Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] To Sergius Australicus
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:56:18 -0800

Salvete Sergi Australice et omnes

> For the benefit of the newer citizens who have not perused our
>Constitution, let me explain. A Senatus consultum ultimatum gives
>authority to one individual to act as a Dictator. Nova Roma is not even
>three years old yet and every time some disagreement arises, the
solution
>offered is to call for a dictator to save the privileges of a select at
>the expense of others. For you newer citizens, welcome to Nova Roma
>politics, because this is becoming an annual event.

Gn. Moravius Piscinus, this is simply untrue and you know it. In the
spirit of Concordia I call upon you to retract this misstatement if you
have not already done so.

Respondeo:

I do retract my statement. In making some observations I did mistakely
state that a SCU equated with the imposition of a Dictator.
Further, I apologize to Nova Roma, its citizens and its magistrates for
comments I had made in this post.

Bene valete

Cn. Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis


Subject:	[novaroma] VOTING HAS STARTED!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:46:32 -0600

22 Jan 2001

Salve All

The time has come to vote! So please go to the following link, and if you would be so kind, vote for Quintus Sertorius for Quaestor! http://www.--------/cursus_honorum/voting/ If you do not have your Voters Codes please email the Censors at the following link. censors@-------- <censors@--------> Don't forget. VOTE SERTORIUS!

Vale

Quintus Sertorius

Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Tribune
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:29:56 -0600

How is it that I could try to run for tribune? I fit the requirements
and I have been working on my Latin.

Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	VMoeller@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:06:33 EST

Ave Cives:

Our esteemed brother has an idea worthy of pursuit. I find it
laborious to organize the growing numbers of messages into priorities for
immediate response, action at a later time, communiques from collegues
deserving acknowledgement, and those matters which I shall classify as "info
only".

Thank you Domitius Constantinus Fuscus!!

---Secunda Cornelia Valeria


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:44:12 -0600 (CST)

Salve Secunda Cornelia,

> Our esteemed brother has an idea worthy of pursuit. I find it
> laborious to organize the growing numbers of messages into priorities for
> immediate response, action at a later time, communiques from collegues
> deserving acknowledgement, and those matters which I shall classify as "info
> only".

I disagree. Newsgroups are prone to spam, and difficult to get on your local
server unless they are of general interest. Web interfaces are generally
horrid, whether HTML or Java.

Mail is convenient. It arrives immediately, you don't have to go out and
look for it. You can read and reply with any program you want. (some
people use Eudora; some use Netscape; some use Redmond-ware; I use pine
and vi). Plenty of tools for filtering are available. You don't have
to keep establishing network connections while reading, to move on to
the next message; rather, it's there, it loads instantaneously. Email
works anywhere, whether you're on a high-end Sparc server or on a
286 running DOS.

Consider that we've had a web-based message board for several years, that
has precisely the kind of sorting into topics that was called for. It gets
almost no use; one message or day or less, on average.

Mail is the ideal tool for these communications. The volume of messages
here isn't so bad, usually, it's just high when there's some sort of
fight going on; when this blows over it'll settle down to a manageable
volume.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] extra-national antagonisms (was The Disputed Islands)
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:45:03 EST

Salve Publius Claudius

As a fellow affiliate of the Commonwealth (Aussie by birth and
inclination) I understand full well the UK arguments for sovereignty over
these islands, but I suspect that loyal Argentinians could make similar
arguments. The things is that here we are all Nova Romans.

We're good enough at dividing ourselves up and squabbling among ourselves
- can we at least agree to leave macronational hostilties out of here?

I guess what I'm presuming to say here is, please don't post this kind of
thing in the Forum. If you want to wage the Falklands War over again,
please do it outside of Nova Roma, in private email or at least in some
other venue than our Republic here. In this place we need to learn to
live together (or, as the song says, "we'll die alone").

I was a little discomfitted when the joking about the Falklands started,
because I feared it was going to develop into this. Without intending to
offend, may I suggest that we all agree to stop it at this point?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/22/01 3:54 PM BICURRATUS@-------- (BICURRATUS@--------) wrote:

>EX DOMO PUBLII CLAUDII LUCENTII SEVERI BICURRATI
>
>> Remember that British usurpated the islands in January 1833 throwing
>> out the argentine governor of the islands. So islanders are a
>> consequence of that usurpation. And my macronation never resigned its
>>
>
>I promised myself not to get involved in this but Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>went too far. Thought the Americans would like to know how they got tangled
>up in this too. Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office (whole section on
>Falkland Islands at www.fco.gov.uk)
>
>The Spanish settlement on East Falkland was withdrawn in 1811, leaving the
>Islands without inhabitants or any form of government. In November 1820,
>Colonel Daniel Jewett, an American national, claimed formal possession of
>the
>Islands in the name of the Government of Buenos Aires, but only stayed on
>the
>Islands for a few days. At the time, the Government of Buenos Aires, which
>had declared independence from Spain in 1816, was not recognised by Britain
>or any other foreign power. No act of occupation followed Jewett,Aos visit
>and
>the Islands remained without effective government.
>
>On 10 June 1829, the Buenos Aires Government issued a decree setting forth
>its rights, purportedly derived from the Spanish Viceroyalty of La Plata,
>and
>purported to place the Islands under the control of a political and military
>governor, Louis Vernet. Britain protested that the terms of the decree
>infringed British sovereignty over the Islands, which she had never
>relinquished.
>
>In 1831, a United States warship, the Lexington, destroyed the fort at
>Puerto
>de la Soledad as a reprisal for the arrest of three American vessels by
>Vernet, who was attempting to establish control over sealing in the Islands.
>The captain of the Lexington declared the Falklands free from all government
>and they remained once again without visible authority until September 1832,
>when the Government of Buenos Aires appointed Juan Mestivier as Civil and
>Political Governor on an interim basis. The British Government once again
>protested to the Buenos Aires Government that this appointment infringed
>British sovereignty over the Islands. Mestivier sailed to the Falklands at
>the end of 1832 and was murdered shortly after his arrival by his own
>soldiers.
>
>In January 1833, after receiving instructions to visit the Islands to
>exercise British rights of sovereignty, the British warship HMS Clio arrived
>at Puerto de la Soledad and requested that the Argentines leave. British
>occupation was therefore resumed and the Islands were administered by a
>naval
>officer.
>
>In 1841, a civil Lieutenant Governor was appointed and, in 1843, the civil
>administration was put on a permanent footing by an Act of the British
>Parliament.
>
>Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
>Procurator Britanniae
>

certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.

(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)


Subject:	[novaroma] Curator Differum
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:53:24 -0500

Salvete

I, Helena Galeria Aureliana, come before you in the white toga candida and
announce
that I wish to stand for election as Curator Differum.

I am fairly new here, but I have a lot of journalistic experience. My total
Public Affairs experience totals approximately 20 years, including the Navy,
Army (civilian) & Naval Reserve.

I was editor of the SeaBee Courier (as a Navy Journalist, active duty) -
this was a 16-page tabloid bi-weekly commercial enterprise paper (had ads)
which I put together & for which I won an award (CHINFO). This was my trial
by fire, in that I had to use wax to cut/paste (we're talking about the Dark
Ages here, that is Before Computers).

I have since worked on newsletters using Adobe Desktop Publisher (with
Macs), Microsoft Publisher & Powerpoint. I currently have a newsletter for
my local coven (on hold this last year due to Teenager Problems, which have
been resolved with said child going to live with dad). I have Front Page
for this, as it's online.

I've had many articles published in various military house organs, and in
some local (Asheville) trade organs - publicity for my Middle Eastern Dance
group, etc. I am a published writer as well (short stories & poetry), with
a Masters in English (helped me as a Navy Yeoman, when I had to correct the
Admiral's grammar!!)

Valete,
Helena Galeria Aureliana
(Teleri)

.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Domitius Constantinus Fuscus <flyke@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:30:50 +0100

Salve

>I disagree. Newsgroups are prone to spam, and difficult to get on your local
>server unless they are of general interest. Web interfaces are generally
>horrid, whether HTML or Java.

Umm... newsgroups are prone to spam only if a) open b) public c)
unmoderated in any way
Having to provide the voting code to access the newsgroup would avoid any
kind of external spam.
Web interfaces have made leaps forwards in the last years.

>Mail is convenient. It arrives immediately, you don't have to go out and
>look for it.

Yeah, but you have to skim it all, want it or not. Web-based newsgroup have
messages arriving in real time as emails and, if linked to the website,
would bring more visits to that, which would be a good thing by itself

>You can read and reply with any program you want. (some
>people use Eudora; some use Netscape; some use Redmond-ware; I use pine
>and vi).

dozens of newsreaders as well, gravity being excellent.. in case of
web-based newsgroups, any browser

> Plenty of tools for filtering are available.

also in newsreaders programs, where, also, a filter is made already by how
they messages are ordered.. think just about the series of leges posted
recently.. here, the discussion became a general "liberticide" against
"nothing special".. on a newsreader every lex would have had a separate
thread where they would have been analyzed and discussed separately, with
more order and insights

>You don't have
>to keep establishing network connections while reading, to move on to
>the next message;

Newsreaders have the "dowload bodies of messages" you download them all
together, as emails

>rather, it's there, it loads instantaneously. Email
>works anywhere, whether you're on a high-end Sparc server or on a
>286 running DOS.

just as news do. Newsreaders aren't fancy graphic-animated programs, they
run on just any computer

>Consider that we've had a web-based message board for several years, that
>has precisely the kind of sorting into topics that was called for. It gets
>almost no use; one message or day or less, on average.

well, I admit I haven't been here for several years but maybe it could have
been that population was way smaller?

>Mail is the ideal tool for these communications. The volume of messages
>here isn't so bad, usually, it's just high when there's some sort of
>fight going on; when this blows over it'll settle down to a manageable
>volume.

900+ messages every month (last two months average) with peaks of over 1200
is a manageable volume?
gee, maybe I'm more than averagely slow or stupid or the fact english isn't
my native language makes me slow in read mails, but it seems to me that
they are a bit too much to be handled with mail readers while it would be
just way easier in news-format.

After all, it isn't a case that usually mailing lists are used for quick
spreading of informations and discussion groups are made for.. discussions.
Again, this was brought from the fact that the leges discussion would have
been WAY more civil, calm, constructive and fruitful if it could have been
possible to sort them in a easy way, making separate comments for each one
and replying to each comment and so on... and this, is impossible with
emails, unless you raise the volume from the present 900+ to several
thousands, making it then impossible to sort them.

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:02:27 -0800

Ave!!

Maybe we should have both? Is that possible? How hard would that be....I
know that Consul Fl. Vedius does post on alt.politics.micronations.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus" <flyke@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list

> Salve
>
> >I disagree. Newsgroups are prone to spam, and difficult to get on your
local
> >server unless they are of general interest. Web interfaces are generally
> >horrid, whether HTML or Java.
>
> Umm... newsgroups are prone to spam only if a) open b) public c)
> unmoderated in any way
> Having to provide the voting code to access the newsgroup would avoid any
> kind of external spam.
> Web interfaces have made leaps forwards in the last years.
>
> >Mail is convenient. It arrives immediately, you don't have to go out and
> >look for it.
>
> Yeah, but you have to skim it all, want it or not. Web-based newsgroup
have
> messages arriving in real time as emails and, if linked to the website,
> would bring more visits to that, which would be a good thing by itself
>
> >You can read and reply with any program you want. (some
> >people use Eudora; some use Netscape; some use Redmond-ware; I use pine
> >and vi).
>
> dozens of newsreaders as well, gravity being excellent.. in case of
> web-based newsgroups, any browser
>
>
> > Plenty of tools for filtering are available.
>
> also in newsreaders programs, where, also, a filter is made already by how
> they messages are ordered.. think just about the series of leges posted
> recently.. here, the discussion became a general "liberticide" against
> "nothing special".. on a newsreader every lex would have had a separate
> thread where they would have been analyzed and discussed separately, with
> more order and insights
>
>
> >You don't have
> >to keep establishing network connections while reading, to move on to
> >the next message;
>
> Newsreaders have the "dowload bodies of messages" you download them all
> together, as emails
>
>
> >rather, it's there, it loads instantaneously. Email
> >works anywhere, whether you're on a high-end Sparc server or on a
> >286 running DOS.
>
> just as news do. Newsreaders aren't fancy graphic-animated programs, they
> run on just any computer
>
> >Consider that we've had a web-based message board for several years, that
> >has precisely the kind of sorting into topics that was called for. It
gets
> >almost no use; one message or day or less, on average.
>
> well, I admit I haven't been here for several years but maybe it could
have
> been that population was way smaller?
>
>
> >Mail is the ideal tool for these communications. The volume of messages
> >here isn't so bad, usually, it's just high when there's some sort of
> >fight going on; when this blows over it'll settle down to a manageable
> >volume.
>
>
> 900+ messages every month (last two months average) with peaks of over
1200
> is a manageable volume?
> gee, maybe I'm more than averagely slow or stupid or the fact english
isn't
> my native language makes me slow in read mails, but it seems to me that
> they are a bit too much to be handled with mail readers while it would be
> just way easier in news-format.
>
> After all, it isn't a case that usually mailing lists are used for quick
> spreading of informations and discussion groups are made for..
discussions.
> Again, this was brought from the fact that the leges discussion would have
> been WAY more civil, calm, constructive and fruitful if it could have been
> possible to sort them in a easy way, making separate comments for each one
> and replying to each comment and so on... and this, is impossible with
> emails, unless you raise the volume from the present 900+ to several
> thousands, making it then impossible to sort them.
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:14:04 -0600

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:
>
> 900+ messages every month (last two months average) with peaks of over 1200
> is a manageable volume?
> gee, maybe I'm more than averagely slow or stupid or the fact english isn't
> my native language makes me slow in read mails, but it seems to me that
> they are a bit too much to be handled with mail readers while it would be
> just way easier in news-format.
>

That still only accounts for one or two e-mails per hour on average. I
dont see
a problem with the list as it is so why try to change a good thing? I
like it how
it is, steady without any major transition.

Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:50:36 -0600 (CST)

Salve Luci Corneli,

> Maybe we should have both? Is that possible? How hard would that be....I
> know that Consul Fl. Vedius does post on alt.politics.micronations.

A newsgroup can exist either locally - on one server - or on multiple
servers.

If it's local, one of us would have to set up a news server. I've done
it before, and it's much more difficult than a web or mail server. Then,
everyone would have to configure their newsreader software (trn, nn,
netscape, free agent, etc) to connect to the remote news server. Many
people have never used news before, and would need to be told where
to download a newsreader, and how to configure it. People all over the
world would have to hold open a connection to the one server (most likely
the existing one in Chicago).

With mail, the messages come to your local server, and the sender's server
keeps retrying until there is success. With everyone connecting to a single
news server, if there's some sort of network problem, perhaps the
intercontinental pipes being saturated, everyone would have to wait and
wait.

If, instead, the newsgroup was created globally, people could theoretically
connect to their own ISP's news server and read and post to it there.
However, it's difficult to get newsgroups to be created on thousands of
remote servers; most are configured to ignore newgroup messages and not
create the group until there is a significant amount of traffic on it; or,
it might not be automatic at all, and local users would have to request
that the sysadmins manually add it. Actually talking to a real sysadmin
at a large ISP is next to impossible.

And, if it's global rather than local, we cannot protect it from spammers
and other intruders.

Now, I'm not against Usenet entirely - I've been reading and posting to
Usenet for nearly eleven years, and have been news admin of two ISPs.
But when you have a small community of users who are spread out globally,
and want to have some sort of control over the discussion, and want to
see messages instantaneously as they arrive, a mailing list is ideal.

Vale,
M. Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:08:00 -0600 (CST)

Salve Domiti Constantine,

> Umm... newsgroups are prone to spam only if a) open b) public c)
> unmoderated in any way
> Having to provide the voting code to access the newsgroup would avoid any
> kind of external spam.
> Web interfaces have made leaps forwards in the last years.

But to maintain such control over the newsgroup, it would have to exist
only on one server. It wouldn't be easy to get a moderated group
created across any significant number of usenet servers.

> Yeah, but you have to skim it all, want it or not. Web-based newsgroup have
> messages arriving in real time as emails and,

But for a user to see them arrive, he'd have to maintain a persistent
connection to the news server, possibly a continent away. With mail, it's
always your local pop server you're querying (excepting those who just
read /var/mail/${LOGNAME}, of course :)

> dozens of newsreaders as well, gravity being excellent.. in case of
> web-based newsgroups, any browser

true... but I haven't yet seen a browser-based interface that was
half as good as the commonly-available mail clients.

> just as news do. Newsreaders aren't fancy graphic-animated programs, they
> run on just any computer

true.

> well, I admit I haven't been here for several years but maybe it could have
> been that population was way smaller?

That web-based message board still exists; it's linked to from
novaroma.org/forum_romanum.html . It's not a true newsgroup interface,
it's purely a web-based system, but it does have threading similar to that
found in newsreaders.

> 900+ messages every month (last two months average) with peaks of over 1200
> is a manageable volume?

Personally, I want to see *more* Nova Roma mail! 30 a day is barely enough
to keep me interested!

> gee, maybe I'm more than averagely slow or stupid or the fact english isn't
> my native language makes me slow in read mails, but it seems to me that
> they are a bit too much to be handled with mail readers while it would be
> just way easier in news-format.

If you can apply some sort of filter to sort each mailing list into a folder
of its own (I use procmail for this) it becomes very manageable. If you don't
want to read everything you can just skim the subject lines and delete them.

> Again, this was brought from the fact that the leges discussion would have
> been WAY more civil, calm, constructive and fruitful

We're capable of holding a massive flamewar in *any* medium :)

I must admit, I am against the idea of moving to a newsgroup because
I just don't want to run the server. News servers take longer to set up
and configure than either web or mail servers, and I just don't think it's
worth the bother. But in order to have private spam-free discussions, we'd
need that centralized server, and that's too much work to support.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:35:54 -0700

My two cents:

I dislike newsgroups and prefer the current arrangement.

Livia ----- Aurelia

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> > Maybe we should have both? Is that possible? How hard would that be....I
> > know that Consul Fl. Vedius does post on alt.politics.micronations.
>
> A newsgroup can exist either locally - on one server - or on multiple
> servers.
>
> If it's local, one of us would have to set up a news server. I've done
> it before, and it's much more difficult than a web or mail server. Then,
> everyone would have to configure their newsreader software (trn, nn,
> netscape, free agent, etc) to connect to the remote news server. Many
> people have never used news before, and would need to be told where
> to download a newsreader, and how to configure it. People all over the
> world would have to hold open a connection to the one server (most likely
> the existing one in Chicago).
>
> With mail, the messages come to your local server, and the sender's server
> keeps retrying until there is success. With everyone connecting to a single
> news server, if there's some sort of network problem, perhaps the
> intercontinental pipes being saturated, everyone would have to wait and
> wait.
>
> If, instead, the newsgroup was created globally, people could theoretically
> connect to their own ISP's news server and read and post to it there.
> However, it's difficult to get newsgroups to be created on thousands of
> remote servers; most are configured to ignore newgroup messages and not
> create the group until there is a significant amount of traffic on it; or,
> it might not be automatic at all, and local users would have to request
> that the sysadmins manually add it. Actually talking to a real sysadmin
> at a large ISP is next to impossible.
>
> And, if it's global rather than local, we cannot protect it from spammers
> and other intruders.
>
> Now, I'm not against Usenet entirely - I've been reading and posting to
> Usenet for nearly eleven years, and have been news admin of two ISPs.
> But when you have a small community of users who are spread out globally,
> and want to have some sort of control over the discussion, and want to
> see messages instantaneously as they arrive, a mailing list is ideal.
>
> Vale,
> M. Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:42:24 -0800 (PST)

--- gmvick32@-------- wrote:
> My two cents:
>
> I dislike newsgroups and prefer the current
> arrangement.

I agree.

1. You have to go hunt for them, rather than have
them appear magically in my mail box while I sleep at
night. [This means I usually forget.]

2. I have yet to find one that is adequately
monitored. [This means I have stopped checking the
ones I did participate in, due to irrelevant posts,
abyssmal language, childish insults, and threats
against my son.]

I will not participate in a News Group, NovaRoman or
otherwise.

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:56:02 +0100

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

I second our Curator Aranae Marcus Octavius Germanicus in the question.
Having wide experiences with newsgroups, I consider them more difficult to
handle as mailing-lists. The mailing-list technology is the most convenient
alternative, suitable for all platforms and older computers, and, of course,
for all Novoromani.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor et Senator

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <haase@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list

>
> Salve Secunda Cornelia,
>
> > Our esteemed brother has an idea worthy of pursuit. I find it
> > laborious to organize the growing numbers of messages into priorities
for
> > immediate response, action at a later time, communiques from collegues
> > deserving acknowledgement, and those matters which I shall classify as
"info
> > only".
>
> I disagree. Newsgroups are prone to spam, and difficult to get on your
local
> server unless they are of general interest. Web interfaces are generally
> horrid, whether HTML or Java.
>
> Mail is convenient. It arrives immediately, you don't have to go out and
> look for it. You can read and reply with any program you want. (some
> people use Eudora; some use Netscape; some use Redmond-ware; I use pine
> and vi). Plenty of tools for filtering are available. You don't have
> to keep establishing network connections while reading, to move on to
> the next message; rather, it's there, it loads instantaneously. Email
> works anywhere, whether you're on a high-end Sparc server or on a
> 286 running DOS.
>
> Consider that we've had a web-based message board for several years, that
> has precisely the kind of sorting into topics that was called for. It
gets
> almost no use; one message or day or less, on average.
>
> Mail is the ideal tool for these communications. The volume of messages
> here isn't so bad, usually, it's just high when there's some sort of
> fight going on; when this blows over it'll settle down to a manageable
> volume.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:38:23 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus M. Octavio Germanico S.P.D.

Well, that was a short-lived truce between us! I reply below:

> It is distressing to think that anyone might have even
*thought*
> about a senatus consultum ultimum or dictator to stop the
> duely-elected Tribuni Plebis from conducting a perfectly legal vote

> in the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

No one proposed either of those things. All that's happened is that
someone mentioned the existance of a power of the Senate that
is both Constitutional and historical. If it did not exist, this
would not be Rome. While I'm sure that would make you happy, the
rest of us are here to recreate a ROMAN system.

MAF: A ROMAN system has strong plebeian institutions.

> If they did so, it would be an obvious
> case of factional or class interest (Ordo Senatorius against Ordo
> Popularis)

Against Ordo Amicorum Dignitatis. You may like to think of
yourselves as Popluares, but you're not, as the recent election
clearly demonstrated, the Amici Dignitas lack popular support.

MAF: The Amici were not a party, and that makes elections a poor
measure to estimate their popular support. I think it is a telling
fact that BOTH Tribunes of the People are signers of the Amici
Dignitatis Statement. It does seem to suggest that the Commonality
feels the concerns of the Amici to be close to its heart and has
faith in those who have stood up and publically affirmed these
concerns through their signatures.

> Fortunately the Senate has not done such a thing. And
Australicus
> has assured us that the whole thing was simply due to a purely
> theoretical comment on his part. Good enough!

So you're *aware* that the SCU was not suggested, yet you still try
to use the nonexistant threat to pursue your vendetta against the
Senate.

MAF: Actually I wrote that before reading Australicus' explanation,
and then just modified it with the following words.

> And presumably the
> same legislative programme the Tribuni has proposed, after better
> discussion and minor legislative polishing, will be voted (or not
> voted) into law in February.

Most likely. By far the most serious problem with the recent
proposals was simply that there was no public discussion beforehand.
There were some good ideas in there, but nobody likes surprise
legislation.

MAF: I am also puzzled by that timetable. But it does seem to be the
law, so I suppose that was the reason. I personally favour readoping
the historical discussion period, as has been suggested.

> And once people have become used to the
> Tribuni and the CPT functioning normally, hopefully they will calm
> down.

I find it ludicrous that you are advising others to "calm down",
you who cry about oppression and right-wing conspiracies at the
drop of a hat.

MAF: Well, it is hardly a conspiracy when it is simply publicly-
announced legislation.

> The right of tribunician legislative initiative and legislation
> in a body that the Tribunes can call and work in with the Common
> People is historical, constitutional, and necessary.

As is the Senatus Consultum Ultimum - but, because that's a part
of the Constitution that you don't like, we shouldn't even discuss
it.

MAF: I was speaking to make *my* point, not yours. We all know that
the SCU is there, in the constitution, and existed in antiquity
(although perhaps more recognised by the ruling classes than the
Plebs).

> 1) Making provision against some future case involving some future
> augurs is not an insult against the present augurs (vivant augures
> nostri!).

Substitute the word "tribune" for "augur" in the above sentence
and you'll see why we are concerned.

MAF: Any power in anyone's hands, including the People's is
dangerous. I agree. Power is the ability to make people do things
that they do not wish to do, including harm them. That is why I
always personally emphasise human rights as something that even the
People have no right to take away.

I would also agree with you that some of the provisions to protect
the inviolability of the Comitia Plebis Curiata is a little too
vaguely worded. So, if that is really all that bothers you, we are in
substantial agreement. But if you are nervous simply because the
Tribunate is active in passing legislation to define Plebeian
institutions, then we would part company.

> There exists a segment of the population between the two leadership
> groups at those poles, and it is they who will finally decide.

That segment of the population has already rejected your extreme
radicalism in the December election. But of course you'll never
admit that, because you depend on the pretense of popular support.

MAF: As I said, BOTH Tribunes elected were signers of the Amici
Dignitatis Statement. There were other candidates running to offer
alternatives, and the electors chose the signers of the Statement.
Looks like a bit of popular support to me!

But I do *resent* your blackening either my name or that of the
Amici Dignitatis with the repetition of terms such as "extreme
radicalism". If you are willing to take me as the most radical, then
I affirm to you that *I* simply believe in the importance of human
rights in this as in any other association or nation. And I believe
that it would be desirable if the atmosphere and political culture (a
matter of social psychology more than anything else) would be more
open than it is. And I believe that strong and active plebeian
leaders and institutions are needed to keep a balance of power in our
Respublica - as they were in Roma Antiqua.

I believe in those things very *strongly* and express that belief
strongly (I hope), but that does not make my viewpoint either extreme
or radical. Believing in human rights, an open society, and
traditional plebeian institutions does not make one either extreme or
a radical. "Progressive moderate" would be a more accurate political
label for me. A passionate one, to be sure!

I think that we reached a better level of understanding
communicating privately than on this list. If you believe I have
"extremely radical" ideas, would you please write me personally and
say what you think they are? I would appreciate it. And please try to
separate the fact that I am passionate in my concern for moderate
reform from the idea that the reform I seek is immoderate.

Gratias!

Vale!

CAMDIDATE FOR AEDILE!

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:56:48 -0200

Salvete,

testimony from a continent away partial usenet user:
It is just useless. when the new server is not global
(or the newsgroup you look for has no localserver)
it just takes forever to download the headers,
and twice the eternity if you wnat to download all
messages. Please keep it a mail-list.

M' Villius Limitanus
Provincia Brasilia

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve Domiti Constantine,
>
> > Umm... newsgroups are prone to spam only if a) open b) public c)
> > unmoderated in any way
> > Having to provide the voting code to access the newsgroup would avoid any
> > kind of external spam.
> > Web interfaces have made leaps forwards in the last years.
>
> But to maintain such control over the newsgroup, it would have to exist
> only on one server. It wouldn't be easy to get a moderated group
> created across any significant number of usenet servers.
>
> > Yeah, but you have to skim it all, want it or not. Web-based newsgroup have
> > messages arriving in real time as emails and,
>
> But for a user to see them arrive, he'd have to maintain a persistent
> connection to the news server, possibly a continent away. With mail, it's
> always your local pop server you're querying (excepting those who just
> read /var/mail/${LOGNAME}, of course :)
>
> > dozens of newsreaders as well, gravity being excellent.. in case of
> > web-based newsgroups, any browser
>
> true... but I haven't yet seen a browser-based interface that was
> half as good as the commonly-available mail clients.
>
> > just as news do. Newsreaders aren't fancy graphic-animated programs, they
> > run on just any computer
>
> true.
>
> > well, I admit I haven't been here for several years but maybe it could have
> > been that population was way smaller?
>
> That web-based message board still exists; it's linked to from
> novaroma.org/forum_romanum.html . It's not a true newsgroup interface,
> it's purely a web-based system, but it does have threading similar to that
> found in newsreaders.
>
> > 900+ messages every month (last two months average) with peaks of over 1200
> > is a manageable volume?
>
> Personally, I want to see *more* Nova Roma mail! 30 a day is barely enough
> to keep me interested!
>
> > gee, maybe I'm more than averagely slow or stupid or the fact english isn't
> > my native language makes me slow in read mails, but it seems to me that
> > they are a bit too much to be handled with mail readers while it would be
> > just way easier in news-format.
>
> If you can apply some sort of filter to sort each mailing list into a folder
> of its own (I use procmail for this) it becomes very manageable. If you don't
> want to read everything you can just skim the subject lines and delete them.
>
> > Again, this was brought from the fact that the leges discussion would have
> > been WAY more civil, calm, constructive and fruitful
>
> We're capable of holding a massive flamewar in *any* medium :)
>
> I must admit, I am against the idea of moving to a newsgroup because
> I just don't want to run the server. News servers take longer to set up
> and configure than either web or mail servers, and I just don't think it's
> worth the bother. But in order to have private spam-free discussions, we'd
> need that centralized server, and that's too much work to support.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:09:51 -0000

SNIP
>
> I must admit, I am against the idea of moving to a newsgroup because
> I just don't want to run the server. News servers take longer to
set up
> and configure than either web or mail servers, and I just don't
think it's
> worth the bother. But in order to have private spam-free
discussions, we'd
> need that centralized server, and that's too much work to support.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator

Salvete

While I personaly prefer a Newsgroup to a mailing list, I think we
should give added weight to the opinion of our Curator Araneae, as the
extra burden of a news group will fall on him.

I also ask you to consider that using eGroups places a vital function
outside our control. At any time they could announce they are ending
or modifying this service, or Ads that some may find offensive could
suddenly appear. A news group that we control would not have these
problems.

Last of all Basilica will include a newsgroup reader, so at the least
citizens who download it will have the capibility of reading
newsgroups.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:59:50 -0200

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> SNIP
> >
> > I must admit, I am against the idea of moving to a newsgroup because
> > I just don't want to run the server. News servers take longer to
> set up
> > and configure than either web or mail servers, and I just don't
> think it's
> > worth the bother. But in order to have private spam-free
> discussions, we'd
> > need that centralized server, and that's too much work to support.
> >
> > Vale, Octavius.
> >
> >
> > --
> > M. Octavius Germanicus
> > Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> > Curator Araneae et Senator
>
> Salvete
>
> While I personaly prefer a Newsgroup to a mailing list, I think we
> should give added weight to the opinion of our Curator Araneae, as the
> extra burden of a news group will fall on him.
>
> I also ask you to consider that using eGroups places a vital function
> outside our control. At any time they could announce they are ending
> or modifying this service, or Ads that some may find offensive could
> suddenly appear. A news group that we control would not have these
> problems.

It would be much easier to set up our own mail-server (not an egroup
one)
Majordomo is very easy to set-up and configure.

>
> Last of all Basilica will include a newsgroup reader, so at the least
> citizens who download it will have the capibility of reading
> newsgroups.

But it will still be awfully slow outside Northern America

M' Villius Limitanus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Endorsement: P. Ullerius Venator for Quaestor.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:25:09 -0500

Salvete;

I would like to heartily echo Marcus Octavius' endorsement of P. Ullerius
Venator. While all the candidates who have stepped forward are fine
individuals, and should be commended for their desire to serve the Republic,
I know Venator from several venues outside of Nova Roma and know him not
only to be hard-working, but a very honorable man of excellent character. He
would make a wonderful financial assistant for any magistrate.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 17:54
> To: Nova Roma
> Subject: [novaroma] Endorsement: P. Ullerius Venator for Quaestor.
>
>
>
> Omnibus Civibus M. Octavius Germanicus salutem dicit,
>
> I endorse the candidacy of Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator for Quaestor.
>
> P. Ullerius has been an active citizen of Nova Roma almost from the
> beginning. He has served as Quaestor in the past. In addition,
> he founded and runs the mailing list for the Sodalis pro Coqueror
> et Coquus, the Society for Cooks and Brewers, and continues to be
> the most prominent poster on that list.
> (http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq)
>
> As a Nordic pagan in a Roman organization, he serves as a bridge
> between Nova Roma and those whose affiliation lies to our North.
>
> At the time of the abrupt departure of the previous propraetor
> of Lacus Magni, P. Ullerius Venator stepped in to organize the
> citizens of the province, publicizing the mailing list and
> organizing provincial records. For this show of dedication,
> I appointed him Legate for Lacus Magni Occidentalis. There is
> no one in our province that I trust more.
>
> Please give your vote for Quaestor to P. Ullerius Venator.
>
> Valete,
> M. Octavius Germanicus
>
> ---
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneae et Senator
>
>
>
>


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:18:20 -0500

Salvete;

This is actually an idea that's been kicking around in the back of my head
for a couple of years, now. How neat it would be to have a rec.org.novaroma
or a soc.culture.novaroma or (my personal favorite) an
alt.politics.micronations.novaroma!

I will lay aside the question of what is "better"; an email list or a
newsgroup. Each has their pros and cons, and each has their place. It's
largely a matter of personal preference. I would, however, point out that
the best situation would be to have both; more diversity, more avenues of
communication, I say! However, official announcements should still be posted
here, as it is our official line of communication.

The process for creating a "global" newsgroup (one which is widely available
on news servers across the world) is fairly clear-cut. If you do a search on
"create new newsgroup" in Yahoo or some other search engine, literally
dozens of web-sites will come up describing the process.

One thing that is clear, however, is that a newsgroup should have a proven
need to exist before one attempts to start it. Just starting a newsgroup,
and expecting ISPs to carry it, without some justification (in terms of a
history of traffic in some other newsgroup) is folly. Thus, if I may propose
a compromise experiment...

For those folks interested in Usenet newsgroup communication, just start
posting to alt.politics.micronations. It's widely available (I believe it is
available on AOL, and ordinarily if there's a newsgroup you want your ISP to
carry, all you have to do is ask) and is pretty low-traffic. If everyone
starts their subject lines there with "NR:" we can easily find those
messages relevant to us. If the level of traffic starts getting high enough,
maybe we can justify the creation of an alt.politics.micronations.novaroma
some day... But for now, it's there, it's available, and it's almost
abandoned.

Just remember, it's a public forum (a LOT more public than here) and
unmoderated. Let's try to keep those flame-wars in the family!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Populi Tributa is convened
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:15:50 -0000

Salvete,

In accord with the request of Consul Flavius Vedius Germanicus, I
offer this invocation to the Gods of Nova Roma on behalf of the
current convocation of the Comitia Populi Tributa:

Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva, Divine Triad,
we ask that your blessings and wisdom be granted to the Comitia
Populi Tributa during this time of decision.

O Mercury, grant that our communication and thoughts be clear
Quirinus, grant that we remember our duty as Citizens
Concordia, grant that we may reach Accord;
Pax, grant to us peace.

May all the Gods and Goddesses of Roma Aeterna, named and unnamed,
bestow upon us their favor as we carry out this ancient duty.

(So that this may be done, I, Marcus Cassius Julianus, shall make
offering of cakes, wine and incense to the Gods of Rome this night.)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus


Subject:	[novaroma] Invocation to the Gods (Re: The Comitia Populi Tributa is convened)
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:16:27 -0000


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:37:48 -0500

Salve M. Apollonius;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 02:38
>
> MAF: A ROMAN system has strong plebeian institutions.

Indeed, and strong Patrician powers as well. If you are promoting the
restoration of "strong" Plebeian institutions, what do you suggest to
proportionally increase the power of the Patricians to counterbalance it?

For that matter, the relative balance between particular offices should be
maintained as well. I'll be more than happy to endorse the full restoration
of the ancient Tribunal powers when I'm given command of a couple of fully
armed and trained 5,000-man Legions...

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:00:54 -0600 (CST)

Salve Marce Apolloni,

> MAF: A ROMAN system has strong plebeian institutions.

Indeed, it does. And it also has the Senatus Consultum Ultimum.
You seem to regard any discussion of the latter to be inappropriate.

> MAF: The Amici were not a party,

You had a common platform, a statement of principles, a shared website,
and a name. Your candidates all endorsed each other, and posted
suspiciously similar urgings to move the debate to your mailing
list. You claim not to be a party, but you've acted more like
one than any other identifiable group in our history.

> and that makes elections a poor
> measure to estimate their popular support. I think it is a telling
> fact that BOTH Tribunes of the People are signers of the Amici
> Dignitatis Statement.

I think it's a telling fact that NEITHER consul is.

> It does seem to suggest that the Commonality
> feels the concerns of the Amici to be close to its heart

The "Commonality" never seem to mention any of these "concerns"
that are apparently close to their hearts. All that is known is
that they felt that Moravius and Labienus were better candidates
than the other candidates for Tribune.

I myself publicly endorsed Labienus, even though I couldn't vote
for him, and you know full well that the "concerns of the Amici"
are no concerns of mine. That was because I respect his record
of service and felt him the best man for the job, in spite of
(not because of) his party affiliation.

> and has
> faith in those who have stood up and publically affirmed these
> concerns through their signatures.

> MAF: I am also puzzled by that timetable. But it does seem to be the
> law, so I suppose that was the reason.

The law states only that the proposals must be posted publicly
the day before the election. It says nothing about posting preliminary
versions some time beforehand in order to solicit comment, and to
find out if there were any problems with the proposals. Every other
law that we've voted upon has had public discussion well before
the required one-day lead time.

The Tribunes did give a few people the opportunity to comment in
private before the public announcement (I suggested changes to
one of these proposals), and I thank them for that, but if there
had been more people reviewing these proposals some of the
Constitutional objections might have been avoided by altering
the text before it was too late.

> I personally favour readoping
> the historical discussion period, as has been suggested.

As am I. It should be required. We've now seen what happens when
there is insufficient advance discussion.

> MAF: I was speaking to make *my* point, not yours. We all know that
> the SCU is there, in the constitution, and existed in antiquity
> (although perhaps more recognised by the ruling classes than the
> Plebs).

It was recognized by everyone. Saturninus and Catilina certainly
weren't able to ignore it.

> MAF: Any power in anyone's hands, including the People's is
> dangerous. I agree.

Excellent.

The power to both propose legislation and to veto any actions of
another, without right of appeal, is too close to an absolute
monarcy. The final century of the Roman Republic was chaotic
and unstable because of power of the tribunes was nearly absolute -
the only way to counter them was through illegal means, such as
the murders of the Gracchi, or by the Senatus Consultum Ultimum.

If the Tribunes are strengthened too much we'll see that era of
history repeat itself here. If a pair of unified tribunes could
strike down any legislation of other magistrates, and then push
any proposals of their own through the CPT by claiming it is to
support Plebeian rights against the Patricians, we effectively
have a monarchy.

Unlimited power to veto, coupled with the ability to inflict
the tyranny of the majority against a minority who cannot even
vote, is far too dangerous a power for anyone.

The Tribunes' power in Roma Antiqua was necessary because of the
vast wealth of the patricians and their armies of clients. That
situation does not exist here (I seem to have misplaced my
vast wealth somewhere...) The office of Tribune is necessary only
for historical authenticity, but it must be limited for practicality.

Having the most powerful officers in our Republic elected in a
process where a minority is prohibited from voting at all should
be as abhorrent to us as slavery is.

> MAF: As I said, BOTH Tribunes elected were signers of the Amici
> Dignitatis Statement.

The new censor, both consuls and one praetor were not. In those
elections where your party faced some real opposition, and *all* of
the people were eligible to vote, only one of your candidates was
successful (and his platform was much more moderate than yours).

> But I do *resent* your blackening either my name or that of the
> Amici Dignitatis with the repetition of terms such as "extreme
> radicalism".

Perhaps now you understand how I feel about your allusions to the
Nazi holocaust, your talk of an "extremely bad" violation of human
rights here, your use of the phrase "ultra-rightist" to refer to
someone who thinks a republic and a democracy are not the same thing.

You use provocative and outrageous phrases yourself, but become
resentful when I use similar terms to refer to you.

> If you are willing to take me as the most radical, then
> I affirm to you that *I* simply believe in the importance of human
> rights in this as in any other association or nation.

You believe in your own personal definition of human rights, no matter
how many people believe otherwise, and you will stop at nothing to
see your personal definition triumph. The voters rejected you, but
even that doesn't convince you of your error.

> I think that we reached a better level of understanding
> communicating privately than on this list. If you believe I have
> "extremely radical" ideas, would you please write me personally and
> say what you think they are?

I will do so, later today.

> I would appreciate it. And please try to
> separate the fact that I am passionate in my concern for moderate
> reform from the idea that the reform I seek is immoderate.

You're trying to label yourself a moderate here, but it just doesn't
work. You have hounded and persecuted several of my friends for months
now, solely because they would not allow one citizen to use his
preferred name. You seek to exalt one class of citizens above the
other, and strengthen an institution that a minority are powerless
against (lacking even the ability to vote!). You label people whose
opinion differs from yours as "ultra-rightist" and accuse them of
human rights violations!

A "moderate" does not do such things.

Vale, Octavius.

---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	[novaroma] Hmm...
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:02:04 -0000

Salvete,

Although I only "sent" once, the invocation I posted seems to have
shown up here on the list three times. The only thing I can imagine
is that when I was hitting the "preview" button to check it was
sending for some reason. However, things could be worse! Perhaps
we're all now triply blessed, and I'll simply make more offerings
this evening in return... ;)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:19:26 -0600 (CST)

Salve Flavi Vedi,

> > MAF: A ROMAN system has strong Plebeian institutions.
>
> Indeed, and strong Patrician powers as well. If you are promoting the
> restoration of "strong" Plebeian institutions, what do you suggest to
> proportionally increase the power of the Patricians to counterbalance it?
>
> For that matter, the relative balance between particular offices should be
> maintained as well. I'll be more than happy to endorse the full restoration
> of the ancient Tribunal powers when I'm given command of a couple of fully
> armed and trained 5,000-man Legions...

Excellent point. Those who seek to restore all of the powers of the
Tribunes as they existed in the post-Gracchi era seem not to care about
balance.

The Tribunes of old were needed because a tiny minority of immensely
wealthy families, who owned most of the land and produced almost all
of the Consuls, had the ability to oppress the vast majority of the
people. The Tribunes gave a voice to the formerly powerless majority.

Here, the imbalance that the Tribunate was designed to correct simply
does not exist. I am not aware of any millionaires among the
Patricians or the Senate (indeed, I've heard several complain about
their low-paying jobs). We don't have clients.

Although the Senate has more patricians than Plebeians at present,
this is simply because it contains many ex-magistrates who have been
here since early 1998 and are therefore patricians. The number of
Plebeians appointed or elected to the Senate is increasing naturally -
of the six newest Senators, four are Plebeians. The next group likely
to be appointed as Senators, the newly-appointed provincial governors,
will consist almost entirely of Plebeians.

Plebeians *are* in positions of power, and the Plebeian represenation
in the Senate will continue to grow naturally. There simply isn't
a need for the powers of the Tribunes to match those of the Tribunes
of the late Republic.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneae et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide? Consular Army
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:09:06 EST

In a message dated 1/23/2001 7:44:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:

<< For that matter, the relative balance between particular offices should be
maintained as well. I'll be more than happy to endorse the full restoration
of the ancient Tribunal powers when I'm given command of a couple of fully
armed and trained 5,000-man Legions... >>
Um, actually Consul, it would be 2 Roman Legiones totaling 8400, 600 horse
and 2 Ala of 10,000 with 1200 horse.
QFM
Military Historian


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:10:13 -0200

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve Flavi Vedi,
>
> > > MAF: A ROMAN system has strong Plebeian institutions.
> >
> > Indeed, and strong Patrician powers as well. If you are promoting the
> > restoration of "strong" Plebeian institutions, what do you suggest to
> > proportionally increase the power of the Patricians to counterbalance it?
> >
> > For that matter, the relative balance between particular offices should be
> > maintained as well. I'll be more than happy to endorse the full restoration
> > of the ancient Tribunal powers when I'm given command of a couple of fully
> > armed and trained 5,000-man Legions...
>
> Excellent point. Those who seek to restore all of the powers of the
> Tribunes as they existed in the post-Gracchi era seem not to care about
> balance.
>
> The Tribunes of old were needed because a tiny minority of immensely
> wealthy families, who owned most of the land and produced almost all
> of the Consuls, had the ability to oppress the vast majority of the
> people. The Tribunes gave a voice to the formerly powerless majority.
>
> Here, the imbalance that the Tribunate was designed to correct simply
> does not exist. I am not aware of any millionaires among the
> Patricians or the Senate (indeed, I've heard several complain about
> their low-paying jobs). We don't have clients.
>
> Although the Senate has more patricians than Plebeians at present,
> this is simply because it contains many ex-magistrates who have been
> here since early 1998 and are therefore patricians. The number of
> Plebeians appointed or elected to the Senate is increasing naturally -
> of the six newest Senators, four are Plebeians. The next group likely
> to be appointed as Senators, the newly-appointed provincial governors,
> will consist almost entirely of Plebeians.
>
> Plebeians *are* in positions of power, and the Plebeian represenation
> in the Senate will continue to grow naturally. There simply isn't
> a need for the powers of the Tribunes to match those of the Tribunes
> of the late Republic.

Plebeians *were* in position of power in the first century.
The tribunate lost its original utility in the second century,
when the important division became Senators/Populares (rich/poor)
instead of Patricians/Plebeians (Aristocrats/commoners) as it was in the
Vth-IVth centuries.

Recreating the tribunate in a situation which is like the 2nd centuries
one:
Near equality in the senate, many plebeians in the first class etc.
could only
lead to the historical problems of the 1st century: alternance between
powerfull tribunes and dictators until a patrician assumes the power of
the tribunes.

A big difference between the tribunate and a monarchy: they are
poliarchs for ONE year, they cannot impose the legislation, they only
propose it to the plebeians,
we can reject all their propositions and finally them when the year
ends.

Yes they can block all the republic by vetoing, but so can the Augurs by
seeing evil omens before each vote, or the Senate colegially through the
SC Ultimus.

Since there is no precedence of one type of lex over the other the
consuls/praetors can also introduce new laws to abolish the tribunes
laws immediately after they have been voted by the plebs, this would
test if it was decisive to let the patricians out of the first vote. And
leaves the tribunes only with the initiative of the laws, in common with
the praetors and the consuls.

Do we need an increase in power for the patricians? Perhaps, give them
some extra extra century points.

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Hmm...
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:50:46 +0100

Salve, honourable Consul et Pontifex Maximus,

better triple blessed than no bless at all ;-).

I�m happy that you prayed to the gods. Vivat Religio Romana.

Vale
Caius Flavius Diocletianus

cassius622@-------- wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Although I only "sent" once, the invocation I posted seems to have
> shown up here on the list three times. The only thing I can imagine
> is that when I was hitting the "preview" button to check it was
> sending for some reason. However, things could be worse! Perhaps
> we're all now triply blessed, and I'll simply make more offerings
> this evening in return... ;)
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pontifex Maximus


Subject:	[novaroma] Removal of Signature
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:15:46 US/Central

T Labienus Omnibus SPD

I have decided, after a great deal of thought, to remove my name from the list
of signatories to the statement of the Amici Dignitatis. I am not doing this
because I disagree in any way with that document.

Unfortunately, I have come to believe that the Amici Dignitatis will never be
allowed to become what I hoped it would become; to wit, a neutral forum
separate from those who initiated it and dedicated to in-depth discussions of
Nova Roma's government. The reasons for this belief are many and varied, and
the fault lies with no one person or group.

Valete


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:15:09 -0600

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> While I personaly prefer a Newsgroup to a mailing list, I think we
> should give added weight to the opinion of our Curator Araneae, as the
> extra burden of a news group will fall on him.
>
> I also ask you to consider that using eGroups places a vital function
> outside our control. At any time they could announce they are ending
> or modifying this service, or Ads that some may find offensive could
> suddenly appear. A news group that we control would not have these
> problems.
>

But you control just the same with a mailing list. Nova Roma could rent
a
server for the mailing list or just find a university that is willing to
host.
I am a part of another mailing list that is ran by Texas A&M servers
since
the overseer of the group works there, and he pretty much has control
over it.

Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus


Subject:	[novaroma] A Draft of the site of Provincia Gallia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:20:07 +0100

Salvete Quiritibus

I follow the example of Propraetor Argentinae, and issue a first draft of the website dedicated to Provincia Gallia.
Many links are not operating yet but our webmaster shall soon have check these problems out.
I also apologize for non-french speaking citizens, but the first draft was built in french, but will soon be translated in dutch and english (latin ?).

The URL is a webspace borrowed to Quintus Apollonius, our Gaul webmaster and is not permanent. It is in fact our work space.
http://users.pandora.be/bartvw

Feel free to send me your impressions, it will help us to issue a better site.
Bene Valete

I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae
yquere@--------

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:33:34 -0600

Salve

Nothing personal but I *despise* the
never-ending-ever-lengthening-intricately-interspersed-response-to-every-po
int dialogues we're falling into. I'm trying to give them up.

I want to address some points with regard to your statements, Marcus
Apollonius.

#1 If you had to read my "explanation" to understand what I was
originally saying then that suggests to me that we have some language
problem here, since there was nothing in my original statement that a
native English-speaker could have possibly misconstrued as a call for the
SCU. That insight suggests that we all need to be a lot more careful
about how we respond to others here, because it appears that we don't
understand each others' words as well as we are assuming we do.

I realize that to recognize this is an affront to the intellectual
pretensions of each of us, but the alternative is to keep getting into
these incredibly stupid battles over what we *think* the other guy said.
A little more open-minded reading of the other guy's words might help. If
you respond to me without actually understanding what I have said, then
you literally don't know what you're talking about, and the same is true
for me and any others.

#2 You, and others, keep equating the terms "Tribunes" and "the People"
- this is false thinking. The Tribunes *are not* the people. The
interests of the Tribunes *are not* the interests of the people.
Expanding the power of the Tribunes *is not* expanding the power or voice
of the people. The truth is that the Consuls, who are elected by *all* of
the people are thus more entitled to call themselves representatives of
"the People" than are the Tribunes who are elected by only *part* of the
people.

The Tribunes are not intended to represent the interests of "the People"
- they are intended to represent the interests of the individual citizens
whom they may defend against mistreatment, and to defend the
Constitution, i.e., the Republic as a whole. This is Nova Roma, and not
Roma Antiqua. If it were Roma Antiqua, we would all be blacklisted
revolutionaries seeking to overturn it - I think not one of us would
accept being governed the way Roma Antiqua was governed through much of
its history. Nova Roma is intended to re-create *the best* of Roma
Antiqua and not all of it. The role of the Tribunes here is *not
identical* to the role of the Tribunes in Roma Antiqua. Some of you are
making a lot of confusion by equating the two.

#3 And while I'm at it, let me point out that the Amici Dignitatis (who
seem to be stronger on the "dignitatis" part than on the "amici" part)
are most emphatically NOT representative of the People or their
interests, which was Germanicus' point, nor even of the plebians. There
are, I am told, over 700 citizens in Nova Roma now. There are how many
signatores of the infamous AD
group/cabal/party/faction/pact/list/statement/whatever? Not even a
significant fraction of the citizens, are they? Not even a significant
fraction of the plebian citizens, I'm certain, since I am told that we
(the plebians) number over 500.

So please have the honesty to quit representing yourselves as a movement
of the people. The *elected* magistrates of Nova Roma represent the
people - not your tiny self-appointed group.

#4 There is considerable doubt whether the planned vote to which you
refer could have been considered "perfectly legal" as you say. The
measures to be voted on were not presented beforehand to allow
consideration and debate, and the contio was planned to take place in a
private list to which practically none of the voters subscribe. There is
NO LAW that required the Tribuni to conceal their proposals until just
before the voting was to begin - to imply that there is is falsehood.
When last I checked, there were 35 people signed up for the
ComitiaPlebisTributa list, and several of them are known to be
patricians. So the measures proposed were to be discussed among less than
5% of the plebian population. It *appears* (appearances can certainly be
misleading) that the arrangements were intended to (1) keep the voters
and everyone else from having time to actually understand the
implications of the measures they were voting on, so that they would just
accept them on the word of the Tribuni (representing the AD?) that they
were "good," and (2) that they would be voted into law by a tiny minority
of advocates, with the vast majority of plebian citizens regretably left
out of the matter entirely (we need a law setting a quorum based on a
percentage of the electorate).

It would require some really creative explaining to dispel these
impressions, but then you are certainly a master of verbal and political
creativity, so have at it.

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 1/23/01 1:38 AM M. Apollonius Formosanus (bvm3@--------) wrote:

>M. Apollonius Formosanus M. Octavio Germanico S.P.D.
>
> Well, that was a short-lived truce between us! I reply below:
>
[SNIPPED]


Subject:	[novaroma] Introduction
From:	"Neil Schwartz" <nschwartz86@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:08:29 -0500

Hello,

I have been looking at your web site for some time now and decided to
subscribe, and possibly join your micronation.

My name is Neil and I am interested in the ancient world in general, but
Rome is my favorite, and not because of 'Gladiator'. I'm especially
interested in mystery religions, but I have had no time to study them. I'm
ignorant, but interested.

Hope to get to know you!

Neil
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com