Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Change of Gentile Affiliation
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:09:26 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@y...> wrote:
> --- "p--------@-------- " <p--------@-------->
> wrote:
>
> > As I understand it (and please correct me if you
> > have better
> > information!) an ancient Roman woman, upon her
> > marriage, kept the
> > feminine form of her father's name and did not take
> > her husband's name.
> > She might be known as "Patricia, wife of Cassius" to
> > distinguish her
> > from the other daughters of the Patrician line, and
> > her children would
> > of course bear her husband's name unless she were
> > not his legal wife.
>
> Interesting, and reflective of modern-day Korean
> practice (my wife is Korean but follows traditional US
> practice).
>
> Altho' a Roman wife would keep her father's name
> (assuming your statement is correct--you seem to
> express doubt), would she not be a member of her
> husband's gens? Or would she be a member of her
> father's gens, living in her husband's house? I guess
> the former.
>
> 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! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
> http://im.yahoo.com/



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972875369/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Married women's names (sorry about that)
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:22:54 -0000

> > Altho' a Roman wife would keep her father's name
> > (assuming your statement is correct--you seem to
> > express doubt), would she not be a member of her
> > husband's gens? Or would she be a member of her
> > father's gens, living in her husband's house? I guess
> > the former.

Apologies for the repeat post - I'm recovering from a fever and not
quite as sharp on the keyboard as I might be ...

A Roman wife's name did not change on her marriage, though she passed
from the manus (literally "hand," but in this usage meaning a power to
make decisions for her and control her property) of her father to that
of her husband.

If she was widowed or divorced, she returned to her father's family,
though her children remained with her husband's family. (In practice,
families sometimes arranged to keep mothers and children together.)

Susan Treggiari's "Marriage in Ancient Rome" has a lot of good
information on the legalities of Roman marriage, for anyone interested.

For Nova Roma's purposes, I believe men and women should follow the
same rules, whatever they may be.

I don't think I'm breaking any new ground when I recommend that
marriage to a non-Citizen should be recognized as an opportunity to
welcome a Nova Roman's partner into our midst. This is of course
contrary to ancient practice - women who married non-Citizens lost
their citizenship, and men lost at least some standing in the city.

However, as many of us have already discovered, active participation in
Nova Roma takes time and attention. Any married or partnered person
involved in such an organization must balance that time against time
devoted to his or her domestic life.

One solution is to involve the partner in the organization. While we
realize that Nova Roma is not for everyone, this is perhaps the most
"Roman" of paths, for did not Augustus and others make laws to
establish marriage as the foundation of a stable and productive
society? I think the same is true of Nova Roma, and would like to see
this organization grow into one where families of all ages can find
ways to participate together.

Patricia Cassia






-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972876181/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] One Senator's Opinions
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:21:15 -0600

T Labienus Omnibus S P D

It seems to me that there is some confusion surrounding thre recent
reprimand issued by the Senate. I will attempt to clarify the situation
as well as provide my opinion about that reprimand.

First, it seems that the issuance of a censorial nota and the reprimand
have been equated. There is currently a private hearing going on to
determine whether or not to issue a nota against L Marius. This hearing
is being conducted by the office of the censors, and has nothing to do
with the Senate. I am not entirely certain of the exact specifics of
the hearing's conduct, and will not comment upon it except to say that
such secret hearings make me uncomfortable due to the possibility for
abuse, which is not to say that I have any reason to think that such
abuse is occurring in this case.

Second, the Senate does have the right and authority to issue a senatus
consultum upon any topic which it sees fit to comment. These consulta
do not have the authority of law, and the degree to which they are
binding upon any given citizen is a moot question. The implication of
the constitution's description of the Senate's role is that senatus
consulta are to be used to establish Nova Roman policy; foreign affairs,
economic policy, establishment of provinciae, et cetera.

Therefore, I find the use of a senatus consultum to discipline any
single citizen to be a dubious and dangerous practice indeed. In the
case of the reprimand to L Cornelius, at least the trangression in
question was committed against the Senate itself. In the case of the
reprimand to L Marius, the major complaint is an action by a citizen
against another citizen. This should be the purview of either a civil
or criminal court, conducted by a praetor (before one of the comitia or
otherwise) at the request of the injured party. The Senate should be
above such things, and should not act as a judicial body. Period.

The second part of the reprimand refers to actions taken against the Res
Publica. On its face, this portion of the reprimand seems more
legitimate than the other half. However, it essentially refers to a
citizen exercising his constitutional right to unrestricted
participation in Nova Roma's lists and fora. There is excessive
hand-wringing on the part of a vocal few about potential citizens
reading negative comments about Nova Roma, as though such comments
represent some extreme danger to the state. When I attempt to describe
Nova Roma to non-citizens, I do my best to include both its bad and good
sides. Am I then damaging the state? And, if I feel that I have been
treated poorly by Nova Roma's magistrates and complain loudly about such
poor treatment, am I likewise a traitor? Of course not. While it may
still be argued that it is the Senate's right to complain about such
complaining, I still think that the Senate should have better things to
do.

In short, the Senate should not be in the business of imposing
punishments upon individual citizens. That should be the purview of the
praetores' courts. The nascent state of those courts is, in my opinion,
no excuse for the Senate to arrogate such powers unto itself.

Finally, the Senate did, as has been pointed out, vote to issue a
reprimand against L Marius. And, it voted to give the job of writing
said reprimand to the praetores. However, the exact list of alleged
transgressions on L Marius' part was never part of the Senate vote, and
the interpretation of the implications of that vote seems to differ from
Senator to Senator. Some seem to believe that, by placing the onus of
writing the thing in the praetores' hands, the Senate abrogated, to a
greater or lesser degree depending upon the Senator in question, its
right to determine the specifics of that reprimand. The upshot of this
turn of events is that, while Praetor Graecus submitted several drafts
to the Senate and did incorporate some of the criticism offered, the
Senate as a whole did not vote to accept the text of the reprimand that
was issued. It is this lack of a vote which has been held up as
improper.

Valete
--
Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my
terminal, or the view out of my window is purely coincidental. Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972883225/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] One Senator's Opinions
From:	"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:05:45 +0100

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus et Senator T. Labienus S.P.D.

> T Labienus Omnibus S P D
> ...
> Second, the Senate does have the right and authority to issue a senatus
> consultum upon any topic which it sees fit to comment. These consulta
> do not have the authority of law, and the degree to which they are
> binding upon any given citizen is a moot question. The implication of
> the constitution's description of the Senate's role is that senatus
> consulta are to be used to establish Nova Roman policy; foreign affairs,
> economic policy, establishment of provinciae, et cetera.

CFD: Interesting point. I hope that a discussion will start about that
topic. In my opinion the Senate is a advisory body, issuing consulta about
the aforesaid matters. As far as I know, Romans always consulted their
(public or private) consilium before doing something important. The Senate
is the consilium of the central magistates.

> Therefore, I find the use of a senatus consultum to discipline any
> single citizen to be a dubious and dangerous practice indeed. In the
> case of the reprimand to L Cornelius, at least the trangression in
> question was committed against the Senate itself. In the case of the
> reprimand to L Marius, the major complaint is an action by a citizen
> against another citizen. This should be the purview of either a civil
> or criminal court, conducted by a praetor (before one of the comitia or
> otherwise) at the request of the injured party. The Senate should be
> above such things, and should not act as a judicial body. Period.

CFD: That is the correct point of view I tried to say.

> The second part of the reprimand refers to actions taken against the Res
> Publica. On its face, this portion of the reprimand seems more
> legitimate than the other half. However, it essentially refers to a
> citizen exercising his constitutional right to unrestricted
> participation in Nova Roma's lists and fora. There is excessive
> hand-wringing on the part of a vocal few about potential citizens
> reading negative comments about Nova Roma, as though such comments
> represent some extreme danger to the state. When I attempt to describe
> Nova Roma to non-citizens, I do my best to include both its bad and good
> sides. Am I then damaging the state? And, if I feel that I have been
> treated poorly by Nova Roma's magistrates and complain loudly about such
> poor treatment, am I likewise a traitor? Of course not. While it may
> still be argued that it is the Senate's right to complain about such
> complaining, I still think that the Senate should have better things to
> do.

CFD: As provincial official, I do the same when I correspond with interested
non-citizens. Senator, this is the right point, in my opinion. But, as I
said above, there should be a discussion about that.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Citizen



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972893154/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Reprimand part 2
From:	"C. Iulius" <ancientrome@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:29:25 -0800

I do apologize for cluttering up this email list, however, I have been investigating and thinking about this issue since this issue has come to light. Before I get into my thoughts, I just want to thank those individuals who responded to my inquiry. My own thoughts run someone parallel to ex-Praetor Magister in that both Reprimands should have never occurred. But, since they have we must deal with the consequences they bring. Hopefully a magistrate in the future might try to pass a law prohibiting this type of legislation. But on to my thoughts.

While my knowledge of Roman Paganism is very limited. Perhaps non-existent, I have observed this list for some time. Not only that but I have investigated the Archives. Especially revolving around the previously issued reprimand against Lucius Cornelius. At the time of his reprimand, an Augur stated that he (Lucius Cornelius) must apologize to the Gods of Rome. (See Message #4925) According to the archives (See message #5630) Lucius Cornelius completed that task given to him by the Augur. Now, we all know from the posts earlier that what Lucius Cornelius did was a wrong against the Senate.

My question revolves around this current reprimand. According to the information I have read from the recent posts and archives, Lucia Maria impersonated Lucius Equitius. Lucius Equitius is not only a Senator but he is also a Pontiff, Augur and a Flamen Martialis. My question is what has Lucia Maria done to seek forgiveness or penance from the Gods of Rome? It seems to me that to while the reprimand centered around the act of impersonating a citizen, there was nothing stating to the fact of her impersonating one of Nova Roma's religious officers, and thereby disrespecting the Religio, which seems to violate Article VI Section 1 of the Nova Roma Constitution where it states, "citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the Religio Romana, or its practitioners."



------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com
FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972908709/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] D N 1057
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:30:28 +0100

Salvete omnes et salve Luci Equiti,

FORMOSANUS: The consuls of this Respublica in the name of themselves and of
the Senate have just issued an infamous document against one of us
outstanding in Romanitas and already much wronged by our public
institutions. I refer to the "Reprimand" of Lucius Marius Fimbria.

CINCINNATUS: I suppose that this means you approve of her conduct? That the
Senate should do nothing. You have decided that hers is the correct way to
conduct oneself and that I'm the villian. Impersonating another citizen is
just the kind thing we should do, is that your position? Impersonating
Pontificies online and
having them behave irrationally is a good thing, is that what you want for
Nova Roma? Someone should take your name and have you killed or kill
yourself, is that how you want to be thought of?

DRACO: This is full of wild suggestions in my opinion. Nowhere do I read any
approval of his conduct by my pater, and if you think that the Senate
*should* undertake these kind of things against citizens who commit a joke
of bad taste, I wonder what is going to happen next! If you have a vendetta
with Marius, it should be solved through other means than the Senatus.

************************

FORMOSANUS: Marius has been systematically harassed for some months by two
individuals in the Senate of considerable influence: L. Cornelius Sulla
Felix and L. Equitius Cincinnatus. The story of this is long and involved
and I do not wish to rehash the details here today, but in summary:

CINCINNATUS: Actually, it was Lucia Maria who began a systematically
harassement of me that lasted OVER A YEAR, when the only thing I did was
ignore her. You need to get your facts straight.

FORMOSANUS: 1. Marius as Curator Sermonis was obliged to discipline
Cincinnatus for his list conduct.

CINCINNATUS: Actually this is untrue, she took sides in a debate between
SENATORES and deleted my responses to inaccuracies made by other Senatores,
while allowing them to continue making statements. She could have just as
easily "obliged" herself to "discipline" each side in that discussion,
nonne?

DRACO: Nowhere have I found proof of this statement in the message archives.
Could you indicate me a date to search on, optime?

FORMOSANUS: 3. Marius, realising that he had the moral and macrolegal high
ground, temporarily resigned his citizenship in protest against this
treatment. Because of our collective inability to overcome the obdurateness
of Sulla and correct our treatment of sexual

CINCINNATUS: Sulla actually worked with the Senate AND his colleague to
produce a workable solution to this problem. IF you disagree with the
result, that is your opinion.

DRACO: It seems to me he had no other choice than to do as he was told, or
he would never regain Roman citizenship. And if a pompous Senatusconsultum
is the "workable solution", I wonder then what the word "unworkable" means
to you?

FORMOSANUS: 4. When Marius so listed himself and made a perfectly valid
citizenship application, supposedly satisfying Censor Sulla's bigoted
notions of sexual propriety, the censor did not process it normally, but on
his own initiative went to the Senate and there conspiring and conniving
with Cincinnatus contrived to get a
*special* Senate vote of doubtful legality and no propriety to subject
Marius to "conditions" for becoming a citizen again. These humiliating and
unjust provisions were passed in the Senate due to the tireless oratory of
Cincinnatus, who expressed bile, venom, vindictiveness, vengefulness, and
downright nastiness at such
length that many senators were worn down, having been well and truly
convinced that Cincinnatus was never going to relent and show a sense of
moderation or forgiveness.

CINCINNATUS: Very well, you have had your say and in the end the Senate felt
that her conduct was not to be condoned. As for 'moderation', what makes you
say that? How was I 'nasty', 'vindictive' or 'vengeful'? Where are these
things you say? It was her actions that were uncivil. BTW Did she ever ask
for "forgiveness"?

DRACO: Isn't an apology asking for forigiviness? Even if not every word was
meant, it is still a step in the right direction, which you refused to take
along, and rather focus on vengeful acts like this infamous
Senatusconsultum.

FORMOSANUS: 5. This reprimand was issued among other things, full of
outright untruths and arrogant language ...

Lucius Equitius: You are fond of making outrageous assertions. Would you
please give AN example of "outright= untruths and arrogant language"?

FORMOSANUS: in addition (never kill a fly with just one stick of dynamite!),
there is the intention on the part of Sulla to pass a censorial nota against
him.

CINCINNATUS: There was proof of her actions, there were witnesses too, and
there were additional 'things' that were left off the reprimand too. So much
for you argument of no moderation etc.

DRACO: You seem like someone who wants clear evidence of all statements. Now
then, I ask you what these additional 'things' are. If they aren't mentioned
on the reprimand they must be not very important, estne? And as for "proof
of her actions", you are making it sound as though Marius committed some
kind of murder, while in fact it comes down to a tasteless joke and a
personal argument. But what is even more tasteless is pulling out the
Senate's big guns for it, and now all of Nova Roma's politically and
juridically interested citizenry is involved. Is this what you wanted? I may
hope not.

************************

FORMOSANUS: But I must say a few words about the Reprimand itself, which I
do=
below as annotations:
_____________
<<<<Salvete, Senate Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Nova Roma;

The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this action, now
stand together in Forum to issue the following Reprimand.

This Reprimand was voted by the Senate of Nova Roma, to be drafted by the
Praetors and was then presented to the Senate for a series of revisions.

This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q. Fabius Maximus, and
Marcus Minucius Audens.

The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public actions
performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria. The Senate of Nova Roma
understands that the actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria
could only have the objective of throwing the person and offices of Lucius
Equitius Cinninatus to public ridicule and to affect, in a negative way, the
Auctorius, Dignitas, Fides of all Nova Roma public institutions.>>>>

FORMOSANUS: It is worth considering whether the person in question might
have in someone's opinion merited such disrespect by the character and
manner in which he carried out his duties?

CINCINNATUS: Impersonation, that's the crime. Not opinionating or you would
be in deep Kimchi my friend. We can disagree but do you need to resort to
personal attacks? That and Impersonation, hardly the tools of someone who
has reasonable arguments.

DRACO: You are ignoring pater Formosanus' question; rather, you give a
counterattack than a decen answer. Question yourself instead of questioning
the question.

<<<<The actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria were testified by
several Citizens of Nova Roma including members of the Nova Roma Senate,
which consisted of the following:

--Impersonation of a Magistrate and Pontifex; usage of the name
"Cincinnatus" without his consent to impersonate him in a rite of
suicide.>>>>

FORMOSANUS: Apparently true, although I seem also to have heard that it was
murder.

CINCINNATUS: Yes, and there were multiple instances testified to in that
charge. So in the end it seems that there was a 'murder' and a 'suicide', at
least.

DRACO: Murder ànd suicide?

FORMOSANUS: NOTE that Marius publically apologised to Cincinnatus right here
on the main list. (To which Cincinnatus replied most ungraciously that he
did not want one!)

CINCINNATUS: I stated before to Sulla, C Marius and the Senate that I did
not think an apology that was under conditions was meaningful, and I still
feel that way. She did make a public statement which was qualified. How you
choose to view my feelings in the matter is your business. As is my opinion
of you my business, only I'll keep mine private.

DRACO: Yes, **private** seems an appropriate term for me to solve this
vendetta!

<<<<--Negative propaganda; using the Forum Romanum

"http://pluto.= beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275 and other independently
established lists, chatrooms and message boards to create sentiments against
the goals of Nova Roma and against her Magistrates among Citizens and
Prospective Citizens.>>>

FORMOSANUS: I have previously written here about how the charming and
interesting letters of Marius on the main list (before he was shoved aside
from normal participation by sexual bigotry and Cincinnatan vindictiveness),

CINCINNATUS: I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I suppose you never
considered how her actions impacted me. You have decided that she is correct
and that I'm the villian without ever hearing from me. Now who is being
'unjust'?

DRACO: Then prove your "innocence". Then explain me why so many people chose
the side of Marius, or; are against this 'big cannon show'.

FORMOSANUS: This Reprimand is a new low for our Respublica. The majority of
the Senate, both consuls and the senior censor have stood together to
condemn a person for a prank already apologised for and for exercising
freedom of speech to criticise injustices in government. While on this same
day a censorial nota is being planned for him. (Consider too that
Cincinnatus once actually pulled off a coup against the Respublica and was
allowed back by the Dictator with no
Reprimand or censorial nota. But he does= not want to pass on the clemency
that he received.)

CINCINNATUS: I would like for you to explain why a CONSUL would 'pull off a
Coup'? OR how? (BTW the Consules under the original constitution were
most senior magistrates so what would a 'coup' prove?) Also, where is your
proof that I "pulled off a coup against the Respublica"? Or is this just
another of your outrageous assertions? Wolf, cried Peter. You obviously have
not the facts. Maybe you've jumped to conclusions. Perhaps, you ought to ask
F Vedius Germanicus why he did as he did.

DRACO: This is an amusing response, given the fact that you seem to consider
Consul as the highest authority, while it is actually counterbalanced by a
lot of other institutions. And there are *two* Consuls, thus, a coup would
be setting aside the other, and bringing down some important enemies.
However, supposed that you did not try to pull off a coup, what did you do
then? Why were you exiled? It would be easy for you to defend yourself by
saying what you did, while you aren't doing this. In fact, you are throwing
this hot potato at the former Dictator instead of answering yourself.

FORMOSANUS: This is not justice, Quirites...

CINCINNATUS: The Senate considered the matter and voted during the time that
She was not a citizen. What this means is that she had no 'rights' under
Nova Roma.

DRACO: Hmm, how convenient.

CINCINNATUS: The Senate acted to make a statement that her actions were not
condoned and would not be tolorated in the future. For your information
there are other online 'communities' that do take action against members for
just this type of thing.

DRACO: Yes, but Nova Roma pretends to be a micro-**nation**, doesn't it? So
this is of a totally different nature than a reprimand by the chairman of
let's say an online books club. If I imitate someone here where I live, it
would be hardly considered a crime - it would be even amusing.

************************************

CINCINNATUS: http://www.ancientsites.com/xi/justice/listCode.rage

Listed below are offenses and penalties in terms of days to be suspended
from AncientSites. People engaged in any combination of these activities
will be suspended from the community for the sum of the penalty days.

Impersonation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 using another member's account and-or password under any circumstances
15 letting another member use your account and-or password under any
circumstances
30 registering a name with the intent to impersonate another citizen
45 attempting to speak for someone else
90 claiming to be staff

She was told of this reprimand in response to her reapplication. Some
'citizens' don't like how things were done. She has not spoken on the
matter. Why not let her justify herself?

You have made statements of a personal nature concerning my thoughts and
feelings. Do I know you? You seem to think you know me, Marcus Apollonius, I
think not.

BTW For all who think this was personal, think again. I had asked that I not
be mentioned in the document so that this would be more clear. The Reprimand
was a statement from the Senate that IMPERSONATIONS of CITIZENS will not be
condoned in Nova Roma. Nor will the misuse of Nova Roma Fora. RTFQ
Also, At the time of the vote she was not a citizen, therefore she was not
entitled to a hearing or 'trial'. So, that is not an issue given the
circumstances.

DRACO: Although I agree that Marius Fimbria should speak here now as well, I
need to ask why the Senate couldn't wait issueing the Reprimand until he
would be a citizen again and would be offered a fair, private trial.

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
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972909251/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Reprimand to Fimbria
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:27:13 -0000

Salvete

Having been the man who drafted the reprimand to Lucia Maria Fimbria by
order from the Senate, I feel myself obligued to comment on the recent
inflamating discussion on this list.

As a consequence of the Senatorial decision, some people have already
offended the Roman Senate with harsh words. They have also misinterpreted
the all thing, for the Senate did not work as a "court" and there was no
penalty. The Senate has just issued a reprimand in order to prevent further
offense from citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria as well as from other citizens.

Ok. Why does Lucia Maria Fimbria deserve the reprimand?

The following words are part of my speech in the Senate:
"Some Senatores have not agreed that the ridicularization of a public
official should not be part of the reprimand and that the wording should be
changed as to emphasize the ridicularization of private citizen Lucius
Equitius Cincinnatus.
I do not agree for two reasons:
1) One of our main objectives is to honour and spread the Roman Virtues
which we have inherited from our noble ancestors. As such, as they are
mandatory references for all citizens, the priests, senators and magistrates
of our respublica must be examples of virtue. Cursed be the one who
accepts such a position knowing since the beginning that he does not deserve
it. Cursed be the one who tramples virtue while occupying such a position.
But likewise, cursed be the one who defames a virtuous public official, for
besides denying virtue with his false words, that man is unfairly mining the
confidence of citizens on the public institutions of Rome!
2) Offenses to private citizens should be treated by the Praetores and not
by the Senate. As such, I believe that the reprimand should refer to the
acts prepetrated against public institutions or offices."

Senator Ericius has replied that the Roman Virtues are not a kind of "Ten
Commandements". I agree. Nobody is perfect or always right, and to eror or
to have a different opinion cannot be considered a "sin". But I believe that
the Roman Virtues work like a code of personal honour. An individual
deserves more of less respect from the society according to his virtues.

Now, what has Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus done that can be a reason for his
person to be disrespected or ridicularized? What has that Senator and
Pontifex has done that justifies the mocking of his name and the consequent
defamation? What has he done to deserve the people of Rome to remember him
as a clown and not as a honourable person and public official, one that
deserves to represent our nation in the Senate and before the Gods of Rome?

No, don't interpret me erroneously. I'm not saying that public officials are
untouchable. I'm saying that everything would be alright if Fimbria had
identified herself to her audience. That would of course be considered
nothing more than a protesting theatre play to criticize Cincinnatus.
Nevertheless, that was not what happenned. Fimbria pretended to be the REAL
Senator and Pontifex Cincinnatus, using his chat handle. She has let the
news to spread as if the acts were true. And here too in Nova Roma, public
personalities are greatly affected by this kind of propaganda! Why? Because
a public official must be worthy of his office and the people feel cheated -
with reason - whenever such a person does not fill the requirements to
deserve their trust. Everyone who saw or heard about Cincinnatus' ritual of
suicide have surely asked themselves: "What mad people are governing us?".
And as the opinion about the nation is often a mirror of the opinion about
its government, that question leads to another question: "What mad nation is
Nova Roma?"

Those that have cursed the Senate with words of "shame on you" and other
offensive words, please explain:
- What violations have been perpetrated against the Roman Virtues by Lucius
Equitius Cincinnatus in order for him to deserve such a mistreatment?
- What shameful acts have the Senators performed that surpass those
committed by Fimbria?
- Why does Lucia Maria Firmia deserve more respect than the Patres? Is it
that because of ENVY? If so, run for office and work hard!

Also consider:
- What support have you given to this nation when it was required?
- Have you done more for Nova Roma than the current Magistrates and
Senators?
- Are you a Scriba helping this nation to develop?
- Have you ever given money donations to Nova Roma in the same way many
Senators have?
- How many times have you run for office?

Finally, why don't you try to behave like the ancient Romans and respect the
state institutions? I don't mean to stay quiet. I mean to have an opinion,
to discuss things honourably within the bounds of respect, and finally to
run for office and strive to do better in the future.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et Praetor


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972911661/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Birthday Wishes
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:23 EST

Salvete,

If I recall correctly, yesterday was Pompeia Cornelia's brithday, I'd like
wish her a Happy (yet Belated) Birthday!!! Happy Birthday Po!!!!!!!!
I hope you enjoy being 43, and have many more birthdays to come.

Also I'd like wish all the Scorpio's and Libra's a happy birthday as well.

Valete
Aeternia

P.S. Don't even think about singing the birthday song for me tomorrow, I'm
turning eighteen for the third time. *grins*

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972922361/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] One Senator's Opinions
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:30:03 US/Central

T Labienus C Flavio Quiritibusque S P D

> CFD: Interesting point. I hope that a discussion will start about that
> topic. In my opinion the Senate is a advisory body, issuing consulta about
> the aforesaid matters. As far as I know, Romans always consulted their
> (public or private) consilium before doing something important. The Senate
> is the consilium of the central magistates.

That is my understanding of the Senate's role as well. The function of the
senatus consultum is to provide a lasting record of the Senate's opinion upon
matters of policy. Nova Roma's constitution goes a little further than this by
stating that the Senate is the supreme policy-making authority.

In an effort to continue the saner side of the discussion about the reprimand,
I'll throw out a few more opinions.

First, it has been argued that the issuance of the recent reprimand was done
with the intent of deterring further impersonations of public officials and
other citizens, rather than to punish a citizen who had committed that act. It
seems to me that this purpose would have been served better by an unambiguous
statement to that effect which mentioned no citizen by name, or which merely
alluded to L Marius' impersonation of L Equitius as a case in point. After
participating in the Senate's deliberations over the reprimand, it is my belief
that punishing L Marius was the primary intent.

In fact, (IIRC) all punishments inflicted upon Nova Roman citizens to date,
with the exception of L Equitius' temporary exile, have been imposed by the
Senate. That body has, to date, issued two reprimands, fined a citizen, and
sent another into exile. All of these things ought to have been left to the
praetores, and ought to have been used as an opportunity to establish our
judicial system.

Second, we need to determine to what degree senatus consulta are binding upon
individual citizens. As I have stated above, the Senate has taken it upon
itself to issue consulta directed at individuals in the past, and seems likely
to continue in the assumption that this is its right. Do others concur with me
that the ancient practice and modern constitution alike disagree with this
opinion, and that the Senate should limit itself (or be limited by law) to
commenting on broad issues of policy?

> CFD: As provincial official, I do the same when I correspond with interested
> non-citizens. Senator, this is the right point, in my opinion. But, as I
> said above, there should be a discussion about that.

I couldn't agree more, Cai Flavi. It is an informed and active populace
engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the important matters of state that keeps
a state healthy. Once the dialogue ends, the organization dies.

Valete



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972923405/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Birthday Wishes
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:35:12 GMT

Salve Aeternia:

How sweet of you to remember!!

Thank you! You just made my day!

Pompeia


>From: SyanneRose@--------
>To: NovaRoma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Birthday Wishes
>Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:23 EST
>
>Salvete,
>
>If I recall correctly, yesterday was Pompeia Cornelia's brithday, I'd like
>wish her a Happy (yet Belated) Birthday!!! Happy Birthday Po!!!!!!!!
>I hope you enjoy being 43, and have many more birthdays to come.
>
>Also I'd like wish all the Scorpio's and Libra's a happy birthday as well.
>
>Valete
>Aeternia
>
>P.S. Don't even think about singing the birthday song for me tomorrow, I'm
>turning eighteen for the third time. *grins*

_________________________________________________________________________
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.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972923717/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Birthday Wishes
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:05:19 US/Central

Salvete Aeternia et Pompeia

> >If I recall correctly, yesterday was Pompeia Cornelia's brithday, I'd
..
> >P.S. Don't even think about singing the birthday song for me tomorrow, I'm
> >turning eighteen for the third time. *grins*

Happy birthday to you both. Bonam fortunam habete.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972925690/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Decisions
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:22:17 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Senior Consul, Honored Senate Fathers, Nova Roma Magistrates
and Nova Roma Citizens;

I, Marcus Minucius Audens, Citizen of Nova Roma, Tribune Militum
Laticlavius, Legatus Civicus Regio Connecticut, Senator, and Junior
Consul stand in Forum to address the Citizens of Nova Roma:

After my arrival back in the city from a long weekend in New Jersey, I
have had time to read careully the posts from the citizens over these
last few days. While I am sorry to hear that some of my decisions have
disappointed some of the Citizens of Nova Roma, and have also
disappointed some of those whom I call special friends in this
micro-nation, I must respond that I do not feel any guilt or shame over
any of these decisions as Senator or Consul. It may well be that I
have made mistakes which will be revealed in the fullness of time, and
it may well be that I have missed some specific point not clearly
understood or brought forth, but my decisions, I stand by as being the
best, I could make considering the needs of all with the information and
insight possessed at the time. As Nova Romans you are free to have your
opinions and that freedom is what this government is all about. Your
disappontment in several cases is quite understandable, as no-one likes
to be on the "other side" of the fence particularly when the attributes
of friendship, and affection are deeply involved.

Let me say that I am not greatly pleased at many of the actions that I
have been obliged to take as Consul and Senator, and I, just as all of
you, have feelings of friendship or affection or both that plague my
thoughts on items of import, where decisions must be made in opposition
to those feelings, on occasion. However, in my view, those feelings may
not be indulged when a decision is to be made that affects the body of
the organization to which I have been elected. I too, have been counted
as friend and enemy by many of you at various times, in direct relation
to my stand and view of various items and activities. That is certainly
your privaledge, but to me, items of political or administrative
difference do not unduly affect real friendship. Those few who have
stood in this place, where unpopular decisions have to be made will
understand my words, others will not. I do not ask for your sympathy,
your understanding or your support, unless it is freely given, and the
reason that I do not, is because I have satisfied the most critical
citizen of my actions among you-------and that citizen is myself. You
have elected me, in my view, because of who I am, and who I am is me,
all alone, deciding what the right thing is to do. I listen to all
inputs, but my decision is my own. When I am satisfied, I have
satisfied my harshest critic.

To say that my heart is not heavy, with the decisions that I feel that I
must make, would be a lie. Knowing my actions must surely earn me the
emnity of past friends, does not make my heart fuller, and to the sure
knowledge that my views will cause me to walk lonely more times than I
might wish, does not fill my life with light. However, when I wiegh my
actions, decisions, and views in the cold hard light, of what I consider
to be reality----right, proper and correct, after reading, listening,
discussing , evaluating all that is to be considered, taking into
consideration the outrageous views of some, the character assassination
of others, the understated views of still others, to the best of my
abiity, and have squared those decisions with my Oath and my view of the
Virtues, and facing myself, can honestly say I have done my best for all
concerned--then that is the best I have to give. I am not the most
skilled individual at Roman Law, nor am I a "gifted" politician. I am
neither a "bleeding heart" to whom no one is guilty of an infraction
against another, nor am I a Facsist Dictator, for whom every infraction
must "draw blood." The idea of a "coup" in this micronation is more
than rediculous considering what possible advantage(s) this goal could
bestow upon the initiator outside of more work and time plus more
heartaches of the kind already described. I am a Magistrate, with some
small fund of administrative experience elected to do a job, as is my
Consular Colleague, and to make a decision when nobody else wanted the
responsibility, in tandum with a colleague who has very similar
attributes.

You do not have to agree with me, nor do you have to love my actions,
decisions or views. You may criticize to the extent that you desire,
and I will fight for your right to do so, as I have demonstrated in the
past to many of my friends and colleagues. There is one area, however,
that you may feel quite free to agree with me in regard to, I believe,
and that is that no-one has criticized my activities more severely, than
I have myself, and no one regrets the resulting losses of comradeship,
friendship and affecton more than I. That is the penalty of this place,
and when and only when you stand here will you understand the agony of
the lonely decision and the loss of warmth and light in exchange for the
straightforward attempt to do right in the sight of all.

Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
40% off fares on
the best airlines
at Hotwire.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9753/8/_/61050/_/972930261/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Samhain Baby
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:02:23 GMT

Salve Aeternia:

I just realized.......

You are a Samhain, or Halloween baby. What a magical birthday to have!

In many Pagan circles, especially Wicca, this is likely the most energetic,
powerful day of the year.

As I have been told I will be working days tomorrow, Tink, I will not get to
cyber-sing you Happy Birthday then, so I'm doing it now....can you hear
me?...::) :) :)

Pompeia



_________________________________________________________________________
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.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972932583/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Reprimand to Fimbria
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:26:11 +0100

Salve Antoni Grylle Graece,

I think that nowhere Marius Fimbria ridiculed Cincinnatus in his position as
magistrate or pontifex. Although it is very much a controversial matter of
taste, he was only ridiculed as a person. And I also believe that even if
that was the result of a vendetta, it *must* have had *some* reason, which
is also a personal matter, and not one the State should interfere in. This
impersonation was in no means an action against the Senate or the respublica
as a whole - the rules may have been broken but then again an long apology
by Fimbria was posted - why wasn't this enough? He knows he was wrong, we
know it, and you know it. What more was there to say? Note, by the way, that
the infamous impersonation we are talking about happend on April 1st,
thusly, it should never have been taken all too seriously from the
beginning.
As this was clearly a private matter to me, a private trial would have been
far more normal than issueing a grand reprimand by the Senate. Ah, yes, at
the time when this reprimand was drafted, Fimbria was not yet readmitted -
but even so, couldn't the Senate have waited? I think that the Nova Roman
republic has more urgent matters to do than pestering private citizens in
private matters.

> Also consider:
> - What support have you given to this nation when it was required?

I've never been truly required to do something, but you can't say that the
people who have risen against this reprimand are without motivation or
ambition within NR. Speaking for myself, I have been one of the Delecti of
the Sodalitas Musarum, and I am list moderator of a French list, a Dutch
list and a list for philosophy. And I may be setting up lists for NR youths
in the future (as you well know, Grylle :-)). Furthemore I am a member of
the Sodalitas Latinitatis, and a list member of Censor Sulla's legal list.

> - Have you done more for Nova Roma than the current Magistrates and
> Senators?

It depends on which Senatores or Magistrates you mean, hehe. No, really, I
guess not. But then again, do I need to present my curriculum vitae in order
to be able to deliver criticism?

> - Are you a Scriba helping this nation to develop?

No. But if a Magistrate would need one, I'm available for service :).

> - Have you ever given money donations to Nova Roma in the same way many
> Senators have?

No, because I am not in the legal position to do so, and it would be
unpractical from my location as a minor European.

> - How many times have you run for office?

None, because my age does not allow me to do so. If I could, I would, trust
me.

> Finally, why don't you try to behave like the ancient Romans and respect
the
> state institutions? I don't mean to stay quiet. I mean to have an opinion,
> to discuss things honourably within the bounds of respect, and finally to
> run for office and strive to do better in the future.

I have respect for the respublica of Nova Roma, but that does not mean I
automatically need to respect every decision they make. And, in my opinion,
nowhere did I show disrespect for our civitas (or meant to do so). As soon
as my age allows me, I will run for office, be sure of that ;-).

Vale optime,
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
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
--**--



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972937781/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Attn: Roman citizens of France, Netherlands and Belgium
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:41:02 EST

Salvete!
The Senate of Rome will begin discussions about forming the province of
Gallia, from the modern nations of France, Netherlands and Belgium.
Talented citizens wishing the job of Praetor of this new province are
requested to appear before the Senate (senate@--------) with a list of
their qualifications, and be prepared to answer all questions from this
August body.
Valete
The Consuls

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972938470/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Attn: Citizens wishing to be Rogator...
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:52:05 EST

Salvete
Citizens wishing the job of Rogator are requested to appear before the Senate
(senate@--------) with a list of their qualifications, and be prepared to
answer all questions from this August body.
Valete
The Consuls

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972939154/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[Fwd: Re: [novaroma] One Senator's Opinions]
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:45:29 -0700

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] One Senator's Opinions
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:00:18 -0700
From: gmvick32@--------
Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
To: labienus@--------
References: <200010301630.KAA08076@-------->

Salvete,

The most pertinent issue of this whole affair has nothing to
do with Mari or Cincinnatus. Rather the important issue to
me is the judicial process decided upon and used. How and
by whom was the conduct of the Nota hearing decided? Who
was the judge? What witnesses were called? What, exactly,
was the hearing judiciating on?

In my opinion and interpretation of the Constitituion and as
Fortunatus and a few others have pointed out, judicial
hearings are in the pervue of the Praetors. Am I to take
from the discussion thus far that the Praetors did not
actually set the rules for the Nota hearing? That it was
done by the Senate or another set of magistrates? I am
rather confused on this particular issue.

It is true that the Romans didn't codify a lot of its laws
into written format. However, the Romans also had a luxury
we don't have. Namely, they were born into the same culture
and had direct, day to day contact with each other. We
don't have that. We have citizens from diverse states of
the US where at least state judicial proceedings will vary,
as well as diverse other countries with their own internal
proceedings, let alone the international differences between
us. We were not born into the same culture, and do not have
a common understanding between us. For this reason, setting
down a certain amount of law and procedure in writing is
unavoidable if we are to make Nova Roma work. The written
law and procedure provides us with common ground, and it
lets us each know where to start the discussion from.

The second piece to that is communicating the laws and
procedures. Do not point me to the Constitituion, it does
not adequately address the issue of judicial hearings (nor
necessarily should it more than it does). Do not point me
blithely to such-and-such edict that was passed some time
ago and tell me its my own fault I don't see how it applies
here.

Simply put, once the nota hearing was asked for, what should
have happened was that the praetors should have posted an
official notice that the nota hearing was taking place, what
the charges were, and where the rules could have been
reviewed. At this time, I'm not asking for debate on the
rules, I'm simply asking to KNOW WHAT THE RULES WERE, and
WHO decided them.

Is that so much to ask? Remember, cives, someday one of you
may be the subject of a third ad hoc hearing unless we
insist the rules be written and communicated in an
acceptable way.

Livia Cornelia Aurelia


labienus@-------- wrote:

> T Labienus C Flavio Quiritibusque S P D
>
> > CFD: Interesting point. I hope that a discussion will
> start about that
> > topic. In my opinion the Senate is a advisory body,
> issuing consulta about
> > the aforesaid matters. As far as I know, Romans always
> consulted their
> > (public or private) consilium before doing something
> important. The Senate
> > is the consilium of the central magistates.
>
> That is my understanding of the Senate's role as well.
> The function of the
> senatus consultum is to provide a lasting record of the
> Senate's opinion upon
> matters of policy. Nova Roma's constitution goes a little
> further than this by
> stating that the Senate is the supreme policy-making
> authority.
>
> In an effort to continue the saner side of the discussion
> about the reprimand,
> I'll throw out a few more opinions.
>
> First, it has been argued that the issuance of the recent
> reprimand was done
> with the intent of deterring further impersonations of
> public officials and
> other citizens, rather than to punish a citizen who had
> committed that act. It
> seems to me that this purpose would have been served
> better by an unambiguous
> statement to that effect which mentioned no citizen by
> name, or which merely
> alluded to L Marius' impersonation of L Equitius as a case
> in point. After
> participating in the Senate's deliberations over the
> reprimand, it is my belief
> that punishing L Marius was the primary intent.
>
> In fact, (IIRC) all punishments inflicted upon Nova Roman
> citizens to date,
> with the exception of L Equitius' temporary exile, have
> been imposed by the
> Senate. That body has, to date, issued two reprimands,
> fined a citizen, and
> sent another into exile. All of these things ought to
> have been left to the
> praetores, and ought to have been used as an opportunity
> to establish our
> judicial system.
>
> Second, we need to determine to what degree senatus
> consulta are binding upon
> individual citizens. As I have stated above, the Senate
> has taken it upon
> itself to issue consulta directed at individuals in the
> past, and seems likely
> to continue in the assumption that this is its right. Do
> others concur with me
> that the ancient practice and modern constitution alike
> disagree with this
> opinion, and that the Senate should limit itself (or be
> limited by law) to
> commenting on broad issues of policy?
>
> > CFD: As provincial official, I do the same when I
> correspond with interested
> > non-citizens. Senator, this is the right point, in my
> opinion. But, as I
> > said above, there should be a discussion about that.
>
> I couldn't agree more, Cai Flavi. It is an informed and
> active populace
> engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the important matters
> of state that keeps
> a state healthy. Once the dialogue ends, the organization
> dies.
>
> Valete
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor


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


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972942153/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Reply to Cincinnatus
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:38:21 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus et Senatori L. Equitio Cincinnato
S.P.D.

I would like to take this opportunity to answer you in detail,
Senator. I have marked new comments with "RESPONDEO:" and marked
their ending with "/".

Message: 20
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:34:06 -0500
From: "Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Subject: D N 1057

Salvete, Quiritibus

M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus S.P.D.

The consuls of this Respublica in the name of themselves and of the
Senate have just issued an infamous document against one of us
outstanding in Romanitas and already much wronged by our public
institutions. I refer to the "Reprimand" of Lucius Marius Fimbria.

Lucius Equitius: I suppose that this means you approve of her
conduct? That the Senate should do nothing. You have decided that
hers is the correct way to conduct oneself and that I'm the villian.
Impersonating another citizen is just the kind thing we should do, is
that your position? Impersonating Pontificies online and having them
behave irrationally is a good thing, is that what you want for Nova
Roma? Someone should take your name and have you killed or kill
yourself, is that how you want to be thought of?

RESPONDEO: I clarify my position below. In fact I have some
reservations about some of Marius' specific actions, but it does seem
that the great zeal of your enmity against this person is a greater
evil in itself and to Nova Roma. /

Marius has been systematically harassed for some months by two
individuals in the Senate of considerable influence: L. Cornelius
Sulla Felix and L. Equitius Cincinnatus. The story of this is long
and involved and I do not wish to rehash the details here today, but
in summary:

Lucius Equitius: Actually, it was Lucia Maria who began a
systematically harassement of me that lasted OVER A YEAR, when the
only thing I did was ignore her. You need to get your facts straight.

1. Marius as Curator Sermonis was obliged to discipline Cincinnatus
for his list conduct.

Lucius Equitius: Actually this is untrue, she took sides in a debate
between SENATORES and deleted my responses to inaccuracies made by
other Senatores, while allowing them to continue making statements.
She could have just as easily "obliged" herself to "discipline" each
side in that discussion, nonne?

RESPONDEO: I am not presuming to judge with any finality whether you
really deserved the attentions of the curator. I note that you do not
consider them fair, which tends to confirm that you indeed are
motivated by hostile feelings generated by that perception and
directed towards Marius, and that is the thing important for my
argument.

Might I suggest that if that is really what is bothering you, that
you convince your Senatorial colleagues to institute a panal of
inquiry to examine the archives and other records to determine
whether any injustice was done? If such an investigation backed you
up, you could have it publically declared that you were innocent of
wrongdoing and get another apology from Marius. I think that that
would be more rational and more satisfying than simply attacking
Marius at random for his membership in a sexual minority and then for
a mere prank./

3. Marius, realising that he had the moral and macrolegal high
ground, temporarily resigned his citizenship in protest against this
treatment. Because of our collective inability to overcome the
obdurateness of Sulla and correct our treatment of sexual

Lucius Equitius: Sulla actually worked with the Senate AND his
colleague to produce a workable solution to this problem. IF you
disagree with the result, that is your opinion.

RESPONDEO: Yes, it is my opinion, which I stand by. A valid
application for citizenship was received, with Marius' being forced
to write a form of his name incorrect as to gender due to Sulla's
intolerant legislation. Such a valid application should have simply
been processsed normally, not carried to the Senate so that someone
(you) could settle old scores while Marius was in the vulnerable
position of reapplying for citizenship. If you had complaints, normal
judicial processes should have been used *after* Marius had become a
normal citizen again and subject to Nova Roman law and able to defend
himself from a more equal position./

4. When Marius so listed himself and made a perfectly valid
citizenship application, supposedly satisfying Censor Sulla's
bigoted notions of sexual propriety, the censor did not process it
normally, but on his own initiative went to the Senate and there
conspiring and conniving with Cincinnatus contrived to get a
*special* Senate vote of doubtful legality and no propriety to
subject Marius to "conditions" for becoming a citizen again. These
humiliating and unjust provisions were passed in the Senate due to
the tireless oratory of Cincinnatus, who expressed bile, venom,
vindictiveness, vengefulness, and downright nastiness at such
length that many senators were worn down, having been well and truly
convinced that Cincinnatus was never going to relent and show a
sense of moderation or forgiveness.

Lucius Equitius: Very well, you have had your say and in the end the
Senate felt that her conduct was not to be condoned. As for
'moderation', what makes you say that? How was I 'nasty',
'vindictive' or 'vengeful'? Where are these things you say? It was
her actions that were uncivil. BTW Did she ever ask for
"forgiveness"?

RESPONDEO: I do not have personal access to senatorial records due to
the policy of secrecy of the Senate. However, from my sources with
access I have heard descriptions which testified to the extreme
emotionality, the length and the obsessiveness of your declamations
on the subject. And it is clear also from the results that you have
been a principal motor in the drive to denigrate, humilitate,
disempower and generally be nasty to Marius.

I rather think that an apology, such as you received from Marius,
carries with it the implicit hope of forgiveness. *If* Marius felt no
such hope, supposing you to be of an unforgiving nature, perhaps that
reflects somehow on you?

If in fact you did not so orate in the Senate, then why don't you
publish here or post in some public place the *complete* set of
speeches you made in the Senate relating to Marius? We can get other
senators to testify that it was complete, and then the whole of the
populus could see whether or not they were fair, balanced, moderate,
and humane in tone, rather than being as I characterised them. Fair
enough?/

5. This reprimand was issued among other things, full of outright
untruths and arrogant language ...

Lucius Equitius: You are fond of making outrageous assertions. Would
you please give AN example of "outright untruths and arrogant
language"?

RESPONDEO:
Untruth: That Marius engaged in "negative propaganda". The vast
majority of things that Marius ever said so far as I can tell in the
chatrooms etc. were just mundane conversations, some of them
interesting and inspiring from a Nova Roman point of view, and others
just random and personal or general. If anything negative was ever
said (and I did not hear such words that I recall), no doubt it fell
under the heading of normal and legitimate complaints at the unfair
treatment he was receiving. That would by no stretch of a sane
imagination be "propaganda", which my Webster's defines as being
"systematic and widespread" dissemination of information and opinion.
Simply talking to one's friends and acquaintances and writing them
letters, etc. is not systematic and widespread, but essentially
private and personal.
Arrogance: Using the highflown legalistic and quasi-moralistic
language of the "Reprimand" when the persons supporting and issuing
it by that very act showed their moral idiocy is the arrogance I had
in mind./

in addition (never kill a fly with just one stick of dynamite!),
there is the intention on the part of Sulla to pass a censorial nota
against him.

Lucius Equitius: There was proof of her actions, there were witnesses
too, and there were additional 'things' that were left off the
reprimand too. So much for you argument of no moderation etc.

RESPONDEO: Excuse me my cynicism if I suggest that the things left
off were not omitted by you, but by others?/

But I must say a few words about the Reprimand itself, which I do=
below as annotations:
_____________
Salvete, Senate Fathers, Magistrates, and Citizens of Nova Roma;

The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this
action, now stand together in Forum to issue the following
Reprimand.

This Reprimand was voted by the Senate of Nova Roma, to be drafted
by the Praetors and was then presented to the Senate for a series of
revisions.

This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q. Fabius
Maximus, and Marcus Minucius Audens.

The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public actions
performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria. The Senate of Nova Roma
understands that the actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria
Fimbria could only have the objective of throwing the person and
offices of Lucius Equitius Cinninatus to public ridicule and to
affect, in a negative way, the Auctorius, Dignitas, Fides of all
Nova Roma public institutions.

MAF: It is worth considering whether the person in question might
have in someone's opinion merited such disrespect by the character
and manner in which he carried out his duties?

Lucius Equitius: Impersonation, that's the crime. Not opinionating or
you would be in deep Kimchi my friend. We can disagree but do you
need to resort to personal attacks? That and Impersonation, hardly
the tools of someone who has reasonable arguments.

RESPONDEO: Quite right - but I did not express my opinion of you in
this statement (as a careful reading will show) - I was simply
protesting the automatic assumption that everybody attacked is
necessarily innocent and has in no way provoked it. And I will add
that insofar as I have had a chance to come into contact with your
pontifical work I had no cause for complaint.

The actions perpetrated by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria were
testified by several Citizens of Nova Roma including members of the
Nova Roma Senate, which consisted of the following:

--Impersonation of a Magistrate and Pontifex; usage of the name
"Cincinnatus" without his consent to impersonate him in a rite of
suicide.

MAF: Apparently true, although I seem also to have heard that it= was
murder.

Lucius Equitius: Yes, and there were multiple instances testified to
in that charge. So in the end it seems that there was a 'murder' and
a 'suicide', at least.

RESPONDEO: But I think there is a very important discussion we must
make about what Marius did. It was *play*. He believes that you have
difficulty in coping with the playful instincts of people. Evidence
available causes me to be inclined to agree. But "play" is really a
confusing matter sometimes, and one must think very carefully to be
fair.

If Marius was engaged in an actual instigation or even a literal wish
to kill you or have you commit suicide, you would have every reason
to treat the matter in deadly earnest and expect others to. But I am
fully confident that if he had it in his power to kill you and get
away scott free, he would not do so.

Marius is not malicious, but playful. Your fundamental personality
type is in and of itself highly uncongenial to him (and
reciprocally!), and you make him very angry and frustrated at times.
When he and *others* got together and in the course of the party "did
you in", apparently in a spontaneous way and in a spirit of fun, it
was about the same as other and less imaginatively and dramatically
talented people making jokes at your expense. As psychodrama it
probably made them feel better. We have to remember several things
that it was NOT:

1. It was not a performance meant to send a threat or encouragement
to suicide to you. You were not meant to know about it, even.

2. It was not an attempt to lower your dignitas among others - it was
for the people there, spontaneously assembled, to get some of their
frustration out of their systems. There was no sizeable audience or
attempt to attract one - it was not propagandistic.

3. It was not a preplanned plot, but just what emerged out of a
certain set of circumstances and people in a recreation area.

Let us remember that President Clinton, to mention just one
macronational statesman, has had many satirical comedy sketches and
skits written and performed about him, and no one would think well of
him if he tried to use the Senate, Army, FBI or even the courts
against those writing and performing them.

I myself would not have felt comfortable in participating in the
playlet of Marius and company. But I can tell the difference between
some essentially harmless fun and a serious attempt to harm someone -
and this was clearly the former. It would have been better and wiser
for you to pretend you had never heard about it and maintain a
dignified silence. And it would have been even better still if you
had laughed along about your imminent demise and made a few jokes
along those lines yourself. It would have won you more respect and
affection than your present course of action, and it would have
bespoken a greater sense of real dignitas./

NOTE that Marius publically apologised to Cincinnatus right here on
the main list. (To which Cincinnatus replied most ungraciously that
he did not want one!)

Lucius Equitius: I stated before to Sulla, C Marius and the Senate
that I did not think an apology that was under conditions was
meaningful, and I still feel that way. She did make a public
statement which was qualified. How you choose to view my feelings in
the matter is your business. As is my opinion of you my business,
only I'll keep mine private.

RESPONDEO: An apology was made one of the conditions presented to
Marius for to regain his citizenship. I hardly feel that this could
have been unknown to you. If you did not want it, why was it
included? In any case several people owe me public apologies: Sulla,
Festus, Piscinus... and if any one of them were to apologise, I would
accept it graciously. If we get into the habit of refusing to accept
apologies and not allowing our one-time enemies to resume more normal
relations with us, we are doing a disservice not only to our personal
relationships but to the community in which we live.

I am not sure what you mean by saying Marius' statement being
"qualified", but naturally Marius has not committed every crime and
sin in the book, but has only engaged in certain very limited wrongs.
Surely his apology should be in proportion to and in accordance with
what he actually did./

--Negative propaganda; using the Forum Romanum

"http://pluto.= beseen.com/chat/rooms/w/10275
and other independently established lists, chatrooms and message=
boards to create sentiments against the goals of Nova Roma and=
against her Magistrates among Citizens and Prospective= Citizens.

MAF: I have previously written here about how the charming and
interesting letters of Marius on the main list (before he was shoved
aside from normal participation by sexual bigotry and Cincinnatan
vindictiveness),

Lucius Equitius: I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I suppose you
never considered how her actions impacted me. You have decided that
she is correct and that I'm the villian without ever hearing from me.
Now who is being 'unjust'?

RESPONDEO: My contact addresses, nicks, codes, etc. are listed at the
bottom of most of my communications; it is not impossible to reach me
normally (albeit I have had a bit of technical difficulty recently).
I am truly sorry (believe me or no) for any suffering that may have
been caused by Marius' excessively playful actions. By the nature of
things no more can be done about that now than to give an apology.
Marius willingly did so and I encouraged him strongly in this. It is
now your turn to show forgiveness, and you are not playing the rôle
of forgiver very well in my estimation./

This Reprimand is a new low for our Respublica. The majority of the
Senate, both consuls and the senior censor have stood together to
condemn a person for a prank already apologised for and for
exercising freedom of speech to criticise injustices in government.
While on this same day a censorial nota is being planned for him.
(Consider too that Cincinnatus once actually pulled off a coup
against the Respublica and was allowed back by the Dictator with no
Reprimand or censorial nota. But he does not want to pass on the
clemency that he received.)

Lucius Equitius: I would like for you to explain why a CONSUL would
'pull off a Coup'? OR how? (BTW the Consules under the original
constitution were most senior magistrates so what would a 'coup'
prove?) Also, where is your proof that I "pulled off a coup against
the Respublica"? Or is this just another of your outrageous
assertions? Wolf, cried Peter. You obviously have not the facts.
Maybe you've jumped to conclusions. Perhaps, you ought to ask F
Vedius Germanicus why he did as he did.

RESPONDEO: I believe he stated it perfectly clearly in his
declaration. He claimed to believe in mercy in that moment. I wish
more of us did./

This is not justice, Quirites...

Valete Quirites!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus

Lucius Equitius: The Senate considered the matter and voted during
the time that She was not a citizen. What this means is that she had
no 'rights' under Nova Roma. The Senate acted to make a statement
that her actions were not condoned and would not be tolorated in the
future. For your information there are other online 'communities'
that do take action against members for just this type of thing.

RESPONDEO: "Rights?" I failed to find that word in what I wrote
immediately above. But all human beings *do* have rights under
natural law, and one has no right to be unjustice against
non-citizens just because they are non-citizens. Justice and equity
are owed to all. Furthermore, one might just as well say önce and
future citizen". It would be more adequate.

*********************************************
http://www.ancientsites.com/xi/justice/listCode.rage

Listed below are offenses and penalties in terms of days to be
suspended from AncientSites. People engaged in any combination of
these activities will be suspended from the community for the sum of
the penalty days.

Impersonation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
----
15 using another member's account and-or password under any
circumstances
15 letting another member use your account and-or password under any
circumstances
30 registering a name with the intent to impersonate another citizen
45 attempting to speak for someone else
90 claiming to be staff

*************************************************************
***************
******

Lucius Equitius: She was told of this reprimand in response to her
reapplication. Some 'citizens' don't like how things were done. She
has not spoken on the matter. Why not let her justify herself?

RESPONDEO: Have you perhaps forgotten that under the "Conditions"
on his renewed citizenship he is limited from appearing to attack
others for a period of "probation"? Anything he might say in such a
hostile environment might be used to show that he was violating this
rule and lead to his permanent exile. Are you through this invitation
attempting to goad him into taking that course of action?/

You have made statements of a personal nature concerning my thoughts
and feelings. Do I know you? You seem to think you know me, Marcus
Apollonius, I think not.

BTW For all who think this was personal, think again. I had asked
that I not be mentioned in the document so that this would be more
clear. The Reprimand was a statement from the Senate that
IMPERSONATIONS of CITIZENS will not be condoned in Nova Roma.

RESPONDEO: I suppose that I will disappoint you by saying that I
completely agree. We need lots of legislation in Nova Roma. Banning
impersonation is a reasonable and good idea. In this case Marius
played a basically harmless prank. The next time it could be a
serious attempt by a less benevolent person to do ill.

*However* the way to deal with impersonation is proper legislation -
not ex post facto "laws" (or arbitrary and dubiously legal senatorial
"trials") against people who were unaware of its being illegal. And
not aware because it was *not* illegal at the time it was done. That
is not justice. People have a right to know in advance what is
illegal.

Nor will the misuse of Nova Roma Fora. RTFQ

RESPONDEO: The use of public places and recreational areas for
discussing the shortcomings of Nova Roma and its government - among
other things - is precisely the proper use of said public facilities.
The attempt to brand free speech "negative propaganda" is highly
improper, and it will not get far./

Also, At the time of the vote she was not a citizen, therefore she
was not entitled to a hearing or 'trial'. So, that is not an issue
given the circumstances.

RESPONDEO: Again I respond: Natural Justice is binding upon all and
applicable to all. Furthermore, you were dealing specifically with a
future citizen, not someone with no relation to Nova Roma. That is a
very dishonest defence, therefore.

Valete, Lucius Equitius
-------------------
Mi Luci Equiti, I did not come to Nova Roma your enemy. I simply have
come to see that you are aggressing against a person who does not to
my eyes seem to deserve that. First, you were among those who would
deny him the right to be recognised for the sex/gender which defines
his deepest personality; then you want to punish him for some mere
pranks (admittedly mischievious) with the hardest set of conditions
and punishments of anyone who ever came here: Special Conditions and
Probation, AND Senatorial Reprimand AND Censorial Nota!

As a responsible senator and as a religious figure in our Respublica,
can I not persuade you to accept the apology of Marius with a sense
of magnanimitas and clementia? To kill that nota, and make true
peace? If you would cease to attack Marius as a person and instead
make constructive legislation for the comitia in order to ban
impersonation in the future, would that not be more constructive and
better for Nova Roma? If you would do this, I think that all Nova
Roma would thank you. Please consider it.

Valete!


Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius              
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus              MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972949436/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->