Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Yes, Democracy Here
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:06:58 -0400

Salve,

>>I therefore propose that, instead of fighting against the word and reality
of democracy, you join with the rest of us in hailing and celebrating Roman
Democracy.>>

I must confess some curiosity here Formosanus. Who exactly are you
referring to when you say "the rest of us"? I do hope you were not
attempting to assert that "the rest", or even a majority, of Nova Romans
share your views.

I will refrain from commentary on the remainder of your post until this
question has been addressed. Thanks in advance for clarifying and/or
correcting your words.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	CORRECTION on Re: [novaroma] Yes, Democracy Here
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:11:57 -0700

Ave,

Citizens of Nova Roma, I feel it is absolutely necessary to rebut the
inaccuracies of part of M. Apollonius's statement that directly relate
to me and my office as Censor.

M. Apollonius continues to harp on the issue of Maria Villoreal. I have
a number of times set the matter straight. I have posted this post in
the archives and I have even written an article for the Eagle on it.
However, given the numbers of new citizens I feel it is essential that
the correct and accurate version of the story sees the light of day.

Maria Villoreal was a woman in Nova Roma who is transgendered. When she
applied for Nova Roma her name was Lucia Maria Fimbria. Her and I were
the best of friends since NR began til I became Censor. Prior to
becoming Censor she approached Censor Flavius Vedius and Censor Decius
Iunius to change her name to reflect her transgendered gender. They
denied it. When I became Censor, with Flavius Vedius my colleague she
approached me then...regarding her petition to change her name and
gender in Nova Roma. I consulted Flavius Vedius and Decius Iunius, and
they explained to me the grounds of their objection and their
establishment of a precedent. As Censor Flavius Vedius was my colleague
I informed Lucia Maria that there was no way it was going to happen
while he was my colleague.

In March of 2000, Censor Flavius Vedius resigned and within 3 days I had
a request from Lucia Maria requesting a name change. I was put in a
very awkward position. She was one of my best friends in Nova Roma, yet
I have a duty to follow the laws of Nova Roma. I once again consulted
the previous Censors, to get their opinion. The law was clear. I was
being asked to violate the Censorial Edict on the Selection of Roman
Names, and the precedent established by the previous Censors as a
personal favor to a friend. This left me no choice but to deny the
application.

I informed her that I declined her petition because I felt that I had a
duty to uphold the law. I felt that she was trying to use her
friendship with me. And inessence asking me to misuse the powers of my
office. My post to her was very civil and I explained to her that she
could use whatever alias she desired however, official correspondence
must reflect your official Nova Roman Name. Censor Flavius Vedius and I
both promulgated an edict, "Guidelines for Choosing a Roman Name" dated
01/02/00. It was and still is my opinion that to change her name would
be a misuse of power. I informed her that I declined her petition
because I felt that I had a duty to uphold the law. I felt that she was
trying to misuse our friendship to gain an exemption from the law. My
post to her was very civil and I explained to her that she could use
whatever alias she desired however, official correspondence must reflect
your official Nova Roman Name.

Once I informed her of her denial, I sought advice from my peers and I
explained that this issue has been infront of 75% of the Censors of Nova
Roma. We all have viewed it in the same light, and that I felt there
was a need to establish an edicta. I asked for input and I was advised
that yes an edict should be drafted. I published an edicta on this, and
included provisions that would make a name change possible for a
transgendered person. She refused to comply with the criteria to receive
her name change. Since that time it has been revised and is now been
voted on by the People of Nova Roma. I completely support the
compromised version of the Lex Cornelia et Maria de Mutandis Nominbus.
Which passed overwhelmingly by the People in May of this year.

I am disappointed that M. Apollonius Formosanus, who continually harps
on "democracy," is unwilling to abide by the Will of the People he
claims to champion. What is the use of having democracy, M. Apollonius,
when you dismiss the will of the People when the People disagree with
you?

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
> Antonio Gryllo Graeco Pontifici et omnibus Quiritibus
> S.P.D.

Subject:	[novaroma] If that's his idea of pax...
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:02:08 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
Consuli Flavio Vedio Germanico et omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

This post is mostly just your pugnacious style, Vedi, but I
guess I have to put holes in the arguments, correct the
misstatements, and repeat once again that I invite you as
with anyone to dialogue with me in private without all this
grandstanding.


Message: 8
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:47:00 -0400
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germanicus@-------->
Subject: If that's his idea of pax...

Salve

I must, reluctantly, step in here to point out once again
how Formosanus distorts the issues to try to pursuade
people that he's right.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:21 PM
>
> I stated that I thought that it was unjust,
>discriminatory, and therefore immoral, and that it was a
>typical example of an unwholesome
> and extreme political orientation. That is the sum of my
tactics. I do
> not agree with your attribution of its passage to me.

That is not "tactics", that is "opinion".

RESPONDEO:

You seem not to have seen the word *state* in the above.
*Stating* these things was and is and mostly shall remain
my *tactic* - tactic meaning a means to an end in a
conflictual situation. Something one can *do* is not an
opinion.

Others shared that opinion, and yet managed to do so
without resorting to your choice of tactics.

RESPONDEO:

Although I have so far failed with my tactics, everybody
else has too, as the three pieces of policy/legislation
that I am concenrned with are still there in place. So, by
what objective criteria are my tactics worse? If they make
the guilty more uncomfortable, that is at least a
contribution to retributive justice!


And what were those tactics? To distort the truth of the
matter at hand, to send a constant stream of lengthy
diatribes covering the same ground over and over
and over (seemingly hoping to wear everyone down to the
point where they would give in simply to shut you up),

RESPONDEO:

I think that if you were on my side, you would praise my
"indefatigable persistence in the pursuit of justice" or
some such nicer expression. Being against me, you
predictably use a negative way of expressing yourself. But
I do not see how anyone can correct something if he gives
up.



to hide behind the facade of being
some sort of self-appointed People's Champion (regardless
of what the People want),

RESPONDEO:

I am trying to be the champion of justice and freedom in
the first place. I accept the support of all classes and
stations of our society in this and condemn those who don't
care about those things regardless of their class or
station.


and to resort to name-calling and innuendo (the frequent
attributions of "right-wing authoritarian" and similar
epithets) against those who disagreed with _either_ your
opinion or your tactics.

RESPONDEO:

I have indeed called many spades spades. People who have
great faith in and affection for authority at the expense
of the rights and freedom of individuals may justifiably be
called "authoritarian".

Had you simply not engaged in the tactics you chose, your
opinion may very well have carried the day. But you
apparently are unable to do so for more
than a brief period; even your recent attempt at behaving
politely and reasonably these last few days has already
come to nought.

RESPONDEO:

Vedi, I have no particular desires in the short term for
Nova Roma except to get those three pieces of rule-making
changed for the better. If the moral status of the
community is so compromised, what could have higher
priority? Two of them are in leges that would require a
vote of the People to correct, and things practically
speaking do not come before the People except through the
initiative of the consuls. The other might be corrected by
a number of legislative organs or by the decision of the
senior consul's wife.

Under those circumstances, naturally *anything* I might do
will "come to nought" in the short term because the people
who have caused or contributed the problems are still in
place. If *you* wanted my attempts to come to something
they would. Despite your insults and unhelpfulness to date,
I have invited you with others to have a private dialogue
with me and reduce tensions between us. Some have tried
that, but you obviously prefer to fan the flames and flaunt
your power. Not the approach of a consul who wants to take
advantage of opportunities to bring about reconciliation.
And I think that doing that would win you more respect in
the end from everyone and do good for Nova Roma.

> A law that affects criminals individually or as a group
>is one thing. A law that singles out a *non-criminal
>group*, such as a racial group,
> women, non-surgically transgendering individuals or
>returning cives,

How smoothly you try to equate someone who is
discriminated against because
of their _condition_ (race, gender, etc.) with someone who
engages in a
particular _activity_. In this case, you attempt to say
that a law banning, say, Amerindians from holding office is
morally equivalent to a law saying
that people who CHOOSE to resign their Citizenship should
be held to a
different standard than those who do not.

RESPONDEO:

Resigning is a legal action under the laws of Nova Roma and
in the eyes of the larger world in which we live is an
evident right. There are two general classes of
resignation:

1) Those based on an excellent reason: for example those
resigning in protest against injustice,
2) Those based on a morally-neutral reason: perhaps Rome is
a peripheral interest that they just don't feel they have
time for any more, and they want to make a clean break
rather than stay on the alba and be uncontactible.

I see no particular reason why performing the action of
resignation, therefore, should be used as a pretext for
putting a person in a different category with the intention
of then discriminating against that person.

If someone wants to make resigning illegal or returning
illegal and punishing the offence, then let him try. I
think that if it were put in those honest and
straightforward terms it would not be passed by the
comitia. Sneaking in de facto punishments for a non-crime
for returnees is just a dishonest way of making law.


The former is certainly an example
of bigotry; the latter is simply an attempt to discourage
behavior that our society finds undesireable.

RESPONDEO:

And yet, as I pointed out above, it often teaches our
society or its dominant members a moral lesson at best, and
at worst clears our alba of a civis who otherwise would
have to be looked into at considerable expense of time by a
censor to see if he still existed. Thus, it is certainly a
perverse point of view to want to discourage it by force or
disagreeableness. (And stupid to only punish those who care
enough to come back, while those who may be completely
indifferent or even hostile towards NR get away scot-free!
Is this justice?)

But again, if it is to be discouraged through de facto
punishment, then make it a crime and call a punishment a
punishment. As it stands, it is discrimination against a
non-criminal group.

> Since you are echoing my own ideas, I naturally agree
>with you, support you and encourage you. But will the
>Oligarchy (by whatever supposedly
> inoffensive name you may have for them) let you do it?

You seem to have missed the quite lengthy discussions
regarding proposed amendments to the Constitution to do
exactly that, both here and on the Vedian Baths email list.
Indeed, the Senate is even as we speak giving the
final draft of the Tribunate amendment a last once-over
before it is presented to the Comitia Centuriata for a
vote. So much for the "oligarchs" (and despite your
linguistic legerdemain I still find the application of
that term to myself and my fellow Senators and magistrates
offensive) oppressing the people...

RESPONDEO:

When they come up for a vote and I see the final text, then
I shall judge. And if it is good, I shall praise all
concerned. Even you, Vedi! :-) But the proof of the cake
is in the eating, and the important thing for me is in
whether it makes possible a change in the three pieces of
rule-making that are still disfiguring the moral face of
Nova Roma. The justice and freedom on the ground is what
matters, more than the superstructure.


> These things are not done yet, and I have at one time or
another
> publicly supported all these ideas too. I have been
working
mostly on
> individual rights, however. But I certainly would not
wish to
belittle
> your work for these things.

lol! You are "working mostly" on the same two or three pet
issues you've been harping on for nearly two years, and
which seem to have transformed into nice safe grudges for
you; things you can rail against, comfortable in
the fact that they'll never change and thus you'll never be
caught without something to complain about.

RESPONDEO:

I answer to my own conscience and not to you. And it is
only about a year and a half, I guess. But, as I say, Nova
Roma has lots of fine legislation and other good things -
it is really only these three things that are sources of
shame because of their injustice. I shall concentrate on
them, because someone has to until they are dealt with in a
constructive way. And I very much hope that I shall not
have to add to the list. If I finish this, I shall perhaps
turn to other things.


Dare I ask what "individual rights" you are "working" on at
the moment, other than the right to pretend to a gender in
Nova Roma different from the one you live as elsewhere? (A
moot point in any case, but one you insist on
bringing up ad nauseum.)

RESPONDEO:

That is not a right I have ever worked for, since Marius
has always clearly stated that he lives a male identity in
his macronation. (I do not see any reason to hound or
harass people at all about their reported social gender,
though.)

The right _not_ to be understood
in a forum specifically designed to promote communication?

RESPONDEO:

Oh, come off it, Vedi. You know perfectly well that some
people may be saying things to a limited language community
that is not particularly useful or interesting to everyone,
and yet there is not a more appropriate list. And some
people may just be so annoyed by the arrogance of English
users that they would just like to address a message to
those who can understand and maybe make it clear that a few
lazy Anglophones would do well to study at least a few
major foreign languages. Or maybe there are other reasons -
the point is that people should not be forced to have a
translation into your favourite language against their
will. For a Libertarian you have an awful affection for
unnecessary rules! :-)


The right to resign your Citizenship on a whim (or worse,
to do so deliberately to disrupt our community), and then
on another whim return without penalty, and to repeat
the process ad infinitum?

RESPONDEO:

No, I do not support any such thing! Don't misrepresent me.
I proposed a much simpler alternative that would have
limited *repeated returns* in a short period of time (say a
year), which would have avoided any "revolving door"
problems. Of course there us no real problem of this and
never has been.


Such rights we do not need, and thus far the People have
agreed with that assessment. You seem to think your own
sensibilities should somehow override theirs. THAT is
authoritarian.

RESPONDEO:

No, Vedi, that is moral conviction. And are you so reckless
to say that individual conscience should be removed from
the world and that the whims of majorities or magistrates
should dictate ethics and morality infallibly?



I must repeat the question I've asked you several times,
and never received a reply. If you are in such anguish
about individual rights, why are you
fighting your battle here, where your efforts will impact
almost no one? Why don't you spend your energies in Iceland
(which requires names to match gender), or Quebec (which
requires everything to have a French translation),
or Israel (where you can't even BECOME a citizen unless
you're Jewish, let alone renounce your citizenship and
reclaim it automatically).
You would help tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people
that way.

RESPONDEO:

Vedi! Don't lapse into sheer silliness! No one can do
everything. Wherever I am or wherever I have connections or
influence or responsibility I try to make a difference for
the better in the world. And in this community where I am a
relatively larger fraction of a percentage point and am
very aware of some of the abuses and have a good chance to
speak out, I do so, as I feel a greater responsibility.



But no, you choose to rant and rail here. A voluntary
association. Where people who feel
their rights are being denied can simply leave. Where
NOBODY IS HURT unless they choose to be. Why? Because you
enjoy being a troublemaker, not for any
high-minded ideals.

RESPONDEO:

Those who know me better would not say so. But the
arrogance and mockery with which you attack me because I
answered your direct question to me honestly about century
points (which I myself had no great interest in as a
system), and apparently because I extended a hand of
friendship to people like you. The fact that you did not
take that hand and so reduce tensions and increase unity
and harmony, but instead chose to respond with the above
rant says a great deal about your personal character, your
style of leadership and the sincerity of any dersire for
concord you may ever have uttered here. I think that a lot
of people will take note of this.

And people *can* be hurt in voluntary associations as in
others. If people come to a voluntary association, they
must find something in it that attracts them. Maybe they
could be kept in that association with 51% of good things
while being tormented by 49% of bad things. If that were
truly necessary, fine. But if a more considerate or wise
leadership could give members 90% good things and 10% bad,
and the difference is to be chalked up to the unwillingness
or incompetence of the leadership to make that umprovement,
then it is obvious that said leadership would be able to
cause considerable harm to persons in an association
voluntarily.

And those who were close to the Causa Maria know that his
was such a case. He had a *very* strong emotional
attachment to Nova Roma and that was used heartlesly to
keep him here or draw him back so that he could be
humiliated and mistreated.

So it is completely specious to say that a voluntary
association cannot do real harm to people. It can. But we
should indeed consider the fact that people can leave very
easily. And that should encourage us to treat people
better, particularly our ordinary common citizens. That is
the way to keep people here, not punishments.


> Good for you - maybe. :-) I do not agree with your
optimism, so far, on
> this score. Of the four highest offices, where most of
>the executive and
> legislative-initiative power lies, every one is now
>filled by someone
> who has had one of those four positions before.

Perhaps you would prefer that we simply pick our leading
magistrates at random from the new Citizenship applications
received in December? It would certainly make the election
process a lot less rancorous... I must say I do
not understand your seeming hostility towards the idea of
filling the important jobs with people who have the
necessary experience to do them.

RESPONDEO:

I guess an emperor serving for life could become quite
competent indeed. But a republic does things otherwise for
a reason. To spread around the power in time so that it
does not accumulate too much. For which reason Rome had
laws against holding offices too often.


Were people kept out of the elections and I didn't hear
about it? Perhaps my memories of Nick Ford running for
Consul were all just a dream...

RESPONDEO:

Did I speak of anything so blatant?


Perhaps this is something else you feel the People aren't
capable of handling themselves. After all, if the People
choose the same magistrates over and over, it can't be
because those magistrates are GOOD at their job,
can it? The People couldn't possibly want to choose
experienced individuals for important positions. Surely it
is a flaw in the system, or perhaps even
a sinister consipiracy. The People must be protected from
themselves! (And I'll bet you have just the person in mind
to do the protecting...)

RESPONDEO:

Your customary innuendo aside, I might ask why ancient
Romans had laws against this if they thought it harmless or
desirable?

And for the record, neither Marcus Cassius Julianus nor
myself held any elected magistracy last year (so much for
the unbreakable stranglehold on
power we have); and I don't recall Caius Flavius
Diocletianus being elected to anything, either. (I can only
guess you must be referring to the Praetors
and Consuls in your little rant; the Censors cannot
initiate any legislation, and their power to issue edicta
is quite limited.)

RESPONDEO:

I was naturally referring to the Censors, as we have seen
how much mischief one could do if prejudiced, stubborn and
uncontrollable. Out of the top *six* magistrates five had
been in one of those three jobs before. Which is not
exactly the ipward circulation of new blood that one would
look for if one really wanted to promote a pool of
experienced people big enough to give people a wide choice.




My apologies to the list for posting this publically, but I
simply will not stand idly by and watch this shyster
continue to spread his distortions while hiding behind the
mask of concordia and pax. Lies told politely are
lies nevertheless, and must be exposed root and branch at
every turn.

RESPONDEO:

I feel the same need to apologise, in my case because the
original content was so inane and disagreeable in its
heavy-handed attempts to ridicule and discredit someone who
is just doing what he thinks is right. I decided to do so
because there was just enough real content to justify a
response, especially considering that it came from a consul
- albeit not one evidently interested in peace or
reconciliation when it is offered to him on a platter.
Being nasty in public to his personal enemies obviously
holds more charm for him, to my great regret.

Mi Vedi, we were on speaking terms once, and it would be
better for us and Nova Roma if we were again. My postbox is
open to you if you want to give up ranting at me before the
crowd and discuss things privately in a calmer and more
realistic way.

Valete!
_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Psterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae
Aedilis Plebeius, Amicus Dignitatis
Magister Scholae Latinae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
Gens Apollonia: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/
The Gens Apollonia is accepting new members.
____________________________________________________
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________

Subject:	Re:[novaroma] Yes, Democracy Here
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:18:16 -0700 (PDT)

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Antonio Gryllo Graeco Pontifici et omnibus Quiritibus
S.P.D. First of all I would like to point out that
Marcus Apollonius is using the modern "definition" of
Democracy, while insisting on the ancient definition
of Oligarchy. I'm not sure if this is due to confusion
on his part or a desire to confuse others.

In the Modern context Democracy is a meaningless feel
good word. Systems as varied as the American Federal
Republic, The Paralamentry Republics of Europe, and
the former Communist Dictatorships of eastern Europe
all claimed they were a "Democracy" (The German
Democratic Republic for example). This word has been
stretched to cover so many different systems that it
has little more meaning than "A Government that I
like". It's no more than a worn out catch phrase, one
that crafty politicians bandy about, letting those who
hear fill in their own meaning, while the speaker all
too often fails to mention what he intends it to mean.

I remember when your macronation was finally
freed from a
long-standing tyranny, Grylle, and I am saddened to
see you
have so little interest in conserving the values of
freedom
and equality that it won for itself. The same as I am
when
I see my fellow Americans from a long and proud
democratic
tradition acting similarly when they come to Nova
Roma. It
is easy to take democracy for granted when it is the
safely
prevalent system around us, bought by long struggles
and
the deaths of many brave human beings.

But this desire to play with the opposite of
democracy
here in this micronation, supposing it always safe in
our
macronational environments, is only acceptable in play
-
just as we may play with atomic missiles in games
without
hurting any one.

Another rather interesting word game. The "opposite
of democracy". I would say the opposite of a feel good
buzz word is a feel bad buzz word. Again he is saying
nothing concrete, but leaving it up to you to fill in
the blanks. It's a common trick to make you think you
are agreeing with him, when he's really said nothing.
Next he slyly equates disagreeing with his non
statement as living in a fantasy world of computer
games.

But Nova Roma is acquiring more "realness" all
the time,
and is planning shortly to take very real money from
our
pockets and spend it. You may still think that we can
play
"Roman non-democracy" Another twist on the word games.
A Roman non buzz word. Again he's using a vague term
and leaving it up to you to fill in whatever system
you disapprove of.
here, but the time for that is
passing in the estimation of a lot of us. The issue of
Marius has shown that justice towards the individual
and
towards minorities is not being served here as things
now
stand. This is a clear distortion. Maria/Marius wanted
immediate gratification, and when she couldn't get a
name change quickly by legal or by shady means she
turned to the sordid politics of confrontation and
hate mongering, attics that Marcus Apollonius quickly
came to dominate.
And newcomers, after I have described century
weighting to them in response to their questions, say
"But
it isn't fair!" Now why am I NOT surprised.
Considering the talents that Marcus Apollonius has
shown for distorting things that don't fit his agenda,
I'm sure he could turn new citizens against motherhood
if a hatred of that institution struck his fancy.

The population is changing, and your
confident "we" seems to refer to a small subgroup in
the
present-moment citizenry, a group always changing and
moving statistically towards more mainstream Roman
enthusiasts and away from the exact combinations of
ideas
perhaps present in the minds of the founders. So now
anyone who prefers Roma as she was to revisionist
ideas and Utopian fantasies is out of the mainstream?


Although you may honestly believe that it is
appropriate
to play "Roman non-democracy"
There's that buzz word again! Don't forget he is
relying on you to provide the meaning, rather than
telling you what he is up to.
here, this is not something
all the people here now automatically buy into. We
recruit
primarily from Western Civilisation - the inheritors
of the
Roman tradition and a lot of experience since - and we
have
struggled - some very recently in South America and
Eastern
Europe - to establish systems respecting freedom and
equality. We may gripe and sometimes whine about the
shortcomings of democratic leadership and
institutions, but
mostly we appreciate being protected in our individual
rights and as equal with others - and we want more of
it,
not less. I remind you that the best protection of
your rights is a Republic with a system of checks and
balances. This is the reason the Roman Republic lasted
so long, not because of any vague buzz words.


Many people can see that we can further our
Roman studies,
worship, interests, and lives here better if the
fundamental justice of equality and protection of
individual and minorty rights are respected as they
are in
our macronations.
That would be a step back. We allready do a better job
of protecting the rights of our citizens than a
majority of the Macronations.

As the decisions here become more related
to what people think of as the "real world", as we
grow and
become more significent, a deviation from the common
democratic consensus of the civilised world becomes
less
and less acceptible. So now Formosanus has become the
spokesman for the entire civilized world! Funny I must
have missed the Democratic election where he won that
office.

I therefore propose that, instead of fighting
against the
word and reality of democracy, you join with the rest
of us
in hailing and celebrating Roman Democracy. In the
world
there are many forms of democracy: the centralist and
the
federative, the presidential system and the
parliamentary
system... and there is also the Roman system of
democracy
which we can be if we wish. The principal impediment
is the
weakness and lack of equal development of the Plebeian
Institutions. If the tribunes were not so easily
paralysed
or limited in their use of the intercessio, A matter
that is before the Senate right now, unless Formosanus
is calling our Senior Consul a liar.
and if the
Plebeian Assembly were routinely used to pass
plebiscita So our champion of "democracy" is
advocating that we make use of the least "Democratic"
(By the Ancient definition) assembly in our
government. The Champion of the people is ready to cut
almost a third of the people out of a voice in passing
the laws we live under. Well the racist states of the
old south bared Blacks from voting and called
themselves Democratic, so I guess that barring a large
minority from the polls fits that strange modern
definition of Democracy.

representing an independent plebeian initiative and
protecting civil and human rights At least for the
groups that support Formosanus. As for the rest of
you, well his lack of concern for the 30% of Nova
Romans who are Patricians should warn you of the fate
of minorities that make the mistake of failing to
provide him with votes.
- then we would have a
true democracy in authentic Roman mould and apt for a
contemporary micronation as well.

In Roman Democracy there is a considerable
tension between
the oligarchic
Still using that attack word I see.
and popular elements, as there us between
political parties or branches of government in other
kinds
of democracy. That is normal. Through such tensions
there
is progress. Until the Plebeian Institutions are
strong
enough and actually used and made a part of the
accepted
political culture of Nova Roma, we cannot have this
balanced and progressive situation. Progressing
towards what? more power for your faction?

I would like, therefore, to call on you, Grylle,
and you
Vedi, and anyone else who has spoken ill-omened words
against democracy, to reconsider the danger and
inappropriateness of that. Let us all agree that what
we
want is ROMAN Democracy. A Roman Democracy is a
"Respublica
Libera"- not a monarchy, not an oligarchy, not a
mobocracy
- but a mixed state that tries to mix the best of all
in
the interests of common justice and individual
freedom. We
should be concerned about developing a reputation for
fairness and respect for the dignity of the
individual, and
our own special ways of maintaining those values. Not
denying them as values, but finding their Roman roots
and
modes of statement.

Grylle, I see a great resemblance in what you
say to what
I have always said and what I have repeated above. It
is
easy for this to be obscured. When I point out that we
are
an oligarchy, I do so to make clear that this element
has
predominated over all else. Quod non in medio non est
virtus, Grylle! That a Roman Democracy should have a
Senate
and therefore an oligarchic *element* just about goes
without saying. But the constant meeting of the
various
comitia and especially that of the Plebs, their
ongoing
contiones and votes through the centuries of the
Republic
that have been underrated in histories written by
aristocrats, but which were the font of Rome's laws
and
freedoms - if we have *that element* flourishing here
*with* our "oligarchic" Senate and "monarchical"
magistrates (to use Polybius' language - then that is
what
*I* mean by Roman Democracy, and that is what I stand
for
and desire too.
In the Roman "Democratic" assemblies the Plebs were
over 99% of the population. The undemocratic problem
in the Plebeian assembly was the segregation of the
poorer Romans into the Urban Tribes. We do not have
this flaw. Our tribes are far more "Democratic" (again
I use the word in it's ancient sense) than Roma's. The
Peoples assembly is the most "Democratic" element of
our Government. The Plebeian assembly bars 30% of our
citizens. Using the Plebeian Assembly to pass sweeping
laws might be traditional, but calling it Democracy is
a sham and a fraud.


You say there are things such as the
Establishment of
Religion which you would place above majority vote. I,
like
any responsible democrat, have mine too: I would not
have a
majority vote be used as an excuse for discrimination
against minorities because of their race or language
or
sexuality or macro-nationality for example.
A condition that does NOT exist in Nova Roma.
Some things are
right because they are right and majority vote (or any
elitist vote or dictat either) cannot be given the
right to
determine such things. Limitations on majority tyranny
over
minorities and individuals is an essential part of
democracy, not its contradiction. It is an essential
part of Liberty. Class warfare, pitting one group
against another is a all too common occurrence in
ancient Democracies, and in most systems that fall
under the modern catch all phrase.


We are not so far from each other, Grylle, but I
do wish
you would agree to forego speaking against democracy,
and
adopt with me the more prudent term "Roman Democracy"
as
our ideal. "Res publica" just means "state" in modern
language, and is not a political category, and a
"Respublica Libera", as Cicero calls it, is a
law-governed
state where the People ultimately make the laws, and
elect
the magistrates, albeit not without an honourable
place for
the Senate or special protections for the Plebs.

That is a democracy in modern language. And the
people in
the world who are against democracy are not the sort
we
would want to recruit for Nova Roma. And the decent
and
responsible people in the world that we want here are
not
going to be comfortable in a place that insists on
badmouthing democracy.

I, therefore, am willing to overlook your
previous
inflammatory and insulting post against me and to
invite
you to private dialogue. You will quickly see that I
am not
against a "Roman" system of democracy, nor am I in any
way
the enemy of the Established Religion. And I think it
would
be better to work our way forward together, not in
attacking each other for nothing over these
constituional
issues that we fundamentally agree on very well.

Valete!

Quirites,

I have one more thing I have to tell you. For the past
few Months I have been talking to Our Censor, Lucius
Cornelius Sulla about the very law that Formosanus has
bought up. The Name Change law. We have been working
on a version that would ease the burden of a
transgendered person in qualifying for Name that
doesn't match their physical/legal Gender. Both of us
feel that the emotions that were stirred up during the
debates over the law are still too high, that too many
of you are simply sick and tired of hearing about the
subject. Because of this we have refrained from
bringing it up at this time, opting to wait until next
year.

When I accepted Formosanus offer of private
discussions The first thing I did was inform him of my
talks with Sulla on the law, and requested that he
help me by giving the old wounds time to heal. I
repeated that request earlier today.

As soon as Formosanus found out what we were
attempting he resumed his "crusade" against the name
change law. He is attempting to reopen the wounds that
I asked him to give time to heal. He is attempting to
undo months of work on behalf of the very minority
that he claims to be the champion of.

Citizens I no longer think that Formosanus cares for
the transgendered. His actions today have left me no
other option. The only thing the transgendered are to
him are a rostra to stand on and harangue you about
how unfair Nova Roma is. He does not desire to see any
one else solve the problem, his desire is to ride to
power on the backs of the transgendered.

L. Sicinius Drusus



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: CORRECTION on Re: [novaroma] Yes, Democracy Here
From:	"Uriel Storm" <uriel@-------->
Date:	Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:38:16 -0500

I have to support L. Cornelius Sulla Felix on this point, Being
transgendered (as those of my Gens can attest) This is beating the
proverbial dead horse, the LEx is in place, and it WAS voted on.

As for my personal feelings on the lex, well, I didn't vote on it,
personally, so I have no room to complain about it's being in place. Maria
Villoreal left us because of this, and harbours ill feelings towards the
Cornelians because of it, and that is her choice. However, she is not here
now, and we should consider her case closed, there is a law in place now to
cover such situations, and believe me, do I ever know it, but railing
against the system is futile in cases like this. If you don't like the way
the system is, work within it to change it, or go elsewhere.

I, personally, would like the lex regarding gender reconsidered, and I have
made this known, both privately, and just now publically, but I am not going
to filibuster against the very basis of Nova Roma to do so.

M. Appolonius, I, too, like vedia, would like to see proofs of these
'others' which you referrence in your missives.

Nova Romani: I urge that M. Apollonius's Entreaties fall upon deaf ears, He
is becoming quite resistant to reason, and I suggest that he switch tactics
if he would like to see changes, perhaps he should become more familiar with
our form of government before slandering it in the forum.

Further I sayeth not,
Decius Cornelius Sepulchatius

Subject:	Oh please! <RE: [novaroma] If that's his idea of pax...>
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:02:26 -0400

Salve,

A few quick comments.

>>Vedi, I have no particular desires in the short term for Nova Roma except
to get those three pieces of rule-making changed for the better.>>

I must admit it *is* refreshing to hear you finally admit your *real* agenda
here in this "disaster" <as you termed it> of a micronation so bluntly.

>>If the moral status of the community is so compromised, what could have
higher priority?>>

Well, for starters you are the *only* cive I have heard railing about "moral
corruption" here in NR on a never-ending basis. I daresay you would do well
to consider that *your* personal version of morality is not shared by most
others and, as a result, most folks have moved on to other issues in NR.

>>Two of them are in leges that would require a vote of the People to
correct, and things practically speaking do not come before the People
except through the initiative of the consuls.>>

Hmmmm. I don't mean to nitpick, but since we as a nation JUST VOTED on the
name and resignation issues, and given that we as a nation PASSED both
measures, where do you get off implying that the issues are somehow being
hidden from the people by the Consuls?? Are you daft? Or, perhaps, are we
simply supposed to vote over and over and over again at the exclusion of all
else in NR until the outcome *you* desire comes to pass?

>>The other might be corrected by a number of legislative organs or by the
decision of the
senior consul's wife.>>

Of course, the fact that no one has "overturned" the Language Policy
*couldn't* indicate that the reasonable folk of NR see that there *is* no
discrimination involved. Far from being a "lazy Anglophile" <interesting
how insulting you choose to be.....imagine your horror were *I* to refer to
non-English speakers as "lazy"> I happen to speak several languages.
Luckily, the reasonable folk among us understand that you are simply looking
for another "cause" in this policy and that a large degree of your dislike
for it stem from one simple fact: my name is VEDIA.

On that note, I find the use of the term "senior consul's wife" pretty
amusing. The name is Priscilla Vedia Serena. Sure, I get the implication you
were going for, that my wifely duty to my hubby is the root cause of such
Policy and that his "Oligarchic evilness" somehow compels me to create such
"oppressive" Policy. That is what makes it so funny. In the immortal words
of Tweety Bird "He don't know me vewy well, do he?" LOL I don't know what
kind of females you are accustomed to dealing with in *your* life, but I can
assure you that my marital status has nothing to do with the way I manage my
magisterial duties.

>>If *you* wanted my attempts to come to something they would.>>

Hmmm. So, in other words: despite the entire nation voting in FAVOR of the
2 laws, you believe that the Senior Consul ought to simply "do you a solid"
and ignore the voice of those same people? Quite an amazing concept from a
person who claims such an interest in "the people" and their rights.

>>Not the approach of a consul who wants to take advantage of opportunities
to bring about reconciliation. And I think that doing that would win you
more respect in the end from everyone and do good for Nova Roma.>>

I believe, if you removed your head from the "sand" of the only 3 issues you
have admitted you care about, you would see a Senior Consul who works
tirelessly *with* the people of this nation. You seem awfully fond of using
terms like "we", "all" and "the rest of us" these days. One has to wonder
where these hoards of alleged supporters of yours have been lurking.

>>And those who were close to the Causa Maria know that his was such a case.
He had a *very* strong emotional attachment to Nova Roma and that was used
heartlesly to keep him here or draw him back so that he could be humiliated
and mistreated. >>

You must be mad! Was Maria showing her "love of" NR during the endless
hours she sat in her Outpost chat room viciously denigrating *everything* NR
is? And the whole notion of her being somehow held here.........LOL
Ridiculous! Unless of course I, and every other member of NR, missed the
memo inviting us to "taunt and humiliate" Maria day?

>>I was naturally referring to the Censors, as we have seen how much
mischief one could do if prejudiced, stubborn and uncontrollable.>>

Hmmmmmm. I wonder if *this* constitutes your idea of "resolving
differences" between yourself and Sulla? My dear boy you have just "outed"
yourself very well. You speak fine words of concordia and pax out one side
of your mouth, and yet your true nature surfaces all too easily for ALL to
see.

You, Formosanus, are a real trip. I am just exceedingly grateful that your
own words and actions are such that they expose you for what you are at
every turn. Else I would worry that some hapless newbies might be sucked
into the games you play.

Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	[novaroma] Voting for the CC.
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:02:53 -0700

Ave,

According to the post by Consul Flavius Vedius, the polling ends on:

6 PM August 24: Vote-casting ends.

I was just at the ML at Midnite California Time, and the Cista link is
still there. I need to make certain that no voting is still going so
that I can approve new citizens. I am anxious to do this because
tomorrow we will reach our 1000th citizen of Nova Roma!

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: List Policy Reminder
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:22:15 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

As requested by the Curatrix Sermonis, a translation of following email.

Valete bene,
Draco


>
> Salve mi amice!
>
>
> > Salve mi optime amice Sexte:
> > Thank you very much (merci beaucoup!) for correcting the error. I was
> > really worried since at that moment I couldnīt understand what was
> > going on. (Now it is written twice LOL).
> > Errare humanum est, et nos humani sumus, itane mi amice :-) ?
>
> Ita sit. Si non simus homines, qui sumus?
>
> Dii te ament,
> Draco

"Let it be so. If we weren't men, who would we be?"

"May the gods love you",
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:22:19 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

In the past few days, I think every listmember will have seen that my
paterfamilias, Formosanus, has adjusted his style, and repeatedly tried to
establish peace and dialogue with his opponents, instead of war and
conflict. Lucius Sicinius and Marcus Octavius replied neutrally to
positively, and established a private dialogue, while Sulla and the Vedii
replied with suspicion and contempt.

But I must admit that something weird is going on here. In public, Sulla
continues to defend the name change law he co-authored with his former
colleague, while in private, he is talking of changing it. Mi Sulla, why are
you doing this in private, and not on your laws list, or on the Vedian Baths
list? And what makes you willing to change the law now? Perhaps the fact
that a gensmember is involved, I don't know. But I guess your affection for
Formosanus plays a role, too. As you said on the Back Alley list: ".. But, I
must say I just love discrediting M. Apollonius every attempt he tries to
impunge my dignitas."

So here we have it. Thanks for the admission. So Sulla is not a bigot, but
he simply hates Formosanus. Oh well.

Also, a very strange thing occurred within gens Apollonia. My frater,
Sokarus Apollonius Callias, who was supposed to be authorized as a citizen
months ago, has to this date not been authorized. Sulla claims that the
praenomen "Sokarus" is invalid. It is indeed an unusual name that did not
appear in ancient Rome, but let me add that our Senior Censor has also
authorized, or did nothing about, names such as "Organbidexka", which is not
a Roman name whatsoever; the cognomen "Bestia", a female word, used in a
male name; the cognomen "Periklis", while every halfdecent historian knows
it should be "Perikles" instead; the cognomen "Cresces", which is actually a
verb, but not a noun; the name "Dredd Augustus", which is a pitiful excuse
for a Roman name; and the list continues to go on with horrible butcherings
of proper Roman names, most of them much worse than the relatively innocent
"Sokarus".
After Sokarus complained, and wrote the Censores, he was contacted by the
Senior Praetor, who had no business in this affair whatsoever, yet
intervened, on behalf of Sulla.

Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:20:01 -0700

Ave,

I just want to correct some blatant errors in Sextus Apollonius's post.

> Also, a very strange thing occurred within gens Apollonia. My frater,
> Sokarus Apollonius Callias, who was supposed to be authorized as a
> citizen
> months ago, has to this date not been authorized. Sulla claims that
> the
> praenomen "Sokarus" is invalid.

That is correct. I informed him that Sokarus as a Praenomen is not a
valid Praenomen. I pointed him to one of the links where he could pick
a valid Praenomen. Sokarus would be appropriate for a Cognomen. But
not as a Praenomen.

It is indeed an unusual name that did
> not
> appear in ancient Rome, but let me add that our Senior Censor has also
> authorized, or did nothing about, names such as "Organbidexka", which
> is not
> a Roman name whatsoever; the cognomen "Bestia", a female word, used in
> a
> male name;

Bestia is like Sulla. It is also a male name. If you check out the
list of Consuls in the year 111 BCE the Consuls were: Publius Cornelius
Scipio Nasica Serapio AND Lucius Calpurnius Bestia


the cognomen "Periklis", while every halfdecent historian
> knows
> it should be "Perikles" instead;

I have seen Pericles spelled with a "c" too. But that is not the
issue. The issue is placement. It is placed as a Cognomen.

the cognomen "Cresces", which is
> actually a
> verb, but not a noun; the name "Dredd Augustus", which is a pitiful
> excuse
> for a Roman name;

And, did you notice the date he was approved. It was 01/14/99. I was
not Censor at the time. That was during the tenure, I believe, of M.
Cassius and Decius Iunius.

and the list continues to go on with horrible
> butcherings
> of proper Roman names, most of them much worse than the relatively
> innocent
> "Sokarus".
> After Sokarus complained, and wrote the Censores, he was contacted by
> the
> Senior Praetor, who had no business in this affair whatsoever, yet
> intervened, on behalf of Sulla.

Of course I asked for advice. What honestly did you expect me to do
when I get correspondence like this:


Salve censor.
You know what, i'm keeping the name Sokarus. There are other people on
the list that don't have their names registered as roman names so bug
them and than come to me when you still alive. There is no
way you can deny my application as a citizen because i have an invalid
praenomen. Thats bullshit. If you don't like it, tough. That is the way
things are going these days and nothing you will say is gonna change
that.
Vale
Sokarus Apollonius Callias

AND


Salve
I will comply out oif respect for the edict and not for you. My official
roman praenomen will be Tiberius and what the rest is concerned, you can
shove it up your ass.You already created a new enemy and if you don't
like
it, than go play with yourself.
Vale
Tiberius Apollonius Callias

And, ultimately for your information, given the abuse I have taken,
which I have never encountered before, I have recused myself and have
sent this to my colleague for him to decide this issue.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:39:29 +0200

Salve, O Censor,

> I just want to correct some blatant errors in Sextus Apollonius's post.
>
> > Also, a very strange thing occurred within gens Apollonia. My frater,
> > Sokarus Apollonius Callias, who was supposed to be authorized as a
> > citizen
> > months ago, has to this date not been authorized. Sulla claims that
> > the
> > praenomen "Sokarus" is invalid.
>
> That is correct. I informed him that Sokarus as a Praenomen is not a
> valid Praenomen. I pointed him to one of the links where he could pick
> a valid Praenomen. Sokarus would be appropriate for a Cognomen. But
> not as a Praenomen.

So, if I wanted to take the cognomen "Captainspockus", you would agree? If
you were as severe as to judge every applicant the same way, I would agree
that Sokarus is not a valid name. But given the tolerance towards other
strange names, it seems like you are deciding arbitrarily what is valid and
what not. Whether those are cognomina or praenomina doesn't really matter.

> It is indeed an unusual name that did
> > not
> > appear in ancient Rome, but let me add that our Senior Censor has also
> > authorized, or did nothing about, names such as "Organbidexka", which
> > is not
> > a Roman name whatsoever; the cognomen "Bestia", a female word, used in
> > a
> > male name;
>
> Bestia is like Sulla. It is also a male name. If you check out the
> list of Consuls in the year 111 BCE the Consuls were: Publius Cornelius
> Scipio Nasica Serapio AND Lucius Calpurnius Bestia
>

It is usually used as a female word, but I suppose you are right on this
name.

>
> the cognomen "Periklis", while every halfdecent historian
> > knows
> > it should be "Perikles" instead;
>
> I have seen Pericles spelled with a "c" too. But that is not the
> issue. The issue is placement. It is placed as a Cognomen.
>

Oh, so that makes it fine? Whether you spell it with a "c" or a "k" is a
difference between Roman and Greek spelling, but "Perikles" was never
written "Periklis".

> the cognomen "Cresces", which is
> > actually a
> > verb, but not a noun; the name "Dredd Augustus", which is a pitiful
> > excuse
> > for a Roman name;
>
> And, did you notice the date he was approved. It was 01/14/99. I was
> not Censor at the time. That was during the tenure, I believe, of M.
> Cassius and Decius Iunius.
>

Well, you could have written that citizen and told him to change his name.
You are not responsible for the error, but you can still correct it.
Besides, there are other examples, too, such as a person named "Ovid", or
"Hepburnus". And you didn't have an explanation for all my examples. If you
want to be a tolerant Censor, that's fine. If you want to be a strict
Censor, that's fine, too. But please be consequent.

> and the list continues to go on with horrible
> > butcherings
> > of proper Roman names, most of them much worse than the relatively
> > innocent
> > "Sokarus".
> > After Sokarus complained, and wrote the Censores, he was contacted by
> > the
> > Senior Praetor, who had no business in this affair whatsoever, yet
> > intervened, on behalf of Sulla.
>
> Of course I asked for advice. What honestly did you expect me to do
> when I get correspondence like this:
>

(Sokarus' correspondence snipped for brevity)

Mi Sulla, you know just as well as I do (1) that Sokarus' English is not as
good as yours and (2) his application had been pending for months, despite
official authorization of the paterfamilias. I wonder how you, a notorious
defamer yourself, would react in such a situation. You're acting like a
master thief who's just been robbed himself. If you treat a person like
that, you may expect such reactions.

Vale bene,
Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:44:23 -0700 (PDT)

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:
> Salvete Quirites,

>
> But I must admit that something weird is going on
> here. In public, Sulla
> continues to defend the name change law he
> co-authored with his former
> colleague, while in private, he is talking of
> changing it. Mi Sulla, why are
> you doing this in private, and not on your laws
> list, or on the Vedian Baths
> list? And what makes you willing to change the law
> now? Perhaps the fact
> that a gensmember is involved, I don't know. But I
> guess your affection for
> Formosanus plays a role, too. As you said on the
> Back Alley list: ".. But, I
> must say I just love discrediting M. Apollonius
> every attempt he tries to
> impunge my dignitas."
>
Salve,

I have been working on this with Lucius Cornelius for
months. I opened talks with him just before the vote
on the lex started, and this was at a time when Decia
wasn't discussing a very private matter with anyone in
Nova Roma. That is exactly how I hope this matter
stays, her PRIVATE affair rather than a topic for
everyone in Nova Roma to bandy about.

Decia did not even become a member of Gens Cornelia
until after we started talking.

I was hoping for an agreement before the vote, but
that was not to be.

The reason we are discussing this in Private is so we
can avoid all the posturing from both sides that made
an agreement impossible earlier. Both of us also feel
that the emotions that were stirred up during the
debate will make it impossible to get a fair hearing
on an amended lex this year.

I had no idea that we had another Transgendered person
in Nova Roma before last night. Since that time I have
spoken to her and invited to to assist us with the
law. She will be a full partner in our talks.

Beyond what I have said I have no intention of
discussing her status on this list. She is a human
being, NOT a symbol for some damn crusade, she values
her privacy, and I ask all of you to respect her
wishes.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] A few ideas for the aediles (was: A challenge to the aediles)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:46:54 +1000 (EST)

Salvete omnes,

I have been watching the list, and in particular the
thread "A challenge to the Aediles". I think this is a
very good subject, and while I understand that most of
the aediles were required to find the funds out of
their own purses, I think it is time that our
governing body gave them a hand (still a little bit
hard considering that funds are a bit rare due to
several projects).

In the republic, while a man was required to fund the
events out of his own pocket, he was also able to gain
funds out of fines and other such methods that were
open to him. I have been thinking about this for a
while now, and have the following suggestions. Either
we raise the prices of our items in the Macellum (not
a huge amount, just a minute amount) and put the extra
profits into an account for the aediles to draw upon
as their needs require. If not, what if we selected a
few items wherein the profits from that specific item
were put into an account for use by the aediles. In
both cases, the funds would be controlled by the
senate, whereby the aediles would have to state their
case to the entire body and they would vote upon it
and decide the amount required and terms of use.

These are just some ideas to get the ball rolling on
the subject, and I would like to hope that this will
stimulate other ideas. I think that the aediles could
be the key in bringing civies together, and thus we
should help them in their duties.

Hope this helps, and provides a nice little sideline
to the current debate (which seems to crop up quite
often).

Valete bene omnes,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius
Sacerdos Primus Australia Province
Sacerdos Mars Invictus

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:15:24 -0400

Salve,

>>In the past few days, I think every list member will have seen that my
paterfamilias, Formosanus, has adjusted his style, and repeatedly tried to
establish peace and dialogue with his opponents, instead of war and
conflict.>>

On the contrary! I think we have all seen Formosanus' true colors. He
resorted to condescension, name-calling and <to put it mildly> distortions
of truth in his single-minded pursuit of changing laws that *he* does not
accept have been accepted by the populace.

Nothing new in his maneuvering and inflammatory rhetoric, but please don't
insult our intelligence by trying to paint events in a better light for your
pater. I will remind you that even as Formosanus posted for "pax" he made
the following statement regarding his insistence on using a term <oligarch>
that he has been repeatedly told is insulting and demeaning, along with
being untrue:

"If anyone finds it offensive, then I suggest he try to act in a way that
will open up real and effective control to the many."

Ah. I see. In other words "If you don't like me calling you names, do what
I want and then I'll stop". The same post, even as he called for "pax",
makes repeated reference to "circles" of power hungry 'old boys'. Sigh.
How silly of me to see this as "more of the same" from Formosanus.

>>while Sulla and the Vedii replied with suspicion and contempt.>>

I need, I suppose, to point out to you that my response to Formosanus has
*everything* to do with his own words and actions and *nothing* to do with
my family ties.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"Mike Rasschaert" <hadescallias@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:31:41 -0000

Salvete Omni
> And, ultimately for your information, given the abuse I have taken,
> which I have never encountered before, I have recused myself and
have
> sent this to my colleague for him to decide this issue.

What kind of abuse was that? I've got a newsflash for you, Sulla.
Treat people the same way you want to be treated and saying that you
felt abused is just being hypocrite on your behalf. You want to
appear as a saint or something like that and this somewhat exposed
you for what you truly are: a hypocritical, corrupted senator who
thinks that he can get away with things. btw: i received the email
about the changing of the praenomen days after i openly admitted that
i supported my Pater Marcus Apollonius Formusanus and since my
citizenship was still pending, well i think that must of you can
guess what happened next. I did received a email from Quintus Fabius
Maximus wich i respond to by saing that i comply with the edict wich
i already told Sulla in a brutal way but liked i mentioned to Quintus
Fabius Maximus is the fact that the abuse only goes out for you and
is not intended for anyone else.
Valete omni
Tiberius Apollonius Callias

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:23:03 -0000

---
Salvete Draco et Omnes:

If I received correspondence of this nature, I would likely consult a
fellow magistrate to determine how I should deal with it. There is no
need for rudeness or profanity, and certainly no call to tell a
Censor, who must abide by his own edicts and the constitution, that
"this (the petitioner's way) is the way it is going to be", "shove
it", and the like.

Not that I think I am above rebuke, certainly not! But discourse such
as this, is in defiance of the constitution and edicts of the Censors;
the Censors are the ones who make judgements on names, based on
historical accuracy, in accordance with their imperium assigned by the
constitution.

Telling Sulla to "shove it", and to insist that if he doesn't like
your point of view, he can, yunno "X%$#^&".......denotes a rather
niggardly respect for the constitution of NR. Note I said "respect"
and not "full agreement". I think every civie should respect the
institution of the constitution as the will of the people to date,
even though they perhaps do not agree with every aspect of it.



In a dime I would tell Sulla he had no business sharing this
correspondence to the public, but in light of accusations against his
character and office, (sorry amicus Draco), I believe every man is
entitled to a defense against what I feel are unjustified public
rebuke, so I understand his need to reveal it to the forum.

Draco, I have the greatest respect for you and the work you do in
Musarum and NR; I don't think your "frater-to-be" gave you the whole
story. I admire your willingness to go to his defense, but I cannot
condone his tactics.



Bene valete et Without Prejudice,
Pompeia Cornelia

In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I just want to correct some blatant errors in Sextus Apollonius's
post.
>
> > Also, a very strange thing occurred within gens Apollonia. My
frater,
> > Sokarus Apollonius Callias, who was supposed to be authorized as a
> > citizen
> > months ago, has to this date not been authorized. Sulla claims
that
> > the
> > praenomen "Sokarus" is invalid.
>
> That is correct. I informed him that Sokarus as a Praenomen is not
a
> valid Praenomen. I pointed him to one of the links where he could
pick
> a valid Praenomen. Sokarus would be appropriate for a Cognomen.
But
> not as a Praenomen.
>
> It is indeed an unusual name that did
> > not
> > appear in ancient Rome, but let me add that our Senior Censor has
also
> > authorized, or did nothing about, names such as "Organbidexka",
which
> > is not
> > a Roman name whatsoever; the cognomen "Bestia", a female word,
used in
> > a
> > male name;
>
> Bestia is like Sulla. It is also a male name. If you check out the
> list of Consuls in the year 111 BCE the Consuls were: Publius
Cornelius
> Scipio Nasica Serapio AND Lucius Calpurnius Bestia
>
>
> the cognomen "Periklis", while every halfdecent historian
> > knows
> > it should be "Perikles" instead;
>
> I have seen Pericles spelled with a "c" too. But that is not the
> issue. The issue is placement. It is placed as a Cognomen.
>
> the cognomen "Cresces", which is
> > actually a
> > verb, but not a noun; the name "Dredd Augustus", which is a
pitiful
> > excuse
> > for a Roman name;
>
> And, did you notice the date he was approved. It was 01/14/99. I
was
> not Censor at the time. That was during the tenure, I believe, of
M.
> Cassius and Decius Iunius.
>
> and the list continues to go on with horrible
> > butcherings
> > of proper Roman names, most of them much worse than the relatively
> > innocent
> > "Sokarus".
> > After Sokarus complained, and wrote the Censores, he was contacted
by
> > the
> > Senior Praetor, who had no business in this affair whatsoever, yet
> > intervened, on behalf of Sulla.
>
> Of course I asked for advice. What honestly did you expect me to do
> when I get correspondence like this:
>
>
> Salve censor.
> You know what, i'm keeping the name Sokarus. There are other people
on
> the list that don't have their names registered as roman names so
bug
> them and than come to me when you still alive. There is no
> way you can deny my application as a citizen because i have an
invalid
> praenomen. Thats bullshit. If you don't like it, tough. That is the
way
> things are going these days and nothing you will say is gonna change
> that.
> Vale
> Sokarus Apollonius Callias
>
> AND
>
>
> Salve
> I will comply out oif respect for the edict and not for you. My
official
> roman praenomen will be Tiberius and what the rest is concerned, you
can
> shove it up your ass.You already created a new enemy and if you
don't
> like
> it, than go play with yourself.
> Vale
> Tiberius Apollonius Callias
>
> And, ultimately for your information, given the abuse I have taken,
> which I have never encountered before, I have recused myself and
have
> sent this to my colleague for him to decide this issue.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor

Subject:	[novaroma] Check out The WWW-VL History Index
From:	asseri@--------
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:06:56 EDT

Salve, (I apologize for the cross postings)
I discovered this site off the Middle kingdom e-mail list. It is quite
large and has
a fairly good Roman section. It also covers other time periods and countries
have fun and Learn!

<A HREF="http://www.ukans.edu/history/VL/">Click here: The WWW-VL History Index</A>
http://www.ukans.edu/history/VL/

Drusila


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"The infernal reincarnation of Bill Gates" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:13:43 -0000

Salve Pompeia,
:
>
> If I received correspondence of this nature, I would likely consult
a
> fellow magistrate to determine how I should deal with it. There is
no
> need for rudeness or profanity, and certainly no call to tell a
> Censor, who must abide by his own edicts and the constitution, that
> "this (the petitioner's way) is the way it is going to be", "shove
> it", and the like.
>

A reasonable action to take. But as I said, running to a Praetor for
being called an ******* is a little silly, if you compare it to what
our good Censor has called people in the past.

> Not that I think I am above rebuke, certainly not! But discourse
such
> as this, is in defiance of the constitution and edicts of the
Censors;
> the Censors are the ones who make judgements on names, based on
> historical accuracy, in accordance with their imperium assigned by
the
> constitution.
>

You are right, but I pointed out that he seems to have two standards
to measure people's names by. What I would expect is consequence.

> Telling Sulla to "shove it", and to insist that if he doesn't like
> your point of view, he can, yunno "X%$#^&".......denotes a rather
> niggardly respect for the constitution of NR. Note I said "respect"
> and not "full agreement". I think every civie should respect the
> institution of the constitution as the will of the people to date,
> even though they perhaps do not agree with every aspect of it.
>
>
> In a dime I would tell Sulla he had no business sharing this
> correspondence to the public, but in light of accusations against >
his
> character and office, (sorry amicus Draco), I believe every man is
> entitled to a defense against what I feel are unjustified public
> rebuke, so I understand his need to reveal it to the forum.
>

Yes, but I didn't complain about that, did I? Sharing semi-official
correspondence is not a grave crime, and Sulla certainly is entitled
to defend himself. I would expect no less! While I do not condone my
frater's tactics, which may lack some subtlety because of his
English, I do think that his irritation is understandable (albeit not
justifyable).
I would also like to note how the top half of my original speech was
kindly ignored.

> Draco, I have the greatest respect for you and the work you do in
> Musarum and NR; I don't think your "frater-to-be" gave you the
whole
> story. I admire your willingness to go to his defense, but I
cannot
> condone his tactics.
>

I understand.

Vale bene!
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	"The infernal reincarnation of Bill Gates" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:19:06 -0000

Salve Luci Sicini,

> I have been working on this with Lucius Cornelius for
> months. I opened talks with him just before the vote
> on the lex started, and this was at a time when Decia
> wasn't discussing a very private matter with anyone in
> Nova Roma. That is exactly how I hope this matter
> stays, her PRIVATE affair rather than a topic for
> everyone in Nova Roma to bandy about.
>
> Decia did not even become a member of Gens Cornelia
> until after we started talking.
>
> I was hoping for an agreement before the vote, but
> that was not to be.
>
> The reason we are discussing this in Private is so we
> can avoid all the posturing from both sides that made
> an agreement impossible earlier. Both of us also feel
> that the emotions that were stirred up during the
> debate will make it impossible to get a fair hearing
> on an amended lex this year.
>

Very good. I very much appreciate Censor Sulla's openness in wanting
to change that very law, and I do understand the reasons why it was
not done on the main list. However, over these past months, his
public stance on it didn't change a bit, and by his own admission,
this was solely to pester Formosanus.

> I had no idea that we had another Transgendered person
> in Nova Roma before last night. Since that time I have
> spoken to her and invited to to assist us with the
> law. She will be a full partner in our talks.
>
> Beyond what I have said I have no intention of
> discussing her status on this list. She is a human
> being, NOT a symbol for some damn crusade, she values
> her privacy, and I ask all of you to respect her
> wishes.
>

You may have seen that I have not spoken a single word about 'her'
or 'him'. I was talking about a general issue, only indirectly
connected to the gender wars. I'm not interested in anyone's private
life, since that is none of my business.

Vale bene!
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Oops
From:	"The infernal reincarnation of Bill Gates" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:20:48 -0000

Salvete,

Sorry for that Infernal Reincarnation thing; it's my silly Yahoo
name, and I'm currently writing from the Yahoo site. Don't take
offence, mi Octavi ;).

Valete bene,
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Yes, Democracy Here
From:	"Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:52:00 -0000

Salvete,

I can't help myself from making a comment on this thread. However, I
have *no* intention of engaging Formosanus in debate. This has been
tried by too many over too long a period of time. Trying rational
discussion with a demogogue is like trying to teach a pig to sing. I
don't have the time to waste, and Formosanus is annoyed enough!

However, financial matters are more difficult to twist for the public
ear than the more evasive concept of personal ideals:

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> But Nova Roma is acquiring more "realness" all the time,
> and is planning shortly to take very real money from our
> pockets and spend it.

Cassius:
This is said as if Nova Roma were the only non-profit organization in
the world to ask dues from it's membership. That is misleading -
virtually ALL organizations worldwide do this. Nova Roma is in fact
more "liberal and democratic" than most, in that it will be allowing
basic membership without dues. With most groups you can only be a
member if you pay. If you can't pay, too bad... you can't be involved
at all. And, our taxes (dues) will be far lower than that of most
international organizations.

In addition, the dues system voted in by the Senate will require ONE
HALF of all taxes to remain at the local level for the use of the
Citizens who pay dues. This is again far more consideration for the
folks paying than is given by any other organization I could name.

It is useless to imply that Nova Roma is somehow being unfair by at
last taking some measures to properly fund itself. The argument that
Nova Roma is somehow "less democratic" than the rest of the world
falls the flattest here, and it is my sincere hope that our Citizens
recognize this.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

Subject:	[novaroma] MXVI Cives
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:46:35 -0400

Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus SPD

I am proud to announce that NovaRoma now has passed the 1000 citizen mark.
We now have 1016 citizens.

Bene Omnibus Nobis


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Not yet a citizen...
From:	flavius_nr@--------
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:27:37 -0000

Salve,
I am 15 years old and I would like to join Nova Roma.
I am very interested in the history of the Roman empire and in its
culture.
I am looking for a gens that I could join and that could help me
explore Nova Roma.
I live in Gallia (Belgica).
vale.

Philippe.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Voting for the CC.
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:51:04 -0700 (PDT)

Avete Omnes,

I would like to personally congratulate all of those
in Nova Roma who have worked so hard over the last 3
years to achieve this memorable day of reaching 1000
cives in our micronation. I will drink a toast and
rejoice in that. This is only the beginning and it
will be quite a ride to see where it goes from here.

Valete,

Pompeia Antonia Caesaria


--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
<alexious@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> According to the post by Consul Flavius Vedius, the
> polling ends on:
>
> 6 PM August 24: Vote-casting ends.
>
> I was just at the ML at Midnite California Time, and
> the Cista link is
> still there. I need to make certain that no voting
> is still going so
> that I can approve new citizens. I am anxious to do
> this because
> tomorrow we will reach our 1000th citizen of Nova
> Roma!
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor of Nova Roma
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Not yet a citizen...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:13:13 +0200

Vale Philippe,

It is a pleasure to welcome you winthin Nova Roma, but since you are minor
according to Nova Roman standards, as well as current Belgium standards, you
must have an authorization from your parents to join our micro-nation.

If this doesn't discourage you, contact the Censors, censors@-------- to
see what is proper to do in your case for submitting to citizenship within
NR.

As for the gens, once your citizenship is acknowledged by the censor, I will
be happy to welcome within mine, Gens Queria, if you tell me a bit more
about your interests and motivations.

Hope to have some news about you soon.

Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Provinciae Galliae
Paterfamilias Gentis Queria



----- Original Message -----
From: <flavius_nr@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Not yet a citizen...


> Salve,
> I am 15 years old and I would like to join Nova Roma.
> I am very interested in the history of the Roman empire and in its
> culture.
> I am looking for a gens that I could join and that could help me
> explore Nova Roma.
> I live in Gallia (Belgica).
> vale.
>
> Philippe.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Looks like it.
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:28:15 EDT

In a message dated 8/26/01 3:28:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:


> After Sokarus complained, and wrote the Censores, he was contacted by the
> Senior Praetor, who had no business in this affair whatsoever, yet
> intervened, on behalf of Sulla.
>
>
Salvete!
Actually I "intervened" to explain the reasoning behind the edict, and why we
have it. Apollonius responded politely to me and that was it. As for my
responding, to a request to
the Censor, I had no idea I was not allowed to do so. I if I had put
"Proconsul" after my name would we be having this discussion at all?
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Are we at it again? Yes indeed.
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:31:52 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Draco,

(regarding "Dredd Augustus")

> Well, you could have written that citizen and told him to change his name.

Nearly a year ago, I did a mass-mailing, on behalf of the Censores, to
all citizens with terribly malformed names (who had been approved as
citizens before Sulla became Censor). In that mailing, we notified them
that their names were invalid, and requested that they contact the
Censores to change their name. Some complied with this request.
Some chose to resign citizenship then (having never been particularly
interested in the first place, they took the easy way out). Some,
like "Dredd Augustus", have never responded.

> You are not responsible for the error, but you can still correct it.

A Censor cannot remove a citizen except as stipulated by law. (And,
knowing you, I know you'd complain vociferously were this not true!)

> Besides, there are other examples, too, such as a person named "Ovid", or
> "Hepburnus". And you didn't have an explanation for all my examples.

For some of them, the explanation is obvious. Tiberius Hepburnicus
has been a citizen (with that name) since 1998, so that one certainly
isn't Sulla's fault. "Ovid" is used as a cognomen (and not a particularly
good one, I'll agree), but Sulla's already stated the policies on
cognomina are more flexible than on praenomina.

> Mi Sulla, you know just as well as I do (1) that Sokarus' English is not as
> good as yours and

Broken English is no excuse for the complete lack of civilized manners
demonstrated in "Sokarus'" two mailings to Sulla.

> (2) his application had been pending for months, despite
> official authorization of the paterfamilias.

Whose fault is that, when he refuses to correct his improper name with
such arrogant and offensive statements as he made? No Censor should
have to put up with that nonsense, and if it resulted in his application
being put back to the end of the queue, it's no less than he deserved.

> You're acting like a master thief who's just been robbed himself.
> If you treat a person like that, you may expect such reactions.

This is absurd. Sulla did nothing wrong, he was viciously attacked
by a foul-mouthed delinquent just for doing his duty. This was not
a "reaction" to an unfair treatment, it was a case of a spoiled child
trying to make trouble because he did not get his way.

Vale, Octavius.

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

"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." -- Robert Firth

Subject:	[novaroma] Have a warm welcome civis Kaeso
From:	danielovi@--------
Date:	Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:55:01 -0000

Salve Kaeso
As propraetor provincialis I wish to welcome you Kaeso Quintus
Bellicus, the newest citizen from provincia Argentina.
Enjoy!!!
Habeas fortunam bonam
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Propraetor provincialis Argentinae