Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re:VETO
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:24:11 EST

Honourable Tribune et Omina of Nova Roma,

Not only as a plebian citizen of Nova Roma, but a fellow Curator Sermona of
another
list. I disagree with this action that has been proposed. I am asking the
Tribunes, could this situation be solved with the action of a veto? A veto is
something very strong, it also carries a lot of weight, vetoes are only used
in the legislative sense only. Perhaps I could be mistaken on that,and would
be appreciate clarification if so.
I ask you Tribunes Fortunatus and Moravius, should a Magistrate or Curator be
vetoed simply being or doing something deemed "controversial"? In the past
have not controversial events occured, and no veto action took place before
the election of Priscilla Vedia Serena? So why that now? I know, I was most
likely out of line and this I apologize for. It was something on my mind.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia Iulia Caesaria

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re:VETO
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:22:42 -0600

Salve Aeternia Iulia Caesaria

Your first question:
> I am asking the Tribunes, could this situation be solved with the
> action of a veto?

The veto was not issued in order to solve a situation. It was issued
because I fully agree with Consul Vedius that one of the primary duties
(he would likely say *the* primary duty) of the tribuni is to protect
the constitution.

Your second (implied) question:
> A veto is something very strong, it also carries a lot of weight,
> vetoes are only used in the legislative sense only. Perhaps I could
> be mistaken on that, and would be appreciate clarification if so.

The tribuni's power of intercessio is specifically applied against
"actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and
the interrex), Senatus consulta, and laws passed by the comitia." It is
not meant to be restricted to legislation.

Your third question:
> I ask you Tribunes Fortunatus and Moravius, should a Magistrate or
> Curator be vetoed simply being or doing something deemed
> "controversial"?

Of course not. I did not issue my veto because of any controversy. I
did so because I felt that the spirit and letter of the constitution
were violated by the curatrix sermo's action. Note, by the way, that Cn
Moravius has not yet proclaimed his intercessio, and mine holds no
weight until and unless he does so.

Your fourth and fifth questions:
> In the past have not controversial events occured, and no veto
> action took place before the election of Priscilla Vedia Serena?
> So why that now?

Yes, controversial actions have occurred many times throughout Nova
Roma's history, most of them prior to Priscilla Vedia's election. Most
of them occurred prior to my election as well. Those actions are beside
the point, as I could not have done anything more than complain about
them at the time. In most cases, I did just that. Now, however, I have
the powers and responsibilities of a magistracy, and I shall do my best
to fulfill the duties of the post to which I have been elected through
the exercise of its powers.

It will likely be argued by some that I am being inconsistent, and that
I should have issued a similar veto in the case of the curatrix sermo's
action against the Falkland Islands thread. I admit the point. Since
the beginning of the year, I have been badly distracted by a series of
calamities in my private life. I can but attempt not to repeat my
mistakes.

I likewise admit that it was, in part, the controversy surrounding this
issue that caused me to investigate the constitutionality of the
curatrix sermo's action--primarily because such a veto was requested by
a number of cives. However, I judged the issue purely on the language
of the constitution, and not upon the subject of the controversy.
Indeed, though many good points have been made by her opposition in this
matter, I tend to agree with Priscilla Vedia's policies and decisions to
date.

> I know, I was most likely out of line and this I apologize for.

You could not be more wrong. If you disagree with any magistrate's
actions, you have the right to disagree both privately and publicly. If
you don't like something I do, let me know. If you supply good reasons,
you might even change my mind.

Vale
Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re:VETO
From:	SyanneRose@--------
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:51:47 EST

Ave Senator Fortunatus,

Forgive me for my utterly usual ignorance, my post is another fine example of
what happens when you're not fammiliar with Tribunal laws and such. I would
like thank you Fortunatus for taking the time of answering my questions. But
I will stand firm with my post and there is nothing you can do to change my
mind.

Vale,
Aeternia

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO]
From:	LucillaCornelia@--------
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:12:34 -0500

novaroma@-------- wrote:
>
> Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Curatrix Sermo Priscillae Vediae
> Quiritibusque SPD
>
> The curatrix sermo recently stated, in regard to the discussion about
> the main list's language policy:
>
> > All views have been expressed, the policy has been clearly stated and
> > the topic has been settled. Further discussion is unwarranted on the
> > main list at this time. Anyone wishing to pursue the discussion in
> > private is more than welcome to do so. However, no further posts on
> > this topic will be permitted here on the main list.
>
> However, the constitution states unequivocally, in section II.B.4, that
> all citizens have "The right to participate in all public forums and
> discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such forums to be
> supported by the State. Such communications, regardless of their
> content, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent
> an imminent and clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored
> forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of
> maintaining order and civility;"

Labienus, your post has me thinking that maybe we've failed to define what
constitutes "an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."

If, upon carefully review of the Archives in this matter, prior to taking an
extreme action in calling for Intercessio, we fail to see disorderly
or uncivil posts, then perhaps we need to look again: From memory alone I
can recall
five Cives who posted to our Curatrix Sermonem, pleading for her intervention
in order that these odious, disruptive and uncivil posts from Formosanus be
stopped. Undoubtedly there were others as well who petitioned our Curatrix
in
kind to put a stop to these damaging posts.

There were no posts -- NOT ONE -- countering these requests. There was not a
single post dissenting to the numerous requests made that an end be put to
the thread in question. And why were the numerous requests made that the
thread be stopped? Because these communications "represent(ed) an imminent
and clear danger to the Republic." (NR Constitution, Section II.B.4)

As recently as earlier today Cives were posting at various sites within NR,
complaining that this thread and the uncivil nature of the posts therein had
had an extremely negative impact on their lives; indeed, at least one
had discontinued their subscription to the Main List because of the
bitterness, rancor and disorder this thread had caused.

I ask you, Labienus, where do we draw the line?

At what point do we intervene when an imminent and clear danger presents
itself? When there are only three subscribers left on the Main List? When
we discover that more than half of NR's population have vacated their
Citizenship? Or, the unthinkable, when our next move is the declaration of
civil war? Or do we
pursue a reasonable and prudent course of action and respond within the
purview
of our office as an elected official when we are first alerted to this
imminent and clear danger, thereby protecting the best interests of the
individual Cives and of the Res Publica alike. I would like to say we all
would meet this imminent and clear danger with a reasonable and prudent
course of action; I would like to say that we would respond the way our
Curatrix Sermonem did and, in so doing, preserve civility and maintain
order, as she is mandated to do so by Section II.B.4 of our Constitution.

Our Curatrix Sermonem further upheld our Constitution AND the right to free
speech in encouraging the person(s) who wished to pursue this thread to do so
on venues other than NR's Main List. She supported their right to free
speech, while simultaneously preserving civility and maintaining order on the
Main List -- no easy feat, rest assured.

And, Labienus, with all due respect, may we ask you to expound on your prior
statement that you would also have Vetoed the Curatrix' putting a stop to the
Falkland Island posts? And, if I may -- as I am curious: Just what powers
do you presume the Curatrix has as Moderator?

Vale bene,
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata

--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/

--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/

--
Prima Lucilla Cornelia Fortunata
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:51:09 -0200

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 5:40 PM
> >
> > > The Curatrix Sermonem's job not being an easy one, and typically a
> thankless one, I
> > > believe it's long since time we stopped the derogating and the criticism
> and said,
> > > simply, "Thank you, Curatrix, for a job well done."
> >
> > I totally disagree with you on this point, but that discussion has been
> > illegally closed.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if this compulsion of yours to lie is perhaps
> psychological in nature. This statement of yours has no basis in fact. Two
> discussions have been halted; the Falkland Islands and whether or not

Seems you like this word: LIE. 3 discussions have been illegally
stopped:
(sorry I have difficulties to lie and use lie) forgot the discussion
about the definition of the words Republic and Democracy.

> non-English posts should be required to have English translations. Unless
> you're privy to some source of information from the Curatrix Sermonem that I
> am not, the topic of whether the Curatrix' job is a tough and largely
> thankless one, and that she is doing an excellent job despite the slings and
> arrows a vocal minority continues to verbally hurl at her (largely in other
> venues where she is not a participant), is perfectly acceptable.

As a usual list moderator she has done a great job, but this is not a
usual list, this
is the forum of NovaRoma. The rights of citizens here are protected by a
constitution (which btw you wrote). What would you say if your
macronational mayor or whatever took actions action freespeach in the
mall? Your constitution allows the Curator to take action against
conspirating citizens or other people putting in danger the republic.
This didn t happen in any of the 3 cases.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
> bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Spartacus")
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:02:58 -0500

Salve;

Perhaps you would like to answer my original point. You said the question of
whether the Curatrix Sermonem has done a good job was "illegally closed." I
pointed out that this assertion by you was a lie; that particular subject
was in no way halted.

So...

Care to actually speak to the question? Why did you falsely say that the
Curatrix banned a discussion of how she's done here when you know full well
she did no such thing?

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:51 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 5:40 PM
> > >
> > > > The Curatrix Sermonem's job not being an easy one, and typically a
> > thankless one, I
> > > > believe it's long since time we stopped the derogating and
> the criticism
> > and said,
> > > > simply, "Thank you, Curatrix, for a job well done."
> > >
> > > I totally disagree with you on this point, but that
> discussion has been
> > > illegally closed.
> >
> > I'm beginning to wonder if this compulsion of yours to lie is perhaps
> > psychological in nature. This statement of yours has no basis
> in fact. Two
> > discussions have been halted; the Falkland Islands and whether or not
>
> Seems you like this word: LIE. 3 discussions have been illegally
> stopped:
> (sorry I have difficulties to lie and use lie) forgot the discussion
> about the definition of the words Republic and Democracy.
>
> > non-English posts should be required to have English
> translations. Unless
> > you're privy to some source of information from the Curatrix
> Sermonem that I
> > am not, the topic of whether the Curatrix' job is a tough and largely
> > thankless one, and that she is doing an excellent job despite
> the slings and
> > arrows a vocal minority continues to verbally hurl at her
> (largely in other
> > venues where she is not a participant), is perfectly acceptable.
>
> As a usual list moderator she has done a great job, but this is not a
> usual list, this
> is the forum of NovaRoma. The rights of citizens here are protected by a
> constitution (which btw you wrote). What would you say if your
> macronational mayor or whatever took actions action freespeach in the
> mall? Your constitution allows the Curator to take action against
> conspirating citizens or other people putting in danger the republic.
> This didn t happen in any of the 3 cases.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Consul
> >
> > "For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession,
> and not such a
> > bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Spartacus")
> >
> > email: germanicus@--------
> > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > ICQ: 106199729
> > www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> >
>
>
>
>


Subject:	FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:04:11 -0500

Salvete;

I thought I'd share this most interesting email; no idea by what circuitous
routes through time and space it got to me. :-)

FVG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: germanicus@-------- [mailto:germanicus@--------]
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2008 8:24 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Re:Thoughts on the occasion our 10th Anniversary
>
> (The following is a transcript of the speech given by Flavius
> Vedius Germanicus in the Virtual Forum I Kal Mar 2761 AUC.)
>
> I must say that I wasn't always sure I'd have the opportunity to make
> this post. When Marcus Cassius and I first founded Nova Roma ten
> years ago, back in 1998, we had no idea how much or in what ways it
> would grow. It is certainly beyond all expectation. The ups, the
> downs, the crises that seemed so much more important at the time than
> they did even a month later... It wasn't an easy road, but it's one I
> am proud to have walked with you all.
>
> My heart swelled with pride when our Censores announced that our
> population had hit the 20,000-cive mark late last year. I'm pleased
> beyond measure that our Land Fund has been so successful, and the
> Senatorial Committee has been named to actually investigate sites to
> purchase (in addition to our two temples in California and Naples).
> To paraphrase a famous catchphrase from years past, "Next year in the
> Forum!"
>
> As I told many of you at Rubicon VI in Londinium last year (and thank
> the Gods our cives often pay for travel expenses just to hear old
> geezers like me ramble on), what's been most remarkable to me has
> been the shift of our emphasis from a "virtual community" to the
> wonderful world of pagus, civitas and municipium. Even seven years
> ago, during my own second Consulship, who would have imagined that we
> would have active pagii set up in 48 colleges and universities around
> the world, and over 100 civitae and minicipiae! Not a week goes by
> that Nova Romans are not getting together and being _Roman_, and that
> just shows me that our dream is being fulfilled. Rome is being
> restored.
>
> Of course, our virtual community is still strong, but so vastly
> different from how it was only a few years ago. It may seem odd to
> most of you here, but there was a time when the "novaroma" list at
> yahoogroups was called the "main list". There were a couple of
> specialty lists, but on the whole all the cive-to-cive communication
> basically happened on a single email list. <chuckle> Can you imagine
> what would happen if we tried to cram all our current email traffic
> onto a single list today?
>
> Now, of course, we have a bewildering variety of email lists; our
> provincial and local lists of course bear the brunt of the load,
> as well they should! And of course there are the scores of specialty
> lists; military history, gladiatorial combat, historical biography,
> even one devoted to techniques for making riveted Roman-era mail
> armor!
>
> That brings us back to the place of the central government in our
> society. Most here might not remember that there was a time when that
> was all there was in Nova Roma. There simply weren't any local
> chapters; no gladiator games, no legion musters, no dramas, no
> convivia, no market-days, nothing more than the occasional lunch
> between a handful of cives who happened to live near one another.
>
> Naturally, when the central government and its few magistracies were
> the only outlet for people to participate in public life, it was a
> very different world indeed. It caused some stresses, no doubt about
> it. But I am certainly glad that people now realize that there's a
> wide Nova Roman world out there, and that the most valuable Citizens
> are those who serve our Republic on the local level.
>
> I thank all of you.
>
> In closing, I think our growth these last ten years has been quite
> unprecidented, unpredicted, and of course welcome beyond measure. It
> is surely a sign that the Gods are smiling on our endeavor. I hope
> our next ten years are as fruitful and fun as the first ten have been.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus


Subject:	[novaroma] Discussions and the Unruly Mob
From:	"Domna Claudia Auspicata" <comptess@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:02:17 +1300

Domna Claudia Auspicata Civibus SPD

*sticks her neck out*

I would be happy for the discussion on language to continue on this list. I was a tad disappointed when it was shut off. For this reason I support the intercessio of our tribune. No, I didn't enjoy the inane bickering either, it was plainly embarrassing. However I feel that it would be better for us to learn to post responsibly (and if that means moderating some people for a period then fine) rather than close down a discussion because it has turned into an emotional warzone. I am still thinking alot on the main list language issue and have formed no firm conclusions accepting and rejecting arguments from both sides. I am most happy for it to continue...civally. Is this an impossibility? I can understand many cives hesitation about posting in a discussion where they may fear being screamed at or made to look a fool. I have all faith we can all be more considerate.

I have heard suggestions of a separate list for extended discussions such as these. While I like to be in touch with as many parts of NR as I can others may not and may only require announcements and such like. Is this a better idea; a separate list for debates?

Or perhaps we could use the polls. Although polls do not express all facets of an argument and they should never be taken as the be-all-and-end-all of a matter they may be an indicator of interest in the subject and they allow those who are not so verbose as others to take part in some way. Anyhow these are just ideas for not only a possibly continued discussion on the previous issue (that dare not speak its name;-) but perhaps useful 'tactics' in the future.

And last, many thanks to our Curatrix Sermonem whom I feel deserves much appreciation for trying to moderate such an unruly mob as yerselves ;-) I do not envy her job for a minute.

Valete
Domna Claudia Auspicata
Musaea Collegiae Melpomenes

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re:VETO
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:34:51 -0500

Salve,

>>I likewise admit that it was, in part, the controversy surrounding this
issue that caused me to investigate the constitutionality of the curatrix
sermo's action--primarily because such a veto was requested by a number of
cives.>>

On a light-hearted note I cannot help but note that when you pare away all
the differences between our respective positions, we are both doing the same
thing. You received requests to veto my action and you acted accordingly.
Reasonable, fair and responsible of you.

I received numerous requests to end the thread on languages and I acted
accordingly. Reasonable, fair and responsible of me. I won't get into the
deeper issues here, as this is intended solely as a good-natured
observation. I just found the parallels in our actions to be notable.

Have a good night!

Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:03:45 EST

On 2/11/01 5:53 PM Fortunatus (labienus@--------) wrote:

<snipped>
>
>Please note that this use of intercessio has no authority unless and
>until Cn Moravius chooses to support it with a statement of intercessio
>of his own.
>
Actually this is not quite accurate as stated. Gnaeus Moravius must
publically either support or oppose your intercessio. According to the
opinion of no less an authority than Flavius Vedius Germanicus himself
(expressed last year when he was in favor of my intercessio in another
situation) if only one Tribune is present and active then that lone
Tribune has only himself to agree with in order for his intercessio to
stand.

If Gn. Moravius fails to show up and express himself in opposition, then
your intercessio has full force of law.

Personally, I think that while P. Vedia had no right to put an end a
discussion that was not disorderly or uncivil, she did have the right to
put Formosanus on moderated status when he publically stated his intent
to continue the thread as a protest, because that was a statement of
intent to be disorderly on the list.

But since I am no longer Tribunus Plebis, my opinion and a dollar will
get me a cup of coffee and not much more. :-)

Carry on, T. Labienus, or as they say in Oz - "Good on yer!"

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

sic friatur crustum dulce.

(Thus the cookie crumbles.)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO - HUMOR ALERT
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:12:47 -0800

>
> But since I am no longer Tribunus Plebis, my opinion and a dollar will
> get me a cup of coffee and not much more. :-)
>

Or a 20 min phone call using 10-10-220!!!

Sorry just a humor response....

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
*Definately in need of some humor*

> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> sic friatur crustum dulce.
>
> (Thus the cookie crumbles.)
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:20:48 -0000

Salvete,

Allthough I disagreed with the policy that started this, I fully
support the Curator Sermonem's power to set policy on this list. She
gave everyone who cared to comment a chance to make thier feelings
known. When the discussion was terminated it was in response to calls
from citizens who were bored by a thread that had deteorated to the
level of a third grade argument. "did not" "did too" "did not" "did
too". There were NO new ideas being presented, just an endless
rehashing of the same statements.

Freedom of speach does NOT give you the right to force people to
listen to you. It does NOT cover spamming the group by making the same
arguments over and over untill people get tired of hearing you and
give in just to shut you up for a time. It does NOT mean that others
are forced to give you a web site to make your views known. There is
nothing stoping those who disagree with the policy from using private
e-mail (you can get the addresses from the headers of the letters), in
other groups, or even starting your own group or web page.

There are other options availble to those who disagree with the
Curator Sermonem or other magistrates. If you feel that they violated
the Constitution, you are free to contact the Tribunes about using the
intercessio. You are free to contact one of the magistrates about
summoning one of the Comita for the purpose of passing a law on the
matter.

Valete
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:09:55 -0500

Salvete!

Limitanus wrote,

>> I totally disagree with you on this point, but that discussion has been
>> illegally closed.

And Germanicus responded:

>I'm beginning to wonder if this compulsion of yours to lie is perhaps
>psychological in nature. This statement of yours has no basis in fact. Two
>discussions have been halted; the Falkland Islands and whether or not
>non-English posts should be required to have English translations.

Graecus attempted to halt the gender names discussion and was vetoed by
Audens, so this statement is incorrect. The difference of view on the
legality of the Curatrix Sermonem's action can hardly be said to involve
"lies".

IMO it is illegal, though I personally sympathise with the motivation,
since the language discussion had become merely repetitious.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] VETO]
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:19:10 -0500

Salvete,

Fortunata wrote,

>From memory alone I can recall five Cives who posted to our Curatrix
Sermonem, pleading for her intervention
>in order that these odious, disruptive and uncivil posts from Formosanus
be
>stopped. Undoubtedly there were others as well who petitioned our
Curatrix
>in kind to put a stop to these damaging posts.

>There were no posts -- NOT ONE -- countering these requests. There was
not a
>single post dissenting to the numerous requests made that an end be put to

>the thread in question.

A) Not enough time elapsed between these posts and the Curatrix' action for
the posts themselves to be met with controversy. An email list cannot be
instantaneous in its operation, as can be seen from the timelags in the
electoral process; a fortiori where the subscribers live in most of the
world's timezones.

B) The action of a magistrate is a different matter from citizen complaint.
I may complain repeatedly about Bloggs; that is no invasion of anyone's
legal rights and does not demand a response. If PC Plod chooses, because of
my complaints, to arrest Bloggs for "walking on the cracks in the
pavement", that is an illegal action by a public official and demands a
response.

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:28:05 -0500

Salvete,

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote,

>Freedom of speach does NOT give you the right to force people to
>listen to you.

I agree entirely. But no-one is forced to listen. There is no obligation to
read all the posts that come from the NR list. That's what the "Delete"
button is for on your email programme.

That's up to individual citizens - to listen, or not to listen. But freedom
of speech, if it means anything, means not being shut up by force of law
because other citizens don't wish to listen to you. It does not mean
"freedom of constructive speech", "freedom of intelligent speech", or
"freedom of politically correct speech".

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister


Subject:	[novaroma] Accusations, Discord and a Small Oasis of Relief
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:31:36 -0500 (EST)

Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;

How unfortunate that some citizens have so little to do, or so little
desire to forward the ideals of Nova Roma, that they must continually
engage in postulation against an imagined assailment of thier rights.
For my part, Nova Roma is an exercise in getting to know more about
ancient Rome. Since I have little fear of the present Magistrates, I
suppose that I am blessed by my own beliefs and the Gods of Rome for my
freedom from the fear that someone is taking something away from me.
Perhaps I am nieve in that belief, but I do not think so. When I was in
France, Spain and Germany, I was expected to at least learn some of the
language there before the people of that country would take the time to
answer my questions and assist me with my activities. I thought that
quite fair, and I see no problem with asking those who post on this list
in a language other than English to assist me in understanding what they
have to say. Since I have a severe difficulty in memorization or
learning languages or similar areas of study as determined by a medical
doctor, I cannot effectively pursue those efforts, but I do not believe
that requires others to change the way they wish to do things. It would
be nice, however, to have thier cooperation in this endeavor -- and I
thank our List Moderator most sincerely for her request that will help
me significantly in getting to know my fellow Nova Romans better and in
understandng them and the worlds in which they live. I have always
thought that part and parcel with our efforts here, but apparently
according to several sources, I am in error!!!! However, I am sure that
those who clamor at the gates for thier particular "brand of fairness"
will pass over this thought as they have passed over the pleas of others
on this list to return to a more sensible and rewarding venue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Shades of the Departed / Castel Sant'Angelo

----The funeral monuments of the Romans reflected thier belief in an
after life and indicated the social status of the deceased. To the
Romans the spirits of the dead were known as "Manes." There was a
common understanding that they (Manes) remembered with affection thier
ties with living relatives, and needed to be nourished with offerings of
food and drink, and even blood. Some graves had special tubes or
openings leading to the burial chamber for this purpose. Exactly where
the dead lived was a matter of some differing interpretations among the
Roman people. Some believed that the shades or Manes remained near the
place where they were buried, while others believed they ascended to
thier reward in the heavens above, and still others were convinced that
the spirits of the deceased decended into the depths of the earth, there
to be recieved by a kindly Mother Earth.

The main source of evidence for the Roman burial customs come to us from
the burials themselves, and the funery monuments (together with thier
inscriptions) which were erected over them. In general, only wealthy
people recieved carved memorials of stone. These frequently carried a
portrait of the deceased (and often of several individuals buried in the
same family grave) with an inscription addressed to the "Dis Manibus",
the spirits of the dead. The principal cemetries grew up along the main
arterial roads leading from the cities, such as the Via Appia, south of
Rome. Here as around other cities, there were wide variations of the
tombs from major monuments to simple graves. Special mention must also
be made here of the catacombs, which were underground complexs of
rockcut graves associated with certain religious communities, and found
not only at Rome but also at Naples and Syracuse.

The traditional Roman burial rite was divided into several stages. The
body was first washed, then annointed and laid out for burial, with a
coin placed in the mouth to pay Charon the ferryman, who would convey
the deceased over the River Styx. On the day of the burial, the corpse
would be laid on a funeral couch (for the rich) or a simple bier (in the
case of the poor) and carried in procession outside the city or
settlement to the place of disposal. The burial itself could take the
form of either cremation or inhumation. In Republican times, cremation
was the dominant rite at Rome and throughout most of the European
provinces, but under the early empire it was staedily replaced by the
eastern practice of inhumation until by the end of the 2nd century even
Roman Emperors were generally inhumed. An ancient Roman law prohibited
the burial of anyone within the walls of the city of Rome. This
resulted in allowing cemetaries and mausoleums only to be erected
outside the limits of the city.

----When the Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117 to 138), following the example of
Augustus who built a Mausolium in the Campus Martius, decided to
construct, during his lifetime, a great mausoleum and moumental tomb for
himself and for his successors, he chose what was undoubtanbly the most
arresting site available on the right bank of the Tiber, near the Via
Cornelia and visible from the "Campus Martinus" which had become one of
the most important areas of Imperial Rome and was in an area occupied by
the gardens of the family of the Domitii.

Construction began in 135 A.D. and was completed in 139 A.D. under
Antonius Pius. The mausoleum was completed a year after Hadrian's death
which occurred in 138 A.D. The monument being unfinished when Hadrian
died, he was not buried in it until a year later.

The structure consists of a square base 295 (80 metres) feet long on
each side and 50 feet high, completely veneered in marble above which
stands the drum or cylindrical body of a second structure 21 metres high
and 64 metres in diameter. This cylinder is partitioned inside with
radiating walls and the covering is done with connecting vaults. The
upper part of this cylinder was topped by a cypress covered earthen
mound or tumulus in the manner of an Etruscan tomb which rose above the
sides of the cylinder in the shape of a dome. To crown the whole
monument, in the center of the earth and tree covered mound, there was a
huge, four-sided pillar surmounted on top with a colossal gilt bronze
statue consisting of a four horse chariot and the statue of the God
Helios. The exterior of the mausoleum was covered with travertine and
the interior with marbles and stucco decorations. The cylindrical base
and the summit of the monument were adorned with marble and bronze
statues. The enclosure around it was decorated with a series of bronze
peacocks, two of which are still to be seen in the nearby Vatican.

The funery chamber was reached by a spiral stairway. In the mausoleum
were buried Hadrian, his wife Sabrina, Antonnius Pius and his wife
Faustina, Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, and
Septimus Severus and his son Caracalla.

At the same time as the construction of the mausoleum, it was decided to
build a bridge to connect the tomb with the rest of the city and to
provide direct access to the mausoleum from the Campus Martius and the
Via Cornelia. This bridge was known as the "Pons Aelius" (Hadrian's
Bridge) after the Emperor (now Ponte Sant'Angelo). The three central
arches / arcades survive as they were built and constitute one of the
best preserved and most elegant of all Roman bridges presently in
existance, and was at the time of construction designed to be a greater
and more elaborate bridge than any of it's predecessors.

The monument was transformed into a defensive fortress from as early as
the time of Aurelian and it has become a keystone of the defensive
system on the right bank of the Tiber
References:

--"Rome (From Antiquity to the Present Day)," Edizion FI . DA . RO;

--"Rome Past and Present (With Reconstructions of Ancient Monuments),"
R.A. Staccioli / A. Equini, Vision Publications, S.R.L. Roma, Italy;

--"Rome of the Caesars," Leonardo B.Dal Maso, Bonechi-Edizioni (El
Tourismo), Via dei Rustici, 5 -- 50122 Firenzi;

--"The Penguin Histrical Atlas of Ancient Rome", Chris Scarre, Penguin
Group, Bath Press, Avon, England, 1995.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gentle Readers;

It is to be hoped that this small example, will inspire others who seek
to place thier opinions upon the Nova Roma List, to pay some kind of
similar toll with an article. poem, or some other type of literary
offering that will enhance the thrust of Nova Roma, which is not to seek
to subvert an imagined wrong, but rather to foster and promote the
wisdom, beauty and ideas of the ancient Roman Culture that we all
supposedly revere.

Valete, Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:06:53 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@c...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus wrote,
>
> >Freedom of speach does NOT give you the right to force people to
> >listen to you.
>
> I agree entirely. But no-one is forced to listen. There is no
obligation to
> read all the posts that come from the NR list. That's what the
"Delete"
> button is for on your email programme.
>
> That's up to individual citizens - to listen, or not to listen. But
freedom
> of speech, if it means anything, means not being shut up by force of
law
> because other citizens don't wish to listen to you. It does not mean
> "freedom of constructive speech", "freedom of intelligent speech",
or
> "freedom of politically correct speech".
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

The Spammers are fond of claiming "freedom of speach" and pointing out
that delete button. I'm in the process of changing over my e-mail
address, one that I've used for years, because I'm tired of having to
delete BS that I'm not intrested in. I don't want to "find out
anything about anyone". I don't want to see "Teenage Nymphos". I'm not
intrested in buying toner cartridges for the copier I don't own. My
old address had found it's way on to too many spam lists to be useful.
Heavy filters failed to block up to 100 spams a day! So thanks to a
small group who misuse "freedom of speach" I have the hassle of
changing over my e-mail.

If citizens do NOT have the option of modaration about what they
consider abuses of the NovaRoma mail list, they will follow a similar
option to my e-mail change. Rather than having to constantly hit the
delete button, they'll decide the list is more trouble than it's
worth, and they'll hit the unsubscribe button.

The NovaRoma group is "Res Publica", owned by all citizens, and as
with all things owned by the public, if some kind of rules aren't
established for it's use, then it will be monopolized by a few, and
will in effect become a private list.

There are Macronation legal aspects to a modarated list that I intend
to persue at a later time. Right now I have to leave for work.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] Books for a younger person?
From:	pjane@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:29:57 -0000

Greetings!

I'm looking for suggestions for books on Roman history that might be
appropriate for someone of 13 or 14 who is not ready to read at the
college level yet, but is developing a real appreciation for that
history.

Ideas?

Patricia Cassia


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:32:09 -0200

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> Perhaps you would like to answer my original point. You said the question of
> whether the Curatrix Sermonem has done a good job was "illegally closed." I
> pointed out that this assertion by you was a lie; that particular subject
> was in no way halted.
>
> So...
>
> Care to actually speak to the question? Why did you falsely say that the
> Curatrix banned a discussion of how she's done here when you know full well
> she did no such thing?

Because her job includes edicting rules, since we can no more give our
opinion on the rules we can t evaluate her job. And doing it in one way
or the other is an impicit violation of the "no more discussion on the
free Linguistic expression"

Manius Villius Limitanus

>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
> bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Spartacus")
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:51 PM
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: Re: [novaroma] Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
> >
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: loos [mailto:loos]On Behalf Of Michel Loos
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 5:40 PM
> > > >
> > > > > The Curatrix Sermonem's job not being an easy one, and typically a
> > > thankless one, I
> > > > > believe it's long since time we stopped the derogating and
> > the criticism
> > > and said,
> > > > > simply, "Thank you, Curatrix, for a job well done."
> > > >
> > > > I totally disagree with you on this point, but that
> > discussion has been
> > > > illegally closed.
> > >
> > > I'm beginning to wonder if this compulsion of yours to lie is perhaps
> > > psychological in nature. This statement of yours has no basis
> > in fact. Two
> > > discussions have been halted; the Falkland Islands and whether or not
> >
> > Seems you like this word: LIE. 3 discussions have been illegally
> > stopped:
> > (sorry I have difficulties to lie and use lie) forgot the discussion
> > about the definition of the words Republic and Democracy.
> >
> > > non-English posts should be required to have English
> > translations. Unless
> > > you're privy to some source of information from the Curatrix
> > Sermonem that I
> > > am not, the topic of whether the Curatrix' job is a tough and largely
> > > thankless one, and that she is doing an excellent job despite
> > the slings and
> > > arrows a vocal minority continues to verbally hurl at her
> > (largely in other
> > > venues where she is not a participant), is perfectly acceptable.
> >
> > As a usual list moderator she has done a great job, but this is not a
> > usual list, this
> > is the forum of NovaRoma. The rights of citizens here are protected by a
> > constitution (which btw you wrote). What would you say if your
> > macronational mayor or whatever took actions action freespeach in the
> > mall? Your constitution allows the Curator to take action against
> > conspirating citizens or other people putting in danger the republic.
> > This didn t happen in any of the 3 cases.
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Manius Villius Limitanus
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > > Consul
> > >
> > > "For Gracchus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession,
> > and not such a
> > > bad one." (Crassus, in the film "Spartacus")
> > >
> > > email: germanicus@--------
> > > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> > > ICQ: 106199729
> > > www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Books for a younger person?
From:	"Lucius Equtius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:20:59 -0000


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] VETO
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:26:24 -0500

Salve;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LSergAust@-------- [mailto:LSergAust@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 00:04
>
> Actually this is not quite accurate as stated. Gnaeus Moravius must
> publically either support or oppose your intercessio. According to the
> opinion of no less an authority than Flavius Vedius Germanicus himself
> (expressed last year when he was in favor of my intercessio in another
> situation) if only one Tribune is present and active then that lone
> Tribune has only himself to agree with in order for his intercessio to
> stand.
>
> If Gn. Moravius fails to show up and express himself in opposition, then
> your intercessio has full force of law.

Actually that's not quite true. While I do believe that if a Tribune is
incommunicado for a long period of time and essentially abandoning his or
her post (as was the case last year), such an attitude can be justified,
such is not the case here. Both of our Tribunes are around, aware, and in
touch, and thus I don't believe it can be said that lack of a negative
response implies a positive one in this case.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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: FW: Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:50:12 -0000

Salvete,

Many thanks to Flavius Vedius Germanicus for posting this reminder
about where our efforts *should* be going. As a Citizen, (never mind
as a magistrate)I've been terribly weary of the forum lately.
Renewing our goals and "dreams" in such a way is a healthy thing. My
personal thanks for something that has honestly made my day a little
brighter, and turned my thoughts toward our future.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> I thought I'd share this most interesting email; no idea by what
circuitous
> routes through time and space it got to me. :-)
>
> FVG
>
> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: germa--------s@-------- [mailto:germa--------s@--------] > > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2008 8:24 PM
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Subject: [novaroma] Re:Thoughts on the occasion our 10th
Anniversary
> >
> > (The following is a transcript of the speech given by Flavius
> > Vedius Germanicus in the Virtual Forum I Kal Mar 2761 AUC.)
> >
> > I must say that I wasn't always sure I'd have the opportunity to
make
> > this post. When Marcus Cassius and I first founded Nova Roma ten
> > years ago, back in 1998, we had no idea how much or in what ways
it
> > would grow. It is certainly beyond all expectation. The ups, the
> > downs, the crises that seemed so much more important at the time
than
> > they did even a month later... It wasn't an easy road, but it's
one I
> > am proud to have walked with you all.
> >
> > My heart swelled with pride when our Censores announced that our
> > population had hit the 20,000-cive mark late last year. I'm
pleased
> > beyond measure that our Land Fund has been so successful, and the
> > Senatorial Committee has been named to actually investigate sites
to
> > purchase (in addition to our two temples in California and
Naples).
> > To paraphrase a famous catchphrase from years past, "Next year in
the
> > Forum!"
> >
> > As I told many of you at Rubicon VI in Londinium last year (and
thank
> > the Gods our cives often pay for travel expenses just to hear old
> > geezers like me ramble on), what's been most remarkable to me has
> > been the shift of our emphasis from a "virtual community" to the
> > wonderful world of pagus, civitas and municipium. Even seven years
> > ago, during my own second Consulship, who would have imagined
that we
> > would have active pagii set up in 48 colleges and universities
around
> > the world, and over 100 civitae and minicipiae! Not a week goes by
> > that Nova Romans are not getting together and being _Roman_, and
that
> > just shows me that our dream is being fulfilled. Rome is being
> > restored.
> >
> > Of course, our virtual community is still strong, but so vastly
> > different from how it was only a few years ago. It may seem odd to
> > most of you here, but there was a time when the "novaroma" list at
> > yahoogroups was called the "main list". There were a couple of
> > specialty lists, but on the whole all the cive-to-cive
communication
> > basically happened on a single email list. <chuckle> Can you
imagine
> > what would happen if we tried to cram all our current email
traffic
> > onto a single list today?
> >
> > Now, of course, we have a bewildering variety of email lists; our
> > provincial and local lists of course bear the brunt of the load,
> > as well they should! And of course there are the scores of
specialty
> > lists; military history, gladiatorial combat, historical
biography,
> > even one devoted to techniques for making riveted Roman-era mail
> > armor!
> >
> > That brings us back to the place of the central government in our
> > society. Most here might not remember that there was a time when
that
> > was all there was in Nova Roma. There simply weren't any local
> > chapters; no gladiator games, no legion musters, no dramas, no
> > convivia, no market-days, nothing more than the occasional lunch
> > between a handful of cives who happened to live near one another.
> >
> > Naturally, when the central government and its few magistracies
were
> > the only outlet for people to participate in public life, it was a
> > very different world indeed. It caused some stresses, no doubt
about
> > it. But I am certainly glad that people now realize that there's a
> > wide Nova Roman world out there, and that the most valuable
Citizens
> > are those who serve our Republic on the local level.
> >
> > I thank all of you.
> >
> > In closing, I think our growth these last ten years has been quite
> > unprecidented, unpredicted, and of course welcome beyond measure.
It
> > is surely a sign that the Gods are smiling on our endeavor. I hope
> > our next ten years are as fruitful and fun as the first ten have
been.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] VETO
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:51:37 EST

Salvete omnes!

I might just add that this last opinion of our esteemed Consul Germanicus is consistent with his earlier statements as can be seen from this extract from the novaroma.de digestes below:

About the collegial Veto

"Thema: Re: [novaroma] Tribunes.
Datum: 21.05.00 08:54:40 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit
From: germanicus@-------- (Flavius Vedius Germanicus)
reply-to: novaroma@--------
To: novaroma@--------

Salve,

> I'm curious, with the Tribune Tarquinius Caesar stepping down, is there going to be another emergency election, or > > will we remain with just the one Tribune for the remainder of the year?
Personally, I don't see a problem. I assume you're talking about the need for two Tribunes and the requirement that intercessio be practiced "collegially". I read that (and I speak as the person who wrote it) as that if the Tribunes disagree on a particular veto, it doesn't happen. If there are two or thirty or one Tribune, it doesn't matter. They all have to agree for an intercessio to be effective. If there's only one Tribune, then he can pronounce intercessio, since there's nobody to disagree with him.

No emergency situation, but I think it'd be nice to have a second Tribune.

There are two for a reason...

Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus"

Avete et Valete

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:59:42 -0600

On 2/12/01 5:06 AM lsicinius@-------- (lsicinius@--------) wrote:

<snipped>
>
>If citizens do NOT have the option of modaration about what they
>consider abuses of the NovaRoma mail list, they will follow a similar
>option to my e-mail change. Rather than having to constantly hit the
>delete button, they'll decide the list is more trouble than it's
>worth, and they'll hit the unsubscribe button.
>
>The NovaRoma group is "Res Publica", owned by all citizens, and as
>with all things owned by the public, if some kind of rules aren't
>established for it's use, then it will be monopolized by a few, and
>will in effect become a private list.
>
>There are Macronation legal aspects to a modarated list that I intend
>to persue at a later time. Right now I have to leave for work.
>
>Valete,
>Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
A "macronational legal aspect" for you to pursue is that Nova Roma is a
corporation with legally constituted by-laws, and as a magistrate of that
corporation, Priscilla Vedia Serena is a corporate officer bound to
conduct herself by those bylaws. Those bylaws clearly state that Nova
Roman citizens' right to participate in public forums and discussions
"regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State, except
where they repesent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic." There
is a provision to allow moderation for the purpose of maintaining order
and civility.

That has a couple of significant implications. One is that it doesn't
matter that yahoogroups gives P. Vedia the *power* to moderate and
exclude people from participation in this list or that moderators in
other lists commonly do those things. In *this* list she is bound by our
Constitution (the bylaws) in how she may use those powers.

Another implication is that *it doesn't matter* whether you or I or a
hundred cives are annoyed by a thread of discussion or don't like the
ideas posted or don't think the topic is relevant. This is a public forum
of Nova Roma and activity here is *not* governed by popular vote - it is
governed by the laws of Nova Roma. Therefore, as long as there is no
disorder, no incivility, and no imminent and clear danger to the State,
posts here "MAY NOT BE RESTRICTED BY THE STATE" (emphasis mine).

So L. Sicinius Drusus is free to clutter up this list with off-topic
complaints about the volume of spam he receives in his email and the
moderator *of this list* cannot cut him off!

I am free to compare Nova Roma's elections to those of the USA or the
USSR and the moderator *of this list* cannot cut me off!

Others are free to air the "dirty laundry" of their gens on this list and
the moderator *of this list* cannot cut them off!

It doesn't matter, at this point, whether your or I or Lucius Tiddlywinks
don't like this state of affairs, because it is governed not by our
wishes but by our Constitution (part of our corporate bylaws).

Where it does matter is when we assemble in the Comitia Centuriata where
we are free to change that law (with the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Senate).

This is not one of those areas where the Constitution is vague, such as
it is about how an underage candidate goes about getting into office.
This section is absolutely clear in word and intent. If you want a list
moderator to be able to cut off orderly discussions here on the grounds
of relevance or length or boredom or anything else, YOU WILL HAVE TO
CHANGE THE LAW.

In the meantime, your defense against discussions you consider off-topic
or boring or completed is to ignore them, don't read them, and for the
gods' sakes don't respond to them. That's your responsibility. Can you
handle it or do you need a list mommy to take care of it for you?

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

id quod circumiret, circumveniat.

(What goes around, comes around.)


Subject:	[novaroma] Clearly titled subject lines and a personal view of "Freedom", was Re: Curator...
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:01:44 -0600

Avete Omnes,

Mike Macnair wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> (excision) That's what the "Delete" button is for on your email programme.
>
> (excision)
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>

I should like to agree with M. Mucius Scævola in his well put note on "Freedom of Speech,"
and the duty of the audience, which is addition to the responsibility of the speaker.

I should like to ask, remind, once again, the conversants on this list to please name
and re-name their letters in accord with the subject matter therein.
I, selfishly, desire this so I can exercise my duty as audience member to invoke Deletus.

I'm not a believer that "Freedom" is absolute.
"Freedom" is always fettered by duty and responsibility.
We have the freedom to discuss any topic here on the Nova Roma list,
which does not represent a "danger" to Nova Roma.

More freedom, or rather, liberty to "speak" than many macro-nations around the globe allow.

But, with greater freedom, comes even greater responsibility.

We Romans are a passionate people, whether those of use in this New Rome or, by account,
our cultural ancestors.

Passion is a wonderful thing. It adds a certain fire to our thoughts.
Sometimes, though, if we don't use the energy properly, our words generate too much heat,
and those to whom we are trying to speak will be unable to get close enough to our words
to gain benefit of the light contained therein.

mea sententia

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator


Subject:	Re: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	VMoeller@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:29:32 EST

Salve Consul Germanicus et Cives Nova Roma:

Not a bad set of goals for eight or so years down the road - says I.
Perhaps we should consider turning fiction into a list of goals...just a
thought? Vale ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestor


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:51:24 -0200 (BRST)

Salve,

I think there might be another macronational law the Curator(rix) has to
enforce here: We cannot discuss a plot to overthrough the US government,
nor can we discuss any terrorist attack etc.
Besides that it seems the constitution allows free speach as L. Sergius
said.

Manius Villius Limitanus

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Ira Adams wrote:

>
>
> On 2/12/01 5:06 AM lsicinius@-------- (lsicinius@--------) wrote:
>
> <snipped>
> >
> >If citizens do NOT have the option of modaration about what they
> >consider abuses of the NovaRoma mail list, they will follow a similar
> >option to my e-mail change. Rather than having to constantly hit the
> >delete button, they'll decide the list is more trouble than it's
> >worth, and they'll hit the unsubscribe button.
> >
> >The NovaRoma group is "Res Publica", owned by all citizens, and as
> >with all things owned by the public, if some kind of rules aren't
> >established for it's use, then it will be monopolized by a few, and
> >will in effect become a private list.
> >
> >There are Macronation legal aspects to a modarated list that I intend
> >to persue at a later time. Right now I have to leave for work.
> >
> >Valete,
> >Lucius Sicinius Drusus
> >
> A "macronational legal aspect" for you to pursue is that Nova Roma is a
> corporation with legally constituted by-laws, and as a magistrate of that
> corporation, Priscilla Vedia Serena is a corporate officer bound to
> conduct herself by those bylaws. Those bylaws clearly state that Nova
> Roman citizens' right to participate in public forums and discussions
> "regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State, except
> where they repesent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic." There
> is a provision to allow moderation for the purpose of maintaining order
> and civility.
>
> That has a couple of significant implications. One is that it doesn't
> matter that yahoogroups gives P. Vedia the *power* to moderate and
> exclude people from participation in this list or that moderators in
> other lists commonly do those things. In *this* list she is bound by our
> Constitution (the bylaws) in how she may use those powers.
>
> Another implication is that *it doesn't matter* whether you or I or a
> hundred cives are annoyed by a thread of discussion or don't like the
> ideas posted or don't think the topic is relevant. This is a public forum
> of Nova Roma and activity here is *not* governed by popular vote - it is
> governed by the laws of Nova Roma. Therefore, as long as there is no
> disorder, no incivility, and no imminent and clear danger to the State,
> posts here "MAY NOT BE RESTRICTED BY THE STATE" (emphasis mine).
>
> So L. Sicinius Drusus is free to clutter up this list with off-topic
> complaints about the volume of spam he receives in his email and the
> moderator *of this list* cannot cut him off!
>
> I am free to compare Nova Roma's elections to those of the USA or the
> USSR and the moderator *of this list* cannot cut me off!
>
> Others are free to air the "dirty laundry" of their gens on this list and
> the moderator *of this list* cannot cut them off!
>
> It doesn't matter, at this point, whether your or I or Lucius Tiddlywinks
> don't like this state of affairs, because it is governed not by our
> wishes but by our Constitution (part of our corporate bylaws).
>
> Where it does matter is when we assemble in the Comitia Centuriata where
> we are free to change that law (with the concurrence of two-thirds of the
> Senate).
>
> This is not one of those areas where the Constitution is vague, such as
> it is about how an underage candidate goes about getting into office.
> This section is absolutely clear in word and intent. If you want a list
> moderator to be able to cut off orderly discussions here on the grounds
> of relevance or length or boredom or anything else, YOU WILL HAVE TO
> CHANGE THE LAW.
>
> In the meantime, your defense against discussions you consider off-topic
> or boring or completed is to ignore them, don't read them, and for the
> gods' sakes don't respond to them. That's your responsibility. Can you
> handle it or do you need a list mommy to take care of it for you?
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>
>
> id quod circumiret, circumveniat.
>
> (What goes around, comes around.)
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pr. Michel Loos | Phone: 55 11 818 3810 p. 216
Inst. de Quimica USP | Fax: 55 11 815 5579
PO Box 26077 05599-970 São Paulo, S SP
Brazil


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:37 -0000

Salvete

>I think there might be another macronational law the Curator(rix) has to
>enforce here: We cannot discuss a plot to overthrough the US government,
It seems that US citizens often forget that there are other countries
represented here beside the US. For example I'm Portuguese and I would not
like to see any plot against the Portuguese government being discussed here,
no matter the satus of US-Portugal relations.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Books for a younger person?
From:	"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:02:20 -0500

pjane@-------- wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> I'm looking for suggestions for books on Roman history that might be
> appropriate for someone of 13 or 14 who is not ready to read at the
> college level yet, but is developing a real appreciation for that
> history. Ideas?

Salve Cassia!

How about "Everyday Life in the Roman Empire"?
Vale,
Fulvia


Subject:	[novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:00:02 -0800

Tribunus Plebis Gn. Moravius Piscinus Curatrix Sermo Priscillae Vediae
Quiritibusque SPD:

Upon reading my colleague's intercessio and further looking into
the matter I must now concur with his intercessio on the matter of the
Curatrix Sermo's action to place a moratorium on the discussion of a
policy for the Nova Roma main list. In doing so I wish to make clear
that my concurrence with my colleague is made in the most narrowest terms
regarding this issue.

As my colleague T. Labienus Fortunatus has stated, the
constitutional issue involved is with regard to Section II.B.4 of the
Constitution of Nova Roma:

"The right to participate in all public forums and discussions,
and the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order
and civility."

I note that there are two provisions in this section which may
seem in conflict with one another in the particular incident that gave
rise to the present situation. These are the provision that guarantees
the rights of all citizens to engage in discussions in officially
sponsored forums, and the provision that such forums may be reasonably
moderated. In balance, it is the responsibility of the Tribunes to
uphold the rights of each individual citizen, especially when the
opinions expressed by such individuals are in disagreement with the
majority. The expressed wishes of a few individuals, or even a majority
of our citizenry, cannot be held as justification by any magistrate to
limit the rights of any individual. With regard to the particular
incident regarding discussions held on the main list, the Constitution
lays out when such action as would limit discussion can be deemed
appropriate. The Constitution and other leges provide for the main list
to be moderated by a Curator/Curatrix Sermo and thereby gives authority
to an individual holding that office to take appropriate action when
required. Therefore this intercessio may not be held as a precedent to
limit the authority of the Curatrix Sermo to end discussions on the main
list when she feels they pose a clear and imminent danger to the
Republic. Nor in anyway may this intecessio be construed as applying to
any other matter or incidents related to the situation that has given
rise to it. Each incident, now and in the future, will have to be
adjudicated separately.

The only relevant matter in the present situation that warrants a
tribunician intercessio is that the discussion of concern which was ended
by the Curatrix Sermo's action concerned a policy promulgated within Nova
Roma. I fully support the Curatrix Sermo's authority under current law
to make policy and to enforce policy. I recognize that she has authority
in some cases to limit and/or end discussions. However it is also the
right of every citizen to question in an open forum such policies and
official actions taken by any magistrate. The Constitution specifically
states that the content of posts may not be the basis whereby the right
of an individual to express their opinions may be limited. Restricting
posts because their content is in regard to a specific topic may then be
held unconstitutional. I reserve the right to consider when exceptions
to this general principle may be made. I am of the opinion that the
Curatrix Sermo has the authority to redirect any discussion she feels is
inappropriate for the main list to any other appropriate list, or to
private communications. At present the only open forum for such
discussions concerning policies within Nova Roma is the main list. If
another open forum could be provided and supported by the State, whereby
the rights of individual citizens to express their opinions on policy
decisions could be freely exercised, then I would be open to a main list
policy that would make more narrow guidelines on the scope of discussions
that would be allowed on it. Under current circumstances, however, the
main list is the only open forum provided for and supported by Nova Roma
for such discussions. Therefore the main list is the only list at the
central level which currently meets the requirements of the Constitution
by which it is the responsibility of the State to provide an open forum
for its citizens. Therefore I must concur with my colleague's
intercessio, in that discussions on the main list in regard to policies
of the State or of any of its magistrates may not be limited or ended by
the Curatrix Sermo.

Having made this intercessio, whereby the discussion on what
policy should be adopted for the main list is hereby reopened, I shall
further make comment regarding the authority of the Curatrix Sermo in the
course of such discussion. I will fully support the Curatrix Sermo in
any action she deems necessary to maintain civility and order on the main
list while this or any other discussion is made on the main list, short
of her declaring an end of discussions on policy matters. As I have
stated on the list for the Comitia Plebis Tributa, the fact that the
Curatrix Sermo is a minor magistrate and her actions are subject to
intercessio by several senior magistrates, including the Tribuni Plebis,
I find that there are currently sufficient safegards to ensure the rights
of individuals citizens on the main list. Further, I concur with
Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator that with additional freedom of speach there
is additional responsibility to use your freedom responsibly. Our
purpose is to retain open discussion of issues. Our intent is that
discussions be conducted without recourse to personal attacks,
inappropriate comments, or inappropriate language. The Curatrix Sermo is
fully authorized to determine when individuals have breached proper
decorum, and may act accordingly.

Curate ut valeatis.

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:26:54 -0200 (BRST)

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Antonio Grilo wrote:

> Salvete
>
> >I think there might be another macronational law the Curator(rix) has to
> >enforce here: We cannot discuss a plot to overthrough the US government,
> It seems that US citizens often forget that there are other countries
> represented here beside the US. For example I'm Portuguese and I would not
> like to see any plot against the Portuguese government being discussed here,
> no matter the satus of US-Portugal relations.

I am brazilian, but I am not sure that the macronational US laws which
govern the yahoo groups protect our governments, it surely protects
their's. Enlarging this protection to all macronations would probably be
included in our Constitution, which for the moment only protects the
NovaRoman government.

Manius Villius Limitanus.

>
> Valete
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pr. Michel Loos | Phone: 55 11 818 3810 p. 216
Inst. de Quimica USP | Fax: 55 11 815 5579
PO Box 26077 05599-970 São Paulo, S SP
Brazil


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:58:30 -0500

Salve;

Unfortunately, the Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictum stipulates a 72-hour time
limit on the use of the Tribunicial intercessio. That time limit expired
last night at 11:08, 72 hours after the Curatrix Sermo posted her
instruction to stop the conversation in question (message 18681 in the
archives). Your opportunity to exercise this power has passed, and your
concurrence with your colleague's veto is invalid.

That having been said, I believe there is much good in both of your posts,
and will discuss them separately.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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] VETO]
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:37:14 +0100

Salvete buddies,

I know I'm late with responding to this thread, and sometimes I'm amazed
citizens don't unsubscribe en masse. Proves we have a persistent population!
:-)

Anyway, down to business...

Lucilla Cornelia Prima scripsit:
> Labienus, your post has me thinking that maybe we've failed to define what
> constitutes "an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."
>
> If, upon carefully review of the Archives in this matter, prior to taking
an
> extreme action in calling for Intercessio, we fail to see disorderly
> or uncivil posts, then perhaps we need to look again: From memory alone I
> can recall
> five Cives who posted to our Curatrix Sermonem, pleading for her
intervention
> in order that these odious, disruptive and uncivil posts from Formosanus
be
> stopped. Undoubtedly there were others as well who petitioned our Curatrix
> in
> kind to put a stop to these damaging posts.
>
> There were no posts -- NOT ONE -- countering these requests. There was not
a
> single post dissenting to the numerous requests made that an end be put to
> the thread in question. And why were the numerous requests made that the
> thread be stopped? Because these communications "represent(ed) an imminent
> and clear danger to the Republic." (NR Constitution, Section II.B.4)

Do they? Are the servers being hacked by rebels? Are the magistrates being
slaughtered (on Mars perhaps, but not here!)? Is a renegade magistrate
trying to usurp power? Do we have a psychopath amongst us? I would prefer
not to think so. And of course no people will mail the CS saying "we want to
continue" before she issues an admin note to stop the thread.

> As recently as earlier today Cives were posting at various sites within
NR,
> complaining that this thread and the uncivil nature of the posts therein
had
> had an extremely negative impact on their lives; indeed, at least one
> had discontinued their subscription to the Main List because of the
> bitterness, rancor and disorder this thread had caused.

You're right there has been some uncivility in this, but then again there
have been worse discussions than this. Much worse.

<snipped>

Vale bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Lupercus Fabianus
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] Veto concurred
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:36:02 -0600 (CST)

Salvete,

> Unfortunately, the Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictum stipulates a 72-hour time
> limit on the use of the Tribunicial intercessio. That time limit expired
> last night at 11:08, 72 hours after the Curatrix Sermo posted her
> instruction to stop the conversation in question (message 18681 in the
> archives). Your opportunity to exercise this power has passed, and your
> concurrence with your colleague's veto is invalid.

Tribune T Labienus posted his veto at 17.53 CST yesterday. Tribune
Gn. Moravius was absent for medical reasons, by his own statement. There
was only one active tribune at the time of the veto, the other being
unable to either support or disagree with his colleague. There was
100% agreement among the currently-present tribunes.

Valete, Octavius.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:38:40 EST

In a message dated 2/12/2001 7:57:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
amg@-------- writes:

<< It seems that US citizens often forget that there are other countries
represented here beside the US. For example I'm Portuguese and I would not
like to see any plot against the Portuguese government being discussed here,
no matter the satus of US-Portugal relations. >>

Salve Antonius Gryllus Graecus.
Rest assured that Portugal will never be overthrown with the aid of Nova Roma.
Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus


Subject:	[novaroma] Overthrowing Portugal (was Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:11:31 -0500

Dang... there go those spoils-of-war.

Fl Vedius

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sfp55@-------- [mailto:sfp55@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 14:39
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
>
>
> In a message dated 2/12/2001 7:57:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> amg@-------- writes:
>
> << It seems that US citizens often forget that there are other countries
> represented here beside the US. For example I'm Portuguese and I
> would not
> like to see any plot against the Portuguese government being
> discussed here,
> no matter the satus of US-Portugal relations. >>
>
> Salve Antonius Gryllus Graecus.
> Rest assured that Portugal will never be overthrown with the aid
> of Nova Roma.
> Vale
> Q. Fabius Maximus


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:09:09 -0500

Salve,

>>Tribune T Labienus posted his veto at 17.53 CST yesterday. Tribune Gn.
Moravius was absent for medical reasons, by his own statement. There was
only one active tribune at the time of the veto, the other being unable to
either support or disagree with his colleague. There was 100% agreement
among the currently-present tribunes.

Valete, Octavius.>>

I'm afraid I must correct you here. Tribune Gn. Moravius has been on-line
and in personal contact with me Saturday, Sunday and today. He has, indeed,
been ill but he has been on-line and aware of the general situation at the
very least since early Saturday afternoon when he first approached me. If
the argument you make is that he may not have been aware of the Veto put
forth by Tribune Fortunatus, I would argue that, as he replied to my
personal e-mail within three hours on Sunday, he was certainly on-line and
had access to the information. Therefore, as I see it, he was certainly
available and aware enough to act within the 72 hour window.

Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:16:21 -0600 (CST)

Salve P Vedia,

> I'm afraid I must correct you here. Tribune Gn. Moravius has been on-line
> and in personal contact with me Saturday, Sunday and today.

I'll accept that you're correct in this... I was basing my statement
only on what I had observed on the public fora, where he had been
absent, and had then explained his absence.

Vale, O

M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:19:31 -0800

Ave, Gn. Moravius has also been on AIM. In case you have AOL Instant Messenger.
:)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve P Vedia,
>
> > I'm afraid I must correct you here. Tribune Gn. Moravius has been on-line
> > and in personal contact with me Saturday, Sunday and today.
>
> I'll accept that you're correct in this... I was basing my statement
> only on what I had observed on the public fora, where he had been
> absent, and had then explained his absence.
>
> Vale, O
>
>
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>


Subject:	Re: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:27:39 -0800 (PST)

--- VMoeller@-------- wrote:
> Salve Consul Germanicus et Cives Nova Roma:
>
> Not a bad set of goals for eight or so years
> down the road - says I.
> Perhaps we should consider turning fiction into a
> list of goals...just a
> thought? Vale ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestor

Excellent idea!

L Aetius Dalmaticus

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

"The cemeteries are full of indispensible men." --Charles de Gaulle

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:29:55 -0800 (PST)

Salvete:

--- Antonio Grilo <amg@--------> wrote:

> >I think there might be another macronational law
> the Curator(rix) has to
> >enforce here: We cannot discuss a plot to
> overthrough the US government,
> It seems that US citizens often forget that there
> are other countries
> represented here beside the US. For example I'm
> Portuguese and I would not
> like to see any plot against the Portuguese
> government being discussed here,
> no matter the satus of US-Portugal relations.

True (and I agree...I'm not ready to see discussed a
plot against ANY government), but the corporation is
not registered in Portugal, it is registered in the
US. Therefore plotting against the US on this list
falls under the US Treason and Sedition Act.

L Aetius Dalmaticus

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

"The cemeteries are full of indispensible men." --Charles de Gaulle

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[novaroma] Query (was Re: Veto concurred)
From:	darkelf@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:46:29 -0000

Salvete:

For clarification... one Tribune issues an intercessio. His colleague has 72 hours to respond to it, one way or the other.
Tribune 2 misses the deadline. Does the original intercessio stand or not?

Valete,
P. Clodia Cinnabari


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Veto concurred
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:51:16 -0600

Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus Consuli Flavio Vedio Quiritibusque
SPD

> Unfortunately, the Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictum stipulates a 72-hour
> time limit on the use of the Tribunicial intercessio.

Actually, it does so only in regard to magisterial edicta. Since the
curatrix sermo may not issue edicta, and since the Lex Vedia de Ratione
Edictum does not cover acts of magistrates other than edicta, the time
limit does not apply in this case. Therefore, as both tribuni have
agreed to the use of intercessio, the veto is valid.

Anyone wishing to check this may find the entire text of the lex at the
bottom of this message or in the tabularium of the main Web site.

Valete
__________________________
Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictum

(Enacted by dictatorial edictum 8/1/99 with the force and authority of
law.)

"The Lex Vedia de Ratione Edictium is hereby enacted to provide
guidelines for the issuance of magisterial edicta, as provided for in
the Constitution.

"I. As described in the Constitution, the activities of magistrates in
the furtherance of their official activities shall, in large part, take
place through the issuance of edicta (edicts). While edicta may be
issused and acted upon under the authority of the issuing magistrate,
edicta shall be published in at least one of the following public forums
within 72 hours of their issuance: the officially sponsored email list
or the officially sponsored Internet message board. Such edicta shall be
posted in the aerarium Saturni by the curator araneum as soon as
practical.

"II. Edicta are subject to intercessio (veto) by those legally empowered
to do so by the constitution. Such intercessio may be issued as soon as
the edictum has been issued, but no longer than 72 hours after its
publication as described in section I, above."


Subject:	RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:53:51 -0500

Salvete;

Oh, believe me, there're a LOT of things we could add to such a list:

* sponsoring archaeological digs
* participating in ancient site preservation
* setting up our own publishing house and putting out books, a
mass-distribution magazine, and a more scholarly journal
* sponsoring Latin composition contests for high school students
* setting up our own real-world storefront selling books and artifacts
* putting together our own guided tours of Roman sites
* giving scholarships to Classics students
* underwriting academics authoring books
* etc. etc. etc.

And my personal favorite; starting a combination soup kitchen/sports bar.
Our own version of "Bread and Circuses". :-)

Naturally, many of these are things that can be done at the national,
provincial, and local level as well. I'm sure others can think of scores of
more real-world projects we can aim for. How about it? Who can add to the
list?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 15:28
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th
> Anniversary
>
>
>
> --- VMoeller@-------- wrote:
> > Salve Consul Germanicus et Cives Nova Roma:
> >
> > Not a bad set of goals for eight or so years
> > down the road - says I.
> > Perhaps we should consider turning fiction into a
> > list of goals...just a
> > thought? Vale ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestor
>
>
> Excellent idea!
>
> L Aetius Dalmaticus


Subject:	[novaroma] ADMIN NOTE (Language 2)
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:54:13 -0500

Salve,

While the Veto is null and void due to a "technical error" in timing, I do
understand what the Tribunes were attempting to do here. I agree with their
point that discussion of list policy should be a valid topic for the list,
and it was with great distress that I was compelled to cease it last week.
I only did so as a result of requests for said action and the level of
disruption the posts were creating.

Let me perfectly clear: this was never and is not now an issue of my not
liking criticism of my policies. :) I more than welcome differences of
opinion. I guess it could be said that it isn't "what" was being said but
"how" it was being said that caused the disruptions and cries for cessation
that ensued. I will also state, for the record, that I am more than open to
the ideas of others. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that just
because we disagree or I do not change things I did not listen.

So, although I am not compelled to do so, I will now re-open the floor to
those who wish to discuss the language issue further. I will note that the
discussion is expected to be civil and orderly. Perhaps this time around
the name-calling and heated tempers can be left at the door and those who
wish to air their views can do so in a calmer fashion all around.

I would like to thank both of our Tribunes for their support for my policy
and my position, it has been very welcome. I also wish to thank them for
trying so well to protect the rights of all citizens to pursue topics. I
look forward to seeing constructive posts from those who choose to continue
the thread.

Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem


Subject:	RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:01:45 -0500

Salve,

As a teacher I would add that developing some form of traveling educational
troupe would be wonderful. Something that could be sent out for assembly
programs would be fantastic. Believe me when I say there are not nearly
enough programs available and the ones that are available focus almost
exclusively on social ills (drug abuse, etc).

Granted, it is a long way off I am sure, but if we could present a 45 minute
to an hour long program devoted to exposing the children to Rome in all her
glory, would that not be wonderful?? I could even envision different troupe
with different emphases. Some might be more educational, some could focus
on entertainment (songs and poems of Ancient Rome), some might focus on
specific periods or battles......the possibilities are endless.

It is an interesting idea and a terrific potential to turn children on to
the wonders of Rome. When the day comes that we start pulling this one
together count me in!!

:) Priscilla Vedia Serena

-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 3:54 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th
Anniversary

Salvete;

Oh, believe me, there're a LOT of things we could add to such a list:

* sponsoring archaeological digs
* participating in ancient site preservation
* setting up our own publishing house and putting out books, a
mass-distribution magazine, and a more scholarly journal
* sponsoring Latin composition contests for high school students
* setting up our own real-world storefront selling books and artifacts
* putting together our own guided tours of Roman sites
* giving scholarships to Classics students
* underwriting academics authoring books
* etc. etc. etc.

And my personal favorite; starting a combination soup kitchen/sports bar.
Our own version of "Bread and Circuses". :-)

Naturally, many of these are things that can be done at the national,
provincial, and local level as well. I'm sure others can think of scores
of
more real-world projects we can aim for. How about it? Who can add to the
list?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 15:28
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th
> Anniversary
>
>
>
> --- VMoeller@-------- wrote:
> > Salve Consul Germanicus et Cives Nova Roma:
> >
> > Not a bad set of goals for eight or so years
> > down the road - says I.
> > Perhaps we should consider turning fiction into a
> > list of goals...just a
> > thought? Vale ---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestor
>
>
> Excellent idea!
>
> L Aetius Dalmaticus


Subject:	RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:20:17 -0800 (PST)

Salvete:

> Oh, believe me, there're a LOT of things we could
> add to such a list:
>
> * sponsoring archaeological digs
> * participating in ancient site preservation
> * setting up our own publishing house and putting
> out books, a
> mass-distribution magazine, and a more scholarly
> journal
> * sponsoring Latin composition contests for high
> school students
> * setting up our own real-world storefront selling
> books and artifacts
> * putting together our own guided tours of Roman
> sites
> * giving scholarships to Classics students
> * underwriting academics authoring books
> * etc. etc. etc.
>
> And my personal favorite; starting a combination
> soup kitchen/sports bar.
> Our own version of "Bread and Circuses". :-)

What? No chariot races?

L Aetius Dalmaticus

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

"The cemeteries are full of indispensible men." --Charles de Gaulle

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	RE: FW: [novaroma] Thoughts on the occasion of our 10th Anniversary
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:32:36 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Smith [mailto:JSmithCSA@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 16:20
>
> What? No chariot races?
>
> L Aetius Dalmaticus

Absolutely! We're already working on the gladiatorial combats. Why not
chariot racing at Aqueduct or Churchill Downs?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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] Intercessio and the Vigintsexviri (was RE: Veto concurred)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:08:54 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fortunatus [mailto:labienus@--------]
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 15:51
>
> Actually, it does so only in regard to magisterial edicta. Since the
> curatrix sermo may not issue edicta, and since the Lex Vedia de Ratione
> Edictum does not cover acts of magistrates other than edicta, the time
> limit does not apply in this case. Therefore, as both tribuni have
> agreed to the use of intercessio, the veto is valid.

Fortunately, the question is now rendered moot (as the subject of the
contested intercessio is no longer in effect), but it's definitely a
question that needs discussing. Indeed, I think it should be considered in
relation to all the Vigintsexviri, not just the Curatrix Sermo. Hopefully we
can do that in a more hypothetical environment...

I see three questions at issue. How do any of the Vigintsexviri do their
jobs if not by edicta? And if there's some other mechanism by which they do
function, should that not also be subject to the same sort of time limit as
regular edicta? Finally, if the mechanism by which the intercessio power is
described in relation to edicta, but not for other types of magistrates'
actions, does it follow that, without any mechanism for implementation in
place, the power cannot be implemented?

Allow me to hopefully to get the ball rolling on these questions.

I think that, despite the fact that nowhere is it explicitly stated that
"Vigintsexviri may issue edicta", it could be argued that such a power is
implicit because of the principal that magistrates perform their actions
through edicta (which is why the powers of the Tribunicial intercessio are
framed in that way). Even if one follows this line of reasoning (and
although I can see its merits I'm not sure I myself accept it entirely) I
think it might not be a bad idea to make that power explicit (but then
again, that would compel a LOT more record-keeping in the Tabularium, as
minor magistrates start issuing edicta to do their day-to-day jobs).

As far as the Tribunicial intercessio goes, I think it's clear that, even if
it is used against different sorts of actions (and the Constitution does
indeed allow for its use against "actions" of magistrates, not just
"edicta"), some sort of time limit needs to be put into effect. This is due
to the "virtual" nature of our system right now; I hardly think it would be
fair to require that the Tribunes be physically present and physically
prevent a magistrate from typing a command on a computer!

Lastly, I do believe that the question is open whether or not magistrates
can act in the absence of either a power assigned by law or the mechanism by
which that power is exercised. Certainly, a magistrate cannot simply assume
new powers by his own authority. But does that principle extend to the
mechanisms by which those powers are exercised (which in many cases defines
the power itself)? Indeed, the _lack_ of such an explicitly-specified
mechanism may in fact prevent its use.

For example; as Consul, I am granted the power of Imperium by the
Constitution. Does this mean I can go around and execute offenders, or
compell Citizens to join my legion? Of course not. Similarly, I'm not sure
that a Tribunicial intercessio can be used against magistrates' non-edictial
(?) actions, precisely because no such mechanism is defined.

Note that the first and third questions are related. If one follows the
argument that the Vigintsexviri have the power to grant edicta implicitly,
it is difficult to maintain at the same time that the Tribunes do not have
the power to issue an intercessio by the same implicit reasoning.
Contrarily, if one takes the strict-adherence point of view, it then becomes
consistent to say that the Vigintsexviri cannot, in fact, issue edicta
(because such a power is nowhere explicitly granted to them), but neither
can the Tribunes issue an intercessio against magisterial actions that are
not edicta (because the mechanism by which such would be done is never
described). I personally lean towards the latter point of view, but my mind
is by no means made up on this admittedly complex issue.

This leaves us with two items to consider. Should the power to issue edicta
be explicitly granted to the Vigintsexviri (thus bringing them under the
rules for the issuance of Tribunicial intercessio)? And also, should a
mechanism for the Tribunes to issue their intercessio against non-edict
actions of magistrates be adopted, and if so what form should it take?

Thoughts?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Gracchus, 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] Common Carrier Status
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:37:58 -0800 (PST)

Salvete,

Earlier I mentioned that there was a point of
Macro-national law that I wished to bring up. It's
U.S. Civil law covering slander. Since Nova Roma is
charted in the USA, and the Yahoo groups servers are
also located in the USA, the law applies to this
group.

If you run an open forum you have what is called
common carrier status, and you are shielded from
lawsuits. If you exercise editorial discretion by
removing posts you can lose your common carrier status
and become a defendant in a lawsuit.

For example if I were angry at a citizen and made a
post that accused him of being a child molester, he
would have grounds to bring a slander lawsuit against
me. He couldn't include Yahoo in the suit even though
they own the server where it occurred because they
don't exercise any editorial control over these posts,
and are protected as a common carrier. As owner of
this group Nova Roma would be protected under the
common carrier laws if no moderation had occurred, but
that has all ready happened. The Nova Roma group has
lost it's common carrier status. The plaintiff in a
lawsuit can show past editorial action and include
Nova Roma in the suit for failing to remove the post.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?
From:	"Procopious" <procopious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:04:16 -0800

Lucius Mauricius Procopious Omnibus SPD

What about slander and libel, they're not protected in my macronation? Do we
have any lex concerning those? Just because we were blessed with functioning
mouths dosen't mean we have a right to use them any way we wish, does it? If
it does, get the children out of here and let an old Marine NCO tell a few
cives what he really thinks. Will my expletives be protected?

That's up to individual citizens - to listen, or not to listen. But
freedom
> of speech, if it means anything, means not being shut up by force of law
> because other citizens don't wish to listen to you. It does not mean
> "freedom of constructive speech", "freedom of intelligent speech", or
> "freedom of politically correct speech".

Lucius Mauricius Procopious
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious

Join the America Boreoccidentalis Mailing List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died
c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Macnair" <MikeMacnair@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Curator Sermonem = Dictator ?

> Salvete,
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus wrote,
>
> >Freedom of speach does NOT give you the right to force people to
> >listen to you.
>
> I agree entirely. But no-one is forced to listen. There is no obligation
to
> read all the posts that come from the NR list. That's what the "Delete"
> button is for on your email programme.
>
> That's up to individual citizens - to listen, or not to listen. But
freedom
> of speech, if it means anything, means not being shut up by force of law
> because other citizens don't wish to listen to you. It does not mean
> "freedom of constructive speech", "freedom of intelligent speech", or
> "freedom of politically correct speech".
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Books for a younger person?
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:47:30 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, pjane@j... wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I'm looking for suggestions for books on Roman history that might be
> appropriate for someone of 13 or 14 who is not ready to read at the
> college level yet, but is developing a real appreciation for that
> history.
>
> Ideas?
>
> Patricia Cassia

Salve,

Isaac Asimov wrote two excellent books on Roman History, that are at
just the reading level you're looking for. They are out of print, but
worth the effort of finding. See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/107-5836116-85837
24
for reviews on "The Roman Republic" and "The Roman Empire"

Vale,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus