Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Virtual temple
From:	Kristoffer From <from@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:19:46 +0200

Sokarus Apollonius Callias wrote:
>
> Hi, I worship a group of Gods called the Titans. on my site I'm
> putting all available information about them online but I can't
> find all the info required. prayers I can find, but help will be
> grateful. Are there priesthoods for these deities? Because you can
> sign me up for it. I'm an artist in training and I want to use it
> for my religion.

Salve, Sokare Apolloni Callias.

Are these Titans the titans of greek mythology, the sons and daughters
of Uranus and Gaia, as well as the sires of the current pantheon?
Currently banished to Tartarus by Zeus...

Or am I mistaken? If so, who exactly are these Titans you worship?

Vale,

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

AKA Kristoffer From

---

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

- Not-so-famous quotation

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What type of Roman are you?
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:19:39 -0400

"no name" CW2ShaneEvans@-------- wrote:

> I thank the gods daily that I serve the Militarium and do not have to deal
> with all of the petty politics found within certain factions of this
> organization. I've kept my mouth shut for a long time now, but I think it is
> time that I say something.

Rome is not Rome with out her politics. Politics gave Rome a large part of
her identity. Part of politics is squabbling and arguing, though it is all
necessary and beautiful in a way. The discussion of our politics in a sign
that Nova Roma truly is Rome reborn and that the flame of our ancestors is
alive. You take out these so called "petty politics" you kill this nation,
because it would not be a New Rome without it.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Citizenship Diploma Idea
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:12:21 -0400

Maximina Octavia wrote:

> I apologize for butting in, however, there is a way you can deflect the cost
> the diplomas by putting the onus on the citizen.

>
> Create a website, there are still lots of free ones, where the citizen can
> print out their own. If they don't have a printer, one can be printed at the
> library or loaded on a floppy and printed from the floppy.

Maximnia Octavia, I am the current printer and organiser of the proposed
citizenship diploma along with Pompeia Cornelia. The province of Canada
Orientalis has taken up this project with the goal of raising income for the
nation and province. Also a printed off certificate is hardly official.

You see this certificate will be a official document of this nation. It will
be on special paper along with a seal. How would one insert his or her name
and date on a printed off version? A printed version would be hardly
official or individual. We are currently look at selling these certificates
for only around $5.00 Canadian. It will be defiantly worth every penny of
it.

>
> Sorry for the intrusion, I am new, but here is my two-cents anyway. I am sure
> I know very little about how these things are done, but I am frugal and this
> is how I would do it.

Welcome to Nova Roma. I hope you will learn much.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Something Interesting
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:29:41 -0400

Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus wrote:

> Avete omnes cives Novae Romae!
>
> I just found something that is within our realm of
> interests:
>
> http://www.imperiumnovum.org/
>
> This url is a link to the site of another micronation
> similar in goals to ours, but different in structure.
> I have not given it a very close look yet (and I
> stress this point), but I would bet that it is
> definately worth a look.
>
> Valete optime! :->!
>

This site was discussed before. I remember something about a Nero from our
nation was discovered to be founder. Its just a sad replication that will
amount to nothing more then a dead website.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nova Roma is grand!
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:06:22 -0000

>From: J O <romalist2@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Nova Roma is grand!
>Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:37:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Ave All!
>
>It's Decimus Antoninius Aquitanius Organbidexka here!
>
>I've been out of the loop of Nova for over a month,
>though I have popped in to keep tabs on things at
>times, but never found myself with much to say. You
>could call me an inactive citizen I guess, but that
>hasn't lessend my feelings for our Republic. And
>though I have not participated much in Nova Roma as of
>late, I have been very active in Roman related
>projects. I have been learning how to sculpt and make
>casts in plaster (hopefully metal soon enough) for to
>make statues and figurines of a Roman nature of
>course. I've been working on making a mosaic (where I
>live, supplies for such projects are scarce, so I've
>been making my own tiles by hand). And I've been
>painting, making reproductions of ancient Roman
>frescos.
>So my artistic Roman projects continue. (snip)

Salve Decime:

Nice to hear from you! I have seen (and I have kept) one of your Roman
Murals.....he is a good artist, citizens!

It seems through your artistic endeavors you are celebrating Romanitas even
though you cannot keep in touch with NR as frequently as you like. I would
love to see your sculptures.

I just sent you a big fat email updating you on provincial activities. :)

Be well :)
Pompeia
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:53:49 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:18 PM
>
> If you please reread my statement above slightly more carefully, you
> will see that my objection was not about the historical correctness of
> this proposal, but more of a practical matter. It is already quite
> difficult to have two individuals to agree on an issue; to make six of
> them agree in something would be nearly impossible.

If I may, there is a difference between having to actively support an action
(as would be required were we to adopt the "majority vote" idea) and simply
having to tacitly support it by failing to actively reject it (as would be
the case with my current proposal). I happen to think that the latter would
be much more workable; we have trouble even getting two Tribunes to agree on
an intercessio; can you imagine the trouble in getting three (or more) to do
so within the allotted time-frame?

> But the same thing happened more or less in the original Res Publica.
> By the second century B.C.E., the Tribuni Plebis had evolved to become
> a system of protection for the common people against the excesses of
> the ruling class, were they patrician or plebeian. And this division
> DOES exist in Nova Roma; not because our current magistrates are
> willing to attack the rights of common citizens, but simply because we
> HAVE magistrates.

Precisely. And what is the check we have against abuses by the magistrates?
Our Constitution and laws. And what enables the Tribunes to enforce that
check? My current amendment proposal.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Something Interesting
From:	"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:11:39 -0000

Salvete,

The person who started the Imperium Novum website was a former
Citizen, who left Nova Roma seemingly because he felt we weren't
conservative and structured enough. This is as opposed to the folks
who left us on the "Ides of March", seemingly because they felt NR is
TOO conservative and structured!

This leaves me with two thoughts. Firstly, you can be fairly sure
something is steering a fair and "middle of the road" course when
people with extreme "right" or "left" viewpoints can't abide it. The
second thought is the old adage: "Imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery." ;)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

--- In novaroma@--------, Patrick Ferguson <pvitruviusiulianus@-------->
wrote:
> Avete omnes cives Novae Romae!
>
> I just found something that is within our realm of
> interests:
>
> http://www.imperiumnovum.org/
>
> This url is a link to the site of another micronation
> similar in goals to ours, but different in structure.
> I have not given it a very close look yet (and I
> stress this point), but I would bet that it is
> definately worth a look.
>
> Valete optime! :->!
>
> Patricius Vitruvius Iulianus,
>
> Civis Novae Romae.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] For the record....
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:54:30 -0400

Salve,

I have been waiting for Limitanus to clear up the false accusation he made
the other day, as it was quite a serious charge with no basis in truth. He
has chosen not to recant his accusation, nor has he chosen to apologize for
it, so it falls to me to clear the record of both myself and my scribe
Pompeia. Without further ado, here are the facts of Limitanus' account <all
information below can be independently verified by three other sources if
need be>:

>>Account Status

Bounce History: Weekly summary
Week of 6/16/2001 18 bounce(s)
Week of 6/9/2001 25 bounce(s)
Week of 6/2/2001 46 bounce(s)
Week of 5/26/2001 32 bounce(s)

Most recent messages
Date Type of message sent Date Bounce Type
6/19/2001 Message#23655 6/21/2001 Soft Bounce
6/17/2001 Message#23617 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
6/17/2001 Message from another group 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
6/16/2001 Message#23603 6/18/2001 Soft Bounce
6/15/2001 Message#23578 6/17/2001 Soft Bounce

Last Bounce Message:

'Mail server for "qt1.iq.usp.br" unreachable for too long'>>

As is now clear to all, there has been no *censorship* of Limitanus. He has
only his own technical difficulties to blame for any lack of postings. I
would call again publicly for his apology, and indeed I hope he finds the
dignitas to do so. Alas, he seems content to let the lie fester. No
matter, the truth is now out for all to see. I thank you for your time and
attention.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Something Interesting
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:57:29 -0400

Sic! That is very true and more then ever in this situation.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"
-Marcus Fabius Quintilianus

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

Marcus Cassius Julianus wrote:

>"Imitation is the sincerest form of
> flattery." ;)

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: For the record....
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 04:03:32 -0000

Ave,

I also posted his technical difficulties earlier this week. The
problem is entirely on his end. He needs a new ISP.

He is one two lists that I moderate, NovaRomaVizantia and
NovaRomaLaws.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> I have been waiting for Limitanus to clear up the false accusation
he made
> the other day, as it was quite a serious charge with no basis in
truth. He
> has chosen not to recant his accusation, nor has he chosen to
apologize for
> it, so it falls to me to clear the record of both myself and my
scribe
> Pompeia. Without further ado, here are the facts of Limitanus'
account <all
> information below can be independently verified by three other
sources if
> need be>:
>
>
> >>Account Status
>
> Bounce History: Weekly summary
> Week of 6/16/2001 18 bounce(s)
> Week of 6/9/2001 25 bounce(s)
> Week of 6/2/2001 46 bounce(s)
> Week of 5/26/2001 32 bounce(s)
>
> Most recent messages
> Date Type of message sent Date Bounce Type
> 6/19/2001 Message#23655 6/21/2001 Soft Bounce
> 6/17/2001 Message#23617 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
> 6/17/2001 Message from another group 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
> 6/16/2001 Message#23603 6/18/2001 Soft Bounce
> 6/15/2001 Message#23578 6/17/2001 Soft Bounce
>
> Last Bounce Message:
>
> 'Mail server for "qt1.iq.usp.br" unreachable for too long'>>
>
> As is now clear to all, there has been no *censorship* of
Limitanus. He has
> only his own technical difficulties to blame for any lack of
postings. I
> would call again publicly for his apology, and indeed I hope he
finds the
> dignitas to do so. Alas, he seems content to let the lie fester.
No
> matter, the truth is now out for all to see. I thank you for your
time and
> attention.
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:15:40 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:40 PM
>
> I think that you really want to make sure that the tribuni will use
> intercessio just when there is a real need for it, but that they will
> not be stopped from using it if needed. I really think that majority
> vote is the best way to comply with these two requirements.

Honestly, I believe the opposite to be true. What is easier; to get three
Tribunes to actively support an intercessio, or merely to ensure that one
Tribune doesn't think so badly of it that he feels compelled to nullify it?
It takes more to actively oppose something than it does to tacitly support
it. The ancients knew this truth; let's recognize it ourselves!

And let us not forget the purpose for Tribunicial intercessio; violations of
the law and/or Constitution. I think such violations will be fairly
clear-cut, and not subject to a lot of subjective wrangling. Of course,
there are always exceptions, but that's why the process exists, eh?

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: For the record....
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:52:48 -0400

Hold on a sec. Marcus Octavius Germanicus didn't say this first. Are you
sure you want to make this post? Better check in with Spike, Chester...

FVG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:04 AM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: For the record....
>
>
> Ave,
>
> I also posted his technical difficulties earlier this week. The
> problem is entirely on his end. He needs a new ISP.
>
> He is one two lists that I moderate, NovaRomaVizantia and
> NovaRomaLaws.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > I have been waiting for Limitanus to clear up the false accusation
> he made
> > the other day, as it was quite a serious charge with no basis in
> truth. He
> > has chosen not to recant his accusation, nor has he chosen to
> apologize for
> > it, so it falls to me to clear the record of both myself and my
> scribe
> > Pompeia. Without further ado, here are the facts of Limitanus'
> account <all
> > information below can be independently verified by three other
> sources if
> > need be>:
> >
> >
> > >>Account Status
> >
> > Bounce History: Weekly summary
> > Week of 6/16/2001 18 bounce(s)
> > Week of 6/9/2001 25 bounce(s)
> > Week of 6/2/2001 46 bounce(s)
> > Week of 5/26/2001 32 bounce(s)
> >
> > Most recent messages
> > Date Type of message sent Date Bounce Type
> > 6/19/2001 Message#23655 6/21/2001 Soft Bounce
> > 6/17/2001 Message#23617 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
> > 6/17/2001 Message from another group 6/19/2001 Soft Bounce
> > 6/16/2001 Message#23603 6/18/2001 Soft Bounce
> > 6/15/2001 Message#23578 6/17/2001 Soft Bounce
> >
> > Last Bounce Message:
> >
> > 'Mail server for "qt1.iq.usp.br" unreachable for too long'>>
> >
> > As is now clear to all, there has been no *censorship* of
> Limitanus. He has
> > only his own technical difficulties to blame for any lack of
> postings. I
> > would call again publicly for his apology, and indeed I hope he
> finds the
> > dignitas to do so. Alas, he seems content to let the lie fester.
> No
> > matter, the truth is now out for all to see. I thank you for your
> time and
> > attention.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Priscilla Vedia Serena
> > Curatrix Sermonis
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 06:16:44 -0000

Salvete,
Some Comments on Livius

--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > I'm at work and unable to check any sources. If someone can do so
during the
> > day, I would appreciate seeing them posted here. Announcing
intercessio by a
> > majority of the Tribunes would be an acceptable solution to me.
>
> I can provide the appropriate passage in Livius. These are
excerpts, as much
> of the text did not seem germane. I suggest looking at the full
text when you
> have the opportunity, in case I missed something.
> __________
>
> Liv. ii.43, 44:
> This was not spontaneous on their part; Sp. Licinius, one of their
tribunes,
> thinking that it was a good time for forcing the Agrarian Law upon
the senate
> through sheer necessity, had taken upon him the obstruction of the
levy. All
> the odium, however, aroused by this misuse of the tribunitian power
recoiled
> upon the author, his own colleagues were as much opposed to him as
the consuls;
> through their assistance the consuls completed the enrolment.

DRUSUS:
So in this case we see one Tribune attempting to veto the levy. The
remaining four Tribunes disagreed with him, and allowed the levy to
procede. A "vote" of 4 to 1. At the very least this section shows that
a single Tribune could NOT impose an intercessio at this time if his
colleagues opposed it.
>
> Liv. ii.44:
> This year also found a tribune advocating the Agrarian Law. It was
Tiberius
> Pontificius. He adopted the same course as Sp. Licinius and for a
short time
> stopped the enrolment. The senate were again perturbed, but Appius
Claudius
> told them that the power of the tribunes had been overcome in the
previous
> year, it was actually so at the present moment, and the precedent
thus set
> would govern the future, since it had been discovered that its very
strength
> was breaking it down. For there would never be wanting a tribune who
would be
> glad to triumph over his colleague and secure the favour of the
better party
> for the good of the State. If more were needed, more were ready to
come to the
> assistance of the consuls, even one was sufficient, against the
rest. The
> consuls and leaders of the senate had only to take the trouble to
secure, if
> not all, at least some of the tribunes on the side of the
commonwealth and the
> senate.

DRUSUS: IF Appius Claudius' assement was correct this shows that a
single Tribune could oppose the will of the remaining four by over
riding thier veto, However I think that Appius Claudius was wrong. In
this case the Senate went to the effort to get the remaining four
tribunes to oppose Tiberius Pontificius as is shown by the next
paragraph of II.44

The senators followed this advice, and whilst, as a body, they treated
the tribunes with courtesy and kindness, the men of consular rank, in
each private suit which they instituted, succeeded, partly by personal
influence, partly by the authority their rank gave them, in getting
the tribunes to exert their power for the welfare of the State. Four
of the tribunes were opposed to the one who was a hindrance to the
public good; by their aid the consuls raised the levy

So regardless of the opionion of Appius Claudius that a lone Tribune
would do, the "vote" was again four to one.

>
> Liv. iv.42:
> At the very beginning of the year, L. Hortensius, a tribune of the
plebs,
> appointed a day for the trial of C. Sempronius, the consul of the
previous
> year. His four colleagues begged him, publicly, in full view of the
Roman
> people, not to prosecute their unoffending commander, against whom
nothing but
> ill-luck could be alleged. Hortensius was angry, for he looked upon
this as an
> attempt to test his resolution, he regarded the entreaties of the
tribunes as
> meant simply to save appearances, and he was convinced that it was
not to these
> the consul was trusting, but to their interposing their veto.
Turning to
> Sempronius he asked: 'Where is your patrician spirit, and the
courage which is
> supported by the consciousness of innocence? An ex-consul actually
sheltering
> under the wing of the tribunes!' Then he addressed his colleagues:
'You, what
> will you do, if I carry the prosecution through? Are you going to
deprive the
> people of their jurisdiction and subvert the power of the tribunes?'
They
> replied that the authority of the people was supreme over Sempronius
and over
> everybody else; they had neither the will nor the power to do away
with the
> people's right to judge, but if their entreaties on behalf of their
commander,
> who was a second father to them, proved unavailing, they would
appear by his
> side in suppliant garb. Then Hortensius replied: 'The Roman plebs
shall not see
> its tribunes in mourning; I drop all proceedings against C.
Sempronius, since
> he has succeeded, during his command, in becoming so dear to his
soldiers.'
> Both plebeians and patricians were pleased with the loyal affection
of the four
> tribunes, and quite as much so with the way in which Hortensius had
yielded to
> their just remonstrances.

DRUSUS: In this case if Appius Claudius was correct about a single
Tribune being able to overcome the intercessio of the rest, then
Hortensius could have easily overcome the threatened veto by his
colleagues. This section is what makes me think that Appius Claudius
was WRONG about a single Tribune being able to over ride the
intercessio of the others. In this case the matter was dropped, so no
intercessio occured.
>
> Liv iv.48:
> The fomenters of the disturbance were Sp. Maecilius, who was tribune
of the
> plebs for the fourth time, and M. Metilius, tribune for the third
time; both
> had been elected in their absence. They brought forward a measure
providing
> that the territory taken from an enemy should be assigned to
individual owners.
> If this were passed the fortunes of a large number of the nobility
would be
> confiscated. For as the City itself was founded upon foreign soil,
it possessed
> hardly any territory which had not been won by arms, or which had
become
> private property by sale or assignment beyond what the plebeians
possessed.
>
> There seemed every prospect of a bitter conflict between the plebs
and the
> patricians. The consular tribunes, after discussing the matter in
the senate
> and in private gatherings of patricians, were at a loss what to do,
when Appius
> Claudius, the grandson of the old decemvir and the youngest senator
present,
> rose to speak. He is represented as saying that he was bringing from
home an
> old device well known to his house. His grandfather, Appius
Claudius, had
> pointed out to the senate the only way of breaking down the power of
the
> tribunes, namely, through the interposition of their colleagues'
veto. Men who
> had risen from the masses were easily induced to change their
opinions by the
> personal authority of the leaders of the State if only they were
addressed in
> language suitable to the occasion rather than to the rank of the
speaker. Their
> feelings changed with their fortunes. When they saw that those of their
> colleagues who were the first to propose any measure took the whole
credit of
> it with the plebs and left no place for them, they would feel no
hesitation in
> coming over to the cause of the senate, and so win the favour not
only of the
> leaders but of the whole order.
>
> His views met with universal approval; Q. Servilius Priscus was the
first to
> congratulate the youth on his not having degenerated from the old
Claudian
> stock. The leaders of the senate were charged to persuade as many
tribunes as
> they could to interpose their veto. After the close of the sitting they
> canvassed the tribunes. By the use of persuasion, warning, and
promises, they
> showed how acceptable that action would be to them individually and
to the
> whole senate. They succeeded in bringing over six.
>
> The next day, in accordance with a previous understanding, the
attention of the
> senate was drawn to the agitation which Maecilius and Metilius were
causing by
> proposing a bribe of the worst possible type. Speeches were
delivered by the
> leaders of the senate, each in turn declaring that he was unable to
suggest any
> course of action, and saw no other resource but the assistance of
the tribunes.
> To the protection of that power the State in its embarrassment, like
a private
> citizen in his helplessness, fled for succour. It was the glory of
the tribunes
> and of the authority they wielded that they possessed as much
strength to
> withstand evil-minded colleagues as to harass the senate and create
dissension
> between the two orders. Cheers arose from the whole senate and the
tribunes
> were appealed to from every quarter of the House. When silence was
restored,
> those tribunes who had been won over made it clear that since the
senate was of
> opinion that the proposed measure tended to the break-up of the
republic, they
> should interpose their veto on it. They were formally thanked by the
senate.

DRUSUS: In this case on the advice of a younger Appius Claudius the
Senate went to the trouble of getting SIX Tribunes (The number had
been raised) to agree to aid them. In this case the Senate again
insured that they had the support of a MAJORITY, so the "vote" would
be six to four in favor of an intercessio.
>
> Liv. v.25:
> This discussion was attended by disgraceful quarrels, for the senate
had drawn
> over a section of the tribunes of the plebs to their view, and the
only thing
> that restrained the plebeians from offering personal violence was
the use which
> the patricians made of their personal influence.
>
> Liv. v.29:
> At the beginning of the year, as none of their college was disposed to
> interpose his veto, the tribunes were combined in a determined
effort to carry
> their measure [a land reform bill, with nothing to do with the
tribunician
> veto], while the consuls, for the same reason, offered a no less
strenuous
> resistance.

DRUSUS: The Sections from Liv V refer to a time when a single Tribune
could impose an intercessio. It from this time onwards that a single
tribune was all that was needed to veto an action.
> __________
>
> While I am certainly no special authority on Roman history, it seems
to me that
> none of the above necessarily points to the tribuni having to
collegially agree
> upon a veto, though there is ample implication to make an argument
for it. If
> we choose to go this route, it does appear that the tribuni did not
have to
> specifically agree on a veto, but rather simply had not to disagree
explicitly.

DRUSUS:This is correct. A single Tribune could impose a veto, and if
the remainder took no action, the veto stood. If the others opposed
him, then in every case cited the majority viewpoint won.

IMHO the best way to handle this "vote" by the tribunes is the will of
the majority THAT SPEAK OUT prevails, with a tie being a failure of
the intercessio. If only 3 of the 5 tribunes speak out, one favoring a
Veto, the other two opposed then the Veto fails. If four speak and the
opinion is 2 to 2, then the Veto fails

Valete
L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 06:29:33 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:40 PM
> >
> > I think that you really want to make sure that the tribuni will use
> > intercessio just when there is a real need for it, but that they will
> > not be stopped from using it if needed. I really think that majority
> > vote is the best way to comply with these two requirements.
>
> Honestly, I believe the opposite to be true. What is easier; to get
three
> Tribunes to actively support an intercessio, or merely to ensure
that one
> Tribune doesn't think so badly of it that he feels compelled to
nullify it?
> It takes more to actively oppose something than it does to tacitly
support
> it. The ancients knew this truth; let's recognize it ourselves!
>
> And let us not forget the purpose for Tribunicial intercessio;
violations of
> the law and/or Constitution. I think such violations will be fairly
> clear-cut, and not subject to a lot of subjective wrangling. Of course,
> there are always exceptions, but that's why the process exists, eh?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

Salve

It all depends on how the Lex on Vetos is written. A majority can be a
single Tribune if the others don't "vote" on the Veto. It can be two
if only 3 of the 5 "vote". The only time that it would HAVE to be 3 is
if all 5 of the Tribunes "voted"

For example Tribune One pronounces an intercessio. This would delay
the action for 72 hours. During this time Tribune Two opposes the
veto, and Tribune Three supports it. Tribunes Four and Five do
nothing. In this case a majority of two of the three Tribunes who
spoke on the Veto approved of it, so an intercessio would be in effect.

The key to making a majority vote work is to have a set time peroid
for the vote and only require a majority of the tribunes who vote, NOT
a majority of ALL the Tribunes.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Intercessio
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:14:45 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

I will start out by saying that allthough I consider it important to
have a historical Intercessio, it is even more important to have an
intercessio that will be efective and used wisely. Our current Veto
goes too far in it's attempts to protect against the abuses of
Antiquita and this greatly limits it's effectiviness.

The Intercessio of the late Republic was abused. Far too often instead
of being used to protect the Plebs (It's purpose) it was imposed by a
tame Tribune to protect the intrests of the faction or the indiviual
that had bribed him. A Veto that can't be overcome, imposed by a
single Tribune, may be historicaly accurate, but it didn't work very
well in Antiquita, and won't work in Nova Roma. I Only mention it as a
historic note and don't think we have anyone who favors this type of Veto.

As for the idea of a lone tribune being able to veto an intercessio by
another Tribune, I don't think this will work either. If a faction
wishes to impose it's will on our Republic, all it has to do is secure
ONE of the five tribunes and it will have removed any threat of an
Intercessio against any Edicta, Lex, or Consulta they may try to pass.
No matter how the other Four Tribunes feel, this lone tame Tribune
will prevent any Intercessio against the faction. It is allmost as
flawed as our current system in going too far in attempting to prevent
Intercessios from being misused.

In other posts I have pointed out some reasons why I think a majority
"vote" by the Tribunes has some historic validity. I also ask you to
consider it from a practicle viewpoint. If a faction wished to avoid
any posibility of an intercessio, that would have to have THREE tame
tribunes rather than ONE, a much harder feat.

I'm not saying that we should require that it take three tribunes to
either impose or prevent an intercessio. We only need to count the
tribunes who took an active stand on the matter. If only three of the
five chose to speak on an intercessio, then the will of two of them
would determine if the intercessio was upheld, or if it failed. If a
single tribune pronounced an intercessio, and the remainder chose not
to oppose it, then the intercessio would stand.

This would both protect us against the abuses of Antiquita, where a
lone Tribune could Veto allmost anything, and the potential abuses of
the current perposal, where a lone Tribune can prevent any hope of an
Intercessio.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Absentia
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:43:19 EDT

Salvete,

I am off to Atlantic City for an overnight trip, and my computer will be
having some maintainence done, so I will likely be absent for about a week.

Nerva

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Absentia
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:03:15 -0000

Oh excuses, excuses :)

P.............

>From: gcassiusnerva@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: [novaroma] Absentia
>Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:43:19 EDT
>
>Salvete,
>
> I am off to Atlantic City for an overnight trip, and my computer will
>be
>having some maintainence done, so I will likely be absent for about a week.
>
>Nerva
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Changing the Constitution IV: Tribunes
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:59:07 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, consul Germanice.

--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur [mailto:salixastur@--------]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:18 PM
> >
> > If you please reread my statement above slightly more carefully,
> you
> > will see that my objection was not about the historical correctness
> of
> > this proposal, but more of a practical matter. It is already quite
> > difficult to have two individuals to agree on an issue; to make six
> of
> > them agree in something would be nearly impossible.
>
> If I may, there is a difference between having to actively support an
> action
> (as would be required were we to adopt the "majority vote" idea) and
> simply
> having to tacitly support it by failing to actively reject it (as
> would be
> the case with my current proposal). I happen to think that the latter
> would
> be much more workable; we have trouble even getting two Tribunes to
> agree on
> an intercessio; can you imagine the trouble in getting three (or
> more) to do
> so within the allotted time-frame?

Exactly. I completely agree with you in that requiring an active veto
to ban the actions of a fellow tribunus is a great improvement from our
current situation. However, after much debate and thinking, I have come
to the conclusion that there are two logical options to do this:

* To keep the number of two tribuni and allow one to use intercessio
against the other actively (as you propose, but keeping the number).

* To raise the number of tribuni and allow them to use intercessio
against oneof them when the majority of those tribuni is against his
action (as some others have proposed).

> > But the same thing happened more or less in the original Res
> Publica.
> > By the second century B.C.E., the Tribuni Plebis had evolved to
> become
> > a system of protection for the common people against the excesses
> of
> > the ruling class, were they patrician or plebeian. And this
> division
> > DOES exist in Nova Roma; not because our current magistrates are
> > willing to attack the rights of common citizens, but simply because
> we
> > HAVE magistrates.
>
> Precisely. And what is the check we have against abuses by the
> magistrates?
> Our Constitution and laws. And what enables the Tribunes to enforce
> that
> check? My current amendment proposal.

I think most of us involved in this discussion have more or less the
same things in mind. We all want the tribuni to function as our
"watchmen" against the possible excesses of other magistrates
(including the Senatus). We all want them to have the power to ban
their actions. We all also want to have a check to avoid a tribunus
being too powerful.

The only differences are technical (how to do it) instead of
ideological (what to do). We must concentrate in what will be more
effective and safer for our Res Publica.

BTW, I want to congratulate you and T. Labienus Fortunatus for bringing
such an important issue to discussion. Good work!

>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intercessio
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:08:49 +0200

>Salvete Quirites,
>
>I will start out by saying that allthough I consider it important to
>have a historical Intercessio, it is even more important to have an
>intercessio that will be efective and used wisely. Our current Veto
>goes too far in it's attempts to protect against the abuses of
>Antiquita and this greatly limits it's effectiviness.
>
>The Intercessio of the late Republic was abused. Far too often instead
>of being used to protect the Plebs (It's purpose) it was imposed by a
>tame Tribune to protect the intrests of the faction or the indiviual
>that had bribed him. A Veto that can't be overcome, imposed by a
>single Tribune, may be historicaly accurate, but it didn't work very
>well in Antiquita, and won't work in Nova Roma. I Only mention it as a
>historic note and don't think we have anyone who favors this type of Veto.
>
>As for the idea of a lone tribune being able to veto an intercessio by
>another Tribune, I don't think this will work either. If a faction
>wishes to impose it's will on our Republic, all it has to do is secure
>ONE of the five tribunes and it will have removed any threat of an
>Intercessio against any Edicta, Lex, or Consulta they may try to pass.
>No matter how the other Four Tribunes feel, this lone tame Tribune
>will prevent any Intercessio against the faction. It is allmost as
>flawed as our current system in going too far in attempting to prevent
>Intercessios from being misused.
>
>In other posts I have pointed out some reasons why I think a majority
>"vote" by the Tribunes has some historic validity. I also ask you to
>consider it from a practicle viewpoint. If a faction wished to avoid
>any posibility of an intercessio, that would have to have THREE tame
>tribunes rather than ONE, a much harder feat.
>
>I'm not saying that we should require that it take three tribunes to
>either impose or prevent an intercessio. We only need to count the
>tribunes who took an active stand on the matter. If only three of the
>five chose to speak on an intercessio, then the will of two of them
>would determine if the intercessio was upheld, or if it failed. If a
>single tribune pronounced an intercessio, and the remainder chose not
>to oppose it, then the intercessio would stand.
>
>This would both protect us against the abuses of Antiquita, where a
>lone Tribune could Veto allmost anything, and the potential abuses of
>the current perposal, where a lone Tribune can prevent any hope of an
>Intercessio.
>
>Valete,
>L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>

Salvete Honorable Lucius Sicinius Drusus et Omnes!

I couldn't have said it better myself, rather I could have sad it worse.
;-). Now You spare me some time in the sun to enjoy the short summer of
Sweden! Thank You!

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:10:10 -0700 (PDT)


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:16:17 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.

--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete,
> Some Comments on Livius

<<snipped>>

Thank you for making these comments. The text was not clear at all, and
I think your suppositions are absolutely correct. You succeed in
explining what happened, IMHO. Thank you, Druse.

> IMHO the best way to handle this "vote" by the tribunes is the will
> of
> the majority THAT SPEAK OUT prevails, with a tie being a failure of
> the intercessio. If only 3 of the 5 tribunes speak out, one favoring
> a
> Veto, the other two opposed then the Veto fails. If four speak and
> the
> opinion is 2 to 2, then the Veto fails

I completely agree with you.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Intercessio
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:22:40 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, honorabilissime L. Sicini Druse.

Once again, you have made a well-thought proposition; once again, I
fully support it; once again, you have beaten me by expressing my own
opinions with pristine clarity.

Thank you, Druse. I just hope I will be able some day to have such a
clear mind as your own ;-).

--- Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> I will start out by saying that allthough I consider it important to
> have a historical Intercessio, it is even more important to have an
> intercessio that will be efective and used wisely. Our current Veto
> goes too far in it's attempts to protect against the abuses of
> Antiquita and this greatly limits it's effectiviness.
>
> The Intercessio of the late Republic was abused. Far too often
> instead
> of being used to protect the Plebs (It's purpose) it was imposed by a
> tame Tribune to protect the intrests of the faction or the indiviual
> that had bribed him. A Veto that can't be overcome, imposed by a
> single Tribune, may be historicaly accurate, but it didn't work very
> well in Antiquita, and won't work in Nova Roma. I Only mention it as
> a
> historic note and don't think we have anyone who favors this type of
> Veto.
>
> As for the idea of a lone tribune being able to veto an intercessio
> by
> another Tribune, I don't think this will work either. If a faction
> wishes to impose it's will on our Republic, all it has to do is
> secure
> ONE of the five tribunes and it will have removed any threat of an
> Intercessio against any Edicta, Lex, or Consulta they may try to
> pass.
> No matter how the other Four Tribunes feel, this lone tame Tribune
> will prevent any Intercessio against the faction. It is allmost as
> flawed as our current system in going too far in attempting to
> prevent
> Intercessios from being misused.
>
> In other posts I have pointed out some reasons why I think a majority
> "vote" by the Tribunes has some historic validity. I also ask you to
> consider it from a practicle viewpoint. If a faction wished to avoid
> any posibility of an intercessio, that would have to have THREE tame
> tribunes rather than ONE, a much harder feat.
>
> I'm not saying that we should require that it take three tribunes to
> either impose or prevent an intercessio. We only need to count the
> tribunes who took an active stand on the matter. If only three of the
> five chose to speak on an intercessio, then the will of two of them
> would determine if the intercessio was upheld, or if it failed. If a
> single tribune pronounced an intercessio, and the remainder chose not
> to oppose it, then the intercessio would stand.
>
> This would both protect us against the abuses of Antiquita, where a
> lone Tribune could Veto allmost anything, and the potential abuses of
> the current perposal, where a lone Tribune can prevent any hope of an
> Intercessio.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Tribune Amendment
From:	ksterne@--------
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:46:09 -0000

Salvete,

Thanks to Flavius Vedius and Titus Labenius for doing the work
necessary to propose this amendment.

Thanks to Titus Labenius, Lucius Sicinius and Gnaeus Salix for the
excellent historical research. We have some very learned scholars
among us - a great resource for the republic.

Lucius Sicinius summed up what I feel is the best position on the
veto: a majority of commenting Tribunes prevails.

This amendment and the accompanying enabling legislation are a good
step forward for the Republic.

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Something interesting
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:08:40 -0400

Quintus Poppaeus Sabinus wrote:
> Greetings to Amulius Claudius Petrus,
> As a point of information: www.imperiumnovum.org is the website for Imperium
> Romanum Hellenicum Antoniniae Imperium Novum, or Antoninia in short form. I
> was a member of Nova Roma in its early days, but left in September of 1999.
> Our site is not very active, but it certainly isn't dead yet. The Roman
> Empire is our inspiration, not the Roman Republic. I detest politics, which
> is the primary reason I left Nova Roma.

I hardly agree with your reasons for founding such an organisation. I am not
surprised ether at its lack of citizens.

Politics was a major part of Roman society. Even if this is a imperial new
Rome if you have no politics then it is hardly Rome. Its more like some of
the lands Rome took over and civilised. No person would want to live in a
eternal Roman dictatorship when a democratic Roman society is offered.

Best of luck of your endeavour... you will need it...

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Comitia Plebis Tributa and The Tribunes
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:19:03 -0500

Salvete

> IMHO the best way to handle this "vote" by the tribunes is the will of
> the majority THAT SPEAK OUT prevails, with a tie being a failure of
> the intercessio. If only 3 of the 5 tribunes speak out, one favoring a
> Veto, the other two opposed then the Veto fails. If four speak and the
> opinion is 2 to 2, then the Veto fails

In light of some of the arguments you've presented, and the reading I've
done recently, I'm inclined to agree with this. Any understanding of
history is not based upon fact, but rather on a sustained series of
arguments. Currently, mi Sicini, yours are fairly compelling. Also,
this fairly solves the problem that is caused by allowing one
incalcitrant tribunus to paralyze the entire college.

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:	[novaroma] "Bounces"
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:31:03 -0400 (EDT)

List Moderator Pricilla Vedia Serena;

Mistress, with respect and honor to all your efforts, could you please
explain in plain english just what your post regarding the the subject
item means.

I most apologize in advance for my lack of "techee language" but I have
little interest in the operation of the Interet except as a "super
pencil" and much of the technical language has as much understanding for
me as ancient sanscrit.

Please do not infer by this message that I in any way disagree with your
evaluation of the individual to which you have appealed, but I do wish
to understand exactly what your "bounce" post means.

In order to make my views clear, I would further ask that anyone who
cannot wait for Mistress Vedia to reply to my request, respectfully
restrain themselves until SHE has replied to my question. I feel it
necessary to mention the above as in the past there has always been
someone who interjects his comments before the person to whom I am
addressing the quesion can answer. As I consider this to be boorish,
pushey and undesirable, I would ask that Mistress Vedia Serena be
allowed the first crack at my very basic question. Thank you for your
consideration.

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] Xtreme Xtians
From:	"Sokarus Apollonius Callias" <hadescallias@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:56:17 +0200

i'm affraid i have to support his claim. i now a few christians who join a club with the intention of spreading Gods word and oppressing their faith on others. for a story i did some research for demons and joined some demonology clubs and one of these members joined purely to convince others to follow his path and he goes by the id of warrior angel of god
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: ksterne@--------
Aan: novaroma@--------
Verzonden: woensdag 20 juni 2001 16:30
Onderwerp: [novaroma] Xtreme Xtians

>>Frankly, I find the cautious talking about a possible lawsuit from
extreme christians a bit silly<<

Salve Sexte Apolloni,

You need to vist us here in Tennessee, USA and you would not see the
possibility as so remote. ;-) Some of these people are completely
over the edge.

Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Summer Solstice
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Marcos=20Boehme?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:01:21 -0300 (ART)

Salvete, Quirites !

--- "Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
escreveu: > Salve Quirites!
>
> Today is the Summer Solstice.
> We have a new Moon, and Mars is in opposition, at
> it's brightest in
> the southern skies, closest to Earth. There was also
> a full solar
> eclipse (the first of this century) in Madagascar.
>
> Are these great omens, or what? :-)
> What says our Pontifex Maximus?
>
> M. Cornelius Scipio

Salve Scipio; i saw both the opposition of Mars, and
the Solar Eclipse (who was partial in my city -
Blumenau, southern Brazil). The geometry of eclipses
only allows a solar eclipse in a new moon, but the sum
of coincidences are still striking.

M Arminius Maior

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCites. � f�cil e gr�tis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] E-Mail Address Change
From:	Sextus Cornelius Cotta <sextuscornelius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:27:03 +0000

Salve,
I have changed my E-Mail address from "sextus@--------" to
"sextuscornelius@--------". I have made the changes needed at
Yahoogroups.

Vale, Sextus Cornelius Cotta

Farrago fatigans!
--
>From the iMac of Sextus Cornelius Cotta
ICQ: 29580250
AIM: SextusCornelius

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