| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Language Law |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <pokrock@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:06:26 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@y..., Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
Salve,
>> NovaRoman society, why have I not heard a call that the website be
>> translated into multiple languages in order to accommidate those
>> that would like to be citizens but currently can not because the
>> website isn't in their language?
> Well I called for it at a certain point:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/29498
I stand humbly corrected, Manius Villius Limitanus. Forgive me my
error in missing that point in that message. Actually I don't think
that having the website mirrored in other languages to be a bad thing
at all. I'm sure you'd be more than happy to volunteer to help
convert the site into Portuguese?
>
> No, but they will never communicate one with the other. This is the
case
> today, we have at least a portuguese(brazilian) list and a german
(swizz)
> list and never hear one of the other while many brazilians would
> understand german.
Taking one's sarcasm and turning it into a point of debate is poor
rhetoric. (By rhetoric I mean the art of debate, not the negative
connotation that the word has today). In fact your example
undermines your argument against a standard language for NovaRoma.
You on one hand point out that the making of English the standard for
Nova Roma effectively silences a minority while at the same time
showing how without a standard language of communication two
different non-English language lists do not communicate with one
another. Forgive me, perhaps I am dense, but I really fail to see
the difference.
> Yes, and the actual law fixes the language of the present majority
for
> any future majority impossing the imerialistic language of the
actual
> world oppresors without any return. Therefore this law should be
> defeated.
Forgive me a moment while I chuckle. I am not laughing at you,
Manius Villius Limitanus, but that this statement was the cause of
much ado concerning censorship.
May the Curatrix Sermona forgive me for saying this; But Priscilla
Vedia Serena, you must really think we're children if we couldn't see
this as what it is and subsequently ignore the demagoguery and take
to the heart of the issue. I totally disagree with what Manius
Villius Limitanus wrote. But in my personal opinion this is barely
a blip on the inflammatory radar screen, but then it wasn't my call
to make. However, given that in my personal opinion that Manius
Villius Limitanus' posting does more damage to his cause I am
certainly glad it was released. That said, however, it does not
change my opinion that the office of Curator/rix Sermona walks a
dangerous political tight rope and needs to be more independent of
politics.
Forgive my momentary lapse off topic. You can disagree with a
proposal and appeal to the public to vote against it. You can
disagree with a law and try to change it. However the argument that
a law must be defeated solely on the basis that it will have future
effects is ludicrous. Why is it a ludicrous agrument? Simple, any
given law has some effect on all future citizens. For example, Lex
Iunia de Magistratum Aetate fixes age requirements for magistracies.
Should this law be repealed (or never have been passed) because it
smacks of agism (discrimination against a person due to their age)?
Should we then repeal all of NovaRoma's laws because at some point
somewhere in time they will have an effect on future and present
citizens? This is why it is called the rule of law.
Speaking of the rule of law, but the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate
may be facially invalid as the wording of section V in relation to
the above mentioned magistracies in sections I thru IV, refers to the
date in Common Era time rather than Official Nova Roma time as per
the Lex Cornelia Centuriata.
Pax,
Quintus Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Language Law |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2002 23:04:13 -0300 |
|
Em Sáb, 2002-02-16 às 22:06, quintuscassiuscalvus escreveu:
> --- In novaroma@y..., Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> >> NovaRoman society, why have I not heard a call that the website be
> >> translated into multiple languages in order to accommidate those
> >> that would like to be citizens but currently can not because the
> >> website isn't in their language?
>
> > Well I called for it at a certain point:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/29498
>
> I stand humbly corrected, Manius Villius Limitanus. Forgive me my
> error in missing that point in that message. Actually I don't think
> that having the website mirrored in other languages to be a bad thing
> at all. I'm sure you'd be more than happy to volunteer to help
> convert the site into Portuguese?
>
French, I am not a native brazilian and my portuguese is not so good.
> >
> > No, but they will never communicate one with the other. This is the
> case
> > today, we have at least a portuguese(brazilian) list and a german
> (swizz)
> > list and never hear one of the other while many brazilians would
> > understand german.
>
> Taking one's sarcasm and turning it into a point of debate is poor
> rhetoric. (By rhetoric I mean the art of debate, not the negative
> connotation that the word has today). In fact your example
> undermines your argument against a standard language for NovaRoma.
> You on one hand point out that the making of English the standard for
> Nova Roma effectively silences a minority while at the same time
> showing how without a standard language of communication two
> different non-English language lists do not communicate with one
> another. Forgive me, perhaps I am dense, but I really fail to see
> the difference.
>
The policy which appears in this law is already in practise on the ml
since over a year, by decision of the curatrix sermonis. I am fighting
it for all this time. At least the nrbrasil list was created after the
instauration of this policy in order for non-english fluent brazilians
to communicate. I don t know when the germanophone list was created, but
was under the impression that most of those non-english lists where
created after the closure of the main-list.
> > Yes, and the actual law fixes the language of the present majority
> for
> > any future majority impossing the imerialistic language of the
> actual
> > world oppresors without any return. Therefore this law should be
> > defeated.
>
> Forgive me a moment while I chuckle. I am not laughing at you,
> Manius Villius Limitanus, but that this statement was the cause of
> much ado concerning censorship.
>
> May the Curatrix Sermona forgive me for saying this; But Priscilla
> Vedia Serena, you must really think we're children if we couldn't see
> this as what it is and subsequently ignore the demagoguery and take
> to the heart of the issue. I totally disagree with what Manius
> Villius Limitanus wrote. But in my personal opinion this is barely
> a blip on the inflammatory radar screen, but then it wasn't my call
> to make. However, given that in my personal opinion that Manius
> Villius Limitanus' posting does more damage to his cause I am
> certainly glad it was released. That said, however, it does not
> change my opinion that the office of Curator/rix Sermona walks a
> dangerous political tight rope and needs to be more independent of
> politics.
>
> Forgive my momentary lapse off topic. You can disagree with a
> proposal and appeal to the public to vote against it. You can
> disagree with a law and try to change it. However the argument that
> a law must be defeated solely on the basis that it will have future
> effects is ludicrous. Why is it a ludicrous agrument? Simple, any
> given law has some effect on all future citizens. For example, Lex
> Iunia de Magistratum Aetate fixes age requirements for magistracies.
> Should this law be repealed (or never have been passed) because it
> smacks of agism (discrimination against a person due to their age)?
> Should we then repeal all of NovaRoma's laws because at some point
> somewhere in time they will have an effect on future and present
> citizens? This is why it is called the rule of law.
>
No way, a law is made to have an effect on present and future.
But if you write a law with good intention you can write in a way
it can stand time. Specifically here: remove neglish from the law, ask
for all official documents to be in the official language latin and to
have, at least, a translation in the language of the majority of the
citizens + a translation in the language of the majority of the senate
and you end up with a time-proofed law, even if the chinese discover NR.
Vale,
Manius Villius Limitanus
> Speaking of the rule of law, but the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate
> may be facially invalid as the wording of section V in relation to
> the above mentioned magistracies in sections I thru IV, refers to the
> date in Common Era time rather than Official Nova Roma time as per
> the Lex Cornelia Centuriata.
>
> Pax,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Language Law |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@goldenfuture.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:06:37 -0500 |
|
Salve,
>>May the Curatrix Sermona forgive me for saying this; But Priscilla Vedia
Serena, you must really think we're children if we couldn't see this as what
it is and subsequently ignore the demagoguery and take to the heart of the
issue.>>
I certainly do not see the members of this List as children. I am sure that
any number of insults would be taken in stride by the members, but that does
not change my duty to preserve the civility of this List.
>>I totally disagree with what Manius Villius Limitanus wrote.>>
As, I am sure, do most people of reason.
>>But in my personal opinion this is barely a blip on the inflammatory radar
screen, but then it wasn't my call to make.>>
Oh, to be sure he could have been much more insulting. That does not change
the nature of what he did choose to say. I will also point out, for the
record, that he was made aware of the questionable nature of the insulting
line and could have made his point quite eloquently without stooping to such
a base level of rhetoric. It was, given his history, not an easy call to
make, hence the period of consideration and due thought it was given.
<snip>
>>That said, however, it does not change my opinion that the office of
Curator/rix Sermona walks a dangerous political tight rope and needs to be
more independent of politics.>>
Actually, despite Limitanus' dear wish that it *were* so, his moderated
status is a direct result of his own actions and choices and it in no way a
political action on my part. A quick perusal of the archives will clearly
show that criticism and disagreement with me or my statements is often seen
here freely. The office of Curatrix *is* a difficult one at times, but not
due to any political reasons. I can only speak for myself in this, but
*every* post is evaluated on the basis of its own content and not in
relation to whether or not it meets with my political approval.
I thank you for your comments and rest assured, I take no offense to any of
your statements.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Hora Non Dies Est (was Re: Language Law) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 01:51:43 -0600 |
|
Salvete Quinte Cassi omnesque
> Speaking of the rule of law, but the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate
> may be facially invalid as the wording of section V in relation to
> the above mentioned magistracies in sections I thru IV, refers to the
> date in Common Era time rather than Official Nova Roma time as per
> the Lex Cornelia Centuriata.
No, the Lex Cornelia Centuriata does not invalidate the Lex Iunia de
Magistratum Aetate. The former refers to time of day, not date (except
inasmuch as the time of day determines which day it is). Even if LCC
did mandate using the Roman calendar, Italy currently uses the calendar
of the common era, not the calendar of ancient Rome.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus Praetor
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Ta i quetes Quenyanen séya vanima
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Attention Voters! Invalid voter code |
| From: |
"Titus Horatius Atticus" <esteves@compuland.com.br> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:18:34 -0300 |
|
Avete!
The civis with the voter tracking number 12001 has an invalid voter code.
If you have any problems, please go to our profile page on the NR website to get your voter code, or contact the Censores.
Valete!
Atticus, rogator.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Altar of Minerva |
| From: |
"pjane64" <pcassia@janeraeburn.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:14:48 -0000 |
|
As Priestess of Minerva, I have set aside an alcove in my home as an
altar to Minerva, and am making weekly offerings there for the safety
of Nova Roma, that her citizens may live in health and act with wisdom.
I've taken a picture of this and will post it here as soon as it can be
scanned.
My next project is to devise a ritual formula for prayer to Minerva
that is true to the Latin forms, and to make it available in both Latin
and English for the use of our Citizens.
Part of my priesthood is to offer prayers on behalf of any Citizens who
feel the need of such aid. In the ancient world the supplicant would be
asked to leave an offering of cash or livestock at the temple in return
for this service. I ask no reward for myself or my temple, but do ask
that if Minerva aids your cause, you return the favor by offering
money, energy and/or enthusiasm to building a better Nova Roma.
I may not check this list regularly, but will respond to all requests
sent to me at pcassia@novaroma.org.
May Minerva bless all of you this day.
Patricia Cassia
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] An inquiry about the composition centuries |
| From: |
"Cl. Sl. Davianus" <davius_sanctex@terra.es> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:42:11 +0100 |
|
Salvete cives Novae Romae:
An inquiry on composition of the centuries leads to the following conclusions:
1) Some of the most influential persons of Nova Rome are assigned like is logical and normal to the first centuries that have less members and therefore proportionally each citizen within them counts more (between parenthesis I have including the name of the citizen " reputed more " within each century (these citizens have the 0,17% of total votes):
1st century ----------- 3 members (exconsul Cincinnatus)
2nd century ---------- 3 mebers (exconsul Vedius)
3rd century ------------3 mebers (senator M Cassius Iulianus)
4th century ------------3 members (Sulla consul)
5th century ------------4 members (Gryllus Pontiff)
6th century ------------3 members (Audens)
The stranger to me in these centuries is that at least in the three first next to citizens with but of 100 points, they hardly appear citizen with 30 points. What means that these citizens even having less points of centuries than located others more down have a power of greater decision! (I suppose that its earlier citizeship justifies it, although strangely this people belong to the "absentist" gens Hyena, some twist-minded citizen would think that ...)
2) In we continue with the following centuries, we found centuries with 4 membres (that is, his/her capacity of decission is about a 0.13% of the total votes:
7th to 34 th centuries -------------------- 4 members
(It results strange that century 20 that is of single 3 members! precissely that in wich our brilliant <curatrix sermonis>
is inscribed, that means that she has 0.17% of the total votes, I'm not a twit-minded one and I suppose that this fact is only a casuality :-).
If we take in consideration the possibility of 'ghost citizens' that no longer exists as such and that are included in the centuries 1 to 3 and others, we can speculate in this form: For example Vedius Germanicus and Priscilla Vedia (each included in a century of 3 persons, being the other 2 "absentist" citizens) would control about 1% of the total votes!!!! (In order to comparation, I am in nova Roma only about 0,04% of the votes, that is I have about 1/25 of the decissory power of the Vedians!).
3) Also centuries 35, 43 and 60 are composed by 3 members, while misteriously centuries 36 to 75 regularly contains 4 members (with a power of decission of 0,16% per citizen).
4) Centuries 76 to 130 ----------------- 5 members (peculiar is century 78). [power to decide: 0,10%]
5) Centuries 131 to 155 -------------- 8 members.
6) Centuries 156 to 168 -------------- 7 members
7) Centuries 169 to 171 ------------- 8 members
8) Centuries 172 to 175 -------------- 11 members
9) Centuries 176 to 193 -------------- 12 members
10) Centuries 193 to 195 ------------- incomprensibily void (if they were full de power of decission of anterior group would be increased).
I have presented these results objectively distinguishing appropiatelly contrastable facts from mere speculations. I think citizens needed to know these IMPORTANT facts.
Cl. Sl. Davianus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Language Law |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <pokrock@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:03:08 -0000 |
|
Salve,
--- In novaroma@y..., "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> I certainly do not see the members of this List as children. I am
sure that
> any number of insults would be taken in stride by the members, but
that does
> not change my duty to preserve the civility of this List.
>
The "children" comment was a figure of speech intended as "color"
rather than an accusation. Sometimes the best way to preserve
civility in the long term is to permit the insults in the short
term. A modern example was when Edward G. Robinson aired the
McCarthy hearings without comment.
I take no umbrage towards your admnistration of the office you hold.
My reservations are reserved towards the office, not the holder. I
believe it was Benajmin Franklin in reference to the office of
President of the United States said to the effect that the first one
will be a man of good character, the second is the one we need worry
about.
Pax,
Quintus Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Forward: Imperial Objects Query |
| From: |
Matt Haase <haase@konoko.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:59:39 -0600 (CST) |
|
Forward, a message received at the Consuls' address.
Please reply to hallie@sas.upenn.edu.
Vale, Octavius.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:57:56 -0500
From: Hallie Meredith-Goymour <hallie@sas.upenn.edu>
To: consuls@novaroma.org, hallie@sas.upenn.edu
Subject: Imperial Objects Query
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am trying to find some definitions for some basic terms concerning
Late Antique Emperors.
The terms are:
(1) DIADEM (some sort of Imperial head band?)
(2) CHLAMYS (some sort of cloak?)
(3) MAPPA (something symbolically held in the Emperor's hand, seen on
coins?)
I would appreciate it if you could suggest where I could find
definitions for these basic terms.
Many Thanks
Hallie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hallie Meredith-Goymour
hallie@sas.upenn.edu
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Attention Voters! Invalid voter codes |
| From: |
"Julilla" <curatrix@villaivlilla.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:18:16 -0000 |
|
The cives with the voter tracking numbers 12029 and 12034 have
malformed or invalid voter codes.
A reminder to all: your voter code consists of three letters,
followed by three numbers. Please do not confuse any letters with
numbers and enter them in the same case they were assigned to you.
If you have a problem, please go to your profile page on the Nova
Roma website to get your Voter Code, or contact the Censors.
---
cura ut valeas,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| Rogatrix, MMDCCLV
Scriba, Nova Roma Curatror Araneae
Curatrix Araneae,
America Boreoccidentalis
http://ambor.konoko.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] An inquiry about the composition centuries |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@goldenfuture.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:34:50 -0500 |
|
Salve,
Since you chose to use me as your "example", I would like to comment.
>>(It results strange that century 20 that is of single 3 members!
precissely that in wich our brilliant <curatrix sermonis> is inscribed, that
means that she has 0.17% of the total votes, I'm not a twit-minded one and I
suppose that this fact is only a casuality :-).>>
Interesting. Until you posted this I had never taken the time to look at
how many were in my century. When you say 17% of the total votes, do you
mean total votes in my century or overall? Oh, and thank you for the
compliment about my brilliance. I am somewhat unsure if you are being
sarcastic, so I will take it face value.
> If we take in consideration the possibility of 'ghost citizens'
> that no longer exists as such and that are included in the
> centuries 1 to 3 and others, we can speculate in this form: For
> example Vedius Germanicus and Priscilla Vedia (each included in a
> century of 3 persons, being the other 2 "absentist" citizens)>>
I haven't checked Germanicus' century, but speaking for my own century, I
find your comment here quite strange. I am listed as being in the same
century as Marcus Valerius Corvinus and Titus Curius Dannicus. Corvinus has
been a member of NR for 47 months now, according to his list of Points.
According to his list of Points, Dannicus has served as both legate and
Scriba Propraetoris from 4-7-2001 to 12-16-2001; ran for Rogator twice and
Questor once. Granted, he has not run for any office since 2001, but I was
quite unaware that running for office was *anyone*'s definition of being
active and not a "ghost". I would caution you not to discount the vast
majority of our fine citizens based on their lack of interest in running for
office. Until a full Census is held, we must assume that a person's
citizenship is current and that, just because they may not choose to post on
the Ml or run for office, they are no more a "ghost" than you or I are.
> would control about 1% of the total votes!!!! (In order to
> comparation, I am in nova Roma only about 0,04% of the votes,
> that is I have about 1/25 of the decissory power of the Vedians!).>>
Oh, never mind, I get it now. You are seeking to uncover some deep sinister
plot that gives some <you conveniently chose me and my husband> in NR more
power than others. Well, I will leave this in the hands of those better
able to explain to you how Centuries are allocated. I am actually quite glad
you brought the topic up, as I am certain the absurd notion that "certain"
people are being granted special favors will quickly and, hopefully
permanently, be put to rest by the truth.
Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
Lictor
|
