| Subject: |
[novaroma] I've had enough. |
| From: |
cassius622@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:11:41 EDT |
|
Salvete ,
As cofounder of Nova Roma I've been here since the beginning. I've weathered
all kinds of challenges, but for some reason the post below post has hit me
deeply and personally. Donating hundreds of hours and dollars has proven only
one thing... there is no such thing as a friendship in this forum.
Therefore I am unsubscribing from the Nova Roma list, effective immediately.
I do not resign my Citizenship. Nor do I resign my positions as Pontifex
Maximus, Senator, or Proconsul of the Nova Britannia Provincia. I still
believe in Roma Aeterna if not some of the people who claim to share that
belief. I will remain subscribed to the ReligioRomana and Senate lists and
will be available by private email. Where I won't be is here in this forum -
where people you've supported and respected will cut your throat for the most
petty of reasons.
Patricia Cassia is away this evening, and I have not had opportunity to
discuss this situation with her. However, I now add my voice to the people
who request that this list be returned to it's original setting.
I also go a step further in calling for her immediate resignation from the
post of Curatrix Sermonum. Her time and efforts in helping to keep this list
a useful place have not only been not only been discounted and disrespected,
they and she have been despised.
A few months ago this list was plagued with Citizens causing problems and
abusing one another. People were leaving this list in droves, with their
feelings hurt and their love for Romanitas bruised. I put out a call then for
the Consuls to appoint a moderator for this list to help keep the postings
civilized. When this was done the problems stopped... and *no one* had to
be banished from the list in order to accomplish that. Patricia Cassia has
been the only moderator not to abuse her position and yet she is villified
for not instantly bowing to the wishes of a few, over concerns for the many.
I do hope that the list will return to it's most basic setting... an
uncontrolled jungle where those without kindness or Civilitas are able to
savage each other at will.
Valete,
Marcus Cassius Julianus
In a message dated 10/2/00 12:12:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
n_moravius@-------- writes:
<< Peregrini and Citizens of Nova Roma!
With fffffingers ttttrembling wwith iiiindignation I peck away at my
keyboard in the attempt to express the strength of my disagreement with M.
Cassius Iulianus' defence of this present reply feature menace to our
respublica.
This is no "small and silly matter" as he alleges, but a fundamental issue
of civil rights - of the freedom of citizens not to choose.
When I hit the 'reply' button, I expect my e-mail to the people I intend it
to go to, not where the system program says it must. I have a right to want
my computer to do what I mean, and not what I say.
I have never used the 'reply all' button in my life - in fact, I didn't even
know there was one, until P. Cassia pointed it out (I suspect her of having
planted it there secretly).
That you, and I, and all of us must now have to search for a button next to
the the 'reply' button, against our cherished and long-established
traditions, is an injstice unparalleled in the history of Nova Roma.
To have to do so purely on the tyrannical whim of a Curatrix Sermonem who,
as Sulla has pointed out, is slow to respond to each one of the many posts
to this list which all say exactly the same thing, is outrageous. Something
must be done.
It is no good Cassius claiming that most people don't care or have better
things to think about: the Silent Majority is plainly too terrified to speak
out (or they're using the wrong button).
Arise, then, Quirites, and throw off the yoke of despotism! Citizens - to
the polls!
As all right-thinking people agree, the simple Yes/No poll is the most
completely scientific, fair and impartial way known to man, of Letting The
People Decide. I therefore propose the following poll be set up:
Q: I don't see why I should have to use the 'reply all' button when I want
my reply to go to all. (YES/NO)
Delenda est 'Responde Omnibus!'
Vado
(Oh, b*gger - I just sent this to Cassius privately):-(
LET A REPLY TO ONE BE A REPLY TO ALL!
LONG LIVE LIBERTY!
DOWN WITH THE UNSUFFERABLE BURDEN OF CONSCIOUS CHOICE!
>>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias |
| From: |
Lykaion1@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:32:18 EDT |
|
Sulla said: "I dont think ancient philosophy is too limiting. It would be
like
saying having a Sodalias on Roman Era of Xtianity or Judiasm is too limiting
and in the same breath saying the Religio is too limiting since it focuses
on the Past Religio Romana. Or all of our exisiting Sodalias since they all
focus on the past, such as the Sodalias Militarium and Enginerring, and
Sodalias of Cooking."
Festus: Then by all means, go for it. But what's the point? To learn about
what ancient philosophers thought? You can do that easily yourself. Their
extant books are available, and if they seem too difficult for some, there
are plenty of good secondary resources out there. And you will discover that
Epicurus is a much better teacher of Epicureanism than any Nova Roman.
The purpose of philosophy is not history of what ancients believed, but to
try to understand your world and your place in it better. We have
considerably more knowledge and hindsight now than the ancients did. This
does not mean they are irrelevant and unworthy of study. But it does mean
that their systems may be modified in light of 1700 more years of experience.
What would a 21st century Stoicism be like?
But...we can't go there. It means considering things the Romans did not know
about and is therefore "inappropriate".
This is sad. The few of us discussing God and the universe were, in our own
small way, trying to continue the conversation in Cicero's book. Then it
became inappropriate for the religion list. And after that it is now
considered inappropriate for the main list. Now it is going to be
inappropriate in this new "philosophy" sodalias. If you want to pretend
nothing has happened since Plautius died and make this new group a museum of
relics, then godspeed.
Festus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] I've had enough. |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:43:12 -0700 |
|
> Patricia Cassia is away this evening, and I have not had opportunity to
> discuss this situation with her. However, I now add my voice to the people
> who request that this list be returned to it's original setting.
Thats great....I am glad you have changed your mind..but under these
circumstances is unfortunate!
> I also go a step further in calling for her immediate resignation from the
> post of Curatrix Sermonum. Her time and efforts in helping to keep this
list
> a useful place have not only been not only been discounted and
disrespected,
> they and she have been despised.
I think this is very wrong. I do not think anyone has disrespected our List
Moderator. I know that I have waited 3 weeks for our List Moderator to
create a poll that was suggested by Senator Ericius. Even privately I told
him that she should create the poll since she is in the position. This poll
was no disrespect to P. Cassia and I thought I made that clear on my post
before I created the poll.
> A few months ago this list was plagued with Citizens causing problems and
> abusing one another. People were leaving this list in droves, with their
> feelings hurt and their love for Romanitas bruised. I put out a call then
for
> the Consuls to appoint a moderator for this list to help keep the postings
> civilized. When this was done the problems stopped... and *no one* had
to
> be banished from the list in order to accomplish that. Patricia Cassia has
> been the only moderator not to abuse her position and yet she is villified
> for not instantly bowing to the wishes of a few, over concerns for the
many.
I think that P. Cassia has done a great job. I just disagree with the reply
setting. No one has protested any of the guidelines she has posted
regarding how she executes her duties. However, I disagree with the reply
setting. That effects all of us completely. Unilatterally. Without regard
if any of us have done wrong or not. And, your reasons that you sited below
I disagree...in particular your first point. Considering that you have
singled me out for posting almost daily messages with this...when I havent.
(I sent that to you privately) citing I sent 3 posts. And that others have
posted about it. Yet, depsite going through the archieves you have
inaccurately singled me out. Not that it matters to me...but that kinda
defeats your first point, doesnt it. :)
> I do hope that the list will return to it's most basic setting... an
> uncontrolled jungle where those without kindness or Civilitas are able to
> savage each other at will.
Ouch, Cassius! I think your judgement is a bit harsh. Considering that a
few of us have been in NR since it began I am sure many of us can recall
even during periods of moderators and non-moderators the list has become
uncivil. Given the debates and arguements that rage at the moment.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
> In a message dated 10/2/00 12:12:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> n_moravius@-------- writes:
>
> << Peregrini and Citizens of Nova Roma!
>
> With fffffingers ttttrembling wwith iiiindignation I peck away at my
> keyboard in the attempt to express the strength of my disagreement with
M.
> Cassius Iulianus' defence of this present reply feature menace to our
> respublica.
>
> This is no "small and silly matter" as he alleges, but a fundamental
issue
> of civil rights - of the freedom of citizens not to choose.
>
> When I hit the 'reply' button, I expect my e-mail to the people I intend
it
> to go to, not where the system program says it must. I have a right to
want
> my computer to do what I mean, and not what I say.
>
> I have never used the 'reply all' button in my life - in fact, I didn't
even
> know there was one, until P. Cassia pointed it out (I suspect her of
having
> planted it there secretly).
>
> That you, and I, and all of us must now have to search for a button next
to
> the the 'reply' button, against our cherished and long-established
> traditions, is an injstice unparalleled in the history of Nova Roma.
>
> To have to do so purely on the tyrannical whim of a Curatrix Sermonem
who,
> as Sulla has pointed out, is slow to respond to each one of the many
posts
> to this list which all say exactly the same thing, is outrageous.
Something
> must be done.
>
> It is no good Cassius claiming that most people don't care or have better
> things to think about: the Silent Majority is plainly too terrified to
speak
> out (or they're using the wrong button).
>
> Arise, then, Quirites, and throw off the yoke of despotism! Citizens - to
> the polls!
>
> As all right-thinking people agree, the simple Yes/No poll is the most
> completely scientific, fair and impartial way known to man, of Letting
The
> People Decide. I therefore propose the following poll be set up:
>
> Q: I don't see why I should have to use the 'reply all' button when I
want
> my reply to go to all. (YES/NO)
>
> Delenda est 'Responde Omnibus!'
>
> Vado
> (Oh, b*gger - I just sent this to Cassius privately):-(
>
> LET A REPLY TO ONE BE A REPLY TO ALL!
> LONG LIVE LIBERTY!
> DOWN WITH THE UNSUFFERABLE BURDEN OF CONSCIOUS CHOICE!
> >>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:53:59 -0700 |
|
Oh now that I am done with one post I will go to another! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lykaion1@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 5:32 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias
> Sulla said: "I dont think ancient philosophy is too limiting. It would
be
> like
> saying having a Sodalias on Roman Era of Xtianity or Judiasm is too
limiting
> and in the same breath saying the Religio is too limiting since it focuses
> on the Past Religio Romana. Or all of our exisiting Sodalias since they
all
> focus on the past, such as the Sodalias Militarium and Enginerring, and
> Sodalias of Cooking."
>
> Festus: Then by all means, go for it. But what's the point? To learn
about
> what ancient philosophers thought? You can do that easily yourself.
Their
> extant books are available, and if they seem too difficult for some, there
> are plenty of good secondary resources out there. And you will discover
that
> Epicurus is a much better teacher of Epicureanism than any Nova Roman.
I think the point would be that someone might have another interpretation
than I might have. In college I loved listening to others lecture on what
they felt the ancients thought. I dont think one can do that easily
onesself. Becuase you are stuck with your own in your own paradigm. Hence
by creating a sodalias of like minded people we can expand our own thoughts
and beliefs.
> The purpose of philosophy is not history of what ancients believed, but to
> try to understand your world and your place in it better. We have
> considerably more knowledge and hindsight now than the ancients did. This
> does not mean they are irrelevant and unworthy of study. But it does mean
> that their systems may be modified in light of 1700 more years of
experience.
> What would a 21st century Stoicism be like?
> But...we can't go there. It means considering things the Romans did not
know
> about and is therefore "inappropriate".
I dont think your pov is correct. I am sure many of the discussions would
be how we apply ancient philosophy and ancient thought to our Modern lives.
That is exactly what I think NR is trying to do. However, when you start
discussing Bertrand Russell or Kiekegrard (sp.) or even my philosopical
favorities, Machiavelli or Hobbes. That tends to go outside of the scope of
NR's frame of reference.
> This is sad. The few of us discussing God and the universe were, in our
own
> small way, trying to continue the conversation in Cicero's book. Then it
> became inappropriate for the religion list. And after that it is now
> considered inappropriate for the main list. Now it is going to be
> inappropriate in this new "philosophy" sodalias. If you want to pretend
> nothing has happened since Plautius died and make this new group a museum
of
> relics, then godspeed.
Relate it to Cicero then. And bring it a more Roman Spin on it...You did it
with the Fascist thread now do it with this thread. :)
Unfortuantely, while I enjoy philosophy I do not know enough to even comment
on it. But, when you start talking about Stephen Hawking I am pretty sure
that has gone way outside the scope of Roman era based philosophy. Dont you
agree?
Sulla Felix
> Festus
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Diversion games |
| From: |
Razenna <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:43:12 -0700 |
|
Salvete.
I found this interesting article on gladiators. It is written by
someone who I believe knew extremely little about gladiators before
they did the research on this article. The article is not much use to
the likes of Nova Romans, but it might be useful to file away, and
then pull out for someone who wants a basic article on the subject.
And, yes, at the end of the article it says "five gladiator movies"
and there are only four.
Valete.
C. Aelius Ericius.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:22:55 -0600 |
|
Lykaion1@-------- wrote:
> Festus: Then by all means, go for it. But what's the point? To learn about
> what ancient philosophers thought? You can do that easily yourself. Their
> extant books are available, and if they seem too difficult for some, there
> are plenty of good secondary resources out there. And you will discover that
> Epicurus is a much better teacher of Epicureanism than any Nova Roman.
You cannot easily do philosophy yourself, in my opinion. Philosophy is meant to
be discussed. Too much philosophy alone is a bad thing. Otherwise, yes,
Epicurus is a better teacher than a Nova Roman.....but we can help each other
come to a better understanding of original reading.
> The purpose of philosophy is not history of what ancients believed, but to
> try to understand your world and your place in it better. We have
> considerably more knowledge and hindsight now than the ancients did. This
> does not mean they are irrelevant and unworthy of study. But it does mean
> that their systems may be modified in light of 1700 more years of experience.
> What would a 21st century Stoicism be like?
> But...we can't go there. It means considering things the Romans did not know
> about and is therefore "inappropriate".
Well, asking what a 21st century Stoicism would look like would still be
relevant.....but you'd still be reading Zeno, Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, et al.
as your basis. Then you'd springboard elsewhere, sure. Interestingly, the only
two stoics after Galen in 201 AD were Justus Lipsius, 1547-1606 and Guillaume Du
Vair, 1556-1621. Understanding why is important, which means you need to
understand stoicism in context, the rest of the history of philosophy in context,
and compare them. But, essentially, a 21st century Stoicism is a revival and
application of the ancients to the modern situation.
There's an excellent book I recommend to you Feste, called "A New Stoicism" by
Lawrence C. Becker. It's exactly that.....Stoicism for the 21st century.
> This is sad. The few of us discussing God and the universe were, in our own
> small way, trying to continue the conversation in Cicero's book. Then it
> became inappropriate for the religion list. And after that it is now
> considered inappropriate for the main list. Now it is going to be
> inappropriate in this new "philosophy" sodalias. If you want to pretend
> nothing has happened since Plautius died and make this new group a museum of
> relics, then godspeed.
Yes, my preference is to focus on the ancients....others may not prefer that.
Does that make me a student of dead things?? If it's truly philosophy, it never
ceases to be without relevance. (I could tell you about a few mainstream turns of
thought that I think were errors, too.) And it can take years of study to really
understand a philosophical treatise, or a particular system. Heck, I've been
reading stoic thought for years, and only know a portion of the whole.
I admit, I haven't read Cicero's treatise. Nor have I read Hawking. I hesistate
to move too quickly to connect thoughts of Cicero to thoughts of Hawking, even
so. And not just because physics makes me twitchy. But because I don't know
that the path is there, and I don't think you know either, but make the leap from
Cicero to Hawking too quickly. It would be more interesting to me to discuss
what Cicero was trying to say in the context of his times, in any case.
Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:51:12 -0600 |
|
er....when I said:
"If it's truly philosophy, it never
ceases to be without relevance."
I mean....it never ceases to be relevant.
Freudian slip?
Livia
gmvick32@-------- wrote:
> Lykaion1@-------- wrote:
>
> > Festus: Then by all means, go for it. But what's the point? To learn about
> > what ancient philosophers thought? You can do that easily yourself. Their
> > extant books are available, and if they seem too difficult for some, there
> > are plenty of good secondary resources out there. And you will discover that
> > Epicurus is a much better teacher of Epicureanism than any Nova Roman.
>
> You cannot easily do philosophy yourself, in my opinion. Philosophy is meant to
> be discussed. Too much philosophy alone is a bad thing. Otherwise, yes,
> Epicurus is a better teacher than a Nova Roman.....but we can help each other
> come to a better understanding of original reading.
>
> > The purpose of philosophy is not history of what ancients believed, but to
> > try to understand your world and your place in it better. We have
> > considerably more knowledge and hindsight now than the ancients did. This
> > does not mean they are irrelevant and unworthy of study. But it does mean
> > that their systems may be modified in light of 1700 more years of experience.
> > What would a 21st century Stoicism be like?
> > But...we can't go there. It means considering things the Romans did not know
> > about and is therefore "inappropriate".
>
> Well, asking what a 21st century Stoicism would look like would still be
> relevant.....but you'd still be reading Zeno, Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, et al.
> as your basis. Then you'd springboard elsewhere, sure. Interestingly, the only
> two stoics after Galen in 201 AD were Justus Lipsius, 1547-1606 and Guillaume Du
> Vair, 1556-1621. Understanding why is important, which means you need to
> understand stoicism in context, the rest of the history of philosophy in context,
> and compare them. But, essentially, a 21st century Stoicism is a revival and
> application of the ancients to the modern situation.
>
> There's an excellent book I recommend to you Feste, called "A New Stoicism" by
> Lawrence C. Becker. It's exactly that.....Stoicism for the 21st century.
>
> > This is sad. The few of us discussing God and the universe were, in our own
> > small way, trying to continue the conversation in Cicero's book. Then it
> > became inappropriate for the religion list. And after that it is now
> > considered inappropriate for the main list. Now it is going to be
> > inappropriate in this new "philosophy" sodalias. If you want to pretend
> > nothing has happened since Plautius died and make this new group a museum of
> > relics, then godspeed.
>
> Yes, my preference is to focus on the ancients....others may not prefer that.
> Does that make me a student of dead things?? If it's truly philosophy, it never
> ceases to be without relevance. (I could tell you about a few mainstream turns of
> thought that I think were errors, too.) And it can take years of study to really
> understand a philosophical treatise, or a particular system. Heck, I've been
> reading stoic thought for years, and only know a portion of the whole.
>
> I admit, I haven't read Cicero's treatise. Nor have I read Hawking. I hesistate
> to move too quickly to connect thoughts of Cicero to thoughts of Hawking, even
> so. And not just because physics makes me twitchy. But because I don't know
> that the path is there, and I don't think you know either, but make the leap from
> Cicero to Hawking too quickly. It would be more interesting to me to discuss
> what Cicero was trying to say in the context of his times, in any case.
>
> Vale,
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias |
| From: |
"Lauriat" <blauriat@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:19:26 -0400 |
|
This thread reminds me of a lecture I recently heard by the Stanford
classicist, Professor Andrea Nightingale. She was discussing the concept of
"theoria" and the attitudes of the ancient philosphers themselves towards
so-called "useless knowledge." Her paper was a work in progress but I would
recommend that anyone interested in this topic take a look at it when it's
published.
-Lauria Maria Crispa
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmvick32@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Philosophy Sodalias
> er....when I said:
>
> "If it's truly philosophy, it never
> ceases to be without relevance."
>
> I mean....it never ceases to be relevant.
>
> Freudian slip?
>
> Livia
>
> gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > Lykaion1@-------- wrote:
> >
> > > Festus: Then by all means, go for it. But what's the point? To
learn about
> > > what ancient philosophers thought? You can do that easily yourself.
Their
> > > extant books are available, and if they seem too difficult for some,
there
> > > are plenty of good secondary resources out there. And you will
discover that
> > > Epicurus is a much better teacher of Epicureanism than any Nova Roman.
> >
> > You cannot easily do philosophy yourself, in my opinion. Philosophy is
meant to
> > be discussed. Too much philosophy alone is a bad thing. Otherwise,
yes,
> > Epicurus is a better teacher than a Nova Roman.....but we can help each
other
> > come to a better understanding of original reading.
> >
> > > The purpose of philosophy is not history of what ancients believed,
but to
> > > try to understand your world and your place in it better. We have
> > > considerably more knowledge and hindsight now than the ancients did.
This
> > > does not mean they are irrelevant and unworthy of study. But it does
mean
> > > that their systems may be modified in light of 1700 more years of
experience.
> > > What would a 21st century Stoicism be like?
> > > But...we can't go there. It means considering things the Romans did
not know
> > > about and is therefore "inappropriate".
> >
> > Well, asking what a 21st century Stoicism would look like would still be
> > relevant.....but you'd still be reading Zeno, Epictetus, Seneca,
Aurelius, et al.
> > as your basis. Then you'd springboard elsewhere, sure. Interestingly,
the only
> > two stoics after Galen in 201 AD were Justus Lipsius, 1547-1606 and
Guillaume Du
> > Vair, 1556-1621. Understanding why is important, which means you need
to
> > understand stoicism in context, the rest of the history of philosophy in
context,
> > and compare them. But, essentially, a 21st century Stoicism is a
revival and
> > application of the ancients to the modern situation.
> >
> > There's an excellent book I recommend to you Feste, called "A New
Stoicism" by
> > Lawrence C. Becker. It's exactly that.....Stoicism for the 21st
century.
> >
> > > This is sad. The few of us discussing God and the universe were, in
our own
> > > small way, trying to continue the conversation in Cicero's book. Then
it
> > > became inappropriate for the religion list. And after that it is now
> > > considered inappropriate for the main list. Now it is going to be
> > > inappropriate in this new "philosophy" sodalias. If you want to
pretend
> > > nothing has happened since Plautius died and make this new group a
museum of
> > > relics, then godspeed.
> >
> > Yes, my preference is to focus on the ancients....others may not prefer
that.
> > Does that make me a student of dead things?? If it's truly philosophy,
it never
> > ceases to be without relevance. (I could tell you about a few mainstream
turns of
> > thought that I think were errors, too.) And it can take years of study
to really
> > understand a philosophical treatise, or a particular system. Heck, I've
been
> > reading stoic thought for years, and only know a portion of the whole.
> >
> > I admit, I haven't read Cicero's treatise. Nor have I read Hawking. I
hesistate
> > to move too quickly to connect thoughts of Cicero to thoughts of
Hawking, even
> > so. And not just because physics makes me twitchy. But because I don't
know
> > that the path is there, and I don't think you know either, but make the
leap from
> > Cicero to Hawking too quickly. It would be more interesting to me to
discuss
> > what Cicero was trying to say in the context of his times, in any case.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] (unknown) |
| From: |
"Redd" <jsimmons@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:52:21 -0700 |
|
Salvete,
In considering the grand question of whether to reply or not to reply (as I can't simply *reply*) I have come to the conclusion that the pathway by which one *replies* to the list does not really matter all that much. Whether those who donate to the list act rashly (*replying* directly to the list) or consider their posts more carefully (having to *type* the list address) the behavior does not seem to change. The noble experiment of the *reply* button has proven, with little doubt, that the contributors to the list seem to have a skin of leather when posting and a skin of rice paper when reading. Could we all find something a bit more trivial to be offended by? Perhaps someone could start an opposition group and start spying to get evidence against the enemy. It would be a noble goal....to get our *reply* button back!
I love ice cream, and I begged for it as a child. However, my parents in their infinite wisdom as the leaders of my household, determined that such foods did not make a healthy dinner. Just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean its a good thing. Sometimes people have to be curbed because they don't curb themselves. Perhaps if contributors had bridled themselves to begin with the moderator would not have felt the need to step in and assist. It would appear that the *reply* button is not the real issue, but rather people's need to complain, whine, and point fingers.
The grand question of whether to reply or not to reply...In the end, who cares? I can adjust, or even *sacrifice*, my personal preferences and convenience for the sake of the cohesion of the organization.
Portia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] "Reply" button |
| From: |
Piscinus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:30:24 EDT |
|
Moravius Piscinus SPD Quiritibus:
I have already written privately to Patricia Cassia of my opinion on the
reply setting, as I thought that the most appropriate way to express my
opinion on how the list is being moderated. But as I see that a few
individuals are making continued complaint to the list, so shall I answer it.
Since Patricia Cassia became Curatrix and since she emplaced the current
reply setting the tone on this list has greatly changed. I am very pleased
by the results of her efforts and support the decisions she has made.
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] "Reply" button |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:41:42 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- Piscinus@-------- wrote:
> Moravius Piscinus SPD Quiritibus:
> Since Patricia Cassia became Curatrix and since
> she emplaced the current
> reply setting the tone on this list has greatly
> changed. I am very pleased
> by the results of her efforts and support the
> decisions she has made.
Hear! Hear! I agree 100%, and have likewise sent her
a personal email with that message.
L A Dalmaticus
=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839
"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] "Reply" button |
| From: |
"Antonio Grilo" <amg@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:59:23 +0100 |
|
Salvete omnes
I also fully agree with the decisions of Curatrix Patricia Cassia.
Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex, Senator, Praetor, Propraetor Lusitaniae, Curator Araneae
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Thank you! |
| From: |
"pjane@-------- " <pjane@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 12:02:40 -0000 |
|
I appreciate the kind words of all who have supported me, wholly or
partially, in making this list a more pleasant place to be.
My poor husband apparently suffered a severe impairment of his sense
of
humor, or perhaps just plain sense, last night. While I cannot but be
touched by his staunch defense of me, he is now aware that Vado's
post
was intended to be humorous (indeed, I loved it!) and that he,
Cassius,
overreacted. He's feeling rather foolish and embarrassed, but you'll
probably hear from him tonight.
I now return you to an interesting discussion of philosophy.
P. Cassia
Curatrix Sermonem (list moderator)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Diversion games |
| From: |
Razenna <razenna@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:29:14 -0700 |
|
About 2 a.m. I yhought I'd forgotten something.
just testing interest ;-)
http://www.virtualitalia.com/videos/article_gladiators.shtml
Now broken up so filters won't take it out.
http:// www. virtualitalia.com /videos /article _gladiators. shtml
just yake out the spaces.
CAE
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Apology to M. Cassius Iulianus |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:42:38 +0100 |
|
Mi Cassi,
I am SO sorry my joke backfired and I upset you, no matter how temporarily. I wonder how many other cives also took my post literally at first glance? So easy to do when busy or tired.
You have always been one of those in Nova Roma whom I have most respected, admired and liked, for whatever that's worth, and having even unintentionally caused you any hurt at all causes me shame and embarassment.
The gods know what our fellow-citizens who only have English as a limited second or third language may have thought of it, too...
This gaffe of mine is not the first time that an attempt at humour on the part of one citizen toward others has gone sour. The episode will stand as a warning to me in future. Let anyone else take similar profit from it who can.
I am going to take a few days off to contemplate the true meaning of Comitas, something which Fl. Vedius Germanicus offered me a twelvemonth ago but which I have always been too self-satisfied to take on board 'til now.
Bene vale Marce Cassi valeteque alibus
Vado.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: "Reply" button |
| From: |
Megas-Robinson <amgunn@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:54:12 -0500 |
|
Avete Omnes,
Venator hic:
I wasn't going to make comment, but...
I replied directly to the list here. I clicked on "Reply All," deleted the address of the person who sent the original
post, changed Nova Roma to "To:" from "CC:," deleted the original text and composed this note. It slowed me down by 10
to 15 seconds tops. If you are thinking too fast to stand this little a delay and it bothers you: take a deep breath
and take a hard look at your priorities.
As you gather, I have no problem with the current system of reply to the list. I would rather any hasty replies go to
just one person.
I should like to add my voice to those with praise for Patricia Cassia's efforts herein.
I should like to also ask those who enjoy the sport; please stop making mountains out of mole hills. Nova Roma is
supposed to be an organization of those with love and respect for things Roman, how about we start extending that to
each other?
mea sententia - Venii
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: "Reply" button |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:48:31 -0600 |
|
Salve, Omnes:
Venator, I tried experimenting with that approach with all good intentions of simply getting used to it, and got myself all
confabulated and flooded the list. I'd still prefer the other setting; I don't think it makes any difference which setting
it's on how we behave on the list. Improved quality of responses lately is as much time spent by two people behind the
scenes, one coaching the other on how to approach something, as it is a change in settings. To the extent that some things
have slipped through the cracks....well, we all don't have coaches behind us and they all aren't around 24/7 either.
THAT said, I've already written privately to Patricia Cassia expressing that I think she does a fine job as our moderator,
and ceding the war. I also apologize to the list for anything I've done to perpetuate the battle. This is the last time
I'll comment on the issue.
Love and respect for each other shouldn't have to be asked for....it should be as fundamental in our approach as our love
and respect of things Roman. Venator is absolutely right to bring this to our attention. I know I'm here for the people
as much as the topic.
Perhaps the thing to ask ourselves, each of us, before posting......is whether we'd say the same thing if the person was
sitting next to us, in our living room. Would we say something that way to our friends as we look them in the eye? (And
if you would, and the post is a nasty one, that gives you something else to think about.)
Vale,
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
Megas-Robinson wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> Venator hic:
>
> I wasn't going to make comment, but...
>
> I replied directly to the list here. I clicked on "Reply All," deleted the address of the person who sent the original
> post, changed Nova Roma to "To:" from "CC:," deleted the original text and composed this note. It slowed me down by 10
> to 15 seconds tops. If you are thinking too fast to stand this little a delay and it bothers you: take a deep breath
> and take a hard look at your priorities.
>
> As you gather, I have no problem with the current system of reply to the list. I would rather any hasty replies go to
> just one person.
>
> I should like to add my voice to those with praise for Patricia Cassia's efforts herein.
>
> I should like to also ask those who enjoy the sport; please stop making mountains out of mole hills. Nova Roma is
> supposed to be an organization of those with love and respect for things Roman, how about we start extending that to
> each other?
>
> mea sententia - Venii
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] (unknown) |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:40:12 +0200 |
|
S.A. Draco Portiae SPD;
scripsisti:
> I love ice cream, and I begged for it as a child. However, my parents in
their infinite wisdom as the leaders of my household, determined that such
foods did not make a healthy dinner. Just because the majority wants
something, doesn't mean its a good thing. Sometimes people have to be
curbed because they don't curb themselves. Perhaps if contributors had
bridled themselves to begin with the moderator would not have felt the need
to step in and assist. It would appear that the *reply* button is not the
real issue, but rather people's need to complain, whine, and point fingers.
respondeo:
The difference is that ice cream can actually damage your health and your
teeth. Changing a reply feature in this or that does not alter my health :)
Vale!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
--**--
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Roman philosophy |
| From: |
"Jeroen Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:42 +0200 |
|
Salvete omnes!
Livia Cornelia scripsit:
> I will tell you, 90% of the "philosophers" in the world are amateurs and
> dilettantes. So, I share your experience and am saddened it left you
> with a bad impression.
There is no such thing as the professional philosopher, is there? Finding
one good, bad, amateuristic or professional depends on your taste, imho.
Festus scripsit:
> However, given NR is allegedly a micronation of the 21st century, the
> confinement of discussions in a philosophy sodalitas to ancient thought is
> too limiting. Were NR just a historical study club, that would be
> appropriate. But is NR's interest only antiquarian?
I agree with that point. We are a nation with strong roots in the past, but
we should have an eye on the future as well. It's the past that inspires us,
but it's the world of today we live in! Then why should we pretend as though
Hawking, Kierkegaard et al don't exist or wouldn't fit in our frame of
reference? The Roman soceity was very broad, open and mondial. Why would we
change that?
On the topic of incorporating philosophy in the Sodalitas Musarum:
Although it's true that many philosophers were also poets, writers and/or
artists in various disciplines, and the borderline is somewhat vague at
times, I do agree with Pompeia that it may fit better in a seperate
Sodalitas.
--**--
For whatever it may be worth, I will be setting up a philosophy list at
egroups for all Novaromani interested. You'll probably hear from me with the
exact coordinates of the eGroup later on the day.
--**--
Valete Quirites!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
--**--
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Philosophy list |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:02:33 +0200 |
|
Salvete omnes,
The philosophy list is now in existance; its URL is http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Valete!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
--**--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Philosophy List |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:41:59 -0600 |
|
Thank you, Draco.....
I suggest moving the originally scheduled God and the
Universe discussion to that list, and all the participants
who were enjoying it, proceed unimpeeded by the likes of
me. I for one won't harrass you for discussing
Kierkegaard/Hawking, et al. there.....
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> The philosophy list is now in existance; its URL is
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
>
> Valete!
> Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] (unknown) |
| From: |
"Les Peterson" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:36:10 -0700 |
|
Lucius Mauricius Procopious Nova Romae S.P.D.
I would like to add my support for whatever reply setting is decided by the
NR officials I chose to follow when I requested citizenship. I'd also like
to add that a reply button may not be harmful to an individual like Ice
cream, it's harm or lack there of was viewed as pertaining to a group.
Post Script:
Can anyone tell me if I properly addressed this mail. Should it have been
LMP Novae Romae SPD?
----- Original Message -----
From: S. Apollonius Draco <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] (unknown)
> S.A. Draco Portiae SPD;
>
> scripsisti:
> > I love ice cream, and I begged for it as a child. However, my parents
in
> their infinite wisdom as the leaders of my household, determined that such
> foods did not make a healthy dinner. Just because the majority wants
> something, doesn't mean its a good thing. Sometimes people have to be
> curbed because they don't curb themselves. Perhaps if contributors had
> bridled themselves to begin with the moderator would not have felt the
need
> to step in and assist. It would appear that the *reply* button is not the
> real issue, but rather people's need to complain, whine, and point
fingers.
>
> respondeo:
> The difference is that ice cream can actually damage your health and your
> teeth. Changing a reply feature in this or that does not alter my health
:)
>
> Vale!
> Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
> --**--
> There are no bad guys. Just disturbed guys.
> --**--
> Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
> Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
> --**--
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] I've had enough. |
| From: |
"william wheeler" <holyconelia@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:19:35 GMT |
|
Salvete marcus cornelius felix
sends greeting to the list
I will also in support of my good friend and Allii Cassius
unsub from this list
Marcus Cornelius Felix Pontiff
>From: cassius622@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] I've had enough.
>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:11:41 EDT
>
>Salvete ,
>
>As cofounder of Nova Roma I've been here since the beginning. I've
>weathered
>all kinds of challenges, but for some reason the post below post has hit me
>deeply and personally. Donating hundreds of hours and dollars has proven
>only
>one thing... there is no such thing as a friendship in this forum.
>
>Therefore I am unsubscribing from the Nova Roma list, effective
>immediately.
>
>I do not resign my Citizenship. Nor do I resign my positions as Pontifex
>Maximus, Senator, or Proconsul of the Nova Britannia Provincia. I still
>believe in Roma Aeterna if not some of the people who claim to share that
>belief. I will remain subscribed to the ReligioRomana and Senate lists and
>will be available by private email. Where I won't be is here in this forum
>-
>where people you've supported and respected will cut your throat for the
>most
>petty of reasons.
>
>Patricia Cassia is away this evening, and I have not had opportunity to
>discuss this situation with her. However, I now add my voice to the people
>who request that this list be returned to it's original setting.
>
>I also go a step further in calling for her immediate resignation from the
>post of Curatrix Sermonum. Her time and efforts in helping to keep this
>list
>a useful place have not only been not only been discounted and
>disrespected,
>they and she have been despised.
>
>A few months ago this list was plagued with Citizens causing problems and
>abusing one another. People were leaving this list in droves, with their
>feelings hurt and their love for Romanitas bruised. I put out a call then
>for
>the Consuls to appoint a moderator for this list to help keep the postings
>civilized. When this was done the problems stopped... and *no one* had to
>be banished from the list in order to accomplish that. Patricia Cassia has
>been the only moderator not to abuse her position and yet she is villified
>for not instantly bowing to the wishes of a few, over concerns for the
>many.
>
>I do hope that the list will return to it's most basic setting... an
>uncontrolled jungle where those without kindness or Civilitas are able to
>savage each other at will.
>
>Valete,
>
>Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
>In a message dated 10/2/00 12:12:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>n_moravius@-------- writes:
>
><< Peregrini and Citizens of Nova Roma!
>
> With fffffingers ttttrembling wwith iiiindignation I peck away at my
> keyboard in the attempt to express the strength of my disagreement with
>M.
> Cassius Iulianus' defence of this present reply feature menace to our
> respublica.
>
> This is no "small and silly matter" as he alleges, but a fundamental
>issue
> of civil rights - of the freedom of citizens not to choose.
>
> When I hit the 'reply' button, I expect my e-mail to the people I intend
>it
> to go to, not where the system program says it must. I have a right to
>want
> my computer to do what I mean, and not what I say.
>
> I have never used the 'reply all' button in my life - in fact, I didn't
>even
> know there was one, until P. Cassia pointed it out (I suspect her of
>having
> planted it there secretly).
>
> That you, and I, and all of us must now have to search for a button next
>to
> the the 'reply' button, against our cherished and long-established
> traditions, is an injstice unparalleled in the history of Nova Roma.
>
> To have to do so purely on the tyrannical whim of a Curatrix Sermonem
>who,
> as Sulla has pointed out, is slow to respond to each one of the many
>posts
> to this list which all say exactly the same thing, is outrageous.
>Something
> must be done.
>
> It is no good Cassius claiming that most people don't care or have better
> things to think about: the Silent Majority is plainly too terrified to
>speak
> out (or they're using the wrong button).
>
> Arise, then, Quirites, and throw off the yoke of despotism! Citizens - to
> the polls!
>
> As all right-thinking people agree, the simple Yes/No poll is the most
> completely scientific, fair and impartial way known to man, of Letting
>The
> People Decide. I therefore propose the following poll be set up:
>
> Q: I don't see why I should have to use the 'reply all' button when I
>want
> my reply to go to all. (YES/NO)
>
> Delenda est 'Responde Omnibus!'
>
> Vado
> (Oh, b*gger - I just sent this to Cassius privately):-(
>
> LET A REPLY TO ONE BE A REPLY TO ALL!
> LONG LIVE LIBERTY!
> DOWN WITH THE UNSUFFERABLE BURDEN OF CONSCIOUS CHOICE!
> >>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
|
