Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Rome today
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:47:13 -0200

Amulius Claudius Petrus wrote:
>
> 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...
>

Well that s the way it works with the other syncretisms (Candomble here
down) the deities of the pantheon are assimilated to the christian saint
with the same attributes.

> > 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.
>

Somehow true from the Religio followers at least in the beginning, just
read Tacitus or better Plinus the younger letter to Trajan on the
subject. Christianism being a mistery cult (only christians accepted at
the eucharisty) complicated the work of the non-christians to understand
them. For example, from the myth of the transformation of bread into
Jesus meat, came the initial idea that the christians were sort of
cannibals eating their own god. The romans that thought this could only
form an idea from what was told to them by the christians and never had
a chance to assist to an eucharisty.

The other way round it is really doubtfull since most christians were
old polytheists (Roman, Greek etc.) and clearly knew about the rites and
mythology of their former religion. (Little beliefs in antique
politheism)

> 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.
>

This was not the perceived threat, the romans never heard about Jesus
while he was alive. The threat was the recusal of the christians to
participate in the civic cults, the recusal to recognize the divinity if
the emperors by sacrifying to the imperial cult and worse their
insistance of proselitism which would turn even more persons to refuse
to recognize the emperor.
Original christians were quite pacific, they refused even to serve in
the legions because they refused killing. Only after christianism became
an official religion (under Constantine) they began to kill
non-christians (and much more christians with other beliefs= heretics)

> 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!
>

This last statement is explicit since the beginning: "Go and teach" No
need to have first persecutions to begin the conversions.

> 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.
>

They were not different groups of people, they were highly mixed. Even
in the early 5th century Augustine began studying and enjoying Vergilius
before becoming a christian. From Constantine to the removal of the Arae
Victoriae a century passed with mostly christian emperors and mostly
non-christian senators and armies. Families were often divided into
christians and non-christians, many romans turned christians at the end
of their lifes in the hope of gaining eternity this way, even if they
lived within the traditional religon all life long.


> 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.

Just like in old Roma, read Julianus or Symmachus you will find no hate.
Read Augustine or Ambrosius : no hate, but active proselitism.
Christians were not persecuted because oof their faith but because of
their lack of civism demonstrate by the recusal to participate in the
civic cults. Nobody asked them to belief in another god, just to
participate in the sacrifices. It is the same here, all officials have
to participate in the civic cults, it is in our constitution, no need to
believe.


Manius Villius Limitanus




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:01:23 -0400

Salve,

>Quintus Cornelius Caesar at qccaesar@-------- wrote:
>
> 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.

Still trying to get this point across eh Quintus. =)

I don't necessarily agree with how you interpreted your legal definition.

Before I get deep into this, I want to state this whole thing about defining
terrorism is pointless. You a discussing a controversial issue that the
United Nations its self has a hard time deciding on. The legal definition of
terrorism varies depending on where you are looking for it.

A few days ago I posted the legal definitions of terrorism and war. Now the
events taking place recently is generally called "war". Although I agree if
you look at many legal definitions of the concept of "terrorism" you can
twist it for it fits the definition. The thing you are over looking is the
definition of war. Now I don't know what definition of war you looked at,
but mine in my Harcourt Law Dictionary fits the situation much better then
it does with terrorism.

War is a act of aggression on another group that is publicly declared. It
also can be used in a form of defence. The goal of war is to completely
destroy the group the aggression is targeted at. Terrorism is missing these
points. You can define the attacks as war much more easily then as terrorism
because the definition of terrorism is missing the important facts I list
above.

When it comes down to it what does it really matter? War, terrorism, they
are both regrettable acts. People die and that is never good. Quintus, I
doubt you will ever convince me that the US is using terrorism on
Afghanistan, although I did realise just how close terrorism and war are
definition wise. I never thought about the similarities until you starting
this discussion on the legal definition of terrorism days ago. Its quite
surprising!

Vale,


"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: Rome today
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:29:42 -0400

Salve,

>Manius Villius Limitanus at loos@-------- wrote:

>>> 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.

>
>> 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.
>>
>
> They were not different groups of people, they were highly mixed.

I was mostly thinking of earlier, when Christians where being persecuted for
their beliefs. It was not so mixed then.

>From Constantine to the removal of the Arae
> Victoriae a century passed with mostly christian emperors and mostly
> non-christian senators and armies. Families were often divided into
> Christians and non-christians, many romans turned Christians at the end
> of their lifes in the hope of gaining eternity this way, even if they
> lived within the traditional religon all life long.

That was before the Roman religion was made illegal to practice. Then again
you have two separate groups.

>
> Just like in old Roma, read Julianus or Symmachus you will find no hate.
> Read Augustine or Ambrosius : no hate, but active proselitism.
> Christians were not persecuted because oof their faith but because of
> their lack of civism demonstrate by the recusal to participate in the
> civic cults. Nobody asked them to belief in another god, just to
> participate in the sacrifices. It is the same here, all officials have
> to participate in the civic cults, it is in our constitution, no need to
> believe.

Yes but these persecutions lead to hate being developed over time towards
the religio. It might not of been done in a act of hate but it obviously did
not make any friends between the religions. Go to a literalist christian
list and make a few posts in support of Nova Roma. I am sure you will get
many ³interesting² replies about how we are evil and so on for supporting
the Roman Religion.

Vale,


"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] List Rules
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:26:59 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
I beg to differ on the commentary on the men and
women of the armed forces. It is a public and
political issue that should be discussed on all levels
and from all perspectives. You used the term
"vilification" in describing the commentary of our
armed forces. Earlier I do recall a call for Nova
Roma to support those armed forces and there was no
debate. How can an organization thow their support
behind an action without discussing the matter first?
There obviously is a group, even if they're in the
minority, who does not fully support this action by
the armed forces. So why should the matter not be
addressed. It is a perfectly legitimate topic to be
discussed. You oppose the "vilification" of the armed
forces on this list but yet at the end of your
statement you vilified Limitanus by attacking him
about his comments. Therefore you are no more in the
right than he was if he indeed did present insulting
comments to the extreme in which you perceive them to
be. So you oppose one sort of "vilification" but yet
buy into another sort of "vilification"? That has no
rational behind it because it would not be proper for
one to say you can't vilify this but you can vilify
that.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar
--- "G. Etcheverius Burdigalus" <burdigalus@-------->
wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rome today
From:	"Marcus Flavius Aurelius" <marcus.flavius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:30:24 +1000

Petrus,

Interesting comments.

I can't say I agree about the loss of the gods but you
do touch on something with "a destiny to civilise the world and expand Roman
influence". Hence the erosion began clearly with the Hadrian decision to
stop expansion. (There I go - blaming Hadrian again!)
This meant that conquest was no longer a priority, and so
the appeal of joining the legions (or commanding them) was reduced, and so
the army would inevitably become less influential, and the army less
effective, allowing the later failures in the west.

So the empire was doomed from that point on.

But on the topic of Rome's potential destiny and things that got in the way,
has anyone else here read Keys' "Catastrophe"? It outlines how a major
natural event in 540AD (most likely volcanic and in the Java/Sumatra region)
caused a number of happenings that led to: the failure of crops throughout
the Roman empire, the migrations of the Avars and Turks, the rise of Islam
and the plague outbreak of the 550s - all events that put nails in the
coffin of the Empire.


Marcus Flavius Aurelius
Durovernium, Australia Orientalis Superior
marcus.flavius@--------
ICQ: 4895187



----- Original Message -----
From: Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Rome today


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






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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:27:55 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
Well in my definition and explanation of terrorism
I was not so much focusing on the actions of the
United States and its supporters militarily as I was
on the act of terrorism itself. I will not dispute
your definition of war. War most definitely is an act
of agression that is made public and is geared towards
crippling your enemy or as you phrased it "the goal of
war is to destroy the group the aggression is
targetted at." I believe I more or less agreed with
what you said when I pointed out why the United States
was justified in its action and I specifically pointed
out the rules of war: "Jus Ad Bellum" and Jus Ad
Bello." So I certainly will not argue the definition
you have just placed before everyone on the ML. Yes
terrorism in general is missing those points you laid
out. However, it could be argued that it doesn't and
it does meet the standards for war. But that is a
completely different debate that I don't want to start
up. If you truly believe we are not using terrorism
on Afghanistan then that is your opinion and I will
not take that from you nor try and impose my beliefs
on you. When I made those statements about the United
States using terrorist actions on Afghanistan I was
simply stepping back and looking at the situation from
a position outside of that of an American. To some we
maybe taking such actions. Personally I think we
should annihilate Al Qaeda and Bin Laden by any means.
So don't view that terrorism against Afghanistan view
of mine as my true belief because it is far from it.
I was just trying to throw in a possible view that
some may take or do take.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rome today
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:18:02 -0400

Salve Marcus Flavius,

> Marcus Flavius Aurelius at marcus.flavius@-------- wrote:
>
> But on the topic of Rome's potential destiny and things that got in the way,
> has anyone else here read Keys' "Catastrophe"? It outlines how a major
> natural event in 540AD (most likely volcanic and in the Java/Sumatra region)
> caused a number of happenings that led to: the failure of crops throughout
> the Roman empire, the migrations of the Avars and Turks, the rise of Islam
> and the plague outbreak of the 550s - all events that put nails in the
> coffin of the Empire.

I have not read the book but it is an interesting theory you described. So
interesting in fact that I did a search for this topic on Yahoo. I came
across this URL:

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/script1.htm

This URL is a script of a TV show where David Keys describes his theory.
This nuclear winter effect from the eruption of Krakatoa must of had serious
effects on the downfall of the empire indeed. Thanks for the info Marcus
Flavius!


"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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:34:45 -0000

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

If the initial post is allowed on the list (the only way I would see
it), and the response is 'in kind', I consider it a natural and
expected response - I believe if you examine my own posts you will
see that I try in most cases to not 'drop down' to the level of a
post I'm responding to if it is insulting or uncivil. I simply don't
judge someone who does so nearly as harshly as the person who
initially set the tone for the interchange. Again, if the first
offending post is moderated or censored, I'm personally never gonna
know, anyway.

>
> >>- 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 hope your tone is not meant to be as condescending as it comes
across here. First, I don't ADVOCATE responding in kind, I personally
just find it more understandable (of course, since I'm not a list
moderator, what I think in this respect is probably not germaine).
Regardless, I think it's fair to say that most people I know would
consider a harsh response in a different light than a harsh initial
statement. If someone decides to set an initial tone to a discussion
and the next person simply reacts to it, that's natural and to be
expected (not necessarily ideal, but human enough). To characterize
an acknowledgment of human nature as 'disappointing' in this respect
certainly seems condescending (although my initial post may have made
my point unclear that I simply find I can be more tolerant of a
response in kind, not that I advocate it).

> 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.

I believe you are misunderstanding my point - I think that a look at
my earlier posts will bear out that I try to keep my posts civil as
much as I can. I have also always advocated maximum possible freedom
of speech on the list (and did, in fact, encourage people NOT to take
punitive action against Michel Loos for one of his plainly
provocative and insulting earlier posts that I didn't care for,
slandering Christians as a group, because I think the list as
an 'entity' should allow him to express his viewpoints, although I
also encouraged those who disagreed to adopt a civil alternative of
simply refusing to respond to his philippics).

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.
>

I agree that there are tacit rules for healthy debate that are
frequently ignored.

> Just something to think about I suppose.
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis

To clarify beyond any doubt, I do think that we should all try to be
civil to each other, and that responding to uncivil posts in a civil
way (taking the high road) is a worthy ideal that we should all
strive for. We should all respect each other's views as much as
possible, whether we are making an initial post or responding to an
existing one.

Salve,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:56:28 -0400

Salve,

> If the initial post is allowed on the list (the only way I would see
it),>>

You are working from a mistaken assumption. This List is not 100%
moderated. In other words, all new members are moderated until we are sure
they are not spammers or trolls, then they become "regular" members.......in
other words, unmoderated. We work from the premise that members can be
trusted. Only those who have trouble following policies find themselves
back on moderation. Therefore, if a regular member suddenly decides to post
something inflammatory, we see it at the same time the entire List does, and
then take action. Therefore just because you see a post that may be
offensive, it does not follow that we saw it first and allowed it through.

>>and the response is 'in kind', I consider it a natural and expected
response ->>

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not believe it
is natural and expected for people to automatically respond "in kind" to
insults.

>>I believe if you examine my own posts you will see that I try in most
cases to not 'drop down' to the level of a post I'm responding to if it is
insulting or uncivil.>>

I thought I made it clear I was not speaking directly *to* your behavior so
much as responding to your idea. My apologies if there was confusion there.

>>I simply don't judge someone who does so nearly as harshly as the person
who initially set the tone for the interchange.>>

As moderators we treat everyone equally. An insult or attack is an insult
or attack, regardless of who started the exchange. It is incumbent on List
members to choose to rise above the pettiness and not engage in "like"
behavior.

>>Again, if the first offending post is moderated or censored, I'm
personally never gonna know, anyway.>>

To clarify, yes you likely will see it. Unless the person is already
moderated the entire List will see the inflammatory post. That is the price
of keeping this Forum as free as possible. You are correct, however,
insofar as once action *is* taken by the moderators that is confidential.


> I hope your tone is not meant to be as condescending as it comes
> across here.>>

Nope, no condescension intended.

>>First, I don't ADVOCATE responding in kind, I personally just find it more
understandable>>

I see. Your original post came across as though you did advocate responding
in kind. Seems a bit of a communications snafu. I see your point more
clearly now, thank you.

<snip>

> To clarify beyond any doubt, I do think that we should all try to be civil
to each other, and that responding to uncivil posts in a civil way (taking
the high road) is a worthy ideal that we should all strive for. We should
all respect each other's views as much as possible, whether we are making an
initial post or responding to an existing one.>>

Well said! On this we are very much agreed!

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
>
> Salve,
>
> Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Desapointment with my fellow citizens/condoleance to the afghans
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:37:51 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> > If the initial post is allowed on the list (the only way I would
see
> it),>>
>
> You are working from a mistaken assumption. This List is not 100%
> moderated. In other words, all new members are moderated until we
are sure
> they are not spammers or trolls, then they become "regular"
members.......in
> other words, unmoderated. We work from the premise that members
can be
> trusted. Only those who have trouble following policies find
themselves
> back on moderation. Therefore, if a regular member suddenly
decides to post
> something inflammatory, we see it at the same time the entire List
does, and
> then take action. Therefore just because you see a post that may be
> offensive, it does not follow that we saw it first and allowed it
through.

Thanks for the clarification - I had seen something on this before,
but had forgotten it (I've slept since then).

>
> >>and the response is 'in kind', I consider it a natural and
expected
> response ->>
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I do not
believe it
> is natural and expected for people to automatically respond "in
kind" to
> insults.

Maybe so, although I think we are agreed that it's not ideal. I just
can't find it in me to censure someone as much for responding in kind
as to censure someone for setting the tone in the first place.

>
> >>I believe if you examine my own posts you will see that I try in
most
> cases to not 'drop down' to the level of a post I'm responding to
if it is
> insulting or uncivil.>>
>
> I thought I made it clear I was not speaking directly *to* your
behavior so
> much as responding to your idea. My apologies if there was
confusion there.

Much appreciated - I was uncertain on this point. I did feel a bit as
though I had been 'taken out to the woodshed'....

>
> >>I simply don't judge someone who does so nearly as harshly as the
person
> who initially set the tone for the interchange.>>
>
> As moderators we treat everyone equally. An insult or attack is an
insult
> or attack, regardless of who started the exchange. It is incumbent
on List
> members to choose to rise above the pettiness and not engage
in "like"
> behavior.

I can see how this approach is necessitated in practical terms, at
the very least.
>
> >>Again, if the first offending post is moderated or censored, I'm
> personally never gonna know, anyway.>>
>
> To clarify, yes you likely will see it. Unless the person is
already
> moderated the entire List will see the inflammatory post. That is
the price
> of keeping this Forum as free as possible. You are correct,
however,
> insofar as once action *is* taken by the moderators that is
confidential.
>
>
> > I hope your tone is not meant to be as condescending as it comes
> > across here.>>
>
> Nope, no condescension intended.
>
> >>First, I don't ADVOCATE responding in kind, I personally just
find it more
> understandable>>
>
> I see. Your original post came across as though you did advocate
responding
> in kind.

I can see how it might have seemed that way.

Seems a bit of a communications snafu. I see your point more
> clearly now, thank you.
>
Mea culpa.
>
> > To clarify beyond any doubt, I do think that we should all try to
be civil
> to each other, and that responding to uncivil posts in a civil way
(taking
> the high road) is a worthy ideal that we should all strive for. We
should
> all respect each other's views as much as possible, whether we are
making an
> initial post or responding to an existing one.>>
>
> Well said! On this we are very much agreed!
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis
> >
Thanks for the clarifications, all much appreciated.

Salve,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Osama's Guilt
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:44:19 -0000

Salve care M. Apolloni Formosane

I think that Limitanus and Caesar have already pointed the flaws of
your statement. Nevertheless I'd like to concentrate more on the
error of your method, clearly obvious from the following statements:

> 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 think that from the above, you can hardly conclude what comes next:
> 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.

Your statements can only prove that there is no regularity between
U.S. intervention and the respect for Democracy and Human Rights. The
laws of Human Science are established from the observation that
things are regular, not irregular and cahotic. This means that
ideally, a statement aimed to explain a phenomenon should be
appliable in all cases of occurence of that phenomenon, creating a
regular relationship between cause and consequence, or an exact
description of the essence of the phenomenon. Nevetheless this is
difficult to attain as context is difficult to isolate. As the laws
of human science are just a simulation of the truth, man is usually
satisfied - for practical reasons - with laws that can be applied to
the majority of cases in a well defined context, allowing future
adaptation of the law when it is found to be innacurate.
Given this, in the current context of international politics, I'm
personally more prone to use the "interest" theory when analysing a
western military support/intervention, than to use the "democracy and
human rights" theory. The first one is appliable to a greater number
of situations (and thus less prone to failure), as recent history
clearly shows.

Vale bene
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	[novaroma] Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:08:14 -0700

Ave,

I wish, I honestly wish, we could move this discussion to the Nova Roma
War list, that was created by Lucius Sicinius. This conversation serves
no real purpose and is not tied to NR, other than the fact that we have
many valued citizens who are serving in the military of our
macronations. The primary reason why I would like this conversation to
be moved there is that Praetor Q. Fabius just posted part of his civil
code on this list and there has been NO discussion on it...yet that
piece of legislation will effect every single Nova Roman.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	"CJ Sitter" <otto_von_sitter@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:53:20 -0000

I agree, it should be moved or discontinued. I myself haven't
bothered to read these posts for a long time, but it is annoying to
log on and see it continued and the important stuff that has to do
with NR not expanded on. A lot of this stuff important to NR and how
it functions I don't yet understand,so I need it to be expanded on by
other more experianced citizens. In that way and others this
discussion is interferring in what NR is about and I would hate to see
us all torn apart, thus destroying NR, just because we can't control
our feelings on this topic. We are Nova Romans, we should not concern
ourselves with destructive conversation.

Marcus Cornelius Tiberius

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I wish, I honestly wish, we could move this discussion to the Nova
Roma
> War list, that was created by Lucius Sicinius. This conversation
serves
> no real purpose and is not tied to NR, other than the fact that we
have
> many valued citizens who are serving in the military of our
> macronations. The primary reason why I would like this conversation
to
> be moved there is that Praetor Q. Fabius just posted part of his
civil
> code on this list and there has been NO discussion on it...yet that
> piece of legislation will effect every single Nova Roman.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	"rapax@--------" <rapax@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:36:16 +0300

Salvete...
I fully agree with our censor here...in fact I've been waiting for some
discussion on the proposal of Quintus Fabius for it really seems like
a very important matter for all of us.So,I think we should return to
Rome..
No matter how we disagree with each other these days I'm sure we all
can find something to agree there!
Valete
Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ave,
>
>I wish, I honestly wish, we could move this discussion to the Nova Roma
>War list, that was created by Lucius Sicinius. This conversation serves
>no real purpose and is not tied to NR, other than the fact that we have
>many valued citizens who are serving in the military of our
>macronations. The primary reason why I would like this conversation to
>be moved there is that Praetor Q. Fabius just posted part of his civil
>code on this list and there has been NO discussion on it...yet that
>piece of legislation will effect every single Nova Roman.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:29:59 +0200

>Ave,
>
>I wish, I honestly wish, we could move this discussion to the Nova Roma
>War list, that was created by Lucius Sicinius. This conversation serves
>no real purpose and is not tied to NR, other than the fact that we have
>many valued citizens who are serving in the military of our
>macronations. The primary reason why I would like this conversation to
>be moved there is that Praetor Q. Fabius just posted part of his civil
>code on this list and there has been NO discussion on it...yet that
>piece of legislation will effect every single Nova Roman.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



Salve Illustrus Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix!

I agree! Let's discuss the civil code!

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Reenactment
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:01:08 -0400 (EDT)

Reenactment brings to the public the aniation of the ideas / artifacts
that can be seen in museums. Museums are valuable places, where a great
deal of information can be found, and where equipment can be viewed, and
measured for reproduction.

Reeneactment also gives people who are interested in such experiences
the opportunity to live in some small way the experiences of those in
the past.

This second reason gives rise to the "education" of the general public,
and should be done n a way that is accurate, and interesting. However,
most reenactors do not have the funding necessary to weave a cloak the
way it was done in early Rome, and others may not have the skill or the
tools to prepare many of the required items needed for the reenactment.

The too, there are those who will only use thoe things which have been
found throgh archaeology, and there are those who believe that if the
materials, technology, and skills were available in the period being
reenacted that the people of that time, would have been much quicker to
use thos kinds of ideas, based on thier needs that we are in the present
day. It is almost a certainty, that we do not have a clear picture of
every type of furniture, that every skilled carpenter ever built during
the period that we reenact, as an example. Any other area of endeavor
could use the same kind of logic.

In my reenactment, I try very hard to be as authentic as I am able,
considering cost, transport, and my personal needs. I use 1st person
style of responses, durig much of my response to the public, but not
100% since it can be and is often confusing to those not familiar with
such.

I reenact in several different periods (Early Roman Empire Gladitorial
School, French and Indian War--1748--1752 /// American Revolutionary
War--1776-1783 /// American Civil War--1861-1865). I enjoy an excellent
relationship with my reenactment comrades, and I have been invited by
several roundtables and historical societies to make presentations, and
inolve myself with thier efforts both as an period Engineer and
Administrative (Adjutant) Staff Officer. I have never attended an event
where I was not invited to return. I am not sure if any of the above
coments meets your standards, but my reenactment efforts seem to meet
both mine and others and so I am content with what I do.

In regard to the color of tunics, I believe the VIth Legion in New York
wears a primrose colored tunic (very light yellow), and as a Senator, I
wear a white linen tunic under my toga. The XXIVth Legion wears white
tunics.

I do however, use a canvas tent. The leather tents are very expensive
and requires special care that I cannot provide. The Gladitorial School
is in the process of purchasing one of the tents that was used in the
movie "Gladiator" and my fly is similar in size to a ships sail, which
was probably made from Linen and waterproofed with beeswax and a paint
solution.

My camp furniture is a very simplistic style of folding table and and
table extension with a simplistic two piece chair with folding stools
and chests for guests to sit on with folded robes for padding and
covered with animal hides. The tables are covered with brocaded
coverings that come down to the ground level.

Food, Utensils, and dishes follow the style found in a variety of books,
but are on the side of being sturdy and not so fancy, silver, brass,
pewter, or wood. Gold is beyond my budget as well!!! (Grin!!!).

I act as a narrator for the gladitorial bouts, and as a demonstrtor with
the wooden practice weapons of the school. I also have papyrus
materials on which I record the bouts, contracts, and keep records of
the school supplies and daily activities. I am working on making some
wax tablets, and some thin "wooden page" books as well.

I am very interested in this Roman Gladitorial School, and any ideas,
comments, or suggestions that anyone would care to make, I should be
pleased to hear such. I am also very pleased to serve in the XXIVth
Legion in New Jersey. The Gladitorial School is a part of the XXIVth
Legion at this time, and sometimes appears at an event with them. In
this case , we help set up the Roman Camp, and are working toward
building our share of materials (such as palisade stakes) and other
items to assist in the appearance of the Legion Camp as well as the G.
School.

I was very pleased to see your message on the Main List since the M.L.
has for the last few days been crowded with comments, arguments and
insulting messages about the problems of the present day, often without
either a good understanding of those problems or with a student's
"textbook" view of the world, none of which is of the slightest interest
to me, personally. I entered this organization to learn more about
Roman Life, and Ideas, and the recent diatribes, and activity here on
this Main List are proving to be a sad bore, for those of us who have
come here seeking somethng far different. My thanks for your question,
and I hope that we may interest others in responding to this very
interesting topic and hobby.

Respectfully;
Marcus Audens


Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

Ave,
Well I feel that issues not directly pertaining to
NR are acceptable for some time but this discussion on
Afghanistan and America's war on terrorism has dragged
on for too long and based on some of the posts its
either old material being rehashed or opinions on it.
So I agree with Sulla that if this debate is going to
continue it should be moved to the NR war list. Lets
talk about more relevant materials outside of NR that
could be related to NR which might produce a
more...ummm...intellectual discussion than arguing
definitions and explanations of war and terrorism. I
have said my piece on the matter and whether you agree
with me or not is your choice but I am more or less
done with the matter. As was pointed out to by
another citizen as to one aspect of the debate it is
nothing more than "semantics" and at this point I feel
the debate is futile and no longer worth debating.
vale,
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Discussion of Afghanistan
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:22:07 -0400

Salve,

Adnuo et ad tempus eccere est intellego! My thanks to Sulla for bring this
finally to the general attention of the citizens. I too hope we can put the
war discussion behind us and get on with more productive discussions
concerning the res publica.


"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/
--

>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix at alexious@-------- wrote:
>
> I wish, I honestly wish, we could move this discussion to the Nova Roma
> War list, that was created by Lucius Sicinius. This conversation serves
> no real purpose and is not tied to NR, other than the fact that we have
> many valued citizens who are serving in the military of our
> macronations. The primary reason why I would like this conversation to
> be moved there is that Praetor Q. Fabius just posted part of his civil
> code on this list and there has been NO discussion on it...yet that
> piece of legislation will effect every single Nova Roman.