Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Warp Weighted Loom Woes
From:	"yasminalghazali" <yasminalghazali@-------->
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:35:50 -0000

Yes, normally the woven work pinches in. You can prevent that, if you
get a tool, which holds your work always in the same shape. It`s made
of wood and has a kind of nails on both ends, which get pinched into
the woven work. As well you can make it of cardboard with some kind
of very strong cloth-pegs at both ends. Cut the cardboard (strong as
well) so many centimeters long as the widh of your woven cloth is.
Fix it some 3 cm away from where you are actually are weaving, on the
woven cloth. Move it every 2 or 3 cm you weave or so, you will notice
how it works and it keeps your woven material at the same width. It`s
important, too, that when you put the weft it, don`t put it in
straight, put it in in a bow or diagonally, that as well prevents
your material from shrinking. Good look! For more questions, write to
me or try the SCA-mailing-list, there are all the professionals, you
can ask them any question. You find the adress in www.weavershand.com
Beata Salicia Saltata



--- In novaroma@--------, Decimus Antoninius Aquitanius <romalist2@-------->
wrote:
>
> Well, they aren't big woes, I still have some tricks
> up my sleeve. However, I built a warp weighted loom
> as many cultures have used, but my work pinches in at
> the sides as I go. I was wondering if anyone has
> experience with this problem or knows a solution. I
> would appreciate any help!
>
> Valete!
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Send your holiday cheer with http://greetings.yahoo.ca

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	20 Dec 2001 21:05:54 -0200

On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 16:39, QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
> In a message dated 12/19/01 2:56:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> tjalens.h@-------- writes:
>
>
> > The fact that Illustrus Titus Labienus Fortunatus sometimes is active at
> > one or two lists organised by Societas Via Romana is absolutely irrelevant
> > to his activities here in Nova Roma. I have the utmost trust for him and I
> > recommend all cives to treat him fairly as I am sure that he will continue
> > to be an asset to our beloved Res Publica.
>
> Salvete.
> I have to agree with kinsman Fabius here. Titus Labienus has friends he made
> here in NR that are now part of the SVR. It is asking too much for man to
> ignore his friends. Nor should he.
> Besides he as his cognoname says is "fortunate." Unfortunately I have
> nothing but enemies in the SVR.
>

No you don't. Opponents sure, ennemies no.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] A Roman Villa
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:58:11 -0500 (EST)

I recently came across this little tidbit in a travel book that I was
reading:

"Notes From A Small Island", Bill Bryson, Doubleday, Great Britain, 1995

"At a place called Cole's Hill the path plunged suddenly into a
seriously overgrown wood, dark and primeval in feel and all but
impenatrable with brambles. Somewhere in here, I knew, was my goal--a
site listed on the map as "Roman Villa (remains of)." For perhaps half
an hour, I hacked through the undergrowth with my stick before I came
upon the foundations of an old wall. It looked like nothing much--the
remains of an old pigsty perhaps--but a few feet further on, all but
obscured by wild ivy, were more low walls, a whole series of them, on
both sides of the path. The path itself was paved with flagstones
underneath a carpet of wet leaves, and I knew that I was in the villa.
In one of the relic chambers, the floor had been carefully covered with
plastic fertilizer bags weighted with stones at each corner. This was
what I had come to see. I had been told about this by a friend, but had
never really believed it. For underneath those bags was a virtually
complete Roman Mosaic, about five feet square, exquisitely patterned and
flawlessly preserved, but for a tiny bit of fracturing around the edges.

I cannot tell you how odd it felt to be standing in a forgotten wood in
what had once been, in the inconcievably distant past, the home of a
Roman family, looking at a mosaic laid at least sixteen hundred years
ago, when this was an open sunny place, long before this ancient wood
grew up around it. It is one thing to see these things in museums, but
quite another to come upon one on the spot where it was laid. I have no
idea why it hadn't been gathered up and taken away to some place like
the Corinium Museum. I presume it is a terrible oversight, but I am so
grateful to have had the chance to see it. I sat for a long time on a
stone, riveted with wonder and admiration. I don't know which siezed me
more, the thought that people in togas had once stood on this floor
chatting in vernacular Latin or that it was still there, flawless and
undisturbed, amid this tangle of growth.

This may sound awfully stupid, but for the first time it dawned on me in
a kind of profound way that all those Roman antiquities I had gazed at
all these years hadn't been created with a view to ending up one day in
museums. Because the mosaic was still in it's original setting, because
it hadn't been roped off and placed inside a modern building, it was
still clearly and radiently a "floor" and not merely some diverting
artifact. This was something meant to be walked on and used, something
that had unquestionably felt the shuffle of Roman sandals. It had a
strange kind of spell about it that left me quietly agog.

After a long time. I got up and carefully put back all the fertilizer
bags and reweighted them with stones. I picked up my stick, surveyed my
work to make sure all was in order, then turned and began the long
process of hacking my way back to that strange and careless place that
is the twentieth century."
-------------------------------------------------------------

I felt much the same way in my walks down the back streets of Pompeii,
away from the crowds of sightseers. It was a strange feeling indeed,
and if I stood very still in an out of the way garden, I could almost
hear the tinkling of water splashing in a fountain, and the cries of
children at play--almost, but not quite,try as I might!!!

Respectfully Submitted;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:37:46 -0800 (PST)

He associated himself with the SVR not I
Quintus Cornelius Caesar
--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
wrote:
> Salve Quinte Corneli,
>
> You wrote to Titus Labienus:
>
> > since your constitution makes no mention of
> members
>
> > Your constitution is also very
> hypocritical...
>
> Labienus has already stated that he is *not* a
> member of SVR,
> therefore your use of the phrase "your constitution"
> is
> extremely inappropriate. It is harmful to his
> reputation to
> attempt to connect him to something he was not
> responsible for.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
> Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Replies on SVR (sorry, long)
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:51:10 -0800 (PST)

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:
Quintus Cornelius Caesar scripsit:
You be the judge. I usually don't claim moral
superiority over my fellow debater. What I was
basically doing, was defending a man who left from
Nova Roma, who is now being mocked behind is back,
without a chance to reply. Lucius Sicinius commented
on a man's character he knew little about, on a
organisation he knew even less about, and finally
someone else took liberty to put his foot into Florus'
recent marriage. This discussion was never intended to
be about bad guys and good guys.

--Based on what I've seen the past couple weeks this
man created the situation for him to be "mocked" and
in regards to a reply he left his own fault. If he
had decided to leave on better terms then this
discussion might very well not be happening.

RESPONDEO:
I completely disagree. Your reference to ETA and IRA
is off base, and has nothing to do with this
discussion. Furthermore, did it ever occur to you
that opposition is a healthy thing?

--I never stated that opposition wasn't healthy did I?
How does my reference have nothing to do with this
dicussion. I cited an example of your "healthy"
opposition and though to different extremes has
everything to do with this discusion---DIVERSITY

RESPONDEO:
He did not. I would suggest you read my rebuttal of
these accusations again before you continue to swing
the blade of accusation again. As for vulgarity,
calling the organisation I co-founded "Formyland", and
using other such descriptions is vulgar and insulting
to me. I highly suggest you check out our site for
yourself and verify Lucius Sicinius' statements.

---If he used no vulgarity then why do you say so in
your statement. Vulgarity is the exact word you used
and I carefully read your statement.
vale
Quintus Cornelius Caesar

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Revelations
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 02:01:33 -0800 (PST)

Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
belonging to two rival organziations.

There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
stock.

This is a matter of accepting the Ethical standards
that most Nonprofit organizations have for their
officers. The Intregity of Nova Roma is at stake here.

L. Sicinius Drusus

>
> "Are you or have you ever been a memeber of the
> communist party?"
>
> -Senator "Joe" McCarthy
>
> I think it's time for a reality check here.... We
> don't need a
> McCarthy-esque witch-hunt in NR for SVA members. A
> citizens private
> affiliations should be just that - private. If they
> want to reveal
> them - fine, but we can hardly require it. What
> would be the
> criteria? Every group or organization? Every Roman
> group or
> organization? Or will we generate a "proscribed"
> list or
> organizations? While I certainly didn't care much
> for the behavior of
> some of the current SVA members on this list, it is
> hardly fair to
> ascribe guilt by association. I treat every person I
> meet on thier
> individual merits, not on a basis of thier
> affiliations, nationality,
> etc., and I expect to be treated the same way in
> return, as I suspect
> do the majority of our citizens. Let us please drop
> this before we
> make a mountian from a mole hill?
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus
> Lictor Curiatus
> Legate of Massachusetts
> Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia
> Still a Canidate for Quaestor =)
>
> ICQ# 28924742
>
> "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	"Maia" <mjarc@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:29:34 +0100

Salve Pompeia Cornelia!

On 20 Dec 2001, at 21:53, you wrote:

> No, you are not being censored. It is policy that people who resign
> are placed on moderated status, not *censored* . It has been the same,
> policywise, since the spring.
>
> You are probably wondering why the delay in your message appearing?
> Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be honest. There were no
> pending messages at the time. And Priscilla, I believe, is working.

Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared _two
days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who, like
me, are on digest, three days. So I am still inclined to think it was
deliberately stopped somewhere and maybe even let through only after
my anxious message sent privatim to several dozens of people. I also
meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount of work the
curatrix and you have to do.

It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet seen
such a strong insult on this list. Some people believe it is best to
ignore such things rather than respond. It may be so, but I am not
used to being treated like an object or called sb's personal gain, in
effect, a toy, and so reacted rather nervously.

Vale bene!

Maia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Revelations
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	21 Dec 2001 08:24:29 -0200

On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 08:01, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
> citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
> Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
> belonging to two rival organziations.
>
> There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
> stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
> Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
> matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
> to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
> stock.
>

Neither NR nor SVR are companies. NR is a nation, SVR is a NGO
you are pretending there is a problem beeing, say an american magistrate
and a member of the Red Cross or Amnesty International at the same time.
This really does not make sense at all.

> This is a matter of accepting the Ethical standards
> that most Nonprofit organizations have for their
> officers. The Intregity of Nova Roma is at stake here.
>

Certainly not, many people are officers in several different non-profit
organization, often related non-profit organization. The point is
exactly the non-profit part.

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:45:08 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Michael Loughlin wrote:

> He associated himself with the SVR not I
> Quintus Cornelius Caesar

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

Titus Labienus is NOT a member of the SVR.

You have repeatedly used the phrase "your constitution"
when speaking to him, in reference to the SVR's Regula
Fundamentalis.

That is incorrect and completely unjustifiable, as is
your attempt (above) to weasel out of taking responsibility
for your words.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	"justicecmo" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:16:44 -0000

Salve,

Maia, I do believe you would do better if you actually *read* what was posted to you.

> > POMPEIA: You are probably wondering why the delay in your message appearing? Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be honest. There were no pending messages at the time.>>

Let's review that last line. "No pending messages at the time". None. Zip. Zero. Not *yours* or anyone else's. One canot approve, or
for that matter reject, a message one has not *seen*.

>>POMPEIA: And Priscilla, I believe, is working.>>

Indeed, when your "second" message appeared and was approved by Pompeia I was at work. I am at the moment too, however I do
occasionally have the opportunity to check the List via the website.

>>Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared _two days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who, like me, are on digest, three days.>>

There *was* no message received "days" ago. Period.

>>So I am still inclined to think it was deliberately stopped somewhere>>

Hmmmm. By your logic perhaps it would be fair for Pompeia and I to be "inclined to think" that you never sent a "first" message and
that this is simply the attempt of a disgruntled ex-Nova Roman to cause a stir.

>>and maybe even let through only after my anxious message sent privatim to several dozens of people.>>

You could have spammed 500 people with your message and, if it was not appropriate for this List, it *still* never would have been
approved. I clearly see your snide insinuation here that Pompeia and I somehow scurried to "cover ourselves" after you spammed so
many with your message, but the true facts are that *no* "first" message was received <sent?>, therefore no "censorship" took place.

>>I also meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount of work the curatrix and you have to do.>>

Of course you did. Unfortunately you have simply made yourself look quite foolish. Not to mention demonstrated to *all* that you are
simply looking to create an issue where none existed. You never bothered to contact either of us to inquire about the status of your
alleged "first" message. Had you genuinely been so "concerned", *that* would have been the first thing you did, not leaping to
ludicrous thoughts of some secret plot to silence you. To be frank, you give yourself far too much merit to think that either Pompeia or
myself would ever betray our oaths, let alone for such an insignificant post.

>>It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet seen such a strong insult on this list.>>

Yes, your spamming many people with your personal quibble is proof enough of that. Such a strong insult? My dear, you may not
agree with his views of you or your actions but the post in question was hardly an attack. I will note here also that, had you
*genuinely* felt so strongly that you had been attacked, I find it ever more curious that you chose not to contact the exact two people
who could have taken action on your behalf in this matter. As for never seeing strong insults here on the List, I will choose to thank
you for acknowledging what a terrific job Pompeia and I do to keep such inappropriate things from the List members. :)

>>Some people believe it is best to gnore such things rather than respond. It may be so, but I am not used to being treated like an object or called sb's personal gain, in effect, a toy, and so reacted rather nervously.>>

Nervously? No, I believe the more appropriate word is "badly". You ignored all avenues of correcting the problem you perceived with
the original post, you cast unfounded allegations against myself and Pompeia and then proceeded to spam dozens of innocent
individuals.

I wish you well in the SVR. May you conduct yourself far better in their organization than you have here.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
Lictor


> Vale bene!
>
> Maia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Revelations
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 07:01:02 -0800

Michel Loos wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 08:01, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
> > citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
> > Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
> > belonging to two rival organziations.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
> > stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
> > Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
> > matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
> > to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
> > stock.
> >
>
> Neither NR nor SVR are companies. NR is a nation, SVR is a NGO
> you are pretending there is a problem beeing, say an american
> magistrate
> and a member of the Red Cross or Amnesty International at the same
> time.
> This really does not make sense at all.

Ave,

Correction Manius Villius, Nova Roma is a not for profit corporation
registered in the great state of Maine. We are bound by the Federal
Laws of the United States and of the State of Maine. We are bound by
many of the same laws of the Red Cross and Amnesty International since
they are Not for Profit Corporations.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul-Elect

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Voting Results: Comitia Plebis Tributa
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:21:12 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

> In the race for tribunus plebis:
> Cnaeus Salix Astur - XXXII tribus (32 tribes)
> Marcus Arminius Maior - XXVII tribus (27 tribes)

Marcus Arminius: I want to compliment Gnaeus Salix in
their victory, and thank to the people for electing
myself Tribunus.

> In the race for aedilis plebeius:
> Sextus Apollonius Draco - XXVI tribus (26
> tribes)
> Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix - XX tribus (20 tribes)
> Caius Sentius Bruttius Sura - XIV tribus (14
> tribes)

Marcus Arminius: My compliments to you, Draco! You
deserved the victory very much. My compliments to
Cicatrix for your election and Gaius Sentius for your
participation.

Valete
Marcus Artminius Maior
Aedilis Plebeius
Tribunus Plebis elected

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] ELECTION RESULTS
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:26:50 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

I want to add my congratulations to all people that
candidated and voted in the elections of this year.

Marcus Arminius Maior

--- cassius622@-------- escreveu: > Salvete Omnes,
>
> The rogators have sent me the final results of the
> elections. I wish to thank
> them for their hard work - the position of Rogator
> is a 'behind the scenes'
> job which indeed gets too little mention.
>
> I also wish to publicly congratulate our newly
> elected magistrates!
>
> -Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Consul
>

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	21 Dec 2001 12:34:55 -0200

Salve,

If this is not censorship it still is awful maintenance of the list, due
to it being given over to a foreign organism yahoogroups which offers a
lousy service.

This is not the first disapearred message and nothing has been done yet.

Manius Villius Limitanus


On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 12:16, justicecmo wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Maia, I do believe you would do better if you actually *read* what was posted to you.
>
> > > POMPEIA: You are probably wondering why the delay in your message appearing? Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be honest. There were no pending messages at the time.>>
>
> Let's review that last line. "No pending messages at the time". None. Zip. Zero. Not *yours* or anyone else's. One canot approve, or
> for that matter reject, a message one has not *seen*.
>
> >>POMPEIA: And Priscilla, I believe, is working.>>
>
> Indeed, when your "second" message appeared and was approved by Pompeia I was at work. I am at the moment too, however I do
> occasionally have the opportunity to check the List via the website.
>
> >>Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared _two days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who, like me, are on digest, three days.>>
>
> There *was* no message received "days" ago. Period.
>
> >>So I am still inclined to think it was deliberately stopped somewhere>>
>
> Hmmmm. By your logic perhaps it would be fair for Pompeia and I to be "inclined to think" that you never sent a "first" message and
> that this is simply the attempt of a disgruntled ex-Nova Roman to cause a stir.
>
> >>and maybe even let through only after my anxious message sent privatim to several dozens of people.>>
>
> You could have spammed 500 people with your message and, if it was not appropriate for this List, it *still* never would have been
> approved. I clearly see your snide insinuation here that Pompeia and I somehow scurried to "cover ourselves" after you spammed so
> many with your message, but the true facts are that *no* "first" message was received <sent?>, therefore no "censorship" took place.
>
> >>I also meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount of work the curatrix and you have to do.>>
>
> Of course you did. Unfortunately you have simply made yourself look quite foolish. Not to mention demonstrated to *all* that you are
> simply looking to create an issue where none existed. You never bothered to contact either of us to inquire about the status of your
> alleged "first" message. Had you genuinely been so "concerned", *that* would have been the first thing you did, not leaping to
> ludicrous thoughts of some secret plot to silence you. To be frank, you give yourself far too much merit to think that either Pompeia or
> myself would ever betray our oaths, let alone for such an insignificant post.
>
> >>It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet seen such a strong insult on this list.>>
>
> Yes, your spamming many people with your personal quibble is proof enough of that. Such a strong insult? My dear, you may not
> agree with his views of you or your actions but the post in question was hardly an attack. I will note here also that, had you
> *genuinely* felt so strongly that you had been attacked, I find it ever more curious that you chose not to contact the exact two people
> who could have taken action on your behalf in this matter. As for never seeing strong insults here on the List, I will choose to thank
> you for acknowledging what a terrific job Pompeia and I do to keep such inappropriate things from the List members. :)
>
> >>Some people believe it is best to gnore such things rather than respond. It may be so, but I am not used to being treated like an object or called sb's personal gain, in effect, a toy, and so reacted rather nervously.>>
>
> Nervously? No, I believe the more appropriate word is "badly". You ignored all avenues of correcting the problem you perceived with
> the original post, you cast unfounded allegations against myself and Pompeia and then proceeded to spam dozens of innocent
> individuals.
>
> I wish you well in the SVR. May you conduct yourself far better in their organization than you have here.
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis
> Lictor
>
>
> > Vale bene!
> >
> > Maia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:51:17 -0000

---


Salve Maia:

I have just read Priscilla's note to you, and I cannot add much to it;
I'm afraid she is correct, in that she says there is no real proof
behind what you say. Our only defense of your statement is that we
did not receive a pending message from you until yesterday Dec. 20,
sometime between 0830 and 1137 EST.

If you had a send path which we could look at, but since you have not
given us such, we have nothing to go on.


We are often accused of foul play in doing this job. It is nothing
new. But more often than not, persons making these allegations will
atleast "attempt" to furnish us with proof as to why they think we
censored their post.

If it makes you feel better, "I so solemnly swear, by all that is
righteous and divine, that I have seen no evidence of foul play with
regard to your alleged 48-hour late message and I have made no
personal attempt to censor your posts."


Maia, with respect, you are newly married and this is the season of
Saturnalia.
Let us enjoy this time, and not engage in quibbling, ok?

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Scriba Curatrix Sermonis
Nova Roma
Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

In novaroma@--------, "Maia" <mjarc@l...> wrote:
>
> Salve Pompeia Cornelia!
>
> On 20 Dec 2001, at 21:53, you wrote:
>
> > No, you are not being censored. It is policy that people who
resign
> > are placed on moderated status, not *censored* . It has been the
same,
> > policywise, since the spring.
> >
> > You are probably wondering why the delay in your message
appearing?
> > Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be honest. There were no
> > pending messages at the time. And Priscilla, I believe, is
working.
>
> Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared _two
> days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who,
like
> me, are on digest, three days. So I am still inclined to think it
was
> deliberately stopped somewhere and maybe even let through only after
> my anxious message sent privatim to several dozens of people. I also
> meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount of work
the
> curatrix and you have to do.
>
> It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet seen
> such a strong insult on this list. Some people believe it is best to
> ignore such things rather than respond. It may be so, but I am not
> used to being treated like an object or called sb's personal gain,
in
> effect, a toy, and so reacted rather nervously.
>
> Vale bene!
>
> Maia

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:56:43 -0000

---Salve Mani:

*If* this is not censorship? I *thought* we were innocent until
proven guilty........

Do you want a more efficient communication vehicle?

Matter of fact, so would I...who wouldn't?

Let's see some bucks! Because it will *not* be free, I can assure you
that.

Perhaps a fund could be initiated by a concerned person, such as
yourself, to provide better internet service.

Bene vale,

Po









Salve MIn novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> If this is not censorship it still is awful maintenance of the list,
due
> to it being given over to a foreign organism yahoogroups which
offers a
> lousy service.
>
> This is not the first disapearred message and nothing has been done
yet.
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>
> On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 12:16, justicecmo wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > Maia, I do believe you would do better if you actually *read* what
was posted to you.
> >
> > > > POMPEIA: You are probably wondering why the delay in your
message appearing? Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be
honest. There were no pending messages at the time.>>
> >
> > Let's review that last line. "No pending messages at the time".
None. Zip. Zero. Not *yours* or anyone else's. One canot approve, or
> > for that matter reject, a message one has not *seen*.
> >
> > >>POMPEIA: And Priscilla, I believe, is working.>>
> >
> > Indeed, when your "second" message appeared and was approved by
Pompeia I was at work. I am at the moment too, however I do
> > occasionally have the opportunity to check the List via the
website.
> >
> > >>Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared
_two days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who,
like me, are on digest, three days.>>
> >
> > There *was* no message received "days" ago. Period.
> >
> > >>So I am still inclined to think it was deliberately stopped
somewhere>>
> >
> > Hmmmm. By your logic perhaps it would be fair for Pompeia and I
to be "inclined to think" that you never sent a "first" message and
> > that this is simply the attempt of a disgruntled ex-Nova Roman to
cause a stir.
> >
> > >>and maybe even let through only after my anxious message sent
privatim to several dozens of people.>>
> >
> > You could have spammed 500 people with your message and, if it was
not appropriate for this List, it *still* never would have been
> > approved. I clearly see your snide insinuation here that Pompeia
and I somehow scurried to "cover ourselves" after you spammed so
> > many with your message, but the true facts are that *no* "first"
message was received <sent?>, therefore no "censorship" took place.
> >
> > >>I also meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount
of work the curatrix and you have to do.>>
> >
> > Of course you did. Unfortunately you have simply made yourself
look quite foolish. Not to mention demonstrated to *all* that you are
> > simply looking to create an issue where none existed. You never
bothered to contact either of us to inquire about the status of your
> > alleged "first" message. Had you genuinely been so "concerned",
*that* would have been the first thing you did, not leaping to
> > ludicrous thoughts of some secret plot to silence you. To be
frank, you give yourself far too much merit to think that either
Pompeia or
> > myself would ever betray our oaths, let alone for such an
insignificant post.
> >
> > >>It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet
seen such a strong insult on this list.>>
> >
> > Yes, your spamming many people with your personal quibble is proof
enough of that. Such a strong insult? My dear, you may not
> > agree with his views of you or your actions but the post in
question was hardly an attack. I will note here also that, had you
> > *genuinely* felt so strongly that you had been attacked, I find it
ever more curious that you chose not to contact the exact two people
> > who could have taken action on your behalf in this matter. As for
never seeing strong insults here on the List, I will choose to thank
> > you for acknowledging what a terrific job Pompeia and I do to keep
such inappropriate things from the List members. :)
> >
> > >>Some people believe it is best to gnore such things rather than
respond. It may be so, but I am not used to being treated like an
object or called sb's personal gain, in effect, a toy, and so reacted
rather nervously.>>
> >
> > Nervously? No, I believe the more appropriate word is "badly".
You ignored all avenues of correcting the problem you perceived with
> > the original post, you cast unfounded allegations against myself
and Pompeia and then proceeded to spam dozens of innocent
> > individuals.
> >
> > I wish you well in the SVR. May you conduct yourself far better
in their organization than you have here.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Priscilla Vedia Serena
> > Curatrix Sermonis
> > Lictor
> >
> >
> > > Vale bene!
> > >
> > > Maia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Bashing of the SVR (a little long)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:56:53 -0300 (ART)

Salve

I just want to announce that i, Marcus Arminius Maior,
am a member of the Sodalitas Via Romana, SVR.
Some of our cives and elected magistrates expressed
their nervosism and fear about people that participate
in SVR.

-Lucius Sicinius:
>I will also bluntly state that I am disapointed that
Draco failed to
>make Nova Roma aware of his actions, and that running
for an office in
>Nova Roma while organizing an alternitive
organization and hiding
>these actions behind the closed European List and the
Closed SVR list
>do NOT do much to inspire trust in him.

-Marcus Arminius:
What you said applies to me too, im in a similar
position of Draco.
I disagree with you. My membership in SVR would not
interfere with my duties in Nova Roma. Draco served as
my scriba since the beginning of the year, and i didnt
perceived any loss of efficiency when he decided to
participate in SVR. And he is/was very active as my
scribe.

-Lucius Sicinius:
I have also noticed that SVR's rolls contain a citizen
from Brazil
named Limitanus, which I doubt is mere chance, so it
seems we may have
yet another canidate who has been less than honest
with the voters of
Nova Roma, though in this case one who was NOT elected
so we don't
have the problem of another Magistrate who is trying
to serve two
masters while being less than honest with one of them.

- Marcus Arminius:
Not only one. I believe that Limitanus is absolutely
honest, and your nervosism about SVR is exagerated. I
see the things i bit different, im not serving two
masters, but participating in different organizations,
with no conflict of interest.

-Lucius Sicinius:
If there are any more Canidates in the undecided races
or newly
elected Magistrates, or Propraetors who are involved
with SVR, I call
on them to at least have the decency to make a belated
statement
detailing their dealings with SVR.

-Marcus Arminius:
I see no necessity of detailing very much my dealings
with SVR. Im in SVR for about a month, and doesnt
perceived hostility towards Nova Roma. SVR is neutral
to NR.


Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:09:31 -0300 (ART)

Salvete Quirites

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix"
<alexious@--------> escreveu: > Ave,
>
> I agree with you, Senator. However, this is going
> to be an issue here, at least his affiliation with
> known adversaries of Nova Roma.

MAIOR: the Sodalitas Via Romana and the former Marcus
Apollonius are not "known adversaries of Nova Roma". M
Apollonius seems more worried about his recent
marriage and with SVR than rivality with NR, if this
is possible. How can SVR menace NR?

> Vale,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:11:09 -0800

Ave Propraetor,

Did you read the same resignation message as I did?

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: M Arminius Maior
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus


Salvete Quirites

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix"
<alexious@--------> escreveu: > Ave,
>
> I agree with you, Senator. However, this is going
> to be an issue here, at least his affiliation with
> known adversaries of Nova Roma.

MAIOR: the Sodalitas Via Romana and the former Marcus
Apollonius are not "known adversaries of Nova Roma". M
Apollonius seems more worried about his recent
marriage and with SVR than rivality with NR, if this
is possible. How can SVR menace NR?

> Vale,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: "censored"
From:	"justicecmo" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:14:52 -0000

Salve Pompeia,

> *If* this is not censorship? I *thought* we were innocent until proven guilty........>>

Come now my dear friend, surely by now you realize that, in the very jaundiced eye of Limitanus, the sky itself would turn purple
should either of *us* declare it as blue. ;)

Don't trouble yourself with his nonsensical attacks. He is a bitter man and undeserving of any further explanations. He has spent a
solid year refusing to engage in anything other than discord with either of us. That is his way. I, for one, plan to leave him to it. I will
waste no more breath on his weary jabs. His unwarranted attacks are old news and, indeed, a very worn-out tune. Until he finds a
new song, I, for one, shall turn a deaf ear. :)

Have a lovely cup of eggnog and celebrate this season with good friends and family. Besides, you have a run-off election to win.
::grin:: Seriously, let us look to those among us in friendship and goodwill (if not agreement LOL) and raise a toast to what is sure to
be a glorious New Year for our fair Nation.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
Lictor

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 13:19:32 -0300 (ART)

--- Michel Loos <loos@--------> escreveu: > On
Thu, 2001-12-20 at 16:39, QFabiusMaxmi@--------
> wrote:
> Unfortunately I have
> > nothing but enemies in the SVR.
> > Valete
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
>
> No you don't. Opponents sure, ennemies no.
> Manius Villius Limitanus

MAIOR: Ah! Touche. I agree very well to you,
Limitanus.

Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Revelations
From:	"gaius_minucius_hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:43:08 -0000

Salvete,

The point I was trying to make, perhaps a bit dramatically, is how do
we define "rival organizations"? Who gets to make that decision? Do
we legislate it? What exactly should the "standards" of disclosure be
for a magistrate? I'm just afraid that it could be descending a
potentially slippery slope to begin intruding that much into the
private lives of citizens or magistrates, even for the best of
reasons (my libertarian leanings are showing through here). I don't
think NR has grown to the extent as nation that we need worry much
about sedetion yet (one hopes). Now if the "mission statement" of the
SVR was "the overthrow of NR" or the like, and it could be proven
beyond the shadow of a doubt, then we would have a problem. I doubt
that is the case, so I don't think we have much to be worried about.
Just because there are members who dislike or disagree with NR does
not make them an enemy or a danger to the state.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus


--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
> citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
> Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
> belonging to two rival organziations.
>
> There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
> stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
> Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
> matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
> to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
> stock.
>
> This is a matter of accepting the Ethical standards
> that most Nonprofit organizations have for their
> officers. The Intregity of Nova Roma is at stake here.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> >
> > "Are you or have you ever been a memeber of the
> > communist party?"
> >
> > -Senator "Joe" McCarthy
> >
> > I think it's time for a reality check here.... We
> > don't need a
> > McCarthy-esque witch-hunt in NR for SVA members. A
> > citizens private
> > affiliations should be just that - private. If they
> > want to reveal
> > them - fine, but we can hardly require it. What
> > would be the
> > criteria? Every group or organization? Every Roman
> > group or
> > organization? Or will we generate a "proscribed"
> > list or
> > organizations? While I certainly didn't care much
> > for the behavior of
> > some of the current SVA members on this list, it is
> > hardly fair to
> > ascribe guilt by association. I treat every person I
> > meet on thier
> > individual merits, not on a basis of thier
> > affiliations, nationality,
> > etc., and I expect to be treated the same way in
> > return, as I suspect
> > do the majority of our citizens. Let us please drop
> > this before we
> > make a mountian from a mole hill?
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > C. Minucius Hadrianus
> > Lictor Curiatus
> > Legate of Massachusetts
> > Scriba Propraetoris, Nova Britannia
> > Still a Canidate for Quaestor =)
> >
> > ICQ# 28924742
> >
> > "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
> your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
> or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Antonius Gryllus Graecus is departing for Saturnalia/Dies Natalis Solis holidays
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:47:22 -0000

Salvete omnes

I am departing to spend some holidays with my family. Although I will stay
available by email, I will be unable to do my duties with the same
effectiveness, namely in what regards the daily announcements of the Religio
Romana. The latter were already severed lately due to the ammount of work in
the end of the academic semester.
I'll be back again on January 3rd.

Bonam Fortunam

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator Pontifex Propraetor Lusitaniae

Subject:	[novaroma] Tribune's Partial Absence: Dec 24-30
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:31:31 US/Central

Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Fortunatus Quiritibus SPD

I will be visiting relatives from a d IX Kal Ian (Dec. 24) until a d III Kal
Ian (Dec. 30). During that time, I will have relatively limited access to my e-
mail, and will therefore be somewhat difficult to contact.

If you need my services as a tribunus plebis during that time, please
write "URGENT" or the like in all caps in the subject line of any message to me
in order to ensure that your request stands out from the usual deluge of e-mail
that I receive.

Valete

Subject:	[novaroma] Market Day, 21 December 2754
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:54:13 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Omnes,

Today is a Market Day; therefore all citizens are invited to
participate in the regularly scheduled chat sessions.

Starting times for the two sessions are:

I. 8pm Roma, 7pm UK

II. 9pm US/Eastern, 6pm Pacific

Valete, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Antonius Gryllus Graecus is departing for Saturnalia/Dies Natalis Solis holidays
From:	AntoniaCorneliaOctavia <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:31:34 -0800 (PST)

--- Antonio Grilo <amg@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> I am departing to spend some holidays with my
> family. Although I will stay
> available by email, I will be unable to do my duties
> with the same
> effectiveness, namely in what regards the daily
> announcements of the Religio
> Romana. The latter were already severed lately due
> to the ammount of work in
> the end of the academic semester.
> I'll be back again on January 3rd.
>
> Bonam Fortunam
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Senator Pontifex Propraetor Lusitaniae



Ave Antonius Gryllus Graecus,

I hope your holiday is full of blessings. May you and
all your family experience the abundance of the Gods
as they look down upon you most graciously.

Vale,

Antonia Cornelia Octavia
Scriba Propraetoris de California

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com




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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Market Day, 21 December 2754
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:37:27 -0500

Salve,

I would very much like to attend the chat, but I will be unavailable as I am
performing a Yule Ritual with friends at my home this evening. Have fun
all!

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:54 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Market Day, 21 December 2754
>
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Today is a Market Day; therefore all citizens are invited to
> participate in the regularly scheduled chat sessions.
>
> Starting times for the two sessions are:
>
> I. 8pm Roma, 7pm UK
>
> II. 9pm US/Eastern, 6pm Pacific
>
> Valete, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
> Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Revelations
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	21 Dec 2001 20:14:08 -0200

On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 13:01, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
>
>
> Michel Loos wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 08:01, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > > Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
> > > citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
> > > Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
> > > belonging to two rival organziations.
> > >
> > > There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
> > > stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
> > > Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
> > > matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
> > > to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
> > > stock.
> > >
> >
> > Neither NR nor SVR are companies. NR is a nation, SVR is a NGO
> > you are pretending there is a problem beeing, say an american
> > magistrate
> > and a member of the Red Cross or Amnesty International at the same
> > time.
> > This really does not make sense at all.
>
> Ave,
>
> Correction Manius Villius, Nova Roma is a not for profit corporation
> registered in the great state of Maine. We are bound by the Federal
> Laws of the United States and of the State of Maine. We are bound by
> many of the same laws of the Red Cross and Amnesty International since
> they are Not for Profit Corporations.
>

Salve,

I don't understand what you mean here, clearly there is no problem to
belong and be active in both Amnesty and the Red Cross which in some
cases work to lesser the pain of the same people (is this concurrence?),
so you would go my way.

There can be no concurrence between not profit organisations since they
are just here to help.

On the other hand do you say that NR is _not_ a nation? That would at
least be very strange from next years highest executive of our nation.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul-Elect
>
>
>
>
> 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: "censored"
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	21 Dec 2001 20:35:23 -0200

On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 13:56, pompeia_cornelia wrote:
> ---Salve Mani:
>
> *If* this is not censorship? I *thought* we were innocent until
> proven guilty........
>
> Do you want a more efficient communication vehicle?
>
> Matter of fact, so would I...who wouldn't?
>
> Let's see some bucks! Because it will *not* be free, I can assure you
> that.
>

Salve Pompeia,

not really true, we had a group of citizens ready to set-up a
list-server last winter (well summer for you), linux-based for free.
We had also a number of volunteers to use their 24/24 cable or DSL
connection to set it up on their home computer (a lousy P133 is largely
enough for this job because it uses very very little cpu).
In some other lists I participate (wargame related) the list was based
on a University server for several years (for free). I can easily
furnish myself one such hard linked/fast 24/24 server at my university
and I am quite sure there are other people here able to do the same (for
no cost).

The trouble with all this is that your boss, our Curatrix dissallowed
all this efforts when we were about to begin (check the July archives)


> Perhaps a fund could be initiated by a concerned person, such as
> yourself, to provide better internet service.
>

I can provide the server and the software for free

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Bene vale,
>
> Po
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve MIn novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > If this is not censorship it still is awful maintenance of the list,
> due
> > to it being given over to a foreign organism yahoogroups which
> offers a
> > lousy service.
> >
> > This is not the first disapearred message and nothing has been done
> yet.
> >
> > Manius Villius Limitanus
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 12:16, justicecmo wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > Maia, I do believe you would do better if you actually *read* what
> was posted to you.
> > >
> > > > > POMPEIA: You are probably wondering why the delay in your
> message appearing? Uhh, I went back to bed for two hours, to be
> honest. There were no pending messages at the time.>>
> > >
> > > Let's review that last line. "No pending messages at the time".
> None. Zip. Zero. Not *yours* or anyone else's. One canot approve, or
> > > for that matter reject, a message one has not *seen*.
> > >
> > > >>POMPEIA: And Priscilla, I believe, is working.>>
> > >
> > > Indeed, when your "second" message appeared and was approved by
> Pompeia I was at work. I am at the moment too, however I do
> > > occasionally have the opportunity to check the List via the
> website.
> > >
> > > >>Thank you for the explanation. However, the message appeared
> _two days_ late, not two hours. From the pov of all those people who,
> like me, are on digest, three days.>>
> > >
> > > There *was* no message received "days" ago. Period.
> > >
> > > >>So I am still inclined to think it was deliberately stopped
> somewhere>>
> > >
> > > Hmmmm. By your logic perhaps it would be fair for Pompeia and I
> to be "inclined to think" that you never sent a "first" message and
> > > that this is simply the attempt of a disgruntled ex-Nova Roman to
> cause a stir.
> > >
> > > >>and maybe even let through only after my anxious message sent
> privatim to several dozens of people.>>
> > >
> > > You could have spammed 500 people with your message and, if it was
> not appropriate for this List, it *still* never would have been
> > > approved. I clearly see your snide insinuation here that Pompeia
> and I somehow scurried to "cover ourselves" after you spammed so
> > > many with your message, but the true facts are that *no* "first"
> message was received <sent?>, therefore no "censorship" took place.
> > >
> > > >>I also meant to suggest it was deliberate, not due to the amount
> of work the curatrix and you have to do.>>
> > >
> > > Of course you did. Unfortunately you have simply made yourself
> look quite foolish. Not to mention demonstrated to *all* that you are
> > > simply looking to create an issue where none existed. You never
> bothered to contact either of us to inquire about the status of your
> > > alleged "first" message. Had you genuinely been so "concerned",
> *that* would have been the first thing you did, not leaping to
> > > ludicrous thoughts of some secret plot to silence you. To be
> frank, you give yourself far too much merit to think that either
> Pompeia or
> > > myself would ever betray our oaths, let alone for such an
> insignificant post.
> > >
> > > >>It is just the the issue is very important and I have not yet
> seen such a strong insult on this list.>>
> > >
> > > Yes, your spamming many people with your personal quibble is proof
> enough of that. Such a strong insult? My dear, you may not
> > > agree with his views of you or your actions but the post in
> question was hardly an attack. I will note here also that, had you
> > > *genuinely* felt so strongly that you had been attacked, I find it
> ever more curious that you chose not to contact the exact two people
> > > who could have taken action on your behalf in this matter. As for
> never seeing strong insults here on the List, I will choose to thank
> > > you for acknowledging what a terrific job Pompeia and I do to keep
> such inappropriate things from the List members. :)
> > >
> > > >>Some people believe it is best to gnore such things rather than
> respond. It may be so, but I am not used to being treated like an
> object or called sb's personal gain, in effect, a toy, and so reacted
> rather nervously.>>
> > >
> > > Nervously? No, I believe the more appropriate word is "badly".
> You ignored all avenues of correcting the problem you perceived with
> > > the original post, you cast unfounded allegations against myself
> and Pompeia and then proceeded to spam dozens of innocent
> > > individuals.
> > >
> > > I wish you well in the SVR. May you conduct yourself far better
> in their organization than you have here.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Priscilla Vedia Serena
> > > Curatrix Sermonis
> > > Lictor
> > >
> > >
> > > > Vale bene!
> > > >
> > > > Maia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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] Re: Revelations
From:	"lsicinius" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 23:43:12 -0000

Nova Roma has a dual status. We are both a Micronation and a Non
Profit. There are legal advantages to maintaining this status, such as
limited protection for Nova Roma's Magistrates/Corprate officers in
the event of Legal Action. This protection comes at the price of
having to obey the laws of whereever the NPC called Nova Roma is
chartered.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 13:01, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
> >
> >
> > Michel Loos wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 08:01, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > > > Oh Come on I haven't mentioned anything about private
> > > > citizens membership in the SVR. I discussing
> > > > Magistrates possible conflict of Interest caused by
> > > > belonging to two rival organziations.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing wrong with a private citizen buying
> > > > stock in Coca-Cola and Pepsi. An Executive of The
> > > > Coca-Cola company who owns stock in Pepsi is another
> > > > matter, because there is a conflict between his duties
> > > > to the Coca-Cola Company and the value of his Pepsi
> > > > stock.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Neither NR nor SVR are companies. NR is a nation, SVR is a NGO
> > > you are pretending there is a problem beeing, say an american
> > > magistrate
> > > and a member of the Red Cross or Amnesty International at the same
> > > time.
> > > This really does not make sense at all.
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > Correction Manius Villius, Nova Roma is a not for profit corporation
> > registered in the great state of Maine. We are bound by the Federal
> > Laws of the United States and of the State of Maine. We are bound by
> > many of the same laws of the Red Cross and Amnesty International since
> > they are Not for Profit Corporations.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> I don't understand what you mean here, clearly there is no problem to
> belong and be active in both Amnesty and the Red Cross which in some
> cases work to lesser the pain of the same people (is this concurrence?),
> so you would go my way.
>
> There can be no concurrence between not profit organisations since they
> are just here to help.
>
> On the other hand do you say that NR is _not_ a nation? That would at
> least be very strange from next years highest executive of our nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Consul-Elect
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Disclosure - T Labienus Fortunatus
From:	Michael Loughlin <qccaesar@-------->
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:54:53 -0800 (PST)

Ave
Well since I'm so immature and cannot take
responsibility for my own words well isn't it mature
of you to patrinize my literacy...I never said I never
said those words...what I said was by his own words he
linked himself with the SVR and hence associated
himself with the orgnaization.
Quintus Cornelius Caesar
--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Michael Loughlin wrote:
>
> > He associated himself with the SVR not I
> > Quintus Cornelius Caesar
>
> Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> Titus Labienus is NOT a member of the SVR.
>
> You have repeatedly used the phrase "your
> constitution"
> when speaking to him, in reference to the SVR's
> Regula
> Fundamentalis.
>
> That is incorrect and completely unjustifiable, as
> is
> your attempt (above) to weasel out of taking
> responsibility
> for your words.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Curator Araneum et Senator, Nova Roma
> Senior Consul-Elect, MMDCCLV (2002)
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com