Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Introduction: Oppius Flaccus Severus, new citizen.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:31:59 -0500

Salvete;

Welcome aboard, Oppius Flavvus Severus! You'll find us a sometimes
contentious bunch, but on the whole we're good people. From your
introduction, you seem a fine addition to our roster of Citizens; I look
forward to hearing more from you in the future.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oppius Flaccus [mailto:oppiusflaccus@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 1:43 AM
>
> Salvete,
>
> It occurs to me at this late hour that I've started
> making posts to the list, without even properly
> introducing myself! So, in the spirit of open
> communication, here goes with a somewhat long-winded
> declaration of introduction.
<snip>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976408482/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Parties, issues, and choices
From:	Iulia66198@--------
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:37:06 EST

Salvete omnes

Before I go any further, may I just state for the record that Piscinus has
always treated me in a true gentlemanly fashion, and that I have a great deal
of respect for him and so many others here who are far more knowledgable on
the subject of Roma than I. So much so, that I usually don't post here - I
feel far too ignorant most days to even know where to begin! ;)

That said, I fear I must say that I found this post somewhat unsettling.
Repeatedly, people were divided into either a group of 'friends' or a
'faction.' I'm not sure about anyone else, but for me the former carries a
more friendly and benign connotation than the latter. As C. Iulius wisely
told me in an email recently, there are always going to be divisions among
people. But I ask, should one group be classified as 'friends' and another
as a 'faction'? And isn't the word 'friend' a very subjective term?

I don't believe that most of the bad feelings generated of late have been
intentional. Each of us will, at some time or another, feel very strongly
about a particular issue and will want to say something about it. However, I
have been left wondering whether we can come together in peace long enough to
accomplish anything lasting value.

Referring to disagreements, there is an old saying which states, 'Where there
is no wood, the fire goes out.' There are so many people here who have so
much to offer. In the interests of Concordia and Pax, may I respectfully
request that we all attempt to shorten our individual woodpiles? ;-)

Iulia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976408633/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Parties, issues, and choices
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:24:37 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iulia66198@-------- [mailto:Iulia66198@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 7:37 PM
>
> However, I
> have been left wondering whether we can come together in peace
> long enough to accomplish anything lasting value.

If I may, speaking as someone who has admittedly been on both ends of the
electoral rancor, I believe that it is an annual ritual among us that the
list heats up around election time, but then the victors settle down once
they realize what's really needed of them! For my part, I know I'll be able
to work with anyone who's elected, no matter what side of our various
political differences they may be on. I'm sure the same is true of most
folks who aspire to serve our fair Republic.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976411629/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Traditions or trappings? (was: What are we fighting for?)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 21:12:15 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Macnair [mailto:MikeMacnair@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 4:24 PM
>
> There is a big difference between
>
> (1) A social practice reflected in language
> and
> (2) a formal legal regulation.
>
> Thus, for example, in early modern England it was legally compulsory to go
> to Anglican church on a Sunday, and you got fined if you didn't. More
> recently it ceased to be legally compulsory, but until quite recently (my
> parents' generation) it remained socially compulsory. There's a big
> practical difference between not going to church incurring social
> disapproval or satire, and incurring a legal penalty.

You are quite correct; I cannot point to a Roman law from the classical
period that says "the name of a Citizen must be consistent with their
physical gender."

However, consider the reverse of the example you give above, respective to
our situation. There are things that, in Roma Antiqua, were simply a matter
of course. They were enforced by tradition. As L. Sergius attested through
his appeal to the Latin language, male children were given male names, and
female children were given female names. As we don't have the weight of
generations of tradition, but must re-create these traditions as part of our
overall recreation of the Republic, we are forced to enforce these
conventions by law.

Hopefully, generations hence, we won't even need to have such things
enshrined in law, because they'll just be a matter of course. "It's a boy!"
Give him a male name... But for now, we're trying to consciously override
modern sensibilities and put Roman Republican sensibilities in their place.
Thus, some traditions have to be enforced by law.

And let us not forget what it means to transgress our laws! Ours is a
voluntary association. Nobody is forcing these social conventions down
anybody's throat. One thing our Citizens have that they did not have in Roma
Antiqua is the right to vote with their feet. We've had many people who have
been quite involved in our society, but eventually discovered that a true
reconstruction of the Roman Republic just wasn't their cup of tea. And
they've left, unharassed, and in some cases gone on to great things.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus;
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976414483/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Parties, issues, and choices
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 21:54:03 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 2:40 PM
>
> One faction makes a distinction between patricians and plebeians,
> justifying a limitation placed on patricians from holding some offices,
> and also justifying a system that places artificial advantages for
> patricians over plebeians. A circle of friends asks only whether making
> such artificial distinctions serves the interests of Nova Roma community
> as a whole.

I must say that this is an issue that we discussed in the misty past before
Nova Roma's very foundation. It was decided that the position of Tribunis
Plebis was too vital _not_ to be included in our political structure, and
that the position was meaningless unless there were Plebeians. It is an
essential, if symbolic, distinction.

If you do away with the Plebeian/Patrician distinction, you do away with the
need for the Tribunis Plebis. Are you seriously saying that's something that
Nova Roma, as a reconstruction of the Roman Republic, should do?

With every post you make, I am forced to wonder if you really grasp the
first idea of why Nova Roma even exists.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976416991/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 9 Dec 2000 22:49:48 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gian G Reali [mailto:piscinus@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 1:33 PM
>
> At issue is not what the attitude of ancient Romans on matters of
> personal sexuality may have been.

Indeed; I think that's what _should_ be at issue. When in doubt, I say look
to the precident set by our spiritual ancestors. That is, after all, the
basis upon which Nova Roma was founded.

> Nor at issue is what we individuals
> who make up the Nova Roma community should adopt as our personal attitude
> towards the issue. What is at issue is whether the magistrates of Nova
> Roma, acting either individually or collectively, should identify a small
> portion of Nova Roma and require additional requirements for such
> individuals. Scaevola Magister has offered that contingent on any such
> imposition of additional requirements, is a need to justify such
> restrictions as may pose some inhibition on potential applicants for
> citizenship.

I must ask, what _additional_ requirements have been imposed on anyone by
the actions of any Magistrate? Everyone has exactly the same requirement; be
honest, and state your gender as it is recorded in your macronation. I see
no special imposition here.

Indeed; would you have an objection if everyone were required to send in a
photocopy of their driver's license? We used to require everyone snail-mail
their application for Citizenship, back in the early days; this wouldn't be
too huge an imposition. No one has said anything other than we yield to the
decision of the macronation of which any given Nova Roman is a citizen. At
this stage, I see no reason not to leave this matter in the hands of those
that have the infrastructure to decide it definitively. If you insist that
everyone should send in a copy of their driver's license, in the interests
of fairness, I might support that point of view. But I want to hear your
justification of it, first.

> I would agree that a necessary requirement for applicants under a given
> age should include permission of their macronational parents. In doing
> so, however, Nova Roma is also accepting a responsibility and obligation
> to the parents of young applicants. We are accepting that we as a
> community have become the wards of those younger members while they are
> among us. We as a community should therefore be judged by the content
> appearing on any sites connected to us.

Actually, that's not what our Constitution says. We specifically state that
one must be of legal age in their country of residence to become a Citizen.
One may become a member of a Gens, with the permission of the Paterfamilias
of that gens and their own legal guardians, but that does not imply
Citizenship. To put it in real terms, when my child is born in April, it
won't be a Citizen of Nova Roma, but it will be a member of Gens Vedia. We
are in no way the guardians (not wards; I think you have the terminology
reversed) of anyone, and deliberately so.

> The wider question is much more abstract, and for some too difficult to
> understand. If one individual citizen, or any single group of
> individuals, can be singled out by additional requirements, then what
> prevents Nova Roma in some future period imposing restrictions on some
> other group.

If you are speaking of Magisterial Edicta, our Constitution does so.
Specifically, paragraph II.B.V. (You do seem to keep forgetting that one...
perhaps you find it inconvenient to your demagoguery?)

> Ancient Rome did place restrictions on the externa
> superstio that we call Judaism, Christianity and other Eastern mystery
> cults, as well as some ecstatic cults like that of Bacchus. Does any
> current member in Nova Roma advocate restrictions be placed on some
> citizens based on their religious preferences? There probably are, and as
> individuals they would have a right to voice their opinion. But does
> Nova Roma as an organization have a right to impose additional
> requirements for membership on individuals based solely on their
> religious preferences? No. And neither should it assume such a thing in
> questions of any other personal preferences.

I must compliment you on the well-formed straw man you have constructed
here, Formasanus. Alas, being the Big Bad Wolf that I am, I must mix my
metaphors and blow it down. You seek once again to create division by
drawing on the fears of the non-Pagans among us, but I invite you to peruse
our Constitution, wherein this question is definitively dealt with, in
paragraph IV.A., which explicitly states, "Magistrates, Senators, and
citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana..."

It seems straightforward enough to me. Anyone is welcome here, regardless of
their religious faith.

Your fear-mongering is offensive, and your motives are so nakedly exposed
that you should be ashamed. Is it a coincidence that you're seeking to
create division along lines that haven't really existed before? Patrician
and Plebeian. Pagan and non-Pagan. Old and young. Old-timer and newcomer.
American and European. You and your comrades seek to create division for
your own political purposes, and frankly it stinks.

Nova Roma is a place where everyone comes of their own accord to follow a
common vision; the recreation of the Roman Republic; its Religio, its
politics, and its society. All are welcome here for the furtherance of this
purpose; pagan and non-pagan, old and young, old-timer and newcomer,
American and European. In so doing we advocate and facilitate the study of
Classical history, the Latin language, historical reenactment and many other
things besides.

If you want to turn Nova Roma into a "Rome fan-club" that passes over
classical precidents just because they're not Politically Correct, currently
fashionable, too complicated, or don't meet your personal criteria for
"social justice", then I'm afraid you've found the wrong micronation.
Compromises for the sake of viability are one thing; alterations to fit
modern social conventions reduce us to a caricature, and that is not what
Nova Roma was intended to be.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Candidate for Consul, Co-Founder of Nova Roma, Senator, Augur, Paterfamilias

http://www.goldenfuture.net/germanicus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976420337/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate
From:	amcgrath@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:53:08 -0000

Salvete,

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco"
<hendrik.meuleman@--------> wrote:
> Salvete, and sorry if I'm boring you people to death with my daily
flood of
> postings!
>
>
> Palladius scripsit:
>I chosethe word "assume" rather than "stand, run or assume" to leave
>a smallwindow open for people who might be underage as candidates
>but who would reach their birthday before actually assuming office.
>(it would seem unfair to me for someone whose birthday might be at
> the end of December) I admit that I did not forsee the dishonest
>tactic mentioned by some people--run for office, get elected then
>say, "Oh, by the way I'm underage, grant me an exemption, please." An
> additional clause or more specific wording on that point would have
>clarified this issue. Forgive my lack of foresight in not
>anticipating this situation. <snip>

> May I assume that you are the author of that very lex, right? Well,

Yes.

>I'm personally opposed to granting exemption beforehand, because
>there are a few
> problems and objections...
> 1. Will the Senate have enough time to debate over it?

More than likely, yes. I think the senate would have more time to
debate before a candidate's run for office rather than post facto
(especially if the candidate plans ahead). After the election there
is a very limited window of opportunity. An exemption granted after
the election would have to be rushed through with the looming date of
1 January in the background. Also, what would happen if the exemption
was *denied?* Does the position go to the candidate with the next
highest vote tally? I suppose it would though that is as yet
untouched ground. Receiving the exemption first would remove any
cloud that the position would be in doubt after the election. The
person would be a true candidate-elect rather than a candidate-elect
in lieu of an exemption.

> 2. Do the Senatores know the given individual?

Not necessarily. That is why when one asks for the exemption he
should go on at length about himself, giving any pertinent
information that would help the senators and censors decide. However,
the senatores would not really know the person any better before the
campaign than after, so before would make more sense due to time.

> 3. If an applicant keeps waiting and the candidacy declaration
period passes
> without a verdict from the Senate, that would be a pity, I think.

It would be a greater pity if the brief time between being elected to
office and the time to assume the office passed without a verdict.
That would hurt Nova Roma. If a candidate had the interests of Nova
Roma in mind at all he would ask for the exemption first rather than
possibly cause a crisis.

> 4. The Censores are nowhere mentioned in these law, and are both
Senatores
> themselves - why draw them into this anyway?

If you look again at the law you will see they are mentioned. They
are the ones who grant the exemption, remember? Clause six states:

"Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate....

VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the
approval of both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two
thirds majority vote."

> If an individual that is underage didn't convince the populace to
vote for
> him/her, then the Senate wouldn't even have to debate on granting an
> exemption. Thus, much work would be saved if the Senate granted the
> exemption after the elections, I think.

Wouldn't it save the candidate a lot of trouble to find out if he
would even be allowed to assume the office if elected? Why go through
that trouble to be denied? Also, wouldn't it save Nova Roma a period
of uncertainty as to whom would assume the office after that so-
called candidate-elect was denied?

There is flexibility built into this law so that on rare occasions,
exceptional underage individuals may assume these offices. However,
the exemption was meant to be difficult to receive and meant to
discourage the average ineligible person from running. This exemption
is not mean to be a routine occurence.

Valete,


Decius Iunius Palladius,
Senator,Consularis


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976427598/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Offensive Divisions?
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:07:16 -0500

Salvete!

Priscilla Vedia Serena wrote, inter alia,

>I have chosen "not" to quote their posts because, quite frankly,
>my anger is not related to one phrase or turn of words, so much as it is
>towards their blatant attempt to casually toss the cives of this nation
into
>what they see as opposing groups.<

Political division was introduced by Sulla's Gender Edict and Germanicus
and Palladius' prior ruling, the way the rulings were made, and the
arguments produced in support of these; and by those who have argued that
Nova Roma is "a Republic, not a Democracy". In my opinion "Dignitas" was an
over the top and unwise response. But the choice to make a political
division in NR was made by those who pushed legal compulsion on the issue
of gender names; their opponents are merely reacting to this.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976442918/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:17:12 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

I realise that you said this to illustrate a point, Germanicus, but before
anyone suggests it as a good idea I'd just like to point out that it is
probably illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act and certainly is
under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (which is based on the ADA).

> Indeed; would you have an objection if everyone were required to send in a
> photocopy of their driver's license? We used to require everyone snail-mail
> their application for Citizenship, back in the early days; this wouldn't be
> too huge an imposition. No one has said anything other than we yield to the
> decision of the macronation of which any given Nova Roman is a citizen. At
> this stage, I see no reason not to leave this matter in the hands of those
> that have the infrastructure to decide it definitively. If you insist that
> everyone should send in a copy of their driver's license, in the interests
> of fairness, I might support that point of view. But I want to hear your
> justification of it, first.
>

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus


[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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976454239/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] In the latest Explorator
From:	"M. Papirius Justus" <papirius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:40:17 -0500

For those of you in need of a break from election banter ...

================

What follows is a shortened version of Explorator, the premier email
newsletter devoted to matters archaeological and ancient, edited to the
subject matter of this list; should you desire to subscribe to the full
version (with archaeological news from around the world in various time
periods), please send a blank email to:

mailto:explorator-subscribe@--------

============

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gratias vobis ago for the heads up to: George Peseley, Alastair Millar,
Sujazz, David Abbott, and Bill Kennedy (as always, with hopes that I
haven't left anyone out).


Potentially big news, but I think the journalist types are reading a bit
too much into it, is the discovery of a pair of entwined lovers, supposedly
master and slave, along with a pile of gold in Pompeii:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000579381554028&rtmo=wew0Kstb&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/00/12/9/wpomp09.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48958,00.html

Also on the Pompeii front, Canada's own National Post has an excellent
feature on the erotic art of Pompeii:

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20001205/393447.html

Bloomberg has a report on the auction of a 'year 5 of Israel' shekel:

http://www.bloomberg.com/pgcgi.cgi?T=finer99_art.ht&s=AOi_0ABPuUmFyZSBJ

The Observer brings a report on Boudicca's nastier side:

http://observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,406152,00.html

The Egyptian News service brings word of the discovery of a sunken Roman port:

http://www.uk.sis.gov.eg/online/html3/o041220c.htm

The Houston Chronicle reports that a chunk of a Roman wall in Spain has
collapsed due to heavy rains:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/767265

CLASSICISTS CORNER

The Guardian has a somewhat interesting editorial about 'classism' which
takes its start from Macauley's "Lays ...":

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,408691,00.html

An editorial in the Atlanta Constitution has plenty of Classical content as
it compares the current US election difficulties to ancient Rome:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/tuesday/opinion_a3c289d5a178719310a0.html

Time Magazine has a nice little article on the benefits of Latin for
English instruction:

http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,90457,00.html

FOLLOWUPS

Roman luxury ships:

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/12/03/stinwenws01011.html


Cambyses' army (boy, they better find something ... they're certainly
building the hype):

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/08/p7s2.htm
http://209.19.141.102/news/2000/12/12082000/wirpersia_3408.asp

AT ABOUT.COM

Ancient History Guide N.S. Gill's latest is about Vincent Panella's first
novel, which feature Julius Caesar's kidnapping by pirates:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa120500a.htm?terms=a1


Latin Guide Janet Burns has a nice little collection of Christmas-related
songs in Latin:

http://latin.about.com/library/weekly/aa120400a.htm



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976459896/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] After The Election
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:51:28 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;

I was very pleased to read the words of my illustrious Colleague Vedius
Germanicaus when he said that after the elections that we in Nova Roma
settle down to work toward building our micronation (or words to that
effect).

My concern here is whether this is really possble with all of the
insults that have been hurled back and forth between two (if not
parties, groups or factions at least -------) differing philosophies.
Further, I wonder how anyone having given the lie to another, or
recieved that epithet, can truly settle down as a co-worker, to work
together effectively.

I do not see the necessity, of giving the lie to anyone, on this
communication net, since proof is very difficult. Long re-copies of
previous messages simply clutter what is being said, reflect only the
commenter's current views, not the views of the originator, and insults
directed at those who may well become your colleagues in a few days,
does not seem to me to be the best way to deal with disagreement.

The above being particularly of concern since outside of the pleasure of
being a Nova Roma Citizen and learning more about how Nova Roma works,
and attending to the necessary infastructure of the micronation what is
the advantage of being a Magistrate? There are no material rewards, and
the effort is considerable. The voting record and subscription rates to
the Eagle suggest that only a small part of the micronation participates
or even listens to this bitterness and bile in the election period, and
so why, my friends, do we direct so much effort to making possible
permanent enemies?

The very reason that most people have joined Nova Roma (a source of
Roman Culture) seems to have been swallowed by bitter political
arguments and accusations which seem in many cases to be centered around
the alleged stupidity of one's opponents. I for one do not find those
who have a different view from myself to be politically stupid, blind,
or ill-concieved. I find that they simply have a different background
and beliefs. I for one do not believe change to be bad in and of
itself, but I do believe change to be suspect when enacted by those who
neither understand the change or care enough to see the values inherent
in the opposing views.

It is also very difficult for me to see why one who is interested in the
political side of Nova Roma would not follow the Cursus Honorium for the
joy and pleasure of doing so, otherwise why do so at all?? A
Magistrate's Office is an imposition on one's time, and properly done
requires both effort and concern for the Citizens and the Micronation of
Nova Roma. It requires considerable time and research to make often
unpopular decisions that few will take the time to understand or
appreciate. If one is interested in devoting thier energies toward that
end, why not enjoy it to it's fullest?

If there are things to be done (and there certainly are) then why not
devote the energy, time and enthusiasm that you feel for Nova Roma to a
constructive effort rather than insulting each other? Do those of you
who engage in repeated opponent bashing not realize that you do so in
full view of the electorate? Do you for one fleeting moment think that
those who cast the votes to determine your future, do not see the anger,
bitterness and self-interest in your posts? Stop and think for a moment
and review your past ten posts. Ask yourself this question, if you
can-----how does a new civ look at these posts, not having the long
background of disgreement behind them and unwilling to spend the hours
necessary to review such, and how do you think the posts will reflect
your suitability for office to that civ who holds in his / her hand the
instrument (the vote) to which you appeal?

I am the first to admit that I have made mistakes in the past, and I
have probably said things on this list that could have better been said,
but my friends---and you are my friends---otherwise I should have long
ago made my departure permanent; think about the two above aspects of
what you say here. You wound those with whom you must later work and
cooperate, and you paint yourself in the eyes of the Citizens of Nova
Roma who came here for an enjoyable classical interlude, with colors of
an uncomplimentary nature.

I am a sitting Magistrate and a Senator, and so I feel obligated to read
every post, but I must say, that the now task (earlier enjoyment) of
doing so has lost much of it's original appeal. I can only imagine how
these postings must affect those who do not enjoy(???????) my long term
aquaintance, and understanding (to the extent that I do) of such
material.

Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976467090/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] CONCORDIA
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:08:10 +0100

Salvete Novaromani,

Instead of opting to respond to several threads here which I am involved in, I'd like to address all of the citizenry here, and especially the politically concerned Quirites.

Polarization or division over things aren't good. Thus far, most Novaromani will agree with me. Everyone here likes to present oneself as an independant individual with independant opinions, whether backed up by friends/allies or not. This is good.

But during the past few weeks I've seen an annoying pestilence here. This list has been full of misinterpretations, unconstructive discussions and inflammatory posts. To what purpose? To divide? One may hope not. But things get really nasty when other cry "you are divising us", whilst not proposing better things themselves. Everyone is so good at giving criticism on one another, but constructive criticism? Many times not. Justified criticism? Perhaps. But if you cry "division" in response to a posting, you are only enlarging the gap yourself, rather than helping to solve the problem.

100% concodria will never exist, and that's good, too. But at least, let us respect each other in different opinions, rather than continuously picking on each other with silly arguments that make no sense. However, don't let anyone be offended personally by this posting. I just want to express here that I am tired of all this demagoguery here.

Valete bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
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
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum


[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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976468088/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Offensive Divisions?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:13:54 -0500

Salve,

>But the choice to make a political division in NR was made by those who
pushed legal compulsion on the issue of gender names; their opponents are
merely reacting to this.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister>>

Certainly you can see the difference between an Edict that met with
disapproval from certain quarters, and the over-the-top and offensive
rhetoric I refer to? You may be among those who dislike the revised "Gender
Edict", but surely you are not trying to compare a legally decided Edict to
the absolute venom being spewed by Piscinius and Formosanus?

One is certainly a touchy issue (interestingly enough though, apparently not
for the ONE citizen it effects, but I digress.), and the other is a set of
outrageous lies and appalling attempts at literally diving our nation into
US vs. THEM. I refuse to be so categorized, and I am proud to say that I
believe the vast majority of our cives are intelligent enough not to allow
themselves to be so pigeon-holed either.

Regardless of the "class war" or "Potestas vs. Dignitas" war that Piscinius
and Formosanus seem determined to start, I am confident that the majority of
cives will see their tactics for the fear-mongering attempt at winning votes
that they truly are. I believe the cives will vote accordingly for those who
seek to build and UNIFY Nova Roma, not for those dishonorable individuals
who attempt to gain power by dividing us into their imaginary enemies and
friends.

If you truly cannot distinguish between controversial policy and the
outrageous behavior of Piscinius and Formosanus, I am at a loss as to how to
help you.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976468587/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:28:13 -0800

Salve Sulla

In a virtual realm such as ours, an internet micronation, all we may
know about one another are those words we post to the lists as our public
statements. If an individual runs as a candidate for office and/or holds
office, then he or she becomes a public figure among us. I would say we
are all accountable for our words here. By posting to a list you have
placed yourself in a public forum. All your words are a part of a public
record and the issue of privacy nolonger applies. And, yes, I would be
one to certainly agree that a public figure such as any candidate is
accountable for all the words he or she has posted in a public forum such
as our email lists. I have always cautioned that everyone in Nova Roma
take due consideration of what they say in any post. I would also say
that public figures such as magistrates regard every post they make while
in office as offical posts, reflecting on all of us in Nova Roma.

Plagiarism is a form of theft. Technically speaking, it is where a
person publishes material written by another, either in verbatim or even
by simply using the original ideas of another person, without giving
credit where it is due and posing the work as one's own. Quoting from a
source, and citing to which source one refers, is exactly the opposite of
plagiarism. Vado did not plagiarize in what he wrote. The
misunderstanding on this point is on your part here, Sulla.

Vale
Moravius Piscinus

On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:50:05 -0800 Lucius Cornelius Sulla
<alexious@--------> writes:
> Actually, what it means is once again, I had to go back to the NR
> archieves, which
> I suggest every citizen to do, when there is ample time. To see the
> flip-flop of
> some candidates and the selective "quoteing" of some other
> candidates! Let me ask,
> does selective quoting equate with plagerism? I dont know...but its
> just something
> I have been pondering with Vado's very loose quoting. Anyway, Gn.
> Moravius, going
> back to the NR archieves didnt stop you when you reposted my
> resignation statement
> so why are you so defensive now that I use against Formy and Vado?
> Turnabout isnt
> fair play I see! Well it should be. Besides dont you think the
> People should read
> the ENTIRE article? Not the selective partial quotes your Pater and
> Consular
> candidate posted!
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> Gian G Reali wrote:
>
> > Salve Sulla et omnes Quirites
> >
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976470778/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Dec. 10; Trib. Pleb. magistratum
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:15:56 -0800

Salvete Quirites

In the Fasti Praenestini for this date, 10 December, is found the
annotation, "Tribuni Plebis magistratum ineunt." In ancient Rome this
date also marked a festival of Libertas, the Goddess of Liberty known as
the Lux Mundi, acting as a guide while holding Her torch aloft. In a
modern perspective it could appear as an exception, that in the Roman
fasti, considered to be religious calanders, there should also appear
what we would regard as a political event. At least from the time of
Trajan this date marked the anniversary of imperial ascension as well,
since imperial authority derived from a Caesar's tribunicia potestatis.
>From the very beginning however, from the time of the First Secessio in
259 AUC (494 bce), the offices of Tribuni Plebis were deeply rooted in
their religious authority.

The powers of the Tribuni are derived from the lex sacrata. Unlike
other magistrates of Rome, who swore oaths to the gods to fulfill their
duties, the instillation of the Tribuni was marked by an oath sworn by
the plebeians to obey and defend their Tribuni. Anyone who violated a
Tribunus became sacer esto. Similarily the formula is found in the
Twelve Tablets, VIII: 21: "patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer
esto." A patron who beguiles, defrauds, or otherwise cheats his clients
is regarded to have broken a sacred vow before the gods. Therefore his
person, his liberty, and his property would be forfeit to the gods. Both
of these aspects of the Tribuni seem to be derived from the traditions of
the Italic tribes with their leaders, the Meddices. Each Italic teuta
had a meddiss, with one overall mediss toutuiks (Latin: Meddix) for a
league of related tribes. Although mainly military leaders, their
authority was derived from the gosa. The other parallel of the plebeians
institutions with the Italics was that the Comitia Plebis Tributa was
based on tribes. (The concilium plebis being reorganized in 282 AUC (471
bce) into the Comitia Tributa by Volero Publilius.) Initially the
Tribuni had no legal status, or political power, but solely based on his
religious authority was he able to challenge the abuse of political power
by magistrates.

The first obligation of every Tribunus was to keep his house open at all
times, so that all plebeians would have access to him at all times. The
house of the Tribune thus offered a place of refuge and sanctuary. The
Tribuni established their power of auxilium, or "assistance," by
extending this power of sanctuary to their person and to all with whom
they travelled. Thus the power of intercessio grew out of the auxilium,
in that by using auxilium a Tribunus could rescue a person from arrest
and trial. In the earliest period then, the Tribunicia Potestatis
auxilium acted like a power of habeas corpus. It was probably limited
at that time to actions by the Tribuni to assist one individual. In time
the powers of the Tribuni continued to grow until they extended over
every judicial procedure, every legislative action, and every issuance of
magisterial edicta.

Although the powers of the Tribuni grew out of their status as
sancrosanct, they were backed up by raw power. The Plebeian movement
begins with the First Secessio of 259 AUC (494 bce). We cannot be sure
today exactly what the distinction between Patricians and Plebeians were
at the time. The exit of the Plebeians, in peaceful protest assembled
upon the Mons Sacer, created a situation whereby the Plebeian political
rights began to be recognized. Unlike magistrates and their lictors, the
Tribuni and their open houses were to become protected by bands of
viatores. The viatores carried staves rather than fasces, with which
they maintained order in the Plebeian assemblies as well as protected the
Plebeian officers. In the late Republic this could result in a Tribunus
moving through the streets of Rome, surrounded by his viatores and they
surrounded by a Plebeian mass. By the Late Republic this Plebeian mass
could become an intimidating mob. Often competing Tribunes and their
followers would clash in Rome and in the nearby cities. As an example,
the Tribune of the Populares, P. Clodius Pulcher was murdered in street
fighting at Bouillae with a rival mob, lead by the Tribune of the
Optimates T. Annius Milo in 697 AUC (58 bce).

In 304 AUC (449 bce) the Tribunus Plebis Genucius attempted to employ
the tribunicia potestatis coercito to arrest the Consuli Manilius and
Furius. He was murdered in the attempt, which led to another Secessio.
The result of this episode then was the Leges Valeria Horatia that raised
the number of Tribuni to 10 and defined their powers. The coercitio is
essentially a power to call the Comitia Plebis Tributa to sit as a court
of law. Genucius attempted to seize the consuls and present them before
the Comitia Plebis for judgement. This attempt by Genucius was little
more than a lynch mob. However the coercitio then became formalized with
recognition of the judicial authority of the Comitia. From that judicial
authority there later developed standing courts, such as the commission
set up by the Lex Culpurnia.

The political history of the Republic of Rome is often portrayed as a
rise of the Plebeians over the Patricians. This took place in three
separate areas as the Comitia Plebis gained status as the legislative
body of the Republic, magistracies were opened to Plebeians, and where
the same occurred with the pontifical positions. As early as 282 AUC
(471 bce) the Lex Icilia made illegal any interruption of the Comitia
Plebis Tributa or its procedures by any magistrate. The Leges Publiliae
414 AUC (339 bce) canceled Patrician veto over the Comitia Plebis
Tributa. The later Lex Hortensia gave plebiscita the force of law as a
ius suffragi. The Comitia's full power as the highest legislative
authority in the Republic comes with its assumption of the power to
approve peace treaties in 552 AUC, and in 646 AUC when it gains authority
over the Senate to appoint the Commanders of Legions. Twenty years later
Sulla marched in rebellion against Rome, as his command of the Nola
Legions granted as consul by the Senate, was not approved by the Comitia
Plebis Tributa. In an earlier period the idea of the Comitia having
authority over the legions would have been unheard of. In Sulla's time
the Comitia had already exorcised such authority; his attempt to overrule
such a decision of the Comitia by launching an army against Rome was
unprecedented.

The offices of magistrates were initially open to Plebeians. The first
Republican consul, Bruttius, was in fact a Plebeian. The proportion of
Plebeian magistrates declines until during the period of the Tribuni
Militum Consulari Potestate when few Plebeians are found among the higher
magistrates. This was changed by a series of leges which first opened,
and then mandated that at least one magistrate in each office be
Plebeian: Quaestor (344 AUC), Consuls (Leges Licinia Sextia 386 AUC, and
Lex Genucia 411 AUC), Dictator (397 AUC), Censor ius honorum (402 AUC,
and the ius honorum plebis in the Leges Publilia 414 AUC), and Praetors
(418 AUC). Additional Plebeian political power resulted in the Tribuni
Militum being elected by the Comitia Plebis (442 AUC), and finally even
the commanders of legions (646 AUC; 107 bce).

The last refuge for Patrician privileges was the Collegium Pontificum
and its priesthoods. The Collegium was not opened to Plebeians until 453
AUC ( 300bce) when the Leges Ogulnia increased the number of pontiffs and
augurs, and mandated these be of Plebeian origin. The office of Pontifix
Maximus became open to Plebeians in 647 AUC (106 bce), after which only a
couple of the priesthoods were held exclusively for Patricians. The
reason for this was social in nature, not political.

By the time the Republic was coming to an end, only 14 Patrician gens
remained. The ruling Nobiles made no distinction between Patrician and
Plebeian in an era of such Plebeians as Cicero, Pompey, and Crassus.
Then in 705 AUC (48 bce) the Tribunicia Potestatis were granted to a
Patrician, and four years later the sancro sanctitas was also placed upon
the Patrician Tribune, Julius Caesar. No longer was the Tribunus an
office held exclusively for Plebeians, nor were the powers of the
Tribunus to be used only on the behalf of Plebeians. The Patrician
Julius Caesar was regarded in his day more as Tribunus of the people.
The Populares was a term which included both Patricians and Plebeians in
its meaning. Caesar as Tribunus stood as a protector of the people
against the excesses of a party of Nobiles who acted in self interest.

The excessive use of the Tribunicia Potestatis on the part of some
Tribuni Plebis brought about a Conservative reaction, instituted by
Sulla. That Sulla never eliminated the office of Tribunus Plebis, as he
did with the Censors, also attested to the religious nature of the
office. Laws in ancient Rome were regarded as sacred, passed down by the
gods. Praetors administered the laws; Consuls executed the laws;
Tribunes guaranteed the laws. When the balance between these offices
became disrupted in the turbulence of the Civil Wars, the result was that
the authority and power of the Tribuni and the Magistrates were brought
into the hands of one individual. What may have disturbed the
Conspirators most about Caesar was not that he took the office of
Dictator for Life, but that as he then took the tribunicia sancro
sanctitas, he had assumed a mantle of divine right and inviolability. A
Tribunus Plebis originally assumed his authority from the gods. In the
end, one Tribunus attempted to have himself made a into god. The
Augustan Principate that followed grew out of the precedents set in the
struggles of the Republic. To balance his own power, one power of the
Tribuni Plebis was to pass under Augustus to the Vestal Virgins. This
was the auxilium. Even in the attainment of absolute power, Augustus
recognized the role of the sacred, and the necessity for a voice for
moderation.

Valete
Moravius Piscinus



________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976470778/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:14:51 -0800

Actually no its not illegal under the ADA, I researched it with some friends of
mine who are ADA experts. :) Sorry. As one who sued my former employer under
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and therefore I have quite a bit of experience and
connections with Civil Rights Attorneys (when I sued California Baptist College)
I spoke with my attorney. She said there is nothing in there that would relate
to gender identification.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

BICURRATUS@-------- wrote:

> EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
>
> I realise that you said this to illustrate a point, Germanicus, but before
> anyone suggests it as a good idea I'd just like to point out that it is
> probably illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act and certainly is
> under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (which is based on the ADA).
>
> > Indeed; would you have an objection if everyone were required to send in a
> > photocopy of their driver's license? We used to require everyone snail-mail
> > their application for Citizenship, back in the early days; this wouldn't be
> > too huge an imposition. No one has said anything other than we yield to the
> > decision of the macronation of which any given Nova Roman is a citizen. At
> > this stage, I see no reason not to leave this matter in the hands of those
> > that have the infrastructure to decide it definitively. If you insist that
> > everyone should send in a copy of their driver's license, in the interests
> > of fairness, I might support that point of view. But I want to hear your
> > justification of it, first.
> >
>
> Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976475336/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:20:01 -0800

Ave,

I am referring to the Selective quoting of the Text. Sure he gives proper
citing for it...but it is still selective quoting. So, my question is Selective
Quoting Plagerism? When I was in college when a professor found a student
selective quoting it was almost up to the professor to determine if it was
plagerism because essentially the student was mainpulating the book. Which is
exactly what Vado did.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Gian G Reali wrote:

> Salve Sulla
>
> In a virtual realm such as ours, an internet micronation, all we may
> know about one another are those words we post to the lists as our public
> statements. If an individual runs as a candidate for office and/or holds
> office, then he or she becomes a public figure among us. I would say we
> are all accountable for our words here. By posting to a list you have
> placed yourself in a public forum. All your words are a part of a public
> record and the issue of privacy nolonger applies. And, yes, I would be
> one to certainly agree that a public figure such as any candidate is
> accountable for all the words he or she has posted in a public forum such
> as our email lists. I have always cautioned that everyone in Nova Roma
> take due consideration of what they say in any post. I would also say
> that public figures such as magistrates regard every post they make while
> in office as offical posts, reflecting on all of us in Nova Roma.
>
> Plagiarism is a form of theft. Technically speaking, it is where a
> person publishes material written by another, either in verbatim or even
> by simply using the original ideas of another person, without giving
> credit where it is due and posing the work as one's own. Quoting from a
> source, and citing to which source one refers, is exactly the opposite of
> plagiarism. Vado did not plagiarize in what he wrote. The
> misunderstanding on this point is on your part here, Sulla.
>
> Vale
> Moravius Piscinus
>
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:50:05 -0800 Lucius Cornelius Sulla
> <alexious@--------> writes:
> > Actually, what it means is once again, I had to go back to the NR
> > archieves, which
> > I suggest every citizen to do, when there is ample time. To see the
> > flip-flop of
> > some candidates and the selective "quoteing" of some other
> > candidates! Let me ask,
> > does selective quoting equate with plagerism? I dont know...but its
> > just something
> > I have been pondering with Vado's very loose quoting. Anyway, Gn.
> > Moravius, going
> > back to the NR archieves didnt stop you when you reposted my
> > resignation statement
> > so why are you so defensive now that I use against Formy and Vado?
> > Turnabout isnt
> > fair play I see! Well it should be. Besides dont you think the
> > People should read
> > the ENTIRE article? Not the selective partial quotes your Pater and
> > Consular
> > candidate posted!
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor
> >
> > Gian G Reali wrote:
> >
> > > Salve Sulla et omnes Quirites
> > >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976475638/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Live Debate Blues...
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:52:33 -0000

Salvete, Omnes,

For some reason I misread the information on the live debate
scheduled for today, 12/10. I'd informed the organizers that I would
be available in the early afternoon... and thought the scheduling had
been set for 1 to 3 PM Eastern Standard Time.

I must have missed a reply Email somewhere, and didn't catch the fact
that the debate will be from 3 to 6 PM. Patricia Cassia and I are
preparing for an Epona ritual this evening, and it is unlikely that I
will be able to attend the live debate at the later time.

If anyone has questions for me I'll of course be happy to respond on
the main list. My apologies to all for being unable to attend the
live debate, as I had been planning for several days to do!

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Candidate for Consul


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976477958/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	BICURRATUS@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:02:47 EST

EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI

I was speaking of general principle, not about whether being transgendered is
a disability.

The point, at least in the UK's legislation, is that some disabled people
would never have a driving licence because they are unable to drive. To stay
within the law, if macronational proof of identity was required to join NR it
would have to be something that everyone gets such as a Social Security
number. I cannot imagine the ADA being different to this but I don't know.

Besides, in the UK driver's licences don't have pictures. It would make them
look too much like European identity cards! The UK is vehemently opposed to
any form of ID card.

Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus


[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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976478573/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:17:36 -0800

BICURRATUS@-------- wrote:

> EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
>
> I was speaking of general principle, not about whether being transgendered is
> a disability.
>

Thats fine.

>
> The point, at least in the UK's legislation, is that some disabled people
> would never have a driving licence because they are unable to drive. To stay
> within the law, if macronational proof of identity was required to join NR it
> would have to be something that everyone gets such as a Social Security
> number. I cannot imagine the ADA being different to this but I don't know.
>

In the US, disabled People who cannot drive can get an identification form that
looks (at least in California) very similar to a license. I am sure other states
have apporpriate identification forms, my mom has one...since she is disabled.
Social Security cards are NOT sufficient becuase all they have is a name and
Number. Nothing else...(I am looking at mine right now.)

>
> Besides, in the UK driver's licences don't have pictures. It would make them
> look too much like European identity cards! The UK is vehemently opposed to
> any form of ID card.
>

Pictures arenot necessary. Gender identification is. If your macronational
residence recognizes you as a man...then you have a male gender name. If you are
registered as a woman you have a woman's name. If Lucia Maria becomes a British
Citizen and they recongize her as a man, I will be the first to change her
information over in the database. But, to date I have received no documentation.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

>
> Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
>
> [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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976479157/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] CONCORDIA
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:16:34 +0100

Salvete Quiritibus
et Salve Sexte,

I agree 100% with you and would like to express my feelings about the posts
of the last few days.

I am not involded into candidacies for the current elections, yet I consider
myself involved in the political life of NR. I think voting is utterly
important : this is the basic right of every citizen but it is also a duty
to express one's opinion via elections.

I cannot prevent myself from thinking that the young republic of Nova Roma
seems not to have learned from the Past and the Present of political
systems' running of elections. This electoral campaign, full of petty
discussions, shows every sign of what is absolutely unnecessary in political
life : personnal attacks, insinuation and so on... To put it in an nutshell,
it is always easier to break one's opponent's reputation down than to be
fully honnest and integer. Moreover, the kind of behavior underlined by
these meaningless arguments seems totally in opposition with the Roman
Values we are supposed to share.

I may be idealist, but I think that the debate should have been better if
these unconstructive discussions didn't occured. I thus quickly get
disinterested by the whole discussion and I probably (certainly) missed
some constructive ideas and discussions. I think I am not alone in that case
and that's a pitty.

All that is a bad omen for constructive political involvement into NR. And
whoever took part into these petty arguments sould'nt be surprised by
disinterest of the majority for political matters.

As a conclusion, I'd like to make a public call for CONCORDIA as Sextus
Appolonius Draco did. Let human nature be transcended by Sapientia Romana.

Valete Bene
Dei vobis ament

I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae.



S. Apollonius Draco wrote about CONCORDIA


"...Polarization or division over things aren't good. Thus far, most
Novaromani will agree with me. Everyone here likes to present oneself as an
independant individual with independant opinions, whether backed up by
friends/allies or not. This is good.

But during the past few weeks I've seen an annoying pestilence here.
This list has been full of misinterpretations, unconstructive discussions
and inflammatory posts. To what purpose? To divide? One may hope not. But
things get really nasty when other cry "you are divising us", whilst not
proposing better things themselves. Everyone is so good at giving criticism
on one another, but constructive criticism? Many times not. Justified
criticism? Perhaps. But if you cry "division" in response to a posting, you
are only enlarging the gap yourself, rather than helping to solve the
problem.

100% concodria will never exist, and that's good, too. But at least,
let us respect each other in different opinions, rather than continuously
picking on each other with silly arguments that make no sense. However,
don't let anyone be offended personally by this posting. I just want to
express here that I am tired of all this demagoguery here."




-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976479446/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] CONCORDIA
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:41:31 -0800

Ave,

Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia, especially after you did this post?

ubject:
Truth (was re: [novaroma] Re: The Cursus Honorum)
Date:
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:50:43 +0100
From:
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
To:
<novaroma@-------->
References:
1




Salvete, omnes et Censor Sulla,

(Despite the fact that I may seem hot-headed here in this e-mail, don't take
my words too gravely. Count to ten and breathe in slowly. Then let the
stress flow away)

I take it that you are a man who, I hope, is not afraid to play hard. Before
I move on to the main body of my e-mail here, let me first state here that I
see through your attempts of making pater Formosanus such a controversial
topic here that you are prepared to do anything to destroy his reputation.
The problem is that the mistakes he has made in the past (I am willing to
admit that he has made his share of mistakes, yes) are nothing compared to
your mistakes. Although I consider you a highly adequate administrational
Censor, and a very engaged and active one, too, personally I believe that
you are a liar, and ethically you have doubtful morals.

Don't even think of hiding yourself behind all sorts of false pretexts to
deny my paterfamilias any office here other than your deep hatred and
revenge you feel for him. Proof:

- In the discussion regarding the Reprimand to Lucius Marius, you
persisted on humiliating him continuously, which was witnessed by everyone
who was involved in that mailing loop, offlist. As you consider it unethical
to post any excerpts from private messages publically, anyone can send me a
private message to obtain these quotes. No matter what the context was,
Sulla, you have gone way out of line back then in your harassment. And you
are a two-faced liar if you say that you have reasons for your scepticism
towards pater Formosanus other than pursueing your own personal goals of
revenge.
- When I sent a reply at the end of the Reprimand affair to say once
again that you went way out of line, you never replied. Instead, silence
fell. A great man is he who dares to admit when he is wrong and when he
another person is right. Instead you opted for a vengeful silence.
- Idem dito for the mailing loop of the Committee on the Sodalitas
Musarum. You have litterally called my pater a "prick". As I understand that
not everyone can like everyone, do keep your personal feeling unconnected
with your political motives - a thing which you have failed to do so far. No
excuse is vaild for engaging in a petty, demeaning name-calling.
- When I replied to you in that Musarum affair that you had gone out of
line, you quickly recoiled and rationalized your arguments. But being
accused by other men here of using hollow rhetorics, I see through false
reasons equally. And you have NEVER apologized for any of those two grave
and serious insults!
- When I recently questioned you for your deeper reasons why the office
of Praetor should be denied to my pater, you never replied (or I was taken
out of that loop). Are you afriad to face the truth? Are you afraid to admit
what you have done?
- You are using anything right now within your power to suffocate the
candidacy of my pater; you are using the neutral Dignitas Forum as some sort
of image of barbarianism, you use the Amici as some sort cannon fodder to
shoot at Formosanus, and you are willfully omitting facts. But you fail to
reckon with what we know, too.

Despite any circumstance, and any sort of feeling you may have felt which is
understandable, if you are truly one of the great men of New Rome, you
should stop trying to masque your mistakes, and either present your
vengeance in public, or stop acting so childish. We know that the only real
faction ever to exist here in Nova Roma was *yours*. A faction is secret -
the Amici Dignitatis are not a secret. And I would not try to twist my words
in this e-mail, Sulla, because I'm backed up with more than enough proof
that could kill any twist of my words in a heartbeat. They are what they
are.

Patricia Cassia, I owe you my apologies, for I may have started something
here that is more vicious than it is nice. But truth is truth. And I had a
deep urge to share it with the Quirites - often truth is not nice nor
polite. I am deeply sorry, and I hope no one will take too much offence.

Valete omnes!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
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
--**--

____

I see....

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma


"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:

> Salvete Novaromani,
>
> Instead of opting to respond to several threads here which I am involved in, I'd like to address all of the citizenry here, and especially the politically concerned Quirites.
>
> Polarization or division over things aren't good. Thus far, most Novaromani will agree with me. Everyone here likes to present oneself as an independant individual with independant opinions, whether backed up by friends/allies or not. This is good.
>
> But during the past few weeks I've seen an annoying pestilence here. This list has been full of misinterpretations, unconstructive discussions and inflammatory posts. To what purpose? To divide? One may hope not. But things get really nasty when other cry "you are divising us", whilst not proposing better things themselves. Everyone is so good at giving criticism on one another, but constructive criticism? Many times not. Justified criticism? Perhaps. But if you cry "division" in response to a posting, you are only enlarging the gap yourself, rather than helping to solve the problem.
>
> 100% concodria will never exist, and that's good, too. But at least, let us respect each other in different opinions, rather than continuously picking on each other with silly arguments that make no sense. However, don't let anyone be offended personally by this posting. I just want to express here that I am tired of all this demagoguery here.
>
> Valete bene!
> Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> << PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
> Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> Procurator Galliae,
> Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
> --**--
> 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
> Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
>
> [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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976480613/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	VERITAS :-) Re: [novaroma] CONCORDIA
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:46:20 +0100

Salve Sulla,

Veritas goes above Concordia.

Vale,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
<< PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
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
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976481315/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	"natasha Aiken" <natashaaiken@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:08:19 -0000

Salve!

> Besides, in the UK driver's licences don't have pictures. It would
make them
> look too much like European identity cards! The UK is vehemently
opposed to
> any form of ID card.
>

Although not entirely relevant to your point, so please excuse me,
but I think the new driving licences DO have photographs.

vale,

Natalia











--- In novaroma@--------, BICURRATUS@a... wrote:
> EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
>
> I was speaking of general principle, not about whether being
transgendered is
> a disability.
>
> The point, at least in the UK's legislation, is that some disabled
people
> would never have a driving licence because they are unable to
drive. To stay
> within the law, if macronational proof of identity was required to
join NR it
> would have to be something that everyone gets such as a Social
Security
> number. I cannot imagine the ADA being different to this but I
don't know.
>
> Besides, in the UK driver's licences don't have pictures. It would
make them
> look too much like European identity cards! The UK is vehemently
opposed to
> any form of ID card.
>
> Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976482510/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: CONCORDIA
From:	"natasha Aiken" <natashaaiken@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:23:39 -0000

Salve Sulla,

> Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia,
especially after you did this post?
>

What is more important, the message or the messenger? Concordia
should be something we all aspire too.

vale,

Natalia







--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia,
especially after you did this post?
>
> ubject:
> Truth (was re: [novaroma] Re: The Cursus Honorum)
> Date:
> Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:50:43 +0100
> From:
> "S. A--------onius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
> To:
> <novaroma@-------->
> References:
> 1
>
>
>
>
> Salvete, omnes et Censor Sulla,
>
> (Despite the fact that I may seem hot-headed here in this e-mail,
don't take
> my words too gravely. Count to ten and breathe in slowly. Then let
the
> stress flow away)
>
> I take it that you are a man who, I hope, is not afraid to play
hard. Before
> I move on to the main body of my e-mail here, let me first state
here that I
> see through your attempts of making pater Formosanus such a
controversial
> topic here that you are prepared to do anything to destroy his
reputation.
> The problem is that the mistakes he has made in the past (I am
willing to
> admit that he has made his share of mistakes, yes) are nothing
compared to
> your mistakes. Although I consider you a highly adequate
administrational
> Censor, and a very engaged and active one, too, personally I
believe that
> you are a liar, and ethically you have doubtful morals.
>
> Don't even think of hiding yourself behind all sorts of false
pretexts to
> deny my paterfamilias any office here other than your deep hatred
and
> revenge you feel for him. Proof:
>
> - In the discussion regarding the Reprimand to Lucius Marius, you
> persisted on humiliating him continuously, which was witnessed by
everyone
> who was involved in that mailing loop, offlist. As you consider it
unethical
> to post any excerpts from private messages publically, anyone can
send me a
> private message to obtain these quotes. No matter what the context
was,
> Sulla, you have gone way out of line back then in your harassment.
And you
> are a two-faced liar if you say that you have reasons for your
scepticism
> towards pater Formosanus other than pursueing your own personal
goals of
> revenge.
> - When I sent a reply at the end of the Reprimand affair to say
once
> again that you went way out of line, you never replied. Instead,
silence
> fell. A great man is he who dares to admit when he is wrong and
when he
> another person is right. Instead you opted for a vengeful silence.
> - Idem dito for the mailing loop of the Committee on the
Sodalitas
> Musarum. You have litterally called my pater a "prick". As I
understand that
> not everyone can like everyone, do keep your personal feeling
unconnected
> with your political motives - a thing which you have failed to do
so far. No
> excuse is vaild for engaging in a petty, demeaning name-calling.
> - When I replied to you in that Musarum affair that you had gone
out of
> line, you quickly recoiled and rationalized your arguments. But
being
> accused by other men here of using hollow rhetorics, I see through
false
> reasons equally. And you have NEVER apologized for any of those two
grave
> and serious insults!
> - When I recently questioned you for your deeper reasons why the
office
> of Praetor should be denied to my pater, you never replied (or I
was taken
> out of that loop). Are you afriad to face the truth? Are you afraid
to admit
> what you have done?
> - You are using anything right now within your power to
suffocate the
> candidacy of my pater; you are using the neutral Dignitas Forum as
some sort
> of image of barbarianism, you use the Amici as some sort cannon
fodder to
> shoot at Formosanus, and you are willfully omitting facts. But you
fail to
> reckon with what we know, too.
>
> Despite any circumstance, and any sort of feeling you may have felt
which is
> understandable, if you are truly one of the great men of New Rome,
you
> should stop trying to masque your mistakes, and either present your
> vengeance in public, or stop acting so childish. We know that the
only real
> faction ever to exist here in Nova Roma was *yours*. A faction is
secret -
> the Amici Dignitatis are not a secret. And I would not try to twist
my words
> in this e-mail, Sulla, because I'm backed up with more than enough
proof
> that could kill any twist of my words in a heartbeat. They are what
they
> are.
>
> Patricia Cassia, I owe you my apologies, for I may have started
something
> here that is more vicious than it is nice. But truth is truth. And
I had a
> deep urge to share it with the Quirites - often truth is not nice
nor
> polite. I am deeply sorry, and I hope no one will take too much
offence.
>
> Valete omnes!
> Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> Procurator Galliae,
> 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
> --**--
>
> ____
>
> I see....
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
>
>
> "S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
>
> > Salvete Novaromani,
> >
> > Instead of opting to respond to several threads here which
I am involved in, I'd like to address all of the citizenry here, and
especially the politically concerned Quirites.
> >
> > Polarization or division over things aren't good. Thus far,
most Novaromani will agree with me. Everyone here likes to present
oneself as an independant individual with independant opinions,
whether backed up by friends/allies or not. This is good.
> >
> > But during the past few weeks I've seen an annoying
pestilence here. This list has been full of misinterpretations,
unconstructive discussions and inflammatory posts. To what purpose?
To divide? One may hope not. But things get really nasty when other
cry "you are divising us", whilst not proposing better things
themselves. Everyone is so good at giving criticism on one another,
but constructive criticism? Many times not. Justified criticism?
Perhaps. But if you cry "division" in response to a posting, you are
only enlarging the gap yourself, rather than helping to solve the
problem.
> >
> > 100% concodria will never exist, and that's good, too. But
at least, let us respect each other in different opinions, rather
than continuously picking on each other with silly arguments that
make no sense. However, don't let anyone be offended personally by
this posting. I just want to express here that I am tired of all this
demagoguery here.
> >
> > Valete bene!
> > Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> > << PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
> > Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> > Procurator Galliae,
> > Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
> > --**--
> > 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
> > Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
> >
> > [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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976483432/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: CONCORDIA
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:36:50 -0800

natasha Aiken wrote:

> Salve Sulla,
>
> > Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia,
> especially after you did this post?
> >
>
> What is more important, the message or the messenger? Concordia
> should be something we all aspire too.
>

I think both questions are equally relevant (The person who authors the post
calling for the Virtues and the message of the Virtues itself). When a
conversation gets to distasteful for one...immediately they start summoning
the virtues....Interesting. Just an observation on my part. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


>
> vale,
>
> Natalia
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia,
> especially after you did this post?
> >
> > ubject:
> > Truth (was re: [novaroma] Re: The Cursus Honorum)
> > Date:
> > Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:50:43 +0100
> > From:
> > "S. A--------onius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
> > To:
> > <novaroma@-------->
> > References:
> > 1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete, omnes et Censor Sulla,
> >
> > (Despite the fact that I may seem hot-headed here in this e-mail,
> don't take
> > my words too gravely. Count to ten and breathe in slowly. Then let
> the
> > stress flow away)
> >
> > I take it that you are a man who, I hope, is not afraid to play
> hard. Before
> > I move on to the main body of my e-mail here, let me first state
> here that I
> > see through your attempts of making pater Formosanus such a
> controversial
> > topic here that you are prepared to do anything to destroy his
> reputation.
> > The problem is that the mistakes he has made in the past (I am
> willing to
> > admit that he has made his share of mistakes, yes) are nothing
> compared to
> > your mistakes. Although I consider you a highly adequate
> administrational
> > Censor, and a very engaged and active one, too, personally I
> believe that
> > you are a liar, and ethically you have doubtful morals.
> >
> > Don't even think of hiding yourself behind all sorts of false
> pretexts to
> > deny my paterfamilias any office here other than your deep hatred
> and
> > revenge you feel for him. Proof:
> >
> > - In the discussion regarding the Reprimand to Lucius Marius, you
> > persisted on humiliating him continuously, which was witnessed by
> everyone
> > who was involved in that mailing loop, offlist. As you consider it
> unethical
> > to post any excerpts from private messages publically, anyone can
> send me a
> > private message to obtain these quotes. No matter what the context
> was,
> > Sulla, you have gone way out of line back then in your harassment.
> And you
> > are a two-faced liar if you say that you have reasons for your
> scepticism
> > towards pater Formosanus other than pursueing your own personal
> goals of
> > revenge.
> > - When I sent a reply at the end of the Reprimand affair to say
> once
> > again that you went way out of line, you never replied. Instead,
> silence
> > fell. A great man is he who dares to admit when he is wrong and
> when he
> > another person is right. Instead you opted for a vengeful silence.
> > - Idem dito for the mailing loop of the Committee on the
> Sodalitas
> > Musarum. You have litterally called my pater a "prick". As I
> understand that
> > not everyone can like everyone, do keep your personal feeling
> unconnected
> > with your political motives - a thing which you have failed to do
> so far. No
> > excuse is vaild for engaging in a petty, demeaning name-calling.
> > - When I replied to you in that Musarum affair that you had gone
> out of
> > line, you quickly recoiled and rationalized your arguments. But
> being
> > accused by other men here of using hollow rhetorics, I see through
> false
> > reasons equally. And you have NEVER apologized for any of those two
> grave
> > and serious insults!
> > - When I recently questioned you for your deeper reasons why the
> office
> > of Praetor should be denied to my pater, you never replied (or I
> was taken
> > out of that loop). Are you afriad to face the truth? Are you afraid
> to admit
> > what you have done?
> > - You are using anything right now within your power to
> suffocate the
> > candidacy of my pater; you are using the neutral Dignitas Forum as
> some sort
> > of image of barbarianism, you use the Amici as some sort cannon
> fodder to
> > shoot at Formosanus, and you are willfully omitting facts. But you
> fail to
> > reckon with what we know, too.
> >
> > Despite any circumstance, and any sort of feeling you may have felt
> which is
> > understandable, if you are truly one of the great men of New Rome,
> you
> > should stop trying to masque your mistakes, and either present your
> > vengeance in public, or stop acting so childish. We know that the
> only real
> > faction ever to exist here in Nova Roma was *yours*. A faction is
> secret -
> > the Amici Dignitatis are not a secret. And I would not try to twist
> my words
> > in this e-mail, Sulla, because I'm backed up with more than enough
> proof
> > that could kill any twist of my words in a heartbeat. They are what
> they
> > are.
> >
> > Patricia Cassia, I owe you my apologies, for I may have started
> something
> > here that is more vicious than it is nice. But truth is truth. And
> I had a
> > deep urge to share it with the Quirites - often truth is not nice
> nor
> > polite. I am deeply sorry, and I hope no one will take too much
> offence.
> >
> > Valete omnes!
> > Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> > Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> > Procurator Galliae,
> > 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
> > --**--
> >
> > ____
> >
> > I see....
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor of Nova Roma
> >
> >
> > "S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
> >
> > > Salvete Novaromani,
> > >
> > > Instead of opting to respond to several threads here which
> I am involved in, I'd like to address all of the citizenry here, and
> especially the politically concerned Quirites.
> > >
> > > Polarization or division over things aren't good. Thus far,
> most Novaromani will agree with me. Everyone here likes to present
> oneself as an independant individual with independant opinions,
> whether backed up by friends/allies or not. This is good.
> > >
> > > But during the past few weeks I've seen an annoying
> pestilence here. This list has been full of misinterpretations,
> unconstructive discussions and inflammatory posts. To what purpose?
> To divide? One may hope not. But things get really nasty when other
> cry "you are divising us", whilst not proposing better things
> themselves. Everyone is so good at giving criticism on one another,
> but constructive criticism? Many times not. Justified criticism?
> Perhaps. But if you cry "division" in response to a posting, you are
> only enlarging the gap yourself, rather than helping to solve the
> problem.
> > >
> > > 100% concodria will never exist, and that's good, too. But
> at least, let us respect each other in different opinions, rather
> than continuously picking on each other with silly arguments that
> make no sense. However, don't let anyone be offended personally by
> this posting. I just want to express here that I am tired of all this
> demagoguery here.
> > >
> > > Valete bene!
> > > Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
> > > << PETITOR AEDILIS PLEBIS >>
> > > Legatus Galliae Borealis,
> > > Procurator Galliae,
> > > Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
> > > --**--
> > > 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
> > > Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
> > > http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum
> > >
> > > [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/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976483983/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: CONCORDIA
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:34:23 +0100

Salve Sulla,

> > > Its amazing to me...that you of all people called for Concordia,
> > especially after you did this post?
> > >
> >
> > What is more important, the message or the messenger? Concordia
> > should be something we all aspire too.
> >
>
> I think both questions are equally relevant (The person who authors the
post
> calling for the Virtues and the message of the Virtues itself). When a
> conversation gets to distasteful for one...immediately they start
summoning
> the virtues....Interesting. Just an observation on my part. :)

This might be a correct observation. But what is wrong with calling for the
virtues when they are most needed?

Vale,
Draco


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976484196/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: RE: [novaroma] Offensive Divisions?
From:	JustiniaCassia@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:33:09 EST

In a message dated 12/10/0 12:16:50 PM, justicecmo@-------- writes:

<< One is certainly a touchy issue (interestingly enough though, apparently
not
for the ONE citizen it effects, but I digress.), and the other is a set of
outrageous lies and appalling attempts at literally diving our nation into
US vs. THEM. I refuse to be so categorized, and I am proud to say that I
believe the vast majority of our cives are intelligent enough not to allow
themselves to be so pigeon-holed either. >>

On a practical level, the edict also affects potential citizens. On a moral
level, when a law adversely affects even one Nova Roman citizen, it adversely
affects us all. If you believe an injustice is being done to even one
citizen, are you not be obliged to speak up on that person's behalf?

The "only one person" argument has been made before, and I find it
particularly disheartening. Gods help me if I ever find myself in the
position of being "only one person."

Iustinia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976487595/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Selective Quoting (was Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue)
From:	JustiniaCassia@--------
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:33:20 EST

One of the objections raised by Festus was that the author of the text stated
that his research MAY indicate that certain types of people represented a
third gender in Ancient Rome. Festus seemed to be suggesting that if the
research were sound, the author would have stated that certain types of
people were, indeed, without a doubt, a third gender, and that Vado was
remiss in presenting the research as indicative of the existence of a third
gender in Ancient Rome.

Today most scholars will not flatly state that they possess the definitive
truth about a particular subject, even one which they have studied in depth.
To do so would be seen as an arrogant attempt to stifle the fertile debate
that is part of ongoing scholarship. All scholarly research is subject to
being reviewed, revised and updated as knowledge increases.

This type of semantic hair-splitting reminds me of one of my students who
turned in a 3 page paper when a 4-5 page paper was required. When I asked
her about this, she replied, "Well, you said the assignment SHOULD be 4-5
pages, not that it MUST be 4-5 pages."

Well, perhaps I SHOULD have given her an A, but I didn't.

Iustinia Cassia

In a message dated 12/10/0 2:21:05 PM, alexious@-------- writes:

<< Ave,

I am referring to the Selective quoting of the Text. Sure he gives proper
citing for it...but it is still selective quoting. So, my question is
Selective
Quoting Plagerism? When I was in college when a professor found a student
selective quoting it was almost up to the professor to determine if it was
plagerism because essentially the student was mainpulating the book. Which is
exactly what Vado did.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma >>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976487627/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Pro Sextus on Gender Issue
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:14:06 -0500

Salvete!

Sulla responded to Bicurratus that

>Actually no its not illegal under the ADA, I researched it with some
friends of
>mine who are ADA experts. :) <

I agree with Sulla (perhaps unusually!) on this. The ADA expressly excludes
transsexuality etc. I haven't looked up the UK DDA, but I would guess the
same would be true. There might well have been an illegality under the EU
Sex Discrimination legislation, but this is carefully provided for in the
current version of the Edict by express exemptions.

this was always a secondary issue. The fundamental objections to the Edict
are 1. Legal gender name control is UNNECESSARY bureaucratic regulation. 2.
The pretensions to romanitas of this Edict are false, since there was no
legal regulation of names in Roma Antiqua, and the whole agenda of legal
gender name control is a modern political agenda. 3. The justifications for
its "romanitas" which were and still are put forward amount to an agenda of
reconstructing roman SOCIAL norms, which were based on slavery, patria
potestas and clientela and are clearly inconsistent with the express terms
of NR's Constitution. 4. It was improper in a matter of this type which is
one of long-term policy to proceed otherwise than through the Comitia.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976490075/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: RE: [novaroma] Offensive Divisions?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:15:31 -0500

Salve,

> The "only one person" argument has been made before, and I find it
> particularly disheartening. Gods help me if I ever find myself in the
> position of being "only one person."
>
> Iustinia Cassia

I do believe my point was missed in the original posting. :) I, at NO
time, have ever espoused that an injustice done to only one individual was
an acceptable injustice. The one and only reason the "one person" was even
mentioned in my post was the interesting fact that the alleged "injustice"
in question is not seen as one by the person directly affected.


Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976490278/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->