Forum Romanum


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Comitia Vote
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 19:43:15 -0400

Salve,

>>Why have the majority vote on a law that was, admit it, intended for a
very small minority?>>

Ummmm, because when a magistrate issued the edict he was pounced upon by you
and your friends for NOT bringing it to a vote. I am becoming convinced you
simply enjoy being contrary, as it seems whenever we DO take a suggestion of
yours you find new reasons to object.

>>Why put forth legislation for a group with no people (anymore) in it?>>

As has been pointed out elsewhere, so that there will be no future necessity
to take up massive amounts of bandwidth debating the issue.

>>This would be a good law with °that clause° was cut out from it, or
altered into something less difficult.>>

On the contrary, it is an excellent law BECAUSE it includes this clause.
Face it, if one *truly* sees oneself as a man trapped in a woman's body (or
vice versa) life is going to be "difficult" on a vast number of levels.
Take a step back and get some perspective here. All that is being asked is
that *if* a person has a serious gender issue they take it up in their real
everyday life as well as here in Nova Roma. To suggest that we ought to
make it easy for any person to be HERE hat they are NOT in the real world is
to equate Nova Roma to little more than a fantasy or a game.

>>Don't say you made this law for Marius (and that's a man for you --
addressing him differently is pestering and slander), because I don't
believe he asked for it.>>

The clause in question is absolutely due to the circumstances of Maria
Villaroel. She did indeed start this ball rolling by asking numerous
officials for her name to be changed and by her refusal to abide by any of
their independent decisions not to honor her request.

As for your other comment about "slander", I suggest you check your
definitions. For starters, slander applies to oral statements and libel to
written ones. In either event, the key to something qualifying as either is
that the statements NOT be true. I am 100% sure that if you were to travel
to Maria's home and conduct a visual inspection you will find she is 100%
female, mental status notwithstanding.

Now, you may still say it is "pestering" to refer to her as a female.
Hmmmm. According to that logic, if I now wish to be known as Her Royal
Majesty Queen of Naboo you will most gladly do so, correct?. It doesn't
matter that I am not royalty, nor that Naboo does not exist. If that is
what I wish to be called, then according to your arguments you ought to be
more than willing to honor my request. To not do so would be "pestering"
me, would it not?

Bottom line is that if someone does not care enough to address this issue in
their real everyday mundane world, why should we cater to their fantasies
here in Nova Roma? For those who have legitimate issues, we are providing a
way for them to be recognized here for what they are recognized as in the
outside world. We are not in the business of providing false fronts for
those who simply wish to be here what they are not at home. And please
spare me the "oh it can be hard in the real world" speech. If this is a
true issue for someone they will make the effort, regardless of how hard it
might be. In point of fact, one would think they would be fighting this
fight in the real world as one having much more impact on their lives than
Nova Roma does.

True repression of minorities would be our not acknowledging those with
legitimate transgender issues. This law does recognize them. It simply
requires that they be acknowledged as such across the board and not just
here in Nova Roma. For a true transgendered individual, one would think
they would be striving for such consistency and would welcome it.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote
From:	Michel <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 07 May 2001 20:36:32 -0300

gcassiusnerva@-------- wrote:
>
> Draco said, "Why have the majority vote on a law that was, admit it, intended
> for a very small minority?"
>
> Answer: Because you wanted it so. Last year Formosanus and your crew were
> complaining that there there was no popular vote on the matter. Your people
> made Censor Sulla out to be some tyrannical petty magistrate, using edicta to
> impose his will on everyone. Well, now there is to be a vote, and now you do
> not want one. Have you considered joining the army. You are already very
> good at doing the "about face".
>

That s fine, this point needed a vote. A law is never something
definitive,
if this law passes as it is, it can always be changed in the future by
another law.

> Draco said, "Citizens who love Roma and want to return are hereby punished..."
>
> Answer. No, if they were being punished, they would not be allowed to
> return, period.
>

This would be non-sense and is already strange. Whatever way you look
at that law it does not make any sense to put a limitation on a
citizen's return to Roma.
A limitation or prohibition to hold again an office for someboy which
left his office in mid-term: yes good idea. For a citizen which left: No
bad idea.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Nerva
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 18:20:44 EDT

Salvete,

In a message dated 5/7/01 2:25:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:

> 2) Lex Cornelia de Eiurandio
>
>
> A non-solution for a non-problem. Citizens who love Roma and want to
return
> are hereby punished, and citizens who don't care won't care for this law
> either.

It could very well become a problem, however. I don't see it as punishment.
I see it as consequences for an action. If you love Nova Roma, why quit?
Why not stay and and attempt to improve something you believe in?

>You desigend this law to keep people you don't like out of the door
> as long as possible, in my opinion, because until now few people have
> resigned from protest and then returned.

I can't see your point. Quitting in protest then wanting to come back is
petulant behavior. Do you still "take your ball and go home" when you don't
get your way? I believe you are much too mature for that.

> And one of those people was...
> Marius. How peculiar. Nobody has ever used protest resignations and then
came
> back over and over again. And it probably won't happen, either.

I don't believe that this Lex anything to do with Marius.

Please consider that even a small percentage of people quitting in protest
and reapplying for citizenship would put an undue and unreasonable burden on
our Censores. I believe the Lex is intended to lend some weight to
Citizenship, so that Citizens will think twice and possibly consider
alternatives before quitting in protest. Repeated abuses of Citizenship
carry increasingly severe consequences.

I won't comment on the Capiti Censi Lex. I've said enough on that subject.

Valete,
L. Tiberius Sardonicus


Subject:	[novaroma] Resignation Edict: YES
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 20:07:36 EDT

Draco: <<Citizens who love Roma and want to return are hereby punished..."

People may resign for any number of reasons. But people who throw a tantrum
and quit because they do not get their way obviously have no love for Nova
Roma.

Draco: <<You desigend this law to keep people you don't like out of the door
as long as possible...>>

Anyone who is "out of the door" is there by his or her own choice. All knew
the law before making that choice. If there is any "punishment", then it is
they who are punishing themselves. And don't kid yourself.....'as long as
possible' is forever. NR COULD ban reapplication altogether. But the
tolerance and lenience of NR allows them all to reapply in only 6 months.

A bunch of your pals threw such a tantrum on the Ides of March. Apparently,
some of them at least now want back in. Well, fear not. They can re-apply
on Sept. 15 if they wish, and NR will very kindly let them back in.

Citizens, I believe that all voluntary associations, of which NR is one, have
the right to regulate themselves and to set their own rules and requirements
for membership. The resignation edict is extremely lenient. If you quit NR,
you have NINE DAYS to retract your resignation, with no problem. After that
nine days, it is only six months till your application can be accepted. And
Draco wants us to believe this is designed to punish people and keep them out
"as long as possible"? Give us a break Draco.

Nerva

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Comitia Populi Tributa is convened
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 19:26:05 -0500

Salve Consul

Irrespective of any discussion of its merits (which I shall address
separately :-) ), this law is flawed in its structure. Section IV
contains two "Bs". Interestingly enough, the redundant section B contains
just that part of the proposal that so many of us find unacceptable.
Perhaps your unconscious mind also finds this provision in the law to be
unneeded and undesireable, and proposes to drop this section out?

If not, then I request that the proposed law be renumbered and reposted
before we vote on it.

Respectfully,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

On 5/7/01 7:52 AM Flavius Vedius Germanicus (germanicus@--------)
wrote:

>IV. Guidelines
>
> A. An application for a name change is confidential. The requested name,
>along with any and all evidence presented with it, is considered
>confidential information as covered by the Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus.
>Censores, patresfamiliae, and anyone called to provide testimony by any
>party in the procedure are not to divulge any information applicable to the
>name change to anyone without the applicant's written permission, except as
>directed by this edict. Such exceptions include the following:
>
> 1. A paterfamilias providing relevant information upon referring a
>request for a new name to the censores.
>
> 2. A paterfamilias or other citizen providing relevant information upon
>a censor, consul, or praetor's request, as in the case of an appeal of
>a denied application.
>
> 3. A citizen presenting evidence before the Comitia Populi Tributa in
>the case of an appeal to those comitia.
>
> B. The guiding principle in considering name changes is to be conformity
>with ancient Roman tradition.
>
> 1. New praenomina should be historically attested ones.
>
> 2. As previously stated, agnomina of distinction (Maximus, Felix, et
>cetera) are not to be granted to citizens on request, but can be awarded to
>any citizen by any senator, curule magistrate, or pontifex in recognition of
>any special service to the Republic. It is up to the patresfamiliae and
>censores to determine what is and is not an agnomen of distinction on a
>case-by-case basis.
>
> 3. Cognomina and agnomina can be new coinages, but must be conducive to
>Latin declension, and must have a clear meaning-- both semantically and in
>specific relation to the citizen requesting the added or changed name.
>
> 4. The gender of the name is to be consistent. Each part is to agree
>with all others in gender, and with the sex of the citizen requesting the
>name change.
>
> B. A citizen who wishes to change the gender of his name counter to that
>dictated by his sex must present, in support of his application, proof of
>acceptance of the contrary sex by an authority of a macronation, state, or
>municipality. In other words, if the applicant is physically a man and has a
>form of macronational or municipal identification listing his sex as female,
>or is officially recognized as a woman in his country of macronational
>citizenship, then he may use a feminine name in Nova Roma.
>
> 1. An exception to this rule is allowed in the case of transsexual
>citizens who are discussing surgical sex alteration with a health care
>provider or undergoing other medical and psychological treatment in
>preparation for such an operation. In these instances, documentation
>pertaining to health care provider(s) may be required of the applicant.
>
> 2. Post-operative transsexual citizens shall be named according to their
>current sex.
>
> 3. Hermaphrodites shall be named according to the sex in which they are
>recognized by their country of macronational citizenship.
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Comitia Vote
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 04:39:45 -0000

Salve mi Draco!

Please allow me to make a few comments regarding your recommendations
here:

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma;
>
> Before us today are three lex models. One of them will impact our
further Roman life greatly if it gets voted in, and the other two
will have a great impact on a minority. My personal views on the
laws, summarized as shortly as possible:
>
>
> 1) Lex Cornelia de Nominibus Mutandis
>
>
> Why have the majority vote on a law that was, admit it, intended
for a very small minority? Why put forth legislation for a group with
no people (anymore) in it? This would be a good law with °that
clause° was cut out from it, or altered into something less
difficult. Don't say you made this law for Marius (and that's a man
for you -- addressing him differently is pestering and slander),
because I don't believe he asked for it. As Senator Australicus
powerfully said, the government has no business in our pants.
>
>

For the very simple reason that that minority of one, and a group of
associates of the same, spent a significant amount of our time
demanding such a vote and indeed even insulting one of our Censors
for not granting such a vote. As for the argument about our
government getting into our pants - if you parse the language of the
lex as english is meant to be parsed, what is being said is that Nova
Roma has no desire to be determining your gender. We ask that you
provide information about your gender based on what your particular
locality recognizes for you (this proof being whatever legal ID you
have that states that information). What is being said is WE DO NOT
CARE TO PEEK IN YOUR PANTS - you provide the legal info and we'll
gladly accept it. If we are even one iota serious about what we are
doing here,we cannot be involved in roleplaying or fantasies for
anyone, period. We got here because this is what you, the person
involved, your Paterfamilias and several others asked for - and now
you say it's inappropriate?

> 2) Lex Cornelia de Eiurandio
>
>
> A non-solution for a non-problem. Citizens who love Roma and want
to return are hereby punished, and citizens who don't care won't care
for this law either. You desigend this law to keep people you don't
like out of the door as long as possible, in my opinion, because
until now few people have resigned from protest and then returned.
And one of those people was... Marius. How peculiar. Nobody has ever
used protest resignations and then came back over and over again. And
it probably won't happen, either.
>
>

This lex intends to give weight to the argument that your Nova Roman
citizenship has some value - and that we are adults here, not
petulant children who storm off the playground whenever things don't
go how we want them. If you cast off your macronational citizenship,
there are some very serious consequences attached to that action
(including, in some cases, forced deportation and loss of all
rights). Think about it - we are merely saying you have to wait to
come back until you've shown a willingness to take your citizenship
seriously. We are also saying we want an assurance that you will not
cause us grief by frivolously taking offices and then discarding them
out of petulance. Is that unreasonable? Is asking anyone to take
themselves seriously, and to respect the rest of us as well, so
unreasonable? By the way, you keep characterizing these actions as a
personal crusade against Marius - why insist on ad hominem attacks?
Present cogent arguments, please: this "you're persecuting Marius!"
at every turn is a bit tiresome, to say the least. And I for one know
you are quite capable of more responsible and mature arguments.

> 3) Lex Vedia de Assidui et Capiti Censi
>
>
> I suppose everyone knows my views on this lex. It deprives the able
yet financially troubled to sever Nova Roma in a position that
doesn't require money at all, and deals not enough with exceptions
that will arise.
>
>
>

Tell you the truth, the positions mentioned do require financial
outlays from the magistrates involved. There are administrative costs
such as phone calls, letters, etc. You already pay for an ISP, for a
computer to log on to these discussions, etc. Why the constant
complaint about the payment of taxes? You already pay a form of tax
to access this forum and participate - what we are talking about
involves helping make other projects of Nova Roma (and not just those
proposed by the current magistrates, mind you) become real. The only
objection I can realistically come up with against this lex is the
fact that I would personally like to see what form taxation would
take. I think that issue cannot be safely divorced from the present
lex. However, the arguments put forward to date reduce to "what-ifs"
that demonstrate a lot of creativity but forget the basic principle
of our form of government - compromise. We strive to achieve not an
Utopia, but a set of rules we can all live with, even if we don't
agree with it 100% of the time.

Mi Draco, we cannot establish the tyranny of the few or even the one
because we want to please everyone 100% of the time. Not only is it
unrealistic, it flies in the face of everything we have learned to
this date about what made Roma great. One of the best lessons of
History is that when the politicians attempt to appease everyone,
they end up alienating everyone and destroying the Res Publica, to
boot. Why should we ignore such a powerful lesson, especially from
such a powerful Muse? Consider the facts, and not the emotional
demagoguery - and only then draw your conclusion. This advice I
extend to all, not just you, amici mei. Only then can we have a
Contio that makes sense.

Optime Vale, et Iuppiter nos protegas!

Marius Cornelius Scipio


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Comitia Vote
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 05:50:32 -0000

Salve Her Majesty Queen of Naboo, Salvete cives,

There. That cost me nothing. It did not pain me. Therefore, if
Priscilla Vedia Serena wishes to continue being known by the above
name, just say so, and I will be happy to honour that wish.

> >>Why put forth legislation for a group with no people (anymore) in
it?>>
> On the contrary, it is an excellent law BECAUSE it includes this
clause.
> Face it, if one *truly* sees oneself as a man trapped in a woman's
body (or
> vice versa) life is going to be "difficult" on a vast number of
levels.

And that makes it OK to make life even more difficult?

> Take a step back and get some perspective here. All that is being
asked is
> that *if* a person has a serious gender issue they take it up in
their real
> everyday life as well as here in Nova Roma. To suggest that we
ought to
> make it easy for any person to be HERE hat they are NOT in the real
world is
> to equate Nova Roma to little more than a fantasy or a game.

Why? I think it would show that Nova Roma can work for the
individual as well as the whole. After all, just because a macro-
nation makes it difficult, that is no excuse for us to do the same.

> As for your other comment about "slander", I suggest you check your
> definitions. For starters, slander applies to oral statements and
libel to
> written ones. In either event, the key to something qualifying as
either is
> that the statements NOT be true. I am 100% sure that if you were
to travel
> to Maria's home and conduct a visual inspection you will find she
is 100%
> female, mental status notwithstanding.

I am certain that you realised what he meant.

> Now, you may still say it is "pestering" to refer to her as a
female.
> Hmmmm. According to that logic, if I now wish to be known as Her
Royal
> Majesty Queen of Naboo you will most gladly do so, correct?. It
doesn't
> matter that I am not royalty, nor that Naboo does not exist. If
that is
> what I wish to be called, then according to your arguments you
ought to be
> more than willing to honor my request. To not do so would
be "pestering"
> me, would it not?

See above

> True repression of minorities would be our not acknowledging those
with
> legitimate transgender issues. This law does recognize them. It
simply
> requires that they be acknowledged as such across the board and not
just
> here in Nova Roma. For a true transgendered individual, one would
think
> they would be striving for such consistency and would welcome it.

And if they fail to get macronational recognition? Do they then have
to remain that which they don't which to be here as well?

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] roof of Domus Aurea collapsed
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 10:51:49 +0100 (BST)

Salvete,

Between the debating, a little newsflash: I read in my
newspaper today that the roof of Nero's "Golden House"
(or Domus Aurea") collapsed. The monument is now
closed for the public, although it was reopened in
1999 after restaurations. The collapsing would have
been caused by the heavy rain and some tree roots from
a highersituated garden who went through the roof. The
Forum Romanum is said to suffer also from the heavy
rain.

A few weeks ago some parts of the Aurelian Wall and
now the Golden House, whats next? Shouldn't the United
Nations do some more efforts to preserve such
remaining parts of glorious cultures?

Vale

=====
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
civis Novae Romae
____________________________

"De te autem, Catilina, cum quiescunt, probant; cum patiuntur, decernunt; cum tacent, clamant." (M. Tullius Cicero: In Catilinam I, 20)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Resignation Edict: YES
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 09:59:41 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, gcassiusnerva@c... wrote:
> Draco: <<Citizens who love Roma and want to return are hereby
punished..."
>
> People may resign for any number of reasons. But people who throw a
tantrum
> and quit because they do not get their way obviously have no love
for Nova
> Roma.
>
> Draco: <<You desigend this law to keep people you don't like out of
the door
> as long as possible...>>
>
> Anyone who is "out of the door" is there by his or her own choice.
All knew
> the law before making that choice. If there is any "punishment",
then it is
> they who are punishing themselves. And don't kid yourself.....'as
long as
> possible' is forever. NR COULD ban reapplication altogether. But the
> tolerance and lenience of NR allows them all to reapply in only 6
months.
>
> A bunch of your pals threw such a tantrum on the Ides of March.
Apparently,
> some of them at least now want back in. Well, fear not. They can
re-apply
> on Sept. 15 if they wish, and NR will very kindly let them back in.
>
> Citizens, I believe that all voluntary associations, of which NR is
one, have
> the right to regulate themselves and to set their own rules and
requirements
> for membership. The resignation edict is extremely lenient. If you
quit NR,
> you have NINE DAYS to retract your resignation, with no problem.
After that
> nine days, it is only six months till your application can be
accepted. And
> Draco wants us to believe this is designed to punish people and keep
them out
> "as long as possible"? Give us a break Draco.
>
> Nerva
>

Salvete,

I find this lex to be very mild towards those who resign their
citizenship. It has a nine day cooling off peroid for those who may
decide to resign in a moment of anger, and come to regret this after
their temper cools, a very good thing.

It even allows, in some cases, for a citizen to resume offices that
they abandoned despite sacred oaths, and this is an area where I think
this lex is too leniant.

The Censors have many duties, and dealing with repeated resignations
and readmitals of citizens who resign to make a protest of some policy
should not be added to these. It's even worse when someone who holds
an office resigns. This imposes on the time of ALL citizens because we
have to hold an election, and it holds up processing the aplications
of new citizens and is unfair to them.

Since these former citizens have shown so little concern for fellow
citizens time, I think some penality should be involved in these
resignations, and even though I would like to see tougher penalities
directed at those who abandon office, I will vote for this lex, and
urge my fellow citizens to do the same.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote - Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominibus
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 19:26:08 -0500

Salvete Titus Labienus

While I have already stated previously that I am opposed to this law as
long as it contains the provision, I want to point out the inconsistency
in pretending that we are making Nova Roman law congruent with that of
other nations by requiring proof of other-national recognition of gender.
In the USA and other English-speaking nations, for instance, there is
absolutely and unequivocally no such law. In fact, it is common for US
citizens, and citizens of other nations, to carry names that denote the
opposite gender from their physical gender.

My own given name, Ira, is a woman's name throughout the world. On
american television last week, I saw an interview of an actress named
Davidovitch. Any speaker of Slavic languages can tell you that this name
denotes that she is the *son* of a father named David. One very womanly
psychologist with whom I work is named Wilson, which indicates that she
also is her father's *son.* The gender ambiguity of names like "Pat" is
known throughout the world. Most, if not all, of the world recognizes no
legal connection between name and physical gender.

Therefore, to pretend that we are getting in line with our macronations
by this law is just plain false.

This is also bad law (in this section of it) because it is not written to
address anything that the State and the law need be concerned about. It
was written for Lucius Marius and none other. Lucius Marius is gone, as
the Consul says, so we need not discuss a compromise law to accomodate
him, as the Consul says. We need not have a law about him *at all* (as
the Consul neglected to say).

This law, in this one section (which will, I presume, be section IV-C
after it is corrected), is flawed and embarasses and degrades our
Republic. This whole issue has been a year-long stain on our nation. I
urge you all to reject this law.

And when the people have rejected this flawed law, since it is actually
the matter of the corresponding censorial edict that is being put up for
a vote, the people will have rejected and invalidated the censorial edict
as well, and we may expect the Tribunes of the People to prevent any
further attempts to enforce the latter.

* * * * * * * * * * *

On the other hand, if the people choose to uphold this law then, mea
sententia, any magistrate who will not carry it out or accept it as law
must resign or he/she will make of himself/herself *nefas* by virtue of
violating their sacred oath of office.

Vale,

L. Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Senator

On 5/7/01 3:40 PM labienus@-------- (labienus@--------) wrote:

>T Labienus Quiritibus SPD
>
>It is unfortunate that Consul Vedius has decided not to promulgate his so-
>called compromise version of the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Nominibus
>Mutandis.
>I say this because the compromise law is a superior law. It is both simpler
>and more in line with what is, ostensibly, the intent behind the LCMdNM.
>
>Focusing on the controversial portion of the lex, the version put forth
>says,
>essentially, that one may have a name whose linguistic gender is contrary to
>one's genitalia only if one's macronation recognizes one's *actual sex* as
>contrary to one's genitalia. In other words, we will only allow a man to
>have
>a feminine name if his macronation accepts him as a woman. In this version,
>the macronation is held to a more stringent standard than Nova Roma is,
>thereby
>making it harder to obtain a cross-gender name-change in Nova Roma than in
>one's macronation.
>
>The compromise version says that one may have a name whose linguistic
>gender is
>contrary to one's genitalia if one's macronation allows one the same
>freedom.
>In this version, the standard to which the name-change applicant is held has
>parity with the macronational standard.
>
>Both versions, of course, suffer from three major problems. They both
>needlessly abrogate Nova Roma's sovreignty in favor of macronational
>standards,
>they both apply differently to different cives because they rely on
>macronational standards which differ from country to country, and they
>both put
>the government in the business of looking down its cives' pants. Despite
>these
>problems, I would most likely vote for the compromise version. I will
>definitely vote against the version currently presented.
>
>Valete
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Democracy....
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 16:15:56 -0700 (PDT)

--- Adrian Gunn <shinjikun@--------> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> With the upcoming election, let's not forget that in
> any Democracy
> that follows the principle of "majority rules" there
> is always going
> to be an unhappy minority. We saw that here in the
> USA last November
> with our Presidential Elections. When you have a
> polarized citizenry
> with (for example) 45% of the people supporting
> "viewpoint A" and 55%
> supporting "viewpoint B", when viewpoint "B" wins,
> 45% of your
> population is going to be unhappy about it. It's the
> downside of
> democracy, but we just have to live with it. No one
> yet has devised a
> system of government where everyone gets his or her
> own way, and
> everyone gets to be happy. As the saying goes:
> "Democracy is the
> worst form of government, except for all the other
> ones." My point
> is, whenever the Senate adopts any Lex, be it for
> Taxes or Name
> Change Rules, someone's not going to like it. When
> the majority of
> your peers disagree with you however, it's not
> necessarily injustice ?
> sometimes its just life. Obviously this doesn't
> mean a person should
> abandon their convictions simply because the
> majority disagrees with
> them, but it does mean they may have to learn to
> compromise, or
> simply agree to disagree and get on with life.
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus
> Legatus of Massachusetts

Salvete,

No Man's rights are subject to another man's vote.

I don't care if the minority is 49% or 10% or a single
citizen, the majority is in the wrong when they use
the strength of their numbers to overwhelm a minority
in the area of rights.

I Grew up in the Southeastern United States during the
Civil Rights struggle, and I can assure you that equal
rights for "negros" was voted down over and over by
the type of representives we elected. Had the matter
come up on a direct vote, the old south would have
voted to maintain segregation.

Now does anyone wish to tell me that the old system we
had, one that consisted of treating people like second
class citizens based on the color of their skin was
right, simply because a majority voted for it.

The best system of government isn't democracy, it's a
system where the powers of the state are limited, for
without the limitations all democracy is, is a polite
term for mob rule.

I will repeat something I said earlier,

There is NO difference between a mob that meets under
torchlight to violate someone's rights, and a mob that
meets in the sunlight to go to the polls to violate
someones rights.

It's damn hard to go deeper into someones personal
life than their name and their sexuality. This Lex
touches upon matters that NO state should intrude on.
I fear the precedent it sets, a precedent that NO area
of a citizens private life is beyond the snooping eyes
of the state. Remember that citizens, you are voting
on far more than just a lex dealing with names. You
are setting the precedent that the state can peer
deeply into a citizens private life. This time the
prying may not affect you, but you may be in the
minority when the next lex is proposed, one that
intrudes into an area of your life that you consider
no one's business. Remember that this lex will be
called upon as an example of how it's in the best
interests of the state to decide these matters.

Is it desirable that a citizens name match their
gender? Is it desirable that a citizen's name follow
the historic usage? Yes it is! But just because a
thing is desirable doesn't mean that it's something
that should be enacted into law. I do not question the
good intentions behind this law. I just consider it a
matter that the state shouldn't go into.

If you wish to charge a reasonable fee for changing a
name, fine I'll vote for that. If you wish to have
SUGGESTIONS about selecting a name, I have no problem
with that. However I will NOT vote to set up the Gonad
Police to peer into a citizens pants.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Virtual Temples
From:	Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 15:43:02 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete!

--- QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:
> In a message dated 5/7/2001 9:32:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> margali@-------- writes:
>
> << Can you folks please send me URLs for virtual temples? >>
> Iuppiter
> http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/OLYMPUS/
> Apollo
> http://pagan.drak.net/lolandrea/entrance_temple_apollo.htm
> Dionysos
> ttp://pagan.drak.net/lolandrea/entrance_temple_dionysos.htm

Update the Apollo one, if you will please... it should be at
http://TempleApollo.faithweb.com/index.html. I'm expanding it to be an
entire website dedicated to Apollo and the Greek and Roman religions.

It's an ongoing project and a labor of love. :)

Valete,

=====
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia
Apollinis Templi Sacerdos
Materfamilias of Gladia
*******************************************
Yahoo: kyreneariadne / andrea_gladia / andrea_m_berman
AIM: Kyrene Ariadne / la Amberman ICQ: 6663573
http://TempleApollo.faithweb.com

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From:	"william wheeler" <holyconelia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 03:24:44 -0000

Salve Sir I am sending you this fewd of a email i sent to the censors
at censors@-------- about my voter code ( need one to vote and I have
lost mine ). As you can see with the below returned email ( with a
automatically generated Delivery Status Notification*(failed)*.
if i may ask whats up with the novaroma email?Hotmails CS tells me that
novaroma.org is not takeing mail.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
vale

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

censors@--------

Reporting-MTA: dns;hotmail.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;mail.hotmail.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:28:23 -0700

Final-Recipient: rfc822;censors@--------
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.7.1 <censors@-------->... Relaying denied

From:
"william wheeler" <holyconelia@-------->
Reply-To:
wuffa@--------
To:
censors@--------
Subject:
voter code
Date:
Mon, 07 May 2001 21:28:23 -0000

I do not have a voter code that works( and or i wrote it down not right) pls
send thanks

Marcus Cornelius Felix
Pontitff
Legate America Boreoccidentalis Minore
Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] roof of Domus Aurea collapsed
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 23:43:27 +1000 (EST)

Salvete omnes,

I've been thinking about this sort of thing along with
a few other ideas, and I was just thinking that this
could be something Nova Roma could sink her tax
dollars into. What better way to spend our income than
to aid in the repair of the failing health of the
capital of our entire basis of life?

Valete bene omnes,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius

--- Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
<consulromanus@--------> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Salvete, 
 
Between the debating, a little newsflash: I read in
my 
newspaper today that the roof of Nero's "Golden
House" 
(or Domus Aurea") collapsed. The monument is
now 
closed for the public, although it was reopened in 
1999 after restaurations. The collapsing would
have 
been caused by the heavy rain and some tree roots
from 
a highersituated garden who went through the roof.
The 
Forum Romanum is said to suffer also from the
heavy 
rain. 
 
A few weeks ago some parts of the Aurelian Wall
and 
now the Golden House, whats next? Shouldn't the
United 
Nations do some more efforts to preserve such 
remaining parts of glorious cultures? 
 
Vale 
 
===== 
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix 
civis Novae Romae 
____________________________ 
 
"De te autem, Catilina, cum quiescunt, probant;
cum patiuntur, decernunt; cum tacent, clamant."
(M. Tullius Cicero: In Catilinam I, 20) 
 
____________________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!? 
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at <a
href="http://mail.yahoo.co.uk">http://mail.yahoo.co.uk</a> 
or your free @yahoo.ie address at <a
href="http://mail.yahoo.ie">http://mail.yahoo.ie</a> 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"


Subject:	[novaroma] Sextus Apollonius
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 07 May 2001 22:34:07 -0700

Ave,

I would appreciate if you were to act like a responsible citizen and list
the full name of each Lex you referred too. In your post you convinetly
leave out the fact that both Lexes that orignated from the Censors carry the
names of both Cornelia and Maria.

I do not think you would want to be accused of some deceitfulness....unless
if that was your intention.

So, just to elaborate, the name change edict is a Lex Cornelia et Maria.
The resignation edict is a Lex Cornelia et Maria as well.

So if you are going to refer to these edicts, use the full and proper name.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Outage during Contio
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 02:06:53 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Omnes,

Yesterday's loss of service by Yahoo groups
interrupted our Contio. We have lost some of the time
set aside for debating some very important issues. The
post I made regarding one of the Leges is lost in
cyber space, and I assume that I'm not the only one.
It may be in a file somewhere and will show up
sometime today, it may be gone forever.

First we had the recent problem with many citizens not
getting most of their mail, and now a far more serious
disruption of a Contio that affected all of our
citizens. A loss of service that also affected ALL of
Nova Roma's mail lists.

Nova Roma is too dependent on e-mail for this level of
service. Two major problems in a short time may be a
coincidence or it may be a sign that Yahoo is
attempting to save money by reducing the funding for
Yahoo groups. If the later is true, then we shall see
these kinds of problems more and more often.

We need to be prepared in case we have to move to a
different mailing list service. I think that now would
be a good time to assemble a task force to look at the
alternatives to Yahoo groups. The task force can look
into what we would need to set up our own mail list
service, and the other web based services that are
avaible, and report back to Nova Roma on the options.

This seems like a better idea than just sticking with
Yahoo groups until we are forced to move, and blindly
jumping on the first thing that we find.

I offer my services to such a group, should it be
formed.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] re: The Nature of Democracy
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 22:34:02 -0400

Salvete,

Very short, because possibly leading to off-topic garbage:

C. Minucius Hadrianus scripsit:
<<. We saw that here in the USA last November
with our Presidential Elections. When you have a polarized citizenry
with (for example) 45% of the people supporting "viewpoint A" and 55%
supporting "viewpoint B", when viewpoint "B" wins, 45% of your
population is going to be unhappy about it. >>>

Bad example - 55% of the population voted FOR the 'loser'. Our incumbent
Resident actually LOST the popular vote. Of course, that's because we in
the US have a Republic (with an electoral college) rather than a pure
democracy.

Valete bene,
Helena Galeria


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] re: The Nature of Democracy
From:	Michel <loos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 09:15:56 -0300

Teleri ferch Nyfain wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> Very short, because possibly leading to off-topic garbage:
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus scripsit:
> <<. We saw that here in the USA last November
> with our Presidential Elections. When you have a polarized citizenry
> with (for example) 45% of the people supporting "viewpoint A" and 55%
> supporting "viewpoint B", when viewpoint "B" wins, 45% of your
> population is going to be unhappy about it. >>>
>
> Bad example - 55% of the population voted FOR the 'loser'. Our incumbent
> Resident actually LOST the popular vote. Of course, that's because we in
> the US have a Republic (with an electoral college) rather than a pure
> democracy.

You have a sort of modern democracy modelled (in parts) on ancient Rome.

In a "pure" democracy the president would be choosen by lot and you
would all vote on any single law or proposition (no Congress). That
"pure" model does not
exist anymore.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

>
> Valete bene,
> Helena Galeria
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] scholarship fund
From:	VMoeller@--------
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 10:23:58 EDT

Salve Gaius Geminus Germanicus!

An excellent idea. Since Nova Roma is now a 501 (c) (3) organization we
qualify for grant funding. The principal challenge will be in convincing a
Foundation to grant NR the funds to start such a scholarship fund because we
are such a young organization.

I am the Quaestrix for Consul Flavius Vedius Germanicus. One of my
goals this year has been the establishment of a Grant writing team. So far we
have two team members ( Lucius Mauricius Procopious and Gnaeus Tiberius
Cicero). The procedures for cives who have project ideas and who wish to
submit them for grant and project development are drafted and currently under
review - and have not yet been published. One criteria is that a project idea
should be as applicable to all Nova Romans as possible. The intent, in this
case, is to afford a student in the province of Germania, or Britannia to
have the same opportunity to apply for the scholarship as would a student in
your home province or any other province around the world.

I think this is an extremely worthwhile project worthy of further
development and planning. Would you send me you idea please? I will, in turn,
share it with the other members of the team. Thank you for your initiative -
this is what keeps Nova Roma growing and developing further! Well done.

Valete,

---Secunda Cornelia Valeria, Quaestrix of Nova Roma


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Outage during Contio
From:	"Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus" <TSardonicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 14:31:35 -0000

Salvete,

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Yesterday's loss of service by Yahoo groups
> interrupted our Contio. We have lost some of the time
> set aside for debating some very important issues. The
> post I made regarding one of the Leges is lost in
> cyber space, and I assume that I'm not the only one.
> It may be in a file somewhere and will show up
> sometime today, it may be gone forever.

This happened to me, also. The views in my post were more eloquently
stated by others, so I won't attempt to post again in any event.

It has been said on this list that the Yahoo Groups low quality of
service at times is explained away in the terms and conditions. I
can't dispute that. Most terms and conditions for non-pay services
are simply lengthy disclaimers, anyway. I also agree that we
shouldn't be hasty and move our lists to another service immediately.

However, I agree with Lucius Sicinius Drusus in that we should have a
back up plan in place in the event that Yahoo Groups becomes no
longer viable. I, too, offer my services in researching and
reporting on alternatives.

A statistic related to disaster recovery: Approximately 70% of all
the businesses displaced by the World Trade Center bombing never
opened their doors again because they didn't have a disaster recovery
plan. This is an extreme comparison, and is only offered as food for
thought.

Valete,
L. Tiberius Sardonicus


Subject:	[novaroma] Comitia Populi vote correction
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 15:02:53 -0000

Flavius Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.

Item II in the upcoming vote (the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis
Nominibus) contained a typographical error; there are apparently two
paragraphs labeled IV.B. The second one (which begins "A citizen who
wishes to change the gender of his name counter to that dictated by
his sex...") should be labeled IV.C, and is hereby amended
accordingly. As this does not change the substance of the lex in any
way, the contio and vote will proceed as scheduled.

The Curator Araneum is hereby requested to make the appropriate
change when posting this item on the website.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Outage during Contio
From:	Marilyn Traber <margali@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 08:26:18 -0400

As a member of Egressus, contact is part of my responsibilities
to Nova Roma in any way I can manage. I understand that there are
2 main mailing list programs that can be run on a fairly small
PC. Recently, my HD fragged itself and melted. I had to get a new
computer to replace it while we were salvaging the old one.

Well, my old computer is up and running with a brand new hard
drive and available to run mailman or major domo. Granted, it
currently is loaded with windows, but I have no objection to
switching to a different OS, although I would need some help from
the more technically adept. I have a 56k modem, and the local ISP
is really responsive [run by a really nice pair of guys.]
It would be good enough to run a mail server [from what I
understand] although not a chat feature and I don't know about
web site hosting [although a nova roma account of 100 a month for
the 7/24 service probably comes with some sort of web site
attached.
margali
Hyapatia Asinia
~~~~~~~~~~
the quote starts here:
Nova Roma is too dependent on e-mail for this level of
service. Two major problems in a short time may be a
coincidence or it may be a sign that Yahoo is
attempting to save money by reducing the funding for
Yahoo groups. If the later is true, then we shall see
these kinds of problems more and more often.

We need to be prepared in case we have to move to a
different mailing list service. I think that now would
be a good time to assemble a task force to look at the
alternatives to Yahoo groups. The task force can look
into what we would need to set up our own mail list
service, and the other web based services that are
available, and report back to Nova Roma on the options.

This seems like a better idea than just sticking with
Yahoo groups until we are forced to move, and blindly
jumping on the first thing that we find.

I offer my services to such a group, should it be
formed.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] To the citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 03:26:25 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Quiritibus omnibus S.P.D.

I thought this very reasonable reaction by the citizen known as Q.
Fabius Maximus deserved a reply, both to him and the others who
brought up the important issue of the relationship between morality
and democracy. He says:

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:16:10 EDT
From: QFabiusMax@--------
Subject: To the citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus

POSTED IN THE FORUM:
I ask this of the individual known as M. Apollonius Formosanus:
Since you have become the champion of our citizens' rights, you
should make your objections known, which you have, then let them
decide if de Nominibus should pass or fail. However if it does pass,
you as a Magistrate of Rome must see that the provisions be carried
out. If, you cannot do so, you would have to resign of course, just
like I or any other magistrate would if we would not fullfill our
oath.

Q. Fabius Maximus

RESPONDEO:

1. As an Aedile, although in theory I have some judicial
responsibility, as things actually work and as the bill in question
is worded, this lex, if unhappily enacted, would never cause a case
to come before me for a decision, so I shall not be in the immediate
future in a position to "carry out" this lex.

2. If I were a Censor, I would indeed have to deal with it as a
*valid*, albeit unequitable and immoral, law. A Censor who wanted to
interpret it humanely could probably make the concrete
functioning of the law as it stands acceptable un many individual
cases if his collega permitted. (My objection to the bill is that it
would encourage personally prejudiced or bureaucratically-minded
Censors to act less than humanely or reasonably - as actually
happened in our famous test case.)

3. If I were a Praetor and had to actually try a case arising from
it, I would perhaps consider the fact that the Constitution prohibits
sexual discrimination, and rule the unequitable provisions
unconstitutional - again, my collega permitting. That is one good
reason to have guarantees of rights in a constitution and an
independent judiciary: judicial review to protect the individua;'s
rights.

4. There could indeed be hypothetical situations, such as if a
collega acted in such a way that I might be unable to do a minimally
decent thing as a magistrate, in which case I perhaps would indeed in
good conscience have to resign my magistracy. That, of course, is a
fundamental affair of honour and conscience for anyone in a position
of responsibility, without any special reference to the case of the
legislation we are considering.

In other words, if this legislation passed, I would have to consider
it valid (if bad) legislation and treat it as a lex on the books. And
as a person of conscience and a citizen I would at the same time see
the necessity for changing or removing it at some time in the future,
preferably as soon as possible, by lawful political means.

If any of you had lived in a southern state of the U.S. before the
Civil War, and personally understood and had a moral conviction of
the evils of slavery, shall we believe that your certainty that it
was supported by the opinions and votes of the majority of
enfranchised citizens of your state and that states' valid laws would
have convinced you that it was *right*? No, affairs of conscience do
not depend on votes or laws.

I very greatly regret that this was allowed to become a political
matter in Nova Roma. The Censores approached by Marius with a desire
for a name change could have given the decent and commonsensical
response: "The citizen wants a name change - lets give him the name
he wants! We know he has his own special problems in life, and we
certainly don't want to add to them by being officious. He is our
fellow Nova Roman and our friend - we'll do the friendly and decent
thing." *Then* the affair would have avoided politicisation because
some Censores had acted like human beings,

Unfortunately, the incumbents saw fit from their own prejudices
(obviously), and *perhaps* the joy of trampling on people different
from themselves or *perhaps* from very rightist ideologies to refuse
the human needs of Marius. And by their using official powers to make
it a political issue, they called forth a response from those who
care about the rights of individuals, from those who want humaneness,
equality, and respect for the human person in Nova Roma as much as in
the rest of the world.

I am sorry they insisted on calling forth that response, as it has
tired out many people and resulted in divisions in Nova Roma that
were better not made. But, on the other hand, a free citizen in a
free state has both the right and the *duty* to stop state power from
being abused.

The genie cannot be put back into the bottle. It *has* been made
into a political issue instead of being left quietly to private
fairness and goodwill as it might have been. At this juncture the
first big step we can take as a nation to contain the poison that has
been released by this is to send the proposed lex on name changes
back to its proposer so that it can be recrafted with less inequity
in it to a minority, which in the person of Marius simply wanted
personal freedom and fair treatment.

And then we might sometime this year see some good legislation in
the form of the Bill of Rights that Labienus and Cassius have both
been talking about that would address the problems and guarantee that
no one will ever try discriminatory legislation like that again in
Nova Roma.

That is the way forward towards a politically and ethically
healthier Nova Roma where we can stop arguing about these things all
the time.

And if the bill passes? Don't expect anything dramatic. As a lex it
will sit there reminding many of us very unfavourably of the
characters of those behind it and as a source of moral
dissatisfaction, and of eventual political action again. Or maybe it
will so discourage those who care about Nova Roma's being a place
with minimum standards of humaneness and fairness that we will follow
others already disgusted ad exitum and just give up. If that happens
long enough and the leaders of this Respublica continue leading it in
an authoritarian direction, maybe many others of you will one day
wish that this process had been halted by a stand for simple human
equality, justice and dignity on this issue facing us now.

Yes, it only directly affects a small minority of citizens past,
present or future - but it says a lot about how we define ourselves
as a community. Are we a place that does its best to allow people to
be themselves while pursuing Romanitas, or are we a place that has an
ungodly love of laying down the law just to lay down the law?

What Nova Roma is, therefore, depends on our votes now. I hope you
will join with me in deciding that Nova Roma will be fair to everyone
and hostile to bureacracy and meddling in others' personal lives. If
you care about that, please vote NO on the name-change bill.

Bene valete Quirites - et Dii nos bene ament.

_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Magister Scholae Latinae
Moderator Indicis protoprovincialis NR_Venediae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - Remember the Ides of March.
____________________________________________________

All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________


Subject:	[novaroma] To the citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 03:26:25 +0200


Subject:	[novaroma] To the citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 03:26:25 +0200


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Alternatives
From:	"william wheeler" <holyconelia@-------->
Date:	Sat, 05 May 2001 01:14:59 -0000

Salve Sextus Apollonius Draco!

>Salvete Consules et Quirites Novae Romae,
>

(snip{MCF})

>My second question. Since the number of debates the tax plan has generated
>(and, let us admit it, in which I fiercely participated :-)), I've come up
>with somewhat of an alternative, too. I'd like to have comments on this
>plan, and would appreciate the Consules' considerations - if the reactions
>are fairly ok - to perhaps put it up as an alternative to the other
>taxation plan. Here it is:
>This law shall be dealing with as much issues concerning citizenship tax as
>possible, divided in the paragraphs below.
>
> 1.. An estimated amount of money, expressed in USD and Euros, set by the
>Senatus each year during the Kalends of January, shall be asked from the
>citizens of Nova Roma to be paid within the boundaries of the financial
>year (starting on the Kalends of January, lasting until the next Kalends of
>January). This amount announced is subject to intercessio from the Tribuni.
> Ia. This amount may differ for each province in a reasonable way, in
>cooperation with that province's governarial staff. Should a consensus not
>be reached, the dispute will be settled with the Quaestores, by whose
>judgement both parties must abide. This judgement is subject to
>intercessio.

MCF in USA law the BOD( the Senate)is who only can say how much.
and the bylaws can not setside this.

>
>
> Ib. Provinces that do not have a governor will be expected to pay the
>amount set by the Senatus, unless they fall under the exceptions set forth
>in paragraph III.
>
>
>
>
> b.. The Propraetores (or Procuratores) of each province will decide the
>percentage of this money from the citizens of their province that goes to
>the provincial treasury, in coöperation with the Senatus, and on the
>condition that legal provisions are in place to protect the treasury from
>said provinces from corruption, embezzlement or otherwise illegal practices
>as described and defined by the macrolegal laws of their home countries.

MCF: as a NFP corp in the USA only the BOD( Board of directors ( in NRs case
the Senate can set and controls funds raised by Dues in law,
we can not in our bylaw set that asde as far as i know.IE the Senate would
say how much if any % anyone gets. and if what happens in the UK i do not
see the Senatus letting anyone at the Money for years sorry.
( IMHO)
>
>
> c.. Citizens who fail to pay their yearly amount of tax, shall be placed
>in the 5th century for the next financial year. These citizens s
>Valete bene!
>Sextus Apollonius Draco,
>Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
>Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM
>
>
>"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Marcus Cornelius Felix
Pontitff
Legate America Boreoccidentalis Minore
Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Comitia Open???
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 16:18:08 +1000 (EST)

Avete omnes,

I recently read the post posted by Consul Germanicus
that the voting has begun on the proposed laws, yet I
see no link to the laws on the main site. How do I
vote?

Valete bene omnes,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
- It's time you had your business online!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] re: The Nature of Democracy
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 17:35:19 +0200

Michel wrote:
> In a "pure" democracy the president would be choosen by lot and you
> would all vote on any single law or proposition (no Congress). That
> "pure" model does not
> exist anymore.

Salve, Manius Villius Limitanus

President? In a "pure" democracy? Nah, I don't think so. No one, by lot
or by popularity, would be allowed to rise above his fellow citizens in
any way, even temporarily.

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Contio
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 15:50:12 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

I rise to add my humble voice to the deliberations of the Contio.

Item I. Election of quaestor
Oppius Flaccus Severus posts often on a variety of topics, therefore
I feel I know him somewhat. [He also appears to be very intelligent
since I usually agree with him ;-)].

I agree with the an earlier poster who asked Titus Curius Dannicus to
provide us with some insight on his views.

Item II. Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominibus
There seems to be some "history" behind this lex, which increases its
controversy. The censors had a problem with the procedures, or lack
thereof, for name changes. Procedures were proposed and now have
evolved into a proposed lex. Perhaps I am not politically correct
enough, or just too "old fashioned", but it appears reasonable and
fair to me. I intend to support it.

Item III. Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda
Again, this appears entirely reasonable to me and has my support.

Item IV. Lex Vedia de assidui et capiti censi
I have spoken in favor of establishing a system of taxation several
times. I have been hesitant to embrace any system which creates
two "classes" of citizen. However, the only alternative would seem
to expulsion of non-payers, and this would be even worse.

IMHO this lex is an elegant comprimise. It has a basis in antiquity
and also has my support.

Respectfully,

Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Comitia Open???
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 09:26:01 -0700

Ave,

No, on the second sentence of the Comita statement posted by Consul
Germanicus said the vote begins on the 12th. This period between now
and then is the discussion period.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Jerry Anguston wrote:
>
> Avete omnes,
>
> I recently read the post posted by Consul Germanicus
> that the voting has begun on the proposed laws, yet I
> see no link to the laws on the main site. How do I
> vote?
>
> Valete bene omnes,
>
> Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura
>
> Legatus Australia Medius
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store
> - It's time you had your business online!
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Outage during Contio
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 09:47:32 -0700

Salvete L. Sicini et Quiritibus;

I've been quiet over the past few days as Yahoo
has only today started to function with a modicum
of normality for me. It had been so bad, that even
the archives weren't aligning with my posts so have
been relying on summaries. Now that my post seems
to have a chance of arriving for the moment, I'll
respond.

Mi Druse; I fully agree 100% with your statements. If there's
anything that I've learned from the multiple outages,
is that a plan is needed whether some see a need for
it or not. Let's not recreate the final days of Pompeii
by hanging around and hoping that bad things won't
happen.

Yourself and others have aptly pointed out that
we're on borrowed time with Yahoo groups so the time
is now for working on concrete, deliverable and
manageable alternatives.

My suggestion is that we get together offline with
the other cives that have voiced concern and willingness
to help and just form the working committee; without
continuing to debate whether or not it's necessary.
Let's just *do* it. I too volunteer to be part of this
group and would suggest that we host it on Topica or
some other venue. -It matters not to me, as long as it's
reliable.

Gnaeus Salix, Titus Octavius and some others have also
expressed a desire for direct involvement. So what say
you? Shall I (or someone else) create the list, make
it open and start formulating some concrete plans?
Anyone else up for joining such a group?

Bene valete,
Oppius
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus [mailto:lsicinius@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:07 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Outage during Contio

Salvete Omnes,

Yesterday's loss of service by Yahoo groups
interrupted our Contio. We have lost some of the time
set aside for debating some very important issues. The
post I made regarding one of the Leges is lost in
cyber space, and I assume that I'm not the only one.
It may be in a file somewhere and will show up
sometime today, it may be gone forever.

First we had the recent problem with many citizens not
getting most of their mail, and now a far more serious
disruption of a Contio that affected all of our
citizens. A loss of service that also affected ALL of
Nova Roma's mail lists.

<snipped>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: To the citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 17:14:42 -0000

Salve, M. Appollonius Formosanus!

With all due respect, although you have expressed your opinions a bit
more cogently in your last posting, I see with great sadness and
disgust that you insist on the ad hominem attacks on the Censores. If
we are to be accurate, the edict actually predated Marius's requests
to them - and in it's present form, CONTAINS THE SPECIFIC
MODIFICATIONS YOU REQUESTED. I fail to understand the "inhumanity"
you
so constantly accuse the Censores of - especially when they have
actually listened to your objections to their original argument and
made the modifications you championed.

On a couple of other things:

> ____________________________________________________
> Memento Idus Martias - Remember the Ides of March.
> ____________________________________________________
>

Of course we should remember them; for two reasons, actually. In Roma
Antiqva, becasue on that date a group of self-righteous individuals
precipitated the Principate they so feared by murdering a man who was
guilty of following their systems and institutions to their logical
conclusions. Remember very clearly what happened after that.

In Nova Roma, I remember them because of the decision made by some to
storm off the playground because they were not able to convince the
rest of us benighted brutes to accept their enlightened view of the
world. I also remeber that some chose to make some very nasty attacks
on those who remained, an electronic "Parthian shot" of sorts... and
then proceeded to create their own lists in which lambasting their
"enemies" is a daily ritual. A very constructive pursuit indeed! I
wonder what sort of Dignitas promotes this? If it is wrong for us to
attack those who left (an opinion I happen to favor), is it not
equally wrong for them to do the same where we have no chance of
responding to them?

> All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world
is
for
> enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
> ___________________________________________________

Indeed - but doing the wrong thing can be as harmful or worse than
the
"evil" you are trying to prevent. Too many disasters have occurred
because of someone taking the wrong action in haste. Epigrams are
very
nice, but as most free advice, they tend to be empty cliches - and
even worse, they tend to get used to lend weight to frivolous
arguments by way of assertion of authority. It's the old "they
laughed
at Galileo, too!" effect; the assumption of course being that my
argument is as valid as Galileo's (which is yet to be seen).

Mi Formosane, I hold you to be a man of clear intellect ond strong
convictions. Let us please cast aside the ad hominem tactics, let us
reason things through, and if in the end we disagree, let us be
courteous enough to respect each other. The leges are up for votes;
if
your arguments hold weight with our cives, then you will prevail. If
they do not, then perhaps it may be necessary to understand why. The
difference between Nova Roma and the US southern states is that we
are
here of choice - and more importantly, that we can leave if we
disagree with NR. One man's rights cannot be legislated by another
man; but rights are also delimited by how they affect your fellow
man.
The simple argument would be "your right to swing your fist about
freely ends where my nose begins". Rights are inseparable from the
obligations they carry - the obligation to exercise those rights
responsibly, and to refrain from harming others in their exercise.

We all have a right to differing opinions - and that right also
precludes us from deriding or insulting others because we happen to
disagree with them. From fascists to inhuman beasts, we have heard
insults piled on high upon those who happen to disagree with you. In
all fairness, you and yours have also been insulted. However, why not
take the high road? Why not show by example that you and I can debate
over these issues without excoriating each other? I know you are
capable of this. Let us truly bring Dignitas to this Forum - not by
fiat or declaration, but by real actions.

Optime vale, et Iuppiter nos protegas!

Marius Cornelius Scipio
Aedilis Curulis Nova Romani

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Good ideas
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 13:31:50 EDT

The Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominibus: An excellent edict. It's
benefits are it violates no one's rights in that everyone can identify
themselves as they wish, and lets them imagine they are what they wish to be,
while at the same time it does not force some 'politically correct' ideology
down everyone's throats by requiring everyone else to pretend a cat is a dog.
It has my full support.

Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda: A very lenient edict. Nine days
to withdraw your resignation, and penalty free at that! And only six months
wait to apply again after the first tantrum? As my drill sergeant said,
"It's TOO easy, privates!"

Lex Vedia de assidui et capiti censi: Seems fair enough to me. I admit the
tax issue was not of pressing interest to me personally. Such a small amount
of money is affordable by everyone. And those who think it too high for
themselves should just rent one less video each month. Maybe it is too high
for the Somalians, but hey....can't please everyone.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Sextus Apollonius
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 17:45:46 +0200

Salve O Censor,

> I would appreciate if you were to act like a responsible citizen and list
> the full name of each Lex you referred too. In your post you convinetly
> leave out the fact that both Lexes that orignated from the Censors carry
the
> names of both Cornelia and Maria.
>
> I do not think you would want to be accused of some
deceitfulness....unless
> if that was your intention.
>
> So, just to elaborate, the name change edict is a Lex Cornelia et Maria.
> The resignation edict is a Lex Cornelia et Maria as well.
>
> So if you are going to refer to these edicts, use the full and proper
name.
>

And next time you refer to me, use my full name instead of my praenomen and
nomen only. It is both your work and that of the former Censor, but I'm
still awaiting his comments on this. However, please stop the nitpicking
(the plural of "lex" by the way, is "leges" -- see, I can do it just as
well).

Vale!
Draco


Subject:	[novaroma] Resignation Edict: NO
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 18:29:24 +0200

Salvete iterum, Quirites,

To relieve the pressure, here are my comments on comments on my comments
(...) on the somewhat lighter issue of the resignation edict, and will
hopefully be less bitter and more productive than the former one.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla scripsit:

> Sulla: Oh yes..this is a non-problem considering that we had a number
> of people resign on the Ides of March..and some of them magistrates who
> ended up embezzling funds from Nova Roma....Sure...a non-problem...I
> suggest you rethink your position in this matter.
>

Those people did not come back, and regarding embezzlement you're only
talking about two or three people, two out of the eight-something who left
and have nothing to do with that crime. Bottom line is they didn't come
back. So they obviously stopped caring anyway.

Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus scripsit:

> It could very well become a problem, however. I don't see it as
punishment.
> I see it as consequences for an action. If you love Nova Roma, why quit?
> Why not stay and and attempt to improve something you believe in?
>

Well, people who leave usually try your suggestion first. But at a given
time things can get so tensed and frustrating that they leave alltogether.

> >You desigend this law to keep people you don't like out of the door
> > as long as possible, in my opinion, because until now few people have
> > resigned from protest and then returned.
>
> I can't see your point. Quitting in protest then wanting to come back is
> petulant behavior. Do you still "take your ball and go home" when you
don't
> get your way? I believe you are much too mature for that.
>

I will agree it is petulant behaviour, for magistrates. But ordinary
citizens, no, I think not.

> > And one of those people was...
> > Marius. How peculiar. Nobody has ever used protest resignations and then
> came
> > back over and over again. And it probably won't happen, either.
>
> I don't believe that this Lex anything to do with Marius.
>

He is the only person who ever did this thing so far. If there are others
I'm waiting to hear from or about them.

> Please consider that even a small percentage of people quitting in protest
> and reapplying for citizenship would put an undue and unreasonable burden
on
> our Censores.

If that percentage is so small, it probably won't affect their work in a big
way.

> I believe the Lex is intended to lend some weight to
> Citizenship, so that Citizens will think twice and possibly consider
> alternatives before quitting in protest. Repeated abuses of Citizenship
> carry increasingly severe consequences.
>

I will agree with you that citizenship is a serious matter. But the weight
of it is expressed by the importance attached to it by the citizenry, and
not as much as the importance attached to it by the government. More on that
below, though, and in another email (yes, yet another! :-)).

Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:

> This lex intends to give weight to the argument that your Nova Roman
> citizenship has some value - and that we are adults here, not
> petulant children who storm off the playground whenever things don't
> go how we want them. If you cast off your macronational citizenship,
> there are some very serious consequences attached to that action
> (including, in some cases, forced deportation and loss of all
> rights). Think about it - we are merely saying you have to wait to
> come back until you've shown a willingness to take your citizenship
> seriously. We are also saying we want an assurance that you will not
> cause us grief by frivolously taking offices and then discarding them
> out of petulance. Is that unreasonable? Is asking anyone to take
> themselves seriously, and to respect the rest of us as well, so
> unreasonable? By the way, you keep characterizing these actions as a
> personal crusade against Marius - why insist on ad hominem attacks?
> Present cogent arguments, please: this "you're persecuting Marius!"
> at every turn is a bit tiresome, to say the least. And I for one know
> you are quite capable of more responsible and mature arguments.

As for the former arguments, yes, citizenship is a serious matter. However,
no one here is "born" into citizenship in NR, or has always been a citizen
here from the day he or she was born; it is a voluntary citizenship.
Citizenship in one's home country has a lot of benefits: you can vote, you
have some form of social security (well, in some countries), you can buy a
house and manage your own business just fine, protected under the law (in
ideal cases, of course). These benefits we have from citizenship here are
not as vast. Although there are benefits to being a citizen here, too, there
aren't as much. The value of our citizenship here is much more emotional
than it is economical. That's one thing why I don't find this comparison to
be correct, and I'd vote against this law.

As for the latter argument, of course I have no hard evidence that this was
designed to prosecute Marius. But this edict was promulgated in the period
of his return, one of the only citzens thusfar to come back after resigning.
Consul Vedius once resigned, too, and was welcomed again with open arms,
which is fairly natural. However, the return of Marius was followed by this
edict, which I find suspicious.

Thanks for your time.

Valete bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM

"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Democracy....
From:	"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 10:41:50 -0700

Salvete Omnes,

I have a question about how you choose to prioritize whose rights should be
met. You seem to assert that I be required to address individuals as they
choose. What about my right of free speech. If you insist I use a certain
form of address, aren't you taking away MY freedom? What if I'm a right wing
conservative and I would consider it a sin to address a person contrary to
their gender? Whose rights get precedence?
I'm not trying to start a debate, I really want to know how you made your
decision. Please read a tone of "attempting to reach consensual
understanding" into this post, not "you're wrong and I'm picking your
argument apart".

Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious

"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: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Democracy....

> --- Adrian Gunn <shinjikun@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> > With the upcoming election, let's not forget that in
> > any Democracy
> > that follows the principle of "majority rules" there
> > is always going
> > to be an unhappy minority. We saw that here in the
> > USA last November
> > with our Presidential Elections. When you have a
> > polarized citizenry
> > with (for example) 45% of the people supporting
> > "viewpoint A" and 55%
> > supporting "viewpoint B", when viewpoint "B" wins,
> > 45% of your
> > population is going to be unhappy about it. It's the
> > downside of
> > democracy, but we just have to live with it. No one
> > yet has devised a
> > system of government where everyone gets his or her
> > own way, and
> > everyone gets to be happy. As the saying goes:
> > "Democracy is the
> > worst form of government, except for all the other
> > ones." My point
> > is, whenever the Senate adopts any Lex, be it for
> > Taxes or Name
> > Change Rules, someone's not going to like it. When
> > the majority of
> > your peers disagree with you however, it's not
> > necessarily injustice ?
> > sometimes its just life. Obviously this doesn't
> > mean a person should
> > abandon their convictions simply because the
> > majority disagrees with
> > them, but it does mean they may have to learn to
> > compromise, or
> > simply agree to disagree and get on with life.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > C. Minucius Hadrianus
> > Legatus of Massachusetts
>
> Salvete,
>
> No Man's rights are subject to another man's vote.
>
> I don't care if the minority is 49% or 10% or a single
> citizen, the majority is in the wrong when they use
> the strength of their numbers to overwhelm a minority
> in the area of rights.
>
> I Grew up in the Southeastern United States during the
> Civil Rights struggle, and I can assure you that equal
> rights for "negros" was voted down over and over by
> the type of representives we elected. Had the matter
> come up on a direct vote, the old south would have
> voted to maintain segregation.
>
> Now does anyone wish to tell me that the old system we
> had, one that consisted of treating people like second
> class citizens based on the color of their skin was
> right, simply because a majority voted for it.
>
> The best system of government isn't democracy, it's a
> system where the powers of the state are limited, for
> without the limitations all democracy is, is a polite
> term for mob rule.
>
> I will repeat something I said earlier,
>
> There is NO difference between a mob that meets under
> torchlight to violate someone's rights, and a mob that
> meets in the sunlight to go to the polls to violate
> someones rights.
>
> It's damn hard to go deeper into someones personal
> life than their name and their sexuality. This Lex
> touches upon matters that NO state should intrude on.
> I fear the precedent it sets, a precedent that NO area
> of a citizens private life is beyond the snooping eyes
> of the state. Remember that citizens, you are voting
> on far more than just a lex dealing with names. You
> are setting the precedent that the state can peer
> deeply into a citizens private life. This time the
> prying may not affect you, but you may be in the
> minority when the next lex is proposed, one that
> intrudes into an area of your life that you consider
> no one's business. Remember that this lex will be
> called upon as an example of how it's in the best
> interests of the state to decide these matters.
>
> Is it desirable that a citizens name match their
> gender? Is it desirable that a citizen's name follow
> the historic usage? Yes it is! But just because a
> thing is desirable doesn't mean that it's something
> that should be enacted into law. I do not question the
> good intentions behind this law. I just consider it a
> matter that the state shouldn't go into.
>
> If you wish to charge a reasonable fee for changing a
> name, fine I'll vote for that. If you wish to have
> SUGGESTIONS about selecting a name, I have no problem
> with that. However I will NOT vote to set up the Gonad
> Police to peer into a citizens pants.
>
> Valete,
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Assidui et Capiti Censi: NO
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 18:49:55 +0200

Salvete again!

(just this e-mail and you're rid of me for the day, people)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla scripsit (sorry I'm always starting with you, but yours is the first reply I got in chronological order):

> Sulla: Well I respectfully disagree in your opinion on this law. I
> think this is a sound piece of legislation that helps begin to form a
> proper framework between those citizens who pay and those citizens who
> do not pay.

Well yes, it is a basis. But nothing more than that, I think.

> My only statement in regards to this is that the
> magistrates cannot be the only individuals who have a vested interest in
> NR. The financial burden should be held by all citizens. It is
> interesting to me that in the name change edict you do not want the
> government to interfere in the lives of the citzens but in this aspect
> you are actually trying to promote governmental bureaucracy by trying to
> differentiate between those who cannot pay and those who can. (Even
> though the name change edict does not interfere in that aspect that you
> seem to proclaim it does.)

At least bureaucracy would be in the favour of citizens now, while the other one I complained against is in the so-called favour of an almost non-existing minority group. And over the past few years, the Quaestores haven't been exactly burdened with an overload of work, have they?

Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:

> Tell you the truth, the positions mentioned do require financial
> outlays from the magistrates involved. There are administrative costs
> such as phone calls, letters, etc. You already pay for an ISP, for a
> computer to log on to these discussions, etc.

Yes, but the costs for offices such as Tribunus, Aedilis, Quaestor, Praetor or as Vigintisexvir or a regular Senator can be minimized. Internet access is overall pretty cheap. They key issue is time, I think, and not as much money.

> Why the constant
> complaint about the payment of taxes? You already pay a form of tax
> to access this forum and participate - what we are talking about
> involves helping make other projects of Nova Roma (and not just those
> proposed by the current magistrates, mind you) become real. The only
> objection I can realistically come up with against this lex is the
> fact that I would personally like to see what form taxation would
> take. I think that issue cannot be safely divorced from the present
> lex. However, the arguments put forward to date reduce to "what-ifs"
> that demonstrate a lot of creativity but forget the basic principle
> of our form of government - compromise. We strive to achieve not an
> Utopia, but a set of rules we can all live with, even if we don't
> agree with it 100% of the time.
>

I will agree with you here. But all things said and done I suspect our views on what a good compromise is differ. For me a compromise tax plan would be one that at least included something on people who °can't° pay and wouldn't prevent those from not running. For some others, this plan is already a compromise. However, every protest thus far against the current plan seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Thus; I'm afraid I'm sticking to my opinion (and likewise, you'll be sticking to yours).

> Mi Draco, we cannot establish the tyranny of the few or even the one
> because we want to please everyone 100% of the time. Not only is it
> unrealistic, it flies in the face of everything we have learned to
> this date about what made Roma great. One of the best lessons of
> History is that when the politicians attempt to appease everyone,
> they end up alienating everyone and destroying the Res Publica, to
> boot. Why should we ignore such a powerful lesson, especially from
> such a powerful Muse? Consider the facts, and not the emotional
> demagoguery - and only then draw your conclusion. This advice I
> extend to all, not just you, amici mei. Only then can we have a
> Contio that makes sense.

As for the former, I don't think I ever advocated this. As for the latter, I fully agree.

Valete bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM

"Come, fly the teeth of the wind;
share my wings" (FSOL)

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Name-change edict: NO
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 17:46:45 +0200

Hail citizens of New Rome,

It appears that I have gotten quite some comment, and I thought it would be a better idea to respond in three seperate e-mails instead.

First, my comments on the name-change edict topic:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla scripsit:

> Sulla: So what you are saying now is that you feel the majority of the
> Citizens of Nova Roma should not have a voice?

As Lucius Sicinius said, Nova Roma has no business with our own sexuality. Period. One person's rights are NOT subject to the will of a majority. And I have _never_ urged to put the edict up for a vote. I did urge for alternatives, but that's all.

> would imply such, given your previous statements. And, Lucia Maria,

Marius requested you TWO TIMES in public to stop addressing him as a female, but you (and some others) kept doing it. I find this an example of rude offensiveness that shows how you really care about people who are different from you.

> who
> was a citizen of Nova Roma, before her resigantion, IS a woman. Have
> you met her physically Sextus Apollonius. Til you have, I beg you to
> cease your inaccurate information. Those of us who have met her face to
> face, as I have....can draw those conclusions. And your reiteration of
> Senator Australicus statement shows just how little of the law you have
> read....I suggest you go back and read the proposed Lex. The Lex
> included the very suggestions your own Pater wanted in back in May of
> last year. Do you need me to repost that message to the NR main
> list....Sextus?
>

Mi Luci, I did read the entire law, and it is not your place to belittle me on details. If I would do the same with you, I'd still be sitting here writing this e-mail tomorrow morning. Marius is physically a woman, and spiritually a man.

Gaius Cassius Nerva scripsit:

> Draco said, "Why have the majority vote on a law that was, admit it, intended
> for a very small minority?"
>
> Answer: Because you wanted it so. Last year Formosanus and your crew were
> complaining that there there was no popular vote on the matter. Your people
> made Censor Sulla out to be some tyrannical petty magistrate, using edicta to
> impose his will on everyone. Well, now there is to be a vote, and now you do
> not want one. Have you considered joining the army. You are already very
> good at doing the "about face".
>

I never wanted this put up for a popular vote. On another topic: as the matter a fact I have considered joining the army, but most likely it's not where I'll end up.

> Draco said, "Citizens who love Roma and want to return are hereby punished..."
>
> Answer. No, if they were being punished, they would not be allowed to
> return, period.

I find this no argument; not being allowed to return is your definition of a punishment, but it isn't mine.

Her Royal Majesty Queen of Naboo (aka Priscilla Vedia Serena) scripsit:

(snipped)

> >>Why put forth legislation for a group with no people (anymore) in it?>>
>
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, so that there will be no future necessity
> to take up massive amounts of bandwidth debating the issue.
>

A law does not kill an issue. It's not because a law gets voted in that has all people above 80 decapitated - after much debate - that the issue will cease to be controversial.

> >>This would be a good law with °that clause° was cut out from it, or
> altered into something less difficult.>>
>
> On the contrary, it is an excellent law BECAUSE it includes this clause.
> Face it, if one *truly* sees oneself as a man trapped in a woman's body (or
> vice versa) life is going to be "difficult" on a vast number of levels.

And why should you add the difficulty of a bureaucratic process? Or would you like to make life for these people even more difficult? I hope not.

> Take a step back and get some perspective here. All that is being asked is
> that *if* a person has a serious gender issue they take it up in their real
> everyday life as well as here in Nova Roma. To suggest that we ought to
> make it easy for any person to be HERE hat they are NOT in the real world is
> to equate Nova Roma to little more than a fantasy or a game.

Feeling a woman or man inside while being not is NOT a fantasy game or role playing. Why do you think a "roleplayer" would have spent so much time at his psychologist?

> >>Don't say you made this law for Marius (and that's a man for you --
> addressing him differently is pestering and slander), because I don't
> believe he asked for it.>>
>
> The clause in question is absolutely due to the circumstances of Maria
> Villaroel.

And again that persistent, childish pestering.

> She did indeed start this ball rolling by asking numerous
> officials for her name to be changed and by her refusal to abide by any of
> their independent decisions not to honor her request.
>

Because the request is, and let's be fair, not unreasonable. Change the name from three times "a" to "us" on the Album Civium and a few other records, and that's that.

> As for your other comment about "slander", I suggest you check your
> definitions. For starters, slander applies to oral statements and libel to
> written ones.

I suggest you learn Dutch first before you attack me again on the quality of my English. Ik zou wel eens willen weten hoe goed je het er van af zou brengen.

(snipped)

> Now, you may still say it is "pestering" to refer to her as a female.
> Hmmmm. According to that logic, if I now wish to be known as Her Royal
> Majesty Queen of Naboo you will most gladly do so, correct?

Hereby done. The key issue is, though, all fun aside, that feeling to be another gender is not a "roleplaying thing" or some form of "madness". It doesn't hurt other people, and it is certainly not superficial. It's an identity. As Curio said, you know very well what I meant.

(snipped)

>
> Bottom line is that if someone does not care enough to address this issue in
> their real everyday mundane world, why should we cater to their fantasies
> here in Nova Roma?

It is no fantasy. Period.

(snipped)

> True repression of minorities would be our not acknowledging those with
> legitimate transgender issues. This law does recognize them. It simply
> requires that they be acknowledged as such across the board and not just
> here in Nova Roma. For a true transgendered individual, one would think
> they would be striving for such consistency and would welcome it.
>

Pakistan's laws recognize the existence of homosexuality but every gay man, if discovered, gets killed according to that same law, so I don't see your point here. Recognition does not mean fair treatment.

Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:

> For the very simple reason that that minority of one, and a group of
> associates of the same, spent a significant amount of our time
> demanding such a vote and indeed even insulting one of our Censors
> for not granting such a vote. As for the argument about our
> government getting into our pants - if you parse the language of the
> lex as english is meant to be parsed, what is being said is that Nova
> Roma has no desire to be determining your gender. We ask that you
> provide information about your gender based on what your particular
> locality recognizes for you (this proof being whatever legal ID you
> have that states that information). What is being said is WE DO NOT
> CARE TO PEEK IN YOUR PANTS

Well, it was a manner of speaking, of course.

> - you provide the legal info and we'll
> gladly accept it. If we are even one iota serious about what we are
> doing here,we cannot be involved in roleplaying or fantasies for
> anyone, period. We got here because this is what you, the person
> involved, your Paterfamilias and several others asked for - and now
> you say it's inappropriate?

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I didn't ask for a vote, and never did, and transgenderism is not a mere fantasy, but I think on some occasions a nightmare. However, I'm glad you provided some reasonable arguments which pull up the level of discussion we're at.

On to the next topic is...

Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM

"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] re: The Nature of Democracy
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 15:25:37 -0300 (BRT)

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Kristoffer From wrote:

> Michel wrote:
> > In a "pure" democracy the president would be choosen by lot and you
> > would all vote on any single law or proposition (no Congress). That
> > "pure" model does not
> > exist anymore.
>
> Salve, Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> President? In a "pure" democracy? Nah, I don't think so. No one, by lot
> or by popularity, would be allowed to rise above his fellow citizens in
> any way, even temporarily.

"President" used as designing any titular of executive power.
Of course a "pure" democracy would not concentrate so many power in a
unique individual.
In Athens they were designated by lot, only the generals were elected.

Judiciary was and still is in most modern democracies designated by lot
(the jury)

Direct legislative (with direct initiative) is another mark of "pure"
democracy, modern democracy (also "true" democracies) chooses to delegate
that power to representants.

Note that Rome (and NovaRoma) have features from both "pure" democracy and
"modern" democracy:

We elect the titulars of executive power, but we are in charge of the
legislative power (but without the ability to propose laws).
Our consultative body (the senate) is sort of indirectly elected (we elect
the censors which designates the senators).

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus.

>
> Vale,
>
> Titus Octavius Pius,
> Consiliarius Thules,
> Praeco Anarei Thules,
> Scriba to the Curator Araneum
>
> AKA Kristoffer From
>
> ---
>
> Si hoc signum legere potes,
> operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
> et fructuosis potiri potes.
>
> - Not-so-famous quotation
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
> o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
> R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Name-change edict - response
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 11:55:27 -0700

"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
>
> Hail citizens of New Rome,
>
> It appears that I have gotten quite some comment, and I thought it would be a better idea to respond in three seperate e-mails instead.
>
> First, my comments on the name-change edict topic:
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla scripsit:
>
> > Sulla: So what you are saying now is that you feel the majority of the
> > Citizens of Nova Roma should not have a voice?
>
> As Lucius Sicinius said, Nova Roma has no business with our own sexuality. Period. One person's rights are NOT subject to the will of a majority. And I have _never_ urged to put the edict up for a vote. I did urge for alternatives, but that's all.

Sulla: Well, I guess I will have to check the archieves, to make
certain you are not changing your story. Since, today is my birthday
and I wont be home most of the day, I will be examining the archieves
this weekend. I hope that if I find suitable evidence you will admit
the error of this statement.

> > would imply such, given your previous statements. And, Lucia Maria,
>
> Marius requested you TWO TIMES in public to stop addressing him as a female, but you (and some others) kept doing it. I find this an example of rude offensiveness that shows how you really care about people who are different from you.

Sulla: Do I have a right as a citizen of Nova Roma to call a person a
name as I see fit? Do I have a right as citizen of Nova Roma to call a
person their name as listed in the Album Civium

> > who
> > was a citizen of Nova Roma, before her resigantion, IS a woman. Have
> > you met her physically Sextus Apollonius. Til you have, I beg you to
> > cease your inaccurate information. Those of us who have met her face to
> > face, as I have....can draw those conclusions. And your reiteration of
> > Senator Australicus statement shows just how little of the law you have
> > read....I suggest you go back and read the proposed Lex. The Lex
> > included the very suggestions your own Pater wanted in back in May of
> > last year. Do you need me to repost that message to the NR main
> > list....Sextus?
> >
>
> Mi Luci, I did read the entire law, and it is not your place to belittle me on details. If I would do the same with you, I'd still be sitting here writing this e-mail tomorrow morning. Marius is physically a woman, and spiritually a man.

Sulla: Actually it is my place and the place of every citizen to
correct inaccurate information. If you are going to oppose a law, I
think it would be your duty to oppose it based on the merits of such
law. Not based emotion. And, thank you, for admiting to ALL of Nova
Roma that Lucia Maria is physically a Woman.

Sulla: I once again urge everyone to read each of the laws carefully,
in a detached manner.

<SNIP>

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Subject:	[novaroma] Independence (was Outage during Contio)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 12:43:42 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve amice Oppie Flacce Severe.

Once more, I write to show my support to the idea of making Nova Roma
independent from Yahoogroups. I have a few comments to make, though:

--- Oppius Flaccus Severus <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:

<snipped>

> Yourself and others have aptly pointed out that
> we're on borrowed time with Yahoo groups so the time
> is now for working on concrete, deliverable and
> manageable alternatives.
>
> My suggestion is that we get together offline with
> the other cives that have voiced concern and willingness
> to help and just form the working committee; without
> continuing to debate whether or not it's necessary.
> Let's just *do* it. I too volunteer to be part of this
> group and would suggest that we host it on Topica or
> some other venue. -It matters not to me, as long as it's
> reliable.
>
> Gnaeus Salix, Titus Octavius and some others have also
> expressed a desire for direct involvement. So what say
> you? Shall I (or someone else) create the list, make
> it open and start formulating some concrete plans?
> Anyone else up for joining such a group?

Count with me, fellow. However, I have always supported (and I still
do) the idea of making Nova Roma totally independent of any "foreign"
organization. I think that once we start getting money from the
citizens, we should spend it first in providing our citizens with
reliable ways of communication and a working infrastructure.

I guess that creating a "backup" mail list in Topica would be a
temporary solution to our problems. After all, Topica could start
having the same problems that Yahoo has. Only total independence will
solve our problems permanently.

But as independence seems, at best, months away, I think we should
create the backup list in Topica just in case Yahoo becomes
intorelabily unreliable. I guess we shall just create the 49 "mirror"
mail lists of Nova Roma, and invite citizens to subscribe to those
"mirror" mail list WITHOUT unsubscribing from Yahoo lists, and to CC
every post to BOTH lists. In that way, our move to Topica would be free
of conflict.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Name-change edict - response
From:	darkelf@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 19:46:45 -0000

Salve:

>
> Sulla: Do I have a right as a citizen of Nova Roma to call a
person a
> name as I see fit? Do I have a right as citizen of Nova Roma to
call a
> person their name as listed in the Album Civium
>

I was under the impression that one could go by whatever name
one wished on the lists, so long as the 'official name' is in
accordance with the edict. Apparently this is not the case.

And no, you do not have the right to 'call a person a name as
[you] see fit.' There's courtesy involved. One suspects you would
not be pleased if I began to call you, oh, something you found
offensive... and refused to stop when you asked. No matter how
true it was, I would not have the right to call you that name. The
ability, yes. The *right* - no.

Vale,

Cinnabari

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: citizen's rights
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 15:59:36 EDT

In a message dated 5/8/2001 9:10:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:

<< And then we might sometime this year see some good legislation in
the form of the Bill of Rights that Labienus and Cassius have both
been talking about that would address the problems and guarantee that
no one will ever try discriminatory legislation like that again in
Nova Roma. >>
The citizen M. Apollonius Formosanus once again ignores the fact that we are
a reconstruction of the Roman Republic. The so called "Bill of Rights" is a
18th century empowerment mechanism, that would be unknown in Rome. The basic
right that all Roman citizens, ius quiritium, receive here has not been
changed. In fact it is actually better then the basic rights enjoyed by the
average citizen in ancient Rome.
In the ancient Republic the Paterfamilias word was law, and a Filiusfamilias
defied it at his peril.
In our Rome the Paterfamilias word is sort of tolerated, but there is no
penalty for defying him
other then being booted out of Gens. Which is not a terrible predicament
since we allow lateral movement between the Gens.
In old Rome, once a citizen was dead or banished, any recorded accusations or
injustices disappeared with him, the thought being was since he was no longer
alive or had rights, he would no longer need the law's protection.
In our Rome this is not the case. We follow a more modern thinking, that if
an individual has committed a crime he will be punished for it, even if his
accusers no longer inhabit Rome.
The Romans would not understand this today, this is more English or Byzantine
inspired law.
In old Rome, if one broke an oath, dire consequences would follow. Here,
oaths are sort of quant reminders of the past, but with no real power.
In old Rome one could face their accusers. And they maintained the right to
appeal the decision of the Iudex. Here that is unchanged.
In old Rome, you could be sold into "slavery" to satisfy an old debt. Here
we have banned "slavery."
In old Rome, Women had little rights. They were under the control of their
Paterfamilias or their maritus. Here women receive the same rights as the
men. And what they do between those who hold manus over them is not dictated
by law.
In Rome there really wasn't free speech. Here to our determent there is.
In old Rome there was no law against pestering a fellow citizen.
Here there is.
In old Rome the gods were paramount. In our Rome we tolerate all religion
and fuzzy thinking.
In old Rome there was the following punishment schedule. Crimes against the
State, death or banishment. Crimes against fellow citizens, banishment, or
fines. There was no imprisonment like today. You were confined or tortured
in prison, but it was a holding area until the trial not a punishment.
Here we just have banishment. And we all see how well that is working.

So in short the citizens here have much greater freedom then the average
citizen of old Rome.
But you have to remember. We are all here voluntarily. We can vote with our
feet and leave at anytime. So that gives us even greater freedom. More then
our spiritual ancestors ever had.

Valete
Q, Fabius Maximus
Praetor Urbanus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Assidui et Capiti Censi: NO
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 20:24:58 -0000

Salve, S. Appollonius Draco!

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
<Snipped>
>
> Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:
>
> > Tell you the truth, the positions mentioned do require financial
> > outlays from the magistrates involved. There are administrative
costs
> > such as phone calls, letters, etc. You already pay for an ISP, for
a
> > computer to log on to these discussions, etc.
>
> Yes, but the costs for offices such as Tribunus, Aedilis, Quaestor,
Praetor or as Vigintisexvir or a regular Senator can be minimized.
Internet access is overall pretty cheap. They key issue is time, I
think, and not as much money.

At this time, some of the costs can be minimized. As this effort
expands and grows, I suspect the costs involved in acting in the
different magistracies will also increase (Cheop's Law: no government
project comes in on time or under budget).

>
> > Why the constant
> > complaint about the payment of taxes? You already pay a form of
tax
> > to access this forum and participate - what we are talking about
> > involves helping make other projects of Nova Roma (and not just
those
> > proposed by the current magistrates, mind you) become real. The
only
> > objection I can realistically come up with against this lex is the
> > fact that I would personally like to see what form taxation would
> > take. I think that issue cannot be safely divorced from the
present
> > lex. However, the arguments put forward to date reduce to
"what-ifs"
> > that demonstrate a lot of creativity but forget the basic
principle
> > of our form of government - compromise. We strive to achieve not
an
> > Utopia, but a set of rules we can all live with, even if we don't
> > agree with it 100% of the time.
> >
>
> I will agree with you here. But all things said and done I suspect
our views on what a good compromise is differ. For me a compromise tax
plan would be one that at least included something on people who
°can't° pay and wouldn't prevent those from not running. For some
others, this plan is already a compromise. However, every protest thus
far against the current plan seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Thus;
I'm afraid I'm sticking to my opinion (and likewise, you'll be
sticking to yours).

I really don't think we all agree that this is the definitive answer
to the tax matter. It is a good framework to start on, but I think
everyone involved at least recognizes further work is to be done. I
don't stick to opinions - facts can and have changed my position on
items. So far, I'm acting on the best information I have available.

>
> > Mi Draco, we cannot establish the tyranny of the few or even the
one
> > because we want to please everyone 100% of the time. Not only is
it
> > unrealistic, it flies in the face of everything we have learned to
> > this date about what made Roma great. One of the best lessons of
> > History is that when the politicians attempt to appease everyone,
> > they end up alienating everyone and destroying the Res Publica, to
> > boot. Why should we ignore such a powerful lesson, especially from
> > such a powerful Muse? Consider the facts, and not the emotional
> > demagoguery - and only then draw your conclusion. This advice I
> > extend to all, not just you, amici mei. Only then can we have a
> > Contio that makes sense.
>
> As for the former, I don't think I ever advocated this. As for the
latter, I fully agree.
>

Again, amici mei, when a demand is made that we accomodate each and
every possibility that can arise in every facet of our interactions,
we subject the majority to the tyranny of the minority. You may not
have explicitly advocated it, but supporting a point of view that
demands we bend over backwards to please everyone is effectively
advocating it.

Optime Vale, et Iuppiter nos protegas!

Marius Cornelius Scipio

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Name-change edict - response
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 13:25:36 -0700

darkelf@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve:
>
> >
> > Sulla: Do I have a right as a citizen of Nova Roma to call a
> person a
> > name as I see fit? Do I have a right as citizen of Nova Roma to
> call a
> > person their name as listed in the Album Civium
> >
>
> I was under the impression that one could go by whatever name
> one wished on the lists, so long as the 'official name' is in
> accordance with the edict. Apparently this is not the case.

Sulla: Yes alias's are protected which means that in the main list and
chatrooms and all infomral venues an individual can use whatever name
he/she sees fit in using. However, that does not impose the force upon
other citizens in reciprocating in like manner.

> And no, you do not have the right to 'call a person a name as
> [you] see fit.' There's courtesy involved. One suspects you would
> not be pleased if I began to call you, oh, something you found
> offensive... and refused to stop when you asked. No matter how
> true it was, I would not have the right to call you that name. The
> ability, yes. The *right* - no.

Sulla: Your right there is courtesy involved. Considering in Lucia
Maria's chatroom and message board I was called Swilla behind my back
yet Sulla to my face makes no difference to me. I believe respect and
courtesy go both ways, dont you? And, my calling Lucia Maria was not
disrespectful, it was the name she filled out when she reapplyed to Nova
Roma when she applied to Nova Roma the first time, back in 1998, and
when she reapplyed when after she resigned her offices and citizenship.

Respectfully

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> Vale,
>
> Cinnabari
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Name-change edict: NO
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 20:41:58 -0000

Salve, S. Appollonius Draco!

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:

>
> I suggest you learn Dutch first before you attack me again on the
quality of my English. Ik zou wel eens willen weten hoe goed je het
er
van af zou brengen.

This was unnecessary ad hominem. Yo hablo espanol, falo portugues,
nihongo no amari hanashimasu, Ich spreche Deutsche, et cetera - yet I
also asked you to be clear on concepts without making that kind of
attack. Making an assertion of authority based on knowing a language
or two while evading the question at hand is bad form. He asked for
clarity of definitions, thinking you might have been unclear between
two similar concepts. Answer the question, and you will lend far more
force to your argument.

> Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:
>
> > For the very simple reason that that minority of one, and a group
of
> > associates of the same, spent a significant amount of our time
> > demanding such a vote and indeed even insulting one of our
Censors
> > for not granting such a vote. As for the argument about our
> > government getting into our pants - if you parse the language of
the
> > lex as english is meant to be parsed, what is being said is that
Nova
> > Roma has no desire to be determining your gender. We ask that you
> > provide information about your gender based on what your
particular
> > locality recognizes for you (this proof being whatever legal ID
you
> > have that states that information). What is being said is WE DO
NOT
> > CARE TO PEEK IN YOUR PANTS
>
> Well, it was a manner of speaking, of course.
>
> > - you provide the legal info and we'll
> > gladly accept it. If we are even one iota serious about what we
are
> > doing here,we cannot be involved in roleplaying or fantasies for
> > anyone, period. We got here because this is what you, the person
> > involved, your Paterfamilias and several others asked for - and
now
> > you say it's inappropriate?
>
> I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I didn't ask for a vote, and
never did, and transgenderism is not a mere fantasy, but I think on
some occasions a nightmare. However, I'm glad you provided some
reasonable arguments which pull up the level of discussion we're at.

Mi dispiace, but if I remember correctly the discussions on the
name-change edict some time ago, the CENTRAL issue with it was the
fact that this was not voted upon by the citizenry at large. There
was
quite a bit of stir made by the Dragon and the Formosan on this. BTW,
please do look up my previous postings on the matter of transgender
individuals; I have never advocated it being treated as fantasy. In
fact, I have commented on a friend who actually underwent a gender
reassignation procedure and on how that individual copes with her
world. It is precisely this type of mischaracterization of arguments
that carries opinion against you. I for one cannot be convinced by
arguments that continually misrepresent my position and the positions
of others on this matter. Also, the ad hominem attacks do very little
to support, and much to undermine your position. Let us speak with
Dignitas, even if we may only come to an agreement to disagree.

Optime Vale,

Marius Cornelius Scipio


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Nature of Democracy....
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 13:56:58 -0700

Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,

I have been observing this debate for a while. It seems this issue has
been discussed before...maybe under different titles and subjects...but
the main issues are constantly harped on by all sides. And, I come
before the citizens of Nova Roma with my 2 cents in this issue.

I believe, based on observation that there seems to be two detrimental
forces in work here. First, those who proclaim the rights of the
individual over seemingly everything else...and those who favor the
powers of the state.

I must say, that both extremes are wrong. If one goes to the extreme of
the rights of the people there is no room for governement. It will
create an anarchistic society where everyone does exactly what they want
without regard for the needs of the society. Then the question occurs,
what if one persons's rights impact another persons? I hope the
majority of citizens see where this can lead. But, even the other
extreme is wrong too. We all know what cah happen when the rights of
the individual are not protected. I think most of us can agree that
that both extremes are harmful.

This discussion we need to differentate between our macronational
aspects and our micronational aspects. In my case, I believe we need to
liberalize the macronational country, which is the United States.
However, in Nova Roma, I believe that given our efforts in trying to
establish a nation from scratch we need to reinforce that by subtly
increasing the state. This does NOT mean that we trample on the
individual. But, we must strike a balance. I believe that the laws
that we are voting on maintain that balance.

The name change edict, for example, protects the use of alias's. Execpt
in the usage of official documents, court cases, and similar venues.
And, if one wants to change their name to the opposite gender, there are
avenues as stipulated in the edict where one can accomplish that.

This edict has seen much compromise since the first version was
published back in April of last year. I have compromised and
incorporated many of the changes suggested on this list.

I hope that when all is said and done, I hope that when you, the
citizens of Nova Roma go to vote on these issues you will make an
informed decision and recognize the balance that must be made. To be an
adherent to any extreme is bad. There must be a balance betweem the
needs of the state and the individual.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> --- Adrian Gunn <shinjikun@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete,

<Snip>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Nature of Democracy....
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 21:06:42 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@h...>
wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I have a question about how you choose to prioritize whose rights
should be
> met. You seem to assert that I be required to address individuals as
they
> choose. What about my right of free speech. If you insist I use a
certain
> form of address, aren't you taking away MY freedom? What if I'm a
right wing
> conservative and I would consider it a sin to address a person
contrary to
> their gender? Whose rights get precedence?
> I'm not trying to start a debate, I really want to know how you made
your
> decision. Please read a tone of "attempting to reach consensual
> understanding" into this post, not "you're wrong and I'm picking your
> argument apart".
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ave,
I only wish to place limits on the state. I think a citizen has the
right to legally have whatever name they want. So when you are
speaking as a Magistrate, you are obliged to use that citizens legal
name, even if you privatly disagree with the law, just as I would be
under the same obligation if I held an offical postion. Remember when
you are speaking as a Magistrate you are speaking on behalf of the
state, not yourself.

When you are speaking as a citizen, that is NOT making an offical
anoucement, you have the right to refer to anyone by whatever name or
term you desire. You have the right to call the former citizen that
was affected by this law Maria if you wish. You have the right to
refer to him using terms that show you think he is mentaly ill or a
deviant, or even to use any of the many slurs that are used against
people who's sexuality isn't "normal".

I personaly consider it to be offensive and boorish to refer to
another human being in this matter, but people have the right to be
offensive and boorish if they wish. Although the Policticaly Correct
crowd wishes it were otherwise, there is no such thing as the "right
not to be offended"

The only limit I would place you under as an indiviual is this. There
are Macronational defamation laws, that I disagree with but have to
follow, that would allow someone to bring legal action against Nova
Roma as well as yourself for a post you made on this list. If you were
the only one liable (As you should be) you could post whatever you
wished and take your chances. As long as these unfair laws exist we
have no choice but to protect ourselves by disallowing you to make
remarks on an offical list that could result in a law suit against
Nova Roma. Beyond that you, or anyone else who is speaking as a
privitus, has the right to call anyone anything you want.

One warning though. Your Dignitas is tied to how you conduct yourself,
and many of the things that you have the right to say will have a very
negative impact on your Dignitas.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] roof of Domus Aurea collapsed
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 17:06:30 EDT

Salvete
According to my filafamilia in Italia, the collapse is not as severe as
implied.
It's smaller, around 800 x 800 mm, and is not in the Octagonal room. CNN
Italia is saying the Golden House should be reopened by Thursday at the
earliest.
Valete


Subject:	[novaroma] GLADIATOR--The Nova Roma Version, chap.1
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 17:25:33 EDT

GLADIATOR---The Nova Roma Version, by Gaius Cassius Nerva

At it's height, the Roman Empire was big. Really big. From Brittania
to the ancient waters of Mesopotamia, from the forests of Germany to the
deserts of Africa, millions of people lived their lives under the rule of
the Emperors.
In the year 180, the campaign of the wise old Emperor Marcus Cassius
Aurelius against the Germanic tribes was coming to a close. Only one
stronghold stands in the way of univeral peace throughout the Empire.

Chapter One---The Dogs of War.

The cold northern air blew mournfully through the trees on a dreary
morning as General Oppius Flaccus left his command tent. Today it will be
decided, he thought to himself as he made his way down the slope to his army,
lined up in battle formation and awaiting his command. Behind him, well to
the rear of the lines on the slope sat a grey haired man in a purple cloak,
the wise old emperor Marcus Cassius Aurelius. The emperor was like a father
figure to Oppius Flaccus, who now turned to take one last look at the old but
yet commanding figure, surrounded by his Praetorian Guard.
Flaccus saluted, and the Emperor raised his hand and nodded, for he had full
confidence in his general and his army, and knew that today, the long war
would finally be over. Finally over, the emperor thought, and then the real
problem could be faced.
When he saw the Emperor nod, Flaccus turned---and slipped in the mud.
"Ow!" he cried as he tumbled down the rest of the hill. Over stones and
through slippery mud trails he went, rolling over and over, until finally, he
slammed into the legs of three soldiers in the rear line, knocking several of
them over. "Oooof!" Flaccus quickly got up and helped some of the fallen
troops rise to their feet. "Ahhh!", Flaccus exhaled as he stretched his
arms. "That felt good! You men were not expecting that, were you?"
"No sir!" they answered in unison. Flaccus smiled. "Well, that's why I did
it, to show you men that attack in the rear can be swift and to remind you to
be ever alert!"
"Yes sir!" the men replied.
"Will you remember what we learned today?"
"Yes sir!"
"Excellent!" Flaccus bellowed, slapping one on the arm. "Carry on!"
"Yes sir!"
Flaccus tried not to limp as he walked through the lines of soldiers who by
now were raising a cheer to their general. A word of encouragement here, a
slap on the shoulder there, Flaccus instilled confidence in his men as he
made his way through the ranks, until he finally arrived to where his staff
and Caius Mucius Hadrianus, his cavalry commander, were waiting. Also there
was Quintus Sertorius, his second in command. "The men look ready for a
fight!", he said, shaking Sertorius' hand. Sertorius nodded, and then
frowned at something he saw. "Soldier!", he hollered, "I ordered those those
three forward ballistae moved back!"
"The range is good enough", Flaccus said, cutting him off.
Quintus Sertorius started to protest. "But general, the cavalry..."
"The range is good Quintus", said Flaccus, and Sertorius held his peace.
Flaccus looked forward towards the trees where the enemy position was. "How
long has Limitanus been gone?"
"About two hours sir!", replied Sertorius. "Do you think the Germans will
fight, General?"
"We will soon know", Flaccus replied.
The words were barely out of Sertorius' mouth when a lookout
shouted,"Sir! Rider coming!" From out of the trees opposite the Roman
forces, a man in a Roman uniform on a horse appeared. "It's Limitanus!",
said Sertorius. "He'll tell us what their answer is!" The men in the front
line parted to allow the horse to come through, and Flaccus and Sertorius ran
to meet the messenger. "Limitanus! What news?", asked Flaccus, taking the
bridle. But Limitanus made no answer. Flaccus frowned. "Limitanus?"
Flaccus reached out to take the rider's arm, and the arm came off in his
hand! "What the f........?" Then, the other arm fell off. "Oh, gods!",
exclaimed Flaccus. Then, the head bobbled, and fell into the mud with a
splat. "Ewwwwwwww", blanched Sertorius, turning his head. Both legs of the
horseman fell off next, and finally, the torso rolled off the horse and fell
to the ground. Flaccus' eyes bulged. "Yuk!"
"General?", asked Sertorius, feeling ill.
"Yes?"
"Does this mean their answer is no?"
Flaccus did not have to respond, for at that moment, the German horde
appeared. A mob of big, ugly, hairy barbarians, covered with mud and filth
and brandishing swords and nasty looking axes moved out of the trees and
stood their ground opposite the Roman army, yelling and hollering.
"Don't these people know when they're conquered?" asked Sertorius.
"Don't these people ever take a bath?", exclaimed Flaccus. And then one of
the Germans, bigger, uglier, and dirtier than the rest, came out in front of
the horde. Waving his axe over his head, he shouted across the field,
"Römerinnen! Sie sind häßlich, sie sind kleinen mädchen, unt sie haben sehr
winzigen penisse! Schlägerei und Würfel!"
Flaccus spit. "Does anyone know what the heck that barbarian said?" he
asked. Quintus Sertorius thought a moment, and answered, "I think he said,
'Römerinnen! Sie sind häßlich, sie sind kleinen mädchen, unt sie haben sehr
winzigen penisse! Schlägerei und Würfel!" Flaccus rolled his eyes.
"Quintus?"
"Yes General?"
"SHUT UP!"
Yes General!"
Flaccus turned towards his officers. "Get that German's words translated, so
the Curatex Sermonem doesn't get mad."

Flaccus called for his horse, which a soldier brought at once. Before
mounting, he knelt down and picked up a handful of dirt. It was then he
noticed the dog watching him. It was a white dog with black spots, and it
was looking at Flaccus anxiously. Flaccus mounted the horse. "Wait for the
signal. When you see the signal, commence with the attack!" Quintus nodded,
and Flaccus, with cavalry commander Hadrianus, rode off down the line to join
the cavalry force over beyond the German position, and the dog ran along
behind him.
When they had arrived at the cavalry position, Hadrianus ordered the
cavalry into their formation. Then Flaccus addressed the troops. "In a few
weeks, we will all be home!" Cheers from the men, and he continued, "If you
find yourselves alone, riding through fields, do not be troubled, for you
have merely missed the battlefield! Get on the Vindabona turnpike heading
east towards Aquincum, take exit 27, and you will be back in no time!
Understood?"
"Yes Commander!" the horsemen yelled. "And remember," Flaccus concluded,
"that what we do here today will echo in the pages of history. So guys,
please, PLEASE win this one, ok?"
"Yes Commander!"
Flaccus gave the order, and an archer fired the flaming signal arrow up
through the trees. Then, they waited for the sound of the battle commencing.
But they did not have to wait too long..... A flaming ball filled with oil,
fired from a Roman ballista came in with a WHOOSH! and exploded on a tree
trunk, and turning one of the cavalrymen into a shrieking mass of flame!
"Holy S---!", Hadrianus exclaimed to Flaccus, "Quintus told you those
ballistae were too far forward!" And immediately a large stone flew into the
formation, spattering another cavalryman's brians out. "Let's get out of
here!", Flaccus cried. "Attack!!!!" And the cavalry surged forward. As
the waves come crashing onto the shore, the Roman cavalry, with Flaccus and
Hadrianus at the center, thundered onward through the now-burning forest,
ignited by the Roman fire balls. The Romans made use of dogs, who would find
the ways through the fire to the enemy. But the white dog with black spots
was bolting off in the opposite direction from the battle! "Come back here,
you damn dog!", ordered Flaccus, but the dog just ran off till he was out of
sight. Another fireball fell into the line, turning another soldier into a
screaming human torch. "The range is good Quintus!", Hadrianus yelled to
Flaccus, mimicking the general's voice in mockery, "The range is good,
Quintus! I HOPE THEY WRITE THAT ON YOUR SARCOPHAGUS!"
But even without their canine guide, the cavalry came up behind the
Germans. The battle was already fiercely underway, the air full of shrieks
and cries and shouts as thousands of men hammered at each other in the
butchery of combat. Heads and other body parts were flying into the air, and
men were cleaved by swords and impaled by spears. And General Oppius
Flaccus, leading the cavalry, brandished his polished sword, and with a
battle cry horrible to the ears of the surprsied Germans, hacked off the top
of a German head, sending the scalp flying and brain debris spurting. On and
on Flaccus went, hacking off heads. Flaccus enjoyed the exhileration of
battle, his saliva drooling out of the sides of his mouth as he went on
hacking on bodies and shields, drinking in this orgy of human destruction,
this veritable feast of Mars!

Then his horse fell.

Flaccus somersaulted and hit the earth with a deep thud. "Ow!", he yelled,
"now this sucks!" A German appeared above him, lifting his battle ax over
his head in order to split open Flaccus' skull, but Flaccus swung his sword
forst, tearing the barbarian's right leg off. As he rose and thrust his
sword through the foe's back, another barbarian came up from the left, and
swung his sword hoping to sever Flaccus head from his neck. But mighty
Flaccus ducked in the nick of time. The German blade swooshed harmlessly
over his head, and Flaccus knocked his attacker over with a shoulder to the
gut. When the barbarian hit the dirt on his back, Flaccus thrust his sword
downward into his throat. A sickening gurgling sound was heard as the blood
spewed like a fountain. Suddenly, Flaccus felt a body behind him! With a
yell of fury he spun around, lifted his blade---and drove it into the chest
of his own cavalry commander, Hadrianus. The cavalryman, with the sword
sticking out of his chest fell, his eyes open wide in shock and surprise.
"Ooops", the horrified Flaccus gasped.
"You stupid, clumsy dimwit!", Hadrianus exclaimed as his eyes darkened. And
with that, the noble Hadrianus was dead.
Flaccus glanced to the right, then to the left, wondering if any of his men
had seen his goof. But all the Roman soldiers were occupied with their own
fighting. Satisfied he had not been seen, Flaccus pulled the sword from
Hadrianus chest, and then, calling to all his soldiers, cried out, "Look!
The Germans killed Hadrianus! Those bastards!" The Romans shouted in fury
at the death of their beloved cavalry leader, and pressed the attack home
with renewed determination.

But the Germans fought bravely, and many, many Romans met their deaths
at the barbarians hands. Flaccus soon found himself getting surrounded, and
with maniacal fury, he thrust and hacked and jabbed and cut and walloped.
But he was tiring, as were the men of his army. And when it appeared that
the battle would be indecisive, and that he himself would soon be killed,
Flaccus' opponent was suddenly pounced on by a snarling white, black-spotted
beast. The dog had returned! And not just his dog, but a multitude of white
dogs with black spots leapt out of the trees and onto the barbarians, tearing
with their canines into the writes and legs of the German foe! It appeared
that there was a legion of such animals! And with this reinforcement, the
Romans soon won the day. Flaccus strode up behind the big barbarian leader,
who was surrounded by the corpses of many Roman soldiers, and tapped him on
the shoulder. "Excuse me!", he said. And when the barbarian leader turned
around, Flaccus drove his dagger into his head, through the eye and brain,
finishing only when the dagger point had penetrated to the other side of the
man's head. The barbarian lay dead, oozing blood and brain tissue, while his
body jerked and convulsed in it's death throes.
Now the battle, for all intents and purposes, was over. There was
little action now, only the exhausted men walking about in a daze, sitting on
the ground to catch their breath, or to finish off some fallen enemy.
"Rome is victorius!", yelled Flaccus. And the Romans let up a great cheer.

Flaccus, nearly exhausted from the fighting, limped back to the Roman
lines where the reserves were, as the other combatants straggled in. There,
he met Quintus Sertorius, covered in dirt and mud and as worn out as himself.
Quintus saluted his general. "Congratulations sir! You have won a great
victory! The enemy force is destroyed!" Flaccus smiled, clasped Quintus'
shoulder, and looked up the hill. There, the old Emperor looked down on
them. He looked haggered and tired, as though he had been in the fighting
himself. The emperor nodded to Flaccus, and turned on his horse and rode
back to his tent, his Praetorian guard escorting him.
"It looked for a while like we would not suceed today", Quintus said. "But
we managed, didn't we sir! Still, we nearly lost you General!"
"Yes", Flaccus replied, "I nearly met my end today. But for those dogs! All
those spotted dogs saved the day."
Quintus Sertorius sighed. "I think those dogs are dalmatians."
Flaccus was startled. "Dalmatians? Where did they all come from from?"
Quintus looked puzzled and shook his head,. "From Dalmatia, sir?"
"Oh, confound it, Quintus! I'm from the province of Dalmatia, and I have
never seen those dogs before!"
Quintus sighed. "I don't know where they come from general, but we counted
one hundred and one of them sir!"
"Very well", Flaccus wearily responded. "Just make sure they do not get near
the emperor. You know he is absolutely terrified of dogs."
"Only small dogs sir!", Quintus answered.
"Be that as it may", interjected Flaccus, "make sure they do not get near the
Emperor's tent!"
"Yes sir!"
Flaccus managed a weary smile. "Now Quintus, let us see to our men and
casualites, and then prepare for tonight's victory feast!

This story will eventually continue in chapter 2.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Alternatives
From:	Calpurnia <darta_arelia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

> d.. Citizens who pay their taxes during five
> consecutive years shall be nominated by the Censores
> for the Equestrian order.

Could someone please explain to me what the Equestrian
order is? I am rather new around here.
>
> e.. At the end of the financial year, the
> Quaestores will compile a list of those citizens
> that paid an amount of tax equal to or more than
> previously agreed upon, and present that list to
> both public and Censores. Citizens not on that list
> will be placed in the 5th century as described in
> paragraph III.
> Va. Citizens who feel that they have been injustly
> put in that 5th century because they fall into the
> exceptional categories described in paragraphs IIIa,
> b, c and d or did pay their yearly tax should
> contact the Quaestores. If a consensus can not be
> reached, said citizen may appeal to a Praetor for a
> public trial.
>

And what is the signifigance of the 5th century? I'm
sorry if these are things i should know, but I really
only use the internet at school and only to check my
e-mail while i'm researching things for school.

Vale,

Claudia Aucelia Calpurnia

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Comitia vote
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 18:01:07 -0400

Salvete,

I basically have no wish to enter into the fray about this name thing.
However, I am continually amazed at the rudeness involved in deliberately
continuing to call someone by a name that person has repeatedly, and
politely I may add, requested not be used unless absolutely necessary (in a
legal sense).

I repeat, the rudeness. I wouldn't have any problems with this lex, except
for this sense of hostility. In my country, people can call themselves
whatever they want to. Moon Unit Zappa, for instance. Or change their name
from, say, Eustace Smith to Merlin Wolfbane. Either in the court (which
would make it legal, naturally) or just as common usage except for legal
purposes.

So, having a name one dislikes forced on one is a foreign concept to me -
forced in a social context, I mean. By people referring to one in an email
list, which is not a legal venue.

Those who insist on doing this are not helping their cause. They are
making some of us wonder about a lex that otherwise wouldn't have caused any
eyebrow lifting (except for the recognized minority who have brought it
about).

So please, let's be polite as well as practical? If someone wants to be
called by a name which couldn't get past the censors legally, call them by
it everywhere legally possible (including this list). Just to be nice. As
a very wise woman (Miss Manners) said once, being polite isn't only nice, it
also makes your own position stronger.

Valete bene,
Helena Galeria

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Outage during Contio
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 22:02:15 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete L. Sicini et Quiritibus;
>
> I've been quiet over the past few days as Yahoo
> has only today started to function with a modicum
> of normality for me. It had been so bad, that even
> the archives weren't aligning with my posts so have
> been relying on summaries. Now that my post seems
> to have a chance of arriving for the moment, I'll
> respond.
>
> Mi Druse; I fully agree 100% with your statements. If there's
> anything that I've learned from the multiple outages,
> is that a plan is needed whether some see a need for
> it or not. Let's not recreate the final days of Pompeii
> by hanging around and hoping that bad things won't
> happen.
>
> Yourself and others have aptly pointed out that
> we're on borrowed time with Yahoo groups so the time
> is now for working on concrete, deliverable and
> manageable alternatives.
>
> My suggestion is that we get together offline with
> the other cives that have voiced concern and willingness
> to help and just form the working committee; without
> continuing to debate whether or not it's necessary.
> Let's just *do* it. I too volunteer to be part of this
> group and would suggest that we host it on Topica or
> some other venue. -It matters not to me, as long as it's
> reliable.
>
> Gnaeus Salix, Titus Octavius and some others have also
> expressed a desire for direct involvement. So what say
> you? Shall I (or someone else) create the list, make
> it open and start formulating some concrete plans?
> Anyone else up for joining such a group?
>
> Bene valete,
> Oppius

Salvete Oppi Flacci et Quiritibus;

Since there are some other citizens who are worried about our mail
problem I have taken your advice.

I have started a list at Topica for the purpose of discussing our mail
problems and seeking a soulation.

The new list can be found at
http://www.topica.com/lists/NRmail

This is an unoffical list for any Citizens who wish to discuss the
problems we are having with Yahoo groups, and to look into
alternitives to Yahoo, so that in the event we do have to switch to a
different service the alternitives will allready be investigated.

Starting a list at Topica is NOT an endorsement that we should move
our lists there. It is no more than a place away from Yahoo's problems.

So now that we have an unoffical list I invite all intrested citizens
to join it. (Then we won't bore the rest of you with a bunch of
nerdspeak) ;o)

Valete
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] GLADIATOR--The Nova Roma Version, chap.1
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 15:28:45 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes.

Bravo, Cassie!

I had a great time reading your story. But I think there's a small
flaw, hardly perceptible, that makes it close to perfection but not
reaching it yet.

The problem has to do with having missed a vital character to the
story: ME! ;-)

I hope you'll fix this flaw in chapter II :-].

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] re: The Nature of Democracy
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 18:36:14 -0400

Salve,

<snipped>
Bad example - 55% of the population voted FOR the 'loser'. Our incumbent
Resident actually LOST the popular vote. Of course, that's because we in
the US have a Republic (with an electoral college) rather than a pure
democracy.

Valete bene,
Helena Galeria
<snipped>

Also keeping it short ~_^ I hadn't meant my hypotheical percentages to
refelect our presidential elections. The sentences just happened to be next
to each other - it was just a case of poor paragraph structure. ^_^

Vale,

C. Minucius Hadrianus

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Outage during Contio
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2001 15:35:02 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes.

--- lsicinius@-------- wrote:

<snipped>

> Salvete Oppi Flacci et Quiritibus;
>
> Since there are some other citizens who are worried about our mail
> problem I have taken your advice.
>
> I have started a list at Topica for the purpose of discussing our
> mail
> problems and seeking a soulation.
>
> The new list can be found at
> http://www.topica.com/lists/NRmail
>
> This is an unoffical list for any Citizens who wish to discuss the
> problems we are having with Yahoo groups, and to look into
> alternitives to Yahoo, so that in the event we do have to switch to a
> different service the alternitives will allready be investigated.
>
> Starting a list at Topica is NOT an endorsement that we should move
> our lists there. It is no more than a place away from Yahoo's
> problems.

I think we should be vigilant here. Aren't we duplicating efforts?
There are TWO Nova Roma lists on this issue on Topica right now.

I guess that an agreement should be reached. It won't be too difficult,
I expect.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Nature of Democracy....
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 22:38:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,
>
> I have been observing this debate for a while. It seems this issue has
> been discussed before...maybe under different titles and subjects...but
> the main issues are constantly harped on by all sides. And, I come
> before the citizens of Nova Roma with my 2 cents in this issue.
>
> I believe, based on observation that there seems to be two detrimental
> forces in work here. First, those who proclaim the rights of the
> individual over seemingly everything else...and those who favor the
> powers of the state.
>
> I must say, that both extremes are wrong. If one goes to the extreme of
> the rights of the people there is no room for governement. It will
> create an anarchistic society where everyone does exactly what they want
> without regard for the needs of the society. Then the question occurs,
> what if one persons's rights impact another persons? I hope the
> majority of citizens see where this can lead. But, even the other
> extreme is wrong too. We all know what cah happen when the rights of
> the individual are not protected. I think most of us can agree that
> that both extremes are harmful.
>
> This discussion we need to differentate between our macronational
> aspects and our micronational aspects. In my case, I believe we need to
> liberalize the macronational country, which is the United States.
> However, in Nova Roma, I believe that given our efforts in trying to
> establish a nation from scratch we need to reinforce that by subtly
> increasing the state. This does NOT mean that we trample on the
> individual. But, we must strike a balance. I believe that the laws
> that we are voting on maintain that balance.
>
> The name change edict, for example, protects the use of alias's. Execpt
> in the usage of official documents, court cases, and similar venues.
> And, if one wants to change their name to the opposite gender, there are
> avenues as stipulated in the edict where one can accomplish that.
>
> This edict has seen much compromise since the first version was
> published back in April of last year. I have compromised and
> incorporated many of the changes suggested on this list.
>
> I hope that when all is said and done, I hope that when you, the
> citizens of Nova Roma go to vote on these issues you will make an
> informed decision and recognize the balance that must be made. To be an
> adherent to any extreme is bad. There must be a balance betweem the
> needs of the state and the individual.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>

Ave Citizens,

Yes we are creating a new nation, so I'll start out by offering a
quote from another time when a group of men were creating a new nation.

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

These words were written 225 years ago, and the nation these men were
seeking to found still exists. They held that the reason that
governments exist is the protect the rights that the Gods granted us
when they created us. Governments exist for the good of the people,
people do not exist to serve the needs of the government.

I pray that we are as sucessful as those rebels were in 1776. However
there is something else to remember. The final words

"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honor."

These men faced an obsticle that we do not. Note the mention of "our
Lives", for had they failed they would have faced the hangman as traitors.

They did not allways live up to the stirring words of their
Declration, but they set forth the principal that governments are
formed to protect the rights of citizens, nor did they mention
balancing these rights against the needs of the state, even though
their lives rode on the outcome.

There is something else I advise all citizens to remember, Clio is
watching us! Today in the nation these men founded men still read the
words and study the actions of the founders seeking insperation.
Remember this, for 225 years from now the Romans of the future will be
reading our words and studying our actions for insperation to guide
them in carrying on the Republic we will leave them. Let us try to be
worthy of this honor.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Nature of Democracy....
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 15:52:38 -0700

on 5/8/01 3:38 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> Ave Citizens,
>
> Yes we are creating a new nation, so I'll start out by offering a
> quote from another time when a group of men were creating a new nation.

Yes lets.

> "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
> Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
> among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
> Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
> these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
> and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
> Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
> seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Now, do we really want to start discussing this? As a lover of political
science I really enjoy the full throttle debate that this can boil down
too....but this is Nova Roma. Not the Englightenment period, influenced by
John Locke trying to drum up support for the American Revolution.

These were also people who held slaves and felt, according to the Federalist
Papers, that the majority of Americans should not have a say in the
government. And, let us not discuss the native Americans or for that matter
the rights of Woman. So who were these rights for. They were for
propertied Americans not for the Common Man. Those rights were consolidated
essentially during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. But thats something we
can debate off list.

<Snip>

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Outage during Contio-Joining the list
From:	oppiusflaccus@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 23:21:16 -0000

Salvete L. Sicini et Quiritibus;

Since I am not experiencing 'normal Yahooing,' I see
via the mail of others that you've created another
list for this very thing.

I was going to make a formal announcement on the main
list about the discussion list I created, but you've beaten
me to it.

All well and good! In the interest of progress, Concordia
and expediency, I've subscribed to the group you've
created and will collaps the other one, after forwarding
the messages that exist there to the "NRMail" list. As
you say, I for one have 0 desire to duplicate effort.

Gnaeus Salix et Lucius Tiberius -I'll be forwarding the
archives from the 'nr_communicate' list to this mail list.
Gratias multas for your efforts here and hope you'll join
me in the new list that Lucius Sicinius has created.

Shortly, I'll post my thoughts, hardware availability
and so forth.

Bene valete,
Oppius

-- In novaroma@--------, lsicinius@-------- wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
<snipped>

> This is an unoffical list for any Citizens who wish to discuss the
> problems we are having with Yahoo groups, and to look into
> alternitives to Yahoo, so that in the event we do have to switch to
a
> different service the alternitives will allready be investigated.
>
> Starting a list at Topica is NOT an endorsement that we should move
> our lists there. It is no more than a place away from Yahoo's
problems.
>
> So now that we have an unoffical list I invite all intrested
citizens
> to join it. (Then we won't bore the rest of you with a bunch of
> nerdspeak) ;o)
>
> Valete
> L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Nature of Democracy....
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 23:26:35 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> on 5/8/01 3:38 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > Ave Citizens,
> >
> > Yes we are creating a new nation, so I'll start out by offering a
> > quote from another time when a group of men were creating a new
nation.
>
> Yes lets.
>
> > "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
> > Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
> > among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
> > Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
> > these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
> > and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
> > Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
> > seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>
> Now, do we really want to start discussing this? As a lover of
political
> science I really enjoy the full throttle debate that this can boil down
> too....but this is Nova Roma. Not the Englightenment period,
influenced by
> John Locke trying to drum up support for the American Revolution.
>
> These were also people who held slaves and felt, according to the
Federalist
> Papers, that the majority of Americans should not have a say in the
> government. And, let us not discuss the native Americans or for
that matter
> the rights of Woman. So who were these rights for. They were for
> propertied Americans not for the Common Man. Those rights were
consolidated
> essentially during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. But thats
something we
> can debate off list.
>
> <Snip>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Funny you should mention Rights, Jackson, and Native Americans, seeing
as how Jackson was a prime reason that some of my ancesters had to
hide in the Mountains to avoid the Nunna daul Tsuny or if you prefer
English to Cherokee, The Trail of Tears.

But I'll be happy to discuss politics with you offlist, as this is
getting a bit off topic. You have my E-mail address Censor, feel free
to contact me.

Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Nature of Democracy....
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 08 May 2001 16:37:43 -0700

on 5/8/01 4:26 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
>> on 5/8/01 3:38 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>
>>> Ave Citizens,
>>>
>>> Yes we are creating a new nation, so I'll start out by offering a
>>> quote from another time when a group of men were creating a new
> nation.
>>
>> Yes lets.
>>
>>> "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
>>> Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
>>> among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
>>> Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
>>> these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
>>> and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
>>> Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
>>> seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>>
>> Now, do we really want to start discussing this? As a lover of
> political
>> science I really enjoy the full throttle debate that this can boil down
>> too....but this is Nova Roma. Not the Englightenment period,
> influenced by
>> John Locke trying to drum up support for the American Revolution.
>>
>> These were also people who held slaves and felt, according to the
> Federalist
>> Papers, that the majority of Americans should not have a say in the
>> government. And, let us not discuss the native Americans or for
> that matter
>> the rights of Woman. So who were these rights for. They were for
>> propertied Americans not for the Common Man. Those rights were
> consolidated
>> essentially during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. But thats
> something we
>> can debate off list.
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Funny you should mention Rights, Jackson, and Native Americans, seeing
> as how Jackson was a prime reason that some of my ancesters had to
> hide in the Mountains to avoid the Nunna daul Tsuny or if you prefer
> English to Cherokee, The Trail of Tears.
>
> But I'll be happy to discuss politics with you offlist, as this is
> getting a bit off topic. You have my E-mail address Censor, feel free
> to contact me.
>
> Drusus

Ave,

Yes it is funny. Especially considering the myths of our Founding Fathers.
Beautiful words are just that...beautiful. But when it comes to the actual
implementation, the picture is quite different. If you havent I highly
recommend reading the Federalist Papers, its really enlightening the debates
that raged regarding the approval of the Constitution. However, my original
post was one of reconciliation of the different directions Nova Roma has
taken. And to show that both extremes are harmful. But, as debating
politics off list...I have sent you two emails already....could you verify
if you have gotten them.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/