Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: List Policy
From:	Antonius Corvus Septimius <antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:17:47 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> Salvete,
>
> A Nazi is a member of the National Socalist German
> Workers Party,
> (Currently outlawed) or a member of Neo-Nazi
> organization that shares
> the policital views of the original National
> Socalist Party.

Thank you for the definition. Then, to call someone a
Nazi in this forum would be incorrect unless we know
for a fact that the person(s) (frequently called
Nazis)
are of this political party.

> A Nazi could also be considered someone who shares
> the policital
> views of the Nazi parties, without formal
> membership.

Therefore, the person who calls someone a Nazi should
be well versed in the political views of that party,
correct?

> These views are extreme statism, holding that
> indiviuals have no
> rights, only duties to the state. Nazism also
> includes extreme
> racism, that the "Aryan" race or people of northern
> European decent
> are superior to all other peoples. Persons of the
> Jewish faith are
> hated above all other groups. Murder is considered a
> viable option to
> insure that the "Aryan" race remains pure.

Hmmm.. No one here seems to fit that bill.

> A Nazi most certainly is NOT simply "a group of
> people that
> overimposed their views on others".

Thank you for the further clarification. But my
"simple"
attempt of showing what lies beneath the madness
seemed
good enough for me.

There are a
> great many groups
> that fall into that catagory without aproaching the
> leval of evil
> that Nazism represents.

I would most assueredly dissagree. There are many
political parties today (and in the past) that do not
fall under the description of Nazism."level of evil"?
I did not know that evil was an exact science.
"Simply" because attrocities are not widely reported
and have not tried forcibly to take over a continent
is their failing to reach the world press.

My point.... No one here has shown alleigance to ANY
of these disgustingly inhuman political parties. And I
"ask" that we stop throwing these terms around.At
least
for the RESPECT of those that have lost their
families, as well as their own lives.By the "simple"
fact of being different (race, ethnicity, political
standing).

Valete,
A. Corvus Septimius

__________________________________________________
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] Re: Digest Number 1467
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:44:15 -0500 (CDT)

Salve,

> I do not see any attachments here. The list does not allow for
> attachments...and it hasnt had that capability in over two years.
>
> Please repost all your posts as text so we can read them.

If you'll look at the headers, you'll note that he's using
Microsoft Outlook Express for mail, a product well-known for its
massive security holes. He's almost certainly infected with one of
those visual basic viruses that MS Outhouse is so susceptible to,
and it is maliciously replying to everything that arrives with
a copy of itself.

Vale, O.

M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1467
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:04:03 -0000


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1467
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:13:20 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> > I do not see any attachments here. The list does not allow for
> > attachments...and it hasnt had that capability in over two years.
> >
> > Please repost all your posts as text so we can read them.
>
> If you'll look at the headers, you'll note that he's using
> Microsoft Outlook Express for mail, a product well-known for its
> massive security holes. He's almost certainly infected with one of
> those visual basic viruses that MS Outhouse is so susceptible to,
> and it is maliciously replying to everything that arrives with
> a copy of itself.
>
> Vale, O.
>
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Propraetor, Lacus Magni
> Curator Araneum et Senator

LOL, I won't dispute that MS mail clients are Viral Petri dishes,
however look at the subjects. These topics were discussed over a month
ago. So if it is a virus, rather than just replying to current posts,
it's replying to archived posts. That's behaviour I haven't seen
before. Perhaps a new virus?

As allways if you are using Windows, NEVER open an attachment, unless
you have requested it.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Digest Number 1467
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:15:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> > Salve,

Salvete Omnes: I noticed too that these digests were dated today, but
the topics were passe. In addition, Marcus Prometheus sent me an
attachment in response to a very recent post I made on the Sodalitas
Coq et Coq list, containing an attachment. When I scanned it, sure
enought, it contained an incurable virus.

I have alerted Prometheus to this effect; I am quite sure he doesn't
realize. I hope his computer isn't too badly fouled up. I haven't
heard from him in so long :)

Valete,
Pompeia Cornelia
> >
> > > (snipperoo!)

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Request from Scriba Curatrix Sermonen
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:25:48 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Since Priscilla's time is limited I shall take the liberty of making
the following "request", pending her final judgement.

Could we please take all theoretical discussion of politics, ie
totalitarianism, Nazis etc. off list?

As one list contributer put it, this is veering off topic; unless what
we are discussing is directly related to Roman Culture and Politics
and Nova Roma dynamics herself, it is realy not relevant, right?

Now, if it were something like gardens, this might be different.
Gardens, like politics, were part of Rome, but flowers don't hurt
anyone. But when we start splitting hairs about the details of
Nazism, and the characteristics of same, and where, macronationally
,totalitarianisms are employed, we run the risk of hurting people from
various countries who may feel your perceptions are not correct about
their homeland, and you may upset people by reminding them of the
terrors of Nazi rule.

Just a request......if no words pertaining to Rome or Nova Roma are
present in your posts, step back, reread your notes and ask yourself
if they are really pertinent to the dialogue of this list...a list
people join to "do the Roman thing" :)

Valete Optime
Pompeia Cornelia

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


Subject:	[novaroma] The Amici Dignitatis
From:	"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:33:03 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
>
> I was referring to the other candidates for Consul and Censor, id
est our current Consular pair, Cassius and Vedius, and Censor
Cincinnatus. Neither of them were truly opposed to the content of our
statement, but rather to some of our personalities. And even so, our
most vehement critics were not
> them.
>

Salvete,

I am afraid I must disagree with the statement above. I had almost
*nothing* but problems with the content of the Statement of the Amici
Dignitatis. I spent a good deal of time on their list debating their
issues because of those problems.

What I DID try to respect were the people involved and their honest
sentiments. Personalities were not necessarily a bone of contention,
even if they might have been stumbling blocks for discussion at
times.

It seemed to me that all The Amici Dignitatis as a whole saw a *huge*
gulf between the "Citizens" and the "Government" of Nova Roma. In my
opinion, the Amici Dignitatis chose to blame Nova Roma as a "system",
for any and all problems, real and perceived.

For instance, if If people were bad to each other on the main list,
it was the fault of the Senate and the Government. (As opposed to
being simply what happens when a bunch of people with wildly
different views and backgrounds all try to talk at once.) Because of
this particular take on human interaction, they felt that the
Citizens should resist the government at every turn, and to do
everything possible to change Nova Roma from a fair model of ancient
Roman government to a more modern ideal of "complete democracy."

My basic feeling was, and is, that there is no particular barrier
between the government of Nova Roma and the Citizens. This year's
crop of Citizen Magistrates will be gone in a few months, and other
Citizens will take their place. A Citizen does not become an 'Evil
Nazi Totalitarian'just because they volunteer to work on behalf of us
all for a set period of time.

Yeah, I'm Consul. Big whoop. All that means is that I get to do a lot
of extra work... work that I can't *wait* to hand to someone else
next year. There is no ego, no glory, no benefit. ANY of the Citizens
of Nova Roma can be Consul (or any other stripe of magistrate) - so
long as they stay involved over a long period of time, don't piss off
their fellow Citizens too badly, and are willing to do the work.
Because of this I felt it unnecessary for a dissenting group to form
and band together around a Statement. There were other more congenial
and effective methods open as a part of the Roman system.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Request from Scriba Curatrix Sermonen
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:04:03 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, trog99@h... wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> Since Priscilla's time is limited I shall take the liberty of making
> the following "request", pending her final judgement.
>
> Could we please take all theoretical discussion of politics, ie
> totalitarianism, Nazis etc. off list?
>
> As one list contributer put it, this is veering off topic; unless what
> we are discussing is directly related to Roman Culture and Politics
> and Nova Roma dynamics herself, it is realy not relevant, right?
>
> Now, if it were something like gardens, this might be different.
> Gardens, like politics, were part of Rome, but flowers don't hurt
> anyone. But when we start splitting hairs about the details of
> Nazism, and the characteristics of same, and where, macronationally
> ,totalitarianisms are employed, we run the risk of hurting people from
> various countries who may feel your perceptions are not correct about
> their homeland, and you may upset people by reminding them of the
> terrors of Nazi rule.
>
> Just a request......if no words pertaining to Rome or Nova Roma are
> present in your posts, step back, reread your notes and ask yourself
> if they are really pertinent to the dialogue of this list...a list
> people join to "do the Roman thing" :)
>
> Valete Optime
> Pompeia Cornelia

Vale,

Since I posted the definition, I would like to apoligize to any
citizen who may have been offended.

My reason was I am tired of people using this term towards those who
may disagree with them on some topic of Nova Roman Politics. Calling
someone a Nazi is one of the vilest insults you can hurl at another
citizen, and I do not consider it policital rethoric, but rather slander.

I add a request that we refrain from using the terms "Nazi" and
"Communist" towards each other, as many of us consider them to be
insulting and degrading.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] I am clueless (re : totalitarianism)
From:	Paul_Lewis71@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 05:35:06 -0000

I've been here two minutes, basically. I expect that somebody will
say, "Paul, you don't know what you're talking about". There's an
excellent chance that I don't. But, may I offer an outsider's point
of view ?

I saw a post by somebody writing about "totalitarianism", and I was
wondering if somebody had lost perspective. Sometimes, I think, we
get so wrapped up in what is going on in our little corners of the
world, that things start looking much more serious than they really
are. We see dire threats to be defended against, where there are only
misunderstandings better addressed with a shared bottle of wine and a
few jokes, than with shouting.

Totalitarianism in Nova Roma ? How could that be possible ?
Membership in this small society is purely voluntary. People are
going to be here, because they're happy here, not because some latter
day centurion will mount their heads on spears if they depart. If the
leadership was so nasty as all of that - who would stay ? People
would just walk off.

If somebody truly thinks that things have gone so terribly wrong, he
is free to start a new group. The legions will not march against him.
If he thinks that the list is unjustly moderated, why not start a new
one ? It's free. At that point, as the saying goes, the proof is in
the pudding. If one doesn't like the 'tyranny' here, one can make
one's own elsewhere. Make a better place, and people will want to be
there on their own. Screaming about the subject is just beside the
point, given that, isn't it ? Or am I missing something ?

Look, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm talking down to anybody here.
I know that we all know these things. But do we sometimes forget to
take to heart what we know ? I'll say it again. A little risotto, a
nice pan roast and a glass of sambuca with a few friends - you'd be
amazed at how many tyrants will disappear, only to be replaced by
human beings you've misunderstood. So why sweat it ?

Just my 2 dinars worth.

Paul

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Unavailable
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:17:21 -0700

Ave,

This weekend, from Friday til Sunday I will be unavailable. Earthlink
is having some outings at Magic Mountain for Employee Appreciation and I
plan to attend all weekend. I do not think I will be able to get my
emails, so I wanted to let everyone be aware of the possiblity that I
will be offline.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] I am clueless (re : totalitarianism)
From:	Antonius Corvus Septimius <antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:37:17 -0700 (PDT)

--- Paul_Lewis71@-------- wrote:
> I've been here two minutes, basically. I expect that
> somebody will
> say, "Paul, you don't know what you're talking
> about". There's an
> excellent chance that I don't. But, may I offer an
> outsider's point
> of view ?

You may offer any point of view you may wish!:)

> I saw a post by somebody writing about
> "totalitarianism", and I was
> wondering if somebody had lost perspective.
> Sometimes, I think, we
> get so wrapped up in what is going on in our little
> corners of the
> world, that things start looking much more serious
> than they really
> are. We see dire threats to be defended against,
> where there are only
> misunderstandings better addressed with a shared
> bottle of wine and a
> few jokes, than with shouting.

I most assuredly agree, but in my home... What sounds
like constant bickering. Is only discussion.

> Totalitarianism in Nova Roma ? How could that be
> possible ?
> Membership in this small society is purely
> voluntary. People are
> going to be here, because they're happy here, not
> because some latter
> day centurion will mount their heads on spears if
> they depart. If the
> leadership was so nasty as all of that - who would
> stay ? People
> would just walk off.

Nothing so serious is ment by the words written here.
They are just passionate ROMAN expressions. We would
not want our political adversaries' head on a spear..
(well only in our dreams. LOL!)

> If somebody truly thinks that things have gone so
> terribly wrong, he
> is free to start a new group. The legions will not
> march against him.
> If he thinks that the list is unjustly moderated,
> why not start a new
> one ? It's free. At that point, as the saying goes,
> the proof is in
> the pudding. If one doesn't like the 'tyranny' here,
> one can make
> one's own elsewhere. Make a better place, and people
> will want to be
> there on their own. Screaming about the subject is
> just beside the
> point, given that, isn't it ? Or am I missing
> something ?

Again, these are only passsionate words exchanged from
two different views from the same family. Most of us
are
wanting to revive the true Roman culture.. But, we
still have that fire which defines (passionately) what
it is to be Roman.

> Look, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm talking down
> to anybody here.

Please, indulge yourself.. If you feel that your point
of view is valid.. Then by all means WRITE IT! :)

> I know that we all know these things. But do we
> sometimes forget to
> take to heart what we know ? I'll say it again. A
> little risotto, a
> nice pan roast and a glass of sambuca with a few
> friends - you'd be
> amazed at how many tyrants will disappear, only to
> be replaced by
> human beings you've misunderstood. So why sweat it ?

So where's the party?! I wont even have to bring a
napkin to this party!!

> Just my 2 dinars worth.

Your opinion is worht a LOT more in my eyes!!!
>
> Paul
>
Live Well, A. Corvus Septimius

__________________________________________________
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] Request from Scriba Curatrix Sermonen
From:	Antonius Corvus Septimius <antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:45:33 -0700 (PDT)

--- trog99@-------- wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> Since Priscilla's time is limited I shall take the
> liberty of making
> the following "request", pending her final
> judgement.
>
> Could we please take all theoretical discussion of
> politics, ie
> totalitarianism, Nazis etc. off list?
>
> As one list contributer put it, this is veering off
> topic; unless what
> we are discussing is directly related to Roman
> Culture and Politics
> and Nova Roma dynamics herself, it is realy not
> relevant, right?
>
> Now, if it were something like gardens, this might
> be different.
> Gardens, like politics, were part of Rome, but
> flowers don't hurt
> anyone. But when we start splitting hairs about the
> details of
> Nazism, and the characteristics of same, and where,
> macronationally
> ,totalitarianisms are employed, we run the risk of
> hurting people from
> various countries who may feel your perceptions are
> not correct about
> their homeland, and you may upset people by
> reminding them of the
> terrors of Nazi rule.
>
> Just a request......if no words pertaining to Rome
> or Nova Roma are
> present in your posts, step back, reread your notes
> and ask yourself
> if they are really pertinent to the dialogue of this
> list...a list
> people join to "do the Roman thing" :)
>
> Valete Optime
> Pompeia Cornelia

I agree. "modern injustices" are very off topic. OUR
culture is much more flavorful for discussion.
Not some copy-cat regime, which uses our banners and
vexillums as a fear factor.

AVE ROMA! Semper Fidelis!--- A. Corvus Septimius

__________________________________________________
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] Government vs People? (long)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:30:39 +0200

S. Apollonius Draco M. Cassio Iuliano Fl. Vedio Germanicoque SPD,

Since I have a reply from both Consuls now, it might be nice to reply
myself. This is a long e-mail, but I would appreciate it if people took the
effort and courage (?) to read it.Thanks in advance.

Consul Vedius scripsit:

<< I must suppose that my statements at the time did not accurately reflect
my
feelings concerning the platform of the Amici Dignitatis, because I was (and
remain) absolutely opposed to its intention and details. Its effect would
have been to create a "shadow government", and to move us ever farther from
the model of Roma Antiqua towards some liberal-socialist ideal of what a
modern state should be (I am quite aware that the former AD signatores who
remain with us might disagree with that assessment). >>

You won't find me disagreeing with the fact that I am in fact a leftist
liberal. To say that it would move us further from NR, on basis of our
statement, would be a far fetch, however. More on that in my reply to your
colleague.

(snipped)

<< If I had the time, it might be quite amusing to go back into the archives
and compare some of Draco's statements of eight to four months ago with his
above statement that I was not a "vehement critic" of the AD. If I wasn't,
it wasn't for lack of trying. :-) >>

Hm, yes, I suddenly seem to remember now ;->.

Consul Cassius scripsit:

<< I am afraid I must disagree with the statement above. I had almost
*nothing* but problems with the content of the Statement of the Amici
Dignitatis. I spent a good deal of time on their list debating their issues
because of those problems. >>

Just a question for clarification: aren't you talking about the first draft
of our statement, which was presented to you? Due to your suggestions and
criticism, we altered that version into something different and more
presentable for the public.

(snipped)

<< It seemed to me that all The Amici Dignitatis as a whole saw a *huge*
gulf between the "Citizens" and the "Government" of Nova Roma. In my
opinion, the Amici Dignitatis chose to blame Nova Roma as a "system", for
any and all problems, real and perceived. >>

If the system is not to blame, then it must be the people. And judging from
past - personal - criticism delivered on the government and the Senate, the
people in it don't like to be criticized.

<< For instance, if If people were bad to each other on the main list, it
was the fault of the Senate and the Government. (As opposed to being simply
what happens when a bunch of people with wildly different views and
backgrounds all try to talk at once.) Because of this particular take on
human interaction, they felt that the Citizens should resist the government
at every turn, and to do everything possible to change Nova Roma from a fair
model of ancient Roman government to a more modern ideal of "complete
democracy." >>

That's not what I've been talking about. Some issues here, past and present,
were far from Roman, yet showed signs of an overconservative regime that is
highly determined by personal agendas. A few quick examples:

� The Reprimand to Marius for impersonating Cincinnatus. No, impersonating
someone is not nice, and should not be rewarded. But it was done on April's
Fools day, and not with the intent to actually make people believe Marius
was the then Consul. Yet, he got a Senatorial Reprimand. That was probably
one of the most pompous actions the Senate ever pulled. I think it was
Diocletianus who then expressed it as "to shoot at sparrows with
cannonballs". A stuntman similar to Marius, namely Nerva, who has also made
use of other identities frequently, has been justly reprimanded for it by
the Curatrix Sermonis, but never got an official Reprimand.

� The Name Change Edict / Law. Yes, it was voted in by the people. But does
it mean that if 60% thinks A, that B is incorrect? Most of this law is a
fine piece of legislation, but the name change for transgenders could and
should be a mutual agreement between patres- or matresfamilias, the citizen
and the Censors. The babble about copying official documents, or even an
identity card to prevent people from cheating is useless. It seems that some
of us here are really paranoid about people switching genders for fun, while
they can easily resign and reapply under their preferred name without the
Censors ever knowing it. And, as Lucius Sicinius and Lucius Sergius
expressed, the rights of a minority group are not subject to the will of the
majority. Period.

� The Resignation Edict / Law: Yes, it was voted in by the people, too. To
prevent a so-called revolving door policy that no one ever made use of. As I
said before, those who love NR and want to return after their 9 days
reconsideration period, are punished, and those who don't give a damn won't
really care. The resignation of magistrates is of course another topic, but
we're talking about regular, harmless citizens here. This resignation law
may be on some ground defendable, but that's only judging from a
conservative political background.

� The Language Policy: This measure is presented as a form of courtesy
towards the large majority of anglophonic people on this list. While it is
so that everyone here will at least understand English, some of us may not
be so well versed in it, �nd what would be really courteous is to let people
decide in what language they write. If they aren't understood, they can ask
a translation, but they should not be required to do so. It's paternalizing,
and in some cases kind of embarassing. And as for the defence that the
moderators need to understand the content, I find that rather paranoid. If
citizen Stultus Porcus writes "I think Nova Roma is (fill in your bad word
of choice)" in let's say Danish, most citizens would be able to understand
the tone of the message, and even if they wouldn't, others who understand
Danish would surely react to this.

� The Assidui and Capiti Censi: Despite the opposition from many South
Americans, and a considerable number of Europeans, this system was also
pushed through, while it has no provisions for people who cannot pay (as
opposed to will not pay). Magistrates with the heart on the right spot, such
as Octavius, have offered to pay for poorer citizens, but these individual
solutions won't work in the long run. While it is ok for an organization to
limit the possibilities of people who won't pay, this is an organization
that claims to be the heir to a multicultural empire, and it doesn't really
show in this law.

>
> My basic feeling was, and is, that there is no particular barrier
> between the government of Nova Roma and the Citizens.

Is that so? While there is a significant congruence beteween the Senate and
the People qua opinion most of the time, sometimes it is really a matter of
ignoring the people's will. Livia Marcia was, as far as I can tell, popular
in her own province, and a role model as a governor. Due to an entirely
different matter she was not prorogued. Oh, yes, her friends failed to vote
in her favour. Sorry, that's a poor excuse for the people who voted against
her, and were co-responsible for this wave of resignations that followed
thereafter. Another case; everyone will remember December last year. The
public knew I was an underage candidate, and yet 22 tribes voted in my
favour (which was quite unexpected for me, mind you!). The majority of the
Senate however bypassed the will of the people, and I was sent flying. More
on such things in my closing note.

> This year's
> crop of Citizen Magistrates will be gone in a few months, and other
> Citizens will take their place. A Citizen does not become an 'Evil
> Nazi Totalitarian'just because they volunteer to work on behalf of us
> all for a set period of time.
>

That's correct, but they become suspicious if they continue to be a part of
the yearly elected magistracy for four consecutive elections, while also
holding various other positions. Granted that NR lacks volunteers when it
comes down to the actual work, and this is very frustrating. But this lack
of voluntarily help may also stem from the fact that it's always the same
persons organizing everything. This is a system that carries the seeds of
oligarchy, as I have said before.

> Yeah, I'm Consul. Big whoop. All that means is that I get to do a lot
> of extra work... work that I can't *wait* to hand to someone else
> next year. There is no ego, no glory, no benefit.

Come now, there is a certain glory to being Consul, and that's not something
to be ashamed of anyway. But no benefit? How about smacking in some extra
century points? Or a Senate seat? I would say those are quite some benefits!

> ANY of the Citizens
> of Nova Roma can be Consul (or any other stripe of magistrate) - so
> long as they stay involved over a long period of time, don't piss off
> their fellow Citizens too badly, and are willing to do the work.

And if they meet the requirements set by the leges regarding minimum age and
the establishment of the cursus honorum.

> Because of this I felt it unnecessary for a dissenting group to form
> and band together around a Statement. There were other more congenial
> and effective methods open as a part of the Roman system.
>

Granted that our methods were rather ineffective, to put it euphimistically.
But what other suggestion do you have?

I remember that, during the Exodus of May, when people started asking
questions, the Senior Censor said "there is nothing wrong with our Res
Publica" (I don't remember the exact words, so don't decapitate me just yet,
mi Sulla). This describes the attitude of many Senatores and Magistrates.
During the Exodus of March, a large group of competent people left Nova
Roma. There was Vado, with his knowledge of the Religio, and Greek and
Latin. Or Ericius and Piscinus, equally Religio experts. And Livia, the
hard-working governor who organized symposia and local gatherings. Or even a
moderate like Scaevola, who had an extensive knowledge of Roman law. Or
Marcus Marcius, who had international legal experience. All these
intelligent people felt ridiculed, burned and disgusted by Nova Roma. And
they mentioned names, too. And one of those people mentioned says: "there is
nothing wrong with our Res Publica"? I'm sorry, but that's a confirmation of
what the leavers have said.
And most of these people who left were generally liked and appreciated, with
the exception of the controversial Piscinus.

And now the hypocrisy will start again: the Brittanici were embezzlers!
Piscinus was an enemy of the state! That same, narrow-minded argument to
only see the bad things and enlarge them, was also the basic tactic of
Stalin when he exiled Trotski. For a simplified version of that I recommend
everyone to read George Orwell's Animal Farm.

In a closing note, let me say that I am not so simple minded not to see the
good things, and the good people, too. We must remember that. Consul
Cassius' initiative of the NR Coins was a truly fantastic one. I admire
Consul Vedius' legislative abilities and very much commend him on some of
his progressive and good ideas he has in amending the constitution. Despite
the fact that we don't really know each other, I have also found Censor
Cincinnatus to be a generally nice person, and not the beast he was
portrayed as by some other people. Senator Octavius and I have our
disagreements too, but I think there is much mutual respect between us. And
who can not like a person like Patricia Cassia, or ignore the admirable kind
of modesty and moderation a Senator like Alexander Probus has. And there are
many more.

So, I don't condemn the Senate, nor the Magistrates, as being evil
oligarchs. A part of them has the tendency, and it grieves me to say, but it
is generally a rather large and influential part, and they're usually the
same people. That is why I cannot believe that other reasonable people would
put up with this for so long, and actively aid them.

To the reader: thank you for sticking with me so long!

Valete bene in pace deorum,
Sextus Apollonius Draco

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Request from Scriba Curatrix Sermonen
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:03:23 -0400

Pompeia Cornelia wrote:
> Since Priscilla's time is limited I shall take the
> liberty of making
> the following "request", pending her final
> judgement.
>
> Could we please take all theoretical discussion of
> politics, ie
> totalitarianism, Nazis etc. off list?
>
> As one list contributer put it, this is veering off
> topic; unless what
> we are discussing is directly related to Roman
> Culture and Politics
> and Nova Roma dynamics herself, it is realy not
> relevant, right?
>
> Now, if it were something like gardens, this might
> be different.
> Gardens, like politics, were part of Rome, but
> flowers don't hurt
> anyone. But when we start splitting hairs about the
> details of
> Nazism, and the characteristics of same, and where,
> macronationally
> ,totalitarianisms are employed, we run the risk of
> hurting people from
> various countries who may feel your perceptions are
> not correct about
> their homeland, and you may upset people by
> reminding them of the
> terrors of Nazi rule.
>
> Just a request......if no words pertaining to Rome
> or Nova Roma are
> present in your posts, step back, reread your notes
> and ask yourself
> if they are really pertinent to the dialogue of this
> list...a list
> people join to "do the Roman thing" :)

Antonius Corvus Septimius wrote:

> I agree. "modern injustices" are very off topic. OUR
> culture is much more flavorful for discussion.
> Not some copy-cat regime, which uses our banners and
> vexillums as a fear factor.

Salvete Antonius et Pompeia,

You have my full support on this! The totalitarianism topic is full of over
reactions and completely blown out of proportions. Many contributing to this
subject are only out to set fake sense of alarm and panic among the
populace. This is something that is hardly necssary indeed.

Donec infra,

"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
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Canada Orientalis Website:
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] Government vs People? (long)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:10:30 -0700

<SNIP>

Ave,

I certainly hope that our consuls will respond to others. As well as to
add on other things that I might leave out of my response. However,
that I am still awake at 3 am I am going to respond at some glaring
inaccuraces at the post of Sextus Apollonius.

> That's not what I've been talking about. Some issues here, past and
> present,
> were far from Roman, yet showed signs of an overconservative regime
> that is
> highly determined by personal agendas. A few quick examples:
>
> � The Reprimand to Marius for impersonating Cincinnatus. No,
> impersonating
> someone is not nice, and should not be rewarded. But it was done on
> April's
> Fools day, and not with the intent to actually make people believe
> Marius
> was the then Consul. Yet, he got a Senatorial Reprimand. That was
> probably
> one of the most pompous actions the Senate ever pulled. I think it was
> Diocletianus who then expressed it as "to shoot at sparrows with
> cannonballs". A stuntman similar to Marius, namely Nerva, who has also
> made
> use of other identities frequently, has been justly reprimanded for it
> by
> the Curatrix Sermonis, but never got an official Reprimand.

Sulla: First off, Maria Villoreal (sp.) was a woman, not a man.
Secondly, she admitted that she impersonated Censor et Pontiff, et
Senator et Flamen Lucius Equitus more than once. So, it was not JUST an
April Fools Joke. So, the Senate issued a reprimand. The difference
between Nerva and Maria is this....and you seem to fail to grasp this
multiple times, Sextus Apollonius, but Nerva regardless of using other
identites never impersonated an actual citizen of Nova Roma. Nor did he
cast disparagements on a respected member of the Nova Roma Community.

> � The Name Change Edict / Law. Yes, it was voted in by the people. But
> does
> it mean that if 60% thinks A, that B is incorrect? Most of this law is
> a
> fine piece of legislation, but the name change for transgenders could
> and
> should be a mutual agreement between patres- or matresfamilias, the
> citizen
> and the Censors. The babble about copying official documents, or even
> an
> identity card to prevent people from cheating is useless. It seems
> that some
> of us here are really paranoid about people switching genders for fun,
> while
> they can easily resign and reapply under their preferred name without
> the
> Censors ever knowing it. And, as Lucius Sicinius and Lucius Sergius
> expressed, the rights of a minority group are not subject to the will
> of the
> majority. Period.

Sulla: I think the Name change law passed by more than 65-70%
acceptance by the People of Nova Roma. Members of the AD criticized me
that I would not promulgate last year. Now that it has been presented
to the People and overwhelmingly passed the People you still complain.
Its just ironic that the original plan your Pater posted as a compromise
to the First Name change edict was completely adopted yet here you are
still taking a hardline stance. I certainly hope that those new
citizens who are reading this thread will go back to the archieves and
read from the archieves the very numerous debates on this topic, which
started in April of last year. Let the archieves speak for themselves.

> � The Resignation Edict / Law: Yes, it was voted in by the people,
> too. To
> prevent a so-called revolving door policy that no one ever made use
> of. As I
> said before, those who love NR and want to return after their 9 days
> reconsideration period, are punished, and those who don't give a damn
> won't
> really care. The resignation of magistrates is of course another
> topic, but
> we're talking about regular, harmless citizens here. This resignation
> law
> may be on some ground defendable, but that's only judging from a
> conservative political background.

Sulla: Alot of people have resigned and come back to Nova Roma. I do
not know where you are getting your information from Sextus Apollonius
but it is not accurate. Please go back to the archieves and review your
information. We do not need incorrect versions of Nova Roma history
floating around here. Every citizen who officially resigns and comes
back is belittling OUR citizenship. Sextus Apollonius, why dont you try
an experiement. Why dont you renounce your Belgian Citizenship and then
try to reapply for it and see how difficult it is to get it back again.
Then you can compare how difficult the process is between your
macronation and Nova Roma.

<SNIP?

> >
> > My basic feeling was, and is, that there is no particular barrier
> > between the government of Nova Roma and the Citizens.
>
> Is that so? While there is a significant congruence beteween the
> Senate and
> the People qua opinion most of the time, sometimes it is really a
> matter of
> ignoring the people's will. Livia Marcia was, as far as I can tell,
> popular
> in her own province, and a role model as a governor. Due to an
> entirely
> different matter she was not prorogued. Oh, yes, her friends failed to
> vote
> in her favour. Sorry, that's a poor excuse for the people who voted
> against
> her, and were co-responsible for this wave of resignations that
> followed
> thereafter. Another case; everyone will remember December last year.
> The
> public knew I was an underage candidate, and yet 22 tribes voted in my
> favour (which was quite unexpected for me, mind you!). The majority of
> the
> Senate however bypassed the will of the people, and I was sent flying.
> More
> on such things in my closing note.

Sulla: I voted against her in line with a statement I gave in the
Senate. I publically stated in the Senate that if she gave up the
traitor who leaked the information to her that the Senate was discussing
her (as well as every other governor's term) then I would vote for her.
Unfortunately, she decided not to hold the State's need above that of
her friend, and would not let the Senate know. Because of that fact and
principle, I voted against her.

> Granted that our methods were rather ineffective, to put it
> euphimistically.
> But what other suggestion do you have?

Sulla: Compromise is a big suggestion. As you told me yourself your
Pater is completely unwilling to compromise when it comes to politics.
That leaves little room for those of us who are willing to compromise to
try to come to an amicible solution. I believe that is a fundamental
reason why your Pater has not been successful. The People saw how
hardline he became and they heard his constant ad hominem attack and his
hyperbole. They saw that and they voted their conscience for what they
thought was for the best of Nova Roma.

> I remember that, during the Exodus of May, when people started asking
> questions, the Senior Censor said "there is nothing wrong with our Res
> Publica" (I don't remember the exact words, so don't decapitate me
> just yet,
> mi Sulla). This describes the attitude of many Senatores and
> Magistrates.
> During the Exodus of March, a large group of competent people left
> Nova
> Roma. There was Vado, with his knowledge of the Religio, and Greek and
> Latin. Or Ericius and Piscinus, equally Religio experts. And Livia,
> the
> hard-working governor who organized symposia and local gatherings. Or
> even a
> moderate like Scaevola, who had an extensive knowledge of Roman law.
> Or
> Marcus Marcius, who had international legal experience. All these
> intelligent people felt ridiculed, burned and disgusted by Nova Roma.
> And
> they mentioned names, too. And one of those people mentioned says:
> "there is
> nothing wrong with our Res Publica"? I'm sorry, but that's a
> confirmation of
> what the leavers have said.
> And most of these people who left were generally liked and
> appreciated, with
> the exception of the controversial Piscinus.

Sulla: I still do not believe that there is anything wrong with the Res
Publica. The government works. Our Consuls govern a growing
micronation. Does that mean there isnt problems that need to get
solved? No. Does that mean there are no criticisms of their actions or
inactions? No. Does that mean there isnt serious and at times hostile
debate? No. But it does mean that those people who are committed
toward making Nova Roma a great micronation are working toward that end,
back then and even now. But I am optimistic still, and work still goes
on. NR is not ever going to be a Utopia, for that is not its purpose.
Instead NR's purpose is to recreate and restore ancient Roman
institutions, in that aspect we are being very successful.

> And now the hypocrisy will start again: the Brittanici were
> embezzlers!
> Piscinus was an enemy of the state! That same, narrow-minded argument
> to
> only see the bad things and enlarge them, was also the basic tactic of
> Stalin when he exiled Trotski. For a simplified version of that I
> recommend
> everyone to read George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Sulla: Correction Sextus Apollonius, Publius Claudius Lentulus (who was
the Treasury Quaestor of Britannia) and Vado (The Oath taking Governor
of Britannia) are embezzlers. They were given funds in their care to
send to the Central Treasury of Nova Roma. It was their responsbility
to make sure those funds got to Nova Roma. When they resigned, instead
of forwarding those funds, they confiscated the treasury. In ancient
Rome, what do you think would hae happened if a governor did that?
Relate the situation back to what would the Senate of ancient Rome would
have done if this situation had happened back then?

Sulla: So, it was not the entire provinca, you are doing a major
disservice to the Provinca for spreading the guilt of two people across
an entire provinca. I think you owe them an apology.

Sulla: As for Piscinus, he was very lucky he resigned for I was
preparing a case against him to be present before the Praetors and
Consuls. But let me add, I think you have a wonderful way with
rhetoric, though I do think it could be much better used than for this
type of cause, the archieves are very enlightening.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:17:26 +0200

Salve, O Censor,

(snipped)

> Sulla: First off, Maria Villoreal (sp.) was a woman, not a man.

That's quite beside the point.

> Secondly, she admitted that she impersonated Censor et Pontiff, et
> Senator et Flamen Lucius Equitus more than once. So, it was not JUST an
> April Fools Joke. So, the Senate issued a reprimand. The difference
> between Nerva and Maria is this....and you seem to fail to grasp this
> multiple times, Sextus Apollonius, but Nerva regardless of using other
> identites never impersonated an actual citizen of Nova Roma. Nor did he
> cast disparagements on a respected member of the Nova Roma Community.
>

I received similar corrections from Nerva, too. Yes, you're right that it
didn't stick to the 1st of April alone, and that it actually happened more
than once. However, it's the first time I'm comparing Marius' and Nerva's
antics to each other, so I don't know where you get your "multiple times"
from. Here's the difference: Marius made a propostrous caricature of
Cincinnatus, using his name, while Nerva made a ludicrous caricature of
Formosanus using another name. I'm not the white knight crusading for
political correctness, so I don't really care for such stunts, but they are
treated quite inequally.

Nerva made the point (off list) that no one could have done something since
he was not a citizen when he did this, which is indeed a valid point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there talk of getting to Piscinus
somehow when he was fooling around in the taverna? Or at least it was taken
more seriously, as I heard of information being sent to the Praetors back
then.

> Sulla: I think the Name change law passed by more than 65-70%
> acceptance by the People of Nova Roma. Members of the AD criticized me
> that I would not promulgate last year. Now that it has been presented
> to the People and overwhelmingly passed the People you still complain.
> Its just ironic that the original plan your Pater posted as a compromise
> to the First Name change edict was completely adopted yet here you are
> still taking a hardline stance.

Because it didn't work for the sole case it was actually designed for.

> I certainly hope that those new
> citizens who are reading this thread will go back to the archieves and
> read from the archieves the very numerous debates on this topic, which
> started in April of last year. Let the archieves speak for themselves.
>

Well, I agree on this one.

> Sulla: Alot of people have resigned and come back to Nova Roma. I do
> not know where you are getting your information from Sextus Apollonius
> but it is not accurate. Please go back to the archieves and review your
> information. We do not need incorrect versions of Nova Roma history
> floating around here. Every citizen who officially resigns and comes
> back is belittling OUR citizenship. Sextus Apollonius, why dont you try
> an experiement. Why dont you renounce your Belgian Citizenship and then
> try to reapply for it and see how difficult it is to get it back again.
> Then you can compare how difficult the process is between your
> macronation and Nova Roma.
>

There's a difference. If I relinquish my citizenship in Belgium, I can't
have a job here, earn money or do whatever things without being arrested and
thrown into prison. I was born here, you know. Nobody is born in Nova Roma
as a Roman. And those who left usually left because they found the
atmosphere too belittling here. No one leaves just for the sake of insulting
NR.

> Sulla: I voted against her in line with a statement I gave in the
> Senate. I publically stated in the Senate that if she gave up the
> traitor who leaked the information to her that the Senate was discussing
> her (as well as every other governor's term) then I would vote for her.
> Unfortunately, she decided not to hold the State's need above that of
> her friend, and would not let the Senate know. Because of that fact and
> principle, I voted against her.
>

That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.

> Sulla: Compromise is a big suggestion. As you told me yourself your
> Pater is completely unwilling to compromise when it comes to politics.

Unwilling to compromise with you and a few others, that is. Not just with
anyone.

> That leaves little room for those of us who are willing to compromise to
> try to come to an amicible solution. I believe that is a fundamental
> reason why your Pater has not been successful. The People saw how
> hardline he became and they heard his constant ad hominem attack and his
> hyperbole. They saw that and they voted their conscience for what they
> thought was for the best of Nova Roma.
>

And yet he became Pleb Aedile. Saying he alone made mistakes is too black
and white.

> Sulla: I still do not believe that there is anything wrong with the Res
> Publica. The government works. Our Consuls govern a growing
> micronation. Does that mean there isnt problems that need to get
> solved? No. Does that mean there are no criticisms of their actions or
> inactions? No. Does that mean there isnt serious and at times hostile
> debate? No. But it does mean that those people who are committed
> toward making Nova Roma a great micronation are working toward that end,
> back then and even now. But I am optimistic still, and work still goes
> on. NR is not ever going to be a Utopia, for that is not its purpose.
> Instead NR's purpose is to recreate and restore ancient Roman
> institutions, in that aspect we are being very successful.
>

Ok, but you are talking about institutions here. Whether things work or not
depends on people. And as I said, a number of officials is doing a really
great job, and everyone here has his or her qualities. But for me, there is
something wrong when a part of the most valuable and talented leave. And if
it's not the system, it must be the people.

> Sulla: Correction Sextus Apollonius, Publius Claudius Lentulus (who was
> the Treasury Quaestor of Britannia) and Vado (The Oath taking Governor
> of Britannia) are embezzlers. They were given funds in their care to
> send to the Central Treasury of Nova Roma. It was their responsbility
> to make sure those funds got to Nova Roma. When they resigned, instead
> of forwarding those funds, they confiscated the treasury. In ancient
> Rome, what do you think would hae happened if a governor did that?
> Relate the situation back to what would the Senate of ancient Rome would
> have done if this situation had happened back then?
>

Lentulus? Was his name not PC Lucentius Bicurratus? Anyway, I agree they
should not have done that. But are you really going to judge them by that
sole crime for the rest of their lives? I'm not judging you by your mistakes
either.

> Sulla: So, it was not the entire provinca, you are doing a major
> disservice to the Provinca for spreading the guilt of two people across
> an entire provinca. I think you owe them an apology.
>

You should talk. In a response to a rather commemorative posting about the
AD you said: "they are embezzlers". Speaking of generalisations! Don't
patronize me. Thanks.

> Sulla: As for Piscinus, he was very lucky he resigned for I was
> preparing a case against him to be present before the Praetors and
> Consuls.

That's funny. He told me exactly the same thing, only replacing "Piscinus"
with Sulla, and swapping "he" for "I".

> But let me add, I think you have a wonderful way with
> rhetoric, though I do think it could be much better used than for this
> type of cause, the archieves are very enlightening.
>

Well thanks. The archives are indeed enlightening. Why else would I know
some resignation dates? *evil grin*

Vale bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:47:58 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 7:17 AM
>
> > Sulla: I voted against her in line with a statement I gave in the
> > Senate. I publically stated in the Senate that if she gave up the
> > traitor who leaked the information to her that the Senate was discussing
> > her (as well as every other governor's term) then I would vote for her.
> > Unfortunately, she decided not to hold the State's need above that of
> > her friend, and would not let the Senate know. Because of that fact and
> > principle, I voted against her.
>
> That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.

I must disagree. There is more to being a governor than simply organizing
gatherings and setting up email lists. As a provincial governor-- an
appointee of the Senate-- one is both an agent of the authority of the State
and a representative of the Dignitas of the Republic. As such, it is
incumbant upon all provincial governors, just as it is upon all magistrates,
to uphold the laws and conventions of the State.

This is not to say that dissention is not tolerated, because it is allowed,
even welcomed, despite some wild cries of totalitarianism and oligarchy by a
few here. However, even if one disagrees with a given regulation, it is
necessary at the same time to obey that regulation, even as one works to see
it changed, especially if one enjoys a position of trust and authority
within the State, as do our provincial governors.

Too, it is necessary for governors to function as part of a coherent
administrative structure. As appointees of the Senate, they are necessarily
required to work in conjunction with, and under the direction of, the Senate
and other magistrates. A governor who has demonstrated (or proclaimed
outright) an inability to do so must perforce be re-evaluated in the
position.

The Senate considers many things when governors are evaluated for
prorogation. Popularity within one's province is only one piece of a much
bigger picture.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Sharing the Light!
From:	Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion <kelibol@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:46:30 +0300

Avete Omnes....
I want to thank for the newly opened polls...it is a good and easy
way for learning
the opinions of the common people who seem to care less for the politics
but still
insisting,like me, (why one wonders sometimes!) to follow the debates.
There was a question of the necessity of the political posts to
divert to another
list..I have another suggestion ,for after all ,if all the political
posts be removed from the
Main List...what would've remained of it?
I've been wondering recently...why don't we have a new list for
the sole purpose
of discussing our history..in all its areas..the current lists we have
designed only for a
single subject...and one wonders where to go when there is something to
ask or to
discuss which having no conection with those lists.I'm a member of some
lists
about the ancient Egypt and you can't believe the historical subjects
and the areas
which the people are discussing...Now,we have one of the most glorious
histories of the
world...and it seems like we talk about it rarely..
So,I think,pehaps with an official list created for the scholarly
-or- not discussions
about our history can attract the attentions of new and old cives alike
to one of the
main points of our existance...to talk about Rome!A place where we can
discuss freely
on everything Roman,a place where we can recommend books,write passages
taken
from them,argue on them,build productive ideas,express our thoughts..in
short a place
where we can share the Light of Rome!
You may agree or disagree or disregard..this is just a dream of
mine since I
first became a citizen of Nova Roma!A special place for the history of
Rome discussed by
'everybody' citizen or non-citizen alike in all its areas...
Sorry,this post contains no politics so,reading this must have
been a real bore :)
Valete bene...

Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
Civis Novae Romae

* Sapiens dominabitur astris ! *

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Hi
From:	"Titus Martius Laetius" <leonardo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:26:27 -0300

Hi
Im a new citizen, from Brasilia. Hope you all can help me here. :)

ex corde,

Titus Martius Laetius

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:42:22 -0700

"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
>
> Salve, O Censor,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Sulla: First off, Maria Villoreal (sp.) was a woman, not a man.
>
> That's quite beside the point.

Sulla: Are you saying that the Truth does not matter? I certainly hope
that is not the case. For the People are reading this list.

> > Secondly, she admitted that she impersonated Censor et Pontiff, et
> > Senator et Flamen Lucius Equitus more than once. So, it was not
> JUST an
> > April Fools Joke. So, the Senate issued a reprimand. The
> difference
> > between Nerva and Maria is this....and you seem to fail to grasp
> this
> > multiple times, Sextus Apollonius, but Nerva regardless of using
> other
> > identites never impersonated an actual citizen of Nova Roma. Nor
> did he
> > cast disparagements on a respected member of the Nova Roma
> Community.
> >
>
> I received similar corrections from Nerva, too. Yes, you're right that
> it
> didn't stick to the 1st of April alone, and that it actually happened
> more
> than once.

Sulla: Good, so now you will see just why the Senate had to take action
over this repeated offense.

However, it's the first time I'm comparing Marius' and
> Nerva's
> antics to each other, so I don't know where you get your "multiple
> times"
> from. Here's the difference: Marius made a propostrous caricature of
> Cincinnatus, using his name, while Nerva made a ludicrous caricature
> of
> Formosanus using another name. I'm not the white knight crusading for
> political correctness, so I don't really care for such stunts, but
> they are
> treated quite inequally.

Sulla: There is quite a difference between satire and impersonation
with the motive to ridicule and defame. It seems unfortunate to me that
you just still do not see the difference. I don't know if you are a
white knight crusading for PC.....it seems at times you are.

> Nerva made the point (off list) that no one could have done something
> since
> he was not a citizen when he did this, which is indeed a valid point.

Sulla: That too is an excellent valid point. One I was going to make,
when I knew you were going to respond to my comments. Instead Nerva
did. Excellent!

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there talk of getting to Piscinus
> somehow when he was fooling around in the taverna? Or at least it was
> taken
> more seriously, as I heard of information being sent to the Praetors
> back
> then.

Sulla: I do not know what you are talking about here.

> > Sulla: I think the Name change law passed by more than 65-70%
> > acceptance by the People of Nova Roma. Members of the AD criticized
> me
> > that I would not promulgate last year. Now that it has been
> presented
> > to the People and overwhelmingly passed the People you still
> complain.
> > Its just ironic that the original plan your Pater posted as a
> compromise
> > to the First Name change edict was completely adopted yet here you
> are
> > still taking a hardline stance.
>
> Because it didn't work for the sole case it was actually designed for.

Sulla: I didnt promulgate the edict to work for that reason alone.
Instead, think of Maria as the reason behind the edict in the first
place. I never wanted to promulgate the edicta however, there was no
other way around it. She petitioned Censor Flavius Vedius and Censor
Decius Iunius (who both have posts on the archive). She failed with
them. Then in Jan. 2000, after Censor Flavius Vedius left the
Censorship and I was sole Censor she petitioned me. 75% of all previous
Censors had to deal with her petition. 100% of all Censors who dealt
with her situation ruled the same. Because of that fact, I felt there
was a need for the edict. I promulgated the edict to deal with a
situation that was continuously coming before the Censorship.

> > I certainly hope that those new
> > citizens who are reading this thread will go back to the archieves
> and
> > read from the archieves the very numerous debates on this topic,
> which
> > started in April of last year. Let the archieves speak for
> themselves.
> >
>
> Well, I agree on this one.

Sulla: Wonderful we have an agreement! <g>

> > Sulla: Alot of people have resigned and come back to Nova Roma. I
> do
> > not know where you are getting your information from Sextus
> Apollonius
> > but it is not accurate. Please go back to the archieves and review
> your
> > information. We do not need incorrect versions of Nova Roma history
> > floating around here. Every citizen who officially resigns and
> comes
> > back is belittling OUR citizenship. Sextus Apollonius, why dont you
> try
> > an experiement. Why dont you renounce your Belgian Citizenship and
> then
> > try to reapply for it and see how difficult it is to get it back
> again.
> > Then you can compare how difficult the process is between your
> > macronation and Nova Roma.
> >
>
> There's a difference. If I relinquish my citizenship in Belgium, I
> can't
> have a job here, earn money or do whatever things without being
> arrested and
> thrown into prison. I was born here, you know. Nobody is born in Nova
> Roma
> as a Roman. And those who left usually left because they found the
> atmosphere too belittling here. No one leaves just for the sake of
> insulting
> NR.

Sulla: so what you are saying is that you value your Belgian
Citizenship more than your Nova Roman citizenship. That is a problem
Sextus Apollonius. I value my Nova Roman Citizenship Equally to my
United States Citizenship. There should be NO difference between being
born into NR and applying to be apart of NR. This is the whole problem
with your reasoning IMHO. They should be the same. Hence the word
nation in micronation! I am very disappointed that you do not feel this
way and it makes alot of sense on why you have some of the views you
hold. Very disappointing.

> > Sulla: I voted against her in line with a statement I gave in the
> > Senate. I publically stated in the Senate that if she gave up the
> > traitor who leaked the information to her that the Senate was
> discussing
> > her (as well as every other governor's term) then I would vote for
> her.
> > Unfortunately, she decided not to hold the State's need above that
> of
> > her friend, and would not let the Senate know. Because of that fact
> and
> > principle, I voted against her.
> >
>
> That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.

Sulla: First off I think Consul Vedius had an EXCELLENT response to
this. I could not say it better than he did. And, as for my brief
rebuttal for Sextus Apollonius I say this. Her performance is only one
factor I used to base my decision. Mostly everyone knows of my problems
with Livia Marcia Cornelia during the previous months before her
resignation. However, I was willing to put my personal feelings aside
and vote for her if she held the State up equally to that as her
friend. Its a matter of loyalty and respect, IMHO. She chose her own
actions. I gave my word to the Senate of Nova Roma, and I kept my
word. If she gave up the traitor, I would have kept my word as well.

> > Sulla: Compromise is a big suggestion. As you told me yourself
> your
> > Pater is completely unwilling to compromise when it comes to
> politics.
>
> Unwilling to compromise with you and a few others, that is. Not just
> with
> anyone.

Sulla: Sextus, its very easy to compromise with those people who you
agree with. The challenge is to compromise with those people you
DISAGREE with. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

<SNIP>

> Sulla: I still do not believe that there is anything wrong with the
> Res
> > Publica. The government works. Our Consuls govern a growing
> > micronation. Does that mean there isnt problems that need to get
> > solved? No. Does that mean there are no criticisms of their
> actions or
> > inactions? No. Does that mean there isnt serious and at times
> hostile
> > debate? No. But it does mean that those people who are committed
> > toward making Nova Roma a great micronation are working toward that
> end,
> > back then and even now. But I am optimistic still, and work still
> goes
> > on. NR is not ever going to be a Utopia, for that is not its
> purpose.
> > Instead NR's purpose is to recreate and restore ancient Roman
> > institutions, in that aspect we are being very successful.
> >
>
> Ok, but you are talking about institutions here. Whether things work
> or not
> depends on people. And as I said, a number of officials is doing a
> really
> great job, and everyone here has his or her qualities. But for me,
> there is
> something wrong when a part of the most valuable and talented leave.
> And if
> it's not the system, it must be the people.

Sulla: This is the thing, if you are totally committed to NR you will
strive to change it. You just said above that a number of officials are
doing a really great job. So what's the problem? The system works.
The Senate is being summoned. The People have a say via voting. Goals
are being reached, procedures are being established. Sodalitates are
being created. Local meetings for local interaction are happening more
and more. If people are not satisfied with the way things are going
there are at least three avenues for them: Take personal initiative and
change them, don't do anything, or leave. I am sure there might be
more, but I am trying to finish this post as quickly as I can. Think
of this, Nova Roma will only change and evolve with effort. If you are
unwilling to put the effort in, then Nova Roma wont evolve the way you
want them too. However, this goes back to compromise as well. One must
be willing to compromise to get things done. Nova Roma will never been
100% the way I want Her to be, nor will Nova Roma be the 100% the way
you or anyone else will want her to be.

> > Sulla: Correction Sextus Apollonius, Publius Claudius Lentulus (who
> was
> > the Treasury Quaestor of Britannia) and Vado (The Oath taking
> Governor
> > of Britannia) are embezzlers. They were given funds in their care
> to
> > send to the Central Treasury of Nova Roma. It was their
> responsbility
> > to make sure those funds got to Nova Roma. When they resigned,
> instead
> > of forwarding those funds, they confiscated the treasury. In
> ancient
> > Rome, what do you think would hae happened if a governor did that?
> > Relate the situation back to what would the Senate of ancient Rome
> would
> > have done if this situation had happened back then?
> >
>
> Lentulus? Was his name not PC Lucentius Bicurratus? Anyway, I agree
> they
> should not have done that. But are you really going to judge them by
> that
> sole crime for the rest of their lives? I'm not judging you by your
> mistakes
> either.

Sulla: Thanks for the name correction. As I said it was late last nite
and I didnt have my files open. And, yes...I do judge them by the sole
crime. It was a crime against the state. You and I had this very same
conversation privately. In any other business, in every other nation,
if this situation happened they would be held totally accountable and
forced to pay and most likely would be incarcerated. In the United
States punishment for embezzlement is a fine of up to (and I am going by
memory) $20,000 plus up to 5 years in jail. They were Oath bearing
magistrates who had the responsibility by the Senate. And as you said
Vado was very religious. So how religious is he truly when he makes an
Oath to the Gods he believes in and yet simply violates that Oath? This
speaks volumes to me.

> > Sulla: So, it was not the entire provinca, you are doing a major
> > disservice to the Provinca for spreading the guilt of two people
> across
> > an entire provinca. I think you owe them an apology.
> >
>
> You should talk. In a response to a rather commemorative posting about
> the
> AD you said: "they are embezzlers". Speaking of generalisations! Don't
> patronize me. Thanks.

Sulla: Well I apologize for that, I did not mean to label all ADers
that. Only those two individuals, which rightfully deserve the title.
Correct?

> > Sulla: As for Piscinus, he was very lucky he resigned for I was
> > preparing a case against him to be present before the Praetors and
> > Consuls.
>
> That's funny. He told me exactly the same thing, only replacing
> "Piscinus"
> with Sulla, and swapping "he" for "I".

Sulla: Well there is a difference, I would have proven my charges! <g>

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:13:10 US/Central

Salve L Corneli

> Sulla: Are you saying that the Truth does not matter? I certainly hope
> that is not the case. For the People are reading this list.

Marius was, ostensibly, not being punished for the crime of being a woman who
would prefer to be a man. Therefore, Marius' sex was entirely beside the point
in referrence to the Senate's reprimand.

> Sulla: Good, so now you will see just why the Senate had to take action
> over this repeated offense.

The Senate did not *have* to take action. Indeed, the Senate should not have
taken action in what was a case of iniuria; one civis defaming another.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:10:36 -0700

Ave, Senator T. Labienus:

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve L Corneli
>
> > Sulla: Are you saying that the Truth does not matter? I certainly
> hope
> > that is not the case. For the People are reading this list.
>
> Marius was, ostensibly, not being punished for the crime of being a
> woman who
> would prefer to be a man. Therefore, Marius' sex was entirely beside
> the point
> in referrence to the Senate's reprimand.

Sulla: That is correct, however, Sextus Apollonius called Maria a man.
That is not accurate, hence the very need for the creation of a name
change edict. So, I chose to correct the point so that our new citizens
will understand exactly what is going on, just in case they do not read
the archieves. Facts are very important. We do not want to cloud the
facts.

> > Sulla: Good, so now you will see just why the Senate had to take
> action
> > over this repeated offense.
>
> The Senate did not *have* to take action. Indeed, the Senate should
> not have
> taken action in what was a case of iniuria; one civis defaming
> another.

Sulla: That is certainly your opinion, Senator. I believe otherwise.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:37:10 US/Central

Salve L Corneli

> Sulla: That is correct, however, Sextus Apollonius called Maria a man.

Only inasmuch as he referred to Maria as Marius. This was not a case of an
attempt to deceive, as Marius' sex had nothing to do with the decision.
Instead, Draco referred to Marius with the gender that she prefers (as I
usually do). You raise the issue as though it were germane to the discussion
at hand, which it is not.

> Sulla: That is certainly your opinion, Senator. I believe otherwise.

Yes, but I'm right.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	Contra Fortunatus Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:33:19 -0700

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve L Corneli
>
> > Sulla: That is correct, however, Sextus Apollonius called Maria a
> man.
>
> Only inasmuch as he referred to Maria as Marius. This was not a case
> of an
> attempt to deceive, as Marius' sex had nothing to do with the
> decision.
> Instead, Draco referred to Marius with the gender that she prefers (as
> I
> usually do). You raise the issue as though it were germane to the
> discussion
> at hand, which it is not.

Sulla: I was pointing it out for the sake of accuracy. I am sure for
some of our citizens the actual need for a name change law for a person
might seem odd. Especially, if they have not read the archives. And, I
agree, her gender has nothing to do with any punishment.

> > Sulla: That is certainly your opinion, Senator. I believe
> otherwise.
>
> Yes, but I'm right.

Sulla: Once again, that is totally your opinion. I respectfully
disagree.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:49:19 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

As usual, I'm bundling my responses. I'll be addressing Consul Vedius and
Censor Sulla.

Consul Vedius scripsit (on Livia):

> > That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.
>
> I must disagree. There is more to being a governor than simply organizing
> gatherings and setting up email lists. As a provincial governor-- an
> appointee of the Senate-- one is both an agent of the authority of the
State
> and a representative of the Dignitas of the Republic. As such, it is
> incumbant upon all provincial governors, just as it is upon all
magistrates,
> to uphold the laws and conventions of the State.
>
> This is not to say that dissention is not tolerated, because it is
allowed,
> even welcomed, despite some wild cries of totalitarianism and oligarchy by
a
> few here. However, even if one disagrees with a given regulation, it is
> necessary at the same time to obey that regulation, even as one works to
see
> it changed, especially if one enjoys a position of trust and authority
> within the State, as do our provincial governors.
>
> Too, it is necessary for governors to function as part of a coherent
> administrative structure. As appointees of the Senate, they are
necessarily
> required to work in conjunction with, and under the direction of, the
Senate
> and other magistrates. A governor who has demonstrated (or proclaimed
> outright) an inability to do so must perforce be re-evaluated in the
> position.
>
> The Senate considers many things when governors are evaluated for
> prorogation. Popularity within one's province is only one piece of a much
> bigger picture.
>

It was my understanding that she was accused of providing evidence for a
secret investigation against Censor Sulla. This can hardly be called an
action against the Senate or against the State. Even if it was not nice,
it's no reason for not proroguing her.

I really don't understand your reasoning. If I should rate your performance
as a Consul, should I also rate your performance as a private individual? Or
as a husband? I don't think you would like that. Whether Livia did or did
not do some shadowy things that were against the Senate still has nothing to
do with the tasks set in the Constitution for a governor. And did, by the
way, something really unconstitutional happen? I wonder.

Censor Sulla scripsit:

> > > Sulla: First off, Maria Villoreal (sp.) was a woman, not a man.
> >
> > That's quite beside the point.
>
> Sulla: Are you saying that the Truth does not matter? I certainly hope
> that is not the case. For the People are reading this list.
>

Come now, don't be so Official. Truth does matter, but it's like talking
about how much water fits in a bottle while the other person keeps saying
that the glass is transparent. It's got nothing to do with the issue at
hand.

> > I received similar corrections from Nerva, too. Yes, you're right that
> > it
> > didn't stick to the 1st of April alone, and that it actually happened
> > more
> > than once.
>
> Sulla: Good, so now you will see just why the Senate had to take action
> over this repeated offense.
>

No, I was corrected on my information, but a Reprimand was still rather
unnecessary, which Nerva believes as well. He had already gotten a private
reprimand, which was enough in my opinion.

> Sulla: There is quite a difference between satire and impersonation
> with the motive to ridicule and defame. It seems unfortunate to me that
> you just still do not see the difference. I don't know if you are a
> white knight crusading for PC.....it seems at times you are.
>

Marius' intention was exactly the same: to ridicule and defame.

(snipped)

> > Because it didn't work for the sole case it was actually designed for.
>
> Sulla: I didnt promulgate the edict to work for that reason alone.
> Instead, think of Maria as the reason behind the edict in the first
> place. I never wanted to promulgate the edicta however, there was no
> other way around it. She petitioned Censor Flavius Vedius and Censor
> Decius Iunius (who both have posts on the archive). She failed with
> them. Then in Jan. 2000, after Censor Flavius Vedius left the
> Censorship and I was sole Censor she petitioned me. 75% of all previous
> Censors had to deal with her petition. 100% of all Censors who dealt
> with her situation ruled the same. Because of that fact, I felt there
> was a need for the edict. I promulgated the edict to deal with a
> situation that was continuously coming before the Censorship.
>

Percentages have a tendency to seem impressive, but we are talking about
__three__ people here, mi Sulla. Besides, you seem to be admitting here that
the Edict was promulgated for Marius, which confirms my former point.

(snipped)

> > There's a difference. If I relinquish my citizenship in Belgium, I
> > can't
> > have a job here, earn money or do whatever things without being
> > arrested and
> > thrown into prison. I was born here, you know. Nobody is born in Nova
> > Roma
> > as a Roman. And those who left usually left because they found the
> > atmosphere too belittling here. No one leaves just for the sake of
> > insulting
> > NR.
>
> Sulla: so what you are saying is that you value your Belgian
> Citizenship more than your Nova Roman citizenship. That is a problem
> Sextus Apollonius. I value my Nova Roman Citizenship Equally to my
> United States Citizenship. There should be NO difference between being
> born into NR and applying to be apart of NR. This is the whole problem
> with your reasoning IMHO. They should be the same. Hence the word
> nation in micronation! I am very disappointed that you do not feel this
> way and it makes alot of sense on why you have some of the views you
> hold. Very disappointing.
>

Then I have to ask you a question, if you value your Roman and American
citizenship equally. Suppose you were mugged in a back alley (...), and you
could identify the thieves? Would you appeal to the Roman Praetores? My
point is that the macronation one is born in has more to offer than this
micronation. If you would be forced to choose between American and Roman
citizenship, as the current state of affairs stands, you would choose
American citizenship. And why? Because it offers more practical advantages.
Much more.

> > That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.
>
> Sulla: First off I think Consul Vedius had an EXCELLENT response to
> this. I could not say it better than he did. And, as for my brief
> rebuttal for Sextus Apollonius I say this. Her performance is only one
> factor I used to base my decision. Mostly everyone knows of my problems
> with Livia Marcia Cornelia during the previous months before her
> resignation. However, I was willing to put my personal feelings aside
> and vote for her if she held the State up equally to that as her
> friend. Its a matter of loyalty and respect, IMHO. She chose her own
> actions. I gave my word to the Senate of Nova Roma, and I kept my
> word. If she gave up the traitor, I would have kept my word as well.
>

That seems like emotional blackmail to me. "I will do A if you will do B".
Whether she gave up the "traitor" or not had nothing to do with provincial
tasks.

> > Unwilling to compromise with you and a few others, that is. Not just
> > with
> > anyone.
>
> Sulla: Sextus, its very easy to compromise with those people who you
> agree with. The challenge is to compromise with those people you
> DISAGREE with. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
>

Then I'm waiting for our first compromise! <g>

> > Ok, but you are talking about institutions here. Whether things work
> > or not
> > depends on people. And as I said, a number of officials is doing a
> > really
> > great job, and everyone here has his or her qualities. But for me,
> > there is
> > something wrong when a part of the most valuable and talented leave.
> > And if
> > it's not the system, it must be the people.
>
> Sulla: This is the thing, if you are totally committed to NR you will
> strive to change it. You just said above that a number of officials are
> doing a really great job. So what's the problem?

That another number isn't.

> The system works.
> The Senate is being summoned. The People have a say via voting. Goals
> are being reached, procedures are being established. Sodalitates are
> being created. Local meetings for local interaction are happening more
> and more. If people are not satisfied with the way things are going
> there are at least three avenues for them: Take personal initiative and
> change them, don't do anything, or leave. I am sure there might be
> more, but I am trying to finish this post as quickly as I can. Think
> of this, Nova Roma will only change and evolve with effort. If you are
> unwilling to put the effort in, then Nova Roma wont evolve the way you
> want them too. However, this goes back to compromise as well. One must
> be willing to compromise to get things done. Nova Roma will never been
> 100% the way I want Her to be, nor will Nova Roma be the 100% the way
> you or anyone else will want her to be.
>

This is similar to the things Cassius expressed. But it seems that as soon
as people try to change NR through a serious effort (read AD), the
opposition from the majority of the powers that be is overwhelming. From the
start, it seemed like there was no compromise possible due to the hysterical
reactions. We have not been flawless, but it would be nice if some of our
opponents would admit they've been wrong as well.

> > Lentulus? Was his name not PC Lucentius Bicurratus? Anyway, I agree
> > they
> > should not have done that. But are you really going to judge them by
> > that
> > sole crime for the rest of their lives? I'm not judging you by your
> > mistakes
> > either.
>
> Sulla: Thanks for the name correction. As I said it was late last nite
> and I didnt have my files open. And, yes...I do judge them by the sole
> crime. It was a crime against the state. You and I had this very same
> conversation privately. In any other business, in every other nation,
> if this situation happened they would be held totally accountable and
> forced to pay and most likely would be incarcerated. In the United
> States punishment for embezzlement is a fine of up to (and I am going by
> memory) $20,000 plus up to 5 years in jail. They were Oath bearing
> magistrates who had the responsibility by the Senate.

How much was "stolen"? Was a communication line ever opened with Vado or
Bicurratus? What did really happen with the money after its disappearance?
It piques my interest.

And as for you judging them by their sole crime. Would you appreciate it if
everyone kept judging you by your attempt to hack in the Senate's e-mail? I
think not. One of the Roman virtues is Clementia, and for me that also means
to have a broad vision, and put things in their perspective. Quite
obviously, our perspectives on individuals in relation to their actions
differ quite a lot.

> And as you said
> Vado was very religious. So how religious is he truly when he makes an
> Oath to the Gods he believes in and yet simply violates that Oath? This
> speaks volumes to me.
>

The Religio Romana is not a very moralizing religion. The Romans used
philosophy for their ethical systems, usually.

> > You should talk. In a response to a rather commemorative posting about
> > the
> > AD you said: "they are embezzlers". Speaking of generalisations! Don't
> > patronize me. Thanks.
>
> Sulla: Well I apologize for that, I did not mean to label all ADers
> that. Only those two individuals, which rightfully deserve the title.
> Correct?
>

Well yes.

> > > Sulla: As for Piscinus, he was very lucky he resigned for I was
> > > preparing a case against him to be present before the Praetors and
> > > Consuls.
> >
> > That's funny. He told me exactly the same thing, only replacing
> > "Piscinus"
> > with Sulla, and swapping "he" for "I".
>
> Sulla: Well there is a difference, I would have proven my charges! <g>
>

Hey, he might have done the same. Who knows?

Valete bene,
Draco

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


Subject:	Re: Contra Fortunatus Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:53:10 US/Central

Salve L Corneli

> Sulla: I was pointing it out for the sake of accuracy. I am sure for
> some of our citizens the actual need for a name change law for a person
> might seem odd.

One last time: Draco was referring to the Senate reprimand, not the name-change
edictum. The two are separate issues.

> > Yes, but I'm right.
>
> Sulla: Once again, that is totally your opinion. I respectfully
> disagree.

The tone of that last sentence was meant to be light. Mea culpa for not
including one of those execrable emoticon smileys at the end of it.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	Re: Contra Fortunatus Re: [novaroma] Government vs People? (long)
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:04:00 -0700

labienus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salve L Corneli
>
> > Sulla: I was pointing it out for the sake of accuracy. I am sure
> for
> > some of our citizens the actual need for a name change law for a
> person
> > might seem odd.
>
> One last time: Draco was referring to the Senate reprimand, not the
> name-change
> edictum. The two are separate issues.

Sulla: Yes I understand that. I stated the clarifaction as well.

> > > Yes, but I'm right.
> >
> > Sulla: Once again, that is totally your opinion. I respectfully
> > disagree.
>
> The tone of that last sentence was meant to be light. Mea culpa for
> not
> including one of those execrable emoticon smileys at the end of it.

Sulla: Oh <g> I took you for being serious. Apologies. Yeah the tone
of emails leaves much to be desired, doesn't it. <g>

Sulla

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Hi
From:	bsmith3121@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:01:25 EDT

salve,

Welcome to Nova Roma. I am also a relatively new citizen. I am sure that you
will find this to be an interesting and enlightening experience. I certainly
have. I've talked about it so much that my eldest daughter wants to become a
citizen.

Again, welcome.

Caius Titinius varus

In a message dated 07/11/2001 2:50:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
leonardo@-------- writes:

<< Hi
Im a new citizen, from Brasilia. Hope you all can help me here. :)

ex corde,

Titus Martius Laetius >>

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Hi
From:	"Titus Martius Laetius" <leonardo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:26:27 -0300

Hi
Im a new citizen, from Brasilia. Hope you all can help me here. :)

ex corde,

Titus Martius Laetius

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Sharing the Light!
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:15:46 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
<kelibol@--------> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Avete Omnes....
> I want to thank for the newly opened polls...it is a good
and easy
> way for learning
> the opinions of the common people who seem to care less for the
politics
> but still
> insisting,like me, (why one wonders sometimes!) to follow the
debates.

I agree, the polls are an excellent idea.

> I've been wondering recently...why don't we have a new
list for
> the sole purpose
> of discussing our history..in all its areas..the current lists
we have
> designed only for a
> single subject...and one wonders where to go when there is
something to
> ask or to
> discuss which having no conection with those lists.I'm a member
of some
> lists
> about the ancient Egypt and you can't believe the historical
subjects
> and the areas
> which the people are discussing...Now,we have one of the most
glorious
> histories of the
> world...and it seems like we talk about it rarely..
> So,I think,pehaps with an official list created for the
scholarly
> -or- not discussions
> about our history can attract the attentions of new and old
cives alike
> to one of the
> main points of our existance...to talk about Rome!A place where
we can
> discuss freely
> on everything Roman,a place where we can recommend books,write
passages
> taken
> from them,argue on them,build productive ideas,express our
thoughts..in
> short a place
> where we can share the Light of Rome!
> You may agree or disagree or disregard..

I heartily concur - in fact, I expected a lot more of this type of
thing when I applied for citizenship. The political discussions have
their place, and I've followed them with some interest, but they
really seem to take the list over far too much for my taste
(additionally, if the 'On Valius's Totalarism' thread continues, will
someone please indulge my pedantic side and correct the heading to
'Totalitarianism'. I'd feel so much better).

> 'everybody' citizen or non-citizen alike in all its areas...
> Sorry,this post contains no politics so,reading this
must have
> been a real bore :)

Not at all! Well spoken, citizen!

Regimus Palaeologus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Attention all New Zealand Citizens
From:	"Devry, Mark (Packaging House Auckland)" <mark.devry@-------->
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:37:37 +1200

Salvete citizens,

As the Rogator, Domna Claudia Auspicata, so kindly pointed out to
me, New Zealand now has 5 citizens listed in the Nova Roma citizen album.
We would like to get in contact with these citizens to (a) try to
get to know each other, (b) try to arrange meeting each other and (c)
discuss the possibility of a seperate New Zealand province.
If you are interested, could you please email me to either this
address, or to thefool@--------

I look forward to hearing from you.

Vale,
Marcus Sentius Accipiter
Centurian, Leg II Aug (NZ)
Citizen, Nova Roma

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Government vs People? (long)
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:45:39 -0000

> Censor Sulla scripsit:
>
> > > > Sulla: First off, Maria Villoreal (sp.) was a woman, not a
man.
> > >
> > > That's quite beside the point.
> >
> > Sulla: Are you saying that the Truth does not matter? I
certainly
> hope
> > that is not the case. For the People are reading this list.
> >
>
> Come now, don't be so Official. Truth does matter, but it's like
> talking
> about how much water fits in a bottle while the other person keeps
> saying
> that the glass is transparent. It's got nothing to do with the issue
> at
> hand.

Sulla: Why not be so official. The truth is the truth. Lets not
cloud
the facts to what is accurate. You trying to rationalize it does not
make it less truthful does it?

> > > I received similar corrections from Nerva, too. Yes, you're
right
> that
> > > it
> > > didn't stick to the 1st of April alone, and that it actually
> happened
> > > more
> > > than once.
> >
> > Sulla: Good, so now you will see just why the Senate had to take
> action
> > over this repeated offense.
> >
>
> No, I was corrected on my information, but a Reprimand was still
> rather
> unnecessary, which Nerva believes as well. He had already gotten a
> private
> reprimand, which was enough in my opinion.

Sulla: There are some people who feel it was not necessary. There
are
some people who felt it was. At the time the Senate voted for it, the
majority felt it was needed.

> > Sulla: There is quite a difference between satire and
impersonation
> > with the motive to ridicule and defame. It seems unfortunate to
me
> that
> > you just still do not see the difference. I don't know if you
are a
> > white knight crusading for PC.....it seems at times you are.
> >
>
> Marius' intention was exactly the same: to ridicule and defame.

Sulla: Marius took Cincinnatus's handle and used it to impersonate
him. In my honest opinion that goes beyond the realm of satire. She
did it more than once as well. The potential repercussions for such
action had to be dealt with in an official capacity. Again, lets not
rationalize it but look at the facts. She lied, she said originally
that she did it on April Fools. Even you stated in your first email
that she did it once...I corrected you, and you accepted the
correction. Now lets not go backwards please.

> (snipped)
>
> > > Because it didn't work for the sole case it was actually
designed
> for.
> >
> > Sulla: I didnt promulgate the edict to work for that reason
alone.
> > Instead, think of Maria as the reason behind the edict in the
first
> > place. I never wanted to promulgate the edicta however, there was
> no
> > other way around it. She petitioned Censor Flavius Vedius and
> Censor
> > Decius Iunius (who both have posts on the archive). She failed
with
> > them. Then in Jan. 2000, after Censor Flavius Vedius left the
> > Censorship and I was sole Censor she petitioned me. 75% of all
> previous
> > Censors had to deal with her petition. 100% of all Censors who
> dealt
> > with her situation ruled the same. Because of that fact, I felt
> there
> > was a need for the edict. I promulgated the edict to deal with a
> > situation that was continuously coming before the Censorship.
> >
>
> Percentages have a tendency to seem impressive, but we are talking
> about
> __three__ people here, mi Sulla. Besides, you seem to be admitting
> here that
> the Edict was promulgated for Marius, which confirms my former
point.

I stand by the previous paragraph. The need for the edict was
prompted
by the contiunal effort of Maria to achieve her goal. If she accepted
the decision by the Censors Flavius Vedius and Decius Iunius this
edict
would not have needed to be created in the first place. The
arguements
last year would never have occurred. Your pater and other members of
the AD calling me a Nazi and Tyrant would not have occurred. The
compromise edict by Censor C. Marius Merullus and myself would not
have
been created. The eventual lex being promulgated by the People would
not have been needed. All of this happened because Maria decided to
press the issue. So if that is what you mean. Then yes I agree.

> (snipped)
>
> > > There's a difference. If I relinquish my citizenship in
Belgium, I
> > > can't
> > > have a job here, earn money or do whatever things without being
> > > arrested and
> > > thrown into prison. I was born here, you know. Nobody is born in
> Nova
> > > Roma
> > > as a Roman. And those who left usually left because they found
the
> > > atmosphere too belittling here. No one leaves just for the sake
of
> > > insulting
> > > NR.
> >
> > Sulla: so what you are saying is that you value your Belgian
> > Citizenship more than your Nova Roman citizenship. That is a
> problem
> > Sextus Apollonius. I value my Nova Roman Citizenship Equally to
my
> > United States Citizenship. There should be NO difference between
> being
> > born into NR and applying to be apart of NR. This is the whole
> problem
> > with your reasoning IMHO. They should be the same. Hence the
word
> > nation in micronation! I am very disappointed that you do not
feel
> this
> > way and it makes alot of sense on why you have some of the views
you
> > hold. Very disappointing.
> >
>
> Then I have to ask you a question, if you value your Roman and
> American
> citizenship equally. Suppose you were mugged in a back alley (...),
> and you
> could identify the thieves? Would you appeal to the Roman Praetores?
> My
> point is that the macronation one is born in has more to offer than
> this
> micronation. If you would be forced to choose between American and
> Roman
> citizenship, as the current state of affairs stands, you would
choose
> American citizenship. And why? Because it offers more practical
> advantages.
> Much more.

Sulla: If I was mugged in the back alley, I would appeal to both the
Roman Praetors and if the crime ocurred in the United States as well,
I
would appeal to the proper authorities. The issue is not just about
benefit, Sextus Apollonius. Its about civic virtue and civic pride.
One does not serve in the military for benefit. One does it for civic
and community reasons. And, as for choosing one citizenship over the
other than isnt the point, nor is it a factor. One can be a citizen
of
mulitple countries.

> > > That has nothing to do with her performance as a Propraetrix.
> >
> > Sulla: First off I think Consul Vedius had an EXCELLENT response
to
> > this. I could not say it better than he did. And, as for my
brief
> > rebuttal for Sextus Apollonius I say this. Her performance is
only
> one
> > factor I used to base my decision. Mostly everyone knows of my
> problems
> > with Livia Marcia Cornelia during the previous months before her
> > resignation. However, I was willing to put my personal feelings
> aside
> > and vote for her if she held the State up equally to that as her
> > friend. Its a matter of loyalty and respect, IMHO. She chose her
> own
> > actions. I gave my word to the Senate of Nova Roma, and I kept my
> > word. If she gave up the traitor, I would have kept my word as
> well.
> >
>
> That seems like emotional blackmail to me. "I will do A if you will
do
> B".
> Whether she gave up the "traitor" or not had nothing to do with
> provincial
> tasks.

Sulla: It should have never BEEN an issue in the first place which is
my point. One should have a loyalty to the State, espeically when one
has been given responsiblity by the state.

> > > Unwilling to compromise with you and a few others, that is. Not
> just
> > > with
> > > anyone.
> >
> > Sulla: Sextus, its very easy to compromise with those people who
> you
> > agree with. The challenge is to compromise with those people you
> > DISAGREE with. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.
> >
>
> Then I'm waiting for our first compromise! <g>

Sulla: Check the archieves, you will see just how flexible I have
been. Again, I think that was a factor the People saw when they voted
on the Lex I have written.

<SNIP>

> This is similar to the things Cassius expressed. But it seems that
as
> soon
> as people try to change NR through a serious effort (read AD), the
> opposition from the majority of the powers that be is overwhelming.
> From the
> start, it seemed like there was no compromise possible due to the
> hysterical
> reactions. We have not been flawless, but it would be nice if some
of
> our
> opponents would admit they've been wrong as well.

Sulla: The inability to compromise was specifically due to the
rhetoric
that M. Apollonius. If you are going to start proclaiming blame for
emotional response go back to the root of the cause please. Once
again, I cannot stress the importance of reading the archieves.

> > > Lentulus? Was his name not PC Lucentius Bicurratus? Anyway, I
> agree
> > > they
> > > should not have done that. But are you really going to judge
them
> by
> > > that
> > > sole crime for the rest of their lives? I'm not judging you by
> your
> > > mistakes
> > > either.
> >
> > Sulla: Thanks for the name correction. As I said it was late
last
> nite
> > and I didnt have my files open. And, yes...I do judge them by the
> sole
> > crime. It was a crime against the state. You and I had this very
> same
> > conversation privately. In any other business, in every other
> nation,
> > if this situation happened they would be held totally accountable
> and
> > forced to pay and most likely would be incarcerated. In the
United
> > States punishment for embezzlement is a fine of up to (and I am
> going by
> > memory) $20,000 plus up to 5 years in jail. They were Oath
bearing
> > magistrates who had the responsibility by the Senate.
>
> How much was "stolen"?

Sulla: I believe it was near about $500.00 US or about 35% of the
Treasury, but that is only approximate.

Was a communication line ever opened with Vado
> or
> Bicurratus?

Sulla: Yes, but I cannot comment on that.

What did really happen with the money after its
> disappearance?

Sulla: You are friends with Vado, why dont you contact him?

> It piques my interest.
>
> And as for you judging them by their sole crime. Would you
appreciate
> it if
> everyone kept judging you by your attempt to hack in the Senate's
> e-mail? I
> think not. One of the Roman virtues is Clementia, and for me that
also
> means
> to have a broad vision, and put things in their perspective. Quite
> obviously, our perspectives on individuals in relation to their
> actions
> differ quite a lot.

Sulla: It matters not to me if people judge me by when I lurked on
the Senate message board. People should judge me by my actions. I
have no problem with that at all. Actions speak louder than words
anyway, IMHO.

> > And as you said
> > Vado was very religious. So how religious is he truly when he
makes
> an
> > Oath to the Gods he believes in and yet simply violates that Oath?
> This
> > speaks volumes to me.
> >
>
> The Religio Romana is not a very moralizing religion. The Romans
used
> philosophy for their ethical systems, usually.

Sulla: How convinent to rationalize the Religio. This is going to
obviously be a problem that maybe our religio officers must deal
with. Ethical systems are something vital in, I believe every
faith. If that is not the case with the Religio, then we will have
some serious problems. Ethics is and should be very important. For
what does it mean when a magistrate takes an Oath to the Gods he/she
beleives in...and then violates that with with no concern?

> > > You should talk. In a response to a rather commemorative posting
> about
> > > the
> > > AD you said: "they are embezzlers". Speaking of generalisations!
> Don't
> > > patronize me. Thanks.
> >
> > Sulla: Well I apologize for that, I did not mean to label all
ADers
> > that. Only those two individuals, which rightfully deserve the
> title.
> > Correct?
> >
>
> Well yes.

Sulla: Thank you for the agreement here. It is appreciated.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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