Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: POSTULATIO
From:	"Martins-Esteves" <esteves@-------->
Date:	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:15:49 -0200

Salvete Quirites

What is so patent and obvious for me and other cives, is not so for others.
There is nothing wrong about that. I understand that for many of you that is
nothing to worry about. I did really repute Priscilla Vedia's behaviour not
to be just on this matter. Only this! I asked her to act otherwise, but she
wouldn't. So I appealed to other magistrate.

I do not know M' Villius apart from his messages in the list. I do
sympathyze with his ideas about language policy on the list, but I do not
with some others. But he is not the point here. My point was showed in my
Petitio, adressed to Praetor Caius Flavius and made public through the list.

I am not nervous, nor wan't to be "distructive". I only opened my mouth and
spoke. I am convinced that the best way to ameliorate democracy is speaking
out when one feels to suffer injustice.


Antonius Gryllus, one of the first citizens I had the pleasure to spoke to
in 1998 wrote this: (entire message bellow)
>I disagre, amice. And I ask you again to change your actitude to a
>more constructive one. Why don't you contribute with some good
>research material or Latin translation to the web site? What do you
>think?
I thank you for calling me amicus. I admire your devotion to Religio Romana
and your permanent work to the Respublica. I agree I could help more. This
is why I accepted being Legatus in Rio de Janeiro. This is why I am running
for Rogator this year. But I could help more, anyway.
I was a little sad about the tune of your message, but I tryed to extract
the best of it. Thanks for commenting my opinions.

Valete

Titus Horatius Atticus



>Antonius Gryllus Graecus Tito Horatio Attico omnibusque Quiritibus
>
>Although I am a political adversary of Priscilla Vedia Serena in what
>concerns the language policy, my sense of justice forces me to stand
>on her side at this time.
>
>
>> TITUS HORATIUS ATTICUS, civis Novae Romae, pater familias, asks
>>you to propose an INTERCESSIO against PRISCILLA VEDIA, civis,
>>curatrix sermonem, based on the reasons listed bellow.
>> DE FACTO
>> I. Priscilla Vedia, curatrix sermonem, is responsible for the
>maintenance and moderation of the official email discussion list. It
>has become notorious that she has been performing previous censorship
>over the messages from a candidate for the elections to be: the so
>called moderated status. That is how Priscilla Vedia explained this
>satus, in verbis:
>> "Moderated status does not interfere with a
>> cive's ability to speak freely. Unless his post is something
>>actionable
>> under the Constitution, it goes through exactly as written.
>>Therefore, his
>> free opinions are here for all to see, simply delayed for a time
>>until
>> myself or my scriba can approve it."
>As the Curatrix says, she analyses the messages according to the
>Constitution... She would be violating the Constitution if acting
>otherwise, letting pass harming postings from people who had already
>that bad precedent on this list.
>
>> II. It is now time for the debates before the elections and it is
>>imperative that all candidates have unmoderated access to the main
>>list. Each abuse or danger to the Constitution or the Res Publica
>>must be sanctioned after it is done, and not before, during the
>>elections period. This time must be the utmost democratic and
>>uncensored, so that no missunderstanding or suspicion about the
>>elections and the debates can damage the results of voting. It is
>>imperative that no candidate suffer any sort of previous control of
>>his or her messages, whatsoever.
>Violating of the Constitution "must be sanctioned after it is done"?
>I thought that the objective of the Constitution was to be followed,
>its rules to be enforced, and its violation to be prevented... In
>what state would you like to live amice? In a state where the state
>did not prevent crime, limiting itself to trial the criminals after
>the acts had been performed? Not even in Athens!
>I can only explain your statements as coming at a moment of hot
>temper, without measuring the actual thoughts transmitted by your
>words. Anarchy has no place in here. And - forgive me - but your
>logic is not very wise and from what I know of you, you are capable
>of defending more virtuous ideals.
>
>> III. The question must be solved using the Proportionality: it is
>>much more important for Nova Roma to have a completely free debate
>>than to control the postings of a single citizen, because one of his
>>messages COULD be harmful to the Constitution. What IS effectively
>>harmfull for the Constitution is previous censorship during the
>>electoral debates.
>As the Curatrix says, the postings of Limitanus were not cut... Only
>delayed due to the status that Limitanus has brought onto himself
>with his previous bad behaviour on this list. The best he has to do -
>and that would indeed be the attitude of a man of virtue - is to
>accept the consequences of his acts.
>
>
>> I. I have the right to propose you this INTERCESSIO, since I have
>>the constitutional right to vote in elections (Const.NR ART. II, B,
>>3). And I need all information I can have about the candidates with
>>no sort of previous restriction.
>No one has ommitted information, so you have all you need.
>
>
>> II. I come before you, as the Praetor has the constitutional right
>>to pronounce intercessio against another praetor or magistrate of
>>lesser authority (Const.NR IV,3,d). No law, considering the
>>principle of the Legal Precedence of our Constitution (Const.NR ART
>>I,B), can take this right-responsability inherent to your charge.
>The fact that the magistrate has the right does not mean that the
>right will be used without a good motivation.
>
>
>> III. Priscilla Vedia' authority to exerce her control derives from
>>the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, which complements the Constitution
>>(ART. II, B, 4). The Constitution says each civis has, in verbis
>> "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
>>the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
>>State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
>>restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
>>clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may
>>be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of
>>maintaining order and civility." (my italics)
>I repeat "except where they represent an imminent and >clear danger
>to the Republic". "Imminent" is based on precedent. And again, no one
>has cut any part of Limitanus' speech as far as I know. So, just calm
>down amice, drink a patera of wine and enjoy the elections. All is ok.
>
>> The Constitution (nor the Lex Vedia) does not allow her to control
>>previously the messages of a candidate in such a manner during the
>>Electoral Debates. Acting in this way she abuses her authority.
>No message was deleted, and so there is no motive for such alarm.
>
>
>> I. I ask that moderated status be supressed during the elections on
>>behalf of the Rights of the Citizenry and the Political Order.
>So that disorder can only be acted upon AFTER IT HAS OCCURED? No. As
>citizen I do not agree. I want NR to be protected against abuse on
>the main list, specially from people with precedent of such acts.
>
>> II. Considering there is
>> PERICULUM IN MORA (danger in waiting too long for your decision),
>>as the elections are iminent;
>> FUMUS BONI IURIS (that is, my plea seems to be fair), as both the
>Constitution and the Law proved my point
>> I also ask that, before your final decision, you grant immediately
>>on a provisory basis the suspension of the moderated status.
>I disagre, amice. And I ask you again to change your actitude to a
>more constructive one. Why don't you contribute with some good
>research material or Latin translation to the web site? What do you
>think?
>
>> Iustitia quae sera tamen!
>Semper!
>
>
>Vale bene
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>Senator Pontifexque
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] how long to be a member?/
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 06 Dec 2001 22:29:20 -0500

Salve,

Seems as if your post was lost in the confusion of the elections...

The reason why you have probably not been accepted yet is because elections
are taking place right now. No new citizen can be accepted while elections
are taking place. Once they are done you will probably receive confirmation
on citizenship. The censors could back me up on this. =)

With your love for all things Roman I am sure you will fit in here without
any difficulty. Charlotte, welcome to Nova Roma, I look forward to seeing
you around in the near future!

Vale,

"Quamquam cupido sit delictum ab suis crebro est mater virtutum"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Candidate for Aediles Curules
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Please visit my campaign website at:
http://www.virtue.nu/amclaudius/index.htm

Canada Orientalis Website:
www25.brinkster.com/canorien/

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



>charlotte98d at charlotte98d@-------- wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what to say or how to start out posting... I want to
> impress everyone w/ my "Roman-ness" (lol) but to be honest, I have
> only scratched the surface of the history of Rome, and there is a LOT
> I have to learn, especially Latin, of which I know nothing.
> I hope you will forgive my ignorance... it is hard to find time for
> things when you are in college, especially one where you have to work
> 15 hours a week in addition to going to classes and studying.
>
> I applied for citezenship a week ago, and still no word yet.... I am
> worried, would they reject me? If they do, will they tell me? I am
> getting really worried.
>
> anyway, this group is perfect for me.
> all I ever talk about is Rome, and Roman History. I have a hobby of
> going through history books and encyclopedia's and marking them all
> up and taking notes over them, also going online and printing off
> pages and pages of outlines of Roman History.
> I love Rome. I wish I would have been alive during the times of the
> Romans.... this is a second chance for me to find people with whom I
> belong.
>
> If someone wants to reply to this, it's better to email me personally
> at charlotte98@--------

Subject:	AW: [novaroma] Edictum Propraetoricium XXXIII about the appointment of a "Scriba Explorator" in the Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
From:	<3s@-------->
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:05:58 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Quirites.

I would like to congratulate both Caius Puteus and Caeso Fabius. Caius Puteus for his appointment as Explorator in the Academia Thules, Caeso Fabius for choosing such an able and promising citizen.

Good luck, and may the gods be with you!

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
Candidate for Censor

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: POSTULATIO and Language question
From:	"amrcg" <amg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 08:18:50 -0000

Salve amice Tite Horati Attice

> Antonius Gryllus, one of the first citizens I had the pleasure to
spoke to
> in 1998 wrote this: (entire message bellow)
> >I disagre, amice. And I ask you again to change your actitude to a
> >more constructive one. Why don't you contribute with some good
> >research material or Latin translation to the web site? What do you
> >think?
> I thank you for calling me amicus. I admire your devotion to
Religio Romana
> and your permanent work to the Respublica. I agree I could help
more. This
> is why I accepted being Legatus in Rio de Janeiro. This is why I am
running
> for Rogator this year. But I could help more, anyway.
> I was a little sad about the tune of your message, but I tryed to
extract
> the best of it. Thanks for commenting my opinions.
I didn't want you to feel sad. I just wanted to remind that this
respublica is so young and there are so few citizens really
interested on it that we must carefully measure each of our words and
acts. I just wanted to show to you that your arguments were not
convincing, for the history of citizen Limitanus in this list prevent
your words from translating the most correct decisions to be taken.
In a different context I would agree with you, but not in this
specific case.

Lets concentrate our efforts on the language policy, which is a
better cause. Lets all shout that Latin is the language of the Romans
and thus should be excempt from any translations no matter how many
citizens are able to speak it. Some people defend that English should
replace Latin. This is the same as saying that Christianity should
replace the Religio Romana if the majority of citizens are christian.
And of course I'm a deadly enemy of this solution.
Latin must be the official language of Nova Roma. And this is the
ideal we must fight for. And if the Curator Sermonis does not know
Latin so that he can moderate Latin posts, he can either get the
support of a translator or resign.

Vale bene
Graecus

Subject:	[novaroma] Election Decisions
From:	MarcusAudens@--------
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:15:43 -0500 (EST)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I stand before you for the last time as a Candidate for Quaestor before
the coming election. I would like in this closing presentation to make
a couple of points, if I may:

1. The importance of this election has certainly been well discussed in
the last few days. However, I do not believe that it has been
overemphesized at all. I want to urge all Citizens to cast their vote
for the Candidates who seem to you not necessarily to be the most
flamboyant, not necessarily the most colorful nor those who necessarily
warn of tradgedy to Nova Roma if they are not elected, but rather those
Candidates who have done the best job or will have the plans to do the
best job of keeping Nova Roma an interesting place, a place for the
Religio Romano to live and those who will review the real concerns of
Nova Roma and then take reasonable steps to address those concerns.

2. Our micronation has grown rapidly in the last few years and in doing
so we have managed to deal with most of the problems that we have faced
to the satisfaction of the Majority which is what our national documents
call for. We have not been so successful in our outreach to those of
our citizens who may have a different view than the rest of us. I would
ask all in Nova Roma, to take a step back and take a good long look at
what you have said and what you have done to assist the micronation in
growing closer together both in it's various parts and also as
individuals. This is not to say, that we must all agree, for that will
never happen, but let us, each of us, strive in just one instance in the
coming year to disagree in civility, with the effort of looking
carefully at our opponent to see if there is any idea therein that has
the possibility of making Nova Roma better, and then try our level best
to come to some agreement on how to make such an advantage happen. If
we all will bend toward our opponents sixty / forty, we cannot help but
to improve our micronation.

3. Lastly, I want to say what an honor it has been to run in this
election, win, lose or draw with the Candidaes found herein. I am
pleased that I have been afforded this privaledge and I withdraw to
await the results of the election, satisfied that the vote of the
Citizens of this Micronation will again show the way to what they want
and desire from the candidates that they will choose.

I thank you Citizens for your patience in these last few days with the
goings on of election time and your very kind attention to my comments
on the Main List.

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Candidate For Quaestor

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: POSTULATIO
From:	"flaviusdio" <3s@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:23:14 -0000

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Praetor omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Tite Horati Attice, you asked me to propose an Intercessio against
Priscilla Vedia Serena. I reviewed your reasons listed below, and I
recognize your right to propose me that Intercessio.

During election times, the position of the Curator Sermonem is of
course a very difficult one. Election campaigns can be hard and
debates can be very harsh, as we all could see. It becomes mor
difficult if the Curator Sermonem is directly involved in election
campaigns.

Tite Horati Attice, to make it short, I will not pronounce Intercessio
against Priscilla Vedia Serena. Here are my reasons:

I. Elections are starting tomorrow, and the campaigning period comes
to the end. If there would be any damage due to censorship (by this I
donīt state that there was any censorship on this list!), an
Intercessio would be unsuitable here to limit this possible damage.

II. Citizen Limitanus presented some excerpts which could be
considered as possible censorship by the current Curatrix Sermonem.
Any evidence presented to claims should be viewed and considered well,
and because of the quick reaction you demand, itīs impossible to view
the material presented, decide about whether itīs true or not, and
formulate the unbiased decision awaited by a Praetor.

III. Cui bono? If Prisiclla Vedia really censored the list, to improve
her chances to be elected, why didnīt she censor my posts? All posts I
wrote appeared on the list immediately.

IV. There are, of course, also political reasons for my decision.
Citizen Limitanus is for himself candidate for Curator Sermonem, so a
direct opponent to Priscilla Vedia Serena. As I am, in the run for the
office of Censor. If I would intervene here, I could be accused to
abuse my imperium to improve my election chances. This is what I want
to avoid, since this is neither my intention nor my political culture
to act in such a way.

Tite Horati Attice, I hope you understand my reasons why I cannot
pronounce an Intercessio in this case. There are legal and political
reasons. Only a Magistrate not running for any office in this campaign
would be able to decide unbiased.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator



--- In novaroma@--------, "Martins-Esteves" <esteves@c...> wrote:
> Praetor CAIUS FLAVIUS DIOCLETIANUS
>
>
>
>
> POSTULATIO
>
>
>
>
> TITUS HORATIUS ATTICUS, civis Novae Romae, pater familias, asks you
to propose an INTERCESSIO against PRISCILLA VEDIA, civis, curatrix
sermonem, based on the reasons listed bellow.
>
> DE FACTO
>
> I. Priscilla Vedia, curatrix sermonem, is responsible for the
maintenance and moderation of the official email discussion list. It
has become notorious that she has been performing previous censorship
over the messages from a candidate for the elections to be: the so
called moderated status. That is how Priscilla Vedia explained this
satus, in verbis:
> "Moderated status does not interfere with a
> cive's ability to speak freely. Unless his post is something
actionable
> under the Constitution, it goes through exactly as written.
Therefore, his
> free opinions are here for all to see, simply delayed for a time
until
> myself or my scriba can approve it."
>
> II. It is now time for the debates before the elections and it is
imperative that all candidates have unmoderated access to the main
list. Each abuse or danger to the Constitution or the Res Publica must
be sanctioned after it is done, and not before, during the elections
period. This time must be the utmost democratic and uncensored, so
that no missunderstanding or suspicion about the elections and the
debates can damage the results of voting. It is imperative that no
candidate suffer any sort of previous control of his or her messages,
whatsoever.
>
> III. The question must be solved using the Proportionality: it is
much more important for Nova Roma to have a completely free debate
than to control the postings of a single citizen, because one of his
messages COULD be harmful to the Constitution. What IS effectively
harmfull for the Constitution is previous censorship during the
electoral debates.
>
> DE IURE
>
> I. I have the right to propose you this INTERCESSIO, since I have
the constitutional right to vote in elections (Const.NR ART. II, B,
3). And I need all information I can have about the candidates with no
sort of previous restriction.
>
> II. I come before you, as the Praetor has the constitutional right
to pronounce intercessio against another praetor or magistrate of
lesser authority (Const.NR IV,3,d). No law, considering the principle
of the Legal Precedence of our Constitution (Const.NR ART I,B), can
take this right-responsability inherent to your charge.
>
> III. Priscilla Vedia' authority to exerce her control derives from
the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, which complements the Constitution (ART.
II, B, 4). The Constitution says each civis has, in verbis
>
> "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining
order and civility." (my italics)
>
> The Constitution (nor the Lex Vedia) does not allow her to control
previously the messages of a candidate in such a manner during the
Electoral Debates. Acting in this way she abuses her authority.
>
> PETITA
>
> I. I ask that moderated status be supressed during the elections on
behalf of the Rights of the Citizenry and the Political Order.
>
> II. Considering there is
> PERICULUM IN MORA (danger in waiting too long for your decision),
as the elections are iminent;
> FUMUS BONI IURIS (that is, my plea seems to be fair), as both the
Constitution and the Law proved my point
> I also ask that, before your final decision, you grant immediately
on a provisory basis the suspension of the moderated status.
>
> Iustitia quae sera tamen!
>
>
> Titus Horatius Atticus
> civis
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Renewed public petition
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 04:43:16 EST

In a message dated 12/6/01 3:21:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, pkkt@--------
writes:

Salvete!
> We have conflicting opinions on both candidates. We should be able to hear
> both sides freely because it is to the benefit of this nation.
>

QFM: Amulius Claudius Petrus, define "freely." Does Villius get his point
across?
I certainly understood his platform quite well. I'm sure you did as well.

> Frankly, I am surprised you support this. True what she is doing is legal.
> This does not make it right. To have a proper election we need to be
> guaranteed to be able to hear all opinions expressed by all candidates. How
> are we to make the proper decision when voting if we are not guaranteed to
> be hearing all of what is being said by both candidates?
>

QFM: Excuse me Amulius Claudius Petrus, I am Praetor Urbanus of New Rome.
My likes and dislikes take a backseat to the law. The edictum issued by the
consuls allow her to do this. Next year perhaps another edictum by the
Consuls will reverse it, and if I'm still sitting as Praetor I'll have to
enforce that edictum.
You are hearing what the candidates are saying. You are hearing it just
later
then one candidate on moderated status wants it to be heard. The information
still is getting to the forum. There is no changing or deleting of the
message.

>
> He may of earned what he received. Although being a candidate for curator at
> the same time while being censored could be a form of abusing the power of
> the office. Both candidates would not have an equal advantage while
> campaigning. I don't believe Vedia is doing this, but it is possible. It
> would be preferable to see this scenario avoided completely by never having
> candidates for curator censored.
>

QFM: If she was to do that she would be breaking the law. However she is not
doing what you suggest. She says she is not, and Villius is not claiming
that she is doing that.
I understand what you are saying Amulius Claudius, remove the temptation from
the office. All our magistrates must deal with the power of imperium of
their offices. If we start removing temptation from all our offices, we are
not going to be a nation of laws are we? We are going to be a nation of
opportunists.

>
> Yes, there is not a law against this. Vedia does not have to listen. In the
> new year I think this is something that should be clarified. I could see
> this becoming a problem if we got a curator not as responsible as our
> current one. We should have a fail safe against such an event.
>
>

QFM: Now that you have pointed it out, perhaps we will next consulship.
Until then, we operate under the existing edictum.
Valete,

Q. Fabius Maximus





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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Renewed public petition
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	07 Dec 2001 08:44:44 -0200

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 07:43, QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
> In a message dated 12/6/01 3:21:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, pkkt@--------
> writes:
>
> Salvete!
> > We have conflicting opinions on both candidates. We should be able to hear
> > both sides freely because it is to the benefit of this nation.
> >
>
> QFM: Amulius Claudius Petrus, define "freely." Does Villius get his point
> across?
> I certainly understood his platform quite well. I'm sure you did as well.
>
> > Frankly, I am surprised you support this. True what she is doing is legal.
> > This does not make it right. To have a proper election we need to be
> > guaranteed to be able to hear all opinions expressed by all candidates. How
> > are we to make the proper decision when voting if we are not guaranteed to
> > be hearing all of what is being said by both candidates?
> >
>
> QFM: Excuse me Amulius Claudius Petrus, I am Praetor Urbanus of New Rome.
> My likes and dislikes take a backseat to the law. The edictum issued by the
> consuls allow her to do this. Next year perhaps another edictum by the
> Consuls will reverse it, and if I'm still sitting as Praetor I'll have to
> enforce that edictum.
> You are hearing what the candidates are saying. You are hearing it just
> later
> then one candidate on moderated status wants it to be heard. The information
> still is getting to the forum. There is no changing or deleting of the
> message.

Using your former TV analogy, the candidates get equal time of speech
the only difference is one of them gets it on prime time the other
around midnight. Fair elections no doubt :)

>
> >
> > He may of earned what he received. Although being a candidate for curator at
> > the same time while being censored could be a form of abusing the power of
> > the office. Both candidates would not have an equal advantage while
> > campaigning. I don't believe Vedia is doing this, but it is possible. It
> > would be preferable to see this scenario avoided completely by never having
> > candidates for curator censored.
> >
>
> QFM: If she was to do that she would be breaking the law. However she is not
> doing what you suggest. She says she is not, and Villius is not claiming
> that she is doing that.

She did not block any of my mails in this campaign.
But some answers got to the list quite simultaneously with my mails,
the simple fact of reading my speechs before they become public is
sort of an advantage.

> I understand what you are saying Amulius Claudius, remove the temptation from
> the office. All our magistrates must deal with the power of imperium of
> their offices. If we start removing temptation from all our offices, we are
> not going to be a nation of laws are we? We are going to be a nation of
> opportunists.
>
> >
> > Yes, there is not a law against this. Vedia does not have to listen. In the
> > new year I think this is something that should be clarified. I could see
> > this becoming a problem if we got a curator not as responsible as our
> > current one. We should have a fail safe against such an event.
> >
> >
>
> QFM: Now that you have pointed it out, perhaps we will next consulship.
> Until then, we operate under the existing edictum.
> Valete,
>

My opinion on this: In any case, and whoever the curator, there should
be no previous censorship during a contio, because even a delay can be
very damaging, not only for candidates but for all citizens.


Manius Villius Limitanus.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: POSTULATIO and Language question
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	07 Dec 2001 08:57:07 -0200

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 06:18, amrcg wrote:
> Salve amice Tite Horati Attice
>
> > Antonius Gryllus, one of the first citizens I had the pleasure to
> spoke to
> > in 1998 wrote this: (entire message bellow)
> > >I disagre, amice. And I ask you again to change your actitude to a
> > >more constructive one. Why don't you contribute with some good
> > >research material or Latin translation to the web site? What do you
> > >think?
> > I thank you for calling me amicus. I admire your devotion to
> Religio Romana
> > and your permanent work to the Respublica. I agree I could help
> more. This
> > is why I accepted being Legatus in Rio de Janeiro. This is why I am
> running
> > for Rogator this year. But I could help more, anyway.
> > I was a little sad about the tune of your message, but I tryed to
> extract
> > the best of it. Thanks for commenting my opinions.
> I didn't want you to feel sad. I just wanted to remind that this
> respublica is so young and there are so few citizens really
> interested on it that we must carefully measure each of our words and
> acts. I just wanted to show to you that your arguments were not
> convincing, for the history of citizen Limitanus in this list prevent
> your words from translating the most correct decisions to be taken.
> In a different context I would agree with you, but not in this
> specific case.
>

Did you read the mail that subjected me to previous censorship?

And I say it again none of the effectivelly censored (blocked, non
appearing on the list with an answer from P. Vedia) was in anyway a
"clear danger to the Republic", all but one were directed against
Consul Vedius and/or P. Vedia and not even in bad language,
the 2 mails that finally hit this list last week are totally
representative of them.


Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Latin (was Renewed public petition)
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 16:08:00 +0100

Salve T. Labiene Fortunate Tite Horati

Sorry for dropping in. :o)

labienus@-------- wrote:

>>A propos, I think the correct form would be accusative for sermo, am I
>>right? Curator/trix sermonem.
>>
>Why the accusative? Curator "of the conversation" would seem to imply the
>genitive case to me.
>
It's Curator/Curatrix sermonis, using the genitive case, perfectly. What
(s)he is doing is described by the phrase: "curare sermonem", but using
the noun curator/curatrix you have to link sermo with a genitivus
objectivus.

Bene valete

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna _
====================== \\
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori /\~/\ / )
Propraetori Provinciae Germaniae ( )~~~----...,, __/ /
Procuratrix Provinciae Germaniae \` ī/ /
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus \v/ _____( |
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque / \| |~~~~ī \ \ \
Sodalitatis Musarum ( ( | | ) /\ )
Civis NovaRomana \_\| | _/ / _| |
Auctrix Bibliotheca Germaniae /__/ /__/ /__/
http://www.BibliothecaGermanica.de/

Subject:	[novaroma] Elections
From:	"g_popillius_laenas" <ksterne@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 16:15:10 -0000

Gaius Popillius Laenas Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit,

As the contio closes I come before for a last time as candidate for
Quaestor. If elected, I pledge to use my talents, time and energy to
the fullest to further the goals of our Republic.

The elections begins tomorrow. Make your voice heard. Vote!

Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
Praefectus Regio Magna Flumen America Austrorientalis
Candidate for Quaestor

Subject:	[novaroma] More Saturnalia Info
From:	Piparskeggr - Venator <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:15:33 -0600

Avete Omnes,

A website detailing the author's research into the sequence and methods of celebration for the
Saturnalia:

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/BA/PT/BA/PT/BA/OM/BA/Saturnalia.html#pileus

The URL may be overlong.

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives Nova Romana et Paterfamilias
Domus Familias
http://www.geocities.com/gens_ulleria/index.html

002 Mind's reach should have, no bounds in search
For meaning and wit, riddles to solve
To seek and think, are greatest skills
In mankind's grasp, oftimes unused
- Piparskeggrsmal, Book 2

Subject:	[novaroma] Censor Handbook now available!
From:	Oppius Flaccus Severus <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:06:17 -0800

Salvete Quiritibus;

It is my pleasure and honour to send version 1.0 of the Censor Handbook
web site to the Respublica for your review (and hopefully, enjoyment :-)
This is a project that Censor Sulla and I have been collaborating on for
several months.

My hope is that it will be meaningful and useful to someone. Please have a
look if the opportunity presents itself and send any feedback to me directly
at <oppiusflaccus@-------->

As with any first version of anything, there are bound to be 'issues' so please
don't hesitate to send any notices of same to yours truly. Some suggestions
may be incorporated directly or put on hold until version 2.0 comes out, which
should include things like flow charts for clarifying some of the longer
processes
such as citizenship approval or placement into tribes and centuries.

So, without further ado -here's the link. Enjoy!

http://home.earthink.net/~alexious

Bene valete in Pace Deorum,
-Oppius

Subject:	[novaroma] Intersessio
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:41:43 -0500 (EST)

Bravo Senator Dio and well said!!! Your views are exactly what I would
expect from the gentleman that I know well and admire more.

Your balanced view of the request, your position, the timing of the
request, and the determination of the result is in my view well thought
out.

To those who oppose Pricilla Vedia's procedures, let me say this:---
Let us determine how we may better gain a clear understanding of what is
said on the main list, before we change our present policy. I am not
opposed to the use of languages other than English and neither is
Priscilla. I am not opposed to the use of Latin, when I can understand
it. Even the books which we use to familarize ourselves with what our
Roman ancestors said and thought, are currently printed in both Latin
and English (and I would suppose in other languages as well). Latin
dictionaries even in such remote places as Maderia. Hong Kong,
Cartahena, Columbia and Iraklion, Crete are sold in Latin and English
translations. Few bookstores the world over offer nothing translated
into English. Those who oppose the policies of Mistress Vedia seem to
me would impose the same restriction on the majority of active citizens
that the opposition to the cuurent policies claim is being imposed on
them. Furthr it seems tome that they oppose the policies recognized in
our current world situation. As a Senator I must understand the needs
of those who post to the Main List. The world is an imperfect place,
but the recognized language of diplomacy and commerce is English and has
been for any years. That is a simple fact, therefore in my view those
who wish to enter into a world-wide network must adapt. When I lived in
Spain, I had to adapt to the Spanish language, when I visited Italy, and
the other countries, that I have previously listed, it was necessary for
me to adapt or not communicate. No-one thought that I was being put
upon by this requirement since the language "of that nation" was
paramount, and the pride of the citizens of that nation demanded that I
at least "try" before they would help me. Here we have a much more
friendly way of welcoming our citizens who are not native English
speakers and many ready to translate thier thoghts. This is a
world-wide micronation and such a world-wide requirement for English is
in place here and rightly so, for the understanding of the largest
majority. Those who oppose our current policies well understnd that
and, apparently in my view, simply wish to exchange one venue of the
majority convienience for a convienience of thier own which is
essentially a minority one. If this does not sound right to the members
of the opposition I would ask you to explain to me where I am wrong
based on the Constitution and laws of Nova Roma, rather than on the
basis of your desires, and change my views.

Until such time as we can bring to the board a better system to allow
the largest number of citizens to be aware of what is said on our Main
List, it would seem that we will exchange one problem for another even
worse one.

In the last part of this discussion I have heard the comment, "it may be
what the majority wish but it is not right!!"

That is the opinion of the minority. You have been heard, such is the
make-up of this micronaion and such are it's laws. The Majority rules
and the Minority has the right to be heard. Our next step now is for the
Minority, workng constructively with the Majority to come up with a
better way to do things.

Waiving an Intersessio, crying "Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!", or a constant
stream of abuse directed at your target hoping to wear down the will of
the majority does not appear to me to be constructive, but rather
damaging to the micronation, bullheaded in the refusal to seek real
solutions, and stupid in that it flies in the face of our established
laws for the control of civility on our Main List which was proved to be
necessary just a short time ago.

You attack Mstress Vedia, but your target should rather be the Senate
and the Magistrates. Your target should be an item placed before the
people for a vote. Your target should not be a hard-working Curator and
her staff carrying out the laws of the micronation. Such a path is
little better than harassment.

I stand for the office of Magistrate on the basis of my Oath which in
part says that I will take no action that will hurt Nova Roma. I have
no doubt that those who raise this question have thier sincere concerns.
I offer myself to assist in the search for this solution, but only in a
constructive way.

"The Majority Rules and the Minority has the Right to be Heard."

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censor Handbook now available!
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 14:36:49 -0600

Salve Oppi Flacce

First, it's good to see you back among us on the main list. I've missed
having you around.

Second, http://home.earthink.net/~alexious doesn't seem to work for me.
It keeps dropping me at the base earthlink page.


Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
Quicquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.




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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censor Handbook now available!
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:04:25 -0800

Ave,

Try just copying home.earthlink.net/~alexious

That worked perfectly fine. Because when I clicked on the hyperlink I got the same error.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
----- Original Message -----
From: Fortunatus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Censor Handbook now available!


Salve Oppi Flacce

First, it's good to see you back among us on the main list. I've missed
having you around.

Second, http://home.earthink.net/~alexious doesn't seem to work for me.
It keeps dropping me at the base earthlink page.


Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
Quicquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Renewed public petition
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:59:19 -0500

Salve,

>QFabiusMaxmi@-------- at QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
>
> QFM: Amulius Claudius Petrus, define "freely." Does Villius get his point
> across?
> I certainly understood his platform quite well. I'm sure you did as well.

Sure, he gets his point across. Although, not as well as he possibly could
be if he was able to actively take part without being on a delay because of
censoring. It's just not equal for both candidates.

> QFM: Excuse me Amulius Claudius Petrus, I am Praetor Urbanus of New Rome.
> My likes and dislikes take a backseat to the law. The edictum issued by the
> consuls allow her to do this. Next year perhaps another edictum by the
> Consuls will reverse it, and if I'm still sitting as Praetor I'll have to
> enforce that edictum.
> You are hearing what the candidates are saying. You are hearing it just
> later
> then one candidate on moderated status wants it to be heard. The information
> still is getting to the forum. There is no changing or deleting of the
> message.
>

I understand where you are comming from. I can see how there is nothing you
can legally do. I just consider this a little glitch in the system... I wish
it could of been avoided.

> QFM: Now that you have pointed it out, perhaps we will next consulship.
> Until then, we operate under the existing edictum.

Yes, hopefully this will be seriously considered in the new year.

Vale,

"Quamquam cupido sit delictum ab suis crebro est mater virtutum"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Candidate for Aediles Curules
Provincia Legatus Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Retarius Officium Gens Claudia
Canada Orientalis Provincia

Please visit my campaign website at:
http://www.virtue.nu/amclaudius/index.htm

Canada Orientalis Website:
www25.brinkster.com/canorien/

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censor Handbook now available!
From:	"oppiusflaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 21:21:30 -0000

Salve Tite Labiene et Salvete Omnes;

There does seem to be some weird character stripping
of certain characters in mail sent to yahoogroups.
Apologies for any difficulty. The actual link is

http://home.earthlink.net/~alexious/

However, it may be necessary to strip out the
components individually to get it to work
correctly. (Am always having bad luck myself
with links that arrive through various yahoogroups.)

Hope this works better and gratias multas for the
kind words!

Bene valete,
-Oppius

--- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salve Oppi Flacce
>
> First, it's good to see you back among us on the main list. I've
missed
> having you around.
>
> Second, http://home.earthink.net/~alexious doesn't seem to work for
me.
> It keeps dropping me at the base earthlink page.
>
>
<snipped>

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censor Handbook now available!
From:	"radams36" <radams40@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 22:04:55 -0000

The link provided first has 'earthink' instead of 'earthlink'
(missing 'l' character) - perhaps this caused the problem?

Vale,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus

--- In novaroma@--------, "oppiusflaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:
> Salve Tite Labiene et Salvete Omnes;
>
> There does seem to be some weird character stripping
> of certain characters in mail sent to yahoogroups.
> Apologies for any difficulty. The actual link is
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~alexious/
>
> However, it may be necessary to strip out the
> components individually to get it to work
> correctly. (Am always having bad luck myself
> with links that arrive through various yahoogroups.)

> Bene valete,
> -Oppius
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> > Salve Oppi Flacce

> >
> > Second, http://home.earthink.net/~alexious doesn't seem to work
for
> me.
> > It keeps dropping me at the base earthlink page.
> >

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: POSTULATIO
From:	"Martins-Esteves" <esteves@-------->
Date:	Fri, 2 Dec 2011 01:12:19 -0200

Salvete Quirites


I am obviously not satisfied with C. Flavius' decision, but I am happy to
see how fast the solution for the case has been reached. I proposed an
Intercessio, the magistrate rejected it and that is all. No damage. Our
institutions function well and there is no reason to fear anyone who does
not agree with a given situation and tries to do something, within the
boundaries of the legal process, to modify it.

It doesn't help to comment the Praetor's decision neither. He has decided
and I don't want to insist on this. Of course I have still the right to
PROVOCATIO to the Comitia Populi Tributa, but it would be much more negative
than positive in the present situation.

I would like to thank everyone for the considerations.


Valete

Titus Horatius Atticus




>Caius Flavius Diocletianus Praetor omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
>Tite Horati Attice, you asked me to propose an Intercessio against
>Priscilla Vedia Serena. I reviewed your reasons listed below, and I
>recognize your right to propose me that Intercessio.
>
>During election times, the position of the Curator Sermonem is of
>course a very difficult one. Election campaigns can be hard and
>debates can be very harsh, as we all could see. It becomes mor
>difficult if the Curator Sermonem is directly involved in election
>campaigns.
>
>Tite Horati Attice, to make it short, I will not pronounce Intercessio
>against Priscilla Vedia Serena. Here are my reasons:
>
>I. Elections are starting tomorrow, and the campaigning period comes
>to the end. If there would be any damage due to censorship (by this I
>donīt state that there was any censorship on this list!), an
>Intercessio would be unsuitable here to limit this possible damage.
>
>II. Citizen Limitanus presented some excerpts which could be
>considered as possible censorship by the current Curatrix Sermonem.
>Any evidence presented to claims should be viewed and considered well,
>and because of the quick reaction you demand, itīs impossible to view
>the material presented, decide about whether itīs true or not, and
>formulate the unbiased decision awaited by a Praetor.
>
>III. Cui bono? If Prisiclla Vedia really censored the list, to improve
>her chances to be elected, why didnīt she censor my posts? All posts I
>wrote appeared on the list immediately.
>
>IV. There are, of course, also political reasons for my decision.
>Citizen Limitanus is for himself candidate for Curator Sermonem, so a
>direct opponent to Priscilla Vedia Serena. As I am, in the run for the
>office of Censor. If I would intervene here, I could be accused to
>abuse my imperium to improve my election chances. This is what I want
>to avoid, since this is neither my intention nor my political culture
>to act in such a way.
>
>Tite Horati Attice, I hope you understand my reasons why I cannot
>pronounce an Intercessio in this case. There are legal and political
>reasons. Only a Magistrate not running for any office in this campaign
> would be able to decide unbiased.
>
>Valete
>Caius Flavius Diocletianus
>Praetor, Senator
>
>
>
>--- In novaroma@--------, "Martins-Esteves" <esteves@c...> wrote:
>> Praetor CAIUS FLAVIUS DIOCLETIANUS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> POSTULATIO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> TITUS HORATIUS ATTICUS, civis Novae Romae, pater familias, asks you
>to propose an INTERCESSIO against PRISCILLA VEDIA, civis, curatrix
>sermonem, based on the reasons listed bellow.
>>
>> DE FACTO
>>
>> I. Priscilla Vedia, curatrix sermonem, is responsible for the
>maintenance and moderation of the official email discussion list. It
>has become notorious that she has been performing previous censorship
>over the messages from a candidate for the elections to be: the so
>called moderated status. That is how Priscilla Vedia explained this
>satus, in verbis:
>> "Moderated status does not interfere with a
>> cive's ability to speak freely. Unless his post is something
>actionable
>> under the Constitution, it goes through exactly as written.
>Therefore, his
>> free opinions are here for all to see, simply delayed for a time
>until
>> myself or my scriba can approve it."
>>
>> II. It is now time for the debates before the elections and it is
>imperative that all candidates have unmoderated access to the main
>list. Each abuse or danger to the Constitution or the Res Publica must
>be sanctioned after it is done, and not before, during the elections
>period. This time must be the utmost democratic and uncensored, so
>that no missunderstanding or suspicion about the elections and the
>debates can damage the results of voting. It is imperative that no
>candidate suffer any sort of previous control of his or her messages,
>whatsoever.
>>
>> III. The question must be solved using the Proportionality: it is
>much more important for Nova Roma to have a completely free debate
>than to control the postings of a single citizen, because one of his
>messages COULD be harmful to the Constitution. What IS effectively
>harmfull for the Constitution is previous censorship during the
>electoral debates.
>>
>> DE IURE
>>
>> I. I have the right to propose you this INTERCESSIO, since I have
>the constitutional right to vote in elections (Const.NR ART. II, B,
>3). And I need all information I can have about the candidates with no
>sort of previous restriction.
>>
>> II. I come before you, as the Praetor has the constitutional right
>to pronounce intercessio against another praetor or magistrate of
>lesser authority (Const.NR IV,3,d). No law, considering the principle
>of the Legal Precedence of our Constitution (Const.NR ART I,B), can
>take this right-responsability inherent to your charge.
>>
>> III. Priscilla Vedia' authority to exerce her control derives from
>the Lex Vedia Vigintisexviri, which complements the Constitution (ART.
>II, B, 4). The Constitution says each civis has, in verbis
>>
>> "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and
>the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the
>State. Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be
>restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and
>clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
>expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining
>order and civility." (my italics)
>>
>> The Constitution (nor the Lex Vedia) does not allow her to control
>previously the messages of a candidate in such a manner during the
>Electoral Debates. Acting in this way she abuses her authority.
>>
>> PETITA
>>
>> I. I ask that moderated status be supressed during the elections on
>behalf of the Rights of the Citizenry and the Political Order.
>>
>> II. Considering there is
>> PERICULUM IN MORA (danger in waiting too long for your decision),
>as the elections are iminent;
>> FUMUS BONI IURIS (that is, my plea seems to be fair), as both the
>Constitution and the Law proved my point
>> I also ask that, before your final decision, you grant immediately
>on a provisory basis the suspension of the moderated status.
>>
>> Iustitia quae sera tamen!
>>
>>
>> Titus Horatius Atticus
>> civis
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] More Saturnalia Info
From:	"Caius Puteus Germanicus" <puteus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:28:32 +0100

Ave Piperbarbe Honorabilis!

Thank you for your quick response to my question about the saturnalia. The website contains a lot of useful information.

Vale optime in pace deorum!

Caius Puteus Germanicus
Civis Provinciae Novae Romae Galliae / Germaniae Inferioris
Rogator MMDXXIV AUC
Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressi Germaniae Inferioris Europaeque Occidentalis
Scriba Explorator Academiae Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
http://www.geocities.com/germania_inferior/
http://www.geocities.com/caius_puteus_germanicus/

----- Original Message -----
From: Piparskeggr - Venator
To: Forum Nova Roma
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: [novaroma] More Saturnalia Info


Avete Omnes,

A website detailing the author's research into the sequence and methods of celebration for the
Saturnalia:

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/BA/PT/BA/PT/BA/OM/BA/Saturnalia.html#pileus

The URL may be overlong.

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives Nova Romana et Paterfamilias
Domus Familias
http://www.geocities.com/gens_ulleria/index.html

002 Mind's reach should have, no bounds in search
For meaning and wit, riddles to solve
To seek and think, are greatest skills
In mankind's grasp, oftimes unused
- Piparskeggrsmal, Book 2

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Latin (was Renewed public petition)
From:	"Martins-Esteves" <esteves@-------->
Date:	Fri, 2 Dec 2011 02:39:04 -0200

Salve Lucilla Cornelia
Salve T. Labiene


My sleepy neurons caught me again. In fact, when I read Labienus' message I
opened my Gaffiot (I had to do it before) and saw 'curator negotiorum',
'curator apum' etc. Of course it was genitive!
I never write (and have never written) Latin, and get sometimes confused
about the simpliest things. I got confused about the acusative of the verb
curare (as you pointed out, Lucilla Cornelia) and supposed that the
correlate adjective curator requered the accusative as well and not, as the
common rule, the genitive.
Well, the best thing I got from this experience was to review the chapter
about the complements of the adjective: "decem pedem altus", "cupidus
gloriae", "venia indignus" and so on.

In the hope to be "venia dignus" for this mistake,

Valete

Atticus









>Salve T. Labiene Fortunate Tite Horati
>
>Sorry for dropping in. :o)
>
>labienus@-------- wrote:
>
>>>A propos, I think the correct form would be accusative for sermo, am I
>>>right? Curator/trix sermonem.
>>>
>>Why the accusative? Curator "of the conversation" would seem to imply the
>>genitive case to me.
>>
>It's Curator/Curatrix sermonis, using the genitive case, perfectly. What
>(s)he is doing is described by the phrase: "curare sermonem", but using
>the noun curator/curatrix you have to link sermo with a genitivus
>objectivus.
>
>Bene valete
>
>Lucilla Cornelia Cinna _
>====================== \\
>Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori /\~/\ / )
> Propraetori Provinciae Germaniae ( )~~~----...,, __/ /
>Procuratrix Provinciae Germaniae \` ī/ /
>Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus \v/ _____( |
>Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque / \| |~~~~ī \ \ \
> Sodalitatis Musarum ( ( | | ) /\ )
>Civis NovaRomana \_\| | _/ / _| |
>Auctrix Bibliotheca Germaniae /__/ /__/ /__/
> http://www.BibliothecaGermanica.de/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>




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

Subject:	[novaroma] Just an observation
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <pokrock@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 19:33:28 -0000

Salve,

Just an observation from someone who's opinion as a potential citizen
really doesn't carry much weight as one who can not vote in the
upcoming elections, but then at the same time I have no vested
interest in the outcome of the elections either.

I've been reading the forum with interest in the varied political
opinions, in particular the debate surrounding the office of
Curator/Curatrix sermonis. A few simple observations:

1) The Novaroma forum on Yahoo is a moderated group, the moderator
being the Curator/Curatrix Sermonis, an elected office.

2) As the position of Curator/Curatrix Sermonis being an elected
office of the Republic of Nova Roma that places this forum directly
under the control of the Republic, making it akin to a state run
medium.

3) While I have seen no evidence of deliberate or accidental
silencing the campaign(s) of any candidate for any position, I am
bothered that the office of Curator/Curatrix Sermonis is an elected
position as this creates a distinct conflict of interest.

4) It is my opinion, for what it is worth, due to this distinct
conflict of interest:

a) The office of Curator/Curatrix Sermonis be a position
appointed by the Senate akin to governorship that may or may not be
prorogued at the Senate's discretion.

or

b) The office of Curator/Curatrix Sermonis remain an elected
position but under the law no candidate for any office may be placed
on moderated status from the time of announcement of candidacy until
the election.

Pax,


Quintus Cassius Calvus (should the Censors approve my citizenship
after the elections)

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censor Handbook now available!
From:	"oppiusflaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 07 Dec 2001 22:44:29 -0000

Salve,

An excellent observation mi Rufe. The second
URL submitted is indeed correct. Please send
any comments on the site to me directly.

Bene vale,
-Oppius

--- In novaroma@--------, "radams36" <radams40@j...> wrote:
> The link provided first has 'earthink' instead of 'earthlink'
> (missing 'l' character) - perhaps this caused the problem?
>
> Vale,
>
> Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "oppiusflaccus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> wrote:
> > Salve Tite Labiene et Salvete Omnes;
> >
> > There does seem to be some weird character stripping
> > of certain characters in mail sent to yahoogroups.
> > Apologies for any difficulty. The actual link is
> >
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~alexious/
> >
> > However, it may be necessary to strip out the
> > components individually to get it to work
> > correctly. (Am always having bad luck myself
> > with links that arrive through various yahoogroups.)
>
> > Bene valete,
> > -Oppius
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> > > Salve Oppi Flacce
>
> > >
> > > Second, http://home.earthink.net/~alexious doesn't seem to work
> for
> > me.
> > > It keeps dropping me at the base earthlink page.
> > >