Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Osama's Guilt
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:11:02 +0100

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

Pontifex Graecus scripsit:

Well, in fact I accept the world as it is with all its
complexity. But whenever the troops of my country
collaborate in peacekeeping missions, at least I am able to
see that unlike the government says, they are not there to
defend Democracy and human rights (of course
the latter are sometimes a good collateral effect, but
nevertheless usually as much collateral as the bad effect
of civilian losses). The truth is that nations fight each
other to defend their interests, and
when they don't fight, it's because their interest is
better kept with peace, independently of the human rights
being respected or not in other countries. Human rights,
Democracy, etc. are just excuses just like the fact that
the Carthaginians sacrificed children was a good argument
for the romans. But do you believe that the romans
sacrificed their men to save the Carthaginian children? I
don't.

________________

I cannot quite agree with this as it stands. Of course
nations fight to uphold their interests. But one of the
interests of the United States (as of Athens) is in
Democracy in itself, because democratic countries are much
more likely to be true friends of the United States, and in
the long run more stable. The U.S. support for Israel, for
example, is not only due to a laudable concern with a
much-mistreated people, but a feeling that Israel is a
fellow democracy, which shares our fundamenal values far
more than any of its neighbours.

Sometimes, indeed, the U.S. supports régimes like Saudi
Arabia or formerly the Shah of Iran which are singularly
unappealing and illiberal. This is partly a matter of
national interest pure and simple: America needs a stable
and steady supply of oil from the Middle East for its
economy and its national security. The two régimes
mentioned were thought of as stable and as probably the
best available in the countries in question.

Until recently the U.S. also supported some nasty
right-wing dictatorships around the world because it
considered them better than Marxist alternatives that would
have been even worse and more persistent. This led to
difficult moral choices, and probably some of them were
wrong. However, the U.S. preference for non-Marxist
alternatives, for authoritarian régimes instead of
downright totalitarian ones, was rooted directly in the
American national interest in Democracy, despite the
immediate inadequacy of the result.

I therefore do not think that the national interest of a
free country can be disentangled from its concern for
Democracy and Human Rights. It may be only one part of the
national interest, but it is not a negligible or marginal
matter. It determines the national orientation and the
country's natural allies to a very considerable extent.

The fact that the U.S. would have risked world
condemnation and paid a high price to change the régime in
Afghanistan by force before September 11 was a very good
reason not to try to forcibly oust the Taliban there,
despite their being one of the most loathsome governments
in the world, perhaps worse than those in place in Burma
and China. Now that there is an additional reason to do so
and the world has been to a considerable degree convinced
of the righteousness of the cause, I am sure that the U.S.
government is *delighted* that it can improve the
governmental lot of the Afghani people. Still, if it went
into every country with a bad régime in order to change it
to a democracy by force, it would be very much resented,
despite the good it would be doing, and this no doubt often
holds the U.S. back from good that it might do.

I am, with all due respect, still more concerned with the
cynicalness expressed by Graecus and also expressed by some
others here, which is even more typical of many young
people today. In fact, with the progressive enrichment and
democratisation of much of the world, and the fall of
Communism and rise of regional integration, the world is
doing fantastically well compared with most stages of its
history. It has a long way to go, but it is moving forwards
at a good pace. And I have no doubt that most politicians
in Democratic countries genuinely aim for the wellbeing of
their citizens.

Yet politicians (like scientists) are nowadays held
suspect because they have not brought about universal
utopia yet. Such an extremely jaundiced and unrealistic
viewpoint is morally disheartening for society. There are
(mostly non-democratic) countries where the level of
official corruption would make one lose hope, but that does
not describe the governments of the NATO countries for
example, or others like Sweden, Israel and Switzerland.

Although the world and America and politicians are far
from perfect, they are not so bad as some suggest. Ideals
do matter, even if not yet enough. The international order
is becoming more moral, slowly, slowly. And it is worth
while to work to further this - it is not something
hopeless and not something infinitely far away.

Did the Romans fight to save Carthaginian children?
Probably not - but a consciousness of a certain moral
superiority in the matter probably added determination to
their fight. I would not have the Coalition Against
Terrorism denied its similar moral superiority, especially
when, like Rome, it is fighting a deadly enemy, and *must*
win if it wants its civilisation to survive.

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:	[novaroma] NOVA ROMA: Capita XX et XXI
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:23:39 +0200

Salvete Quirites Novae Romae,

Here are the next two chapters of the Nova Roma Mars novel. Thanks to
Formosanus for correcting my linguistic mistakes. Should anyone have
comments or criticism, feel free to drop me a line.

----***----

XX. Silent enim leges inter arma

The day after the ritual ceremony for the deceased soldiers, there was a
second meeting between Venator and the survivors.
Draco wondered why he had been invited to it. After all, he was a miles
without a rank, and Oppius was the man in charge of this operation. However,
it felt good to be part of it, merely for the sake of being present in that
strangely magical room. He felt refreshed, generally quiet, and serious.
"How did you get here?" Sertorius asked, when they were all seated.
"That's a good question. After the famous sandstorms of 2081, groups of
people began to flock away from the cities, giving rise to many religiously
inclined subcultures. Some
of them disappeared as quickly as they came, but one of them steadily grew.
After a few years of roaming from city to city, we found this system of
caves, with the guidance of Mars. You see, our belief system is centered
around the entity of the
planet. Earth is the natural territory of agricultural deities, and not in
the least Gaia itself, who is a personification of that very planet.
Likewise, we believe that the Red Planet is the true home of Mars, and that
we need to find a way of connection with the planet's energy,
through prayer and meditation."
Draco's eyes wandered around the table. Sertorius looked as though he was
hearing a sacred revelation, while Peregrinus and Oppius remained sceptical.
Venator went on
nevertheless.
"Through our empathical exercises, we, as a collective, gradually became
more aware of each other's innermost nature, and realized that if we ever
wanted Mars to be a succesful world, inhabited by humans, we should continue
our ways. The Romans have a natural affinity with Mars, and that is why they
have stayed here for so long. Their success should be attributed to Mars'
own will, and not the Romans' own ingenuity. But I am digressing. By 2090
most of us had acquired and developed our senses in a way that made it
possible for us to teleport across large distances, speak with each other
through our souls, and invoke numina
to aid us. While I perfectly accept that you hold other opinions, it was
through these means that we found the Arg, and eventually learnt about
Earth's sinister plot."
He paused for a short while. Nobody asked a question. The bearded leader
continued.
"We had hoped that the government would find out this terrible plot soon
enough, but it didn't help. Even our public letters to newspapers were
marginalized, or never published. Things got even worse when we were
compelled to attack the terraformation plants, and the Arg
began a guerilla war with us, adding to our bad name. In a last attempt at
revealing the truth, we contacted the staff of the military, for secretive
peace talks. Along with them was our contact person, Lutecio. So in short,
that is why you are here."
"And, if I may ask, what exactly would have been the offer made to commander
Audens?" Oppius wanted to know. His face hid any emotion.
"That was the simplest part: that the Martianalists and the Roman army join
forces to stop the Arg and Earth. We alone cannot fight them, but we have
the experience, whereas the armed forces have the technology. With Audens
gone, however, chances are slim that we will ever work together."
"That's right," Peregrinus affirmed, "since news of Audens' disappearance in
mysterious circumstances will have reached the high command and the Senate,
the Consules will
naturally be alarmed, and temporarily take up the leadership of the army.
The sole Consul left right now is Vedius, and I'm not sure how he's going to
react to all this."
"Besides," Oppius added, "we have been cut off from any news for more than a
week. There may be important things happening out there."
A silence fell, during which Venator seemed to think. Draco's mind wandered
off to his familia; how his pater was doing, and his fratres and sorores. It
was so long ago since he had seen them, and it felt like a decade ago since
he'd been at that family dinner between the Moravii and the Apollonii, where
he had been tricked into joining the army. And all that for the sake of his
own ambition. He stopped his musings when he sensed that Venator was looking
at him,
as if he was calling the young man to order.
"Indeed, things have happened. Important politicians and popular families
have been wiped out, and Nova Roma itself is in state of emergency. Earth
has declared war upon Mars."
"What?" the military men almost simultaneously barked.
"I'm not lying. I got this information yesterday night from Quintilianus. On
a lighter note, Festus was arrested."
"Hear hear," Peregrinus sarcastically said.
"What are you planning to do?" Sertorius asked Venator.
For one of the first times, the bearded cult leader laughed. Oppius frowned
at this sudden burst of laughter, but Draco was beginning to get accustomed
to this semi-alien place with its quiet hermits. Sitting here, in this
womb-like environment deep under the skin of Mars, it
seemed like nothing could harm them. But of course, the grim reality was
different.
"Good question. I suppose that it's time to go to war. All of you are free
to go, or welcome to stay with us. To be honest, I'm not so sure your
superiors will believe these stories."
Draco was rather willing to stay here, but everything depended on the orders
he would get from Oppius, of course. Peregrinus and Sertorius seemed to
await an answer from the
astro-pilot as well.
"I shall go back to Nova Roma to inform the Senate and the People of what
happened, despite the orders of secrecy that I had gotten upon accepting
this mission. But I think
that an emergency situation like this justifies that. Mi Venator, I must
confess that I am still very sceptical of everything you have said, but even
after racking my mind, it is the only logical conclusion I can come to
that's able to explain Ronanus' betrayal, the telepathy, teleports and weird
history of the Martianalists. But I give you the advantage of doubt. I order
the rest of my men to stay here, and assist you against either Arg or Earth
troops when needed. The only thing I would like to ask in return is that no
Roman troops are being shot."
"Agreed," Venator placidly said.
"Good. We have a deal."
"There are jetpacks in the southern hangar you can use to fly to Colonia
Marineris. From there, you can take the monotrain to Nova Roma. Do you need
anything else?"
"I don't think so."
The door soundlessy opened, and Tarquinia appeared.
"Let me escort you," she spoke.
Oppius rose from his chair, saluted and left. Draco silently admired his
steadfastness. While he was at times a formalistic man, wrapped up in codes
of honour, that same honour drove him to take his mission seriously, and to
value the life of other people.
"What will the rest of you do?" Venator informed.
Sertorius shrugged.
"I have to confess that I'm confused, but as a soldier, I have sworn an oath
on Mars to protect him and his planet from all harm. I suppose that means we
are fighting the same battle. I could perhaps teach your men a thing or two.
They appear to have other strengths than technical abilities alone, but a
war is never won on one front."
"I quite agree. That was the main motive behind a possible alliance with the
Roman army. If you want, you can start training our volunteers tomorrow in
the large cave next to the one where the statue of Mars is," Venator
responded.
"I'd like to offer my help as a computer expert, for what it's worth. This
Arg technology seems to be very interesting."
"Allright. There is little we don't know already, but the vision of an
expert is always welcome."
It seemed like all eyes turned towards Draco, who felt useless. His battle
experience was nigh zero, he had a rather low rank and knew so little of
computers that it didn't much matter anyway. In short, there was nothing he
could do.
"I'm afraid I'll have to await orders from decemvir Sertorius. Other than
that, there is little I can do, no matter how much I would like to. It's
been an honour to meet you."
"Thank you," Venator answered, slightly bowing his head.
Sertorius looked at his soldier - one of the only ones left of his unit,
save for the remaining ones at Mons Olympus - with a frown, as though he had
just noticed him sitting there.
"You can skip the basic training I'm going to give to the rest of the people
here, but I do expect you to fight alongside us when we're going to battle.
Consider the time in between as your free time. You're dismissed, Apolloni."
"Yes sir."
Draco rose from the table. The door appeared again, probably at Venator's
command, and the Roman soldier left for his quarters. A different atmosphere
was living in the almost familiar tunnels and caves. The people, who this
morning still seemed quiet and pious after the ceremony of yesterday night,
now were walking faster, or talking among themselves, a rare occasion here
in Venator's caves. Oppius may be sceptical, Draco thought, but these people
look in no way like eco-terrorist. Many men were, on the contrary, rather
corpulent or benevolently smiling, while the women and children had a
cheerful but introvert air about them that radiated no other thing than
peace. When he was about to enter the long, narrow corridor that contained
his little guest cave, he decided to go up instead, and walked the stairs up
to the upper caves. It had been a while since he'd seen Sol, or the stars,
something he usually did at Ruber, where his true home was.
Mounting the stairway, the attraction of artificial gravity seemed to wear
off a little, and he
could almost float up the stairs. When he had finally reached the uppermost
cave, he saw, to his pleasant surprise, that it had a transparent roof. It
appeared to be late in the afternoon, judging from the fact that the rays of
the sun came just above the edge of the reddish
wall. No one else was there. Being there by himself, he removed the
Martianalist garb he wore and inspected his outfit, which was clean but
dustily polished by the red, vicious sands of the Planum Australe. The
communications apparature was still broken, but his long handgun, the pilum,
was still operational. His joints were hurting, and the spots where his
military outfit came in contact with his skin felt sore and itchy. But he
wasn't tired. In fact,
he felt a form of peace, mixed with a sense of excitement, even though Mars
appeared to be on the verge of an interplanetary war. Out here, laws and
politics were of such little importance. Sadly enough, weapons were more
important here than in the darkest slums of Nova Roma.

Suddenly, his musings were interrupted by a sound of someone else coming up
the stairs from the shadows. At first, Draco assumed it was Tarquinia, but
she looked different. She had raven black hair, and a piercing gaze. He was
sure he'd seen her face before, but not in the
Martianalist caves. When the young woman spotted him, she appeared to
recognize him, too.
"Draco?" she asked, hesitantly, when she had fully come up the stairs. Now
he knew!
"Aeternia!"

XXI. Praeterea censeo Terram esse delendam

"Why are you hesitating? Why all this trepidation and anxiety? It's war, for
Iuppiter's sake!" Palladius' voice sounded from amidst the crowd of
Senatores that was gathered at the Curia. Some prominent members of the
august body were missing, either dead or disappeared, and
what was left of the influential council of elders was now in a heated
debate. At the rostra stood Octavius, who had been elected as Consul
suffectus with Cassius dead and Vedius having stepped down almost
involuntarily.
"I wish some of you would not interrupt me all the time," Octavius shot back
at Palladius. He was delivering a speech on the possible dangers of actually
going to war with Earth, while the situation in Nova Roma was still
uncertain, and half of Mars was engulfed in the yearly dust
storms.
The Senatores calmed down a little, and the former master of the Roman web
was allowed to continue his speech.
"Therefore, I think we should first try to handle things diplomatically and
tactically. We could ask for the support of the Jovian Federation, and
perhaps we might get help from Titan. Sources from Earth indicate that not
everyone is satisfied with attacking Mars. Especially among intellectuals,
there is a lot of protest and criticism on the government's display of naked
greed and hypocrisy. If we wait, we might just avoid having innocent people
killed and massacred."
The discussion among Senatores erupted again. Octavius descended from the
rostra and took his seat back next to his new colleague, Australicus. The
next speaker; the
Censor, Cincinnatus, had come in front of the council. Octavius admired the
way he had been able to handle the rebelling and rioting citizens in the
city, but feared for what he was going to say now. He represented a rather
large faction in the Senate that had felt agitated for a long
time by Earth's espionage and the Martianalists' obstruction. Nonetheless,
Octavius would listen to what the priest of Mars had to say.
"You didn't do a bad job," Australicus whispered to his colleague, "but an
unconvincing one, though."
"Dear friends and colleagues. I think it is appearent that our Res Publica
is in a state of chaos and war. Our government has been disrupted, our
biotechnological plans have been thwarted, and we are open to an attack at
any moment, with the head of our army being decapitated: all this points to
Earth. Their citizens may be innocent, but their government is most
certainly not. I think Consul Octavius' suggestion of trying to gain support
from the
Jovian Federation or Titan is a good one, but we should, at the same time,
not waste our time, and hasten to ready our defences. We have fifty legions,
and twenty freshly formed
auxiliary legions. We can dispatch three legions to deal with the
Martianalists for good, while the rest guard strategic points such as
Phobos, Deimos, Nova Roma and Mons Olympus.
As we speak, ships from Earth may be underway. Gentlemen, there is no time
to lose. We must make haste."
Nods and grumbles of agreement from some Senatores, and mild protest here
and there. Octavius sat back in his seat, and let out a sigh of defeat.
Sometimes he hated this place. From the corner of his eye he noticed
Australicus getting up and making his way towards the rostra, probably to
deliver a final speech.
"Patres conscripti, I beg your attention one last time. We've been here
nearly all afternoon, quarreling and debating. In old Rome, it was customary
for the Consules to lead the army, and I think it is time that we take up
this tradition once more, now that Audens has been slain by the
Martianalists. Thus, my first consular edict will be dealing with the
practical organisation of our armed forces." Australicus paused for a while.
The Senatores were silent. When edicta were published this way, there was a
customary pause for other magistrates, in this case either Octavius or the -
absent - Tribuni, to veto them. The text of the edict scrolled on by on the
displays built into the Senatores' benches. No intercessio was made. After
some time, the senior Consul continued.
"I subsequently propose to issue the following Senatus Consultum: a
declaration of war against Earth."
Octavius felt struck by lightning. Of course he should have seen it coming,
but he hadn't known until this moment that even his colleague was eager to
go to war so soon. He
understood the feelings that were living among both people and senate, but
he disagreed with the way they wanted to vent it. If they tried to slow down
the process by diplomatic manouvres, they would at least stand a decent
chance. But right now, the Roman forces were outnumbered, both in space
forces as well as in ground troops. Their only advantage was their
familiarity with the terrain, and the strategic advantage of having few
important cities to
defend.
The lights dimmed, and the voting computer asked Octavius to give his vote.
He voted negat, knowing that it was a lost vote. With a grim, joyless smile,
he noticed that for once, there was a relative silence in the senatorial
arena. He sought to catch the stare of his colleague at the
rostra, but it seemed as though he was avoiding to look into the junior
Consul's eyes directly. Guilt, perhaps.
The lights returned, and the results were announced. 23% had voted no, 3%
had abstained, and all the rest had voted yes. It was official: there was a
mutual war between Mars and Earth. In silence, Octavius uttered a prayer to
the gods, and not in the least Mars himself. Australicus began to talk
again.
"I would also like to promulgate a second edict, that deals with the
Martianalists. Three legions will be sent to the Planum Australe to seek and
destroy their caves."
The text rolled before the Senatores' eyes on their screens. In the quiet
mumbling of voices, another voice suddenly spoke, loud and clear.
"I veto this edict."
All eyes turned towards a man in the top left wing of the half round. It was
Fortunatus, the missing Tribune. How had gotten here was a mystery, but
Octavius had to surpress a grin when he saw him. At least someone had the
courage to stand up against this pointless, second conflict. Of course the
Martianalists needed to be dealt with, but in their own time.
"If I may ask so, where have you been, Tribune?" Australicus inquired.
"That is none of your business," he placidly replied.
"It is during a time of war," Australicus said. Some agreement rose from the
small crowd.
"Praetor Diocletianus, arrest that man," he added.
"What?" Octavius reacted. A few others reacted likewise. Fortunatus remained
immobile. Australicus smiled triumphantly.
"I have proof that our Tribune has been involved in a conspiracy to
overthrow the Roman government. It has never been a secret that he was in a
de facto party with Piscinus, Rex, Vado and some of the Apollonii, who tried
to incite the people to a rebellion. Diocletianus, you can tell them the
rest."
The senior Consul descended and went back to his seat. Diocletianus
ascended. He looked uneasily, his eyes averting the stare of some of the
angrier Senatores.
"During the interrogations of Festus, he claims that he had been given
specific orders on who to kill, namely the proponents of peace, and
revolutionary groups. His secondary mission was to get rid of the two most
important opposing factions, namely the Amici Dignitatis and the
Martianalists. This was confirmed by other agents we captured over the past
few weeks. Earth had information that the Amici Dignitatis were preparing a
takeover after the death of Cassius, and had sent their own spies into the
army to make contact with the Martianalists. One of them would be one S.
Apollonius Draco, one of the sons of Formosanus, who is listed as missing in
action, presumably dead, along with Audens. They were both on the same
mission. Therefore, Fortunatus and Formosanus, the only two remaining
leaders of the Amici
Dignitatis, will be placed under official arrest."
Octavius knew that Diocletianus didn't like his own conclusions. There was
something wrong about them, but for now there was nothing that could be
done. Fortunatus did not react when some of the guards that were waiting
outside came at an electronic order from Diocletianus to take him away.
"What is wrong with this world?" Octavius asked himself.

*****-----*****

Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

"The Eyes of Truth are always watching you."

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rome today
From:	"G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:03:09 -0700 (PDT)

Salve Omnes,
Actually, I think if we look around us we already
see what Rome would be like today. The empire itself
died centuries ago, but the western The languages that
we speak have all borrowed heavily from Latin. Most
western governments resemble, to a greater or lesser
degree, the system of government practiced in the
ancient republic. I think that's about the best answer
I can come up with.
Valete,
Burdigalus

--- Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
> Today one of my classes at school went on this
> very boring field trip to this art museum in
> massachusetts...DeCordova (I think)...I'm not an art
> person...but being long and boring I had some time
> to
> think to myself...so here's what I was wondering and
> propose as a new topic of discussion to move away
> from
> the Bin Laden/Afghanistan argument:
> In its time Rome, both Republic and Imperial,
> were mighty from my point of view. What do you
> think
> it would be like today? Think of every aspect of
> life
> social, political and military. Would the empire
> still be as glorious as it was as we know it? Would
> there military be as dominating as it once was?
> Would
> the imperial approach to politics have lasted or
> would
> it have withdrawn back to republican politics? What
> effect would globalization have had on Rome? Do you
> think in its vastness its culture would have been
> corrupted by the international influence or would it
> have retained its culture? How do you think the
> paganistic religion have been welcomed in present
> times? We've had so much persecution of pagans
> throughout the past few centuries what effect would
> those anti-pagan crusades have had on Rome?
> Sorry if I'm digging up old discussions but I
> was
> bored and thought I'd get others opinions/feelings
> on
> the issue and see how they compare with mine.
> vale,
> Quintus Cornelius Caesar
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	"G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:49:47 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

> Speaking of equal "censorship", all citizens are
> given the same
> treatment with respect to list guidelines.

On expected behaviour in the forum - understood. I
did transgress. My post should perhaps have been
written in a less personal fashion. I do not withdraw
my charactarization by I do apologize for misusing
this list. My apologies to you Cornelia and to those
who witnessed the results of my anger.
On the equality in the application of censorship, I
beg to differ. When those who practice the profession
of arms are not subject to blanket accusations and
insulting charactarizations on this list, then there
will be equality. We don't tolerate insults to racial,
ethnic, or religious groups on this list. Why then is
it acceptable to insult recognized, legal and
honorable professions on this list?

>
> Let's talk "issues", not personalities, to put *my
> concern* in
> language of brevity.
The "issue" of the action being taken by the military
forces in Aphganistan being right or wrong is
worthwhile discussing- probably not on this list but
it is a valid discussion from both sides.
Charactarization of the present military action as
"terrorism" includes in it the accusation that those
men and women wearing the uniforms of our
macronational militaries now are terrorists. That is
in itself a grossly unfair charactarization, not
supported by the facts or history and totally
unwarranted. And it is not discussing any issue.
>
> This is for clarification, and not to breed
> animosity between you and
> me.
There is none on my part between you and I.

Vale
Burdigalus


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Market Day chat: 26 October
From:	"Mia Soderquist" <ursulanumeria@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:25:09 -0400

Given a choice, I'd prefer IRC, but under the circumstances, I prefer the
current chat room to the old one, at least. I have been there several times
in the last few days, but I am always alone. There are a lot of options for
just meeting and chatting. People might consider gathering people they see
on ICQ for a chat there (although that can also be troublesome at times,
with the frequent "I see you but I don't see her" sort of problems).

Anyway, I, for one, will be in the chat for the next Market Day.


>From: Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Market Day chat: 26 October
>Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:45:31 -0400
>
>
>Salvete cives et amici,
>
>The purpose behind the Market Days tradition is one that I support.
>Although
>I refrain from taking part because of the unfriendly system the current
>HTML
>chat uses. By implementing a Java based chat I think you will find a lot
>more participation. This way we can talk to each other "real time" and
>without the constant nuisance of refreshing the screen every few seconds.
>
>Now I know this has not been done as of yet because the possibility of some
>users not having a browser that can support Java. Seeing that new versions
>of internet browsers are free I think it is safe to say almost all citizens
>could take advantage of this new feature. Although even if citizens find
>this unreasonable it would be nice to have the option.
>
>I would love to take part in a Market Day chat, although until a better
>form
>of communication is available this list seems to out weigh the advantages
>of
>a HTML chat by far.
>
>If citizens are curious of what a Java chat would be like take at look at
>the provincial Java chat at the website for Canada Oreintalis provincia at
>http://www.freehost.nu/members/canorien.
>
>Valete,
>
>
>"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro sum mater ab vitualis"
>"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of
>virtues"
>
>--
>Amulius Claudius Petrus
>Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
>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/
>--
>
>
> >Marcus Octavius Germanicus at haase@-------- wrote:
> >
> > A few years ago, we had a tradition of public chats on "Market Days",
> > which occurred once every nundinium.
> >
> > In the past year, attendance at chats has become more sporadic, and now
> > seems to have nearly died out. The new chat system, which I created a
> > few months ago, was well-liked at first; but has been little-used since.
> > If we start using it regularly again, then I'll try to work on the
>program
> > more often, and add requested features to it.
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Subject:	[novaroma] AMS Mail List
From:	Sextus Cornelius Cotta <cotta@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:38:12 +0000

Salve,
A maillist has been established for Citizen's living in the Province of
America Medioccidentalis Superior. This list is also open to any Citizen
of Nova Roma.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AMS_NR

Vale,
Sextus Cornelius Cotta

--
Legate Major, Regio Campus
America Medioccidentalis Superior Province
Nova Roma
AIM: LegateMajor

Subject:	[novaroma] AMS Mail List
From:	Sextus Cornelius Cotta <cotta@-------->
Date:	Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:44:19 +0000

Salve,
A maillist has been established for Citizen's living in the Province of
America Medioccidentalis Superior. This list is also open to any Citizen
of Nova Roma.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AMS_NR

I am posting this again because some how it did not show up the first time.

Vale,
Sextus Cornelius Cotta

--
Legate Major, Regio Campus
America Medioccidentalis Superior Province
Nova Roma
AIM: LegateMajor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Osama's Guilt
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:47:05 -0200

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Civibus S.P.D.
>
> Pontifex Graecus scripsit:
>
> Well, in fact I accept the world as it is with all its
> complexity. But whenever the troops of my country
> collaborate in peacekeeping missions, at least I am able to
> see that unlike the government says, they are not there to
> defend Democracy and human rights (of course
> the latter are sometimes a good collateral effect, but
> nevertheless usually as much collateral as the bad effect
> of civilian losses). The truth is that nations fight each
> other to defend their interests, and
> when they don't fight, it's because their interest is
> better kept with peace, independently of the human rights
> being respected or not in other countries. Human rights,
> Democracy, etc. are just excuses just like the fact that
> the Carthaginians sacrificed children was a good argument
> for the romans. But do you believe that the romans
> sacrificed their men to save the Carthaginian children? I
> don't.
>
> ________________
>
> I cannot quite agree with this as it stands. Of course
> nations fight to uphold their interests. But one of the
> interests of the United States (as of Athens) is in
> Democracy in itself, because democratic countries are much
> more likely to be true friends of the United States, and in
> the long run more stable. The U.S. support for Israel, for
> example, is not only due to a laudable concern with a
> much-mistreated people, but a feeling that Israel is a
> fellow democracy, which shares our fundamenal values far
> more than any of its neighbours.
>

And Athens was one of the most imperialistic cities in Greece
(much more than Sparta) with a false support of democracy since they
were in control of the treasure of the Delos League they expected the
democracies to just follow their decision not to have an independent
democratic opinion on matters of war and peace. When Mytilene
democratically decided it was better for them to leave the war, Athens
responded by killing or reducing in slavery all of its citizens. Is that
the example you expect the USA to follow?

> Sometimes, indeed, the U.S. supports régimes like Saudi
> Arabia or formerly the Shah of Iran which are singularly
> unappealing and illiberal. This is partly a matter of
> national interest pure and simple: America needs a stable
> and steady supply of oil from the Middle East for its
> economy and its national security. The two régimes
> mentioned were thought of as stable and as probably the
> best available in the countries in question.
>

Which is probably wrong at least for Saudi Arabia: after the Taliban the
most retrograde regime in the region, Iran (actual one) is much more
democratic as Saudi Arabia. Another example of your athenian views on
democracy = only internal democracy of the dominant nation, the others
are democratic if they support the dominant nation?

> Until recently the U.S. also supported some nasty
> right-wing dictatorships around the world because it
> considered them better than Marxist alternatives that would
> have been even worse and more persistent.

Do you classify Allende as a "worse Marxist alternative" or Goulart ?
Strange classification speaking of 2 trully democratically elected
presidents that were thrown over with a strong US intervention. Oh yes
again people which don t support the dominant democracy (USA/Athens) are
not democrats.

> This led to
> difficult moral choices, and probably some of them were
> wrong. However, the U.S. preference for non-Marxist
> alternatives, for authoritarian régimes instead of
> downright totalitarian ones, was rooted directly in the
> American national interest in Democracy, despite the
> immediate inadequacy of the result.
>

With Gryllo I think in "American national interest" without additional
qualification.

> I therefore do not think that the national interest of a
> free country can be disentangled from its concern for
> Democracy and Human Rights. It may be only one part of the
> national interest, but it is not a negligible or marginal
> matter. It determines the national orientation and the
> country's natural allies to a very considerable extent.
>
> The fact that the U.S. would have risked world
> condemnation and paid a high price to change the régime in
> Afghanistan by force before September 11 was a very good
> reason not to try to forcibly oust the Taliban there,
> despite their being one of the most loathsome governments
> in the world, perhaps worse than those in place in Burma
> and China. Now that there is an additional reason to do so
> and the world has been to a considerable degree convinced
> of the righteousness of the cause, I am sure that the U.S.
> government is *delighted* that it can improve the
> governmental lot of the Afghani people. Still, if it went
> into every country with a bad régime in order to change it
> to a democracy by force, it would be very much resented,
> despite the good it would be doing, and this no doubt often
> holds the U.S. back from good that it might do.
>

"Improving" the government of the afghan people would have been so easy
by not furnishing arms to the Taleban and other warlords while
Afghanestan was a liberal, advanced country not even marxist (but
with Soviet support). Seems to me that in both cases (then and now)
"american national interest" is equivalent to "interest of the american
militaro-industrial complex".

The Taleban is securely one of the worst governments on earth today,
the point were we disagree is how to drive them out of power.
Remember Gandhi, he liberated India/Pakistan without a war.
SpecOpp Peace Forces could be trained in order to "fight" in the same
way.


> I am, with all due respect, still more concerned with the
> cynicalness expressed by Graecus and also expressed by some
> others here, which is even more typical of many young
> people today. In fact, with the progressive enrichment and
> democratisation of much of the world, and the fall of
> Communism and rise of regional integration, the world is
> doing fantastically well compared with most stages of its
> history. It has a long way to go, but it is moving forwards
> at a good pace. And I have no doubt that most politicians
> in Democratic countries genuinely aim for the wellbeing of
> their citizens.
>
> Yet politicians (like scientists) are nowadays held
> suspect because they have not brought about universal
> utopia yet. Such an extremely jaundiced and unrealistic
> viewpoint is morally disheartening for society. There are
> (mostly non-democratic) countries where the level of
> official corruption would make one lose hope, but that does
> not describe the governments of the NATO countries for
> example, or others like Sweden, Israel and Switzerland.
>
> Although the world and America and politicians are far
> from perfect, they are not so bad as some suggest. Ideals
> do matter, even if not yet enough. The international order
> is becoming more moral, slowly, slowly. And it is worth
> while to work to further this - it is not something
> hopeless and not something infinitely far away.
>

Corruption and idealism are not antonims. Power itself corrupts, many
uncorrupted (by money) politicians are corrupted by the power, their
goals becomes "keep the power" and not "do the best for the people"

> Did the Romans fight to save Carthaginian children?
> Probably not - but a consciousness of a certain moral
> superiority in the matter probably added determination to
> their fight. I would not have the Coalition Against
> Terrorism denied its similar moral superiority, especially
> when, like Rome, it is fighting a deadly enemy, and *must*
> win if it wants its civilisation to survive.
>

Rome did not need to win the 3rd Carthaginian war, they did not need to
destroy Carthage and throw salt over the city. This episode is a black
one in Roman History, very opposed to the Cilician Pirates episode for
instance.

In Amicitas,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rome today
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:34:35 -0400

Salvete cives et amici,

I believe the empire fell because of the old Gods being abandoned. Now I not
blaming Christianity directly. If Rome could of fully accepted both
religions the old Gods of Rome would still be respected and honoured.

The Gods of of Rome protected her. They gave the empire a destiny to
civilise the world and expand Roman influence. When the religio was
abandoned they lost this drive to rule. A few hundred years later the empire
fell to pieces. Then came the dark ages. I believe it is more then a
coincidence that Rome persevered through all her troubles while she
supported the Gods, and when she did not everything came apart.

If Rome continued to honour the Gods I believe they would not suffered many
of the problems that brought down the empire. Who knows how long it could of
lasted. The world would definitely be a completely different place. Through
the dark ages human science did not progress very far. If the dark ages
never took place we could of been hundreds of years more advanced then we
are today.

Valete,

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

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
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/
--

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:17:25 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
wrote:
> Salve,
>
> > Speaking of equal "censorship", all citizens are
> > given the same
> > treatment with respect to list guidelines.
>
> On expected behaviour in the forum - understood. I
> did transgress. My post should perhaps have been
> written in a less personal fashion. I do not withdraw
> my charactarization by I do apologize for misusing
> this list. My apologies to you Cornelia and to those
> who witnessed the results of my anger.
> On the equality in the application of censorship, I
> beg to differ. When those who practice the profession
> of arms are not subject to blanket accusations and
> insulting charactarizations on this list, then there
> will be equality. We don't tolerate insults to racial,
> ethnic, or religious groups on this list. Why then is
> it acceptable to insult recognized, legal and
> honorable professions on this list?
>
I have to agree with Burdigalus here, as I would consider a response
to an offense, slander, or insult as something very much different
from an initial unprovoked offense, slander, or insult - I have no
problem with a reply made in kind when the 'party of the first part'
elected to establish a hostile or ad hominem tone for the discussion.
Sauce for the goose, after all....
> >
> > Let's talk "issues", not personalities, to put *my
> > concern* in
> > language of brevity.

I disagree here, as well, as personalities should be fair game for
discussion - there's no reason they shouldn't. Character
assassination and ad hominem attacks need to be discouraged, to be
sure, but to say that personalities are not a valid topic is, IMHO,
disingenuous and intellectually indefensible.

> The "issue" of the action being taken by the military
> forces in Aphganistan being right or wrong is
> worthwhile discussing- probably not on this list but
> it is a valid discussion from both sides.
> Charactarization of the present military action as
> "terrorism" includes in it the accusation that those
> men and women wearing the uniforms of our
> macronational militaries now are terrorists. That is
> in itself a grossly unfair charactarization, not
> supported by the facts or history and totally
> unwarranted. And it is not discussing any issue.

Characterizing members of the military as 'terrorists' because they
are doing their job, as is even approved in the fickle court of world
opinion, is at least slanderous, and certainly worthy of commentary.
To expect citizens of a country, or its military personnel, to stand
silently by while their military is slandered and/or libeled is to
expect too much.

> >
> > This is for clarification, and not to breed
> > animosity between you and
> > me.
> There is none on my part between you and I.
>
No hard feelings on my part, either.

Valete,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Rome today
From:	"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:24:12 -0000

Seeing you mention the idea of both religions being accepted
reminds me of a woman in Greece my parents told me about.
Apparently she claimed to be a converted Christian, but only
halfway. She still held on to her old belief system (and I would
have to wonder about someone that switched belief system so
quickly) and simply thought of the Christian religion in terms of
the old pagan system. She thought of God as Zeus, Jesus as
Hercules and so on and so forth. I just thought that worthy of
mention.

I wish I understood Christianity's hate of the pagan religion and
the Romans in general. As a Christian myself, I have always
been open and accepting of other people and their religion
because I believe all religions are just different interpretations of
the same thing. I was watching Sparticus the other day and had
to laugh at how the narrator called the Roman pagan rule an evil
one because they used human slavery. I couldn't help but think
to myself that the screenwriters should look at early American
history and the so called good Christian rule. I have to admit I
was a bit upset at the portrayal of all Romans as some kind of
barbarians though. I know that every country has its evils and its
evil people, but no country is entirely evil.

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete cives et amici,
>
> I believe the empire fell because of the old Gods being
abandoned. Now I not
> blaming Christianity directly. If Rome could of fully accepted
both
> religions the old Gods of Rome would still be respected and
honoured.
>
> The Gods of of Rome protected her. They gave the empire a
destiny to
> civilise the world and expand Roman influence. When the
religio was
> abandoned they lost this drive to rule. A few hundred years
later the empire
> fell to pieces. Then came the dark ages. I believe it is more
then a
> coincidence that Rome persevered through all her troubles
while she
> supported the Gods, and when she did not everything came
apart.
>
> If Rome continued to honour the Gods I believe they would not
suffered many
> of the problems that brought down the empire. Who knows
how long it could of
> lasted. The world would definitely be a completely different
place. Through
> the dark ages human science did not progress very far. If the
dark ages
> never took place we could of been hundreds of years more
advanced then we
> are today.
>
> Valete,
>
> "Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro sum mater ab
vitualis"
> "Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother
of virtues"
>
> --
> Amulius Claudius Petrus
> Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
> 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/
> --

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Osama's Guilt
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:02:14 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
I beg to differ on the United States concern with
democracy. We are not as concerned with democracy as
one might think. Yes that is the image we present to
the public I will not disagree. However, if we were
that concerned with democracy then we wouldn't have
given up on African nations.
In Africa the United States sought allies during
the Cold War and we cared not what kind of political
establishment they had but whether or not they
supported us. After the Cold War ended with the end
of Communism, or rather the fall of it, we began
pushing for deomcratization in Africa. That may at
first sight seem like we have a genuine interest in
democracy but if we one looks closer they will see
that the concern for democracy is not as genuine as it
appears on the surface.
Africa was subjected to years of colonization and
the maltreatment of the people and the individual
countries resources. From that system of colonization
a mind frame of authoritarianism was imbedded in the
people. When the United States tried to introduce
democracy to the African people's we found out that
due to the years of colonization that Africa was too
consumed by authoritarian views that democracy was a
hard concept to grasp. When democratic elections were
held they were constantly/regularly corrupted by
corrupt politicians who did what it took to obtain
power.
Eventually we decided that instead of getting
this nations to adopt democracy we would reward them
with funds for meeting certain standards of democratic
rule. So what was created within these nations was
not a democratic system but what has been called by
man political science scholars a "pseudo-democracy."
A "pseudo-democracy" in essence is basically a
system of government where it appears to be democratic
in nature on the surface. But if one looks
more closely at these "democracies" they will realize
that within they are nothing more than an
authoritarian regime. In other words these
governments would provide programs that would meet the
standards set forth to receive funding but would not
go beyond those standards. In sum the governments
never really made a whole-hearted effort to
democratize.
So as you can see the United states does not
really care that much about the democracy it says it
seeks to promote. It is nothing more than an attempt
to improve our political image and make us look like
the good guy.
vale,
quintus cornelius caesar


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Rome today
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 16:54:19 -0400

Salve Marcus Cornelius Tiberius,

>Marcus Cornelius Tiberius at otto_von_sitter@-------- wrote:
>
> Seeing you mention the idea of both religions being accepted
> reminds me of a woman in Greece my parents told me about.
> Apparently she claimed to be a converted Christian, but only
> halfway. She still held on to her old belief system (and I would
> have to wonder about someone that switched belief system so
> quickly) and simply thought of the Christian religion in terms of
> the old pagan system. She thought of God as Zeus, Jesus as
> Hercules and so on and so forth. I just thought that worthy of
> mention.

This is interesting. I don't know where I stand on this type of
interpretation. Seeing that the myths about the Roman Gods are not written
in a literal sense, and the Christian stories of Jesus are it seems to
create a conflict of ideas in my mind. Acknowledging a supreme being either
way be it Jupiter or God I can see working. Although how about the other
Gods like Mars, Venus, Fortuna? I wonder how that would work? Christian
Saints? Definitely a interesting blending of ideas...

> I wish I understood Christianity's hate of the pagan religion and
> the Romans in general. As a Christian myself, I have always
> been open and accepting of other people and their religion
> because I believe all religions are just different interpretations of
> the same thing.

I think the ancients, both Roman Religio, and Christian followers where
ignorant of each others believes.

I can see how Christians could seem a threat to the Romans. Here is this
living son of a God proclaiming he is king of Jews. Now the emperor is king,
how can this man proclaim this? He must be a enemy of the state. Also his
followers are eating the body and blood of God! Cannibalistic enemies of the
state! They also kill us for believing in the Gods. They must be against
Rome and the Gods.

>From this interpretation it is easy to see how ideas could of been viewed
incorrectly by the Romans. This leading to dislike, hate, and death.

Now the same ignorance about Religio followers can arise from Christians.
Here you have been strictly taught that there is only one God. These Romans
have dozens! This religion must be wrong. Heck, it must even be evil! They
killed Jesus the man that gave us our teachings. These Romans also kill us
and our leaders for not accepting the Roman Gods. The Roman religion must be
work of the devil! It is therefore our duty to save these people from this
evil!

Now here you have two groups of people who don't truly understand each
others beliefs. Both fight each other because other their conflicting points
of view. One thing leads to another and before you know it you develop a
hate for the other that is passed down through generations.

Nova Roma is different, obviously. Both groups don't hate each other or
merely tolerate the other. We **RESPECT** each other. I strongly believe
that as we grow this will continue to become a more powerful draw to the new
citizens of the res publica. Nova Roma respects all religions and for the
most part our citizens don¹t hate the other or tolerate each other but
respect their fellow citizens. This is the key. We may be rebuilding a
ancient culture, although this one aspect is very modern and is truly a
beautiful thing that I hope is always supported by Nova Roma for as long as
it exists.

Valete,


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

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
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/
--

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:16:35 -0200

"G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> > Speaking of equal "censorship", all citizens are
> > given the same
> > treatment with respect to list guidelines.
>
> On expected behaviour in the forum - understood. I
> did transgress. My post should perhaps have been
> written in a less personal fashion. I do not withdraw
> my charactarization by I do apologize for misusing
> this list. My apologies to you Cornelia and to those
> who witnessed the results of my anger.
> On the equality in the application of censorship, I
> beg to differ. When those who practice the profession
> of arms are not subject to blanket accusations and
> insulting charactarizations on this list, then there
> will be equality. We don't tolerate insults to racial,
> ethnic, or religious groups on this list. Why then is
> it acceptable to insult recognized, legal and
> honorable professions on this list?
>

Seems you tolerate insults on recognized convictions like being a
recognized conscious objector. I paid for my conviction you made a
living out of them, seems we are both coherent and have both the right
to express our convictions.

For the "insult" part check again the dictionnary for terrorism and war
and read them slowly in order to see if there is any objective
difference. All terrorists see themself as warriors for a greater cause,
all terrorists see the innocents death as unfortunate collateral effects
nessecary to the greatness of the cause, all terrorists see the fact of
dying for their cause as a "supreme sacrifice" and not a suicid.

The terrorist attack on the WTC (I think we agree on this designation)
was considered, by President Bush, as an "act of War". So terrorists
make wars, even in your (probably) use of the words.


> >
> > Let's talk "issues", not personalities, to put *my
> > concern* in
> > language of brevity.
> The "issue" of the action being taken by the military
> forces in Aphganistan being right or wrong is
> worthwhile discussing- probably not on this list but
> it is a valid discussion from both sides.

The goal of the action is totally right, the way of action is wrong.

> Charactarization of the present military action as
> "terrorism" includes in it the accusation that those
> men and women wearing the uniforms of our
> macronational militaries now are terrorists.
> That is
> in itself a grossly unfair charactarization, not
> supported by the facts or history and totally
> unwarranted. And it is not discussing any issue.

No it is not unfair, go back to the definitions.

In Yesterdays newspaper the Deputy Mayor of S.Paulo used the exact same
terms "state terrorism" for designating the US/UK action in Afghanestan.
Those terms are widely used, all around the world by all pacifists. By
denying those terms you not only want to censor all persons opposed to
your ideals, but also the dictionnaries.

Please clear up your mind, you are fighting (and risking your life) your
kinds which happen to have other political ideals, not other "moral"
ideals. You design them as "terrorists" and not warriors and it is
therefore that you are hurt when somebody points out that you are ways
of action are equivalent. Both you and your opponents consider rightfull
to kill each another, both you and your opponents consider killing
non-warriors as an unfortunate but necessary collateral effect.

In Pax Deorum

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	[novaroma] ADMIN: Equality of List Policy Enforcement
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:07:41 -0400

Salve,

Given the very high emotions that have been in evidence on the List for the
past week or so, and several posts that appeared containing insulting
language, it probably comes as no surprise that myself and Pompeia have been
quite busy behind the scenes enforcing List guidelines.

I have seen statements, both public and private, from those spoken to in
reference to their own poor choices of words that amounts to "oh yeah? well,
what about what *he* said?". I suppose this is a logical first response
from some, as none of us enjoy being corrected. However, it does motivate
me to make a public statement on the enforcement of List policies.

All disciplinary actions.....from a simple warning note through expulsion
from the List.....are confidential. That means, quite simply, that *no one*
aside from myself and my scriba and the individual involved will be privy to
the actions. What appears to be happening in some cases, though, is that
when a person is contacted regarding their *own* behavior, they are assuming
no action has been taken against the person they perceive to have provoked
them. That is a very unfortunate perception, as it is quite untrue.

So, allow me to state unequivocally, for the record, that ALL violations of
List policy are dealt with. They are dealt with behind the scenes and
confidentially, so please do not ask us "well, what about THAT guy", as we
simply will not tell you. I would respectfully suggest here, as I have done
privately to several individuals, that we all worry about our *own* actions.
If we all strive to follow List policies and behave as best enhances our own
dignitas, List "issues" will be far less of a problem all around.

In closing, I would like to encourage those who may have concerns about a
post to contact myself or my scriba so that we may best help you. Pompeia
and I do our job to the very best of our ability, but we also understand
that some posts may "leak" through from time to time. I, myself, slipped up
earlier this week, causing a bit of confusion. I apologize for that, but
also ask the List members to remember that we are only human and mistakes
will happen from time to time. That by no means reflects an inequality of
policy enforcement. If I have left you with any lingering questions I will
be happy to discuss the matter further either here or in private mail.
Thank you.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:28:53 -0400

Salve,

> I have to agree with Burdigalus here, as I would consider a response to an
offense, slander, or insult as something very much different from an
initial unprovoked offense, slander, or insult>>

You are entitled to your personal opinion, just be advised that List policy
sees one insult the same as another, regardless of "he started it" style
arguments. As stated elsewhere, myself and my scriba have it as our duty to
handle all offensive material in a confidential manner. Rest assured, all
such offenses *are* dealt with and your responding in kind does nothing but
place yourself next on our list of members to "speak" to.

>>- I have no problem with a reply made in kind when the 'party of the first
part' elected to establish a hostile or ad hominem tone for the discussion.
Sauce for the goose, after all....>>

I must say, I have been consistently disappointed with attitudes such as
this in past days. To be sure, you are not alone among those advancing the
"he started it so I'll finish it" theory, but I find it disappointing every
time I hear it again.

I am sincerely thankful that the vast majority of our members seem to adhere
more to the "I won't stoop to his level" attitude as opposed to the one you
espouse. It truly does nothing to enhance a persons' personal dignitas, nor
does it serve to help our fair Nation progress as a community when a few
decide to stage a war of words that results in no winners, just a new
headache for the moderators.

Just something to think about I suppose.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

Subject:	[novaroma] List Rules
From:	"G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:59:16 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete,
On this list there are specific rules of behavior.
Admittedly, twice I have transgressed. Once I used a
minor epithet in its more vulgar context without
malice or 'evil' intent and once in my anger I
violated the rules of this list by descent into name
calling. For both transgressions I have publically
apologized. I offer no mitigating circumstances or
excuses for my behavior and I apologize for them here,
now, again. Yet I must protest against the use of this
list as a platform for the vilification of the members
of the Armed Forces of the NATO alliance.
As I understand them, the rules that govern our
behavior on this list serve but one purpose: to allow
us all to engage in rational discussion on subjects we
find important enough to contribute a personal
opinion. These rules are right and just and have been
applied with a fair and caring hand. However, I think
these rules need to be expanded a tiny bit to include
under their protection the right of persons practicing
professions to be free from grossly unjust accusations
and insulting characterizations.
Among the people on this list there are conflicting
views on the viability of pacifism. I doubt there are
people among us who view pacifism as evil, but there
are doubtless those on this list who view the opposite
point of view as evil. The disagreement I think is
based not on the eventual goals we hold for humanity
but on the practicality of the means of achieving that
goal. On the one hand is the argument that violence
begets violence and therefore won’t allow us to
achieve our goal. On the other is the opinion that
while violence is disgusting, frightening and wholly
evil, unprovoked violent attacks on our homes and
homelands are something we are justified in combating
through violent means to put an end to. Both sides of
the argument hold their views strongly. But there is
no justification on either side to indulge in the kind
of character assassination so freely used by the
intended recipient of my Stultus post.

Those who indulge in the vilification of those who
protect them under the guise of professed pacifism and
in the safety assured them by those they accuse, I
hold beneath contempt. As I have stated before, I
cannot but take their vilification as an assault on my
dignitas and as an insult to my personal beliefs. That
they are able to indulge in this vilification on this
list I find confusing for it is plainly against the
intent of the rules of this list. When the actions
taken by our militaries are unjustly characterized as
terrorist, it necessarily follows that those people in
our militaries must be terrorists, and those on this
list who presently wear a uniform or are in the
voluntary reserves are guilty of supporting terrorism
by their willingness to serve in the fight against it.

I find the indulgence granted Limitanus on this list
to vilify and insult other list members grossly unfair
and a misapplication of the rules on this list. I
protest most strongly and I ask that the our esteemed
Scriba Curatrix rule on this as she has ruled on my
transgressions – with fair and caring hand, and in
public on this list to ensure that these
inflammatory,unjust and insulting charactarizations of
our military forces are no more acceptable now and in
the future, than what I indulged in was in the recent
past.
Valete,
Burdigalus


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
Okay for sometime now we've been debating the
whole issue of Afghanistan and terrorism. I will say
to some that your understanding is inexplicably wrong.
Now I'm not denying of your right to an opinion or
personally attacking you because that has gotten
several people in trouble based on my understanding of
the list moderators post.
Referring to a basic dictionary for a definition
of a term such as "terrorism" DOES NOT provide one
with a proper understanding of such terms. Terrorism
is not a term where you can rely on a basic
explanation of from a basic dictionary. If people are
to truly understand the concept the must refer to
legal dictionary's and nderstand the political stand
point of what it is. More or less they are one and
the same.
Several times I have provided on this list a full
legal explanation of what terrorism is. Terrorism is
more than individuals or groups seeing themselves as
"warriors for a greater cause" and terrorists do not
see the innocents death as "unfortunate collateral
effects nessecary to the greatness of the cause." I
can also assure you that not all terrorists view dying
for their cause as the supreme sacrifice for their
cause. In general, the view of dying for the cause
tends to apply to terrorist organizations with Middle
Eastern origins. The IRA and ETA to name a couple do
not send their "warriors" out to perform kamikaze-like
missions. They prefer to preserve their forces to
have a greater number to combat what they view as the
enemy. Terrorism if one wants to look at it also
includes the legal terms "hijacking", and "in
terrorem" which if looked up help give a good
understanding of what terrorism is. If you want a
basic understanding of what terrorism is or what a
terrorist is this is all you need to know: 1.) violent
act committed in a public theatre, 2.) usually
targetted at innocent people, 3.) there's a minimum of
3-4 people dead, and 4.) there's a political or
monetary motive behind the act.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	"G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:45:19 -0700 (PDT)

Sir you assume on heck of a lot. There are two
arguments here: the first is whether or not the action
in Aphganistan is right or wrong. The second is
whether or not both sides in the conflict hold the
same moral ground. Sir, you are wrong on both counts
but I will only argue the latter for two reasons: 1 -
the former is in my opinion off-topic for this list;
and 2 - I doubt you will convince me of the rightness
of your position or that I will convince you of the
rightness of mine.
> Seems you tolerate insults on recognized convictions
> like being a
> recognized conscious objector. I paid for my
> conviction you made a
> living out of them, seems we are both coherent and
> have both the right
> to express our convictions.
This discussion of the rights and wrongs of the
actions is totally acceptable. What I find
unacceptable is the accusation that I am a terrorist.
Causing terror is not my goal. Stopping the terror is.
If we can capture these animals, great. But if this
means we have to kill those intentionally inflicting
terror on our shores, so be it. I'm sure Allah has a
special place warmed up for them. I am heart-broken
that you find this disturbing.
As for paying. I to pay for mine by living mine. I
might add that my price could be somewhat higher then
yours given your geographical location which I assume
is at some University in a thoroughly modern, policed
and relatively safe western city.
>
> For the "insult" part check again the dictionnary
> for terrorism and war
> and read them slowly in order to see if there is any
> objective
> difference. All terrorists see themself as warriors
> for a greater cause,
> all terrorists see the innocents death as
> unfortunate collateral effects
> nessecary to the greatness of the cause, all
> terrorists see the fact of
> dying for their cause as a "supreme sacrifice" and
> not a suicid.
I agree 100% percent with you, these terrorists do see
themselves as warriors in a greater cause. Does this
make their claim a worthy one? These terrorists have
no more claim to being warriors than the SS guards at
Buchenwald did, however loud they squeel about it. We
executed them when we found them in 1945 and we're
likely going to do the same today.
By the way: the KKK believe themselves to be warriors
in a greater cause - how do you feel about them? Do
you think they are right up there with those who are
in harms way right now trying to stop the terrorists?
Really, I would like to know.
>
> The terrorist attack on the WTC (I think we agree on
> this designation)
> was considered, by President Bush, as an "act of
> War". So terrorists
> make wars, even in your (probably) use of the words.
War is a behaviour that unfortunately is a part of the
human condition. With luck and with much effort it
will eventually be an oddity in a history book. Such
is not the case now. I don't see where you're coming
from on this - war is not exclusive of terrorism.
Witness the terror bombing of both allied and axis
cities during the second world war or the slaughter of
innocents at Me Lai (spelling?). Acts of terrorism are
crimes against humanity. Actions taken to stop the
violence and hold those who perpetrated that violence
to account, whether in a court of law or on a
battlefield is not terrorism. There is no intent on
our part to kill non-combatants, blow up little
children or destroy a nation. There is that intent on
their part.
> No it is not unfair, go back to the definitions.
>
> In Yesterdays newspaper the Deputy Mayor of S.Paulo
> used the exact same
> terms "state terrorism" for designating the US/UK
> action in Afghanestan.
> Those terms are widely used, all around the world by
> all pacifists. By
> denying those terms you not only want to censor all
> persons opposed to
> your ideals, but also the dictionnaries.
The term sir is derogatory. You knew it. You used it
intentionally and you used it to insult. Hiding behind
dictionary definitions isn't going to cut it now bud.
I am ashamed of you. You should be ashamed of
yourself.
>
> Please clear up your mind, you are fighting (and
> risking your life) your
> kinds which happen to have other political ideals,
> not other "moral"
> ideals. You design them as "terrorists" and not
> warriors and it is
> therefore that you are hurt when somebody points out
> that you are ways
> of action are equivalent. Both you and your
> opponents consider rightfull
> to kill each another, both you and your opponents
> consider killing
> non-warriors as an unfortunate but necessary
> collateral effect.
How dare you equate me on par with those people whose
goal is to kill, maim and terrorize those unable to
defend themselves!

You sir, owe all on this list who have, do now or ever
will wear a uniform to defend the likes of you. I
doubt that one will be forthcoming but I am not
disappointed by that. I learned long ago that ideologs
are far too trapped in their own slogans to spend much
time really thinking about the position of people who
disagree with them.
Pacifists I hold with high respect. You sir are not a
pacifist because while you have not used physical
violence, you have used verbal violence on this list.
That you are an educated man only leads to me assume
you knew exactly what you were doing and that you did
so with intent to cause harm. That isn't pacifism,
that is moral cowardice that flies in the face of your
professed beliefs as I understand them.

Burdigalus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com