| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 20:18:51 EDT |
|
Salve Lucius Cornelius
Your last two posts are dated in January of 2004. Could it be that your
computer's CMOS battery is in need of replacement, or have the lemures
been pecking at your keyboard?
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 1/1/04 8:42 PM L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------) wrote:
>Ave,
>
>I rarely add, me too's to posts...but let me do that now. This is excellent
>advice. Now, let me go one bit further. Upon reading any of the proposed
>Laws, and if you have any questions, please contact the Author of the Law.
>The only way to cast a vote should be to cast a responsible vote.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 17:22:37 -0700 |
|
Ave,
It was caused by an IMAC I was sitting on at work...Our LAN dept. on
Earthlink set up some controls...dont ask me how...but, we no longer
have the permissions to modify the date and time.... Good Ole Earthlink!
Sulla
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve Lucius Cornelius
>
> Your last two posts are dated in January of 2004. Could it be that your
> computer's CMOS battery is in need of replacement, or have the lemures
> been pecking at your keyboard?
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> On 1/1/04 8:42 PM L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------) wrote:
>
> >Ave,
> >
> >I rarely add, me too's to posts...but let me do that now. This is excellent
> >advice. Now, let me go one bit further. Upon reading any of the proposed
> >Laws, and if you have any questions, please contact the Author of the Law.
> >The only way to cast a vote should be to cast a responsible vote.
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>
> 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] Annals of Nova Roma |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 19:28:57 -0500 (CDT) |
|
On Fri, 11 May 2001 gcassiusnerva@-------- wrote:
> I was wondering, does anyone know when the annals will be updated?
> Aside from lists of magistrates, there seems to be no history from
> 1999.
M. Arminius has summarized the events of 1999, in a format similar
to the earlier archives; I'll try to get this posted soon.
Vale, O.
--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Society and the Individual |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 20:59:21 EDT |
|
Salve Marcus Apollonius
While I have sometimes in the past been greatly put off by some of your
arguments and/or the manner in which you pressed them, recently it seems
that either you have reformed or I have mellowed. Perhaps a little of
both has occurred.
I must point out to you here, though, that I think you are truly wasting
your time in debating this matter with those on the opposite side of the
issue. None of them is witless, and some of them are quite intelligent
and knowledgeable people. They do not fail to understand the issue
because they are unable to understand it. They fail to understand the
issue because they *refuse* to understand it. They *do not want* to
understand it. It doesn't fit well with the way they want the world to
be. Such people never allow reality to get in the way of their own
narrow-minded preferences.
I find it pains me to observe your continuing efforts to help these
people understand what they are determined *not to* understand. You
cannot save people from what they have themselves chosen to be.
Hexagram 61 comes to mind here. Perhaps you are familiar with that one.
Pax
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
On 5/11/01 9:04 AM bvm3@-------- (bvm3@--------) wrote:
>Salvete Omnes!
>Sardonicus scripsit:
>In a message dated 5/10/01 4:41:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>nramos@-------- writes:
>> and I will be very frank with
>> you, I would be a bit careful around an individual who >found
>him or herself so "tortured" by a name that it would >drive them
>from participating in an activity they valued.
>
>Thank the Gods that someone had the balls (no pun intended) to
>say it.
>Vale,
>LTS
>__________________
>RESPONDEO:
>
> I think the point was missed that we were not speaking of just
>whether one was allowed to have exactly the name one wanted,
>but whether the name one was allowed to have was of *only one
>of the opposite sex*. I simply cannot believe that my good
>collocutor Marcus Cornelius Scipio or L.T. Sardonicus would fail
>to be profoundly bothered by being forced to bear female names
>against their will for the privilege of being cives of Nova Roma.
>That other people might feel the same about a compulsory
>misrepresentation of the gender of their personalities in the
>grammatical gender of their names is very natural too. It is not a
>trivial thing to the person concerned.
>
> I myself would feel a bit "careful" around persons so "lacking
>in balls" (if I may be allowed the expression) as to let other
>people force them into taking a name of the wrong sex, no matter
>how attractive an activity they might miss out on by resisting such
>an imposition.
>
>Valete!
>
>ApolloniusFormosanus
>Aedilis Plebeius
>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Comitia Vote |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 21:07:27 EDT |
|
LOL! Sounds just like our IS dept. at work. Every time I turn around, I
either can't access the LAN or I'm denied permission to access the
software I'm supposed to be working with! They are obsessed with
"security." Trouble is, the only people they seem able to protect it from
are those of us who it's supposed to be serving!
LSAO
On 5/11/01 7:22 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------)
wrote:
>Ave,
>
>It was caused by an IMAC I was sitting on at work...Our LAN dept. on
>Earthlink set up some controls...dont ask me how...but, we no longer
>have the permissions to modify the date and time.... Good Ole Earthlink!
>
>Sulla
>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Society and the Individual |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 18:47:42 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Actually, Lucius Sergius, I have done quite a bit of extensive research
on this. I have researched laws of macronations and I have read many
books and articles that deal this illness. I have even seen
documentaries dealing with this issue. The most recent documentary was
"What Sex Am I?" That was a documentary the Discovery Channel
broadcasted. You have disagreed with me on this issue, and that is
perfectly understandable. But, please do not belittle my research
efforts into this. Also, please do not belittle the opinions of other
citizens in this nation.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve Marcus Apollonius
>
> While I have sometimes in the past been greatly put off by some of your
> arguments and/or the manner in which you pressed them, recently it seems
> that either you have reformed or I have mellowed. Perhaps a little of
> both has occurred.
>
> I must point out to you here, though, that I think you are truly wasting
> your time in debating this matter with those on the opposite side of the
> issue. None of them is witless, and some of them are quite intelligent
> and knowledgeable people. They do not fail to understand the issue
> because they are unable to understand it. They fail to understand the
> issue because they *refuse* to understand it. They *do not want* to
> understand it. It doesn't fit well with the way they want the world to
> be. Such people never allow reality to get in the way of their own
> narrow-minded preferences.
>
> I find it pains me to observe your continuing efforts to help these
> people understand what they are determined *not to* understand. You
> cannot save people from what they have themselves chosen to be.
>
> Hexagram 61 comes to mind here. Perhaps you are familiar with that one.
>
> Pax
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> On 5/11/01 9:04 AM bvm3@-------- (bvm3@--------) wrote:
>
> >Salvete Omnes!
> >Sardonicus scripsit:
> >In a message dated 5/10/01 4:41:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >nramos@-------- writes:
> >> and I will be very frank with
> >> you, I would be a bit careful around an individual who >found
> >him or herself so "tortured" by a name that it would >drive them
> >from participating in an activity they valued.
> >
> >Thank the Gods that someone had the balls (no pun intended) to
> >say it.
> >Vale,
> >LTS
> >__________________
> >RESPONDEO:
> >
> > I think the point was missed that we were not speaking of just
> >whether one was allowed to have exactly the name one wanted,
> >but whether the name one was allowed to have was of *only one
> >of the opposite sex*. I simply cannot believe that my good
> >collocutor Marcus Cornelius Scipio or L.T. Sardonicus would fail
> >to be profoundly bothered by being forced to bear female names
> >against their will for the privilege of being cives of Nova Roma.
> >That other people might feel the same about a compulsory
> >misrepresentation of the gender of their personalities in the
> >grammatical gender of their names is very natural too. It is not a
> >trivial thing to the person concerned.
> >
> > I myself would feel a bit "careful" around persons so "lacking
> >in balls" (if I may be allowed the expression) as to let other
> >people force them into taking a name of the wrong sex, no matter
> >how attractive an activity they might miss out on by resisting such
> >an imposition.
> >
> >Valete!
> >
> >ApolloniusFormosanus
> >Aedilis Plebeius
> >
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>
> 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] Voting on the Leges |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 12 May 2001 02:11:00 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
We are just a few hours away from voting on three leges.
I, and a great many of my fellow citizens have made thier views known
on these three leges. A great many of you have allready decided how
you are going to vote on these matters. I'm not going to make another
plea to try to sway you, rather I'm giving you a warning.
I am a Macro National politican. Not a canidate for office, but
something much worse, One of the men who stand behind the scenes and
runs the campaigns. I have served on the BoD of the county branch of
one of the two major US parties before leaving it to join the
Libertarian Party. I don't just know who my Congressman is, I know him
and have worked for him. I have worked on Campaigns at every level
from a lacky in a US Presidentail Campaign to Chairing campaigns for
canidates for the state legislature.
Part of the art of running a campaign is you present your side of an
argument as the sane reasonable alternitive, while showing the other
sides postions in the worst possible light.
Allthough I have given you my heart felt ideas on these Leges, I have
used the stragities I learned in Macro National campaigns, and perhaps
without realizing it many of the citizens who have spoken out about
these leges (On both sides) have done the same. I Am warning you that
many of these posts (mine included) were intended to sway you one way
or the other, not to present a calm look at both sides of the proposal.
I Ask all of you to carefully read each of the Leges that we will be
voting on and decide for yourself what these proposals mean.
Do not be swayed by your opinion of the citizen who wrote the lex,
either favorable or unfavorable for that is unimportant. The only
thing that you should consider are "Is This a good law", "Is This law
needed" and most important of all that these Leges are NOT just
abstract words, that this is NOT a case of our side against their
side, that these Leges are intended to apply to your fellow citizens,
that they will have an effect on another human being.
Citizens, the power is in your hands, use it wisely!
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Nova Roma |
| From: |
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 20:24:01 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete!
--- TClaudiusNero@-------- wrote:
> Salvete!
> What is Nova Roma? Where is She going?
> Where does everyone want it to go? Where are the laws we are
> discussing leading us?
You will get different responses to this question, I imagine, depending
on the desires of the individual who joined Nova Roma to begin with.
Ask a pontiff, or any priest/ess involved in the Religio, and they will
undoubtedly say that they desire this place to be the starting ground
for a modern Roman Religio, and would like to see it grow and flourish.
Ask anyone interested in the culture of Rome who joined as a result,
and they will want to see a return to the ancient times in modern day.
Ask someone interested in studying the classics who joined, and they
will say that they will want this place to be a center where people can
learn, practice, and be Roman in modern day. Ask anyone else who
joined, and maybe you will hear variations on the above, combinations
of the above, and perhaps something totally different.
As for why I joined, I joined for the sake of the Religio and for the
chance to meet and practice with more people interested in the same,
and for the encouragement of the studies and practices of the Roman
Religio and all things pertaining to such. I will be naturally biased
as a priestess of Apollo towards furthering the Religio as part of
maintaining and enchancing what is and should be Nova Roma. That is my
honest, straightforward answer on the matter. I feel that the Religio
is extremely important to Nova Roma and as a part of Nova Roma.
Frankly, I think that most people are doing their best to make one,
some, or all of the above mentioned thoughts and concepts of Nova Roma
possible... now the question remains, are there any that are possibly
in conflict? If so, why? If none of them are in conflict, then a
problem does not exist. If the problem is simply that our focus is too
scattered, then the question remains as to what can be done to bring
ourselves to a stronger focus.
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/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Society and the Individual |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 23:31:30 EDT |
|
Salve Lucius Cornelius
I do not belittle your opinions. If I have given you that impression,
then you have my apology. You quoted my post which refers to "quite
intelligent and knowledgeable people" on your side of this issue. My
point in this is that the problem between these two sides is not one of
misunderstanding, and therefore no amount of patient explanation of one
viewpoint or the other will acomplish any change on either side.
You (and that is a collective "you" - not you alone) have shown
yourselves fully capable of dialogue, compromise, and understanding on
issues of great importance to Nova Roma, such as taxes or budgets. But on
an issue of *no* real importance to Nova Roma, you refuse to budge. It
matters not one tiny bit to Nova Roma whether Lucius Marius goes down in
the Album Civicum as Lucius Marius or as Lucia Maria: it will never
affect the fortunes or security or happiness or success of this Republic
in any conceiveable way whichever way one person spells their name. So
for you who have demonstrated so much ability and diplomacy to refuse to
accept the argument that it matters greatly to one citizen and not at all
to the Republic cannot be because of any deficiency in understanding on
your part. It can only be because that is the choice you make. You would
prefer a world in which a single citizen's wishes can be denied by an
official who has no reason or basis for denying it.
Given that you make that choice, no amount of reasoning will change your
decision. It is the position that you wish to take and that is why you
have taken it. That is your perfect right, just as it is my right to
disapprove of it.
Now, for my part, I would prefer a world in which people's names matched
their appearances. When I see a beautiful woman, I would prefer never to
have to discover that she would rather live life as a man and is more
interested in competing with me for the next beautiful woman down than in
being a woman with me (it has happened far too frequently!). In Nova
Roma, I would prefer for the gender of people's names to match their
appearance, dress, and behavior. But I refuse to place my own silly
preference ahead of another citizen's happiness nor their comfort in
being a part of this Republic. That is another preference that I place
above the first one.
There is nothing to be gained, I say, by continuing to try to change each
others' minds on this. Let each one state his thoughts and then vote. To
continue debating it is worse than useless - it has cost us far too much
already. Let's vote on it and settle it, with each of us, including the
Censores and the Consules and the Senate, accepting the outcome like
Romans and *moving on.*
Vale,
L. Sergius Australicus Obst.
On 5/11/01 8:47 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------)
wrote:
>Ave,
>
>Actually, Lucius Sergius, I have done quite a bit of extensive research
>on this. I have researched laws of macronations and I have read many
>books and articles that deal this illness. I have even seen
>documentaries dealing with this issue. The most recent documentary was
>"What Sex Am I?" That was a documentary the Discovery Channel
>broadcasted. You have disagreed with me on this issue, and that is
>perfectly understandable. But, please do not belittle my research
>efforts into this. Also, please do not belittle the opinions of other
>citizens in this nation.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>>
>> Salve Marcus Apollonius
>>
>> While I have sometimes in the past been greatly put off by some of your
>> arguments and/or the manner in which you pressed them, recently it seems
>> that either you have reformed or I have mellowed. Perhaps a little of
>> both has occurred.
>>
>> I must point out to you here, though, that I think you are truly wasting
>> your time in debating this matter with those on the opposite side of the
>> issue. None of them is witless, and some of them are quite intelligent
>> and knowledgeable people. They do not fail to understand the issue
>> because they are unable to understand it. They fail to understand the
>> issue because they *refuse* to understand it. They *do not want* to
>> understand it. It doesn't fit well with the way they want the world to
>> be. Such people never allow reality to get in the way of their own
>> narrow-minded preferences.
>>
>> I find it pains me to observe your continuing efforts to help these
>> people understand what they are determined *not to* understand. You
>> cannot save people from what they have themselves chosen to be.
>>
>> Hexagram 61 comes to mind here. Perhaps you are familiar with that one.
>>
>> Pax
>>
>> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] RE: Society and the Individual - RESPONSE - LONG POST. |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 21:21:49 -0700 |
|
Ave,
WARNING this is going to be a long email. I apologize for this
now...but I feel that some issues need to be clear.
Thank you for that clarification....however, lets be perfectly clear. I
have compromised a great deal in this issue. I have gone from a very
strict...edict to one that allows compromises. I have fully
incorporated the original reservations of M. Apollonius and even pointed
those reservations back out in December. Yet, he was the one who
backtracked and changed his story. Lets go back to the archives and
examine this, Senator if you don't mind.
Back in April 24, I promulgated this edict:
Beginning immediately all applicants who apply for citizenship in Nova
Roma have their gender consistent with their Roman Name. In other
words, if you are male your Roman name must reflect your physical
gender. Just as if you are female your Roman Name must reflect your
physical gender. Just as the Latin language is gender driven, that
tradition is hereby officially adopted in Nova Roma.
I publish this edicta to as a means of gaining increased credibility for
Nova Roma. So that it sets us apart from Role Playing games societies
(such as other fantasy based micronation and gaming societies
[ancientsites.com]). As our organization grows and gains more worldwide
recognition we need to clarify our true intentions as a true
micronation. This cannot just be done by just the website alone, it
also needs to be illustrated in the laws that govern each of us as
citizens.
This precedent was first established during the Censorship of Decius
Iunius Palladius and Flavius Vedius Germancius. I am hereby publishing
it as Edicta.
____
When this edict was issued, there was support and there was complaints.
Many of them were voiced by you, Nicholas Ford, Maria Villorael and
Marcus Apollonius. I will now post the reservations that Marcus
Apollonius had, this was posted on the main list on 05/22/00:
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
*** SENATUI NOVAE
ROMAE ***
Salutem
Plurimam Dicit
Senators of the Respublica,
The purpose of this address to you is present my views, as
an outsider to the Senate but a concerned citizen of Nova
Roma, on a matter which I understand to be currently under
Senatorial investigation, namely the Gender Edictum of
Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix promulgated on the 24th
of May this year.
I wish to preface my comments with a statement of my
personal admiration for the hard, careful and capable work
which L. Cornelius has contributed to Nova Roma. His was one
of the first voices of welcome I received here, and I am
personally grateful to him for his help and kindness. My
objection to his edictum is not based on personal
considerations, and I would regret any embarassment caused
to the Censor as a result of this investigation.
Nonetheless, I see in this edictum, and especially in this
edictum uncorrected by the issuer or by others, a serious
blot on the just and tolerant society that we would like to
see in Nova Roma, and which is clearly intended in Her
Constitution.
The ostensible purpose of this edictum is defined
therewithin by the Censor himself:
I publish this edicta to as a means of gaining
increased credibility for Nova Roma. So that it
sets us apart from Role Playing games societies
(such as other fantasy based micronation and
gaming societies [ancientsites.com]). As our
organization grows and gains more worldwide
recognition we need to clarify our true intentions
as a true micronation.
I find this to be perfectly reasonable. It is the more
precise details which cause my reservations:
...all applicants who apply for citizenship in
Nova Roma have their gender consistent with their Roman
Name. In other words, if you are male your Roman
name must reflect your physical gender. Just as if
you are female your Roman Name must reflect your
physical gender.
For most human beings (even homosexuals, one might add) this
is not problematical. For some persons it is: transsexuals
or the transgendered. If one in one's inmost self feels
oneself to be of the opposite sex than the body one is
trapped in. In such a situation the individual may feel
forced by social pressure to live out an inauthentic life in
the body his/her very different spirit was consigned to, or
he/she can choose simply to change civil identity to the sex
that seems inwardly more natural, or one can to a greater or
lesser degree seek medical assistance in changing one's
physical body to conform to one's inner feelings.
This is, at worst, a medical problem. It in no wise implies
any sort of moral turpitude or mental illness in the normal
sense. It is easy enough, no doubt for those not in this
position and having poor imaginations to suppose otherwise,
and natural enough to feel a bit uncomfortable when
encountering such an anomaly. However, we have had among us
a pious Augur of the Religio Romana and an individual
thought fit to be entrusted with the highly responsible post
of Curator Sermo[nis], and they have had this situation in
their lives. Can any of us fail to notice their fundamental
decency, intelligence and personal charm?
Such special cases should not be caught in the net
supposedly intended for slightly miscomprehending rôle
players. If a person in normal everyday life presents
himself or herself as a certain sex as a matter of civil
identity, who are we to demand that he or she perform a body
check and use a Roman name differently gendered from the one
which is elsewhere personally and legally true and normal?
It is degrading to these citizens and potential citizens.
Patres Conscripti, I do not in all honesty know if Cornelius
Sulla in this Edictum simply made a mistake in wording due
to the pressure of so much worthy work on our behalf, or if
he has a personal dislike for sexual anomalies so strong
that it induced him to produce an edictum in which he gave
false or incomplete reasons for legislation, the real
purpose of which was to eliminate "undesirables" from our
Respublica.
I very much hope that it was simply the first, but the
reluctance or inablility of the Censor to defend the edictum
in a meaningful way when the injustice to transsexuals was
repeatedly brought up, and his unwillingness to discuss any
means of refining it so that they would not be included
point in the opposite direction.
I have myself more than once proposed that Nova Roma simply
do as other nations and the states of the United States do,
and normally give faith and credence to the civil identities
(age, sex, marital status, etc.) recognised by the state of
the applicant's first citizenship. I.e., if one is male or
female in passport or on driver's licence, we simply accept
that gender. This would solve the problem of rôle players
and protect those transsexuals who are protected at home.
I have repeatedly asked Censor Sulla to respond to this
suggestion, which on the face of it seems to me reasonable
and worthy of some consideration, at least. Although he may
still respond to my most recent public invitation to express
why he does not favour it, I have not yet received any
reply.
In the Constitution of Nova Roma, at II.A.3, it is written:
Citizenship is open to anyone regardless of ethnic
heritage, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual
orientation.
One could nitpick, but any honest person understands the
intent and spirit of this clause. It is to protect persons
from all discrimination on the basis of their sexual lives
and identities. And can citizenship be honestly said to be
"open" if one is forced to use a gender in Nova Roma that
one does not feel oneself to be and elsewhere does not
normally use?
Conscript Fathers, I want to express my deepest hope that,
in a way as little embarrassing as possible to the Censor,
this edictum or the prevailing law be changed to reflect
Nova Roma's firm intent to protect the dignity of all of Her
cives. And further that those who have left us in protest at
the legal climate engendered by the edictum in question be
officially invited back, with apologies, in the name of the
Nova Roman State.
I humbly thank the Senate for considering my words.
Valete Patres! Vivat Nova Roma Iusta!
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus,
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae,
Triumvir Condens Sodalitatis Latinitatis Futurae
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
ICQ# 61698049
________________________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
[Se vi deziras subigi chion al vi, subigu vin al Racio.]
____
When my colleague, G. Marius Merullus took office as Censor him and I
together discussed that the original edict needed to be reformed. With
T. Labineus's effort, we were able to combine our views into the edict
that is being voted upon. That revised edict became effective on
06/29/00. So, to say that there has not been compromise is not accurate
at all. I urge every citizen to check the archieves.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve Lucius Cornelius
>
> I do not belittle your opinions. If I have given you that impression,
> then you have my apology. You quoted my post which refers to "quite
> intelligent and knowledgeable people" on your side of this issue. My
> point in this is that the problem between these two sides is not one of
> misunderstanding, and therefore no amount of patient explanation of one
> viewpoint or the other will acomplish any change on either side.
>
> You (and that is a collective "you" - not you alone) have shown
> yourselves fully capable of dialogue, compromise, and understanding on
> issues of great importance to Nova Roma, such as taxes or budgets. But on
> an issue of *no* real importance to Nova Roma, you refuse to budge. It
> matters not one tiny bit to Nova Roma whether Lucius Marius goes down in
> the Album Civicum as Lucius Marius or as Lucia Maria: it will never
> affect the fortunes or security or happiness or success of this Republic
> in any conceiveable way whichever way one person spells their name. So
> for you who have demonstrated so much ability and diplomacy to refuse to
> accept the argument that it matters greatly to one citizen and not at all
> to the Republic cannot be because of any deficiency in understanding on
> your part. It can only be because that is the choice you make. You would
> prefer a world in which a single citizen's wishes can be denied by an
> official who has no reason or basis for denying it.
>
> Given that you make that choice, no amount of reasoning will change your
> decision. It is the position that you wish to take and that is why you
> have taken it. That is your perfect right, just as it is my right to
> disapprove of it.
>
> Now, for my part, I would prefer a world in which people's names matched
> their appearances. When I see a beautiful woman, I would prefer never to
> have to discover that she would rather live life as a man and is more
> interested in competing with me for the next beautiful woman down than in
> being a woman with me (it has happened far too frequently!). In Nova
> Roma, I would prefer for the gender of people's names to match their
> appearance, dress, and behavior. But I refuse to place my own silly
> preference ahead of another citizen's happiness nor their comfort in
> being a part of this Republic. That is another preference that I place
> above the first one.
>
> There is nothing to be gained, I say, by continuing to try to change each
> others' minds on this. Let each one state his thoughts and then vote. To
> continue debating it is worse than useless - it has cost us far too much
> already. Let's vote on it and settle it, with each of us, including the
> Censores and the Consules and the Senate, accepting the outcome like
> Romans and *moving on.*
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Australicus Obst.
>
> On 5/11/01 8:47 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------)
> wrote:
>
> >Ave,
> >
> >Actually, Lucius Sergius, I have done quite a bit of extensive research
> >on this. I have researched laws of macronations and I have read many
> >books and articles that deal this illness. I have even seen
> >documentaries dealing with this issue. The most recent documentary was
> >"What Sex Am I?" That was a documentary the Discovery Channel
> >broadcasted. You have disagreed with me on this issue, and that is
> >perfectly understandable. But, please do not belittle my research
> >efforts into this. Also, please do not belittle the opinions of other
> >citizens in this nation.
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> >LSergAust@-------- wrote:
> >>
> >> Salve Marcus Apollonius
> >>
> >> While I have sometimes in the past been greatly put off by some of your
> >> arguments and/or the manner in which you pressed them, recently it seems
> >> that either you have reformed or I have mellowed. Perhaps a little of
> >> both has occurred.
> >>
> >> I must point out to you here, though, that I think you are truly wasting
> >> your time in debating this matter with those on the opposite side of the
> >> issue. None of them is witless, and some of them are quite intelligent
> >> and knowledgeable people. They do not fail to understand the issue
> >> because they are unable to understand it. They fail to understand the
> >> issue because they *refuse* to understand it. They *do not want* to
> >> understand it. It doesn't fit well with the way they want the world to
> >> be. Such people never allow reality to get in the way of their own
> >> narrow-minded preferences.
> >>
> >> I find it pains me to observe your continuing efforts to help these
> >> people understand what they are determined *not to* understand. You
> >> cannot save people from what they have themselves chosen to be.
> >>
> >> Hexagram 61 comes to mind here. Perhaps you are familiar with that one.
> >>
> >> Pax
> >>
> >> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
> >>
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>
> 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] New group: Nova Roma Europe |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 12 May 2001 09:30:47 +0100 (BST) |
|
Salvete
I have created a new Yahoo group for the citizens who
live in Europe. In this group meetings of European
citizens and other Nova Roman matters concerning
Europe will be discussed. So feel free to join, and
you can do this by sending an email to
novaroma_europe-subscribe@-------- stating your
Nova Roman name AND provincia. Only European citizens
please!
With this email I also inform our Curatrix Sermo about
the creation of this new group.
For more information please email me privately at
consulromanus@--------
novaroma_europe-subscribe@--------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma_europe
Valete
=====
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: |
Re: [novaroma] Society and the Individual - RESPONSE (not long) |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 12 May 2001 10:50:56 -0700 |
|
LSergAust@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve Censor
>
> Yes, you have compromised on the Edict, and Flavius Vedius has
> compromised on the proposed lex, although he later "backtracked," as you
> put it for Apollonius, and withdrew the compromise. There is no question
> about the fact that you have listened and bent to incorporate suggestions
> from "the other side.".
Sulla: Thank you for this.
> There are two things to think about with regard to this Edict and the
> proposed lex which it generated. One is whether it is fair or at least
> acceptable to the person for whom it was originated - L. Marius. Of
> course that question is moot since he has left. However he long ago
> indicated no inclination to object to the edict. He could live with it.
> And since he is gone, there can be little need to discuss that question
> at all anymore.
Sulla: Yes she did endorse the edict that is currently being voted on.
And, I agree it is a moot point at this point since she resigned. I
would have approved her name change if she met any of the exemption
requirements, which she said she was constantly working on.
> The other question is whether this edict/lex is necessary or good for the
> state as a whole. I think no-one has any issues with the portion of it
> that applies to the choosing and validation of Roman names. The only
> portion in question is the portion that attempts to address issues of
> sexuality and gender. My position is that it is not good and it is not
> necessary. An unnecessary law by its very nature is a bad law. This one
> serves no compelling purpose for the state nor for any individual
> citizen. Therefore I will vote against it. What each other citizen does
> is up to him/her.
Sulla: Well, you know...I would have been so much happier to focus my
time and energies on other issues that are more pressing for the
Censorship. I cannot tell you how many man hours I have spent on this
issue. As I spoke with some other individuals privately during this
debate, there are other naming issues that need attention and even other
areas of name change that need to be focused....such as changing
Gentes...as an example. However, the circumstances dictated the
situation.
> I think this has been a fair review of position statements, and perhaps
> useful if there is any citizen out there who has been asleep for several
> months, or just signed up last week, and hence hasn't yet picked a side.
> However, I think the time to vote is upon us and I hope we can agree to
> call an end to this discussion. It resembles waltzing through a minefield
> - at any moment either of us may say something that offends the other or
> offends some third party. Let's just go vote.
Sulla: Thanks for that. When Censor Merullus and I incorporated the
original suggestions of M. Apollonius and others we believed we came to
an amicible solution. Its was amazing that we incorporated his
suggestions and he still was not satisified...but we both felt the
compromise was satisfactory. Anyway, your right, its time for the
vote. I hope that this vote will end the discussion on this issue.
Nova Roma has more important things to deal with than this issue.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
> On 5/11/01 11:21 PM Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (alexious@--------)
> wrote:
>
> >Ave,
> >
> >WARNING this is going to be a long email. I apologize for this
> >now...but I feel that some issues need to be clear.
> >
> >Thank you for that clarification....however, lets be perfectly clear. I
> >have compromised a great deal in this issue. I have gone from a very
> >strict...edict to one that allows compromises. I have fully
> >incorporated the original reservations of M. Apollonius and even pointed
> >those reservations back out in December. Yet, he was the one who
> >backtracked and changed his story. Lets go back to the archives and
> >examine this, Senator if you don't mind.
> >
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
>
>
>
> 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/
|
