Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	Andrea Gladia Kyrinia <andrea_gladia@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:40 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete!

--- QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:
> The one I had designed for beseen had the
> disadvantage of
> breaking down at the most inopertune time. Gladia and I were working
> on a virtual harena until she became to busy to continue.

Actually, I wondered what became of you--I haven't heard from you about
the arena since last summer. I've been through two other jobs since
and have a MUCH more stable life now, and would be curious to know what
became of the project. I had assumed that it was cancelled, or
postponed until further notice.



Valete,

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

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



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

Subject:	[novaroma] New poll for novaroma
From:	novaroma@--------
Date:	23 May 2001 00:21:58 -0000

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
novaroma group:

Woah!Germy wants Formy to quit! Should
Formosanus leave Nova Roma?

o leave
o stay


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/polls

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!









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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] New poll for novaroma
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 21:16:15 -0400

Salve,

The "poll" in question has been deleted, as it was clearly created by a
troll who joined the main List for no reason other than causing trouble.

Stay tuned for a future post elaborating on that topic, among others. In
the meantime, thanks to the vigilance of your Curatrix and my trusty
scribes, this pathetic attempt at disruption has been avoided.

Have a nice evening all!

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 21:40:36 -0400

Flavius Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.

The results of the recent vote in the Comitia Populi Tributa have been
reported by the rogatores and are as follows. (Note that this election was
conducted under the new voting rules, so there are no longer any "tied"
tribes.)

In the election for the position of quaestor, 24 tribes voted for Oppius
Flaccus Severus and 11 voted for Titus Curius Dannicus. Oppius Flaccus
Severus wins the position.

In the vote on the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Civitate Eiuranda, 25 tribes
voted in favor and 10 tribes voted against. The lex is passed.

In the vote on the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominibus, 23 tribes
voted in favor and 12 tribes voted against. The lex is passed.

In the vote on the Lex Vedia de Assidui et Capiti Censi, 21 tribes voted in
favor and 14 tribes voted against. The lex is passed.

My most sincere thanks to all those who voted, congratulations to Oppius
Flavvus Severus, and condolences to Titus Curius Dannicus. My especial
thanks to our rogatores for their outstanding work in compiling the results
of this election. Thanks to the Gods for Their benevolence and wisdom, and
may our Republic continue to prosper under Their guidance.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 22:11:29 EDT

Salvete,

How does the Latin saying go? ROMA LOCUTA EST, CAUSA FINITA EST

{Rome has spoken, the matter is settled}

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] Gratias multas!
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 19:34:33 -0700

Salvete Quiritibus!

I just wanted to say a hearty 'Gratias Multas'
for electing me Quaestor! My thanks also to
Titus Curius Dannicus for running for office
as well. I very much appreciate you stepping
forward in willing service of our great Respublica.

As for the assumption of office, as many of
you know I won't have officially completed my
six month tenure as civis until 5/28/00.

So for now, I'll be preparing for the office itself
and will make my oath and formally assume office
on that date. I look forward to the service
of Nova Roma and to the magistrate to whom
I may be appointed!

Bene valete,
Oppius




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Musings of the List Mommy-Important Info
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 22:40:41 -0400

Salve,

I come before you quite troubled this evening, and...quite frankly.......not
just a little irritated. You see, I expected some degree of friction on
this List, and I certainly expected this to be a time consuming job, those
things do not bother me. The recent demonstrations of cowardice and
immaturity do, however. They bother me greatly and I resent that some of
our current List members are wasting my time (and List space very
occasionally) with such juvenile games.

A bit of background may help to clarify things for those of you not privy to
behind the scenes events. Back around mid-February I made the decision to
moderate *all* new members of this List. I did so due to a spate of
spammers and trolls posting what I call "hit and run" attacks. Such
behavior, we can all agree, is inappropriate. I have had numerous occasions
to be grateful for my decision, mostly due to commercial spammers in the
intervening months.

Now, however, we have a new form of idiocy taking place. List members are
creating false names and subscribing to this list. Thanks to the
moderation, I have been able to catch and delete/deal with all "hit and run"
attacks they have attempted. Seems, despite the fact that the policy of
moderation is clearly spelled out in the "welcome" text they each received
when their fake names subscribed, they were unaware of the policy until
their attempts at trouble-making were thwarted and they got verbally slapped
down in private for their efforts.

Which brings us to to today's abortive "poll". Seems our little trolls are
getting clever and trying to find ways around me.....much like small willful
will children do.......and they did, indeed, find such a way by creating the
"poll". Well, never fear, I and my trusty scribes, are on the job and
quickly shut down that loophole. Effective as of about 8:30pm this evening
no one other than moderators may create polls on the Nova Roma mailing list.
Congratulations......."mommy" has had to remove yet another 'toy' from the
reach of those too immature to handle themselves properly.

For those of you who may wish to create a poll, please contact me and,
assuming it is legitimate, I will be MORE than happy to create it *for* you.
Likewise, as I do not wish to leave any further loopholes open for the
"children", effective as of about 8:30pm no one but moderators may upload
files to the Nova Roma mailing list. Again, if anyone wishes to upload
files, please contact me and, providing it is legitimate, I will be MORE
than happy to arrange it for you.

The ultimate effect of these restrictions? Those who wish to be nasty,
rude, snotty or to simply cause disruption will be forced to do so under
their own identity. No more hiding in the shadows and sniping from the
false security of anonymity. What you say may be controversial, but at
least the rest of us will have the courtesy of knowing with whom we
interact. Those who have the courage of their convictions will likely
continue to say their piece publicly and honestly. Those who skulked in the
darkness will no longer be afforded an audience.

Now, for those of you tempted to criticize these latest actions as impeding
your freedom of speech, please remember that all "legitimate" posts, polls
and files will still be available. By legitimate, I also o not mean ones I
necessarily approve of or agree with. Accusations of some magical
magistrate immunity aside, I would never censor simply to make my life
easier. I tae these actions because those among us.......and make no
mistake, these recent trolls and attempted anonymous posters are all known
individuals, not random strangers.....have made it necessary.

Perhaps once we have purged ourselves of those immature and cowardly enough
not to stand in the light of day and speak out honestly as themselves I can
drop these precautions. Until such time, unfortunately, I find that these
restrictions are necessary.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis







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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 19:53:23 -0700

Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,

I would like to take this time to sincerely thank you who took part in
this election. To say I am pleased with the result would be an
understatement. The results of this vote are overwhelming, and I just
am so overjoyed. I thank each and every citizen who voted, regardless
of your position. I hope that together we all can make Nova Roma a
better place. I also would like to thank my adversaries for their
spirited arguements and opinions. I hope that we all can continue to
work for the Good of Nova Roma. As always, I am at the service of the
State.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus novaromanis S.P.D.
>
> The results of the recent vote in the Comitia Populi Tributa have been
> reported by the rogatores and are as follows. (Note that this election was
> conducted under the new voting rules, so there are no longer any "tied"
> tribes.)

<Snip>



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 03:11:32 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Druso et omnibus Civibus S.P.D.
>
> Scripsis, O Druse:
>
> Salve,
>
>Marcus Apollonius, you disapoint me. Of all the powers of the state
>the power to lay criminal charges against citizens is the avenue that
>is most likely to lead to abuses, and that jury system is the greatest
>protection the people have against the trynany of the state.
>
> MAF: I share your admiration for the Common Law jury as an important
safeguard for the individual. I was just this Sunday teaching my
British History students about how it saved the British State from
utter excess in the time of the Younger Pitt in an age when all social
reform
> and popular initiative were as feared as they seem to be here.
However, it is a matter of fact that it was not the model of Roma
antiqua for appeals to the People, although Rome had something like
real juries too (i.e., not the whole People).
>
> If the whole People is going to constitute the jury and hear all the
facts and arguments, then I do not see any particular danger in
letting them hear such arguments and facts partly before a trial is
officially declared. Remember that in the Common Law tradition there is a
> considerable body of procedural law devoted to excluding certain
sorts of evidence, which the jury is supposed to be protected from and
made to ignore. The Roman and Civil Law tradition does not rely upon
such limitations very much, but assumes that those judging will hear
> *all* the evidence available and discount unreliable sources of
information to an appropriate degree. Thus, knowledge is not to be
considered as necessarily "tainting", as it might be in the Common Law
situation.
>
> Practically speaking, it is difficult to find people here who know
nothing about major events or who have no complicating and biasing
relationships. And if the whole People is involved, inevitably there
may be many people biased for or agianst the accused, and all we can do is
> hope that involving the whole community will reduce the effects of
these normal biases.
>
LSD: There are severe disadvantages to calling the Comitiae to hear
cases. It would be most unfair to have a mixed meeting where the
Peoples attention was diverted from the case at hand by a Lex or an
Election that was also placed before the Comitia at the same time. If
the case was routine too many citizens would find it boring and ignore
it for the Lex or the Election, while if the case were sensational the
Lex or Election wouldn't recive due consideration.

This means calling the Comitia only for the purpose of hearing a case
is the only fair way to handle the matter. Now we allready have run
into problems scheduling votes due to our need to pay the Gods their
proper respect, and refrain from holding meetings on days set aside
for them. This means we would face a hard choice, to delay Justice to
handle pressing needs of the State, or to put Public affairs on hold
to give a defendant a prompt trail.

As we cram in more and more Comitia meetings to try to meet both the
needs of the state, and the needs of the accused we will find
ourselves robbed of new blood, because we can't process the
aplications of new citizens while the Cimitiae are meeting. This will
lead to a backlog of applications and the loss of potential citizens.

The only way around this problem is IMHO to follow the Reforms of
Sulla the Dictator and set up standing courts that can hear cases
independant of the Comitiae, and these courts would have to be staffed
by Juries.

>
>The state has the prestiege of it's officals that it can use as a
>weapon to do a far better job of tainting the jurors than any private
>citizen, so I do consider the common law notion of an unbiased jury
an inovation that is as worthy of consideration as allowing women a
voice equal to men, and a ban on slavery.
>
> MAF: If you mean we should change the assumptions of our
Constitution and present laws to one more consonant with common Law,
then I await your detailed proposals before trying to evaluate them. I
fear that finding unbiased juries would be difficult in such a small
community as
> ours, though.

LSD:The best we can do is hope that the biases work out in a smaller
Jury as we hope they will even out in a larger meeting of the Comitia.
At least a smaller Jury we would have the advantage of having them
diliberate in closed session, like the Senate now does, and speaking
only before their fellow Jurors would allow them more latitude than
they would have if the whole people were watching them in a Comitia.


>
>As for the posibility that the Praetors would place personal
>relationships ahead of thier duties. I will give our Praetors the
>presumption of innocence until I see them act otherwise. If some
>future Praetor were to try such an action, All of our doccuments are
>digital, and sending them to the Praetor dosen't remove them from my
>hard drive, a fact that I sure he would be well aware of. Refusing to
>act on clear and compelling evidence, would turn those same
doccuments into evidence that could be used against him in a trail for
corruption.
>
> MAF: I think that you see things in too black and white a manner. We
have just seen the Censors perform an illegal act, and their only
defence, if one believes it, is that they made a mistake, or at the
worst were slightly careless. There is plausibility in that (although I do
> not really believe it personally), so if the Praetors threw out the
charge on the grounds of its being unintential human error, would the
evidence that conclusively proved the identity of Festus/Nerva and the
illegality of the censorial actions seem so strong later that a
> corruption trial for praetorial inaction would be countenanced by
the next Praetors? The degree of human judgement involved at each step
is too great. The fact is that in the present case illegal action was
proven and admitted, but no one, including the Praetors and Consuls
> and Senate stood up to do anything legal about it. Why would we
suppose that that would change in the future?

LSD: The Evidence that showed clear intent was lacking. I am a vetran
of the US Military, and there is a phrase there called "CYA, Cover
Your Ass" If we are going to make our Magistrates criminaly liable for
mistakes, then they will fall into a patern of playing CYA. If you do
nothing, then you can't be blamed. If you have to do something, make
sure that you can shift the blame.

My attitude on criminal charges is simple. I would rather see 10
villans go free if that is the cost of preventing 1 innocent man from
being convicted.

>
>I'll admit that the system won't work if BOTH Praetors and BOTH
>Consuls are corrupt, but if we ever reach that state Nova Roma is
> allready done for, and it won't matter any more.
>
> MAF: Neither Praetor and neither Consul expressed interest in an
impeachment prosecution, although the fact of the crime is proven and
only the exact intention of the culprits is unclear. They all decided
to overlook a clearcut crime without giving either Censor or Nerva a fair
> trial, even pro forma, even to prove some level of non-culpability
if that is possible. If I wonder if an accusation handed quietly and
secretly to the Praetors would result in a trial, consider that even
when it is not secret at all and the facts are known to every responsible
> person in Nova Roma, no action is taken!
>
> The fact is, the Oligarchy does not wish to police itself, and
resists common citizens' initiatives to police them - in this case
primarily by just refusing to take action. As long as those with the
power to impeach have no interest in doing so, magistrates will feel
free to
> break the laws when it suits them, while passing ever more
restrictive and punitive laws to apply when they wish to suppress
those not in their charmed and immune circle.
>
> Our judiciary processes are already not working to protect us right
now, and we need not wait for an imagined future state of universal
corruption. If you have any doubt, try to initiate an impeachment
action against the Censors, mi Druse, and see if either Praetor allows
your
> action. Although there is no doubt that an illegal act was performed
by one or both of these magistrates, the Praetors won't act on your
request. They have already decided, like the Consuls and the Senate,
to protect the Censors without letting the matter come to a public
> trial.
>
> Because of that reality, Draco did not try to go the route of a
formal impeachment.

>
>I Left out one minor point, If we are going to follow the practices
of Antiquita, rather than use modern inovations, we must remember that
>for most of the Republic the Jury only consisted of Senators. During
>the Late Republic It was the Ordo Equester, and the Ancient Order was
> different than ours. This model would limit Jury duty to those in
the first class who were not Senators. The common law concept of a
jury of your peers was alien to Roma, The jury consisted of the "best"
men, and the lower orders were locked out.

>
> MAF: You are right. But in provocatio the People decided
collectively as peers as the ultimate protection of the accused. We
seem to be more following that as a model here, and I do not think
that to be a bad or unfair one. I would be interested in seeing your
detailed ideas on
> merging the virtues of Common Law with those of Roman Law. I think
that with some people here it would be unpopular, but it does have
more resonance with modern ideas of fairness in Anglo-Saxon countries.
My main concern is that we have *effective* judicial review of
> magisterial abuses, and that we have a code of civil and human
rights enforced as part of that. In the present case Nerva was spared
the rigours of a *bad* law, and we might well congratulate him and
wish that everyone could be treated the same, but a contempt for the
law among
> the magistrates who are supposed to enforce it is a long-term
disadvantage to us all. I would be pleased if you and all who are
concerned with our legal system worked to set up a code of civil
rights with teeth and effective judicial review to make it stick. If
your Common Law
> ideas can somehow be harmonised with the Roman Ius Civilis to those
ends, I shall be most interested to see what contribution they could
make to this process.
>
> Valete!

LSD: I have allready mentioned why I don't think the model of the
early Republic (the whole people as the Jury) would work. That leaves
us with Sulla's standing courts, and Juries.

I don't think that too many Civies would favor the Exclusive Juries of
the Republic, The pool of jurors would have to include all citizens,
which is closer to the common law jury than the historical model.
Another important concept of the common law jury is jury nulifaction,
which should be written into the Lex setting up the courts and the
Juries. This concept is in keeping with the Roman ideal that the
people are soverign. Both Roman and Common law recognize the
Presumption of Innocence, so there is no problem there.

Next is the Common law idea of a unaminous decession being needed for
conviction. While I could accept the idea of following the Roman model
of a simple majority for cival cases, I don't feel that is enough
protection in criminal law. If we can't accept the Common law model,
at the very least a supermajority of three quaters should be required
in criminal cases.

Another Common law concept is the unbiased jury. I would like to add
this inovation to the greatest extent possible. This includes the need
for evidence to be presented in the propper manner, and the exculsion
of certain jurors from the pool. In the Roman system The praetor would
serve as the Judge, but proscustion would be left up to the citizen
who bought the charges before the court. The Praetors duty is no more
than to review the evidence and decide if there is enough to impanel a
jury, and then to serve as Judge. Since this Roman court will have a
Citizen as the prosecution and a Citizen as the defendant, the concept
of an unbiased jury would mean that the families of the two main
parties would have to be excluded from the jury pool.

As for the Common law concept of 12 Jurors, that is a minor point, and
I would prefer the historical model of the size of the Jury being
determined by the servity of the charges, leaving the size up to the
Praetor.

Appeals are also part of the common law process, but we lack the
resources to set this up. However it can be arguged that provocatio
would cover any rulings that the Praetor made during the trail that
caused improper evidence to be admitted or allowed improper conduct by
the advocates. This would only cover the rulings of the Praetor, not a
review of the evidence itself.

In short, I propose 2 standing courts, each headed by a Praetor, a
Jury pool drawn from All the citizens with exclusions for possible
bias, and some inovations from Common law in areas that common law
provides a greater protection of the rights of the defendant.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus






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

Subject:	[novaroma] Enemies of the Respublica
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 20:25:18 -0700

Salvete Quiritibus;

Having watched our elected magistrates try and
bend over backwards in accommodation of M. Apollonius,
S. Apollonius and Manius Villius (hereafter, referred
to as the traitors.) Endless attempts at noble compromise
have been met with nothing but shock sensationalism,
muckraking, overtly communist ideals and overall utter
disregard for anything worthwhile here in Nova Roma.

To my elected magistrates (excepting Aedile Formosanus,) I
commend and applaud your efforts. Though you may not
feel the same about me after this post, but
either way -please accept my sincere thanks for your
efforts.

Citizens, compromise and Concordia go only so far -they
are *not* absolutes and not equitable across all people,
ideas and actions. In fact -excessive and continual
compromise does nothing but weaken both sides of the
initial issue until what is left is a hollow and bastardized
shell of the former. Resulting in impotent coalition
governments that accomplish nothing except making *all*
of the people unhappy, instead of targeting the best,
for the many.

I used to be one of those that really cared about trying
to have an honest and open dialog with 'cives' like
Formosanus, but in the end it has accomplished nothing
except wasting my time, the Respublica's time and our
'free bandwidth.' No more. It's over. I have lost any
shred of respect and desire for Concordia that was ever
felt for the traitors. You three have done nothing but
stir discontent, voice vocal opposition to everything
that you despise (which is seemingly *everything,*
except your own point of view.) My little post here
will yield to one of my own prized beliefs (and I
might add, *very* Roman tradition) of speaking
plainly.

How many hours must you spend trying to dissect and unravel
our micronation with your infinitely long diatribe posts?
Your (collective 'your' here to the traitors,) communistic
views and obsession with macronational events well outside
of your respective countries is truly amazing. You go on
and on about 'rights' and insist on mapping them to your
ultra-communistic ideals.

I suppose that any one of you
would be the first ones to stand by the side of Johnny
Cochran (since you seem to be so well-versed in events
of my micronation, you'll know full well who he is) and
shout out for the rights of murderers. Or, someone who
yells: "fire fire" in a crowded theater, resulting in
multiple trampling deaths. -You would indeed see this
as an individual's "sacred right" and come to his or her
defense in an instant. Well gentlemen -I most
emphatically do *not* share your view of 'rights'
or your 'vision' of government.

Well, unlike our esteemed Senator Audens, I don't need
your vision of a niggling conscience. He was way too
kind to you as is befitting a man of his respectful
nature and Dignitas. My conscience
does quite well on its own, thank you very much. I'll
tell you what else I don't need -your communistic,
"utopian" visions (since you're so familiar with my macronation,
you'll also know that many of us have family members
and friends that died fighting against such ludicrous
governmental systems,) your constant discontent, your
lack of positive ability to build *anything,* your
muckraking, ultra-leftist platitudes, et al.

Then mi Formosanus -there's the matter of *your* gross
dereliction of duty in your current office. What have
*you* done in the service of Nova Roma in your elected
capacity? (Other than forcing many of us to switch
to digest mode on the mainlist?) I mean, we know that
you're extremely adept at bashing other magistrates
that actually *do* much work on our behalf.)

I have seen your anti-Roman statements on the
Latinitas list, this list and other places and
have found it quite disgusting. In all the untold
hours it must take you to compose your vile
manifestos, -could you not do something constructive?
(I'll answer my own question here -it was rhetorical.)

Since you've been so insistent on hammering our
other magistrates, let's hammer on you shall we?
Let's see, elected by what -the difference of
a tribe? Even at that time, planning scheming and
plotting and working toward your "Nova Nova Roma"
ideal with your friends. (Unfortunately, with whom
you declined to leave.) So, you're barely elected
and since you assumed office what *exactly* have
you done other than blaspheme our Respublica and
create discord and discontent? Well, this Pleb
thinks you in contempt of office and in gross
dereliction of duty.

I second the motion of Consul Germanicus in
requesting your immediate resignation. If not,
then perhaps the Comitia Plebis Tributa should
convene regarding the matter of your incompetence
and true dedication to the ideals and institutions
of the Respublica.

Draco: words fail me. You have definitely done
some nice work in the Musarum, but beyond that
your insistence in supporting Formosanus at all
costs and with your recent incident of muckraking
and sensationalism (yes citizens, I believe in
plain speak) has left me with frankly nothing but
shock and contempt. I can but simply implore you
here to disband from Formosanus and join the
rest of us that wish to build a strong Respublica.
If you cannot, then I cannot but help view you
as a traitor.

Manius Villius: Am not sure why you joined
Nova Roma at all, as you can but only seem to find fault with
anything said by those other than Formosanus,
Draco and their supporters - but I would say the
same to you as Draco -abandon the anti-Nova Roman
sentiment and work with us to actually build something.
If you can build other than continually bash
the Respublica and its magistrates on the mainlist,
then I would gladly welcome you. Otherwise, you
but are just another sewn seed of discontent.

In closing mi Quirites, I realize that some of
what has been said here will likely offend or bring
on the usual continual attack-and-defend posts.
So be it. It's time we woke up and got "real", so
to speak.

Bene valete,
Oppius



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 03:29:24 -0000

Salvete,

Congratulations to Oppius Flaccus, and to Titus Curius, May Fortuna
smile on you in your next attempt at office.

To the Authors of the new Leges, I congratulate you.

On the matter of one of the Leges, I spoke out against it, the people
have spoken otherwise, and unless it's author wishes to propose an
admendment I will accept the will of the people and not join in any
public debates on the lex that caused so much divison among us.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Musings of the List Mommy-Important Info
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 03:57:44 -0000

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

> Likewise, as I do not wish to leave any further loopholes open for the
> "children", effective as of about 8:30pm no one but moderators may
upload
> files to the Nova Roma mailing list. Again, if anyone wishes to upload
> files, please contact me and, providing it is legitimate, I will be MORE
> than happy to arrange it for you.
>

Salvete,

Quirites This is going to result in a change of my plans. When
Basilica was closer to a final release I was planning on having a
contest to design the splash screen that you see when the software is
loading, with submissions being made to the files on this list. Now
this will impose extra work on the moderators, who allready have
enough to do. I can set it up for the uploads to go somewhere else,
but that won't make them eaisly viewed by subscribers to this
newsletter. Maybe I can collect them elsewhere and send the group here.

A big "Thank you" to the trolls that not only have created problems
for the Curatrix Sermonis, but for all citizens. May the Gods send you
the next destructive virus.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Age
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 23:59:12 -0400 (EDT)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

Certainly those who oppose the aspect of age alone as an item to be
critical of, are accurate. All of us have been of all ages in youth and
we have dealt with that aspect in a variety of ways from wisdom beyond
our years to a distinct lack of it at all.

However, one of the aspects of a younger age is the desire to answer
every question, and comment on every determination. It is the feeling
that one must answer every post, and make thier point with every turn of
every idea, and usually must be brought to thier senses (and manners) by
one who is more experienced, and has learned to listen more than to
talk.

This problem is not universally a one of age in it's strictest sense,
but rather more often of those who are 36 (or so) "going on 17." These
lads and lasses are in the majority, and are here among us, to be sure.
There are also those who, of my aquaintance, are in my estimation 16 (or
so) "going on 36." These are in the definite Minority, but also reside
among us.

However, in a long term situation, actual age very often belies
biological age, in that repeated excuses, long rambling posts regarding
personal abuses (or abuses one determines that are personal),
thoughtless comments about, and insulting treatment of others, poor
interpersonal abilities / skills, ability to focus on only on thing at a
time, constant defense of one's personal position, and lastly but far
from least the absolute belief that one is being "trampled upon" when
one cannot get their own way regardless of the majority or minority line
up on any specific question.

No, my friends, the comment about biological age is neither fair, nor is
it funny. However, endurance of "children" whose biological age is a
more mature number of years is both undesirable and intolerable. The
insults directed at this micronation by people of this childish behavior
are inexcusable, and the character assassination engaged in by these
people is criminal. Therefore, I would thank those who would take upon
themselves to remind these silly few (little horrors to my mind) to mind
thier tongues, and when that warning is not heeded, require them to
"leave the room" as thier prohibitive behavior can no longer be
tolerated.

I say "hurrah" for our younger Citizens who want to learn, to associate,
to enjoy the culture that NR offers, to engage in their share of the
micronation's work to be done, and to bring with those efforts the
development of this micronation a liitle closer to the worl that we
collectively envision. But I say "go away" to those "children" who act
the part of children, and who need to be "sent to bed" because they
cannot behave themselves, because they must tell half-truths to get
attention, and who must continuously engage in wild tales and wilder
stories of impending doom. Our Citizens in Nova Roma are far smarter
than all that, and they know who the real children are here. Further I
suspect they grow very tired of the constant whining, complaining,
threatening, lecturing nonsense that we hear each day.

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: [NovaRomaAnnounce] Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 00:16:30 -0400 (EDT)

The Citizens of Nova Roam win again!!!! The Majority Rules and the
Minority's Voice is protected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Such is the way of a
REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!!

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: [NovaRomaAnnounce] Vote Results from the Comitia Populi
From:	coriolanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 05:48:41 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, jmath669642reng@w... wrote:
> The Citizens of Nova Roam win again!!!! The Majority Rules and the
> Minority's Voice is protected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Majority rules? Minority's voice? Pretty nice propaganda. You must
be a adman must not?

Coriolanus
"Quid est veritas ?"


Such is the way of a
> REPUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!! Ave!!!
>
> Respectfully;
> Marcus Audens
>
> Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Security and digital signatures
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 23:17:21 -0700

Salvete Quiritibus;

I wanted to take a brief moment and notify everyone
of a new list that has been formed to discuss e-mail
security and digital signatures. (Non-repudiation,
identity verification.)

First off, the list is **UNOFFICIAL.** It is open for
anyone to join and is really geared to beginners.
So, if you've ever wanted to know about e-mail
encryption -what it is, how it works, how to use
it -likewise: want to know about digital signatures,
how to use them and so forth, then this is the list
for you. Class modules have already been written and
are available in the archives, or they can be directly
sent to you if you prefer. This is essentially an
'email encryption and verification 101' course.

An important note: this course covers both standard
e-mail clients and web-enabled (security) clients
(for those that use WebTV, AOLtv or some form of
PDA access.)

The courses have just started and as I say -the first
segments are available either via the archives or
I will be happy to send them to you directly.
The list also covers general discussion about mail
privacy, security and verification issues. There
will also be a lab component to the courses. The
main point is to just have fun with it!

The list is hosted on Topica and the url is:
http://www.topica.com/lists/NRCaute

Hope to see some of you there!
Bene valete,
Oppius



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Security and digital signatures
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 23:16:39 -0700

Ave,

Oppius, could you please send them to me privately. Thank you very
much!

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Oppius Flaccus Severus wrote:
>
> Salvete Quiritibus;
>
> I wanted to take a brief moment and notify everyone
> of a new list that has been formed to discuss e-mail
> security and digital signatures. (Non-repudiation,
> identity verification.)
>
> First off, the list is **UNOFFICIAL.** It is open for
> anyone to join and is really geared to beginners.
> So, if you've ever wanted to know about e-mail
> encryption -what it is, how it works, how to use
> it -likewise: want to know about digital signatures,
> how to use them and so forth, then this is the list
> for you. Class modules have already been written and
> are available in the archives, or they can be directly
> sent to you if you prefer. This is essentially an
> 'email encryption and verification 101' course.
>
> An important note: this course covers both standard
> e-mail clients and web-enabled (security) clients
> (for those that use WebTV, AOLtv or some form of
> PDA access.)
>
> The courses have just started and as I say -the first
> segments are available either via the archives or
> I will be happy to send them to you directly.
> The list also covers general discussion about mail
> privacy, security and verification issues. There
> will also be a lab component to the courses. The
> main point is to just have fun with it!
>
> The list is hosted on Topica and the url is:
> http://www.topica.com/lists/NRCaute
>
> Hope to see some of you there!
> Bene valete,
> Oppius
>
>
>
> 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] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 03:05:22 EDT

In a message dated 5/22/2001 7:01:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrea_gladia@-------- writes:

<< Actually, I wondered what became of you--I haven't heard from you about
the arena since last summer. I've been through two other jobs since
and have a MUCH more stable life now, and would be curious to know what
became of the project. I had assumed that it was cancelled, or
postponed until further notice. >>
Andrea Gladia Kyrinia Salve!

Well, I'm glad to hear from you, and happy your situation has stabilized,
when I talked to you last, things were very much up in the air. If you would
like to resume work on our harena, I would be honored to work with you.

Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus



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

Subject:	[novaroma] The Enemies Within?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 15:38:50 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

Over the past 24 hours, I have witnessed things here on this list beyond
belief. Allow me to reply to some people (I'll try to be as short and to the
point as possible).


Gaius Cassius Nerva scripsit:
-----------------------------------

> Use of the word "kid" to designate those in Draco's age range is
> common and is not considered at all to be derogatory.
>
> However, I apologise if I hurt the boy's feelings.

It's not common to designate my age range by the use of the word "kid" (at
least not over here). And neither am I a "boy", old man.

> Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> novaroma group:
>
> Woah!Germy wants Formy to quit! Should
> Formosanus leave Nova Roma?
>
> o leave
> o stay
>

The only person whoever used the term "Formy" in public was Sulla, so I
suspect the creator of this poll was one of the people of his circle. And
since it was appearently a troll, and the only person who came in trolling
here so far was Festus/Nerva, I suspect even stronger it was him. In any
case, this is a sad and childish attempt at humour. I think the Curatrix
Sermonis acted correctly here -- you won't hear me complain.



Flavius Vedius Germanicus scripsit:
------------------------------------------

(snipped)

> Otherwise, your rash accusations about conspiracies among the "Oligarchy"
> and your demands for punishment of apparent innocent error, are obviously
> merely yet another attempt on your part to foment dissent and disruption
> within our Republic. You have publically (if mistakenly) admitted that you
> despise Nova Roma, and you have privately told me that you intend to
resign
> eventually anyway. One can only think the only reason you have not yet
done
> so is to be able to throw yet more monkey-wrenches into the works before
you
> finally do bless us with your back.
>

Innocent error? This is nowhere near proven. Nor is the contrary, but I
would like to point out here that you seem to be as prejudiced as
Formosanus.

> I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations, I have had enough
of
> your transparent attempts to disrupt the growth and prosperity of Nova
Roma,
> I have had enough of your self-righteous indignation, and I have had
enough
> of you.
>
> I hereby call upon you, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, to resign your
> Citizenship and offices, and never darken our door again. You are
obviously
> miserable here (other than whatever glee you derive from causing grief for
> well-meaning men and disorder for our Republic as a whole). Your idea of
> what Nova Roma should be is so far from what the vast majority of Cives
> think as to be laughable, and yet your insistance that the rest follow
your
> vision becomes shriller and more tedious with every passing day. What
> positive contributions you do make are few and far between, and are
> completely overwhelmed by your main passtime; tearing down and complaining
> about the work of others, and assaulting their character and persons.
>

If that is not a personal attack, I wonder what it is. What "demands"
Formosanus ever made were unreasonable? There were some, probably, but
certainly not all. I'd also be careful in assessing that everyone follows
your view and not his. All three leges have passed, but there was a rather
significant minority that voted against them. The fair way to follow after a
complaint would to research it, not to complain about the complainer. And if
that person keeps complaining, he or she is either simply a natural born
complainer, or the people he or she is complaining to simply won't listen.
You prefer to think of the former possibility. I do not.

> In short, you and we will both be happier once you are gone.
>

Come now, why not expunge him? The Senatus Romanus has enough power and
influence to pester a citizen, so why can't they do it again? Voices of
dissent and criticism are normal for every society. Wanting them to leave
will only harden their opposition.



Oppius Flaccus Severus scripsit:
---------------------------------------

> Having watched our elected magistrates try and
> bend over backwards in accommodation of M. Apollonius,
> S. Apollonius and Manius Villius (hereafter, referred
> to as the traitors.) Endless attempts at noble compromise
> have been met with nothing but shock sensationalism,
> muckraking, overtly communist ideals and overall utter
> disregard for anything worthwhile here in Nova Roma.
>

Proof please. What compromise has been offered I did not agree with? What
magistrates have "bent over" to accomodate to my demands?

(snipped)

> You three have done nothing but
> stir discontent, voice vocal opposition to everything
> that you despise (which is seemingly *everything,*
> except your own point of view.)

I think this is utter cr°p. Do you honestly think I enjoy being marked as a
firestarter? Absolutely not. I have respect for opinions that differ from
mine. But should I truly respect those who continue to insult me (and my
fellow gentiles) and constantly talk beside the issue whilst attacking the
sender and not the sent message? My patience with some people here is
running out just as well, my friend.

(snipped)

> How many hours must you spend trying to dissect and unravel
> our micronation with your infinitely long diatribe posts?
> Your (collective 'your' here to the traitors,) communistic
> views and obsession with macronational events well outside
> of your respective countries is truly amazing. You go on
> and on about 'rights' and insist on mapping them to your
> ultra-communistic ideals.
>

This is a laughable argument. I am (emphasis does not mean shouting) NOT A
COMMUNIST. And I have never said so, or made a statement that could be
interpreted as such. And what is so wrong with 'rights'?

> I suppose that any one of you
> would be the first ones to stand by the side of Johnny
> Cochran (since you seem to be so well-versed in events
> of my micronation, you'll know full well who he is)

Actually, I don't.

> and
> shout out for the rights of murderers.

(snipped)

> Well, unlike our esteemed Senator Audens, I don't need
> your vision of a niggling conscience. He was way too
> kind to you as is befitting a man of his respectful
> nature and Dignitas.

He is respectul without doubt, and possesses dignitas. But he also talks
beside the issue, (falsely) analyzing people rather than to talk about the
actual issues, making the people the issues rather than the situations.
That's one of the reasons why a serious debate is nigh impossible here.
After a post or two things become personal, and there we have it; discussion
foutu.

> My conscience
> does quite well on its own, thank you very much. I'll
> tell you what else I don't need -your communistic,
> "utopian" visions (since you're so familiar with my macronation,
> you'll also know that many of us have family members
> and friends that died fighting against such ludicrous
> governmental systems,) your constant discontent, your
> lack of positive ability to build *anything,* your
> muckraking, ultra-leftist platitudes, et al.
>

I find this statement ludicrous on its own. My great-grandfather was forced
by the Nazis to become mayor of his town, or else they'd have shot his
entire family before his own eyes, and I wouldn't be here today. Europe as a
whole suffered under two World Wars and knew the realistic dangers of the
Cold War; do you think I would be serious about extreme political systems?
No.

(snipped)

> Since you've been so insistent on hammering our
> other magistrates, let's hammer on you shall we?

Here we go...

> Let's see, elected by what -the difference of
> a tribe? Even at that time, planning scheming and
> plotting and working toward your "Nova Nova Roma"
> ideal with your friends. (Unfortunately, with whom
> you declined to leave.) So, you're barely elected
> and since you assumed office what *exactly* have
> you done other than blaspheme our Respublica and
> create discord and discontent? Well, this Pleb
> thinks you in contempt of office and in gross
> dereliction of duty.
>

Blaspheme? Are you in a hotline with Roma Antiqua? There is no "correct"
interpretation of Roma. Nova Roma as a whole does not stand for the concept
"Romanitas"; there are more Roman fields to graze upon than just NR, with
its seemingly orthodox view of what is Roman and what is not. Well, I can
make that up for myself, thanks very much.

> I second the motion of Consul Germanicus in
> requesting your immediate resignation. If not,
> then perhaps the Comitia Plebis Tributa should
> convene regarding the matter of your incompetence
> and true dedication to the ideals and institutions
> of the Respublica.
>

Incompetence? Other than your extreme dislike for the man and his opinions,
there is no reason for such.

> Draco: words fail me. You have definitely done
> some nice work in the Musarum, but beyond that
> your insistence in supporting Formosanus at all
> costs and with your recent incident of muckraking
> and sensationalism (yes citizens, I believe in
> plain speak) has left me with frankly nothing but
> shock and contempt.

But perhaps, you might take a look at the facts I presented. Most of them
were true. Judge my facts, and then judge me -- not the other way around.

> I can but simply implore you
> here to disband from Formosanus and join the
> rest of us that wish to build a strong Respublica.
> If you cannot, then I cannot but help view you
> as a traitor.
>

What have I betrayed then? As far as I know, nothing.

> Manius Villius: Am not sure why you joined
> Nova Roma at all, as you can but only seem to find fault with
> anything said by those other than Formosanus,
> Draco and their supporters - but I would say the
> same to you as Draco -abandon the anti-Nova Roman
> sentiment and work with us to actually build something.
> If you can build other than continually bash
> the Respublica and its magistrates on the mainlist,
> then I would gladly welcome you. Otherwise, you
> but are just another sewn seed of discontent.
>

I think the three (although I cannot speak for Limitanus) of us have stayed
here just because we love the concept of NR, and would like it to be
different from what it is now. If we didn't care, we would have left a long
time ago.

> In closing mi Quirites, I realize that some of
> what has been said here will likely offend or bring
> on the usual continual attack-and-defend posts.
> So be it. It's time we woke up and got "real", so
> to speak.
>

I'm not offended. But I can't tell you how bad my heart feels to see that
you accuse of me of things that are completely untrue.

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

"You don't need eyes to see, you need vision" (Maxi Jazz)




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

Subject:	[novaroma] The Election
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 14:09:44 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

Congratulations to Oppius Flaccus Severus our newest Quaestor. I am
sure he will do a fine job. To Titus Curius Dannicus, the best of
luck in your future endeavors.

To the Magistrates who authored the sucessful leges - Congratulations!
The Lex Vedia de Assidui et Capiti Censi in particular gives us a
foundation for moving forward.

To all citizens - with the election over, let concordia, gravitas,
and humanitas rule.

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis




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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Enemies Within?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 11:40:56 -0400

Salve Draco,

>>The only person whoever used the term "Formy" in public was Sulla, so I
suspect the creator of this poll was one of the people of his circle.>>

Nice try. You oh so carefully added the phrase "in public" above. You know
quite well that your cronies refer to Germanicus as "Germy", well except for
Vado who I believe, preferred "the Dic", how classy! The use of "Formy" is
what we call a red herring.

>>And since it was appearently a troll, and the only person who came in
trolling here so far was Festus/Nerva, I suspect even stronger it was him.>>

You forget your *own* troll attempt, which I prevented. You yourself tried
to post under the fake name "chaong X" just the other day. There have been
others as well, but especially since YOU would happily have trolled us
without my intervention don't you dare throw around accusations at others.
I'll be all too happy to expose your hypocrisy.

>>In any case, this is a sad and childish attempt at humour.>>

I disagree, humor was not the motive. It was, however, pathetic and
immature, on that we do agree.

>>I think the Curatrix Sermonis acted correctly here -- you won't hear me
complain.>>

I am so very glad to hear that, since your own attempt to hide in the
shadows and troll us was one of the actions that *directly* led to our
current situation. I am sure the cives of Nova Roma are "grateful" you
approve of the restrictions *you* helped create. <sarcasm off>

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	mansker@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 15:58:15 -0000

<snipped>

> > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> > novaroma group:
> >
> > Woah!Germy wants Formy to quit! Should
> > Formosanus leave Nova Roma?
> >
> > o leave
> > o stay
> >
>
> The only person whoever used the term "Formy" in public was Sulla,
so I
> suspect the creator of this poll was one of the people of his
circle. And
> since it was appearently a troll, and the only person who came in
trolling
> here so far was Festus/Nerva, I suspect even stronger it was him.
In any
> case, this is a sad and childish attempt at humour. I think the
Curatrix
> Sermonis acted correctly here -- you won't hear me complain.
>
Here we have again unverified rumor being stated that does nothing
but harm to NovaRoma.

This sort of "thinking out loud" that throws dirt on people without
having proof of ANYTHING does nothing to help, and much to hurt, our
nation.

It also makes Oppius' comments about you seem more than real.

>
> I'm not offended. But I can't tell you how bad my heart feels to
see that
> you accuse of me of things that are completely untrue.

See above comment. They aren't untrue. You just proved that.

Gaia Flacca Severa




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Troll Posts
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 16:24:58 -0000

Salvete,

I read a news site called Slashdot.org, where people can post their
comments on the news posts. The Site is self moderated. At any given
time anyone who is regestered may recive mod status when they log in.
Moderators can't pull posts, they can only give points to posts they
think are worthwhile, and subtract points from bad posts. They can
also add commrnts like +1 intresting or -1 Flamebait.

If this NG were set up like that, I would have quickly ran out of mod
points marking recent posts down as troll and flamebait.

I would sugest that SOME of you need to read this.

http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Enemies Within?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 19:12:08 +0200

Salve Priscilla Vedia,

> >>The only person whoever used the term "Formy" in public was Sulla, so I
> suspect the creator of this poll was one of the people of his circle.>>
>
> Nice try. You oh so carefully added the phrase "in public" above. You
know
> quite well that your cronies refer to Germanicus as "Germy", well except
for
> Vado who I believe, preferred "the Dic", how classy! The use of "Formy" is
> what we call a red herring.
>

You're right, but I never called Vedius "Germy". So you may accuse my
friends of such practices, but I'm not associated with such (practices, that
is).

> >>And since it was appearently a troll, and the only person who came in
> trolling here so far was Festus/Nerva, I suspect even stronger it was
him.>>
>
> You forget your *own* troll attempt, which I prevented. You yourself
tried
> to post under the fake name "chaong X" just the other day. There have
been
> others as well, but especially since YOU would happily have trolled us
> without my intervention don't you dare throw around accusations at others.
> I'll be all too happy to expose your hypocrisy.
>

I knew you'd say this. BUT my point was to show that if others can get away
with trolling under a false guise, I could do it just as well. Second reason
was that people would look at the information rather than the sender. As I
decided to post it under my real name, you can see that I was attacked,
rather than the info. So that second reason might not have been so bad after
all. Chaong X was not really a troll, but a dummy account to post
information with, whereas Deformosanus was truly a troll.

(snipped)

> >>I think the Curatrix Sermonis acted correctly here -- you won't hear me
> complain.>>
>
> I am so very glad to hear that, since your own attempt to hide in the
> shadows and troll us was one of the actions that *directly* led to our
> current situation. I am sure the cives of Nova Roma are "grateful" you
> approve of the restrictions *you* helped create. <sarcasm off>
>

Not really. You installed that rule because of Festus, not because of me. So
I didn't help creating it. I did "help" enforcing it. But what's the big
deal? I could have chosen not to post it after all, and nobody would have
ever known who Chaong X was. But I did post it under my own name after all,
knowing and realizing the consequences.

Vale bene!
Draco




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 19:15:45 +0200

Salve Gaia Flacca,

> > The only person whoever used the term "Formy" in public was Sulla,
> so I
> > suspect the creator of this poll was one of the people of his
> circle. And
> > since it was appearently a troll, and the only person who came in
> trolling
> > here so far was Festus/Nerva, I suspect even stronger it was him.
> In any
> > case, this is a sad and childish attempt at humour. I think the
> Curatrix
> > Sermonis acted correctly here -- you won't hear me complain.
> >
> Here we have again unverified rumor being stated that does nothing
> but harm to NovaRoma.
>

Unverified rumour? Yes. But I offered my reasons. It was no accusation like,
say, someone else calling me a communist, without evidence at all!

> This sort of "thinking out loud" that throws dirt on people without
> having proof of ANYTHING does nothing to help, and much to hurt, our
> nation.
>
> It also makes Oppius' comments about you seem more than real.
>

What comments? That I am a communist? Or a "traitor"? What have I betrayed?
Whose trust did I break?

(snipped)

Vale bene,
Draco




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 10:27:50 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete, omnes.

I am very interested in this discussion. I would like to show my
support for Roman tradition over Common Law. After all, here in
Hispania, our legal system derives directly from the Roman legal system
(with a few Napoleonic additions), and not from the medieval English
Common Law (and I guess that the same things happen in other parts of
Europe). I would like to know more about the original Roman judicial
system, for I am pretty sure that the Comitia Centuriata were not the
only way to solve judicial matters.

As in all matters of Nova Roma, I think we should be faithful to the
ancient Roman traditions and institutions as long as they are
compatible with the requirements of modern life.




=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae 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] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 17:34:50 -0000

Salvete Sexte Apolloni et Marce Apolloni,

As far as I can see you both have fine minds and impressive
intellectual capacity. However, IMHO, the simple fact is that most
cives are tired of the constant, repetitive expression of what is
clearly minority opinion. The fact is...it's boring!

You both run the risk of civies simply skipping your posts. It will
only diminish whatever effectiveness your voices may have.

With all respect.

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorentialis




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 17:42:41 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> As in all matters of Nova Roma, I think we should be faithful to the
> ancient Roman traditions and institutions as long as they are
> compatible with the requirements of modern life.
>
>
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>
Salve Gnae Sali,

I'm no expert, but I believe Roman juries were composed of groups of
Equites and Senators chosen by lot. I don't think entire assembelies
ever served as juries. I suspect Quintus Fabius Maximus knows the
hard historical facts.

As for Nova Roma, I support the use of the Assemblies as juries.
Although not historical we are too small in number to ask the Senate
to handle this as well. The juries of Roma Antiqua were quite large
(approx. 100) if I recall correctly. Any matter grave enough to
require a jury trial here in NR, should be left to the whole people.

Respectfully.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
America Austrorientalis




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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 13:58:23 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:28 PM
>
> I am very interested in this discussion. I would like to show my
> support for Roman tradition over Common Law. After all, here in
> Hispania, our legal system derives directly from the Roman legal system
> (with a few Napoleonic additions), and not from the medieval English
> Common Law (and I guess that the same things happen in other parts of
> Europe). I would like to know more about the original Roman judicial
> system, for I am pretty sure that the Comitia Centuriata were not the
> only way to solve judicial matters.
>
> As in all matters of Nova Roma, I think we should be faithful to the
> ancient Roman traditions and institutions as long as they are
> compatible with the requirements of modern life.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Indeed, I would remind everyone that the civil law committee is putting
together these sorts of codes and procedures, and while progress has been
slow, a complete and coherent legal system will be presented to the People
for a vote this year.

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:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1419
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 14:05:06 -0400 (EDT)

Well Done Pricilla Vedia Serena!!

I applaud the vigilence of both you and yor scribes, and I believe the
action you have taken was a necessary one although sad to see the
necessity. It is very like the decision to reinstall a moderator during
the last Consulship, because there are those on the Main List who must
be controlled. I am sure that you will recieve some flack regarding
this from the "Maximum Liberty--Minimum Responsibility Bunch" but you
will hear none such from me. Again, Well Done Moderator and Scribes!!!!

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] Propaganda
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 14:28:36 -0400 (EDT)

Why yes, Citizen Coriolanus, I guess I am an "Adman" of sorts. You see,
while I do not get paid in money, I am reimbursed in pride and
satisfaction that the micronation that I labor in and labor for is in
fact a Republic where the Majority decides, and the Minority's views are
allowed and protected.

It is difficult for me to see any other way since my first career was
served to keep my counry safe, and my second career was served to keep
it strong, so I applaud long and loud when this micronation and it's
citizens takes it's steps forward, and still provides a forum for those
who disagree with the Majority.

To those who share my background, I suppose they will understand my
exuberance, and to those who do not share it, they will in all
likelihood not understand my love of the Republc, my service to a
country who appreciates my efforts, and my association with a
micronation who responds very favorably to my most internal and
important feelings.

I have been sneared at and made fun of before by those who do not now or
ever will understand mine and many thousands of others values. No
matter, I have labored, and labor still that they have the right to have
thier say, without the privelage of disrupting the rights of the
MAJORITY!!!

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: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Gaii Popili.

--- ksterne@-------- wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Salve Gnae Sali,
>
> I'm no expert, but I believe Roman juries were composed of groups of
> Equites and Senators chosen by lot. I don't think entire assembelies
>
> ever served as juries. I suspect Quintus Fabius Maximus knows the
> hard historical facts.

Not as juries; but as every citizen had the right of apellatio, I guess
they could decide on some judicial matters. I would also like to know
the opinion of Q. Fabius Max. on this issue.

>
> As for Nova Roma, I support the use of the Assemblies as juries.
> Although not historical we are too small in number to ask the Senate
> to handle this as well. The juries of Roma Antiqua were quite large
> (approx. 100) if I recall correctly. Any matter grave enough to
> require a jury trial here in NR, should be left to the whole people.

I guess that the disadvantages of handling judicial procedures through
the Comitia were very well pointed out by L. Sicinius Drusus on a
previous post. To honour my previous statement about the importance of
Roman tradition, I would suggest to actually make juries of 100 cives
(as they wouldn't be an Assembly, they could work OUTSIDE the Dies
Comitiales, although not on Dies Nefasti). To update this tradition to
modern standards, I would propose that those 100 were not drawn from
the Senatorial and Equites Orders, but from all cives in good standing;
and that they were not "appointed" by the Senate, but chosen randomly
(as this was a tradition common to Classical Culture, especially
Athenian).



=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae 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] Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 12:04:36 -0700

Salvete Consul Germanicus et Quirites;

-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus [mailto:germanicus@--------]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:58 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)


Salvete

<snipped>

I agree wholeheartedly.

Indeed, I would remind everyone that the civil law committee is putting
together these sorts of codes and procedures, and while progress has been
slow, a complete and coherent legal system will be presented to the People
for a vote this year.

OFS: This is truly excellent and fortuitous news!
My thanks to the civil law committed for all their
hard work on the civil code and will look forward
to reading more about this in the future!

Bene valete,
Oppius

<snipped>



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 19:14:59 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes; et salve, Gaii Popili.
>
> (snipped)I would suggest to actually make juries of 100 cives
> (as they wouldn't be an Assembly, they could work OUTSIDE the Dies
> Comitiales, although not on Dies Nefasti). To update this tradition
to
> modern standards, I would propose that those 100 were not drawn from
> the Senatorial and Equites Orders, but from all cives in good
standing;
> and that they were not "appointed" by the Senate, but chosen
randomly
> (as this was a tradition common to Classical Culture, especially
> Athenian).
>
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
>

Salve Gnae Sali,

As I thought after my post I also considered this option and I think
it would be closer to ancient practice and, therefore, more desirable.

Anyway, as our esteemed Consul has pointed out, we should hold
discussion until the hard work of the committee is posted.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	mansker@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 19:36:29 -0000

Salve Draco

<snipped>
> > >
> > Here we have again unverified rumor being stated that does nothing
> > but harm to NovaRoma.
> >
>
> Unverified rumour? Yes. But I offered my reasons.

GFS: Unsupported reasons, and pure speculation. I could also offer
reasons (i.e. speculation) as to why you and your group could be
equally responsible for the offending poll, but refuse.

>It was no accusation like, say, someone else calling me a
>communist, without evidence at all!
>

GFS: You were not called a communist. The statement was that you had
communistic views. Although I can see how you would take that as
being called a communist, there is a difference. And there has been
evidence of those views in your many posts of late.

> > This sort of "thinking out loud" that throws dirt on people
without
> > having proof of ANYTHING does nothing to help, and much to hurt,
our
> > nation.
> >
> > It also makes Oppius' comments about you seem more than real.
> >
>
> What comments? That I am a communist? Or a "traitor"? What have I
betrayed?
> Whose trust did I break?

GFS: These comments: "and with your recent incident of muckraking
and sensationalism" as I see this as nothing more than the above.

<snipped>

Gaia Flacca Severa




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 16:53:44 -0300 (BRT)

On Wed, 23 May 2001 mansker@-------- wrote:

> Salve Draco
>
> <snipped>
> > > >
> > > Here we have again unverified rumor being stated that does nothing
> > > but harm to NovaRoma.
> > >
> >
> > Unverified rumour? Yes. But I offered my reasons.
>
> GFS: Unsupported reasons, and pure speculation. I could also offer
> reasons (i.e. speculation) as to why you and your group could be
> equally responsible for the offending poll, but refuse.
>
> >It was no accusation like, say, someone else calling me a
> >communist, without evidence at all!
> >
>
> GFS: You were not called a communist. The statement was that you had
> communistic views. Although I can see how you would take that as
> being called a communist, there is a difference. And there has been
> evidence of those views in your many posts of late.

I saw absolutely no evidence of any comuunist views in any post
from the Appolonians, and I know what I am speaking about being
a communist. And I am definitevely rpoud of that.

On the other hand I found a lot of evidence of ultra-rightist views in
many posts of the opponents to the Appolonians, wish I really feel they
should be ashamed of.

The last post (I received) of consul Vedius asking Formosanus to leave
is typical of ultra-rightist dictature which universally uses some moto
like "Love it or leave it" while speaking of their dictatorial state.
I do not say that we live in a dictature, only that those views are
similar to those of the oligarchs of dictatures.

I know the stalinist moto of "If you don t love it you must be mad" is
no better, but I didn t see any evidence of some tenant of leftist
dictature here, only democrats.

Manius Villius Limitanus.


>
> > > This sort of "thinking out loud" that throws dirt on people
> without
> > > having proof of ANYTHING does nothing to help, and much to hurt,
> our
> > > nation.
> > >
> > > It also makes Oppius' comments about you seem more than real.
> > >
> >
> > What comments? That I am a communist? Or a "traitor"? What have I
> betrayed?
> > Whose trust did I break?
>
> GFS: These comments: "and with your recent incident of muckraking
> and sensationalism" as I see this as nothing more than the above.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Gaia Flacca Severa
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

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





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 16:56:20 -0300 (BRT)

On Wed, 23 May 2001 ksterne@-------- wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes; et salve, Gaii Popili.
> >
> > (snipped)I would suggest to actually make juries of 100 cives
> > (as they wouldn't be an Assembly, they could work OUTSIDE the Dies
> > Comitiales, although not on Dies Nefasti). To update this tradition
> to
> > modern standards, I would propose that those 100 were not drawn from
> > the Senatorial and Equites Orders, but from all cives in good
> standing;
> > and that they were not "appointed" by the Senate, but chosen
> randomly
> > (as this was a tradition common to Classical Culture, especially
> > Athenian).
> >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
> > Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> > Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.
> >
>
> Salve Gnae Sali,
>
> As I thought after my post I also considered this option and I think
> it would be closer to ancient practice and, therefore, more desirable.
>
> Anyway, as our esteemed Consul has pointed out, we should hold
> discussion until the hard work of the committee is posted.

Why should we do that, NovaRoma is a democracy and ideas should be
discussed on the forum by all citizens, the magistrates/commisioners can
always grab some interresting idea out of those discussion.
That s the way it worked in ancient times, that s the way it works in
any democracy.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus.


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

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





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 20:01:22 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:

>Why should we do that, NovaRoma is a democracy<

Salve Mani Villi,

I thought it was your position Nova Roma is an oligarchy? :-)

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 13:03:15 -0700

<Snip>

> Why should we do that, NovaRoma is a democracy and ideas should be
> discussed on the forum by all citizens, the magistrates/commisioners can
> always grab some interresting idea out of those discussion.
> That s the way it worked in ancient times, that s the way it works in
> any democracy.

Ave Citizens of Nova Roma,

Another, the countless corrections that must be made to these people is
that Nova Roma is not a democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic. Please
read the website and rectify your mistake. It only makes you look more
foolish in the eyes of the Citizens of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 15:23:37 US/Central

Salvete Luci Corneli et alii

> Another, the countless corrections that must be made to these people is
> that Nova Roma is not a democracy.  Nova Roma is a Republic.

Once again, this ridiculousness raises its head. The terms republic and
democracy are relatively interchangeable in English--especially when one is
contrasting them to terms like aristocracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. It is
only one overly-narrow set of definitions which requires the word democracy to
refer only to a full-fledged Athenian democracy and republic to refer only to
the Roman or American versions of representational democracy.

The broad definitions are as valid as the narrow definitions, and we are on a
list with people for whom English is a second or third language. If you use
such narrow definitions, you must take into account the fact that much of the
English-speaking world will correctly disagree with the artificial limitations
you place on those words.

> Please read the website and rectify your mistake.

Please read any reasonable English dictionary and rectify your understanding of
the language. Try http://www.dictionary.com for a start.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Talk about jumping up and slappin ........
From:	domusludus@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 20:24:37 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In parusing the archives I came across the post about the poll and
was promptly slapped in the face by my own past. About 2 1/2 years
ago, while severly alienated with Nova Roma, I called Germanicus
"Germy" in a childish and spiteful fit of anger. Since then, I still
think of Germanicus as Germy, but it is in a far friendlier state of
mind.

While I have written the Germanicus privately, the guilt is somehow
still bothering me a great deal (who'd a thunk it, eh?). I now wish
to apologise to Germanicus PUBLICALLY. Int he last couple of years I
have done some growing up and some settling down.

While I'm at it, I'd better apologise for all the names I have called
various and sundry people since then (I'll not give our mystery
poll-maker further amunition by teling what I used to call the List
Mater -- besides, I actually like her a great deal now <VBG>).

I would also like to ask those who are being as childish and petty as
*I* once was to stop. Name-calling doesn't score points with anyone.
You get attention, yes, but it isn't really worth it in the end.
Trust me, I know of what I speak.

Pax vobiscum,
Seia Silvania Atia

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: It's OK to be paranoid when everyone's out to get you!!

iQA/AwUBOwwdkE3S3IMoXfBQEQKNxwCgr/IB01d3kz/loHsRiN3zIYFbpMEAnAhc
WF7rWHQTaB93v/pe7Uvui5zq
=RFGS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 17:37:15 -0300 (BRT)

On Wed, 23 May 2001 ksterne@-------- wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
>
> >Why should we do that, NovaRoma is a democracy<
>
> Salve Mani Villi,
>
> I thought it was your position Nova Roma is an oligarchy? :-)

Salve,

No. My position is that our constitution is a fine one, and
that at this point in history we have a group of people which
are tranforming it in an oligarchy, and that we all should be
very attentive in order for this not to happen, and in fact
I think we even need to come to a point of equilibrium a little
farther away from oligarchy.

You know, the stalinist _constitution_ was very democratic, but
since it was not exactly used, the regime was tyrannic.


Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus




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

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







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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 20:45:52 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:

> No. My position is that our constitution is a fine one, and
> that at this point in history we have a group of people which
> are tranforming it in an oligarchy, and that we all should be
> very attentive in order for this not to happen, and in fact
> I think we even need to come to a point of equilibrium a little
> farther away from oligarchy.
>
> You know, the stalinist _constitution_ was very democratic, but
> since it was not exactly used, the regime was tyrannic.
>
>
Salve again Mani Villi

My intention was soley to inject a little comitas. I have no desire
to start any conflict.

IMHO, the heavy involvment in government by a relatively small group
will abate as the Republic grows and more civies are eligible to
pursue the cursus honorum. I believe the civies who have given so
much time serving will be glad to hand off the load.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 13:51:27 -0700

Ave,

I understand your point, but here is mine. I have gone through most of
the NR website. And I did a search for the word democracy. In NO place
on the NR website is the word democracy found. In the Constitution of
Nova Roma I did a search for Democracy...again... 0 results found. I
did a search for Republic..and found that word 3 times. Yes I know the
term, Republic and Democracy are blurred. However, politically we are a
Republic. Our Constitution of Nova Roma states that clearly. And I
would agree with you that the United States is a representational
democracy, or as the Pledge of Alliegance states, "'I pledge allegiance
to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands."
(http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm). I just wish that
our citizens would actually use the words as stated in the Constitution
of Nova Roma. I do not think that is too difficult to ask..or is it?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete Luci Corneli et alii
>
> > Another, the countless corrections that must be made to these people is
> > that Nova Roma is not a democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic.
>
> Once again, this ridiculousness raises its head. The terms republic and
> democracy are relatively interchangeable in English--especially when one is
> contrasting them to terms like aristocracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. It is
> only one overly-narrow set of definitions which requires the word democracy to
> refer only to a full-fledged Athenian democracy and republic to refer only to
> the Roman or American versions of representational democracy.
>
> The broad definitions are as valid as the narrow definitions, and we are on a
> list with people for whom English is a second or third language. If you use
> such narrow definitions, you must take into account the fact that much of the
> English-speaking world will correctly disagree with the artificial limitations
> you place on those words.
>
> > Please read the website and rectify your mistake.
>
> Please read any reasonable English dictionary and rectify your understanding of
> the language. Try http://www.dictionary.com for a start.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
>
>
>
> 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] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 18:02:56 -0300 (BRT)

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:

> Ave,
>
> I understand your point, but here is mine. I have gone through most of
> the NR website. And I did a search for the word democracy. In NO place
> on the NR website is the word democracy found. In the Constitution of
> Nova Roma I did a search for Democracy...again... 0 results found. I
> did a search for Republic..and found that word 3 times. Yes I know the
> term, Republic and Democracy are blurred. However, politically we are a
> Republic.

Of course we are a republic we have no king. That s the only meaning of
republic. And we are a democracy since all citizens vote. We have a
totally democratic constitution, denying this shows one more time the
dictatorial/oligarchic thougths of the ones denying it.

> Our Constitution of Nova Roma states that clearly. And I
> would agree with you that the United States is a representational
> democracy, or as the Pledge of Alliegance states, "'I pledge allegiance
> to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
> which it stands."
> (http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm). I just wish that
> our citizens would actually use the words as stated in the Constitution
> of Nova Roma. I do not think that is too difficult to ask..or is it?
>

An Oligarchy is a Republic, a Tyranny is a Republic but they are no
Democracies. Our constitution is democratic, the use some make of it is
not democratic and this has to been fought against if we wish NovaRoma to
stand.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> labienus@-------- wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Luci Corneli et alii
> >
> > > Another, the countless corrections that must be made to these people is
> > > that Nova Roma is not a democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic.
> >
> > Once again, this ridiculousness raises its head. The terms republic and
> > democracy are relatively interchangeable in English--especially when one is
> > contrasting them to terms like aristocracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. It is
> > only one overly-narrow set of definitions which requires the word democracy to
> > refer only to a full-fledged Athenian democracy and republic to refer only to
> > the Roman or American versions of representational democracy.
> >
> > The broad definitions are as valid as the narrow definitions, and we are on a
> > list with people for whom English is a second or third language. If you use
> > such narrow definitions, you must take into account the fact that much of the
> > English-speaking world will correctly disagree with the artificial limitations
> > you place on those words.
> >
> > > Please read the website and rectify your mistake.
> >
> > Please read any reasonable English dictionary and rectify your understanding of
> > the language. Try http://www.dictionary.com for a start.
> >
> > Valete
> > T Labienus Fortunatus
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>

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





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Enemies Within?
From:	mansker@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 21:08:41 -0000

Salve Manius Villius Limitanus

<snipped>

Since I cannot say that I know more about communism than you, I will
use the dictionary definition of communism:

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the
economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming
to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are
equally shared by the people.

By this definition, I see definate communism tendancies by both of
the gens being discussed. However, M. Apollonius Formosanus seems to
be leaning more this way as he advocates the idea that the few are
more important than the many.


> I saw absolutely no evidence of any comuunist views in any post
> from the Appolonians, and I know what I am speaking about being
> a communist. And I am definitevely rpoud of that.
>
> On the other hand I found a lot of evidence of ultra-rightist views
> in many posts of the opponents to the Appolonians, wish I really
> feel they should be ashamed of. The last post (I received) of
> consul Vedius asking Formosanus to leave is typical of ultra-
> rightist dictature which universally uses some moto like "Love it
> or leave it" while speaking of their dictatorial state. I do not
> say that we live in a dictature, only that those views are similar
> to those of the oligarchs of dictatures.
>
> I know the stalinist moto of "If you don t love it you must be mad"
> is no better, but I didn t see any evidence of some tenant of
>leftist
> dictature here, only democrats.
>





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 14:12:01 -0700

Michel Loos wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > I understand your point, but here is mine. I have gone through most of
> > the NR website. And I did a search for the word democracy. In NO place
> > on the NR website is the word democracy found. In the Constitution of
> > Nova Roma I did a search for Democracy...again... 0 results found. I
> > did a search for Republic..and found that word 3 times. Yes I know the
> > term, Republic and Democracy are blurred. However, politically we are a
> > Republic.
>
> Of course we are a republic we have no king. That s the only meaning of
> republic. And we are a democracy since all citizens vote. We have a
> totally democratic constitution, denying this shows one more time the
> dictatorial/oligarchic thougths of the ones denying it.

I think you really need to chill out before you start with the
dictatorial/oligarchic arguements you are not making any points at
all....espeically by criticizing everyone who disagrees with you.

> > Our Constitution of Nova Roma states that clearly. And I
> > would agree with you that the United States is a representational
> > democracy, or as the Pledge of Alliegance states, "'I pledge allegiance
> > to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
> > which it stands."
> > (http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm). I just wish that
> > our citizens would actually use the words as stated in the Constitution
> > of Nova Roma. I do not think that is too difficult to ask..or is it?
> >
>
> An Oligarchy is a Republic, a Tyranny is a Republic but they are no
> Democracies. Our constitution is democratic, the use some make of it is
> not democratic and this has to been fought against if we wish NovaRoma to
> stand.

An Oligarch is not JUST a Republic. I suggest you read Plato's Republic
or the plethora of political philosophy before you begin to spew your
thoughts and opinions Manius. Our Constitution states clearly it is a
Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic. I do not hear ANY scholar or
historian call Rome's Government a Roman Democracy! So you are totally
mistaken. If you can give me a respectable source showing that the
government of Rome from 509 bce to 27 bce as a Roman Democracy I will
cease to have my opinion.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > labienus@-------- wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Luci Corneli et alii
> > >
> > > > Another, the countless corrections that must be made to these people is
> > > > that Nova Roma is not a democracy. Nova Roma is a Republic.
> > >
> > > Once again, this ridiculousness raises its head. The terms republic and
> > > democracy are relatively interchangeable in English--especially when one is
> > > contrasting them to terms like aristocracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. It is
> > > only one overly-narrow set of definitions which requires the word democracy to
> > > refer only to a full-fledged Athenian democracy and republic to refer only to
> > > the Roman or American versions of representational democracy.
> > >
> > > The broad definitions are as valid as the narrow definitions, and we are on a
> > > list with people for whom English is a second or third language. If you use
> > > such narrow definitions, you must take into account the fact that much of the
> > > English-speaking world will correctly disagree with the artificial limitations
> > > you place on those words.
> > >
> > > > Please read the website and rectify your mistake.
> > >
> > > Please read any reasonable English dictionary and rectify your understanding of
> > > the language. Try http://www.dictionary.com for a start.
> > >
> > > Valete
> > > T Labienus Fortunatus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
> Pr. Michel Loos | Phone: 55 11 818 3810 p. 216
> Inst. de Quimica USP | Fax: 55 11 815 5579
> PO Box 26077 05599-970 São Paulo, S SP
> Brazil
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 16:14:26 US/Central

Salvete Luci Corneli et alii

> I understand your point, but here is mine.  I have gone through most of
> the NR website.  And I did a search for the word democracy.  In NO place
> on the NR website is the word democracy found.

So what? This does not change the nature of the English language, and it does
not change the definitions of the two words.

> However, politically we are a Republic.

Politically, we are mixed. We have an oligarchic/aristocratic Senate,
monarchic powers invested in our magistrates, and democratic institutions when
it comes to passing leges.

> Our Constitution of Nova Roma states that clearly.

Our constitution implies rather clearly that we have a mixed government, and
not a republic in the modern sense of the word (the ancient sense of the word
is usually translated to mean an aristocracy). We are typing modern English at
each other. Please accept that fact.

> And I would agree with you that the United States is a representational
> democracy, or as the Pledge of Alliegance states, "'I pledge allegiance
> to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
> which it stands."

So you admit that it is possible to refer to the USA as both a democracy and a
republic and be equally correct--that the two words are often synonymous--since
you yourself have done so in the quoted text above.

> I just wish that our citizens would actually use the words as stated in
> the Constitution of Nova Roma.  I do not think that is too difficult to
> ask..or is it?

To do so is to deliberately choose to fail to communicate properly. If someone
says that they are supportive of democracy and democratic ideals, it is counter-
productive and erroneous to choose to believe that these things are somehow
incongruous with Nova Roman government. It is only in America where the words
democracy and republic have become political code words used by the left and
right respectively that such a requirement for a distinction could have any
real rationale. Here in Nova Roma, we're all talking about the Roman mixed
model of government.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus





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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Enemies Within?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 17:32:28 -0400

Salve,

>>I knew you'd say this. BUT my point was to show that if others can get
away
with trolling under a false guise, I could do it just as well.>>

For starters, *no one* is allowed to get away with posting under a false
guise. I have known Nerva was Festus ever since *he* tried to post here
under false pretenses and I stopped him in his tracks. As he explained at
the time, he had made a new start here and I agreed that as long as he
posted under his new *known* name and caused no trouble there would be no
problem. He has kept his word admirably. Just because *you* did not know
that Nerva used to go by the name Festus does not mean he was posting under
false pretenses. No one receives special treatment here, *anyone* found to
be trying to troll the List is dealt with the same way.

I will also point out that the argument of "well, if they can do it I should
be allowed to too" is ridiculous, not to mention juvenile. Didn't your mom
ever point out to you that just because all the other children are jumping
off bridges you don't have to follow them? Sheesh!

>>Second reason was that people would look at the information rather than
the sender.>>

You blew that noble ideal hen you admitted that the *only* reason you came
forward was because you were ticked off at Nerva for exposing the low-class
antics of Piscinius.

>>As I decided to post it under my real name,>>

If you recall, I told you plainly that the *only* way the info would see the
light of day was under your true name. If you believe I did not know to
whom I was speaking while you hid behind "Chaong X" then you vastly
underestimate the technical expertise of several of our Nova Roman citizens.
Your true identity was never in doubt, I simply gave you the chance to come
forward on your own which, after being denied your back alley, you did.

>>you can see that I was attacked, rather than the info. So that second
reason might not have been so bad after all.>>

We disagree. Your motives and timing were attacked and rightfully so. You
*tried* to make some noble case of defending the nation from fraud, yet in
the same breath admitted you *only* spoke up out of irritation at Nerva.
Had Nerva not exposed Piscinius, where would your much-vaunted "concern" for
the nation have gone?

>>Chaong X was not really a troll, but a dummy account to post information
with, whereas Deformosanus was truly a troll.>>

You say dummy, I say troll. Semantics. As for Deformosanus, I have to ask:
just because everyone else might be eating bugs, do you feel compelled to?
Your juvenile attitude of "well HE did it too" is appalling.

>>Not really. You installed that rule because of Festus, not because of
me.>>

You misread the original post. I have *added* 2 new restrictions due
specifically, in part, to your actions. That makes *you* a direct part of
the problem.

>>So I didn't help creating it. I did "help" enforcing it. But what's the
big deal?>>

Again with the juvenile attitudes. I am sure those who *can* create polls
and upload files and post messages without needing "mommy" to watch them are
ever so grateful to know that *you* don't think it is a big deal.

>>I could have chosen not to post it after all, and nobody would have ever
known who Chaong X was.>>

Incorrect. As I said, the identity of "Chaong X" was never in question. I
simply afforded you some small measure to "save face".

>>But I did post it under my own name after all, knowing and realizing the
consequences.>>

Oh please!! What a transparent attempt at sounding noble, give me a break!
I made it *crystal* clear that until and unless you had the courage to stand
in the light of day not one word of your post would appear. You had to
choose between exposing yourself and allowing what you hoed would be Sulla's
downfall to pass you by. You gambled and you lost. The vast majority of
cives saw your 'sky is falling; shrieks as the non-issue they are. As has
been pointed out, you made a bad choice. Don't make it worse by trying to
cloak yourself in false nobility for your efforts.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 17:28:12 -0500

Salvete Luci Corneli et alii

> An Oligarch is not JUST a Republic.

However, an oligarchy can be a republic, in much the same way that an
odd integer can be referred to as a number. For most people in the
world, a republic is simply a form of government that is not a
monarchy. That is the primary definition of the word.

> thoughts and opinions Manius. Our Constitution states clearly it is a
> Republic fashioned on the Roman Republic. I do not hear ANY scholar
> or historian call Rome's Government a Roman Democracy! So you are
> totally mistaken. If you can give me a respectable source showing that
> the government of Rome from 509 bce to 27 bce as a Roman Democracy I
> will cease to have my opinion.

I refer you to message #16346 in the archives, in which Q Fabius quotes
the Roman government scholar Alexander Yakobson, who says, among other
things, "As regards formal structures, the fundamental argument of this
book is that our evidence will remain unintelligible unless we accept
that the constitution of the Roman res publica made it a variety of
democracy."

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est."
-Francis Bacon



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Juries (WAS A Fair Trial)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 16:03:11 -0700

on 5/23/01 9:14 AM, labienus@-------- at labienus@-------- wrote:

> Salvete Luci Corneli et alii
>
>> I understand your point, but here is mine.  I have gone through most of
>> the NR website.  And I did a search for the word democracy.  In NO place
>> on the NR website is the word democracy found.
>
> So what? This does not change the nature of the English language, and it does
> not change the definitions of the two words.

So what? I was making a clear point that in no place in Nova Roma is the
word democracy even stated. Whereas the word Republic is mentioned.

>> However, politically we are a Republic.
>
> Politically, we are mixed. We have an oligarchic/aristocratic Senate,
> monarchic powers invested in our magistrates, and democratic institutions when
> it comes to passing leges.

That is correct...we are under a mixed Constitution.

>> Our Constitution of Nova Roma states that clearly.
>
> Our constitution implies rather clearly that we have a mixed government, and
> not a republic in the modern sense of the word (the ancient sense of the word
> is usually translated to mean an aristocracy). We are typing modern English
> at
> each other. Please accept that fact.

The Constitution states clearly, "Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all
manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the Roman
Republic."

>> And I would agree with you that the United States is a representational
>> democracy, or as the Pledge of Alliegance states, "'I pledge allegiance
>> to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
>> which it stands."
>
> So you admit that it is possible to refer to the USA as both a democracy and a
> republic and be equally correct--that the two words are often
> synonymous--since
> you yourself have done so in the quoted text above.

Not Democracy..but representative democracy...to say democarcy means we
would not have representatives to decide the issue. That is a clear
difference. The People have a limited say via their representatives. In a
pure democracy the people would need no representatives for they are their
own representative. So there is a vital difference at least in my
interpretation. According to dictionary.com a Republic under defination
#2, a political order where the Supreme Power lies in a body of citizens who
are entitles to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Under Democracy it states, "Government by the People, exercised directly or
thourgh elected magistrates." So there is blur, but in the idea of a
Republic there is no choice given via the option to act directly. I believe
that you and I do see the subtle difference. If democracy is taken too far
we would have anarchy, let alone the abuse of the majority over the minority
as dicussed by the Utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill, Jeremy
Bentham and others (from the ancients to many modern political
philosophers.)

>> I just wish that our citizens would actually use the words as stated in
>> the Constitution of Nova Roma.  I do not think that is too difficult to
>> ask..or is it?
>
> To do so is to deliberately choose to fail to communicate properly. If
> someone
> says that they are supportive of democracy and democratic ideals, it is
> counter-
> productive and erroneous to choose to believe that these things are somehow
> incongruous with Nova Roman government. It is only in America where the words
> democracy and republic have become political code words used by the left and
> right respectively that such a requirement for a distinction could have any
> real rationale. Here in Nova Roma, we're all talking about the Roman mixed
> model of government.

Well I guess that is the difference between the leftist statement of M.
Apollonius, et al and the meaning of the Constitution. You and I both know
that I am referring to the same things you are...in terms of communicating
the idea of the Roman Mixed Constitution as spelled out by Polybius and
other ancients. However, the issue then becomes devisve when we have to
deal with the subtle meaning as protrayed by the leftists of Nova Roma.
Would that assumption be correct? This will be my last post on this topic.
I believe most of us tend to understand exactly what we are saying.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Enemies Within?
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2001 19:51:12 EDT

In a message dated 5/23/01 8:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:

> Over the past 24 hours, I have witnessed things here on this list beyond
> belief.

LTS: No shit. The only thing that amazes me is that you limited it to 24
hours.

> It's not common to designate my age range by the use of the word "kid" (at
> least not over here). And neither am I a "boy", old man.

It's uncommon?? Is that like the norm...or even normalcy? And, yes...in my
time and place and country, you ARE a boy...whether you sit still or not.

> Innocent error? This is nowhere near proven. Nor is the contrary, but I
> would like to point out here that you seem to be as prejudiced as
> Formosanus.

Disprove it! Provide evidence. The burden of proof. As it should be.

> I'm not offended. But I can't tell you how bad my heart feels to see that
> you accuse of me of things that are completely untrue.

Not offended? You shouldn't be. There was not one reasoning post on this
list that accused you of anything that you weren't guilty of. If you wish to
be perceived as mature...perhaps you should show some maturity. I had much
more to say, but I'm finished with this.

With that said, I quit. I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus, do hereby relinquish
my citizenship in Nova Roma, along with the duties and responsibilities of
the office of Quaestor.

A short note: Patricia Cassius, some of the letters that I sent came back.
I will mail all of them again...up until your last e-mail. I will not send
another after today.

Vale,
LTS




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