Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Languages
From:	octavianuslucius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 00:06:26 -0000

Salvete omnes.
I wonder if there are mailing lists for the different languages
spoken in NR. N.B.: I do not mean provincial mailing lists. I mean
lists for the whole NR which people speaking the same language could
share. In case they do not exist, how can a new one be an official
mailing list ?. They would be an aid for communication, I think. Just
an idea turning around my mind :-).
Valete bene
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Victory at Any Cost
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 00:44:15 -0000

Salvete Omnes,

Does anyone remember this
"Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture,
and virtues"

It's on the mainpage of Nova Roma's Web site, for those of you that
have forgotten.

Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
something else, like this
"Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"

Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
ourselves experts at.

The Republic of Antiquita was destroyed by the kind of politics that
some of our citizens are trying to recreate. Victory at any cost! It
isn't enough to best your opponent at the polls. That isn't good
enough, Hell no, you have to destroy his reputation, Smear his
Dignitas in the mud, Destroy him and drive him from Roma! If it wrecks
the Republic, hey you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

We have the lies, the personal attacks, and accusations of crimes. Now
all we need are a few heads on stakes, some proscriptions, and a
murder here and there.

As long as we are trying to revive the worst of Roma Antiquita, lets
drop this nonsense about no slavery, and this silly idea of women
voting. That has no place in the Roma we are recreating.

Was I mistaken when I joined? I thought we trying to capture the best
of Roma, to leave her mistakes in the past. Instead I find some who
are striving to recapture the worst of Roma, Who have infected our
republic with the immoral idea of "The End justifies the Means"

Citizens, It's time to end this madness, before this madness ends us.
Nova Roma will go on, regardless of the outcome of the votes on the
Resignation and the Name Change Leges. Allthough I consider the "Tax"
lex to be one of the most important Leges we have ever voted on, We
can survive it's failure. The one thing we can NOT survive is the
emotions that some are trying to stir up in their bid for power.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Censor Reform (was: Re: Nerva/Festus)
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 00:43:54 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes.
>
> I will not make any comments on Draco's affirmation, because I don't
> know the facts, and I don't have proofs for or against it.
>
> However, I would like to make an appeal to consider a previous
> suggestion of mine: that the data from applications to citizenship
> should be confronted to some means of certification, to prove that a
> citizen really is who he/she claims to be.

Ave,

We the Censors are discussing about possiblities in this avenue. One
of those possibilities might be the reimplementation of snail mail.
However, no decision has been decided when something is decided an
edicta will be published.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Victory at Any Cost
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 17:54:22 -0700

Excellent post....I try never to attack anyone...there isnt any use...I am
the one constantly having to defend myself....this damned thing sucks...I am
sorry you had to post this. but its a great post.

SF

on 5/16/01 5:44 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Does anyone remember this
> "Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture,
> and virtues"
>
> It's on the mainpage of Nova Roma's Web site, for those of you that
> have forgotten.
>
> Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
> something else, like this
> "Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"
>
> Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
> ourselves experts at.
>
> The Republic of Antiquita was destroyed by the kind of politics that
> some of our citizens are trying to recreate. Victory at any cost! It
> isn't enough to best your opponent at the polls. That isn't good
> enough, Hell no, you have to destroy his reputation, Smear his
> Dignitas in the mud, Destroy him and drive him from Roma! If it wrecks
> the Republic, hey you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
>
> We have the lies, the personal attacks, and accusations of crimes. Now
> all we need are a few heads on stakes, some proscriptions, and a
> murder here and there.
>
> As long as we are trying to revive the worst of Roma Antiquita, lets
> drop this nonsense about no slavery, and this silly idea of women
> voting. That has no place in the Roma we are recreating.
>
> Was I mistaken when I joined? I thought we trying to capture the best
> of Roma, to leave her mistakes in the past. Instead I find some who
> are striving to recapture the worst of Roma, Who have infected our
> republic with the immoral idea of "The End justifies the Means"
>
> Citizens, It's time to end this madness, before this madness ends us.
> Nova Roma will go on, regardless of the outcome of the votes on the
> Resignation and the Name Change Leges. Allthough I consider the "Tax"
> lex to be one of the most important Leges we have ever voted on, We
> can survive it's failure. The one thing we can NOT survive is the
> emotions that some are trying to stir up in their bid for power.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
>
> 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] Victory at Any Cost
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 17:56:14 -0700

on 5/16/01 5:54 PM, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix at alexious@--------
wrote:

> Excellent post....I try never to attack anyone...there isnt any use...I am
> the one constantly having to defend myself....this damned thing sucks...I am
> sorry you had to post this. but its a great post.

Oops this was supposed to be a private message....so much for doing two
things at one time (fixing a customer's computer and typing a response.) Oh
well. :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> SF
>
>
> on 5/16/01 5:44 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
>> Salvete Omnes,
>>
>> Does anyone remember this
>> "Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture,
>> and virtues"
>>
>> It's on the mainpage of Nova Roma's Web site, for those of you that
>> have forgotten.
>>
>> Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
>> something else, like this
>> "Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"
>>
>> Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
>> ourselves experts at.
>>
>> The Republic of Antiquita was destroyed by the kind of politics that
>> some of our citizens are trying to recreate. Victory at any cost! It
>> isn't enough to best your opponent at the polls. That isn't good
>> enough, Hell no, you have to destroy his reputation, Smear his
>> Dignitas in the mud, Destroy him and drive him from Roma! If it wrecks
>> the Republic, hey you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
>>
>> We have the lies, the personal attacks, and accusations of crimes. Now
>> all we need are a few heads on stakes, some proscriptions, and a
>> murder here and there.
>>
>> As long as we are trying to revive the worst of Roma Antiquita, lets
>> drop this nonsense about no slavery, and this silly idea of women
>> voting. That has no place in the Roma we are recreating.
>>
>> Was I mistaken when I joined? I thought we trying to capture the best
>> of Roma, to leave her mistakes in the past. Instead I find some who
>> are striving to recapture the worst of Roma, Who have infected our
>> republic with the immoral idea of "The End justifies the Means"
>>
>> Citizens, It's time to end this madness, before this madness ends us.
>> Nova Roma will go on, regardless of the outcome of the votes on the
>> Resignation and the Name Change Leges. Allthough I consider the "Tax"
>> lex to be one of the most important Leges we have ever voted on, We
>> can survive it's failure. The one thing we can NOT survive is the
>> emotions that some are trying to stir up in their bid for power.
>>
>> Valete,
>> L. Sicinius Drusus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censor Reform (was: Re: Nerva/Festus)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 18:04:10 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Sulla.

> Ave,
>
> We the Censors are discussing about possiblities in this avenue. One
>
> of those possibilities might be the reimplementation of snail mail.
> However, no decision has been decided when something is decided an
> edicta will be published.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

The reimplantation of a snail mail system was discussed before. It was
a subject of a poll on this very same list. Of 45 votes presented, just
three were in favour of going back to a snail mail system to address
the problem of citizenship duplication.

A snail mail system would not only be a major limit to the growth of
Nova Roma; it would not solve the duplication issue. Your assumption
that you could verify an applicant's identity through the stamp on the
envelope or the sender's name and address is simply not correct. A
snail mail stamp just provides information about where the letter was
posted, and the sender's name and address not only is not required to
send a post, but it is childishly easy (think; pen and paper) to
falsify.

An electronic application system (as the one we have today) coupled
with a little verification through electronic or other means (as
needed) would be more effective and would not affect the number of new
applicants, in my humble opinion.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academia Thules.

__________________________________________________
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] Censor Reform (was: Re: Nerva/Festus)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 18:13:33 -0700

on 5/16/01 6:04 PM, Gnaeus Salix Astur at salixastur@-------- wrote:

> Salvete omnes; et salve, Sulla.
>
>> Ave,
>>
>> We the Censors are discussing about possiblities in this avenue. One
>>
>> of those possibilities might be the reimplementation of snail mail.
>> However, no decision has been decided when something is decided an
>> edicta will be published.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> The reimplantation of a snail mail system was discussed before. It was
> a subject of a poll on this very same list. Of 45 votes presented, just
> three were in favour of going back to a snail mail system to address
> the problem of citizenship duplication.
>
> A snail mail system would not only be a major limit to the growth of
> Nova Roma; it would not solve the duplication issue. Your assumption
> that you could verify an applicant's identity through the stamp on the
> envelope or the sender's name and address is simply not correct. A
> snail mail stamp just provides information about where the letter was
> posted, and the sender's name and address not only is not required to
> send a post, but it is childishly easy (think; pen and paper) to
> falsify.
>
> An electronic application system (as the one we have today) coupled
> with a little verification through electronic or other means (as
> needed) would be more effective and would not affect the number of new
> applicants, in my humble opinion.
>
>
>

Ave,

It will all be discussed in time. Right now is not really the time to make
decisions when emotions are heated up. Lets cool down and let rational
minds make decisions.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censor Reform (was: Re: Nerva/Festus)
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 18:54:35 -0700

Salvete Gnae et Quiritibus;

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
<snipped>

Gnaeus writes:
The reimplantation of a snail mail system was discussed before. It was
a subject of a poll on this very same list. Of 45 votes presented,
just
three were in favour of going back to a snail mail system to address
the problem of citizenship duplication.

OFS: Unfortunately, we disagree a bit here amice- but
I'll explain why:

During the previous discussion, a few possible options
were discussed. Snail mail being one possible venue.
At that time, I also questioned the wording of the
poll you presented, as it required absolute choices
out of few alternatives.

Since the time of the original discussion, I've thought
about it quite a bit and have come around to the idea
that there must in fact be multiple possible verification
methods (of which there would be choices for cives,) to
fully be effective. As for the moment, there are some
more pressing issues and projects in NR. Should the
topic be reopened for discussion, there are some definite
ideas I have in this area (as I'm sure others have as well.)

Gnaeus writes:
A snail mail system would not only be a major limit to the growth of
Nova Roma; it would not solve the duplication issue.

OFS: But looking back at the original issue, the
duplication issue was but one scenario. There are
other reasons for verification as well such as
provincial Census, voter registrations, tax
purposes and perhaps other issues down the road.
My point being that this is not a one-dimensional
issue.

Gnaeus writes:
Your assumption
that you could verify an applicant's identity through the stamp on the
envelope or the sender's name and address is simply not correct. A
snail mail stamp just provides information about where the letter was
posted, and the sender's name and address not only is not required to
send a post, but it is childishly easy (think; pen and paper) to
falsify.

OFS: As far as the limited context presented here, I'd
agree with you. A stamp and an envelope alone proves
nothing. It would actually be the contents of the envelope, in
conjunction with other identifiers (such as phone calls,
face to face meetings) which would provide the ultimate
identification. The postmark though does play at least
a small role in the transaction -if for instance, I'm applying
for my citizenship in say the Province of America
Boreoccidentalis -but I mail it from say Texas with
some *questionable* documents, then it might trigger a
warning that additional verification might be needed.

An electronic application system (as the one we have today) coupled
with a little verification through electronic or other means (as
needed) would be more effective and would not affect the number of new
applicants, in my humble opinion.

OFS: As mentioned above, I think the actual solution involves
a number of possibilities. They key battle (when the time comes,
and right now doesn't seem like the time...) will be to find
some sort of consensus about whether or not *any* form of
verification is required. There are many here that think
that *no* form of it is necessary -perhaps barring a few
words posted in an HTML form. Once there is some agreement
that some *realistic* form is needed, then it would seem
to me that the best avenue would be to provide multiple options
for new cives to make it easier for them. Much like we
provide people the option of contributing to NR via check
or PayPal, the same could be utilized between a mixture
of physical and/or electronic means.

Personally, I'd like to see a comprehensive Lex proposed that
encompassed a wide variety of options, alternatives and very
clearly spelled out our reasons for verification, methods,
requirements, options and magistrates and officials that would
have a potential role in the process. Once it got to that
point, then an actual delivery target could be discussed
for promulgation.

Bene valete,
Oppius

<snipped>

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Language redux (was Re: Lex Madness)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 02:20:54 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lsicinius@-------- [mailto:lsicinius@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:09 AM
> >
> > Petrus Artorius is asking us what we intend to do with his money. That
> > is a right all citizens have. We have failed to keep our citizens who
> > aren't fluent English speakers informed of our plans. That is a fault
> > we need to seek a remedy for, rather than lightly dismissing the
> > concerns of a citizen who's needs we have ignored.
>
> I don't believe anyone's concerns are being "lightly dismissed", but the
> simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Citizens are
able to
> understand English (as evidenced by the fact that the main web site
is in
> English). Our resources are quite limited at this stage, and I'm not
sure
> devoting a ton of effort to accomodate a relative handful of non-English
> speakers should be at the top of our list of priorities.
>
> I would also point out that this is a two-way street; many of the
plans for
> the incorporation of Bohemia into Pannonia were discussed on the
Vizantia
> list in Czech or Hungarian or somesuch. Too, many plans for the
development
> of Hispania's infrastructure are being discussed in Spanish. I don't
recall
> anyone insisting they were somehow being exclusivist by so doing (as we
> English-speakers have been in the past).
>
> That being said, I do believe that some avenue of communication on a
> provincial (or even more local) level could be set up. Many
provinces are
> setting up web sites in their native languages, and we're bound to
get more
> and more non-English-speaking cives. I don't see any reason to translate
> each and every email into 500 languages, but I do believe the
contents of
> the Tabularium and Aerarium Saturni could be mirrored on these
provincial
> sites in the local languages (since these do represent the official
> documents of the Republic).
>
> I would assume this would be a job for the provincial governments.
It does,
> however, present several problems:
>
> 1) Manpower. Someone with not only the necessary language skills,
but also
> the time and inclination to do so, would have to be found. We're
talking a
> LOT of work, and some of it gets quite technical. (Just look at the
problems
> the Sodalitas Latinium has had in translating our own website into
Latin.)
>
> 2) Accuracy. What sort of check-and-balance would there be to
ensure that
> the local translations are accurate? Are we now looking at needing
two such
> individuals as I just described? For every province?
>
> 3) Practicality. It's a way-out hypothetical case, but assume for the
> moment that a Consul starts issuing edicts in Manx. Are we then going to
> require that each and every provincial governor find one (or two!)
people
> able to translate from Manx? At least when official documents start
out in
> English, it gives everyone a level playing field, so to speak, and a
fair
> shot at being able to translate them into their native tongue.
>
> In short, I think we should keep with our present use of English as a
> "lingua Franca" (pun intended), while at the same time encouraging
> provincial governments to keep their Citizens informed of official
actions
> in their native language. A perfect solution? No. But about as good
as we're
> going to get at this stage.
>
> Naturally, I would like to see Latin one day replace English as such a
> lingua Franca, but we should also remember that many people join
Nova Roma
> with an interest in _learning_ Latin. A classic Catch-22...
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

Salvete Omnes,

English is the de facto international language, and in some cases
(Aviation for example) even the de jure language. It's dominant
postion existed long before Nova Roma was founded, and the wise choice
would be to do as the Romans of old did when they found themselves in
a world dominated by Greek, make use of it. English should remain the
working language of Nova Roma.

Because of this, I think it would be worthwhile if we had some classes
to help citizens who aren't fluent in English the language. They may
find that it's a useful skill outside Nova Roma ;o).

However we shouldn't limit our outreach to "teachin' them forigners to
speak American". I think it's time that Nova roma considered offical
Interpres. I refer to the Constitution, IV A 9
"Apparitores (Attendants). Collectively, the apparitores shall not be
considered magistrates, but rather shall be appointed into various
decuriae (corporations) to fulfill those necessary functions as shall
be assigned to them by law enacted by one of the comitia. They shall
include the lictores, lictores curiati, scribae, and accensi"

In Antiquita some the the Apparitores were Interpres. See
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Interpres.html

While I would welcome provincial mirror of the main site, there are a
few things that are just too important to chance errors, like the
Constitution, and the Leges. The Central Government needs to have
offical Interpres who can do the offical translations. Another duty of
the Interpres would be aiding the Religio in setting up multi lingual
temples.

Since this postion would require more skill than the other Apparitores
I also think it would be wise to give the Interpres 7 centuary points
rather than 5.

There is no way we can include offical translations of every language.
For example if we only have one Citizen that spaeks Cherokee, we can't
provide translations for him. I would suggest that we start out with
the 5 languages most commonly spoken in Nova Roma (and Latin), and add
other Interpres at a later date.

Having offical translations would avoid problems like having different
versions on provincial web sites that share a common language, or even
worse having someone with a policital agenda sneaking a mistranslation
in. Since these will be the offical translations, I also think it
would be wise to have at least two Interpres working on each language.

Valete,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] HO HUM
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 23:28:02 EDT

Salvete!

I have to say in all seriousness that I actually feel sorry for Sextus
Apollonius Draco this evening. Reading his post, I can see a kid who wants
so badly to be important, and so desperate to impress his paterfamilias. You
can see this in post. With such self-seriousness he relates his temptation
to post under another name. So shocking he thinks are the scandalous
revelations he bears that he expects to be martyred by the list moderator!
But like Horatius at the bridge, he "has no choice", but to boldly come
forward and publish "a case of massive corruption in Nova Roma". Typical
Apollonian bravado and BS.

And after all that dramatic buildup, what is this earth-shaking
revelation? That, "the citizen whom we all know as Gaius Cassius Nerva, is
in fact Gaius Lupinius Festus."

Really! And all this time I thought real corruption was things like the
embezzeling of funds in Brittania or plans to hack into the Nova Roma voting
system! But, since this is the biggest non-issue of the day, you are all
entitled to the truth of the matter. But please, so not get your hopes up
for delicious scandal. It is rather dull.

The "big question" here is, "Who knew that Gaius Cassius Nerva was once Gaius
Lupinius Festus?" And the answer is, everybody who was concerned. Who were
they? Well, both censors knew, and the consuls, and the Vestalis Maxima, and
about a dozen or so others who knew me and were my friends. My
paterfamilias, Cassius, and his wife knew who I was when I applied, as I
emailed both of them about coming into their gens. There was *no secret*
here.

Who did NOT know? Well, for starters, everyone who did NOT know Gaius
Lupinius Festus, and who I in turn did not know myself! And that is a huge
list. I have friends here now that I did not know at all last fall. Oppius
Flaccus, L. Sinicius Drusus, Quintus Sertorius are a few. There are lots of
people here now who were not even here last fall, and to all these people who
never had any prior relationship with Gaius Lupinius Festus, there was no
need to tell anything. If I had made some bold, attention-seeking Fimbrian
"I'm baaaack!" post, they could all rightfully reply, "who cares?" A
citiszen they do not even know leaves and returns later in a new gens? Why
should this be of interest to them?

Other people who did not know were people with whom I share a mutual dislike.
And why should I announce my return to these people? We do not socialize at
all. Does Formosanus tell me his business? Does Draco tell me his business?
No, and there is no reason I should tell them mine.

Like I said, I feel sorry for Draco. All that time collecting his list of
"evidence" to prove what everyone concerned already knew anyway indicates an
attention-starved kid with way too much time on his hands. And from the
reaction, it looks like this attempt at inflaming the populace is blowing up
in his face. And I apologize for Draco that so much list space has been
wasted on this non-issue. It really is such a ho-hum.

All that remains to be said is that Draco's contention that Censor Sulla went
out to break the law by admitting me too early is pathetic. I WAS readmitted
to early. Instead of coming back in mid-April, I was re-admitted in
mid-March. A mistake was made, to be learned from and hopefully not
repeated. However, if the error had NOT occured, nothing today would be
different and I would still be voting in the current election. So, Draco is
right to point out the error, wrong to use it as the basis of spurius
accusations of misconduct against Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Draco would
do better to denounce real examples of bad behavior, such as the embezzlement
of NR funds and the plan to break into the NR voting system----both acts by
Amici Dignitatis associates and friends of the Apollonii.

Gaius Cassius 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:	[novaroma] Re: Languages
From:	alexanderprobus@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 07:16:08 -0000

Salve Lucii Octaviano et alii,

> I wonder if there are mailing lists for the different languages
> spoken in NR. N.B.: I do not mean provincial mailing lists. I mean
> lists for the whole NR which people speaking the same language
could
> share.

I think the NovaromaVizantia list is so. There have been from time to
time used foreign languages mostly Easteuropean. Nevertheless the
perdominant part of subscribers are non-English speakers and since
the very beginning the list was concipated as mulilanguage, the
perdominant part of posts are in English /peoples want to be read and
understand by as huge as possible circle of people/. I personaly
write there in a foreign language in the cases only when the message
is directly addressed only to other persons speaking the same
language or have no time to write the message in English /English
posts require more time to be written/. But there is always possible
to find a minute to write in one or two English sentences what is the
message about and so to keep the English speakers in course what is
been talken about.

In case they do not exist, how can a new one be an official
> mailing list ?. They would be an aid for communication, I think.
Just an idea turning around my mind :-).

You are welcome.

Bene vale/te

Alexander I.C. Probus

> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Victory at Any Cost
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 09:22:43 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini Druse

optime dixisti malumque explicavisti quo rem publicam nostram
NovaRomanam premitur.

> Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
> something else, like this
> "Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"
>
> Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
> ourselves experts at.

Personally, I am ashamed at the conduct several citizens who I will not
name, show up with here today.

I would rather call you all back to office to do as you are supposed to
and not spread third party's words and private conversation or anything
else alike anywhere. Whatever their reasons maybe - I do not question
anyone's best intentions and efforts for the benefit of the res publica
-, but some of the postings on this list and others are a rhetoric
fabric of slander, even if they were based on evidence.
As long as the witnesses brought up don't speak for themselves, as long
as summaries of private conversations from the past are brought up it is
nothing but rumourmongering which doesn't only damage their target
person's reputation, but also falls back on its authors, damaging theirs
far more than anything else. I for one read certain posts with and
decreasing understanding and appreciation, and I just hope that the
first impressions I received from their authors will recover one day.

I do feel very sad, just like I had lost some friends.

Receiving the honor of being a cives NovaRomanus/a, we all were bound to
Her constitution, Her laws, and - praecipue - Her aims and destination
and what is more Her virtues which are assumed to be the guidelines of
our actions and which we are suposed to live and to defend.
Virtues cannot be defended by vice - in other words: sometimes the
opposite of "good" is "well-meant", because even a well-meant vice is vice.

In the name of Concordia I ask you ALL who are involved, to step back
and end this conflict for the sake of the res publica.

Di deaque nos bono consilio iuvent atque bene protegantque ducantque.

Bene valete

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori Propraetori provinciae Germaniae
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque Sodalitatis Musarum
Civis NovaRomana

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Cognomens ask
From:	marciusrufus@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 05:57:36 -0000

Salvete

This is part of NR citizenship aplication page:

Cognomina of distinction are forbidden. Names that mean "great"
or "noble" can be awarded only by the Senate. Names that cannot be
used here include Augustus, Maximus, Magnus, and others as determined
by the Censorial Edict.

Why some citizens here have got cognomens as Felix, Maximus or
similiar ? Have they got it by the censorial edict? And why? What
they made for NR? I only want to know.

Vale
Rufus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Victory at Any Cost. Very Roman
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 03:41:08 EDT

In a message dated 5/16/2001 5:56:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:

on 5/16/01 5:44 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

>> Does anyone remember this
"Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture,
and virtues"

It's on the mainpage of Nova Roma's Web site, for those of you that
have forgotten.

Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
something else, like this
"Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"

Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
ourselves experts at.<<
Salvete Citizens
L. Sicinius Drusus has hit the nail pretty much on the head here. I'm sure
that scholars
and observers who watch the site must be overjoyed. Human nature being human
nature
this proves that we are Roman. The antics that Livius and Tullius even
Polybios describe in their writings about Roman politics reappear here every
election. And yet how many of us are political animals? The citizens are
responding in a time honored way, just as the ancestors they are emulating
did. While I deplore the actions, I am encouraged by the energy and thought.
If we continue emulating Romans like this, there will be a time when we will
just not emulate the political animal, but all aspects of Roman life. It is
just a matter of time.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] HO HUM
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 06:58:16 -0300 (BRT)

On Wed, 16 May 2001 gcassiusnerva@-------- wrote:

> Salvete!
>
> I have to say in all seriousness that I actually feel sorry for Sextus
> Apollonius Draco this evening. Reading his post, I can see a kid who wants
> so badly to be important, and so desperate to impress his paterfamilias. You
> can see this in post. With such self-seriousness he relates his temptation
> to post under another name. So shocking he thinks are the scandalous
> revelations he bears that he expects to be martyred by the list moderator!
> But like Horatius at the bridge, he "has no choice", but to boldly come
> forward and publish "a case of massive corruption in Nova Roma". Typical
> Apollonian bravado and BS.
>
> And after all that dramatic buildup, what is this earth-shaking
> revelation? That, "the citizen whom we all know as Gaius Cassius Nerva, is
> in fact Gaius Lupinius Festus."
>
> Really! And all this time I thought real corruption was things like the
> embezzeling of funds in Brittania or plans to hack into the Nova Roma voting
> system! But, since this is the biggest non-issue of the day, you are all
> entitled to the truth of the matter. But please, so not get your hopes up
> for delicious scandal. It is rather dull.
>
> The "big question" here is, "Who knew that Gaius Cassius Nerva was once Gaius
> Lupinius Festus?" And the answer is, everybody who was concerned. Who were
> they? Well, both censors knew, and the consuls, and the Vestalis Maxima, and
> about a dozen or so others who knew me and were my friends. My
> paterfamilias, Cassius, and his wife knew who I was when I applied, as I
> emailed both of them about coming into their gens. There was *no secret*
> here.
>
> Who did NOT know? Well, for starters, everyone who did NOT know Gaius
> Lupinius Festus, and who I in turn did not know myself! And that is a huge
> list. I have friends here now that I did not know at all last fall. Oppius
> Flaccus, L. Sinicius Drusus, Quintus Sertorius are a few. There are lots of
> people here now who were not even here last fall, and to all these people who
> never had any prior relationship with Gaius Lupinius Festus, there was no
> need to tell anything. If I had made some bold, attention-seeking Fimbrian
> "I'm baaaack!" post, they could all rightfully reply, "who cares?" A
> citiszen they do not even know leaves and returns later in a new gens? Why
> should this be of interest to them?
>
> Other people who did not know were people with whom I share a mutual dislike.
> And why should I announce my return to these people? We do not socialize at
> all. Does Formosanus tell me his business? Does Draco tell me his business?
> No, and there is no reason I should tell them mine.
>
> Like I said, I feel sorry for Draco. All that time collecting his list of
> "evidence" to prove what everyone concerned already knew anyway indicates an
> attention-starved kid with way too much time on his hands. And from the
> reaction, it looks like this attempt at inflaming the populace is blowing up
> in his face. And I apologize for Draco that so much list space has been
> wasted on this non-issue. It really is such a ho-hum.
>
> All that remains to be said is that Draco's contention that Censor Sulla went
> out to break the law by admitting me too early is pathetic. I WAS readmitted
> to early. Instead of coming back in mid-April, I was re-admitted in
> mid-March. A mistake was made, to be learned from and hopefully not
> repeated. However, if the error had NOT occured, nothing today would be
> different and I would still be voting in the current election. So, Draco is
> right to point out the error, wrong to use it as the basis of spurius
> accusations of misconduct against Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Draco would
> do better to denounce real examples of bad behavior, such as the embezzlement
> of NR funds and the plan to break into the NR voting system----both acts by
> Amici Dignitatis associates and friends of the Apollonii.
>
> Gaius Cassius Nerva
Salve,

this confession and implication of the censors can only result in one
action: prosecution by the competent officers of the censors which
disrespected the Roman Law.
The "NO EFFECT" argument does not hold.
If you speed on the road, you get your ticket regardless of causing or not
an accident, even if speed limits were only instaured in order to avoid
accidents.

I must even say that it seems to me that the an honourable exit for the
censor would be to resign after his friend confessed that he was granted
a personnal favour (which I aknowledge had no effect whatsoever on
NovaRoma's Res Publica).

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] HO HUM
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 20:04:00 +1000 (EST)

Ave Gaius Cassius,

I beleive as to your first part of the post that they
are merely defending each other as members of the same
gens. Politicians in Roma Antiqua did the same thing
with the same passion over mere faction members. Is
there anything so very wrong with that?

Vale bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius
Sacerdos Mars Invictus

--- gcassiusnerva@-------- wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Salvete! 
 
 I have to say in all
seriousness that I actually feel sorry for Sextus 
Apollonius Draco this evening. Reading his post,
I can see a kid who wants 
so badly to be important, and so desperate to impress
his paterfamilias. You 
can see this in post. With such self-seriousness
he relates his temptation 
to post under another name. So shocking he
thinks are the scandalous 
revelations he bears that he expects to be martyred by
the list moderator! 
But like Horatius at the bridge, he "has no
choice", but to boldly come 
forward and publish "a case of massive corruption
in Nova Roma". Typical 
Apollonian bravado and BS. 
 
 And after all that dramatic
buildup, what is this earth-shaking 
revelation? That, "the citizen whom we all
know as Gaius Cassius Nerva, is 
in fact Gaius Lupinius Festus." 
 
Really! And all this time I thought real
corruption was things like the 
embezzeling of funds in Brittania or plans to hack
into the Nova Roma voting 
system! But, since this is the biggest
non-issue of the day, you are all 
entitled to the truth of the matter. But please,
so not get your hopes up 
for delicious scandal. It is rather dull. 
 
The "big question" here is, "Who knew
that Gaius Cassius Nerva was once Gaius 
Lupinius Festus?" And the answer is,
everybody who was concerned. Who were 
they? Well, both censors knew, and the consuls,
and the Vestalis Maxima, and 
about a dozen or so others who knew me and were my
friends. My 
paterfamilias, Cassius, and his wife knew who I was
when I applied, as I 
emailed both of them about coming into their
gens. There was *no secret* 
here. 
 
Who did NOT know? Well, for starters, everyone
who did NOT know Gaius 
Lupinius Festus, and who I in turn did not know
myself! And that is a huge 
list. I have friends here now that I did not
know at all last fall. Oppius 
Flaccus, L. Sinicius Drusus, Quintus Sertorius are a
few. There are lots of 
people here now who were not even here last fall, and
to all these people who 
never had any prior relationship with Gaius Lupinius
Festus, there was no 
need to tell anything. If I had made some bold,
attention-seeking Fimbrian 
"I'm baaaack!" post, they could all
rightfully reply, "who cares?" A 
citiszen they do not even know leaves and returns
later in a new gens? Why 
should this be of interest to them? 
 
Other people who did not know were people with whom I
share a mutual dislike. 
And why should I announce my return to these
people? We do not socialize at 
all. Does Formosanus tell me his business?
Does Draco tell me his business? 
No, and there is no reason I should tell them
mine. 
 
Like I said, I feel sorry for Draco. All that
time collecting his list of 
"evidence" to prove what everyone concerned
already knew anyway indicates an 
attention-starved kid with way too much time on his
hands. And from the 
reaction, it looks like this attempt at inflaming the
populace is blowing up 
in his face. And I apologize for Draco that so
much list space has been 
wasted on this non-issue. It really is such a
ho-hum. 
 
All that remains to be said is that Draco's contention
that Censor Sulla went 
out to break the law by admitting me too early is
pathetic. I WAS readmitted 
to early. Instead of coming back in mid-April, I
was re-admitted in 
mid-March. A mistake was made, to be learned
from and hopefully not 
repeated. However, if the error had NOT occured,
nothing today would be 
different and I would still be voting in the current
election. So, Draco is 
right to point out the error, wrong to use it as the
basis of spurius 
accusations of misconduct against Censor Lucius
Cornelius Sulla. Draco would 
do better to denounce real examples of bad behavior,
such as the embezzlement 
of NR funds and the plan to break into the NR voting
system----both acts by 
Amici Dignitatis associates and friends of the
Apollonii. 
 
Gaius Cassius Nerva 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed] 
 
</tt>

 



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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] HO HUM
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 07:05:40 EDT

Sura wrote: "I beleive as to your first part of the post that they are merely
defending each other as members of the same gens."

No. Draco was trying to "get even" with me for my public warning two nights
ago about Rattus/Piscinus' idea to hack into the NR voting system. He and
Draco were not of the same gens, so gens loyalty is not at play here.

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] HO HUM
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 07:08:19 EDT

"...this confession and implication..."

What confession and implication?

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:	[novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 11:50:36 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001 g--------iusnerva@-------- wrote:

Snip

> this confession and implication of the censors can only result in
one
> action: prosecution by the competent officers of the censors which
> disrespected the Roman Law.
> The "NO EFFECT" argument does not hold.
> If you speed on the road, you get your ticket regardless of causing
or not
> an accident, even if speed limits were only instaured in order to
avoid
> accidents.
>
> I must even say that it seems to me that the an honourable exit for
the
> censor would be to resign after his friend confessed that he was
granted
> a personnal favour (which I aknowledge had no effect whatsoever on
> NovaRoma's Res Publica).
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
Salvete,
prosecution? On what Charge?

I Can hear the Praetor now,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, you are charged with sloppy book
keeping, How do you plead?

So far that is the only charge the evidence supports. If you have the
doccuments that show criminal intent, rather than pointing to a
clerical error, then please forward them to the Praetors so they can
prepare for a REAL trial, rather than a Holywood trail staged in the
media.

I consider the right to a fair trial a basic human right, A Right
that I will NOT ignore no matter who the citizen is.

As for the call for resignation, you have the right to your opinion.
However if we are going to call for resignations every time a
Magistrate makes an error, we are going to have a lot of elections.
Why not throw in a call for our Senior Consul's resignation for the
horrible crime of submitting a lex with TWO section B's!

A flaw was found in how the Censors kept their records, the flaw has
been corected.

It's time to move on to something important.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Cognomens ask
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 12:02:34 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, marciusrufus@-------- wrote:
> Salvete
>
> This is part of NR citizenship aplication page:
>
> Cognomina of distinction are forbidden. Names that mean "great"
> or "noble" can be awarded only by the Senate. Names that cannot be
> used here include Augustus, Maximus, Magnus, and others as
determined
> by the Censorial Edict.
>
> Why some citizens here have got cognomens as Felix, Maximus or
> similiar ? Have they got it by the censorial edict? And why? What
> they made for NR? I only want to know.
>
>
>
> Vale
> Rufus

Salve,
These citizens had the names before the rule went into effect. It
didn't force those who had chosen the names under the old rules to
change them, it just prevents any more citizens from awarding
themselves names of distinction.
Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cognomens ask
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 09:10:30 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marci Rufe,

> Why some citizens here have got cognomens as Felix, Maximus or
> similiar ? Have they got it by the censorial edict? And why? What
> they made for NR? I only want to know.

They had those names before the edict was written. No one was forced
to give up an existing name. We even have a Gens Augusta, and I think
people are still allowed to join it, thus gaining a nomen (but not a
cognomen) of "Augustus".

Interestingly, the Censor's edict allows any Senator to award Agnomens
of distinction... therefore, from now on, I wish to be known as
"Magnus Octavius Maximus Magnus Augustus".

(No, not really. :)

Vale, (just plain Marcus) Octavius.

--
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:	[novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	loos@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 14:55:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, lsicinius@-------- wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2001 g--------iusnerva@-------- wrote:
>
> Snip
>
> > this confession and implication of the censors can only result in
> one
> > action: prosecution by the competent officers of the censors which
> > disrespected the Roman Law.
> > The "NO EFFECT" argument does not hold.
> > If you speed on the road, you get your ticket regardless of
causing
> or not
> > an accident, even if speed limits were only instaured in order to
> avoid
> > accidents.
> >
> > I must even say that it seems to me that the an honourable exit
for
> the
> > censor would be to resign after his friend confessed that he was
> granted
> > a personnal favour (which I aknowledge had no effect whatsoever on
> > NovaRoma's Res Publica).
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Manius Villius Limitanus
> >
> Salvete,
> prosecution? On what Charge?
>
> I Can hear the Praetor now,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, you are charged with sloppy book
> keeping, How do you plead?
>
> So far that is the only charge the evidence supports. If you have
the
> doccuments that show criminal intent, rather than pointing to a
> clerical error, then please forward them to the Praetors so they can
> prepare for a REAL trial, rather than a Holywood trail staged in the
> media.
>
> I consider the right to a fair trial a basic human right, A Right
> that I will NOT ignore no matter who the citizen is.
>

So do I. Put for initiating a trial all you need is strong indices.
FACT I: you were readmitted earlier than you should have been
FACT II. In your former mail you confesed that the censores knew it
was you they were readmitting.

This seems enough for me to start a trial.

INDICE I: the censores (or their defensors) alledged they had no way
to know it was you because they could not access the old data.

You just confessed this was a lie since they KNEW it was you because
you told them.

This certainly does not speak in favour of the defense.

INDICE II: Allready knowing they were RE-admiting a citizen it is much
easier to find out when he left, this was obviously not done.

Why ? This will be resolved during the trial.

> As for the call for resignation, you have the right to your opinion.
> However if we are going to call for resignations every time a
> Magistrate makes an error, we are going to have a lot of elections.
> Why not throw in a call for our Senior Consul's resignation for the
> horrible crime of submitting a lex with TWO section B's!
>

Because this an error, in the case of interrest the indices point to
something voluntary, which can be studied during the trial.

Our censor knows if it was voluntary or not, and if it was I think he
should resign.

> A flaw was found in how the Censors kept their records, the flaw has
> been corected.
>

The flaw was the unability of checking if it was a readmission or not,
you confessed they knew it was a readmission.

> It's time to move on to something important.
>

What could be more important than the certitude of that the highest
ranking magistrate respects the constituion ?

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 15:37:53 -0000

Salve,

I think the censors knew who they were readmitting, but were unsure
of how long it had been since his resignition.

Much ado about nothing IMHO.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis

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


Subject:	[novaroma] test <2>
From:	justicecmo@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:14:51 -0000

test <2>

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censor Reform (was: Re: Nerva/Festus)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 09:19:52 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Oppi Flacce.

O.K., ol' pal :-).

I will save my arguments for a proper discussion on this issue, when
the right time arises. I will try, when that opportunity comes, to
contribute to a constructive discussion on this issue, that seems to me
a vital one for the well being of Nova Roma.

See you all there ;-).

--- Oppius Flaccus Severus <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Gnae et Quiritibus;
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> Gnaeus writes:
> The reimplantation of a snail mail system was discussed before. It
> was
> a subject of a poll on this very same list. Of 45 votes presented,
> just
> three were in favour of going back to a snail mail system to address
> the problem of citizenship duplication.
>
> OFS: Unfortunately, we disagree a bit here amice- but
> I'll explain why:
>
> During the previous discussion, a few possible options
> were discussed. Snail mail being one possible venue.
> At that time, I also questioned the wording of the
> poll you presented, as it required absolute choices
> out of few alternatives.
>
> Since the time of the original discussion, I've thought
> about it quite a bit and have come around to the idea
> that there must in fact be multiple possible verification
> methods (of which there would be choices for cives,) to
> fully be effective. As for the moment, there are some
> more pressing issues and projects in NR. Should the
> topic be reopened for discussion, there are some definite
> ideas I have in this area (as I'm sure others have as well.)
>
> Gnaeus writes:
> A snail mail system would not only be a major limit to the growth of
> Nova Roma; it would not solve the duplication issue.
>
> OFS: But looking back at the original issue, the
> duplication issue was but one scenario. There are
> other reasons for verification as well such as
> provincial Census, voter registrations, tax
> purposes and perhaps other issues down the road.
> My point being that this is not a one-dimensional
> issue.
>
> Gnaeus writes:
> Your assumption
> that you could verify an applicant's identity through the stamp on
> the
> envelope or the sender's name and address is simply not correct. A
> snail mail stamp just provides information about where the letter was
> posted, and the sender's name and address not only is not required to
> send a post, but it is childishly easy (think; pen and paper) to
> falsify.
>
> OFS: As far as the limited context presented here, I'd
> agree with you. A stamp and an envelope alone proves
> nothing. It would actually be the contents of the envelope, in
> conjunction with other identifiers (such as phone calls,
> face to face meetings) which would provide the ultimate
> identification. The postmark though does play at least
> a small role in the transaction -if for instance, I'm applying
> for my citizenship in say the Province of America
> Boreoccidentalis -but I mail it from say Texas with
> some *questionable* documents, then it might trigger a
> warning that additional verification might be needed.
>
> An electronic application system (as the one we have today) coupled
> with a little verification through electronic or other means (as
> needed) would be more effective and would not affect the number of
> new
> applicants, in my humble opinion.
>
> OFS: As mentioned above, I think the actual solution involves
> a number of possibilities. They key battle (when the time comes,
> and right now doesn't seem like the time...) will be to find
> some sort of consensus about whether or not *any* form of
> verification is required. There are many here that think
> that *no* form of it is necessary -perhaps barring a few
> words posted in an HTML form. Once there is some agreement
> that some *realistic* form is needed, then it would seem
> to me that the best avenue would be to provide multiple options
> for new cives to make it easier for them. Much like we
> provide people the option of contributing to NR via check
> or PayPal, the same could be utilized between a mixture
> of physical and/or electronic means.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see a comprehensive Lex proposed that
> encompassed a wide variety of options, alternatives and very
> clearly spelled out our reasons for verification, methods,
> requirements, options and magistrates and officials that would
> have a potential role in the process. Once it got to that
> point, then an actual delivery target could be discussed
> for promulgation.
>
> Bene valete,
> Oppius
>
>
> <snipped>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academia Thules.

__________________________________________________
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] Private Attacks from Public E-mails
From:	justicecmo@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:23:35 -0000

**This was sent yesterday at 10:30am but never posted. Please
forgive the delay as I figure out the e-mail troubles. The "good"
news is isn't Yahoo, all my other groups are posting just fine.**

Salve,

I am becoming quite concerned about the recent spate of private
attacks based on posts made here on the Main List. On several
occasions (some public, some private) posters here have complained
that they have been harassed through Instant Messenger and e-mail
because of things they posted here. This is unacceptable behavior,
in my opinion.

To my mind, disagreeing with an idea is one thing, attacking a person
to the point where they feel they have to hide their e-mail address
before expressing themselves is *not* okay. Therefore, I would
request that anyone who finds themselves subject to such harassment
based on things they have posted here please feel free to contact me
privately and I will be happy to assist you. A very important
component of my job is keeping this List open to all citizens without
fear of reprisals if they speak their mind. If there are those among
us who are making that impossible, I want to know so that I may take
appropriate action.

I sincerely hope these few incidents are the exception, not the new
rule. *Everyone* here should be above such juvenile and cowardly
behavior.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Oligarchic Problem
From:	justicecmo@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:27:33 -0000

**This was originally sent to the List at 2pm yesterday but never
posted.**

Salve,

>>The first (as an official group) was dismissed out of hand by
Vedius,and the second was attacked by Vedia.>>

*Once again* you are choosing to use inflammatory language in an
attempt to back your position, regardless of the actual facts in the
matter. How sadly unsurprising.

I clarified that the discussion lists were not official. You say
this was an attack? If you jump at every such shadow your days must
be exhausting indeed.

I must say, this type of irresponsible behavior is *exactly* why so
many find you so irritating. I am sure you'd prefer to be seen as
some noble "voice of conscience" but that is not the case here. Such
a person would, by necessity, value truth above rhetoric and you
clearly do not. You have shown on far too many occasions, here once
again, that you will always choose volume over content.

Priscilla Vedia Serena

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Do you love your guns?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 17:47:48 +0200

Salvete, Quirites Novae Romae,

First off, I must confess it grieves me to see that people whom I have a lot of respect for have come to think of me as a villain, for raising suspicions, of which 2/3 so far have all been proven right. I understand your distrust, but I would ask you to give me a little credit -- I am not the opportunistic monster I'm made out to be by "the usual suspects".

The other reactions I have seen thusfar are very predictable, and don't surprise me a bit. Since I don't have the time and energy to reply to every single point on the matter, I will only reply to a few snippets from some postings.

--> On another note: citizens, I would urge you to read my replies, even though you may not be in for another round of shadowboxing or whatever. This _might_ be important.

Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:

(snipped)

> 1.Nerva may NOT be Festus

(snipped)

Well, I think this has been proven wrong. He admitted it himself.

> 2.Let's say for the sake of argument, Nerva is Festus. If so, do you
> have proof that Sulla actually knew this before approving Nerva's
> application for citizenship? If not, your whole argument falls apart,
> amici mei, since you have actually based your accusation against Sulla
> and his leges based on this one point. If you do have proof, this was
> a matter for the Praetores to address and it was your duty to bring
> this forward.
>

Nerva admitted Sulla knew he was Festus. "Sloppy record keeping"? I'm sorry, but that sounds quite like an excuse to me. And quite a rediculous one, too. If one promotes laws he co-authored so ardently, and doesn't live up to them because of "sloppy record keeping", then I think those laws are a joke. I'm sure that if I would have reapplied in Festus' place, I would have been met with much more officialism. That's not just an assertion, because it's generally known Festus/Nerva and Sulla were/are friends.

> 3. Even if you do have proof, and it is truly a case of despicable
> behavior, have you robbed your own cause of any moral validity by
> descending to the same or an even lower level of conduct? If your
> accusation is true, I personally will have some very serious thinking
> to do about my association with my Gens and with Nova Roma in general.
> If not, I will tell you with all honesty that the respect I have for
> you will fall completely by the wayside.
>

I pray to the Gods that I am correct. But to what conduct have I lowered myself? Merely by announcing my thoughts, I have allegedly caused a major disruption, but let me say that this disruption is also the fault of the people who reacted. I may be responsible for the way in which they react, but I am not responsible for their personalities which make other things and slips happen. Scipio, I have much respect for you, and I hope that this cause will not widen the distance between us. If it does, so be it, but it will be a much regretted distance.

(snipped)

Oppius Flaccus Severus scripsit:

(snipped)

> Draco: both you and Formosanus have engaged in the
> worst type of dealing that I can imagine -the alleged
> 'mystery witness.' This is sheer replay of Saturninus
> at its worst; excepting now the accusations that you
> fling high and low are being 'legitimized' by 'ex citizens' and
> 'mystery citizens.' Well, I daresay these are same
> types of "citizens" which are sending personal unsigned
> e-mails and engaging in 'snipe and run' attacks on
> all those that disagree with them. Same goes on
> the main list. The "names" like 'Tickle' come
> to mind. Indeed, troll posting at its finest. And to
> think how the extreme the reaction was from your pater
> and yourself when certain tasteless anonymous posts were
> being made about yourselves.
>

If you contact me off list, I will tell you who my mystery witness is. I simply cannot do so here. I don't know if you intended it so, but for the record: I am __not__ to be associated with "Tickle Tickle", plus, snipe and run attacks are not possible on this mailing list, due to the vigilance of our Curatrix Sermonis. And on an ending note: I didn't react with disgust to the Deformosanus troll. I found it a lame joke not even worth to laugh, nothing more. You can look that up in the archives.

> What's worse, we now have cives like Marcus Sentius that
> are apparently being mailed by anonymous snipers that don't
> have the decency or courage to stand out in the open like
> men and women -like *Romans* and engage in public dialog.
> This along with the 'mystery cives' of Draco et Formosanus
> is in a word -disgusting.
>

Also for the record: I haven't been sending Marcus Sentius hate mail. Nor did Formosanus.

> If you do have something to present in this forum, -perhaps think again
> as to your reasons for presenting it. Is it *really* in
> the best interests of the Respublica; or is it a cheap
> shot solely designed to rally the mob to your soapbox.

It is in the best intrests of the res publica. I'm smart enough to know that posting such emails would only rally mobs against me, and certainly in Nova Roma. So no, I didn't do it for my own sake.

Raina Cornelia Aeternia scripsit:

> I have one question. Are you calling me a dictator? What do I have to around
> here not to be labeled that atrocious word!?!

I have not labelled you as a tyrant. And last time someone labeled you that way, he was only joking, and that was more than a year ago. You in turn became so angry with him that he almost left NR. That was my frater Quintus, if you remember.

> Before I say anything else I
> would like to remind Sextus Apollonius Draco of something. The Sodalitas
> Musarum is very unique you don't have to be a citizen to post any work. When
> approached by Festus I didn't see any harm in approving his membership, he
> did ask me in confidence not to reveal his identity, I assumed it was
> because of all the hoopla raised in the past.

What hoopla?

> I didn't have a clue about the
> "Deformosanus" post I really didn't. When first having read it I did chuckle
> a bit I couldn't help myself, and later on apologized to the Musarum for
> even laughing at such a thing. Remember that Draco? Do you remember all the
> commotion your Pater raised on the Musarum about his moderation via the
> mainlist those recent months ago? Do you remember few were wanting to leave
> because of it?

I remember it. But it has nothing to do with you being aware of the true identity of Apollo and Co. I really don't think this minor fact deserves such a scene.

> I'm assumming the "Deformosanus" was written as a Satirical
> strike against it.

No. Deformosanus was written earlier.

(snipped)

Gaius Cassius Nerva scripsit:

> I have to say in all seriousness that I actually feel sorry for Sextus
> Apollonius Draco this evening. Reading his post, I can see a kid who wants
> so badly to be important, and so desperate to impress his paterfamilias. You
> can see this in post. With such self-seriousness he relates his temptation
> to post under another name. So shocking he thinks are the scandalous
> revelations he bears that he expects to be martyred by the list moderator!
> But like Horatius at the bridge, he "has no choice", but to boldly come
> forward and publish "a case of massive corruption in Nova Roma". Typical
> Apollonian bravado and BS.
>

Wait... Is that a defence? Ah, no. It is your usual sarcastic way of making hollow assumptions sound like reasonable statements. They are not. I am not a kid. In all honesty, I think using sarcasm to defend yourself from an accusation is much more childish than trying to come across serious in a serious matter. If you can't handle things, fine, but please admit that you can't instead of wasting your brain capacity on it.

> And after all that dramatic buildup, what is this earth-shaking
> revelation? That, "the citizen whom we all know as Gaius Cassius Nerva, is
> in fact Gaius Lupinius Festus."
>
> Really! And all this time I thought real corruption was things like the
> embezzeling of funds in Brittania or plans to hack into the Nova Roma voting
> system! But, since this is the biggest non-issue of the day, you are all
> entitled to the truth of the matter. But please, so not get your hopes up
> for delicious scandal. It is rather dull.
>
> The "big question" here is, "Who knew that Gaius Cassius Nerva was once Gaius
> Lupinius Festus?" And the answer is, everybody who was concerned. Who were
> they? Well, both censors knew, and the consuls, and the Vestalis Maxima, and
> about a dozen or so others who knew me and were my friends. My
> paterfamilias, Cassius, and his wife knew who I was when I applied, as I
> emailed both of them about coming into their gens. There was *no secret*
> here.
>

Was it not? Then why didn't you say so in the first place? Why did you ask Aeternia not to reveal your identity? If a former citizen returns, I think everyone would like to know that. Operating secretly tends to give the impression you're hiding something others aren't entitled to know.

> Who did NOT know? Well, for starters, everyone who did NOT know Gaius
> Lupinius Festus, and who I in turn did not know myself!

This is a lie. A list of people who have known you, but didn't know this (at least not from you): Formosanus, Vado, Piscinus, Marius, my frater Quintus, Labienus, Livia Aurelia, Marcus Marcius, a large part of the Senate and myself.

(snipped)

> A citiszen they do not even know leaves and returns later in a new gens? Why
> should this be of interest to them?
>

And why not? Or didn't you want to let "old familiars" who were your opponents know that you were... admitted too early?

(snipped)

> Like I said, I feel sorry for Draco. All that time collecting his list of
> "evidence" to prove what everyone concerned already knew anyway indicates an
> attention-starved kid with way too much time on his hands.

If you're trying to insult me, it didn't work. I guess your level of maturity shows here. Your attempt at minimalizing everything and discredit me didn't really work.

(snipped)

---------------------------
---------------------------

Citizens!

In these few postings, there are at least some suspicions of mine confirmed.

1. Nerva is Festus
2. Both Censores were aware of it
3. Nerva/Festus was admitted too early
4. The trolling "Deformosanus" and "Apollo and Co" were Festus in disguise

Censor Sulla denies he knew #3 at the time of his readmission. But Censor Sulla is also friends with Nerva, so when things become informal, things can get "sloppy", as we all know.

Am I a rabid revolutionary? Am I a kid with too much time? Am I a demagogue? Citizens, decide for yourselves. Indeed, the worst of the Roman Republic has been recreated -- but that is _not_ my fault. I'm not a NovaRoman official who guides this nation. I am a citizen, dedicated to make this a healthy haven for Romans around the world.

But hey, feel free to shoot me if you want to. In ancient Greece, messengers of bad news were usually executed as a compensation for the bad news. It seems that this habit has survived the centuries.

---------------------------
---------------------------

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] Re: Private Attacks from Public E-mails
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:32:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, justicecmo@g... wrote:
> **This was sent yesterday at 10:30am but never posted. Please
> forgive the delay as I figure out the e-mail troubles. The "good"
> news is isn't Yahoo, all my other groups are posting just fine.**
>
> Salve,
>
> I am becoming quite concerned about the recent spate of private
> attacks based on posts made here on the Main List. On several
> occasions (some public, some private) posters here have complained
> that they have been harassed through Instant Messenger and e-mail
> because of things they posted here. This is unacceptable behavior,
> in my opinion.
>
> To my mind, disagreeing with an idea is one thing, attacking a
person
> to the point where they feel they have to hide their e-mail address
> before expressing themselves is *not* okay. Therefore, I would
> request that anyone who finds themselves subject to such harassment
> based on things they have posted here please feel free to contact
me
> privately and I will be happy to assist you. A very important
> component of my job is keeping this List open to all citizens
without
> fear of reprisals if they speak their mind. If there are those
among
> us who are making that impossible, I want to know so that I may
take
> appropriate action.
>
> I sincerely hope these few incidents are the exception, not the new
> rule. *Everyone* here should be above such juvenile and cowardly
> behavior.
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis

Salvete,

Indeed such behavior would appear to be in violation of the Lex
Fabia. If after being asked to stop, the offerner(s) do not, the
matter should be submitted to the Praetors.

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 18:32:26 +0200

Salve!

>
> I think the censors knew who they were readmitting, but were unsure
> of how long it had been since his resignition.
>

If they were unsure, why did they not check it?

Vale bene,
Draco

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:42:14 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salve!
>
> >
> > I think the censors knew who they were readmitting, but were
unsure
> > of how long it had been since his resignition.
> >
>
> If they were unsure, why did they not check it?
>
> Vale bene,
> Draco

Salve Sexti Apolloni (hope that's correct),

Ah yes shadowboxing.

I believe the censors did not have the data to check until Marcus
Octaviaus modified the access to such records yesterday.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Law was: HO HUM
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:41:19 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, loos@q... wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, lsicinius@-------- wrote:
> > --- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2001 g--------iusnerva@-------- wrote:
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > this confession and implication of the censors can only result
in
> > one
> > > action: prosecution by the competent officers of the censors
which
> > > disrespected the Roman Law.
> > > The "NO EFFECT" argument does not hold.
> > > If you speed on the road, you get your ticket regardless of
> causing
> > or not
> > > an accident, even if speed limits were only instaured in order
to
> > avoid
> > > accidents.
> > >
> > > I must even say that it seems to me that the an honourable exit
> for
> > the
> > > censor would be to resign after his friend confessed that he
was
> > granted
> > > a personnal favour (which I aknowledge had no effect whatsoever
on
> > > NovaRoma's Res Publica).
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Manius Villius Limitanus
> > >
> > Salvete,
> > prosecution? On what Charge?
> >
> > I Can hear the Praetor now,
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, you are charged with sloppy book
> > keeping, How do you plead?
> >
> > So far that is the only charge the evidence supports. If you have
> the
> > doccuments that show criminal intent, rather than pointing to a
> > clerical error, then please forward them to the Praetors so they
can
> > prepare for a REAL trial, rather than a Holywood trail staged in
the
> > media.
> >
> > I consider the right to a fair trial a basic human right, A Right
> > that I will NOT ignore no matter who the citizen is.
> >
>
> So do I. Put for initiating a trial all you need is strong indices.
> FACT I: you were readmitted earlier than you should have been
> FACT II. In your former mail you confesed that the censores knew it
> was you they were readmitting.
>
> This seems enough for me to start a trial.
>
> INDICE I: the censores (or their defensors) alledged they had no
way
> to know it was you because they could not access the old data.
>
> You just confessed this was a lie since they KNEW it was you because
> you told them.
>
> This certainly does not speak in favour of the defense.
>
> INDICE II: Allready knowing they were RE-admiting a citizen it is
much
> easier to find out when he left, this was obviously not done.
>
> Why ? This will be resolved during the trial.
>
> > As for the call for resignation, you have the right to your
opinion.
> > However if we are going to call for resignations every time a
> > Magistrate makes an error, we are going to have a lot of
elections.
> > Why not throw in a call for our Senior Consul's resignation for
the
> > horrible crime of submitting a lex with TWO section B's!
> >
>
> Because this an error, in the case of interrest the indices point to
> something voluntary, which can be studied during the trial.
>
> Our censor knows if it was voluntary or not, and if it was I think
he
> should resign.
>
> > A flaw was found in how the Censors kept their records, the flaw
has
> > been corected.
> >
>
> The flaw was the unability of checking if it was a readmission or
not,
> you confessed they knew it was a readmission.
>
> > It's time to move on to something important.
> >
>
> What could be more important than the certitude of that the highest
> ranking magistrate respects the constituion ?
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> > Valete,
> > L. Sicinius Drusus

Salvete Omnes,

For those of you who wish to persue this matter.

The procedure is to present your case before the Praetor, stating
that you wish to prosecute a citizen. Give the Praetor your evidance.

The Praetor will decide if you have enough evidance, and if you do he
will call one of the Comitia to hear the trial, and it has to be the
Centuries if loss of citizenship is the penality.

If you are charging a Pleb, then the tribunes have the authority to
summon the comitia plebis tributa for a trial. Since both Censors are
Patrican, this option does not apply.

IF a trial is held you will have the chance to present your case, and
the citizen you are bringing charges will present his case.

The citizens will then decide the matter.

Posts on the mainlist are NOT the proper way of holding a fair trial.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 11:48:35 -0500 (CDT)

Salve,

> I believe the censors did not have the data to check until Marcus
> Octaviaus modified the access to such records yesterday.

Actually, the data's always been there, it's just that the censors
didn't know how to look for it. I sent them the results of a query
giving the names of all resigned citizens, and will soon look at the
tools to see if I can make it easier for them to find the information
themselves.

Dates of resignation aren't stored in the database, but there's a
log file that I can check to see when a change to anyone's status
is made.

Vale, Octavius.

--
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:	[novaroma] Sen. Sulla
From:	<domusludus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:50:15 -0000

Salvete,

I must address the comment made about Sulla being "anti-gay". Sulla and I have had our differences. We have been close and we have been at each others throats. However, no matter what I may have called him in the past, the Senator is NOT anti-gay. End of discussion.

Pax vobiscum,
Seia Silvania Atia

Founder: Sodalis Familiaris http://home.earthlink.net/~domusludus/

The Temple of Juno
http://home.earthlink.net/~domusludus/temple/

The Domus Ludus Library
http://mylibrary.keeboo.com/public/domusludus/

<< powered by http://www.norada.com >>

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Do you love your guns?
From:	justicecmo@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:53:21 -0000

Salve,

I think your attempt at sounding like some noble defender of our
Nation is weak at best. The fact is, you knew all of these things
about Festus/Nerva for quite some time and YET, you chose to stay
silent until such time as Festus/Nerva exposed the low-class antics
of your friend Piscinius.

Now, as I have said before, I am personally glad that the
Festus=Nerva thing is out in the open. I have no problems at all
with that having come to the light of day. I also have no problem
with our examining the issue of re-admittance and how that was
handled by both Censors.

What I have a *definite* problem with is your attempt to mask
opportunism in honor. Your own admission that you chose to come
forward now due to his "attack" on Piscinius removes any doubt that
you acted NOT as some staunch "defender of a healthy Nation" but
simply as the angry friend of a former citizen who knew he had
a "rock" to throw and did so.

Nothing inherently *wrong* with that mind you, but certainly nothing
noble in it either.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 12:00:24 US/Central

Salve Gai Popilli

> Salve Sexti Apolloni (hope that's correct),

-us becomes -e in salutations (the vocative case), and -ius becomes -i.
Therefore, it should be 'Sexte Apolloni'. You were half right, which isn't
bad. It took me a while to learn as well.

> I believe the censors did not have the data to check until Marcus
> Octaviaus modified the access to such records yesterday.

That is incorrect. When he resigned, C Lupinius sent a message to this list.
It's a relatively simple, if moderately time consuming, task to search the
archives for that message. Since the message has a date-time stamp attached,
it provides exactly the sort of record required. How else would S Apollonius
have determined that Nerva had been readmitted prematurely?

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] test
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 12:02:50 -0400

test

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Welcome Back!!!
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 13:41:17 -0400 (EDT)

Citizen Gaius Cassius Nerva;

Upon your revelation of yourself , I welcome you back to Nova Roma. I
am mot pleased at your return, and I am sure that Nova Roma will again
benefit from your efforts as she did previously. Your service to me as
a Consular Assensai was much appreciated, and my regrets at your
departure were genuine.

Therefore, I take great pleasure in being able to state my welcome
publicly, and assure all those who are new to Nova Roma, that this
gentleman has served the micronation well in the past, and he has but to
ask for admission to any institution in Nova Roma where I have any
influence at all, and I will be pleased to honor gladly such a request.

Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: HO HUM
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 17:41:19 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:

> It's a relatively simple, if moderately time consuming, task to
search the
> archives for that message. Since the message has a date-time stamp
attached,
> it provides exactly the sort of record required. How else would S
Apollonius
> have determined that Nerva had been readmitted prematurely?
>
> Vale
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Salve Tite Labiene,

You make a good point.

And thank you for the Latin lesson. To paraphrase, I wouldn't want
people referring to me as "that Tennessean hayseed with no Latin".

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: test
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 17:49:53 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:

> test

Your message came through Priscilla.

Pompeia

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Cognomens ask
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 17:54:26 -0000

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Interestingly, the Censor's edict allows any Senator to award
Agnomens
> of distinction... therefore, from now on, I wish to be known as
> "Magnus Octavius Maximus Magnus Augustus".
>
> (No, not really. :)
>
> Vale, (just plain Marcus) Octavius.

Marce Octavi........no, keep these names. We can use the resultant
acronym as a short form: MOMMA!!!

.........kidding :) Couldn't resist!!!

Chuckles,
Pompeia Cornelia
>
> --
> 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: Do you love your guns?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 20:13:48 +0200

Salve Priscilla Vedia,

> I think your attempt at sounding like some noble defender of our
> Nation is weak at best. The fact is, you knew all of these things
> about Festus/Nerva for quite some time and YET, you chose to stay
> silent until such time as Festus/Nerva exposed the low-class antics
> of your friend Piscinius.
>
> Now, as I have said before, I am personally glad that the
> Festus=Nerva thing is out in the open. I have no problems at all
> with that having come to the light of day. I also have no problem
> with our examining the issue of re-admittance and how that was
> handled by both Censors.
>
> What I have a *definite* problem with is your attempt to mask
> opportunism in honor. Your own admission that you chose to come
> forward now due to his "attack" on Piscinius removes any doubt that
> you acted NOT as some staunch "defender of a healthy Nation" but
> simply as the angry friend of a former citizen who knew he had
> a "rock" to throw and did so.
>
> Nothing inherently *wrong* with that mind you, but certainly nothing
> noble in it either.

For me, it was a matter of timing. It was no naked opportunism, but in order
for something to have somewhat of an effect you need to have some timing.

Vale bene!
Draco

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Is it discriminatory?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 20:29:32 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

We have been debating, Censor Sulla and I, whether his name-change
edictum was discriminatory against transgendering individuals changing
their names. The previous part of the dialogue was:

> Censor Sulla is now trying to convince us that his name-change
> edictum is non-discrimnatory and that he is not prejudiced against
gays.

Sulla: It is non discriminatory. Does the Lex prohibit homosexuals or
transgendered or even hermaphrodites from becoming citizens or holding
political office or participating in any venue of Nova Roma....the
answer is NO it does not.

RESPONDEO: This is a non sequitur. No one accused him of having written
in provisions for simply banning anyone - simply of discriminating
against the transgendering

What is "discrimination"? Normally in a political sense it is taken to
mean that some group is distinguished from others and a (usually
negative) special treatment is applied to its members.

Now in this case those persons having personal reasons to change the
gender of their Roman names are required to provide documentation from
outside authorities before being allowed to have the name they wish.
Persons choosing a gender for the first time are not required to do
this, nor are those wishing to change names from one gender to another
of the same gender.

In the ordinary use of English, this is "discrimination". A group - a
non-criminal group, mind you - is separated out from the populace as a
whole and forced to provide documentation. And that documentation can
sometimes require court appearances, filing fees, bankruptcy
proceedings, lawyers' fees, and invasion of the privacy that should
ontain with resepect to personal medical records. That or any part of
that is surely a burdensome requirement, and it is one limited to a
specified sexual minority group - those wishing to change the gender of
their names.

Whatever one thinks of the desirability or undesirability of this, it is
*discrimination* as one usually uses the word, and the flat assertion
that it is not is an outright assertion of an untruth.

Valete!

M. Apollonius Formosanus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] What Action Shall be Taken?
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 21:15:38 +0200

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

Having followed the discussion of the revelation of the true
identity of Festus/Nerva and the fact that he was admitted in violation
of the Censorial edict relating to returning cives, I can only conclude
that there is enough evidence against the Censor Sulla at least to
justify an official investigation or trial. I am not sure whether
Festus/Nerva should be treated as having tried to evade the law by
applying for readmission so far in advance of the earliest date on which
he could be legally readmitted. The exact r�le of the Paterfamilias in
this affair would also seem to merit investigation. What did he know and
what did he reveal to the Censors?

I find it incredible on the face of it that if Festus/Nerva were
going to return to Nova Roma he would neglect to discuss this fact with
Sulla, a good friend and ally. If he were not going to associate with
his old friends why bother to come back? Was it not Sulla's duty to
inform his colleague if necessary in order to prevent an early return?
And to actively advise and warn Festus/Nerva not to try an illegally
early return? And if he was unsure about the date, was it not his duty
to check? The data were there, Octavius was available to be asked (and
he has just shown us on this list how rapidly he can respond),
supposedly paper printouts are kept as a backup, and presumably even
Festus/Nerva could have been asked. How could Sulla have promulgated
this edict if he did not organise his data resources to make a check
possible?

There is much evidence to point to a knowing disregard for the
edictum supposedly binding (under the Constitution) upon the magistrate
who made it. We have observed how Censor Sulla a bit over a year ago
crystalised his own will into the original Gender Edictum, and how he
then applied it and its successor to his enemy Marius in an extreme
interpretation unfavourable to that citizen's hopes. Now we seem to be
seeing how the Censor is willing to be sloppily lenient with his friends
(on the best interpretation of his actions), and again he seems to
regard the binding edictum as being just an extension of his personal
will which he can arbitrarily set aside for his friends and supporters.

The Censor having fallen under this justified cloud of suspicion
should be given a systematic opportunity to have his case examined by
competent authorities so that he might be cleared or so that action
might be taken with respect to him if the allegations are found true.

The Praetores and the Senate know - they are subscribers to this
Main List which is our central forum. What more need be done to get
either an official investigation going (with a detailed public report to
follow) or a trial if that would be more appropriate?

Valete!

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:47:48 +0200
From: "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Subject: Do you love your guns?

Salvete, Quirites Novae Romae,

First off, I must confess it grieves me to see that people whom I have a
lot of respect for
have come to think of me as a villain, for raising suspicions, of which
2/3 so far have all
been proven right. I understand your distrust, but I would ask you to
give me a little credit
-- I am not the opportunistic monster I'm made out to be by "the usual
suspects".

The other reactions I have seen thusfar are very predictable, and don't
surprise me a bit.
Since I don't have the time and energy to reply to every single point on
the matter, I will
only reply to a few snippets from some postings.

--> On another note: citizens, I would urge you to read my replies, even
though you may not be
in for another round of shadowboxing or whatever. This _might_ be
important.

Marcus Cornelius Scipio scripsit:

(snipped)

> 1.Nerva may NOT be Festus

(snipped)

Well, I think this has been proven wrong. He admitted it himself.

> 2.Let's say for the sake of argument, Nerva is Festus. If so, do you
> have proof that Sulla actually knew this before approving Nerva's
> application for citizenship? If not, your whole argument falls apart,
> amici mei, since you have actually based your accusation against Sulla

> and his leges based on this one point. If you do have proof, this was
> a matter for the Praetores to address and it was your duty to bring
> this forward.
>

Nerva admitted Sulla knew he was Festus. "Sloppy record keeping"? I'm
sorry, but that sounds
quite like an excuse to me. And quite a rediculous one, too. If one
promotes laws he
co-authored so ardently, and doesn't live up to them because of "sloppy
record keeping", then I
think those laws are a joke. I'm sure that if I would have reapplied in
Festus' place, I would
have been met with much more officialism. That's not just an assertion,
because it's generally
known Festus/Nerva and Sulla were/are friends.

> 3. Even if you do have proof, and it is truly a case of despicable
> behavior, have you robbed your own cause of any moral validity by
> descending to the same or an even lower level of conduct? If your
> accusation is true, I personally will have some very serious thinking
> to do about my association with my Gens and with Nova Roma in general.

> If not, I will tell you with all honesty that the respect I have for
> you will fall completely by the wayside.
>

I pray to the Gods that I am correct. But to what conduct have I lowered
myself? Merely by
announcing my thoughts, I have allegedly caused a major disruption, but
let me say that this
disruption is also the fault of the people who reacted. I may be
responsible for the way in
which they react, but I am not responsible for their personalities which
make other things and
slips happen. Scipio, I have much respect for you, and I hope that this
cause will not widen
the distance between us. If it does, so be it, but it will be a much
regretted distance.

(snipped)

Oppius Flaccus Severus scripsit:

(snipped)

> Draco: both you and Formosanus have engaged in the
> worst type of dealing that I can imagine -the alleged
> 'mystery witness.' This is sheer replay of Saturninus
> at its worst; excepting now the accusations that you
> fling high and low are being 'legitimized' by 'ex citizens' and
> 'mystery citizens.' Well, I daresay these are same
> types of "citizens" which are sending personal unsigned
> e-mails and engaging in 'snipe and run' attacks on
> all those that disagree with them. Same goes on
> the main list. The "names" like 'Tickle' come
> to mind. Indeed, troll posting at its finest. And to
> think how the extreme the reaction was from your pater
> and yourself when certain tasteless anonymous posts were
> being made about yourselves.
>

If you contact me off list, I will tell you who my mystery witness is. I
simply cannot do so
here. I don't know if you intended it so, but for the record: I am
__not__ to be associated
with "Tickle Tickle", plus, snipe and run attacks are not possible on
this mailing list, due to
the vigilance of our Curatrix Sermonis. And on an ending note: I didn't
react with disgust to
the Deformosanus troll. I found it a lame joke not even worth to laugh,
nothing more. You can
look that up in the archives.

> What's worse, we now have cives like Marcus Sentius that
> are apparently being mailed by anonymous snipers that don't
> have the decency or courage to stand out in the open like
> men and women -like *Romans* and engage in public dialog.
> This along with the 'mystery cives' of Draco et Formosanus
> is in a word -disgusting.
>

Also for the record: I haven't been sending Marcus Sentius hate mail.
Nor did Formosanus.

> If you do have something to present in this forum, -perhaps think
again
> as to your reasons for presenting it. Is it *really* in
> the best interests of the Respublica; or is it a cheap
> shot solely designed to rally the mob to your soapbox.

It is in the best intrests of the res publica. I'm smart enough to know
that posting such
emails would only rally mobs against me, and certainly in Nova Roma. So
no, I didn't do it for
my own sake.

Raina Cornelia Aeternia scripsit:

> I have one question. Are you calling me a dictator? What do I have to
around
> here not to be labeled that atrocious word!?!

I have not labelled you as a tyrant. And last time someone labeled you
that way, he was only
joking, and that was more than a year ago. You in turn became so angry
with him that he almost
left NR. That was my frater Quintus, if you remember.

> Before I say anything else I
> would like to remind Sextus Apollonius Draco of something. The
Sodalitas
> Musarum is very unique you don't have to be a citizen to post any
work. When
> approached by Festus I didn't see any harm in approving his
membership, he
> did ask me in confidence not to reveal his identity, I assumed it was
> because of all the hoopla raised in the past.

What hoopla?

> I didn't have a clue about the
> "Deformosanus" post I really didn't. When first having read it I did
chuckle
> a bit I couldn't help myself, and later on apologized to the Musarum
for
> even laughing at such a thing. Remember that Draco? Do you remember
all the
> commotion your Pater raised on the Musarum about his moderation via
the
> mainlist those recent months ago? Do you remember few were wanting to
leave
> because of it?

I remember it. But it has nothing to do with you being aware of the true
identity of Apollo and
Co. I really don't think this minor fact deserves such a scene.

> I'm assumming the "Deformosanus" was written as a Satirical
> strike against it.

No. Deformosanus was written earlier.

(snipped)

Gaius Cassius Nerva scripsit:

> I have to say in all seriousness that I actually feel sorry for
Sextus
> Apollonius Draco this evening. Reading his post, I can see a kid who
wants
> so badly to be important, and so desperate to impress his
paterfamilias. You
> can see this in post. With such self-seriousness he relates his
temptation
> to post under another name. So shocking he thinks are the scandalous
> revelations he bears that he expects to be martyred by the list
moderator!
> But like Horatius at the bridge, he "has no choice", but to boldly
come
> forward and publish "a case of massive corruption in Nova Roma".
Typical
> Apollonian bravado and BS.
>

Wait... Is that a defence? Ah, no. It is your usual sarcastic way of
making hollow assumptions
sound like reasonable statements. They are not. I am not a kid. In all
honesty, I think using
sarcasm to defend yourself from an accusation is much more childish than
trying to come across
serious in a serious matter. If you can't handle things, fine, but
please admit that you can't
instead of wasting your brain capacity on it.

> And after all that dramatic buildup, what is this earth-shaking
> revelation? That, "the citizen whom we all know as Gaius Cassius
Nerva, is
> in fact Gaius Lupinius Festus."
>
> Really! And all this time I thought real corruption was things like
the
> embezzeling of funds in Brittania or plans to hack into the Nova Roma
voting
> system! But, since this is the biggest non-issue of the day, you are
all
> entitled to the truth of the matter. But please, so not get your
hopes up
> for delicious scandal. It is rather dull.
>
> The "big question" here is, "Who knew that Gaius Cassius Nerva was
once Gaius
> Lupinius Festus?" And the answer is, everybody who was concerned.
Who were
> they? Well, both censors knew, and the consuls, and the Vestalis
Maxima, and
> about a dozen or so others who knew me and were my friends. My
> paterfamilias, Cassius, and his wife knew who I was when I applied, as
I
> emailed both of them about coming into their gens. There was *no
secret*
> here.
>

Was it not? Then why didn't you say so in the first place? Why did you
ask Aeternia not to
reveal your identity? If a former citizen returns, I think everyone
would like to know that.
Operating secretly tends to give the impression you're hiding something
others aren't entitled
to know.

> Who did NOT know? Well, for starters, everyone who did NOT know Gaius

> Lupinius Festus, and who I in turn did not know myself!

This is a lie. A list of people who have known you, but didn't know this
(at least not from
you): Formosanus, Vado, Piscinus, Marius, my frater Quintus, Labienus,
Livia Aurelia, Marcus
Marcius, a large part of the Senate and myself.

(snipped)

> A citiszen they do not even know leaves and returns later in a new
gens? Why
> should this be of interest to them?
>

And why not? Or didn't you want to let "old familiars" who were your
opponents know that you
were... admitted too early?

(snipped)

> Like I said, I feel sorry for Draco. All that time collecting his
list of
> "evidence" to prove what everyone concerned already knew anyway
indicates an
> attention-starved kid with way too much time on his hands.

If you're trying to insult me, it didn't work. I guess your level of
maturity shows here. Your
attempt at minimalizing everything and discredit me didn't really work.

(snipped)

---------------------------
---------------------------

Citizens!

In these few postings, there are at least some suspicions of mine
confirmed.

1. Nerva is Festus
2. Both Censores were aware of it
3. Nerva/Festus was admitted too early
4. The trolling "Deformosanus" and "Apollo and Co" were Festus in
disguise

Censor Sulla denies he knew #3 at the time of his readmission. But
Censor Sulla is also friends
with Nerva, so when things become informal, things can get "sloppy", as
we all know.

Am I a rabid revolutionary? Am I a kid with too much time? Am I a
demagogue? Citizens, decide
for yourselves. Indeed, the worst of the Roman Republic has been
recreated -- but that is _not_
my fault. I'm not a NovaRoman official who guides this nation. I am a
citizen, dedicated to
make this a healthy haven for Romans around the world.

But hey, feel free to shoot me if you want to. In ancient Greece,
messengers of bad news were
usually executed as a compensation for the bad news. It seems that this
habit has survived the
centuries.

---------------------------
---------------------------

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Don't kill the messenger!
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 15:09:18 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/2001 9:32:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:

<< But hey, feel free to shoot me if you want to. In ancient Greece,
messengers of bad news were usually executed as a compensation for the bad
news. It seems that this habit has survived the centuries.
>>
Salvete Sextus Apollonius Draco, Citizens.

First off you are entitled to your opinion. Second, since this list is read
by over 300 people who don't know history don't make inaccurate statements.
Oriental powers tended to execute messengers with bad news not the Hellens.
The phase "Don't kill the messenger!"
which is a Greek phrase, came about because of tales of Persian satryps
doing just this, and those rumors coming to the Ionian Islands. That's not
to say that Greeks did not kill messengers. If the message was highly
sensitive, and the bearer had to memorize it, there was a chance that he
would be strangled after delivering it, since he wasn't cleared to know such
info. But not because the news was bad. See "News & Society in the Greek
Polis" (Lewis) for more on this phenomenon.

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Reenactment
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT)

For those Citizens Who May Be Interested;

I will be away this evening to attend a reenactment in Templeton, Mass.
I will be there from about noon Friday until 4:00 P.M. on Sunday. I
will be staying at a motel in the area. I should be pleased to meet
face-to-face with anyone interested, and perhaps have a few drinks or
dinner together on Friday or Saturday Evening.

You can find me in the Union Camp on the Senior Officer's Staff
Line--ask for Ian McKay--all know who I am (you may also look for both
red and blue flags in front of the tent).

Respectfully;
Marcus Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Private Attacks from Public E-mail comments
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 15:32:28 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/2001 9:37:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ksterne@-------- writes:
 attacks based on posts made here on the Main List. On several
> occasions (some public, some private) posters here have complained
> that they have been harassed through Instant Messenger and e-mail
> because of things they posted here. This is unacceptable behavior,
> in my opinion. >>

Salvete,
At this point I think I should make things very clear on private attacks and
harassment through PRIVATE e-mail and IM software.

If a citizen is so attacked and they tell the harasser "NO MORE" any further
harassment is illegal under the Lex Fabia. NO means NO! I don't really care
if the person killed your father, you are in love with them passionately, or
the person in your opinion is lower than an earthworm and is a danger to the
State. If NO is relayed you MUST stop. ALL Romans receive this protection
under the Law. This also means factions you disagree with, Magistrates who
think they are demigods, etc. ALL are PROTECTED...

This posting was for all of you new citizens who may not be aware of the Law
and its ramifications for your protection.
I hope this is now clear and we will have no more incidents.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Update on Tribune Sertorius
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 12:39:48 -0700

Ave,

I just received an update from Quintus Sertorius. His Mother in law
passed away last nite. He just wanted me to pass this information to
everyone.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Oligarchy
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 15:46:11 -0400 (EDT)

Citizen Formosanus;

I have considered your reply to my request to stop using inflammatory
names of your choosing relating to both myself and to the Republic of
Nova Roma, and I find that, in my view, your response is at once
arrogant, presumptuous and insulting:

Arrogant, because you choose to lecture me on the very items that I have
objected to. You have little to no knowledge of my background or
education, and yet you propose to fill me with your invective about an
organization for which I have givenn much service and which you have but
criticized constantly and with invective and half-truth.

Presumtuous, because you presume without authority (other than your own
style of determination) to assume the mantle of a conscience to which no
citizen or Magistarte has called you. In fact, if those in your camp
are to be believed, some whom you "defend" so strongly have asked you to
desist but to no avail, since apparently you know best over any other
opinion. You have no call, no nomination, no vote and little
encouragement from the duly elected Magistrates of this Republic, and
yet you brush that aside with the reasoning that you will be the
conscience of this micro-nation, regardless of the will of the citizens
and duly elected officers herein and one which must constantly bear in
thier view your unrelenting blizzard of repititious invective designed
to consistantly bring to this micro-nation nothing but indecison,
interference and doubt.

Insulting, sir because you would again name me those terms to which I
have told you that I object to with no more than your poorly constructed
opinions as support. You continue to label the micro-nation that I have
labored in wrongly, unworthily, and insultingly. You further name me
again a name which I have clearly indicated to you that I take greatest
possible offense to, with no other proof than your opinion.

Therefore sir, you leave me little choice but to sever all relations and
discussions with you, until such time as you may have gained the manner
and niceties of the gentleman that you, so erroniously in my view, claim
to be.

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] What Action Shall be Taken?
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:02:22 -0400

Salvete omnes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
>
> Having followed the discussion of the revelation of the true
> identity of Festus/Nerva and the fact that he was admitted in violation
> of the Censorial edict relating to returning cives, I can only conclude
> that there is enough evidence against the Censor Sulla at least to
> justify an official investigation or trial.

<amputatio>

> The Praetores and the Senate know - they are subscribers to this
> Main List which is our central forum. What more need be done to get
> either an official investigation going (with a detailed public report to
> follow) or a trial if that would be more appropriate?

If I may, under what law would Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix be tried?
And what penalty, legally enacted, would be applied? As you are of course
aware, our legal system is still in its infancy, and while procedures for
civil actions are in place through Praetorian edict, neither criminal
procedures nor a broadly applicable code of crimes and punishments exists.
Only very narrowly defined crimes (such as those decribed by the Lex Iunia)
are currently prosecutable and punishable.

Indeed, this is a deficiency that has existed since Nova Roma's inception,
and one which the members of the civil law committee are working to correct
even now. Following the conclusion of their efforts, I will be presenting
such a full and comprehensive code and legal procedure for vote of the
comitia later this year.

Thusfar, the only mechanism of which I am aware that could even be broadly
applied to this situation would be a vote of impeachment in the Comitia
Centuriata, which is allowable under our Constitution "Should one of the
ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties..." (paragraph IV.A.).

However, I hardly think that an honest clerical error (which is all that
this appears to be, your and Draco's accusations of fell conspiracy
notwithstanding) warrants the holding of such a vote. Indeed, the intent of
the wrongdoer was central to the legal philosophy of Roma Antiqua, and
thusfar I have seen no evidence that either of the Censors (let us not
forget it seems to have been Lucius Equitius who actually processed the
Citizenship application in question; it is doubtless your vendetta against
Sulla which prompts you to ignore that aspect of this) acted with malicious
intent to defy the law. Should any such evidence exist (as opposed to vague
accusations and innuendo regarding conspiracies-- but of course the LACK of
evidence only points to a more clever conspiracy no doubt!), I would be
happy to examine it and re-think calling such a vote.

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] ante diem XVI Kalendas Iunias (May 17th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 20:22:48 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is a dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens can
vote on political or criminal matters.

Today is the first day of the anual feast of Dea Dia. This feast is moveable
and takes place on 17, 19 and 20 May if the year (counting AUC) is even and
27, 29 and 30 May if the year is odd. The present year corresponds to 2754
AUC.
The Collegium of priests responsible for the feast is that of the Fratres
Arvales (Arval Brothers) whose College, probably extinct by the late
Republic, was
restored by Emperor Augustus. We have quite accurate information about their
liturgy because it is described in detail in the surviving Act of the
college (Acta Fratrum Arvalium).
The feast of Dea Dia is celebrated in the sacred wood of La Magliana (9 km
from Rome following the Via Campana). The feast honours Dea Dia in first
place, but also Mars, the Lares and their mother Mater Larum, the Semones
who watch the seeds on Earth. The Arval Brothers call all these divine
forces to guarantee the fertility of the fields.

In the first day, the sacrifice takes place at dawn at the home of the
President of the Fratres Arvales. The Fratres wear the toga praetexta, and a
bands around the head. Firstly, the President touches cereals (both green
and dry) and pieces of bread enveloped in lawrel, and then perfumes Dea Dia.
Then, each of the other Arvales sacrifices wine and incense to the Dea Dia,
touches the cereals with the pieces of bread enveloped in lawrel, and then
perfumes the goddess. They sit on chairs and each receives a "sportula" of
10 denarii.
After midday, after bathing and dressing white clothes, the President
reclines and shares a banquet with the goddess (this rite is called a
'lectisternium'). A few children, sons and daughters of Senators whose
parents are both alive, also participate on the lectisternium. After the
banquet, the President washes his hands and sacrifices wine and incense to
Dea Dia. The children, dressing the toga pretexta, and public slaves assist
the sacrificer, carrying the offerings to the altar of Dea Dia. Crowned with
lawrel,
the President eats the dessert.

Valete bene in pace deorum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What Action Shall be Taken? Rebuttal
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:30:42 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/2001 12:09:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bvm3@-------- writes:

<< There is much evidence to point to a knowing disregard for the
edictum supposedly binding (under the Constitution) upon the magistrate
who made it.<<
Oh Apolloni lighten up!

>> We have observed how Censor Sulla a bit over a year ago
crystallized his own will into the original Gender Edictum, and how he
then applied it and its successor to his enemy Marius in an extreme
interpretation unfavorable to that citizen's hopes.<<

I thought we went over this months ago, Cornelius in my Consulship issued the
edictum to codify what had been unwritten policy on the part of the Censors
before him. It should have been voted into Law under my and Minucius' term,
but we seemed to have a problem keeping Rogators in office at the time as you
remember.
The vote now is old business, that needed to be resolved.

>> Now we seem to be seeing how the Censor is willing to be sloppily lenient
with his friends (on the best interpretation of his actions), and again he
seems to
regard the binding edictum as being just an extension of his personal
will which he can arbitrarily set aside for his friends and supporters. >>

Hmm, if I remember correctly, don't you have friend that:
A. Betrayed his oath as a scribe and released sensitive information that he
had no business revealing?
B. Attempted to ferment distention among several gens since he didn't like
their Paterfamilias...
C. Broke the Senate seal on discussions, because he didn't like the tone they
were taking.

I don't remember you trumpeting that he must be prosecuted.
In fact he fled Rome just before we could charge him. Such a brave
magistrate.

If we are all equal under Roman law, as you suggest, should not the Law apply
to you as well?
What about attempting sedation against Nova Roma because you thought it was
an oligarchy? (Ends justify the means, remember your speech?)
What about you saying in public that I should be suppressed, and my
"prosecution" of
Marius Fimbria in the Senate was the same as being a Nazi butchering Jewish
babies?
(No, I haven't forgotten.)

My point is this. As Minucius says you are the burr under the Senate's
saddle. You go out of your way to provoke us since our Rome isn't your
vision of Rome. In fact your vision is not Rome at all. I expect that one
day you foresee that the populace will "come to their senses" and expel us
all from Rome allowing you a free hand. It galls you that the Senate is a
lifetime appointment so we have no accountability in your eyes. It galls you
even more you are not a member of that August Body. Sorry.
You have made it very clear here you do not like L. Cornelius Sulla or his
policies.
You in your "manifesto" have also made it very clear that he must be expelled
from office, the faster the better.
So this latest charge of "favoritism" comes as no surprise.
However it looks like, based on the many steps the citizen known as Nerva
took, (meeting with the proposed Paterfamilias, etc.) that Nerva expected
your opposition, and was prepared for it.

In closing I have to say, you must feel that we are idiots, and we blunder
around trying to do evil, but we are so inept that we get caught at it time
and time again.
Actually we are all intellegent, clever and could pull off anything we wanted
to, and you would never find out. However, we are not that kind of people,
sorry to disappoint you.
Anytime we would attempt such a thing, we'd lose our populace. And that is
the last thing any of us want.
I took two hours off promotions today because I felt that your faction was
getting bolder since I and Caius Flavius have been too busy to participate in
Roman affairs. This was important enough to me to spend time I did not have
in refuting you and your faction.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] On Sulla and Magisterial Edicta (was RE: What Action Shall be Taken?)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:37:42 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:16 PM
>
> We have observed how Censor Sulla a bit over a year ago
> crystalised his own will into the original Gender Edictum, and how he
> then applied it and its successor to his enemy Marius in an extreme
> interpretation unfavourable to that citizen's hopes.

Nova Roma is a Republic, and as such the People entrust their elected
officials to act in the best interests of the State as those officials deem
fit and proper. As duly-elected magistrates, the Censors were completely
within their rights under our Constitution to promulgate the edictum
regarding gender, and the one regarding changing names. (Let us not forget
that such was the work of both Sulla and Merullus, and Merullus' absence is
not due to any disgust at having had to work with his colleague, but because
he's building a house. To say otherwise is merely yet more distortion and
lies from those carrying out an anti-Sullan vendetta.)

Edicta are indeed an extention of the personal will of the magistrates, and
intentionally so. The magistrates who promulgate them are elected by the
People for that very purpose, and to suggest that Sulla was somehow acting
in some sinister manner by exercising the legal powers of his office (to
which the People elected him) would simply be bizzare coming from anyone
else.

It is, however, understandable when coming from someone with such a viceral
hatred of Sulla, rooted not only in Formosanus' own enormous personal
dislike, but also in his own desire for power, which he hopes to build with
his anti-Sullan demagoguery. Let us all realize this, and realize the
tainted nature of the source when it comes to anything he or his say about
Sulla, and move on to more productive pursuits.

These endless recriminations launched at Sulla do no one any good; he may
not be perfect (indeed, he and I have had our own vicious disagreements on
more than one occasion), but he is far from the depraved villian Formosanus
and his ilk would make him out to be.

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Victory at Any Cost. Very Roman
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 21:17:24 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMax@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/16/2001 5:56:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> al--------us@-------- writ--------/font>
>
> on 5/16/01 5:44 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
> >> Does anyone remember this
> "Dedicated to the restoration of Classical Roman religion, culture,
> and virtues"
>
> It's on the mainpage of Nova Roma's Web site, for those of you that
> have forgotten.
>
> Perhaps it's time to ask Marcus Octavius to replace this line with
> something else, like this
> "Dedicated to the restoration of worst aspects of Roman politics"
>
> Then it will reflect something that some of our citizens have proven
> ourselves experts at.<<
> Salvete Citizens
> L. Sicinius Drusus has hit the nail pretty much on the head here.
I'm sure
> that scholars
> and observers who watch the site must be overjoyed. Human nature
being human
> nature
> this proves that we are Roman. The antics that Livius and Tullius even
> Polybios describe in their writings about Roman politics reappear
here every
> election. And yet how many of us are political animals? The
citizens are
> responding in a time honored way, just as the ancestors they are
emulating
> did. While I deplore the actions, I am encouraged by the energy and
thought.
> If we continue emulating Romans like this, there will be a time
when we will
> just not emulate the political animal, but all aspects of Roman
life. It is
> just a matter of time.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus

Salvete Omnes,

A Wonderful Day!

We have moved a step closer to recreating the worst of Roman Politics,
Now we are about to add prosecuations for policital reasons.

How wonderful. This convient tool to destroy opponents will be added
to our politics. We are all most there citizens!

All that's left is to form a legion and sieze control of the server by
armed force. Then we can enjoy a nice round of proscriptions. I do
hope that whoever siezes the server has a nice digital camera. Some
shots of heads on stakes would look fantastic on the web site.

Marcus Octavius, It's time to make that change to the web site!

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Politics
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 21:20:59 -0000

>>All that's left is to form a legion and sieze control of the server
by armed force. Then we can enjoy a nice round of proscriptions.<<

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Salve Druse,

It would be even funnier if the truth wasn't so sad.

Vale,
Gaius Popilius Laenas
America Austrorientalis

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Victory at Any Cost. Very Roman
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 16:26:29 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

>
> Marcus Octavius, It's time to make that change to the web site!

Sorry, my "to do list" for the site is long enough already...

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] What Action Shall be Taken?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2001 19:06:29 -0300

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> >
> > Having followed the discussion of the revelation of the true
> > identity of Festus/Nerva and the fact that he was admitted in violation
> > of the Censorial edict relating to returning cives, I can only conclude
> > that there is enough evidence against the Censor Sulla at least to
> > justify an official investigation or trial.
>
> <amputatio>
>
> > The Praetores and the Senate know - they are subscribers to this
> > Main List which is our central forum. What more need be done to get
> > either an official investigation going (with a detailed public report to
> > follow) or a trial if that would be more appropriate?
>
> If I may, under what law would Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix be tried?
> And what penalty, legally enacted, would be applied? As you are of course
> aware, our legal system is still in its infancy, and while procedures for
> civil actions are in place through Praetorian edict, neither criminal
> procedures nor a broadly applicable code of crimes and punishments exists.
> Only very narrowly defined crimes (such as those decribed by the Lex Iunia)
> are currently prosecutable and punishable.
>
> Indeed, this is a deficiency that has existed since Nova Roma's inception,
> and one which the members of the civil law committee are working to correct
> even now. Following the conclusion of their efforts, I will be presenting
> such a full and comprehensive code and legal procedure for vote of the
> comitia later this year.
>
> Thusfar, the only mechanism of which I am aware that could even be broadly
> applied to this situation would be a vote of impeachment in the Comitia
> Centuriata, which is allowable under our Constitution "Should one of the
> ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties..." (paragraph IV.A.).
>
> However, I hardly think that an honest clerical error (which is all that
> this appears to be, your and Draco's accusations of fell conspiracy
> notwithstanding) warrants the holding of such a vote. Indeed, the intent of
> the wrongdoer was central to the legal philosophy of Roma Antiqua, and
> thusfar I have seen no evidence that either of the Censors (let us not
> forget it seems to have been Lucius Equitius who actually processed the
> Citizenship application in question; it is doubtless your vendetta against
> Sulla which prompts you to ignore that aspect of this) acted with malicious
> intent to defy the law. Should any such evidence exist (as opposed to vague
> accusations and innuendo regarding conspiracies-- but of course the LACK of
> evidence only points to a more clever conspiracy no doubt!), I would be
> happy to examine it and re-think calling such a vote.
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,

Salve,

For my part I would be totally satisfied by a declaration on his honour
of
each of our censors, stating they didn t suspect that this readmission
was
against their decret. Or alternatively if they suspected it that they
did all
that was in their power (looking for the resignation e-mail, asking
Festus
etc.) in order to discover the truth but failed.

In the absence of such a declaration the Comitia should be convoqued in
order
to vote the Impeachment.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

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