such
definitions
altogether and focus on your excellent rules of conduct.
Respondeo:
My reason for the section on "on-topic" was not to *limit*
anyone to these, but to affirm that that all of them were
legitimate. As you and all will recall, the Praetor recently
seemed to feel that discussion of current political
questions was impermissible, and only discussion of
scholarly matters with bibliographies was really normal.
This is not a practical viewpoint for us as a living
organisation and microstate, and I wanted to protect us from
it in the future. It is always easy to say "What has Nova
Roma to do with genetically-engineered sheep?!" Well,
possibly a lot, if we are selling togas made from their
"naturally" green wool in the Macellum! Whether this
provision is necessary or desirable perhaps others can say
better than I. To me saying emphatically what *is* in order
seemed good. What is "off-topic" might make a long list
indeed.
----------------------------------------
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo wrote:
I saw your post and thought I would give you my thoughts.
For the most part, I like the wording of Section 2 in that
it, in my view,
better defines what constitutes "offensive" and
"insulting"...terms used in
both Praetoral Edicta.
Just one little thing: in "b" of section 2, you wrote
"personal
suitability for the same" . I find this a bit ambiguous. I
would change
this to "professional suitability for the same", if you are
defining how
someone may opinionate about how qualified a cive is for a
particular
office. Now I may be reading you incorrectly and be way off
base, but
that's how I read it:))
In the moderation of any communication, there will always be
"judgement calls" the moderator will have to make regarding
what is and isn't acceptable dialogue. But giving these two
terms better definition, as you have in your offering here,
provides a more solid base from which both a moderator and
citizens can judge their conduct.
It was good of you, I think, to take the time to produce
these suggested
guidelines :)
In Amicitia,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Respondeo:
My reason for saying "personal suitability for the same:"
[i.e. for an office] is indeed to introduce a deliberate
little hole in the protections I provided, and you were
perspicacious enough to catch it! My belief was that if a
person puts himself forward for an office, it is not
unreasonable for someone to say "He is too dishonest for
that position" or "He does not have the administrative
skills to handle it". Such statements indeed would be
making judgements about the fundamental character and
capacity of the person (otherwise not permitted), but in the
context of candidacy it seems reasonable to allow it. After
all, giving a long list of the candidate's *specific* past
failures (allowed) and expecting the hearers to inductively
arrive at the fact that someone is a habitual liar or
utterly bereft of organisational skill is probably not much
better from the standpoint of potential offensiveness, and
how can we disallow some generalised judgements of character
and competency in an election campaign? It is necessary to
predict success in office.
I do not think that our candidates for office (any more
than in Roma Antiqua) are "professional" Praetors or
Censors, and sometimes character and commitment are more
important than professional skill. So, I put it that way.
But thank you for your kind words and perceptive reading. I
can see that you really analysed it!
And I thank all of you who have made kind and encouraging
comments on my "Better Rules". If we ever do decide (against
my own preference) to have a Curator Sermonis again, I think
that we almost all would like to have a set of rules from
somewhere which would define offences as well as words can
do in such an area of life, a guarantee that we can discuss
the issues of the day, and a clear procedure with an appeal
mechanism and reasonable penalties in case of violations.
My preference if I had my druthers would be for the Senate
or the Consuls to take up my draft rules, change them as
they see fit, and send them to every new civis on joining,
and to all list members on the Kalends of every month as a
symbolic reminder of what we as a community expect of
ourselves. Couldn't I persuade anyone to *try* that before
nominating a new Curator Sermonis?
Valete!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Your Roman Name--The Owner's Manual |
| From: |
Mariu--------mbria <a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 22:10:50 -0500 (CDT) |
|
Salvete omnes!!
I sent this a couple of years ago to a certain friend who was about to
make his entrance into Nova Roman public life; I share it with Nova
Roma at large in the hope that it may prove useful.
Enjoy...(and, Consul Minuci--Thanks for the memories!) >({|:-)
<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Roman names are pretty simple, actually...once you get the hang of 'em.
(I'm sure you could say the same thing to me about engineering...)
>({|;-P
You've got three: Given name (Praenomen) Marcus; family name (Nomen)
Minucius; and street-name/nickname/use-name (Cognomen) Audens. It's
important to realize that a Roman's family name...the one we would
think of as a surname...is the one in the middle, not the one at the
end like in modern practice. So Lucius Cornelius Tiddlypus and Titus
Cornelius Anonymus are related (same gens name), but Marcus Aurelius
Tiddlypus is not kinfolk to either of 'em (even though his cognomen's
the same as Lucius').
As for historically-accurate levels of formality, you are
-- Marcus Minucius to your family and acquaintances (including
business or political);
-- Minucius Audens to most of your friends;
-- just-plain-Audens to people who either like you very much (close
friends/intimates) or thoroughly despise you (it's considered very
casual/familiar);
-- and Marcus Minucius Audens only to your Paterfamilias and the law
courts--and then only when you're in *Big* Trouble!!<g>
Of course, Nova Roma is growing its own habits of name use, and we call
each other by our cognomina (the third name or nickname) most of the
time.
Clear as mud?
(BTW, you'll be getting sworn in as Quaestor [Congrats!] by your full
name, if they do it right...and yes, I *do* consider taking office to
be Big Trouble!)<BIG grin>
<---- End Forwarded Message ---->
***********************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria / Legio VI Victrix |>[SPQR]<|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> |\=/|
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Historical Re-Creationist, `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
and Citizen of Rome ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman...it's hard work, but _|_| / _/_| /`(
*somebody's* gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'
|
| Subject: |
N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 23:19:30 EDT |
|
Salvete Omnes,
It is with great pleasure I announce that the Collegium Pontificum has
unanimously approved Nicolas Moravius Vado as the Flamen Florialis of Nova
Roma! In this capacity he will be the official priest of the goddess Flora,
and will be responsible for maintaining her worship in our community.
Vado has proven himself to be both knowledgeable and dedicated, and I am
quite certain that his efforts will be of great benefit to Nova Roma. I hope
that all Citizens will join me in welcoming him in his new position!
AVE Nicholas Moravius Vado, Flamen Florialis!!
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus
on behalf of the Collegium Pontificum
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Better Rules: Replies to Comments |
| From: |
"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 03:28:24 GMT |
|
Salvete, M. Apollonius Formosanus et. al:
regarding "b" of section 2...since you have provided some elaboration on
this, I will contend that I agree with you :) The only minor difference is
that your are calling it "personal" and I am, likely less accurately,
calling it "professional".
Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a>
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: novaroma <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Better Rules: Replies to Comments
>Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 04:48:53 +0200
>
>Salvete Quirites!
>
>Lucius Sergius Australicus wrote:
>
>Salve Marcus Apollonius
>
>You have done an outstanding job of formulating reasonable
>rules, but I
>think it might be better to try to specify what sort of
>posts would be
>ruled "off-topic" rather than to attempt to define a
>limiting set of
>on-topic subjects. Better yet, I would leave out such
>definitions
>altogether and focus on your excellent rules of conduct.
>
>Respondeo:
>My reason for the section on "on-topic" was not to *limit*
>anyone to these, but to affirm that that all of them were
>legitimate. As you and all will recall, the Praetor recently
>seemed to feel that discussion of current political
>questions was impermissible, and only discussion of
>scholarly matters with bibliographies was really normal.
>This is not a practical viewpoint for us as a living
>organisation and microstate, and I wanted to protect us from
>it in the future. It is always easy to say "What has Nova
>Roma to do with genetically-engineered sheep?!" Well,
>possibly a lot, if we are selling togas made from their
>"naturally" green wool in the Macellum! Whether this
>provision is necessary or desirable perhaps others can say
>better than I. To me saying emphatically what *is* in order
>seemed good. What is "off-topic" might make a long list
>indeed.
>
>----------------------------------------
>Pompeia Cornelia Strabo wrote:
>
>I saw your post and thought I would give you my thoughts.
>
>For the most part, I like the wording of Section 2 in that
>it, in my view,
>better defines what constitutes "offensive" and
>"insulting"...terms used in
>both Praetoral Edicta.
>
> Just one little thing: in "b" of section 2, you wrote
>"personal
>suitability for the same" . I find this a bit ambiguous. I
>would change
>this to "professional suitability for the same", if you are
>defining how
>someone may opinionate about how qualified a cive is for a
>particular
>office. Now I may be reading you incorrectly and be way off
>base, but
>that's how I read it:))
>
>In the moderation of any communication, there will always be
>
>"judgement calls" the moderator will have to make regarding
>what is and isn't acceptable dialogue. But giving these two
>terms better definition, as you have in your offering here,
>provides a more solid base from which both a moderator and
>citizens can judge their conduct.
>
>It was good of you, I think, to take the time to produce
>these suggested
>guidelines :)
>
>In Amicitia,
>Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
>
>Respondeo:
>My reason for saying "personal suitability for the same:"
>[i.e. for an office] is indeed to introduce a deliberate
>little hole in the protections I provided, and you were
>perspicacious enough to catch it! My belief was that if a
>person puts himself forward for an office, it is not
>unreasonable for someone to say "He is too dishonest for
>that position" or "He does not have the administrative
>skills to handle it". Such statements indeed would be
>making judgements about the fundamental character and
>capacity of the person (otherwise not permitted), but in the
>context of candidacy it seems reasonable to allow it. After
>all, giving a long list of the candidate's *specific* past
>failures (allowed) and expecting the hearers to inductively
>arrive at the fact that someone is a habitual liar or
>utterly bereft of organisational skill is probably not much
>better from the standpoint of potential offensiveness, and
>how can we disallow some generalised judgements of character
>and competency in an election campaign? It is necessary to
>predict success in office.
> I do not think that our candidates for office (any more
>than in Roma Antiqua) are "professional" Praetors or
>Censors, and sometimes character and commitment are more
>important than professional skill. So, I put it that way.
>But thank you for your kind words and perceptive reading. I
>can see that you really analysed it!
>
>And I thank all of you who have made kind and encouraging
>comments on my "Better Rules". If we ever do decide (against
>my own preference) to have a Curator Sermonis again, I think
>that we almost all would like to have a set of rules from
>somewhere which would define offences as well as words can
>do in such an area of life, a guarantee that we can discuss
>the issues of the day, and a clear procedure with an appeal
>mechanism and reasonable penalties in case of violations.
>
>My preference if I had my druthers would be for the Senate
>or the Consuls to take up my draft rules, change them as
>they see fit, and send them to every new civis on joining,
>and to all list members on the Kalends of every month as a
>symbolic reminder of what we as a community expect of
>ourselves. Couldn't I persuade anyone to *try* that before
>nominating a new Curator Sermonis?
>
>Valete!
>
>Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
>Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
>Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
>Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
>ICQ# 61698049
>________________________________________________________
>
>Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
>[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
>________________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
"susan brett" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=061158091009093031223225065148243223136058139046209" >scriba_forum@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 03:33:45 GMT |
|
Ave Nicholas Moravius Vado, Flamen Florialis Nova Roma!! :)
Buona Fortuna Perpetua!!
Amica Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
( Didn't I tell you I'd write you a little Latin letter one of these days?
:) )
>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------;
>Reply-To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :)
>Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:19:30 EDT
>
>Salvete Omnes,
>
>It is with great pleasure I announce that the Collegium Pontificum has
>unanimously approved Nicolas Moravius Vado as the Flamen Florialis of Nova
>Roma! In this capacity he will be the official priest of the goddess Flora,
>and will be responsible for maintaining her worship in our community.
>
>Vado has proven himself to be both knowledgeable and dedicated, and I am
>quite certain that his efforts will be of great benefit to Nova Roma. I
>hope
>that all Citizens will join me in welcoming him in his new position!
>
>AVE Nicholas Moravius Vado, Flamen Florialis!!
>
>Valete,
>
>Marcus Cassius Julianus
>Pontifex Maximus
>on behalf of the Collegium Pontificum
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 20:36:52 -0700 |
|
Io! Evoe! Evoe, Moravius Vado, Flamen Floralis!
I just wanted to show my faith in you in your new role here in the
Forum.
I am looking forward to seeing your work.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Pontifex et Augur.
<--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=219166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >c--------us622@--------</--------; wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> It is with great pleasure I announce that the Collegium Pontificum
> has
> unanimously approved Nicolas Moravius Vado as the Flamen Florialis
> of Nova
> Roma! In this capacity he will be the official priest of the goddess
> Flora,
> and will be responsible for maintaining her worship in our
> community.
>
> Vado has proven himself to be both knowledgeable and dedicated, and
> I am
> quite certain that his efforts will be of great benefit to Nova
> Roma. I hope
> that all Citizens will join me in welcoming him in his new position!
>
> AVE Nicholas Moravius Vado, Flamen Florialis!!
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pontifex Maximus
> on behalf of the Collegium Pontificum
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 23:45:54 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Vado--Well Done!!
My sincerest congratulations in your new post. I have some small idea
of your work and effort in this area, and I am most pleased to see the
the College of Pontiffs in thier collective wisdom have made this
unanimous selection! I am most pleased, and excited for you and yours.
Vale, With Happiness and Respect;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Your Roman Name--The Owner's Manual |
| From: |
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045232113165042200148200112241225012177026038196249130152150" >jmath669642reng@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2000 23:49:46 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salve, Fimbria;
Thank you for the memories as well and the additional informaton. t
seems that I have stepped out of your guidelines for the use of my Roman
Name, but I am comfortable with my selection, and I have always run just
a tad out of the pack anyway!!!
Vale, With Affection;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
|
| Subject: |
Salvete |
| From: |
hadji <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=180166080058082135130082190036" >hadji@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 10:52:43 +0200 |
|
Salvete omnes,
I would like just to announce that I have send a request to Nova Roman
officials to nullify my request for leaving Nova Roma. I would be glad
to stay in that organization and to complete the duties caused by my
Propraetorship there.
I would like to applogize to all our citizens and especially to my
friends there for my childish and overreacting desire to leave just
because a discussion have out flown from the style I have been
accustomed. I would like too to express my deep regret for the manner I
have acted on the forum and to appologize to my opponents and especially
to Marcus Prometheus.
Bene valete
Alexander Iul. Caes. Probus
P.S. As I am subscribed to status no mail/web only on that list, please
forward me posts addressed to me directly on <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=180166080058082135130082190036" >hadji@--------</a>
|
| Subject: |
ATTN: Declaration of Praetor Antonius Gryllus Graecus |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 12:06:20 +0100 |
|
Salvete Quirites
Firstly, an explanation of timing. As I've seen, both my edicts were vetoed.
In fact I've issued the second edict on Saturday morning and I could swear
that it was received a couple of minutes afterwards... But it seems that it
did not reach the US in time and so a Veto was pronounced against it. Well,
the second was votoed as well.
Both the majistrates who manifested the will performing the veto and those
who actually did it, have acted according with the Constitution and as such
I respect the decision (of course). As I could see, their decision was the
right one, given that all postings coming from citizens seemed to disagree
with the terms of both the Edicts. I'm not a bad looser.
I cannot be but glad that my Edicts really worked though in a form that I
had not envisaged, I confess. It seems that the previous flamed discussions
have stoped because everyone got united against my Edicts.
I cannot be but glad that independently of my good intentions and despite
some possible misunderstanding, the people now believes that Constitution
works. It works in fact.
Nevertheless, I'm sad too. I have read many things that I think I do not
deserve, and I believe that our system could well have worked without such
things being said. For me, this is more difficult to swallow than to have 2
Edicts vetoed on a sigle weekend. But this is my busyness only. I won't
bother you with personal feelings, which will surely be solved by reading a
few lines from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (by the way, I've watched
the Gladiator movie on Saturday. Great movie.).
Lets pass to the following matter.
a) Not to insult or defame any member of the list.
Well, for some this was idiot and childish... Maybe the Portuguese Law is
idiot and childish too, but it expressly forbids insult in public, and of
course defamation. In simple words: in Portugal, if you insult a guy on the
street and there are witnesses, the offended can present charge. Obviously
people rarely present charge at all. But sometimes it happens and the judge
must decide whether the claimed insult can be considered as such, and an
insult like "you are an idiot" can even be considered as defamatory. Of
course the penalty is a fee, dependent on the offense and psychological
damage (proven by the due documents).
Ok, lets not proceed. The Edict was vetoed.
Lets discuss yet a different matter.
To defy a Praetor's Edict is no good, and I think it is "idiot". If you are
still not sure, just consider two possible situations:
a) The Praetor's Edict was vetoed.
b) The Praetor's Edict was not vetoed.
In situation a), to defy the Praetor's Edict is obviously useless and cannot
be well understood withing the good spirit of the Respublica.
In situation b), to defy the Praetor's Edict is also to defy the powers of
the Tribunes, as well as those of all the other magistrates who could have
pronounced intercessio against the Edict (because those magistrates
obviously agree with it).
When the offense is performed without knowing the final outcome, it means
that the offender doesn't care about the outcome, and thus he doesn't care
whether situation b) will happen or not. Id est, he does not care about the
opinion of all the magistrates who can veto the Edict, namely the Tribunes.
He can be lucky, yes (as they seem to have been)... But the opposite can
also happen. In this case a Praetor would have to decide: "Will I take them
to the Comitia Centuriata?"
I will not tell you what would be my answer, for that is idiot too. No sense
right now. I just want you to meditate on these things. No, my point is not
against Germanicus or those who have followed him with clear offending
emails. Maybe their intentions were good... Maybe they were as good as mine
when enacting the Edicts. But consider this:
Wasn't it idiot and useless after all? Will it not be idiot and useless in
the Future?
What was achieved by these idiot actions? Probably not much... But something
must have really been achieved, because such things always achieve
something.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor
|
| Subject: |
Ave Vado, Flamen Florialis! |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 14:09:09 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus Nicolao Moravio Vadini S.P.D.
I congratulate you on your new flaminate. The election
of a goddess of such charm and gentleness speaks well of
your character, and the properly provided for worship of the
Goddess cannot but be a boon to the religious life of Nova
Roma. She is associated with a festival of roses tomorrow,
as I believe? (Perhaps I am misinformed?)
I wish you all the best in this new and sacred post.
AVE FLAMEN FLORIALIS!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Ave Vado, Flamen Florialis! |
| From: |
"Jeffrey L. Graham" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=045056047121127198187242109140244253188098030046209130" >--------reygraham@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 09:02:09 +0000 |
|
Allow me to add my congratulations to everyone elses'
Q Gaufridus Canus
On Mon, 22 May 2000 14:09:09 +0200 "M. Apollonius Formosanus"
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> writes:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Nicolao Moravio Vadini S.P.D.
>
> I congratulate you on your new flaminate. The election
> of a goddess of such charm and gentleness speaks well of
> your character, and the properly provided for worship of the
> Goddess cannot but be a boon to the religious life of Nova
> Roma. She is associated with a festival of roses tomorrow,
> as I believe? (Perhaps I am misinformed?)
>
> I wish you all the best in this new and sacred post.
>
> AVE FLAMEN FLORIALIS!
>
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
> Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
> Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> ICQ# 61698049
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
> [Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Save 75% on Products!
> Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
> <a href="http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958997360/" target="_top" >http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/6/_/61050/_/958997360/</a>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
<a href="http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj" target="_top" >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj</a>.
|
| Subject: |
TO THE SENATE |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 16:11:44 +0200 |
|
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
*** SENATUI NOVAE ROMAE ***
Salutem Plurimam Dicit
Senators of the Respublica,
I am writing this to you in the open forum of the Main List
because there is no way known to me of conveniently writing
to you as a body. Please forgive my ignorance should such a
way exist.
The purpose of this address to you is present my views, as
an outsider to the Senate but a concerned citizen of Nova
Roma, on a matter which I understand to be currently under
Senatorial investigation, namely the Gender Edictum of
Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix promulgated on the 24th
of May this year.
I wish to preface my comments with a statement of my
personal admiration for the hard, careful and capable work
which L. Cornelius has contributed to Nova Roma. His was one
of the first voices of welcome I received here, and I am
personally grateful to him for his help and kindness. My
objection to his edictum is not based on personal
considerations, and I would regret any embarassment caused
to the Consul as a result of this investigation.
Nonetheless, I see in this edictum, and especially in this
edictum uncorrected by the issuer or by others, a serious
blot on the just and tolerant society that we would like to
see in Nova Roma, and which is clearly intended in Her
Constitution.
The ostensible purpose of this edictum is defined
therewithin by the Censor himself:
I publish this edicta to as a means of gaining
increased credibility for Nova Roma. So that it
sets us apart from Role Playing games societies
(such as other fantasy based micronation and
gaming societies [ancientsites.com]). As our
organization grows and gains more worldwide
recognition we need to clarify our true intentions
as a true micronation.
I find this to be perfectly reasonable. It is the more
precise details which cause my reservations:
...all applicants who apply for citizenship in
Nova
Roma have their gender consistent with their Roman
Name. In other words, if you are male your Roman
name must reflect your physical gender. Just as if
you are female your Roman Name must reflect your
physical gender.
For most human beings (even homosexuals, one might add) this
is not problematical. For some persons it is: transsexuals
or the transgendered. If one in one's inmost self feels
oneself to be of the opposite sex than the body one is
trapped in. In such a situation the individual may feel
forced by social pressure to live out an inauthentic life in
the body his/her very different spirit was consigned to, or
he/she can choose simply to change civil identity to the sex
that seems inwardly more natural, or one can to a greater or
lesser degree seek medical assistance in changing one's
physical body to conform to one's inner feelings.
This is, at worst, a medical problem. It in no wise implies
any sort of moral turpitude or mental illness in the normal
sense. It is easy enough, no doubt for those not in this
position and having poor imaginations to suppose otherwise,
and natural enough to feel a bit uncomfortable when
encountering such an anomaly. However, we have had among us
a pious Augur of the Religio Romana and an individual
thought fit to be entrusted with the highly responsible post
of Curator Sermo[nis], and they have had this situation in
their lives. Can any of us fail to notice their fundamental
decency, intelligence and personal charm?
Such special cases should not be caught in the net
supposedly intended for slightly miscomprehending rôle
players. If a person in normal everyday life presents
himself or herself as a certain sex as a matter of civil
identity, who are we to demand that he or she perform a body
check and use a Roman name differently gendered from the one
which is elsewhere personally and legally true and normal?
It is degrading to these citizens and potential citizens.
Patres Conscripti, I do not in all honesty know if Cornelius
Sulla in this edictum simply made a mistake in wording due
to the pressure of so much worthy work on our behalf, or if
he has a personal dislike for sexual anomalies so strong
that it induced him to produce an edictum in which he gave
false or incomplete reasons for legislation, the real
purpose of which was to eliminate "undesirables" from our
Respublica.
I very much hope that it was simply the first, but the
reluctance or inablility of the Censor to defend the edictum
in a meaningful way when the injustice to transsexuals was
repeatedly brought up, and his unwillingness to discuss any
means of refining it so that they would not be included
point in the opposite direction.
I have myself more than once proposed that Nova Roma simply
do as other nations and the states of the United States do,
and normally give faith and credence to the civil identities
(age, sex, marital status, etc.) recognised by the state of
the applicant's first citizenship. I.e., if one is male or
female in passport or on driver's licence, we simply accept
that gender. This would solve the problem of rôle players
and protect those transsexuals who are protected at home.
I have repeatedly asked Consul Sulla to respond to this
suggestion, which on the face of it seems to me reasonable
and worthy of some consideration, at least. Although he may
still respond to my most recent public invitation to express
why he does not favour it, I have not yet received any
reply.
In the Constitution of Nova Roma, at II.A.3 it is written:
Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic
heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual
orientation.
One could nitpick, but any honest person understands the
intent and spirit of this clause. It is to protect persons
from all discrimination on the basis of their sexual lives
and identities. And can citizenship be honestly said to be
"open" if one is forced to use a gender in Nova Roma that
one does not feel oneself to be and elsewhere does not
normally use?
Conscript Fathers, I want to express my deepest hope that,
in a way as little embarassing as possible to the Censor,
this edictum or the prevailing law be changed to reflect
Nova Roma's firm intent to protect the dignity of all of Her
cives. And further that those who have left us in protest at
the legal climate engendered by the edictum in question be
officially invited back, with apologies, in the name of the
Nova Roman State.
I humbly thank the Senate for considering my words.
Valete Patres! Vivat Nova Roma Iusta!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
|
| Subject: |
Re: TO THE SENATE |
| From: |
"Jane or Patricia " <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=197063113185056135042082190036" >p--------@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 15:22:19 -0000 |
|
> I am writing this to you in the open forum of the Main List
> because there is no way known to me of conveniently writing
> to you as a body. Please forgive my ignorance should such a
> way exist.
A--------e (Citize-------- -------- may co--------t the Se-------- at <a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=061056234237175198015158190036129" >se--------@--------</a>.
Patricia Cassia
|
| Subject: |
Flamen Floralis |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 09:35:23 PDT |
|
Quiritibus Nicolao Moravio salutem:
My thanks to the Collegium Pontificum for their unanimous acceptance of my
application to be Flamen Floralis.
My thanks also to those who have sent congratulations, privately and
publicly.
My thanks to Flora, for suggesting it in the first place.
It feels strange to be the first official Flamen Floralis in about 1,650
years. My next act in officio will be to attempt to make contact with my
immediate predecessor (whoever he was). Tonight I shall sacrifice to his
genius, and ask his help to be worthy of the job.
I hope soon to be able to provide some material for the Carmenaeum which I
believe every citizen should know about this gentle, kind, fun-loving,
beautiful and thoroughly Roman goddess, who at present is far less
well-known than she deserves.
I'll sign off with this thought from Ovid about Flora:
"Monet aetatis specie, dum floreat, uti;
Contemni spinam, cum rosae cecideri."
(Enjoy life's roses, Flora warns:
The petals fall too soon, and thorns
Are all our hands have left to hold -
Jabs of regret, as we grow old).
(My very approximate tranlation).
Bene valete in laetitae Matris Florum,
Vado.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com" target="_top" >http://www.hotmail.com</a>
|
| Subject: |
Re: N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
"RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 13:11:30 -0400 |
|
Tibi gratulor Mi Pi Amice Nicolaue Moravi Felicissimus est dierum
CMM
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: N. Moravius Vado - New Flamen Florialis! :) |
| From: |
"RMerullo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 14:30:19 -0400 |
|
Sorry, it was meant to be private.
Valete
CMM
>Tibi gratulor Mi Pi Amice Nicolaue Moravi Felicissimus est dierum
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Your Roman Name... a fun twist |
| From: |
"Sheridan/ Hibernicus" <a href="/--------/novaroma?--------ectID=034056178009193132062218055036129208" >legioix@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 20:51:48 -0000 |
|
We in Legio IX Hispana assign the cognomen to new members.
- Aquavitius
- Felix
- Fidius
- Firmus
- Icius
- Sesquiculus
- Scotus
- Caledonicus
- Hibernicus
- Pontificus
- Agelastus
etc etc...
Hibernicus
Legio IX Hispana
<a href="http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org" target="_top" >http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org</a>
|
| Subject: |
Correction |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=014130014161146028033082190" >bvm3@--------</a> |
| Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2000 23:07:49 +0200 |
|
Salvete Senatores et Omnes!
I wish to apologise for referring to the Censor L. Cornelius
Sulla in my recenting posting to the Senate (several times)
as "Consul". A lapsus calami (slip of the pen), let us call
it (although no pen was involved and that was a lot of
slipping!). I have corrected this in the version sent
directly to the Senate at the advice of Censor and Senator
Merullus. The correct address for anyone else wishing to
i--------ve--------s "<a href="/post/--------roma?protectID=061056234237175198015158190036129" >se--------@--------</a>". (Some thi--------are just
too simple!)
Valete!
--
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
________________________________________________________
|
