Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:02:11 -0600

Salvete L Sergi et omnes

> #4 There is considerable doubt whether the planned vote to which you
> refer could have been considered "perfectly legal" as you say.

There is no doubt that the way in which Cn Moravius and I conducted the
prelude to the vote (which is ongoing) was entirely legal. Before you
respond with your particular sarcastic flair, L Sergi, let me say that
there is also no doubt whatsoever that the way we handled it was, to use
my particular talent for understatement, a monumental act of stupidity.
I'm not sure there is any specific thing, aside from honoring the
consules' request to remove the plebiscita from the ballot, that we
handled correctly.

As usually turns out to be the case, appearances of insidious plans were
due to simple human fallibility. I therefore urge you, M Apollonius,
and anyone else to quit arguing over this and move on to more productive
things.

> (we need a law setting a quorum based on a percentage of the
> electorate).

This, BTW, is an excellent idea, though such a percentage would likely
have to be rather low considering our usual voter turnout.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:24:58 -0500

>>Livia ----- Aurelia wrote
>>I dislike newsgroups and prefer the current arrangement.


I also dislike newsgroups because it's so much slower to load & read them.
Plus I kind of like everything all thrown together - I'd have a tendency to
ignore some things that I really need to understand (the leges for
instance).

Helena Galeria

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:09:35 -0500

And let's remember ... it's darned near impossible to kick someone off a
newsgroup and/or prevent spam ...

mpj


At 07:24 PM 23/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Livia ----- Aurelia wrote
> >>I dislike newsgroups and prefer the current arrangement.
>
>
>I also dislike newsgroups because it's so much slower to load & read them.
>Plus I kind of like everything all thrown together - I'd have a tendency to
>ignore some things that I really need to understand (the leges for
>instance).
>
>Helena Galeria

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:52:05 EST

Spam is the bane of everyone's existence! So far we are protected from it. I
hope it continues to be so. It is akin to being driven to going unlisted in
the telephone book. No unsolicited, read that marketing calls. Ugh! I guess
at this point Nova Roma needs to gather the inputs made so far and make a
decision. Diverse opinions, yes, but seemingly there now exists enough feed
back on this matter.

Vale,

Lentulus Cornelius Brutus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:01:04 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Good point, Marce Papiri. And, I shudder at the "amount" of spam we might
get.........which defeats the purpose of our communications being more
organized.

Valete,
Pompeia Cornelia


>From: Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:09:35 -0500
>
>And let's remember ... it's darned near impossible to kick someone off a
>newsgroup and/or prevent spam ...
>
>mpj
>
>
>At 07:24 PM 23/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >>Livia ----- Aurelia wrote
> > >>I dislike newsgroups and prefer the current arrangement.
> >
> >
> >I also dislike newsgroups because it's so much slower to load & read
>them.
> >Plus I kind of like everything all thrown together - I'd have a tendency
>to
> >ignore some things that I really need to understand (the leges for
> >instance).
> >
> >Helena Galeria
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:08:34 -0300

Salvete Quirites

>As usually turns out to be the case, appearances of insidious plans were
>due to simple human fallibility. I therefore urge you, M Apollonius,
>and anyone else to quit arguing over this and move on to more productive
>things.

In my opinion, a sequence of misunderstandings and errors lead us to the present state of animosity, between our tribunes, magistrates, cives and so on

Lets to review the proposed laws, and discuss them, redo the whole thing.

Personally, i learned a lot with the problem
about the Malvinas/Falklands postings, when a simple joke evolved in a strange way, and how the Curatrix Sermonen needed to abort a interprovincial war. :)

Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis


Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:35:28 EST

Excellent input. Sorer! By now, you'll have seem my input to Nova Roma about
this serious matter. As I mentioned to Sulla Felix earlier this afternoon,
there has been enough input, thoughts, as to passing to it on to the higher
ups, to decide [bad language, perhaps, the meaning is there.

Vale,

Lentulus Cornelius Brutus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:44:41 EST

Salve T. Labienus

I don't think it's anything we need to quibble over, but I don't think a
contio held in a list with maybe 25 plebians can be said to meet the
spirit of the law. I suppose you're saying that it meets the letter of
the law. We seem to agree that the law clearly needs some sprucing up.
Bingo - we've come together!

As for the rest - coming from you, I accept that the approach taken was
shaped by some mistakes rather than by any sinister intent. Thank you for
making that clear. For my part, I apologize for having suspected
otherwise. Please don't beat yourselves up because you made some mistakes
starting out. We all have.

I think a separate venue for the Comitia Plebis Tributa is a basically
sound idea as long as there is some way to get more plebians
participating there. I don't think that has to be paired with rhetoric
suggesting that there is "class war" in Nova Roma.

Is there anything I can do to help (besides marching my verbal troops
back into camp)?

In Oz, voting is compulsory, with penalties for non-participation. How
about a plebiscite saying that plebians get an extra century point for
joining a contio in the CPT list and/or lose a point if they don't show
their faces there? It may sound a bit too "B. F. Skinner'ish" but if a
civis can't participate in his/her own government now and then, what good
is he/she for the rest of us?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 1/23/01 6:02 PM Fortunatus (labienus@--------) wrote:

>Salvete L Sergi et omnes
>
>> #4 There is considerable doubt whether the planned vote to which you
>> refer could have been considered "perfectly legal" as you say.
>
>There is no doubt that the way in which Cn Moravius and I conducted the
>prelude to the vote (which is ongoing) was entirely legal. Before you
>respond with your particular sarcastic flair, L Sergi, let me say that
>there is also no doubt whatsoever that the way we handled it was, to use
>my particular talent for understatement, a monumental act of stupidity.
>I'm not sure there is any specific thing, aside from honoring the
>consules' request to remove the plebiscita from the ballot, that we
>handled correctly.
>
>As usually turns out to be the case, appearances of insidious plans were
>due to simple human fallibility. I therefore urge you, M Apollonius,
>and anyone else to quit arguing over this and move on to more productive
>things.
>
>> (we need a law setting a quorum based on a percentage of the
>> electorate).
>
>This, BTW, is an excellent idea, though such a percentage would likely
>have to be rather low considering our usual voter turnout.
>
>Valete
>T Labienus Fortunatus
>


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

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Removal of Signature
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:58:39 EST

Labienus writes:

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.

Cassius respondit:
Although I disagree with most all of the Amici Dignitatis Statement for a
variety of reasons, I understand that many originally signed that document
out of concern for Nova Roma. There is little doubt that you will continue to
pursue Virtue and noble goals in other ways, so this is simply a change
rather than a Great Ending.

Labienus:
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.

Cassius:
Your prediction seems sound, and I believe you are right that this is not the
fault of any one person or group. While created by good people and dedicated
to noble goals, the Amici Dignitatis and it's Statement were born a child of
anger rather than a manifestation of Concordia or optimism.

The catalyst of the formation of the Amici was anger and resentment over
perceived wrongs. And, as so often happens in things created from a dispute,
the vision of the Amici has continued to contain a part of that anger. It is
this anger that I personally have rejected most, and even though this anger
is held by people I often respect I cannot share it.

When the Amici Dignitatis group was first formed, I spoke out that Virtue
should stand for itself, not merely exist to "be against" something else. I
suggested other alternatives to the Statement, in both it's first and second
versions. The one that seemed the most respectable to me was the thought of
creating a Virtue Sodalitas, where people could pledge to conduct
*themselves* with noble virtues and courtesy, rather than signing a document
demanding those things in others.

Perhaps such things will come in the future. In the meantime, I hope that
Concord will continue to grow among us, and that we can all retain our
personal sense of Virtue and Romanitas even while we share our community with
others.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul, Pontifex Maximus






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

Subject:	[novaroma] Meeting of the Denver cives: America Austroccidentalis
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:13:57 -0700

Salvete, Quirities!!!

It is a pleasure to report to you that tonight, NINE cives
in the Denver metro area met for a wonderful Greek meal and
community. This is truly a momentous event for the
Provincia America Austroccidentalis. Every person who said
they would come, attended this dinner -- and people are
inviting guests interested in Nova Roma!!! The most
rewarding thing is it's starting to feel like seeing old
friends, rather than making new acquaintences!

It was a pleasure to welcome Iulia Cornelia Gaia and Marcia
Columbia to their first event with the Denver (etc...)
quirities. Others in attendance were Titus Falerius
Silvacola, Quintus Valerius Corvus, Prima Clodia Cinnabari,
Secunda Clodia Thalia, Thalia's guest, her fiance Dan,
Titus Clodia Mercurialis, and myself.

Topics of discussion were:
- The Roman Retreat planned for this summer (thanks to Iulia
Cornelia Gaia and Titus Falerius Silvacola for their legwork
on this --- an exciting development in the location is
brewing!)
- Leads for places interested in posting information about
Nova Roma in the Denver area (thanks to Marcia Columbia for
her efforts on talking up Nova Roma to local pagan
bookstores!!)
- Holding a workshop to discuss and work on Roman/other
ancient garb suitable for a true period feast to be held at
the Roman Retreat (thanks to Marcia Columbia for initiating
that topic)
- Roman fiction!! Steven Saylor took the night as THE Roman
fiction writer worth the effort!
- Possibilites of starting a legion in the area (we need to
watch out for Quintus Sertorius! ;) )

Our next dinner will be held in early March in Boulder,
Colorado.

Valete,
Livia Marcia (formerly Cornelia) Aurelia
Propraetrix, America Austroccidentalis

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:55:27 -0800 (PST)

--- LSergAust@-------- wrote:
> In Oz, voting is compulsory, with penalties for
> non-participation. How
> about a plebiscite saying that plebians get an extra
> century point for
> joining a contio in the CPT list and/or lose a point
> if they don't show
> their faces there? It may sound a bit too "B. F.
> Skinner'ish" but if a
> civis can't participate in his/her own government
> now and then, what good
> is he/she for the rest of us?

Salve!

While I like your intent, this is really unmanageable.
What is participation -- a "me, too" post? IF not,
how then would you determine "substantial input"? It's
easy to subscribe to a list on egroups and set it on
"no mail" or set the email program to send it directly
to trash (of course, the third option of just throwing
it away unread is always there).

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:	[novaroma] Announcement of April Texas event with author Steven Saylor
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:35:57 -0700

Salvete, Quirites!

After a few months of correspondence, this is to announce
that we have an invitation to meet with Steven Saylor,
author of the Roma Sub Rosa series about Gordianus the
Finder, a late Republican mystery solver, this April 19 at
7:30 p.m. in Austin, Texas! We will be participating in a
Writers League of Texas speaking engagement/social.

My Legate, Marius Peregrinus, is tasked with pulling
together as many Texas cives as possible. I extend an
invitation to any other Nova Romans who also want to
participate in this event. Mr. Saylor has indicated that he
is suggestable to a separate, Nova Roma-only meeting if we
gather enough interest. If there is interest, I will see
about adding a private meeting to the agenda.

Any cives wanting more information about this event contact
me at gmvick32@--------, or Legate Peregrinus at
peregrinus@swbellnet.

In Service,
Livia Marcia (formerly Cornelia) Aurelia


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:42:24 +0100

Salve C. Citi Catte,

> > That freedom becomes
> > threatened when the interests of the group become greater than the
rights of
> > the individual. This is the essence of mob rule.
>
> And which is called a democracy...
> We must protect our constitution, as it serves as the basis of our
> republic.

If mob rule = democracy in your mind, then I think you're quite wrong. There
is a significant difference between the state bowing for every whim of the
people and between the state listening and acting upon important concerns of
the people.

Vale,
Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:46:36 +0100

Salve Priscilla Vedia,

> >>Sometimes I just wonder how many people actually read the Statement of
the
> AD instead of many pointless accusations that followed.>>
>
> With all due respect, it is your very own posting of such things as *we*
got
> such and such a vote and *they* did not which promulgates the very notion
of
> the AD being nothing more than a political faction seeking power.

Then quote something politically hyperbolic I once said and didn't correct
later.

> The statement of principals has little to do with the political animal
which
> has come to be the AD. I agree that much of what has followed the
statement
> has been pointless posturing. What I am curious about is how you can in
one
> post *enhance* the ridiculous "us versus them" mentality and then follow
it
> so quickly with the comment above.

I've never said that it's "us" versus "them". I'm afraid you're mistaking me
with someone else, or perhaps you might think that all Amici are basically
clones of each other.

> You cannot have it both ways.

Popular phrase here lately.

> If you truly see the AD as simply a
> philosophical group that should not be brought into political parties and
> factions (as the Statement itself implies), perhaps you should refrain
from
> classifying votes based on whether the elected are AD or not. Unless you
do
> so, you will remain part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I didn't classify these votes. Octavius tried to point out that the AD as a
whole didn't do too well, and I responded. Of what "problem" am I a part
then? This is an accusation I don't really understand, and certainly not on
a personal level.

Vale!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Who is to decide?
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:08:22 EST

Salve Lucius Aetius

I think you're overlooking the forest to focus on the trees. The idea
would be to encourage plebian cives to join the list in which the contios
of their assembly would be held. If they post only "Yeah, I like that
too" that's great - a whole lot better than not even being there.

I see no need to control how much they have to say, how enthiusiastic
they have to get, how many times they need to post, etc..

The goal is to get them there. That would be enough. There is no need to
control them like puppets. And how much would a century point cost us in
either dollars, euros, or denarii?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.



On 1/23/01 11:55 PM Jeff Smith (JSmithCSA@--------) wrote:

>--- LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>> In Oz, voting is compulsory, with penalties for
>> non-participation. How
>> about a plebiscite saying that plebians get an extra
>> century point for
>> joining a contio in the CPT list and/or lose a point
>> if they don't show
>> their faces there? It may sound a bit too "B. F.
>> Skinner'ish" but if a
>> civis can't participate in his/her own government
>> now and then, what good
>> is he/she for the rest of us?
>
>Salve!
>
>While I like your intent, this is really unmanageable.
> What is participation -- a "me, too" post? IF not,
>how then would you determine "substantial input"? It's
>easy to subscribe to a list on egroups and set it on
>"no mail" or set the email program to send it directly
>to trash (of course, the third option of just throwing
>it away unread is always there).
>
>L Aetius Dalmaticus
>


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

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Constitution and the Plebiscita (long)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:18:27 -0000

Salvete,
I would like to add my comments to the Senior Consuls Comments on one
of these plebescita.
>
> From the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia:
>
> > 1) No measures shall be passed, no leges placed before a
comitia, no
> > plebescita placed before the Comitia Plebis Tributa, nor edicta
issued by
> > any magistrate or any provincial praetor or any subordinate acting
in
> > their name, which includes disparate measures and/or disparate
provisions
> > of any nature among the citizens of Nova Roma in the exercise of
their
> > rights, as outlined in Section II.B and elsewhere.
>
> This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the
Constitution. The
> Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the
internal
> workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi
Tributa. By
> preventing "disparate measures and/or disparate provisions" in leges
> presented to the other Comitiae, this provision has the effect of
setting
> rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly
increases
> the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of the
> Constitution.
>

The Constitutional problem with this section could be fixed by adding
a line that states "This provision shall not be binding on any Comita
that has not ratified the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia"
Since this section is an excellent law I would urge all the Comitiae
to ratify a lex/plebescita that contained this provision.


> > 2) All leges and plebescita previously enacted, all edicta
previously
> > issued, which have provided disparate measures among the citizenry
of
> > Nova Roma are hereby nullified in those provisions.
>
> This section violates paragraphs III.B. and III.D. of the
Constitution. The
> Comitia Plebis Tributa cannot pass plebiscita that effects the
internal
> workings of either the Comitia Centuriata or the Comitia Populi
Tributa. By
> preventing "disparate measures and/or disparate provisions" in leges
> presented to the other Comitiae, this provision has the effect of
setting
> rules by which the other Comitiae must operate. Doing so vastly
increases
> the power of the Comitia Plebis Tributa beyond the boundaries of the
> Constitution.
>

This section dosen't affect the leges that are presented to the other
Comitia, rather it strikes down leges passed by the other Comitia.
This brings up the relationships of the Comitiae. Can one Comitia
nulify a lex passed by another Comitia? If so are there any limits on
this power?

Constitunional issuses aside, This section strikes down lega and
edicita without mentioning which ones will become invalid. It places
EVERY lex and Edict in doubt. Since it has the potential of nulifying
leges and edictia in many areas it is in fact a disparate provision
and violates the spirit if not the letter of the plebiscita that it is
a part of. This section has the pontential to cause chaos in Nova
Roma. I urge that this section be removed, and will not vote to ratify
this measure if section 2 remains a part of it when the CPT votes in
Feburary. I urge others NOT to ratify this plebiscita if section 2 is
part of it when it's presented again.


> > 3) All citizens of Nova Roma who are eligible to vote,
without
> > exception, shall have the same rights and privileges before the
law and
> > without prejudice to any immunity conferred by any office they may
hold
> > in Nova Roma.
>
> This section violates paragraphs III.C., IV.A.5., and IV.A.7. of the
> Constitution. Differences in "rights and privileges before the law"
are
> built into our Constitutional system; for example, the right of
Plebeians
> (only) to vote in the Comitia Plebis Tributa, or to hold the offices
of
> Plebeian Aedile or Tribunis Plebis. This provision would seek to
overrule
> such divisions, and would thus destroy several exclusive rights of
the
> Plebeian people, outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
>
> > 4) No additional obligations shall be placed on any order,
class, or
> > otherwise distinguished group of citizens, above those obligations
placed
> > on all other citizens, save by those obligations incurred by
virtue of
> > any office or position in Nova Roma that they willing accept.
>
> This section is in violation of paragraph II.C.2. of the
Constitution, which
> specifies that members of the Ordo Equester are "expected to
contribute a
> portion of the revenue derived from Nova Roma back to the State". As
> membership in the Ordo Equester is neither an "office or position",
but
> rather an order or class, this proposal would remove an obligation
of a
> select group of Citizens, contrary to the Constitution.
>
> -----
>
Sections 3 and 4 could easily be fixed by inserting "Not established
in the Constitution" into them. However I question why they are part
of this plebiscita. They have nothing to do with the disparate
measures that the original Lex Caecilia Didia addressed, and are
therefore disparate measures themselves, violating the spirit if not
the letter of this plebiscita. Sections 3 and 4 are admirable goals,
but they should be introduced in a separate plebiscita instead of
being tacked onto the P. de Iterum Adfirmatio Lex Caecilia Didia.

Last of all where is the "trinis nundinis" provision of the original
Lex Caecilia Didia? The original LCD required that 3 market days had
to pass after a Lex/plebescita was promulgated, before it could be
voted on.

A revised section one, and a section two dealing with the trinis
nundinis would make this an excellent law, and in that form it should
be passed by all the Comitiae.

Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:26:05 -0500

Salve,

<Replies begin PVS>

I've never said that it's "us" versus "them". I'm afraid you're mistaking me
with someone else, or perhaps you might think that all Amici are basically
clones of each other.

PVS: I am not mistaking you for anyone. Your post, in which you,
personally, classified the elected officials according to whether or not
they were AD, along with your commentary on what you feel that reflects
about the people's opinion of the AD, stands by itself. I would not say
that all AD are clones at all. I do believe there are those who signed the
Statement as just that, a statement of principals. Then there are others,
yourself among them, who appear to treat the AD as nothing more than a
political party. Those who "tote the party line" do, indeed, sound similar,
although clone is not the word I would have chosen.

> You cannot have it both ways.

Popular phrase here lately.

PVS: True statement. You (anyone really, this hardly impacts you alone)
cannot, from one side of your mouth claim the AD is a neutral forum for
discussions and then, from the other side of your mouth proclaim the success
of the AD members as elected officials in the political arena. Either the
AD is a neutral group or it is the political party you make it out to be.
Truthfully, the reality probably lies somewhere between those two ideas, but
as I pointed out before.......you, personally, have claimed both. You
cannot have it both ways.

> If you truly see the AD as simply a
> philosophical group that should not be brought into political parties and
> factions (as the Statement itself implies), perhaps you should refrain
from
> classifying votes based on whether the elected are AD or not. Unless you
do
> so, you will remain part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I didn't classify these votes. Octavius tried to point out that the AD as a
whole didn't do too well, and I responded. Of what "problem" am I a part
then? This is an accusation I don't really understand, and certainly not on
a personal level.

PVS: I am afraid you are in error here. In archived message number 18139,
you classified the elections according to AD affiliation. You did so in
response to a general comment by Germanicus as to what he saw as a lack of
support for the AD. Perhaps it was my use of the term classification that
caused your confusion. The problem I see you as a part of is that of trying
to break down our res publica into "us versus them", AD or not, etc. That
you cannot see where you own statements in this regard can be seen as
divisive worries me.

Is this a personal attack? By no means. I do not know you personally, and
therefore can judge only your words here in the forum. Your words, in this
case, concern me and serve as further evidence of a polarization that some
here seem bent on fostering in Nova Roma. That your voice is not raised in
Concordia, but instead is raised in counting votes by AD affiliation or not
was the basis for my original commentary. I hope this clarifies where I am
coming from for you.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena


Vale!
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Meeting of the Denver cives: America Austroccidentalis
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:33:32 -0500

Salvete;

Congratulations again for such a successful meeting. I hope we get more and
more cives involved in these sorts of things! Sounds like you folks in
Austroccidentalis are doing great things, and getting ready to do more.

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] 'Gladiator' Wins Again
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:09:50 -0500

Salvete!

The film 'Gladiator', which just a few days ago won the Golden Globe Award
for Best Picture, yesterday received the Broadcast Film Critics Best Picture
award. The full story can be found at

http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/23/gladiator.reut/index.html

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: 'Gladiator' Wins Again
From:	"Robin (Marcia Columbia Rex) Burchardt" <usdragoon@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:48:40 -0000

Salvete Omnes!

To use a barbarian exclamation: WOOHOO!
The film deserves it!

Marcia Columbia Rex



--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germa--------s@--------> wrote:
> Salvete!
>
> The film 'Gladiator', which just a few days ago won the Golden
Globe Award
> for Best Picture, yesterday received the Broadcast Film Critics
Best Picture
> award. The full story can be found at
>
>
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/23/gladiator.reut/index.html
>
> 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: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] 'Gladiator' Wins Again
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:09:10 EST

Salvete, Nova Roma!

Aside from seeing it on the big screen, at home, it is well worth watching in
the DVD format. The surround sound adds much to it. The DVD contains one disk
devoted to supplementary materials. I like it so well that I purchased a copy
of it from amazon.com. Gladiator is compared to Spartacus, true in some ways,
but the story line cannot be faulted. An excellent source for all particulars
is the database:
www.IMDb.com/ -- well worth accessing. The data base allows people to input
their opinions on Gladiator as well as any movie that strikes, or does not
strike their fancy. I have given reviews on several movies, which have been
posted and their has never been negative feedback.

Valete,

L. Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Introduction
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:58:29 -0800

Salve Neil!

Gratias multas for considering us. There's a lot to see here
and do in Nova Roma, as you're probably finding out for yourself.
If you're interested in the mystery religions, you might want
to browse http://www.egroups.com and search under "Mithras"
or "Mithraism." There are at least one or two moderately active
groups there that discuss mystery religions quite heavily and
some of the discourse is extremely interesting. Additionally,
if there are other particular mystery religions you may be
interested in there are other groups as well.

Check out http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/index.html#links
for some further links to sites and materials on both the Religio,
general polytheism and mystery religions.

Bene vale,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Schwartz [mailto:nschwartz86@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:08 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Introduction


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


eGroups Sponsor

Choose 3 DVDs for $0.49 each!




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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] A Draft of the site of Provincia Gallia
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:25:01 -0800

Salve I.Queri Armorice Lutecio!

Looks great! Excellent work!

Bene vale,
-Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: Yann Quéré [mailto:yquere@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:20 PM
To: NOVA ROMA; Gallia Australis; Gallia Borealis
Subject: [novaroma] A Draft of the site of Provincia Gallia


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]


eGroups Sponsor





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Republics...
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:57:22 -0600

In a democracy, the simple majority rules. So, if the majority wish to
lynch a person based on his characteristics, then it would be legal to
do so. That, in essence, is mob rule.

A republic has laws that state that the person cannot be lynched,
regardless of what the majority wishes...

However, there must be people to defend the constitution and the
republic
in order for it to live.

Vale,
C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:19:03 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

I don't usually do "me too" posts,unless I have something to add to the
subject at hand, but I feel I must add my voice in endorsement of this idea.

Vale,
Pompeia Cornelia


>From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: NovaRoma <novaroma@-------->, Senate <SenatusRomanus@-------->,
>"Gens_Cornelia@--------" <Gens_Cornelia@-------->
>Subject: [novaroma] Law Idea
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:19:40 -0800
>
>Ave Citizens of Nova Roma
>
>Many of you have some idea of the disorder that has happened in the Gens
>Cornelia. While I will not elaborate on it since it is an internal Gens
>issue, I believe that the resolution of this situation can benefit all
>of Nova Roma. To that end, I would like to have our Noble Consuls or
>Praetors to promulgate a law stating that ANY IM conversation(s) cannot
>be admitted as evidence or as a means of starting an investigation. Or,
>if they are to be used as evidence, written consents of all parties must
>be included. I believe that if this written down into law, the
>situation that created disorder in my Gens would never have happened.
>And, given that it has happened in my Gens, this can be a problem that
>might affect any other Gens in Nova Roma! With that in mind, I
>respectfully submit this request.
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>Censor of Nova Roma
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:44:01 -0000

Salve Censor Sulla!

First: This issue concerns a new and very welcome member of my Gens.
Therefore, believe me, you will receive what you deserve for your
actions, may they have happened within or outside your gens.

Second: With regard to your lex proposal. A lot there seems unclear
to me.

What else would you consider inadmissible evidence if ever a trial
were to be held in a Nova Roma court or comitia? Would a witness
report about what happened in an AIM chat be admissible without
consent of the other person involved? Would any e-mail outside an
official list be admissible without consent. Should any criminal or
treasonous person be able to withhold evidence by simply refusing to
give consent? Or should this only concern third persons? I am
confused...and also it seems that this lex would at present protect
not so much the gentes but one person (who might that
be?)....Therefore, I fear that the timing and way you put this "idea"
forward smacks a little bit of a Nixonian effort to conceal something
by introducing a lex that makes it impossible to use something which
obviously concerns YOU.

Please feel free to present "admissible" evidence that proves
otherwise.

Before that affair is behind us, I am against such a lex. After the
conclusion we might talk again about this "idea".

Marcus Marcius Rex
Paterfamilias Gens Marcia
Senator




--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave Citizens of Nova Roma
>
> Many of you have some idea of the disorder that has happened in the
Gens
> Cornelia. While I will not elaborate on it since it is an internal
Gens
> issue, I believe that the resolution of this situation can benefit
all
> of Nova Roma. To that end, I would like to have our Noble Consuls
or
> Praetors to promulgate a law stating that ANY IM conversation(s)
cannot
> be admitted as evidence or as a means of starting an
investigation. Or,
> if they are to be used as evidence, written consents of all parties
must
> be included. I believe that if this written down into law, the
> situation that created disorder in my Gens would never have
happened.
> And, given that it has happened in my Gens, this can be a problem
that
> might affect any other Gens in Nova Roma! With that in mind, I
> respectfully submit this request.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Basilica News
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:48:09 -0000

Salvete

One of the features that Basilica will share with the Mozilla and
Netscape 6 browsers is "My Sidebar". Anyone can create a "My Sidebar"
tab which is basicaly a miniture webpage that is displayed alongside
the regular page on the right. The user can select which tabs they
want displayed or shut the feature off.

Groups within Nova Roma will be able to create tabs to keep thier
fellow Nova Romans up to date if they so wish. Right now I have it
working for the tabs availble from Mozilla and Netscape. The Weather
Chanel's tab is shown on a file I just uploaded.

Some good ideas for tabs might be a Nova Roma tab that had upcoming
Comita meetings, and other News. A Religio Tab that showed the
Calender and upcoming holy days, and tabs for the Provincia.

Netscape has a "My Sidebar" Developers guide at
http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/browser/sidebar/index.html?
cp=mse

I haven't had a chance to test another feature yet, But I saw on the
Mozilla developers site that the "Amazing FishCam" Easter egg has been
implemented. Since keeping pet fish was very popular in the late
Republic, the "Amazing FishCam" Easter Egg will also be a part of
Basilica. Long time Netscape users may be aware of this "feature" and
it's place in Internet History.

Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus