| Subject: |
[novaroma] New poll for novaroma |
| From: |
novaroma@-------- |
| Date: |
6 Jun 2000 00:14:29 -0000 |
|
Enter your vote today! Check out the new poll for the novaroma
group:
"Should Nova Roma require that a
citizens chosen Roman name match
his/her gender?"
o No, one should be given a choice to be recognized as a male or female.
o Yes, one's Roman name should always reflect his/her actual gender(ie his/her legal gender).
o Yes, but exceptions should be made for those living their real (not virtual) lives as the opposite gender.
o I really don't care.
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://www.egroups.com/polls/novaroma
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyday Is Kid's Day
Dad Only Has One
Click Here To Make It Special
http://click.egroups.com/1/5038/6/_/61050/_/960250470/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] The gender issue; Anonymous Public Poll |
| From: |
caesar@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:29:15 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes,
The gender issue has, and will likly continue to be, a heated and
emotional debate for many. Hopefully we can continue to be civil,
polite, and fair to one another through out it's duration. In hopes
of gaining a clearer view of your perspective on this issue, an
egroups poll has been created in order to give everyone an anonymous
channel through which to express your opinion. The important thing
about this poll is that no matter how mych we scream and yell at each
other about this issue, it _will_ eventually come down to a yes or a
no, as it always does. This poll is a precursor to that, and will no
doubt assist the senate and magistrates, not least myself, in the
decisions they must make pertaining to this issue. The poll is
located at;
http://www.egroups.com/polls/novaroma
Everyone who is subscribed to this list can vote. I, along with many
others I am sure, would be grateful if everyone can take a few
moments to cast a quick vote. Once again this is unofficial and
anonymous, but will aid in determining future "policies".
I thank you all in advance.
Valete,
Gn. Tarquinius Caesar
Tribunus Plebius
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4054/6/_/61050/_/960251360/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Quod Nova Roma fiemus? (was: The "lone" Tribune; gender edict) |
| From: |
Piscinus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:45:23 -0000 |
|
Quae mihi confiteri, Quirites!
Citizens of Nova Roma!
I come tonight to give thanks to the gods, and more so to give
special thanks to the Tribunus Plebis, Gn. Tarquinius Caesar, for
providing me this gift to lay before the altar of the gods of prudent
and rational thought. Only yesterday I posted a message concerning
the pitfalls of fallacious argument, and here today, so soon
afterward, I find our tribune providing us with so many examples in a
his singlular posting:
CUM HOC PROPTER HOC:
<<Every person who has a phallus knows that he is a man, regardless
of what they would like to be or what they believe they should have
been, and vice versa.>>
Here is the simple argument that "With this, you get that"; only the
argument is substantially false as even the tribune stated just above
that the distinction between a man and a woman "is a state of mind as
well as a physical feature."
PRO HOC PROPTER HOC:
<<One is simply a man or a woman... I cannot legally change my name
to Gnaea Tarquinia Caesaria because I would have to legally change my
gender, which reality does not permit.>>
Here is an example of a false statement made in the form of "before
you can do that, you must first do this."
ARGUMENTUM AD VERENCUNDIAM:
<<I do see dishonor surrounding this issue, though from another
side. It would certainly be a grave dishonor to our ancestors, and to
many of our Gods, if we were to begin calling a tree, a river;
calling a dog, a cat; and perhaps most of all, calling a man, a woman
(or vice versa).>>
The tribune now appeals to our ancestors and our gods as an authority
for his arguments.
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM:
<<In doing so we are demolishing those very foundations which have
been laid for us, indeed, even the ground they have been laid upon.
Therein lies the dishonor.>>
Then the tribune turns to the authority of antiquity.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM:
<<The right to treat Nova Roma as if it were a game. Why don't we
roll for gender? Roll an even number, get a boy's name, roll an odd
get a girl's!>>
Unable to conviningly make his argument the tribune must now shift
his focus onto his opponent. Here he simply refutes without reason
or support for his own arguments, but instead implies that his
opposing tribune promotes the interests of gamers.
ARGUMENTUM AD METUM et PUDUM:
<<If people are allowed to legally assume whatever gender they like,
it will be a disgrace and a belittlement of Nova Roma's status as a
real world nation.>>
The tribune tries to have us accept his false arguments by appealing
to our fears of appearing silly, shaming us into accepting this
fallacious reasoning.
And what really is the point made in all the arguments he offers
except the same fallacious argument repeated AD NAUSEUM.
To complete his statement the tribune offers a conclusion that is
simply not drawn from the arguments he has made. His every argument
has been against accepting someone else's definition of gender, one
that is not based on what he calls "physical" or "rational reality."
But the conclusion he draws is really a question of constitutional
procedure.
And what in the end is his conclusion...
<<For all of the reasons above, I... pronounce intercessio against my
colleague's intercessio, thus declaring it null and
void...something yet unpublished.>>
...an intercessio on an intercessio on an edict that has not been
written, has not been issued, has not been published, and in truth
does not even exist!
This is how Nova Roma emulates ancient Rome, with a lack of
consideration or deliberation in a rhetorical exercise of irrational,
irrelevent nonesense.
O,Roma, ubi pervagor poteras!
Gn. Hernicius Piscinus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups members: $60 in FREE calls! Join beMANY!
And pay less each month for long distance.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4122/6/_/61050/_/960252332/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Priesthood of Isis |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <amg@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:16:48 +0100 |
|
Salve
I'm looking for Marcus Lucius Apolunius.
Your email was incorrect on the priesthood application form. Please contact
the pontifices at
pontifices@--------
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960286577/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Praetor's voice on The "lone" Tribune; gender edict |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:31:39 EDT |
|
Salve
I do so enjoy being "informed" by you, Graecus. Let's see ... didn't you
just inform me a moment ago .. yes, here it is
>On 6/5/00 7:02 AM Antonio Grilo (amg@--------) wrote:
>
>>Salvete omnes
>>
>>This is one of the dies nefasti (N), a day on which no legal action or
>>public business can take place.
>>
So inform me how Caesar can cast a veto on a day in which legal or public
business is forbidden. You may have noticed that I picked a _legal_ day
for mine.
Vale,
L. Sergius Aust.
Lone opinionated and informed Tribune
On 6/5/00 2:22 PM Antonio Grilo (amg@--------) wrote:
>Salve civis Marce Marci Rex
>
>>I certainly have to disagree with you on your last post. The Tribunician
>Veto
>>has certainly not been used "easily" by Australicus and he did call for a
>>popular vote NOT in the comitia plebis tributa but in the Comitia
>Centuriata
>>which shows his honest intentions.
>I say it was so easily that it was done illegally. A veto can only be issued
>AFTER a measure is announced and never BEFORE. Our esteemed Tribunus Plebis
>has tried to veto 'a priori' all censorial edicta related to gender, no
>matter how competent or needed they can be. Fortunately, our esteemed
>Tribunus Plebis will have to patiently wait for each Censorial measure to be
>officially announced, after which he may CONSTITUTIONALLY issue intercessio
>in a per-edictum basis if he finds the need.
>
>
>>And Civil Wars are started because people
>>derelict their duties and not because they exercise their constitutional
>>rights.
>As I've told you and I can prove with our Leges, the issued intercessio had
>no legal support.
>
>>I believe it is necessary to publicly support the institution of Tribune
>>against an unnecessary attack by another magistrate (you signed your post
>as
>>praetor), when BOTH Tribunes try to act within their constitutional limits
>>and NOT outside of it (and they may veto not only issued edicta but ANY
>>action of other magistrates).
>One Tribune has tried to act outside of his limits probably involuntarily. I
>hope he is by now better informed.
>
>>To define what a pseudo-case is, is not the praetor's sole prerogative.
>Nor is it my intent. As you can see, other citizens have the same opinion.
>
>Vale
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>Senator et Praetor
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960291115/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Praetor's voice on The "lone" Tribune; gender edict |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <amg@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:49:18 +0100 |
|
Salve Tribune L Sergi Australice
>So inform me how Caesar can cast a veto on a day in which legal or public
>business is forbidden. You may have noticed that I picked a _legal_ day
>for mine.
Very good point! It would have saved your day! This is very interesting, for
imagine that a sequence of Nefasti days follows the issuing of an Edict. No
one can veto it after the very day it is issued. Good point, and something
to remind in the future. Although I think that the prohibition concerning
Dies Nefasti regarded specifically legal cases. That's something we must
really check.
Nevertheless, it does not matter in our case because in the same way your
veto could not be cast, his veto of your veto could not either.
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et Praetor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Savings + service + convenience = beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4116/6/_/61050/_/960292125/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Mechanical Engineering |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:42:25 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete Omnes;
One of the strong suits of the Roman Republic and then the later empire
was the demonstrated ability in field engineering. The Roman Military
Engineering and Cartography Sodalitas will undertake to present a series
of short discussions on the Engineering Technology available at the time
and the basis from which it evolved.
The first of these outlined below will be devoted to the introduction of
these topics and both the major ancient and modern references to the
material.
Part 1--Introduction and References;
Engineering in this period of the Roman Republic and later empire was
much derived from the studies of the Greeks who it appears brought
forward many of the engineering precepts known in our period. While not
many innovations were brought forward by the Romans, they were by far
the ancient world leaders in pursueing the practical side of the ancient
engineering principles then known, leaving in the wake of thier efforts,
magnificent structures which even today, in the twilight of thier
existance, reflect a great strength of design, utility of pupose, and
grace of line.
Four general areas of engineering are identified in the studies of Greek
and Roman literary sources. These areas are:
--Mechanical;
--Military;
--Hydraulic;
--Miniature Engineering.
The selection of the above groupings will serve to provide a view into
both the versatality and the limitations of Greek and Roman Engineers
and thier works.
There presently exists two major sources of literary evidence in regard
to this ancient dicipline. The sources make up in large part the
complete selection of engineering data that has come down to us from
this period, and that is presently available.
--De Architechtura (On Architecture) by Vitruvius Pollio--This engineer
lived in the last century B.C. and provided his services to the state
under the rule of Augustus. During that period he wrote the above Latin
Treatise in ten volumes (books);
--Pneumatics, Mechanics and Catapult Design produced by Hero of
Alexandria. These works survive as an accident of history, and while
not particularly excellent in content, are of interest primarily as they
are available and with us for consideration. Hero lived at a period
later than that of Vitruvius (about a century or so later).
Sources:
--Frontinus, "The Stratagems and Aqueducts of Rome" (De Aquis), Charles
E. Bennett, trans. (1925; repr.1969);
--Hero, "Mechanics," in Aage Gerhardt Drachmann, "The Mechanical
Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity" (1963); for Hero and Philo on
catapults, see -----
--Eric William Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises"
(1971);
--Vitruvius, "On Architechture" (De Architechtura), 2 volumes, Frank
Granger, trans. (1931 - 1934): repr. (1956-1952), or "The Ten Books on
Architecture" , Morris Hickey Morgan, trans. (1914; repr. 1960);
-- John G. Landels, "Engineering In the Ancient World" (1978).
Part I, of this series is presented by the Nova Roma Sodalitas of
Military Engineering and Cartography.
Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens;
Sodalitas Commander--Tribunus Militarius Laticlavius Architecturus
Special Notes:
1--To P. Strabo; please archive in Military Sodlitas Archives;
2--To Palladius; for use in the Eagle as you desire.
MMA
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/4057/6/_/61050/_/960295347/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Roman Days |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:56:06 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Salvete All;
Well the last call is in and the last tear shed. My personal Quaestor
has again wih stern demeanor, called my attention to the slackness of my
travel purse and the commitment to others in this year during Roman
Days, but I have secured a commitment for next year (perhaps by then I
will have designed and built a pair of Senator's shoes that I can walk
in without agony. Those Caligae are killers!)
I can announce, however, that my trusted Consular Scriba P. Cornelia
Strabo will be attending, and I recommend her without stint of any kind.
She has served to my complete satisfaction and to those of my particular
friends in Nova Roma, the XXth and XXIVth Legios, I ask that you will
welcome her and include her as you would me in all your planned
activities. I greatly regret my inability to attend this event, but
unless an unforeseen problem strikes, I will be there next year.
I thank you for your kind Consideration;
Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Consul, et Senator
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960303429/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Happy Transsexuals? |
| From: |
"Bradius V. Maurus III" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:36:06 GMT |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus Lucio Equitio Cincinnato et Omnibus S.P.D.
I am delighted to see that our democratic political processes are
working so robustly, that so many are morally committed to good answers
for Nova Roma's political questions, and that we have a living
laboratory before our eyes of how a constitution of the Roman republican
model functions in practice.
I say this because I perceive that some citizens are disgusted with our
political life and wish things could be settled instantly with no
necessity for the exchange of opinions, reasons and rhetoric. Democracy
does not work that way, however, (nor a true Republic if one wishes to
make a distinction). Even our esteemed Curatrix Sermonis is beginning to
feel a little bit that way. However, when there is a fundamental
disgreement of viewpoints and values on a matter which touches on the
most fundamental matters of fairness and justice in our little society,
there is no good way to settle things by a short route. Patience and a
determination to help the society that represents us and which we
represent - Nova Roma - treat everyone as fairly as humanly possible.
We are not just repeating the same things and spinning our wheels. I
have noted that the latest versions of Sulla's position seem now to be
open to recognising the legal civil gender of a person in his/her
macronation - something which I proposed as an alternative a long time
ago on this list, but was totally ignored about at the time. Sulla is
listening to others a bit. So am I. I have in the meantime been
persuaded by listening to some participants in the debate that I was too
conservative in my original counter-proposal, and that no Gender Edictum
at all would be the best possible thing.
UI think its very good that we are in fact listening to each other, and
we should be alert to the fact that this is indeed happening; our
institutions are working. But I ask everyone to remember that they are
working because we never stop talking and never stop listening, even
when we are tired of the arguments.
I have sometimes thought that it *might* be a good idea to have two main
lists for Nova Roma: one political and one non-political. I rather
resist the idea, having a strong civic sense that everyone should be
interested in politics so that our democratic institutions will work the
way they should. On the other hand, I do not want anyone to be driven
away because he cannot stand intense and prolonged political debate. Nor
do I want political debate to be stifled because it disgusts some other
citizens. I do not say this is a good idea. But perhaps it deserves
consideration.
In the meantime, I have a question for Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus. From
him I would just like some information. He refered in a recent posting
to the existence of a number of transgendered cives among us who have
had no trouble at all about their names. I think that is a fine thing,
and indeed Lucius Equitius seems to be content with that too, since he
uses it as an example of no problem really existing. I would like to
know why they have had no problem, while "Fimbria" has. I would also
like to know whether Lucius Equitius or Sulla himself would anticipate
that those thus-far untroubled transgendered individuals or others
exactly like them would under Sulla's (and Merullus') new Gender Edictum
encounter problems or special requirements they might find harassing?
Just interested. I thank you in advance for your reply.
Valete!
-----------------------------------------------------
http://eo.yifan.net
Free POP3/Web Email, File Manager, Calendar and Address Book
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960305770/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re:New Citizen |
| From: |
"Happy Bunny" <fionaerin@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:35:26 PDT |
|
Salve Stormwolf,
My congrats to you on your citizenship, yours happened more quickly than
mine did. And I look forward to seeing from posts from you on this list.
Vale
Aeternia Draconia
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make PayPal your friend.
Sign up today and get a $5 bonus.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5024/6/_/61050/_/960316527/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] De fastis was Praetor's voice on The "lone" Tribune; gender edict |
| From: |
"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:36:30 -0400 |
|
Salvete Praetor Antoni Grylle et alii
Lucius Sergius has struck an interesting point here. To my knowledge, the
assemblies and the Senate are convened, thus far, in accordance with the
religious calendar of Nova Roma. As accensus consularis, one of the things
that I do is check the NR calendar and report on possibly good days (ie, not
nefasti) for convening the Senate in a given timeframe. I know that the
consules have taken auspices or consulted the NR augures for that purpose
every time that an assembly, or the Senate, has been convened this year.
But when I issued my edict appointing T Labienus Fortunatus Scriba, I did
not check the religious calendar. It did not occur to me that the issuance
of a magisterial edict should be prohibited on a dies nefastus. I committed
this lapse probably because I can recall no edict that made mention of the
religious calendar or auspices having been taken.
And, given the language of our laws, the issuance of intercessio against an
edict would become problematic if the issuance of the intercessio is
forbidden on a certain day, for reasons that you state.
Opinione mea we should not restrict issuance of edicta based on the
religious calendar unless the Collegium Pontificum Novoromanum advises us to
restrict them so. What do you (tu et vos) think?
Valete
C Marius Merullus
>Salve Tribune L Sergi Australice
>
>>So inform me how Caesar can cast a veto on a day in which legal or public
>>business is forbidden. You may have noticed that I picked a _legal_ day
>>for mine.
>Very good point! It would have saved your day! This is very interesting,
for
>imagine that a sequence of Nefasti days follows the issuing of an Edict. No
>one can veto it after the very day it is issued. Good point, and something
>to remind in the future. Although I think that the prohibition concerning
>Dies Nefasti regarded specifically legal cases. That's something we must
>really check.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960320238/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] De fastis was Praetor's voice on The "lone" Tribune; gender edict |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <amg@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:43:27 +0100 |
|
Salve Censor Merulle
>Lucius Sergius has struck an interesting point here. To my knowledge, the
>assemblies and the Senate are convened, thus far, in accordance with the
>religious calendar of Nova Roma. As accensus consularis, one of the things
>that I do is check the NR calendar and report on possibly good days (ie,
not
>nefasti) for convening the Senate in a given timeframe. I know that the
>consules have taken auspices or consulted the NR augures for that purpose
>every time that an assembly, or the Senate, has been convened this year.
>
>But when I issued my edict appointing T Labienus Fortunatus Scriba, I did
>not check the religious calendar. It did not occur to me that the issuance
>of a magisterial edict should be prohibited on a dies nefastus. I
committed
>this lapse probably because I can recall no edict that made mention of the
>religious calendar or auspices having been taken.
Well, an enemy of your could in fact (according to tradition) claim that
your edict is invalid.
>And, given the language of our laws, the issuance of intercessio against an
>edict would become problematic if the issuance of the intercessio is
>forbidden on a certain day, for reasons that you state.
Yes.
>Opinione mea we should not restrict issuance of edicta based on the
>religious calendar unless the Collegium Pontificum Novoromanum advises us
to
>restrict them so. What do you (tu et vos) think?
I think that restrictions should apply as in ancient Rome. I will
investigate more on the matter.
Vale
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Praetor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960324437/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: De fastis was Praetor's voice on The "lone" Tribune; gender edict |
| From: |
"Razenna " <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:56:40 -0000 |
|
If the issuing of edicts, which would seem to include intercessions
(vetos), are to be included in the types of government business that
can not be conducted on dies nefasti, then one can assume that the 72
hours time frame in which an intercessio must be issued will not
include any hours that are during the religously prohibited times.
This would include the partial NP days as well as the days that are
entirely nefasti. Not that I am saying there might ever be any Nova
Roma magistrates who might time controversial edicts to take
advantage
of such a possibility that would be presented if the proscribed times
were to be considerd.
C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Augur. Pontifex.
--- In novaroma@--------, "Antonio Grilo" <amg@c...> wrote:
> Salve Censor Merulle
>
> >Lucius Sergius has struck an interesting point here. To my
knowledge, the
> >assemblies and the Senate are convened, thus far, in accordance
with the
> >religious calendar of Nova Roma. As accensus consularis, one of
the things
> >that I do is check the NR calendar and report on possibly good
days
(ie,
> not
> >nefasti) for convening the Senate in a given timeframe. I know
that the
> >consules have taken auspices or consulted the NR augures for that
purpose
> >every time that an assembly, or the Senate, has been convened this
year.
> >
> >But when I issued my edict appointing T Labienus Fortunatus
Scriba,
I did
> >not check the religious calendar. It did not occur to me that the
issuance
> >of a magisterial edict should be prohibited on a dies nefastus. I
> committed
> >this lapse probably because I can recall no edict that made
mention
of the
> >religious calendar or auspices having been taken.
> Well, an enemy of your could in fact (according to tradition) claim
that
> your edict is invalid.
>
> >And, given the language of our laws, the issuance of intercessio
against an
> >edict would become problematic if the issuance of the intercessio
is
> >forbidden on a certain day, for reasons that you state.
> Yes.
>
> >Opinione mea we should not restrict issuance of edicta based on the
> >religious calendar unless the Collegium Pontificum Novoromanum
advises us
> to
> >restrict them so. What do you (tu et vos) think?
> I think that restrictions should apply as in ancient Rome. I will
> investigate more on the matter.
>
> Vale
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Praetor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/6/_/61050/_/960328631/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
