Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:21:23 EDT

One problem that many Pagans encounter is that when confronted in their
religious beliefs many try to use "apologetics" to justify their faith. When
I encounter someone who asks me, "What religion are you." I tell them. If
they start to become antagonistic, (ie., "You mean you don't believe in
Jesus..) I simply say..."Lets stop right here...I will answer any question
you have, but I will not justify my faith, and I will not compare my faith to
yours."

I have done this on several occasions and it works. Too many Pagans want to
tell their Christian friends that "we don't believe in Satan, and that the
Bible talks about more than one God, yada yada yada." This is called
negative Apologetics. Justification of a faith by showing what it is
not...AND using another's sacred texts to justify your own existence. WHY
would any Pagan try to use the Bible to justify their faith, we don't believe
in the Bible?

I have found that those who "do not take me serious in my beliefs don't take
their own beliefs seriously either." I tell people of other faiths that I
encounter that "mystics in any religion are my brothers/sisters" because we
are both searching to connect with the Divine.

Common ground can be found with people of the Christian faith et al.
However, NOT in the realm of doctrine. Virtuous living is the easiest common
ground, although much of Pagan ethics differ, there is some overlap.

Blessings;

Gaius Cassius Athanasius

In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:09:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:

> I Sugest you reread my statement instead of looking
> for reasons to feel offended. I too Worship the Gods.
> I Also have noticed that sometimes when I tell people
> this they look at me like I've just announced that I'm
> the King Of England, a look that says "you can't be
> serious"
>
> Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens-Cornelia
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:23:27 EDT

In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:43:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
haase@konoko.net writes:

> What we're trying to do is to extend the right of self-determination
> to persons who might be unhappy in their gens.

What happens if someone goes from a Patrician Gens to a Plebeian one? I
assume they would switch to the Plebeian Order?

Gaius Cassius Athanasius

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gentes
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:27:03 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Gai Cassi,

> What happens if someone goes from a Patrician Gens to a Plebeian one? I
> assume they would switch to the Plebeian Order?

That is correct; it is already possible under current law.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:01:57 EDT

Salve,

Of course! This topic has come up in the Senate. In that discussion, I was
very clear to stress that Gens Cornelia is a fine Gens! To my knowledge most
of the Citizens there are very pleased with their association in Gens
Cornelia. Sulla, as Pater of Gens Cornelia, does everything he can to make
sure his Gens members are happy, active and fulfilled Citizens.

That some past examples of problems have happened to come from Gens Cornelia
have NO bearing on the discussion of this lex. Gens Cornelia simply grew
faster than most, and a the serious potential problem covered by this law
happened to show up there first.

The "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium" has been created to avoid
*future* harmful situations that could happen in ANY Gens. People problems
happen. We would be foolish not to make provision for that by allowing
Citizens to leave a Gens should it become necessary.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

L. Cornelius Drusus writes:

I for one do not feel I'm being forced to remain in the
Gens_Cornelia. It is a cohesive group, some are very
quiet, others keep in touch. A caring Familia.

Vale,

L. Cornelius Drusus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: the Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:34:38 EDT

Pompeia Cornelia writes:

POMPEIA II: Yes, how silly of me to remotely imagine that the
mistake in question was learned from and that subsequent problems
were resolved amicably. The illogic, amice, is not mine.

Cassius:
There was resolution in this one particular instance - but I must
respectfully point out that it is not 'logical' to believe that the potential
problem is now solved for all time. ANY Citizen could have a problem within
their Gens... and as things stand now there is no safety valve for unsolvable
problems.

Pompeia"
What I find questionably logical is the introduction of legislation over one
incident, which has not since been repeated. Disputes? yes.
Disallowing someone's leave no. The only difference between some
Paters and others is that they would like the opportunity to resolve
problems rather that just see an ad hoc split.

Cassius:
There is a difference between a Pater or Mater wanting to solve problems, and
wanting to 'punish' problem Gens members by not allowing them to leave a
Gens.

Pompeia:
The only difference between me and the next person is that I don't
see where this legislation is going to produce desired outcomes.

Cassius:
It really isn't difficult. The 'desired outcome' is for Citizens to be able
to leave a Gens should they decide they are having unsolvable problems there.
Under our current system, a Pater or Mater can hold them in the Gens forever,
without recorse.

The "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium" produces the desired outcome
by allowing a Citizen to leave a gens even over the objection of a spiteful
and angry Mater or Paterfamilias. It's that simple.

Not that this Lex does not allow time for mediation. A Pater or Mater can
hold the transfer for 30 days should they wish to try and solve the problem.
If the problem cannot be solved in that amount of time, it would seem
pointless to not allow the transfer.

My question in return would have to be: "How does our present system produce
a desired outcome?" As far as I am aware, only by forcing Citizens to leave
NR entirely to escape a Gens problem that cannot be resolved.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octava Salacia...
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:42:02 EDT

A. Hirtius Helveticus writes:

I myself am _not_ against the possibility for cives to
leave a gens at all! Once again, I do agree on the
lex' goal, but I can't support the way it wants to
achieve it.

Cassius:
If you agree with the goal of the Lex, but do not agree with the way it is
worded, what would you propose in its stead? Laws are posted to the list so
that they may gain constructive feedback... not merely so individuals can
announce how they'll vote on unchanged text!

That's why I will vote NO.
In fact, I think it's unfair of all the supporters to
allege that everyone who is against it does so,
because he/she wants to prevent cives from switching
gens. At least in my case this is completely wrong!

Cassius:
Again, it would be best if you could explain what you do not like with the
proposed law, and what you would change.

If you merely vote NO, you merely ensure that the *goal* you say you support
will not be reached. This is the time to speak about your specific concerns
and ideas!

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] My Role as Co-Founder
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:06:11 EDT

Sulla: If my memory serves me correctly, Flavius Vedius did the website and
M. Cassius fronted the cash for Nova Roma. So, M. Cassius was not the author.
(of the Virtues).

Cassius:
Sulla, you are *completely* mistaken. I am the one who researched and
presented the Roman Virtues without any assistance from anyone. I am also the
one who wrote the Declaration for Nova Roma, the Declaration for the Religio
Romana, and major portions of all the rest of the website content. If you
wish, I can take you through all the pages that I've written... and I can
*prove* that I am the author of those specific pages in a real honest-to-Gods
court of law if necessary.

Germanicus did most of the work on the Constitution. I helped smooth some of
the rough bits, but the Constitution is in essence all his. He also drafted
most of the early laws, and wrote the 'intros' for much of the other content.
(There was of course also a lot of equal collaboration on many things, such
as starting the Provinciae, etc.)

My "fronting the cash" consisted of merely being the 'billing contact' for
the website domain name. Germanicus was listed as the 'technical contact'.
Germanicus was indeed our first webmaster - but that does not by any stretch
of the imagination mean that he wrote all the website content.

Sulla, the one thing I will *not* stand for here is you trying to insinuate
that I had no hand in setting the tone of Romanitas, virtue and the
mos-maiorum on the NR website. For the most part that was my sole task. I was
"Mr. Culture, tradition and Religion", Germanicus was "Mr. Technical details,
Government and Law."

Now please stop messing around with things you have no clue about, and DO
stop trying to slander my role as Co-founder of Nova Roma.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae, Senator, Proconsul, Pontifex Maximus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Transitio ad plebem
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:10:35 -0300 (ART)

Salve

I was done various times here in Nova Roma; there are
citizens from patrician gentes that migrated to
plebeian ones; and plebeians that became patricians.
There are cases of entire plebeian gens that became
patrician ones; the patrician gens disappeared, and a
plebeian gens was choosen by the censores to occupy
their place.

In Roma antiqua, Claudius Pulchrus, the enemy of
Cicero, was adopted by a plebeian family, Clodia, by a
ceremony called "transitio ad plebem"; so, someone who
born as patrician could candidate for the Tribuneship.
But i cannot remember of someone who, born as
plebeian, was "turned" patrician.

Vale
Marcus Arminius

--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com escreveu:
> In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:43:15 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> haase@konoko.net writes:
>
>
> > What we're trying to do is to extend the right of
> self-determination
> > to persons who might be unhappy in their gens.
>
> What happens if someone goes from a Patrician Gens
> to a Plebeian one? I
> assume they would switch to the Plebeian Order?
>
> Gaius Cassius Athanasius

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! PageBuilder
O super editor para cria��o de sites: � gr�tis, f�cil e r�pido.
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/v/pb.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:57:18 -0000

Salvete,

The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or Mater
and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place to be.

The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more and
more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication mean little.

Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
switch gens.
The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to allow
for a possible solution.

A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
{Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
Such cases must be documented.

A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of citizenship.
The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two years.

These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.

Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So, for
example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to follow
her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
justification required.

Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
"gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.

Thoughts?

Gaius Cassius Nerva


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: How about a Compromise?
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:16:45 EDT

Salvete,

Bravo! I think this compromise is brilliant. It allows an emergency excape
valve for a bad situation if needed, yet prevents 'gens hopping'.

I'm pleased to have you in Gens Cassia, Nerva. So pleased, in fact, that I
will NEVER allow you to transfer to any other Gens... ever... ;)

(Sorry, just couldn't resist... )

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Gaius Cassius Nerva wrote:

>Salvete,

The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or Mater
and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place to be.

The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more and
more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication mean little.

Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
switch gens.
The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to allow
for a possible solution.

A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
{Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
Such cases must be documented.

A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of citizenship.
The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two years.

These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.

Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So, for
example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to follow
her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
justification required.

Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
"gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.

Thoughts?

Gaius Cassius Nerva

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:37:37 -0000

---

Salve Honoured Pontifex Maximus:

In begging to differ with you, it has *everything* to do with
Cornelia. Crys and Don were mishandled...Sulla has contended that he
realizes this. It has been cited publicly by the Senior Consul as a
major reason for this....plus the 'communists' in question who
resigned for political reasons...

Being the largest gens in Nova Roma...by virtue of shear numbers we
are bound to have more conflicts that other gens.

I am saddened that our gens members have been displayed as drones
held captive by a Paterfamilias who made that mistake in the past,
but no longer makes it now.

As Praetor, I am saddened that the importance of the gens is being
cheapened by legislation which invites a 'come and go tea' approach
to Roman familia, the center in part of religious worship of
antiquita. A come and go, with no accountability or need for
accountability by those ascribing to emulate the Roman way.

And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely admitted he
was a communist....freely.

Bene val et magna cum reverentia,
Pompeia Cornelia

In Nova-Roma@y..., cassius622@a... wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Of course! This topic has come up in the Senate. In that
discussion, I was
> very clear to stress that Gens Cornelia is a fine Gens! To my
knowledge most
> of the Citizens there are very pleased with their association in
Gens
> Cornelia. Sulla, as Pater of Gens Cornelia, does everything he can
to make
> sure his Gens members are happy, active and fulfilled Citizens.
>
> That some past examples of problems have happened to come from Gens
Cornelia
> have NO bearing on the discussion of this lex. Gens Cornelia simply
grew
> faster than most, and a the serious potential problem covered by
this law
> happened to show up there first.
>
> The "Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium" has been created
to avoid
> *future* harmful situations that could happen in ANY Gens. People
problems
> happen. We would be foolish not to make provision for that by
allowing
> Citizens to leave a Gens should it become necessary.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
>
>
>
> L. Cornelius Drusus writes:
>
> I for one do not feel I'm being forced to remain in the
> Gens_Cornelia. It is a cohesive group, some are very
> quiet, others keep in touch. A caring Familia.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Cornelius Drusus
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	28 Jul 2002 23:51:10 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-07-28 �s 22:57, gcassiusnerva escreveu:
> Salvete,
>
> The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
> someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or Mater
> and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place to be.
>
> The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
> an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more and
> more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication mean little.
>
> Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
> switch gens.
> The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to allow
> for a possible solution.
>
> A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
> {Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
> is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
> discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
> Such cases must be documented.
>
> A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of citizenship.
> The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two years.
>
> These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.
>
> Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So, for
> example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to follow
> her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
> justification required.
>

Or the opposite Stupidicus wishing to join Bimbonia.

> Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
> form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
> similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
> "gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.
>
> Thoughts?

Reasonable.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:56:25 EDT

Salve,

While I can certainly respect your emotion regarding this issue, Pompeia, I
must respectfully say that I will do everything I can NOT to let discussion
of this law be 'sidetracked' into a debate about Gens Cornelia.

What has happened there in the past is not an issue. Laws cannot change the
past, they can only provide for the future. We could have a problem within
ANY gens... and in fact is is almost guaranteed that *most* of our Gentes
will face problems at one time or another through the years.

Allowing our Paters and Maters to have *complete* control over adults that
are not blood relations is simply trouble waiting to happen. Any one of the
Citizens on this list who is not a Pater or Mater themselves could be
affected. There does not need to be talk about any specific Gens to make
this an issue.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Pompeia Cornelia writes:

Salve Honoured Pontifex Maximus:

In begging to differ with you, it has *everything* to do with
Cornelia. Crys and Don were mishandled...Sulla has contended that he
realizes this. It has been cited publicly by the Senior Consul as a
major reason for this....plus the 'communists' in question who
resigned for political reasons...

Being the largest gens in Nova Roma...by virtue of shear numbers we
are bound to have more conflicts that other gens.

I am saddened that our gens members have been displayed as drones
held captive by a Paterfamilias who made that mistake in the past,
but no longer makes it now.

As Praetor, I am saddened that the importance of the gens is being
cheapened by legislation which invites a 'come and go tea' approach
to Roman familia, the center in part of religious worship of
antiquita. A come and go, with no accountability or need for
accountability by those ascribing to emulate the Roman way.

And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely admitted he
was a communist....freely.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:01:18 -0000

---Salve Honoured Pontifex:

This was not made a Cornelia issue until the Senior Consul made it so.
The evidence that there is a problem with gens relations in NR I
requested was soley about Cornelia...

I was very academic up to that point, and I would like to think that
my principle reasons for opposition to this lex *as it reads* are
objective, and with the best interests of NR in mind.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., cassius622@a... wrote:
> Salve,
>
> While I can certainly respect your emotion regarding this issue,
Pompeia, I
> must respectfully say that I will do everything I can NOT to let
discussion
> of this law be 'sidetracked' into a debate about Gens Cornelia.
>
> What has happened there in the past is not an issue. Laws cannot
change the
> past, they can only provide for the future. We could have a problem
within
> ANY gens... and in fact is is almost guaranteed that *most* of our
Gentes
> will face problems at one time or another through the years.
>
> Allowing our Paters and Maters to have *complete* control over
adults that
> are not blood relations is simply trouble waiting to happen. Any
one of the
> Citizens on this list who is not a Pater or Mater themselves could
be
> affected. There does not need to be talk about any specific Gens
to make
> this an issue.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
> Pompeia Cornelia writes:
>
> Salve Honoured Pontifex Maximus:
>
> In begging to differ with you, it has *everything* to do with
> Cornelia. Crys and Don were mishandled...Sulla has contended that
he
> realizes this. It has been cited publicly by the Senior Consul as a
> major reason for this....plus the 'communists' in question who
> resigned for political reasons...
>
> Being the largest gens in Nova Roma...by virtue of shear numbers we
> are bound to have more conflicts that other gens.
>
> I am saddened that our gens members have been displayed as drones
> held captive by a Paterfamilias who made that mistake in the past,
> but no longer makes it now.
>
> As Praetor, I am saddened that the importance of the gens is being
> cheapened by legislation which invites a 'come and go tea' approach
> to Roman familia, the center in part of religious worship of
> antiquita. A come and go, with no accountability or need for
> accountability by those ascribing to emulate the Roman way.
>
> And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
> question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely admitted
he
> was a communist....freely.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Fwd: Inquiry
From:	"Susan Brett" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:23:47 -0400

Salvete Omnes:

I wish to spare those who object any undue emotional ruminations, but due to
the fact that my Paterfamilias, the Consul was cited by the other Consul as
being one of the primary reasons for the promulgation of this legislation, I
feel somewhat duty bound, both as filias and as Praetor to produce this
letter to the gens, dated July 9, following discussion on this same
legislation in the Senate.

I don't know where the problems lie in other gens...this information has
never been made known to me. It must merely be a theoretical fear.

However, to show that the gentiles of Cornelia are not bound by chain and
mote, I share this with you.

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia

>From: "pompeia_cornelia" To: trog99@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Inquiry Date:
>Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:18:40 -0000
>
>--- In Gens_Cornelia@y..., Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote: Avete
>Family,
>
>I want to address you as candidly as possible about disagreements. I want
>all of you to feel free to come to me and address me if you have any
>issues. I know that I am not the best paterfamilias, but I try to be there
>for each of you. If any of you feel that this family is not the right fit
>for you...or if you are having issues with me....or for that matter with
>any other member of the family, please talk to me. If we can work it
>out...great....but if we cant...and you feel the need to leave Cornelia for
>another Gens I wont stop you....because its better that you have a great
>experience in Nova Roma.
>
>Let me assure you that I wont make the matter public (it will be kept
>entirely confidential) and that you wont hurt my feelings.
>
>Vale,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix --- End forwarded message ---

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] For the Record
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:31:01 -0000

Salvete Honoured Pontifex et Omnes:

I do not *ever* remember saying that I wanted Paters/Maters to
have 'sole control' over their gentiles. With respect, I am not that
ridiculous. Nor do I want a runamok approach to gens hopping is
what I don't want, and I find the evidence that there is a problem
today with persons trying to depart gens very flimsy.

Please do not make me out to be someone so void of logic. Believe it
or not, I can think logically and objectively.

I proposed a compromise this morning too, the aspects of which some
people liked, and some did not. It matters not that you agree with
it, but it was an objective attempt to compromise, as Praetor.

With respect, I think you should read my posts more carefully.

Bene valete,
Pompeia


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Fw: check this out
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:35:07 -0500

----- Original Message -----
To: tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: check this out

copy and paste this URL to your address area,
see if you can find whats wrong.

http://home.attbi.com/~n9ivo/whatswrong.swf

__________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet Service - Just $13.90 per month!
Email with a better address - 1000 domains to choose from.
Click here for info: http://www.MailSpace.com

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Fw: check this out
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:38:13 -0000

---OH YOU BRAT!!!!

You scared me half to death!!!!

Bad, bad Equitius!!! :) :)

Thanks, I needed that!

Po

In Nova-Roma@y..., "Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@h...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: tyrael_equitius@h...
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:15 PM
> Subject: check this out
>
>
> copy and paste this URL to your address area,
> see if you can find whats wrong.
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~n9ivo/whatswrong.swf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Unlimited Internet Service - Just $13.90 per month!
> Email with a better address - 1000 domains to choose from.
> Click here for info: http://www.MailSpace.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fw: check this out
From:	"Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:41:54 -0500

HAHAHAHAHAHA, ROFLMAO!!
Life is good......
Tib. Equitius Germanicus
----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_cornelia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fw: check this out

---OH YOU BRAT!!!!

You scared me half to death!!!!

Bad, bad Equitius!!! :) :)

Thanks, I needed that!

Po

In Nova-Roma@y..., "Tib. Equitius Germanicus" <tyrael_equitius@h...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: tyrael_equitius@h...
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:15 PM
> Subject: check this out
>
>
> copy and paste this URL to your address area,
> see if you can find whats wrong.
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~n9ivo/whatswrong.swf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Unlimited Internet Service - Just $13.90 per month!
> Email with a better address - 1000 domains to choose from.
> Click here for info: http://www.MailSpace.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post Two)
From:	"T. Cornelius Crispus" <centuriocornelius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:20:12 -0500

Avete Omnes,
I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for just a little less then one year. I
am not a political person, but I do try to do my civic duties. I don't know
all the idiosyncrasies of the constitution, or the law, so I won't base my
arguments on them. I do have at least an average intelligence, so some
things just seem like common sense to me.
When I joined this micro nation I already had a Roman identity, so choosing
my gens was not an issue. I knew nothing about Gens Cornelia, but I was a
Cornelian so I joined, Cornelia. I have never been sorry.
Last night and today I have been following the debate (I will use a positive
term for it) with rapt fascination. I finally stopped reading, because I
couldn't keep up with the new posts, and I hadn't read anything new for some
time. Now, I know I am a virtual Nobody, but I am going to throw in my two
cents anyway.
I come from a gens were people are cared for as family, and the Pater is
available at all times for our questions, and concerns. I am not saying that
we always agree, but I can't remember anyone openly being ridiculed, or made
to feel small. You see, we are a family. Opps, did I say a bad word?
Now it seem that the most commonly repeated thoughts in this dog fight, I
mean debate, are; 1) A person should be able to affiliate with those he
wants to. OK? What does that have to do with gens? Show me a Paterfamilia
who tells his members they can't associate with another citizen. Better yet
show me one who can stop them. 2) Paterfamilias have too much power over the
members of their gens. Please explain to me what power, exactly, a
Paterfamilia has. I have the most "Powerful" Pater in the nation, and I have
yet to see that he controls me in any way. I vote as I wish, I associate
with whom I wish, I take part in the Sodalitates of my choice. If I choose
to run for office, it will be the office of my choice, when I choose. Where
is the control? 3) Citizens should be able to change their names if they
choose. If they think that will make them happier, perhaps they should. Like
I said, I had a Roman identity before I joined Nova Roma, so maybe I don't
get this one. But I would think that a person could take enough pride in
their Roman identity to not care what someone else who shares their Noman
is, or what he does. I know that it offends some of my fellow citizens, but
to me, name-changing smacks of role-playing. I remember my father talking
about a man he knew in his earlier life, who shared our last name. They also
shared a strong mutual dislike for each other, and hated it when people
associated them because of their names. However, I don't remember anywhere
in the story where one of them changed their name because of that dislike.
Now like I said, I am of average intelligence, and to me this debate has
boiled down to one issue. Removing the perceived power from the largest gens
in Nova Roma. Let's see, that would be. . . Gens Cornelia! Hey, wait a
minute! That's my gens! But if you made it so all of us unsatisfied members
could all just leave of our own free will, then that would mean that there
would only be about. . . eighty-six of us left. Wait, that's how many of us
there are now!
I think that there should be some way for those poor souls that are being
truly abused by their Paterfamilias to get out. I also think that
alternatives to this "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" lex should be
seriously considered instead. Leave personal agendas out of it, and do
something that is really for the people.
Vale.
T. Cornelius Crispus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Octavius Germanicus" <haase@konoko.net>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salicia Libertatis Gentilium (Post
Two)

> Salve Praetrix,
>
> > Is this "all"???...this was well over two-three years ago!
>
> One case of someone attempting to leave a gens and being denied
> is sufficient. Just because the misplaced application of
> "pater potestast" doesn't happen *often* doesn not mean it
> should be condoned.
>
> And if the Lex Octavia Salicia passes, and is invoked only once,
> and enables one person to leave a gens and join one more to
> their liking... it will have been worth the effort.
>
> > Can someone not make a mistake (Crys and Don) and subsequently learn
> > a lesson from it?
>
> I'm trying to allow people to rectify their mistakes. If someone
> joins the wrong gens, they should be allowed to leave freely.
>
> > Then the incident of Sulla's ability to be a good pater should have
> > been addressed back then, not dredged up in an attempt to paint to
> > the populace that Sulla has learned nothing by his mistakes or that
> > we have many Pater abuses that need legislation to counter such
> > activities.
>
> You and he dredged it up. I was content to let it remain private
> until you asked for examples, and he asked for the examples to be
> posted pubically.
>
> I am appalled that you accuse me of "dredging up" something when
> YOU had asked for it!
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Digest Number 76 Lex de Libertate Gentilium
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:32:18 -0400

CENSOR LUCIUS EQUITIUS CINCINNATUS QUIRITBUS SPD

I must join the growing list of citizens who are ambivalent on this issue. I do see, believe me I do, both sides of the argument. I want to say that aside from a very few instances there is no need for this LEX. My main concern is for the citizen who cannot make a move on an issue because of the non responsiveness of a Mater/Pater.

What I would like to see is a provision in the constitution that allows intervention by the Censores, but as things stand we cannot.

I have one idea, I propose that anyone making such requests, including name changes et cetera, be Assidui. I don't know about other magistrates, but I think our time is worth something.

I'm not against the proposed lex on principle; however, I think the lex needs to address adoption. For example, should a person be required to change their Nomen when/if they leave one gens and join another? Why force an applicant to become a member of a gens when all they want is to have a certain name? Perhaps we should allow applicants to choose whatever name/gens combination they want as long as they meet some pre-established guidelines.

I have a few comments below. I have taken the time to edit the text for
brevity.

Message: 4 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:12:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Marcus
Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> Subject: Re: Lex Octavia Salicia de
Libertate Gentilium

Salve Colleague,

> Sulla: It is correct, as I have quoted directly from the Nova Roma
> website and the Constitution of Nova Roma.

NOTHING in your quotes from the Constitution or the web site support
the idea that you have a right to keep people in a gens who don't
want to be there.

<SNIP>

> Sulla: So I disagree with your narrow view of a family and state that
> at least some gentes in Nova Roma are families. I will go even
> further and state that the Gens Cornelia is a family.

Not in the historical sense of the word, which is where pater potestas
applies. You have no more right to prevent one of them from leaving
than you do over another member of the "family of ISP employees".

CENSOR CINCINNATUS: There are some gens, that of course have more than one member, that consist of what we consider a 'family', husband, wife and their children. However, most, is not all of the larger gens have members from diverse backgrounds.

> Sulla: According to Adkins (Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, page 341)
> it states, " A person who was sui iuris could also place himself
> under the power of another of his own accord."

Adkins was writing about actual adoptions -- not picking some
stranger's name from a web form.

CENSOR CINCINNATUS, wonders if the Junior Consul knows any other references....
Most interesting though is that the passage quoted would support to argument of the Senior Consul!

<SNIP>

> Also, let us not forget the fact that Censor Lucius Equitius did give
> his approval to the Censor procedures as the handbook was created and
> compilied during the Lustrum of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix and
> Lucius Equitius Cincinatus.

I doubt he approved the blatantly unconstitutional bit about a
paterfamilias being able to terminate the citizenship of a
departing citizen.

CENSOR CINCINNATUS: I do not recall ever being asked for, or giving approval, for a handbook . I am going to add this, I had nothing to do with the "Censor's handbook", I looked at it once and that's it. It is not law or even edict Sulla's continued reference to it as if it were is misleading.

Now I have maintained the position that there is nothing that can be done
about the "Gens/Paterfamilias" situation until we have a constitutional
change that gives authority to whatever magistrate should have authority in a "family court".

<SNIP>

> I would like to hear these other reasons.

Look in the archives of the now-defunct "Vedian Baths" mailing list,
in which an incident was related where a citizen attempted to leave
a gens but was denied. The paterfamilias also happened to be a
Censor at the time, and rather than properly recusing himself from
the case and appointing someone unbiased to handle it, he simply
denied the request.

I can send you a copy if you don't have it.

CENSOR CINCINNATUS: I am not, nor was I ever, a subscriber to that list. I am very interested in viewing the information.

> Sulla: According to Adkins, the power of the Paterfamilias is absolute.

He's talking about real paters, heads of a household. Quote all you want,
the comparision is invalid. You are not the father - natural or adopted -
of the persons in your gens.
Vale, Octavius.

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:16:37 -0000

Salvete omnes,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Fortunatus <labienus@t...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites
>
snip
>
> Leges exist to protect cives from the excesses of both their
government
> and other people. This proposed law will do this.

snip

> It reaffirms that every civis has the right to remain sovereign and
> secure in his or her own person. This is not just a protection
against
> physical harm, but also against slavery, institutionalized sexism,
and
> other practices that interfere with the right of an individual to
> determine the course of his or her own life.

snip

> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus

>From my point of view our valued junior Praetor has hit the nail
right on the head with this posting. As a former "receiving" pater
familias - who in the past witnessed first hand the problematic and
now often cited "example case" for possible abuse - I am steadfastly
opposed to any pater familias power that would ultimately deny a gens
member to leave his gens without resigning citizenship. I will vote
YES with full conviction of the merits of the law.

I must also add that I am not at all convinced by an earlier
statement by a Cornelius that implied that II.B.6. of the
constitution only referred to "person" as the "physical body". This
reference is made, I believe, in the context of the "search and
seizure amendment" of the US constitution (Amendment IV), which
states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Not that I as a Europaean lawyer could be called a constitutional
expert in US law but it seems clear to me that "person" here relates
to physical attributes (as only this would make sense to me). So the
Cornelian was right in pointing this out.

However, in our constitution a citizen does not only have the right
to be secure but also the right to be "sovereign".

Sovereignty is the right and power to judge, command, rule or, more
generally, the right and power to decide. The "right to decide" about
one's "person" in the Nova Roman context does only make sense to me
if it is applied in situations regarding the determination of the
course of the citizen's own life in Nova Roma.

And to me at least (but also a few others I hope) the question of
whether or not to remain in a gens certainly qualifies as such a
situation. So I believe the Constitution actually mandates the
passing of such a law.

Avete et Valete

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octava Salacia...
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:35:25 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete quirites

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> A. Hirtius Helveticus writes:
>
> I myself am _not_ against the possibility for cives
> to
> leave a gens at all! Once again, I do agree on the
> lex' goal, but I can't support the way it wants to
> achieve it.
>
> Cassius:
> If you agree with the goal of the Lex, but do not
> agree with the way it is
> worded, what would you propose in its stead? Laws
> are posted to the list so
> that they may gain constructive feedback... not
> merely so individuals can
> announce how they'll vote on unchanged text!

Well, I think, I did that already... Anyway, let me
just outline my concerns again. I have the following
two objections against the proposed law:

a) *Gens-hopping*
I myself am sure, that there will be more citizens
changing gens because they are unhappy with their
chosen name than because they have problems with their
paterfamilias. Obviously, I am not alone with this
thought.

This morning, Cassius Nerva proposed a compromise with
which I fully agree and I would like to see
implemented. That way, this problem would be solved.

b) The procedure itself
As I already pointed out, in my opinion, changing gens
should be done properly. That is via
adrogatio/adoption. What does that mean: If any
citizen wants to leave his/her gens (out of whatever
reason), he/she should _first_ find a new, better
fitting gens, before able to take any further action.
The paterfamilias of the new gens should then adress
the censores and express his/her will to adopt that
citizen. Only after that, the procedure as described
in the lex should be applied.
Why this? I think, that citizens willing to leave
their gens should first be encouraged to join another
one and not simply leave and then form their own gens
(as I fear it will happen). Of course the possibility
to form a new gens should be maintained. But the
censores should be able to agree on that _before_ the
citizen may leave the gens. The written plea to form a
new gens should have the same effect as the expressed
will of a paterfamilias to adopt a citizen.

As far as I can see, I am not the only citizen with
these concerns or at least mixed feelings about the
proposed lex. But I am sure if these *checks* could be
implemented, then many of them (including me) would
vote yes. As long as no compromise can be found at
all, I will vote NO.

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:07:15 +0200

Salvete omnes,

Ok, I'm going off topic here, but...

> And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
> question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely admitted he
> was a communist....freely.

What's so bad about being a communist? I can't help thinking this must be a
North American thing :o).

Valete bene,
Solaris


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:37:31 EDT

In a message dated 7/27/02 7:42:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:

> I Have spoken out about the need to reform our
> structure in the past. Basically we have a set of
> families that we have mislabeled Gens. In all other
> respects our "Gens" are Roman families. We don't have
> any structures resembling a Roman Gens. I have no
> problem with addressing this problem, but stripping
> the Paters of power over families (which IS what our
> mislabeled Gens are) will only make the situation more
> inaccurate.
>

Salvete.

While you are correct in saying our Gens act more as families, make no
mistake. Since we restarted this whole process, we have literally became the
Gens of New Rome, from which, our families will spring. While our progeny
will not be able to claim their head of Gens were divine like old Rome, they
can at least claim they were all noble and great Romans.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 02:52:43 -0700 (PDT)

The main reason I've found for dismissing the Religio
as something not to be taken serious is all most
people know about the Gods is what they "learned" from
bad movies and TV shows. These "sources" treat the
Gods as a source of material for fantasy adventure
shows much like the fantsy worlds in RPGs.

At least the people who think Paganism is somehow
related to Satinism take it serious. What they fail to
understand is Satinism is closer to Christianity than
to Paganism. Satinists share many of the beliefs of
the Christians, they just opt for the bad guys in the
Christian Mythos.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> One problem that many Pagans encounter is that when
> confronted in their
> religious beliefs many try to use "apologetics" to
> justify their faith. When
> I encounter someone who asks me, "What religion are
> you." I tell them. If
> they start to become antagonistic, (ie., "You mean
> you don't believe in
> Jesus..) I simply say..."Lets stop right here...I
> will answer any question
> you have, but I will not justify my faith, and I
> will not compare my faith to
> yours."
>
> I have done this on several occasions and it works.
> Too many Pagans want to
> tell their Christian friends that "we don't believe
> in Satan, and that the
> Bible talks about more than one God, yada yada
> yada." This is called
> negative Apologetics. Justification of a faith by
> showing what it is
> not...AND using another's sacred texts to justify
> your own existence. WHY
> would any Pagan try to use the Bible to justify
> their faith, we don't believe
> in the Bible?
>
> I have found that those who "do not take me serious
> in my beliefs don't take
> their own beliefs seriously either." I tell people
> of other faiths that I
> encounter that "mystics in any religion are my
> brothers/sisters" because we
> are both searching to connect with the Divine.
>
> Common ground can be found with people of the
> Christian faith et al.
> However, NOT in the realm of doctrine. Virtuous
> living is the easiest common
> ground, although much of Pagan ethics differ, there
> is some overlap.
>
> Blessings;
>
> Gaius Cassius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:09:14 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > I Sugest you reread my statement instead of
> looking
> > for reasons to feel offended. I too Worship the
> Gods.
> > I Also have noticed that sometimes when I tell
> people
> > this they look at me like I've just announced that
> I'm
> > the King Of England, a look that says "you can't
> be
> > serious"
> >
> > Drusus
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:55:45 -0500

I find the same reaction when I tell people I'm buddhist. I worship the Roamn State gods, also, myself. And even devisied my own rain prayer. Check your weather web sites-its raining cats and dogs here in kansas City right now!

The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing

One problem that many Pagans encounter is that when confronted in their
religious beliefs many try to use "apologetics" to justify their faith. When
I encounter someone who asks me, "What religion are you." I tell them. If
they start to become antagonistic, (ie., "You mean you don't believe in
Jesus..) I simply say..."Lets stop right here...I will answer any question
you have, but I will not justify my faith, and I will not compare my faith to
yours."

I have done this on several occasions and it works. Too many Pagans want to
tell their Christian friends that "we don't believe in Satan, and that the
Bible talks about more than one God, yada yada yada." This is called
negative Apologetics. Justification of a faith by showing what it is
not...AND using another's sacred texts to justify your own existence. WHY
would any Pagan try to use the Bible to justify their faith, we don't believe
in the Bible?

I have found that those who "do not take me serious in my beliefs don't take
their own beliefs seriously either." I tell people of other faiths that I
encounter that "mystics in any religion are my brothers/sisters" because we
are both searching to connect with the Divine.

Common ground can be found with people of the Christian faith et al.
However, NOT in the realm of doctrine. Virtuous living is the easiest common
ground, although much of Pagan ethics differ, there is some overlap.

Blessings;

Gaius Cassius Athanasius

In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:09:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:

> I Sugest you reread my statement instead of looking
> for reasons to feel offended. I too Worship the Gods.
> I Also have noticed that sometimes when I tell people
> this they look at me like I've just announced that I'm
> the King Of England, a look that says "you can't be
> serious"
>
> Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:41:03 -0400

Salve,

Although your modification does seem adequate for preventing "gens
hopping," that was only one point of opposition. I, for one, am still
not convinced that a law needs to be implemented for a problem that
doesn't exist. The cases so far cited have been amicably resolved. If
the gens system in place seems to address its own issues, then isn't
such a law superfluous? We should not be passing legislation for
hypothetical problems. If a time arrives when these rare disputes are
*not* being handled amicably, perhaps then we can see to outlining a
formal "escape plan" for cives who want out of a gens, or even *better*,
to formalize an improved system for accepting new cives into NR so they
go through a probation period (1 week? 3 weeks? 3 months?) during
which they have time to "evaluate" the gens they petition for entry and
vice versa.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

gcassiusnerva wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
> someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or Mater
> and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place to be.
>
> The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
> an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more and
> more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication mean little.
>
> Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
> switch gens.
> The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to allow
> for a possible solution.
>
> A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
> {Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
> is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
> discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
> Such cases must be documented.
>
> A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of citizenship.
> The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two years.
>
> These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.
>
> Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So, for
> example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to follow
> her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
> justification required.
>
> Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
> form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
> similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
> "gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Gaius Cassius Nerva
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 03:39:39 -0400

Salve,

It was I that first responded to the claim that section II.B.6. applied
to rights of association on a mailing list.

II.B.6. reads: "The right to remain sovereign and secure within one's own
home, person, and property."

Both the language and context seem to clearly imply one's physical
condition. "Person" unequivocally implies the physical body. You can
check any standard english dictionary, but allow me to cite the top four
usages of the term from the American Heritage Dictionary:

per�son Pronunciation Key (p�rsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson;
salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual
personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.

Please pay special attention to the fourth usage which is grammatically
in keeping with the usage in II.B.6.

The term "sovereign" expands on the basic right to freedom from harm that
"secure" implies, and affirms one's supreme authority over one's
physical condition in all its aspects. In other words, you have the
right to dress how you want, eat what you want, take on mannerisms that
you want, in *addition* to being secure, i.e. safe from injury or
attack. In short, you are allowed to do with your body as you wish.

There is no reason to understand the scope of II.B.6. as extending to
circumstances that do not affect your "home", "person," and "property."
It does not address rights of association (via mailing lists or
otherwise), but II.B.4. does, which in turn, does not assert any right
to flee a gens. So, I must strongly disagree and assert that it is clear
that the Constitution does not mandate the law.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

> I must also add that I am not at all convinced by an earlier
> statement by a Cornelius that implied that II.B.6. of the
> constitution only referred to "person" as the "physical body". This
> reference is made, I believe, in the context of the "search and
> seizure amendment" of the US constitution (Amendment IV), which
> states that:
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
> cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
> the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> Not that I as a Europaean lawyer could be called a constitutional
> expert in US law but it seems clear to me that "person" here relates
> to physical attributes (as only this would make sense to me). So the
> Cornelian was right in pointing this out.
>
> However, in our constitution a citizen does not only have the right
> to be secure but also the right to be "sovereign".
>
> Sovereignty is the right and power to judge, command, rule or, more
> generally, the right and power to decide. The "right to decide" about
> one's "person" in the Nova Roman context does only make sense to me
> if it is applied in situations regarding the determination of the
> course of the citizen's own life in Nova Roma.
>
> And to me at least (but also a few others I hope) the question of
> whether or not to remain in a gens certainly qualifies as such a
> situation. So I believe the Constitution actually mandates the
> passing of such a law.
>
> Avete et Valete
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:32:27 EDT

If I believed everything I saw on TV I would assume that every Priest in the
Catholic Church is a child molester, and that all Muslims are terrorists.

Everything on TV except for perhaps the news is ROLE PLAYING...its called
acting. Faith is not. For it to be serious the believers need to take it
seriously.

Athanasios

In a message dated 7/29/2002 5:53:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:

> The main reason I've found for dismissing the Religio
> as something not to be taken serious is all most
> people know about the Gods is what they "learned" from
> bad movies and TV shows. These "sources" treat the
> Gods as a source of material for fantasy adventure
> shows much like the fantsy worlds in RPGs.
>
> At least the people who think Paganism is somehow
> related to Satinism take it serious. What they fail to
> understand is Satinism is closer to Christianity than
> to Paganism. Satinists share many of the beliefs of
> the Christians, they just opt for the bad guys in the
> Christian Mythos.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	Kristoffer From <from@darkeye.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:44:15 +0200

"M. Octavius Solaris" wrote:
> Ok, I'm going off topic here, but...
> What's so bad about being a communist? I can't help thinking this must be a
> North American thing :o).

Salve, Marce Octavi Solaris.

Indeed. In Sweden, the socialist party and the communist party (These
days known as the "left party".) make up the ruling coalition in our
government. Here, they are one of the most respected political parties,
while in the US all communists are considered under the light of
stalinist Sovjet.

The cold war left some marks in a lot of psyches, let's hope we'll lose
'em in another generation or two. Until then, please, all of you,
refrain from using the word "communist" in a derogatory fashion, as it's
merely a label of an individual's political views. Besides, in many
nations, it will be perceived as praise, not as slander. Such is the
case in Sweden, at any rate.

And those of us who voted for the "left party" and are able to "sense"
the derogatory meaning you put into the word "communist" will feel
offended by the use of their political views as a "cussword".

In short, no points gained. Some lost. Please stop.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lex Octavia Salicia de Libertate Gentilium: Abstineo
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Omnes,

hereafter, I will explain my two pennies opinion about the Lex Octavia Salicia
de Libertate Gentilium.
Given the contents of the law and the constitution, given the contents of the
numerous related messages on this list, given my lack of knowledge of
historical facts within NR, I cannot make up my mind on this topic, but, being
completely neutral:

- it seems that a change of Gens has already occured and that this change has
been handled properly. So we might question the utility of such a law.
- if there is one point on which a large majority of Citizens agrees is that
our actual familial and Gens structure does not replicate the antique one and
that this structure could be the cause of problems. Therefore, we might say
that the problem should be handled at the source, that is on the very structure
of the Gens. Given that, we might say that the law deals with the right problem
but not on the right level.
- some messages have a personnal content. The Citizens having no idea of what
happened in the past, might have a very bad opinion of such messages and could
think that the law has been proposed for personnal reasons or that the law is
criticized for the same purposes.

For those reasons, and at this level of discussion, I cannot say if I should
vote yes or no, so far I will vote Abstineo.

Respectfully,

=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Praetor Provinciae Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 08:38:53 -0300

Em Dom, 2002-07-28 �s 23:37, pompeia_cornelia escreveu:
> ---
>
> Salve Honoured Pontifex Maximus:
>
> In begging to differ with you, it has *everything* to do with
> Cornelia. Crys and Don were mishandled...Sulla has contended that he
> realizes this. It has been cited publicly by the Senior Consul as a
> major reason for this....plus the 'communists' in question who
> resigned for political reasons...
>
> Being the largest gens in Nova Roma...by virtue of shear numbers we
> are bound to have more conflicts that other gens.
>
> I am saddened that our gens members have been displayed as drones
> held captive by a Paterfamilias who made that mistake in the past,
> but no longer makes it now.
>
> As Praetor, I am saddened that the importance of the gens is being
> cheapened by legislation which invites a 'come and go tea' approach
> to Roman familia, the center in part of religious worship of
> antiquita. A come and go, with no accountability or need for
> accountability by those ascribing to emulate the Roman way.
>
> And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
> question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely admitted he
> was a communist....freely.
>

And ?
What is wrong with that political opinion?
The CP is a respected party all around the world. Together with the
other version of communism (trotskism, maoism etc.) they usually
represent some 15-20 % of the electorate (this used to be some 30% some
years ago).
Is this a reason for forcing the resignation of NR? Clearly not, or is a
totalitarian state which discrimates people based on their opinions?

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:22:59 -0700 (PDT)

The Media Rarely portrays the Gods as anything other
than fantasy. The result is the general population
thinks of the Gods as fantasy characters, NOT as
devine beings. I do not like this perception, but
ignoring it's existance is not going to make it
vanish.

There are a lot of people out there who consider the
Gods to be fantasies, and as long as we refrain from
speaking out against this these people will glance at
the Religio and assume it's some kind of fantasy game,
and never entertain the idea that there is any deapth
to it.

--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> If I believed everything I saw on TV I would assume
> that every Priest in the
> Catholic Church is a child molester, and that all
> Muslims are terrorists.
>
> Everything on TV except for perhaps the news is ROLE
> PLAYING...its called
> acting. Faith is not. For it to be serious the
> believers need to take it
> seriously.
>
> Athanasios
>
> In a message dated 7/29/2002 5:53:39 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > The main reason I've found for dismissing the
> Religio
> > as something not to be taken serious is all most
> > people know about the Gods is what they "learned"
> from
> > bad movies and TV shows. These "sources" treat the
> > Gods as a source of material for fantasy adventure
> > shows much like the fantsy worlds in RPGs.
> >
> > At least the people who think Paganism is somehow
> > related to Satinism take it serious. What they
> fail to
> > understand is Satinism is closer to Christianity
> than
> > to Paganism. Satinists share many of the beliefs
> of
> > the Christians, they just opt for the bad guys in
> the
> > Christian Mythos.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:34:38 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Ok, I'm going off topic here, but...
>
> > And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those in
> > question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely
admitted he
> > was a communist....freely.
>
> What's so bad about being a communist? I can't help thinking this
must be a
> North American thing :o).
>
> Valete bene,
> Solaris

Salve Solaris,

More spacifically it is an "American thing." One of the lessons
learned during the early years of the "American Experiment" was it is
much easier to control a factious populace when it has an "enemy" to
unite against. "Communist" became the favorite boogey-man to scare
the populace into submission.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	Marcus Vitellius Ligus <mvitelliusligus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:38:00 -0700 (PDT)

"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
I Sugest you reread my statement instead of looking
for reasons to feel offended. I too Worship the Gods.
I Also have noticed that sometimes when I tell people
this they look at me like I've just announced that I'm
the King Of England, a look that says "you can't be
serious"

Drusus

I did re-read it...several times in fact...perhaps your choice of words wasn't what you were looking for. I don't go out of my way or look for reasons to get offended, however at some point, the use of words in context will get my ire up rather rapidly.

M. Vitellius Ligus
Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Role Playing
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 10:35:54 -0300

Em Seg, 2002-07-29 �s 10:22, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
> The Media Rarely portrays the Gods as anything other
> than fantasy. The result is the general population
> thinks of the Gods as fantasy characters, NOT as
> devine beings. I do not like this perception, but
> ignoring it's existance is not going to make it
> vanish.
>
> There are a lot of people out there who consider the
> Gods to be fantasies, and as long as we refrain from
> speaking out against this these people will glance at
> the Religio and assume it's some kind of fantasy game,
> and never entertain the idea that there is any deapth
> to it.
>

Salve,

I never understood why rational beings represent one religion gods as
fantasies while not doing the same for their own divinities.

After all it is quite clear that a divinity which is supposed to be
historical but is only depicted in that sects books (Jesus for example)
had probably no real existence. Which does not change the value of this
mythical character's teaching, nor the faith you can have in those.

The same applies but in lesser extend to proto-historical physical
intervention of beings (our Gods, Jewish religion etc.), there the lack
of "international" witnesses is even more natural.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:07:09 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Senatrix Cornelia,

> This was not made a Cornelia issue until the Senior Consul made it so.

This is not a Cornelia issue, and I did not "make it so". This law
is concerned with principles, not personalities.

> The evidence that there is a problem with gens relations in NR I
> requested was soley about Cornelia...

Yes, some examples of a paterfamilias denying or delaying the departure
of a citizen can be found in the history of Gens Cornelia, and were
part of the inspiration for this law.

I have tried to keep this debate focused on the principles involved,
and not the history of your gens, but my colleague insisted that
the past incidents that I had discreetly and obliquely referred to
be made public.

I see no reason to dissect these incidents and analyze them. They are
in the past. The intent of this law is not to prosecute, persecute,
or penalize participants in those events of two years ago; the
purpose of this law is to clearly state that a citizen has a
certain right, the right to choose to leave a gens, and that no one
may interfere with this.

Let us think of the future. Let us not quibble about the details
of certain events in the past - instead, let us concentrate on
what will be acceptable behaviour in the future.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:20:42 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Gai Cassi,

> Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
> switch gens.

This is a very good suggestion.

We are already in the Contio, and thus the current proposal cannot
be changed - however, I would be willing to introduce a law
at the earliest opportunity that would limit the number of gens
changes that may be made.

I like your idea of the second change being allowed only in the
event of an emergency, and the third change being somehow made
more difficult - something less than revocation of citizenship,
however; one of the goals of the current proposal is to avoid
the situation where a citizen must resign citizenship in order
to escape from a bad situation.

If the proposed Lex Octavia Salicia passes, I hereby vow that I
will attempt to introduce a law that will limit frivolous
"gens hopping" by limiting the number of changes that can be
made, or by forcing a wait of several years between changes.
If the current Lex Octavia Salicia fails, then I will ask
the Tribunes to present a compromise version that includes
a provision to limit repeated frivolous changes.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT)

--- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "M. Octavius Solaris"
> <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > Ok, I'm going off topic here, but...
> >
> > > And for the record...the word 'communists' is a
> name that those in
> > > question assigned to themselves. Drusus
> Cornelius freely
> admitted he
> > > was a communist....freely.
> >
> > What's so bad about being a communist? I can't
> help thinking this
> must be a
> > North American thing :o).
> >
> > Valete bene,
> > Solaris
>
> Salve Solaris,
>
> More spacifically it is an "American thing." One of
> the lessons
> learned during the early years of the "American
> Experiment" was it is
> much easier to control a factious populace when it
> has an "enemy" to
> unite against. "Communist" became the favorite
> boogey-man to scare
> the populace into submission.
>
> Pax,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus
>
>
There is more to it than that.
One element is the CPUSA never ammounted to much more
than a mouthpiece for the Soviet Union. It never
showed the slightest hint of independance and was
rightly viewed as an agent of a hostile foriegn power
instead of a Political Party.

Another reason is Americans have a basic mistrust of
Government. When either of our major parties drift too
far to increased government controls they find power
shifting towards the other party. Statist parties like
the Communists, the Socalists, and the Nazis are
viewed with mistrust by most Americans. Most Americans
view the differances between Communists and Nazis as
window dressing and pay more attention to the
similarities.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:30:38 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:

> We are already in the Contio, and thus the current
> proposal cannot
> be changed - however, I would be willing to
> introduce a law
> at the earliest opportunity that would limit the
> number of gens
> changes that may be made.

That's fine with me. A possible solution to some of my
concerns.

> If the current Lex Octavia Salicia fails, then I
> will ask
> the Tribunes to present a compromise version that
> includes
> a provision to limit repeated frivolous changes.

Hopefully, this statement by our senior consul helps
certain people to understand, _why_ I will still vote
NO...

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:52:32 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Corneli,

> Although your modification does seem adequate for preventing "gens
> hopping," that was only one point of opposition. I, for one, am still
> not convinced that a law needs to be implemented for a problem that
> doesn't exist.

I believe that possible problems should be anticipated. I anticipate
problems for a living.

I work as a sysadmin and programmer. In both of these positions,
one must anticipate problems, and have a solution in place that
will adequately handle those problems - before they occur. In
these professions, a person who does not do this is considered
incompetent.

For example, consider a program such as a text editor or word
processor that writes to a file when you hit "Save". In the
vast majority of "Save File" operations, nothing goes wrong:
the file is successfully written. However, the author of
that program had to anticipate those errors that might occur.
Perhaps the file is owned by another user (on a multiuser
system), and the current user does not have permission to
write to it. Perhaps it is on a network drive, and the server
that houses that file location has gone down. Perhaps the
disk is full, and the entire file cannot be written.

If any of these situations occur, and the program either
fails silently, falsely claims to have been successful,
or crashes, users will be outraged, and rightfully so.

I applied the same philosophy to the writing of this law that I
apply every day in my professional life - when a problem occurs,
the means of handling it should already be in place.

Currently, there is no law that allows a citizen to leave a gens
freely; there is also no law that says a paterfamilias must give
a citizen permission to leave. The decision is left to the
Censores - who might be reluctant to act without a clear mandate.

I wrote this law in response to a brief description of events that
occurred a few years ago; but those events are in the past, and
this law will do nothing to change the outcome or punish anyone
involved. Rather, this law is designed for situations that may
arise in the future.

It does not address a common problem; it addresses an uncommon
problem. As our society grows, it is inevitable that this will
occur. It may be years before this lex is applied; but it is
needed.

If this lex allows even *one* citizen to escape from a situation
intolerable to them, all of this effort will have been worthwhile.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:25:20 -0700 (PDT)

Quirites,
It's becomming apparent that we have different views
of the Gens, and support or opposition to the Lex
Octavia Salacia is driven by these differing views.

We have one group that views Gens as a single family
that will become a true Gens over a period of time.
This viewpoint stems from the idea that each of the
Historic Gens were founded as a Family at the start of
Roma, and since we are at the start of Nova Roma the
Gens will follow the same development over the years
as the Historic Gens, eventually becoming a group of
Families decending from a single family.

We have another group that looks on the Gens as they
existed during the Republic, as a group that just
share the same name, and who's members may or may not
be related.

The first group looks on the Lex as interferance in
the affairs of a Roman family, and considers any lex
that interfers with a family to strike at the heart of
Roman beliefs about the family.

The Second group looks at the powers of a Paterfamilis
over an entire Gens as ahistoric, which it would be
for a Gens composed of multiple families, and a
violation of indiviual rights.

I can not vote for any lex that imposes the later view
of a Gens on the those that view thenselves as a
family, and will be voting against this lex because in
these cases it IS interferance with a Roman family by
the state. As long as some of the Gens recognize
themselves as a single family this law is an usurption
of the rights of a Roman Family.

The way out of this quandry is to give Gens with
multiple families legal standing, but NOT to require
that Gens have Multiple families against their wishes.

This would allow Gens Cornelia to Continue with it's
current status as a Gens that consits of a single
family, and allow Gens Octavia to recognize each
household within it as an independant family each of
whom has it's own Paterfamilis with equal standing.

The Other Gens with multiple members would have the
option of becoming multiple family Gens or remaining
as single family Gens.

In the case of Gens that decide to remain as a single
family Gens there may be members who do not wish to
follow the single family model, and these members
should be granted the right to depart for a Gens that
recognizes multiple families.

In the case of New citizens who enter a Gens without
realizing that they are entering a Family, they should
have a 6 month period where they are free to leave the
single family Gens for another one.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:03:03 -0000

Salve Marcus Cornelius!

Yes it was you and you are quite skilled in the art of
interpretation. I can see that much ;-)

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus"
<gualterus@e...> wrote:
> Salve,

> It was I that first responded to the claim that section
II.B.6. applied
> to rights of association on a mailing list.
>
> II.B.6. reads: "The right to remain sovereign and secure
within one's own
> home, person, and property."
>
> Both the language and context seem to clearly imply one's
physical
> condition. "Person" unequivocally implies the physical body. You
can
> check any standard english dictionary, but allow me to cite the top
four
> usages of the term from the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> per�son Pronunciation Key (p�rsn)
> n.
> 1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson;
spokesperson;
> salesperson.
> 2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
> 3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual
> personality; the self.
> 4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
>

Well I could go on lecturing you about the German concept of person
(ality) rights but let me shorten this by just adding the next two
definitions that you obviously left out:

5. Physique and general appearance.
6.Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

> Please pay special attention to the fourth usage which is
grammatically
> in keeping with the usage in II.B.6.
>
Now for our legal purposes I would stress the sixth usage which
clearly shows that there is more to a person than just his/her
physical appearance as you want to imply. I hope you will agree with
me that in a mainly Internet environment a person's physical
appearance cannot even hope to have the same weight as its role as a
focal point for rights and obligations.

> The term "sovereign" expands on the basic right to freedom
from harm that
> "secure" implies, and affirms one's supreme authority over one's
> physical condition in all its aspects. In other words, you have the
> right to dress how you want, eat what you want, take on mannerisms
that
> you want, in *addition* to being secure, i.e. safe from injury or
> attack. In short, you are allowed to do with your body as you wish.
>

Well that argument is only correct if a "person" is simply the guy
you shake hands with. As I pointed out to you with the very
dictionary you threw at me, a person is a bit more than that
especially as regards law. And what sovereignty means in my mind I
dealt with in my last post.

> There is no reason to understand the scope of II.B.6. as
extending to
> circumstances that do not affect your "home", "person,"
and "property."
> It does not address rights of association (via mailing lists or
> otherwise), but II.B.4. does, which in turn, does not assert any
right
> to flee a gens. So, I must strongly disagree and assert that it is
clear
> that the Constitution does not mandate the law.
>

Well I think there IS reason in Nova Roma.

BTW If your interpretation were right, II.B.6. would have almost no
significance whatsoever in Nova Roma today. I believe the
Constitution should be a guide for us today as much as it should be
tomorrow. Your interpretation renders it pretty much useless today -
where would it ever apply before Nova Roma actually achieves its goal
of nationhood? My interpretation on the other hand, as does the
Praetor's, extracts the guiding principle in the norm and thus gives
it a meaning relevant to us today.

That alone should be grounds enough to support it.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise? (anticipating problems)
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:04:07 -0000

AVE OPTIME SENATOR GERMANICE

> I work as a sysadmin and programmer. In both of these positions,
> one must anticipate problems, and have a solution in place that
> will adequately handle those problems - before they occur. In
> these professions, a person who does not do this is considered
> incompetent.

I completely agree with this way of working. You wrote in one of
your past messages that if this law passes, you will propose a new
law as soon as possible in order to limitate the number of times a
citizens can change his gens. Well, it will take to you some time
(writing and summonint the comitia): a month? Maybe. How many time
could I lawfully change my gens during this period? Even two times. I
could change my gens without any reason twice: and all novaroman
citizens could do the same. The whole people of Nova Roma could even
change his Gens two times before a new lex establishes a maximum:
this law would allow it.
How do you anticipate this problem? Have you "a solution in place
that will adequately handle" it before it occur?
This is obviously a provocation, but I am sure you can understand my
concern, just because, as you told, it is part of your job.

As you say, we already are during the contio, so this law can't be
changed: I shall vote no. Only in this way we will anticipate that
problem. Can't this issue wait four weeks more?

BENE VALE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Italiae
Scriba Aedilis Plebis Cicatricis
Dominus Praefectus Sodalitatis Egressus
Peritus Linguae Latinae Societatis Iuventutis Romanae
Scriba Arenae et Sermonis Societatis Iuventutis Romanae
--------------------------
PROVINCIA ITALIA
http://italia.novaroma.org
--------------------------
ADMINISTRATIO AEDILIS PLEBIS CICATRICIS
http://www.geocities.com/mcserapio/aediliscicatrix.html


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Translation of Lex Vedia de Curso Honrorum into Portuguese
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:03:25 -0300 (ART)

Salvete,

While the Republic are on the flames of Civil Dissension, thanks gods a REAL tribunician discussion, the translators continue their revolutionary and silent work.

This is the translation of Lex Vedia de Curso Honorum into Portuguese.

A copy in html is available at my office: http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/trad/lexvediach.htm

And if someone really want to hear my opinion about these tribunician laws... let me consider them together with my penates...

LEX VEDIA DE CURSO HONORUM

De acordo com o par�grafo IV. da Constitui��o de Nova Roma, esta Lex Vedia de Curso Honorum vem estabelecer qualifica��es para a obten��o das magistraturas. Estas qualifica��es t�m como objetivo trazer Nova Roma mais pr�xima do antigo Cursus Honorum

I. Ningu�m que n�o tenha anteriormente completado no m�nimo seis meses de seu mandato como um dos ordin�rios (n�o incluindo os Apparitores) ou como governador provincial pode assumir a censura, o consulado ou a pretura . Estes cidad�os podem concorrer ao cargo antes do fim normal de seu cargo, mas precisam o completar antes do fim normal de seu cargo. Cidad�os que abdicam de seus cargos antes do fim normal do mandato n�o podem usar o cargo para satisfazer esta lei, n�o importa quanto tempo tiveram na magistratura

II. Ningu�m pode assumir o cargo de um dos ordin�rios que n�o tenha sido um cidad�o registrado h� menos de seis meses. Estes cidad�os podem concorrer a um cargo antes do fim do t�rmino deste per�odo, mas precisa ser completado antes de assumir o cargo

Aprovado pelo Com�cio das Tribos Populares, Sim -18 tribos; N�o-9; Empatado - 5

26 de fevereiro de MMDCCLIV

Valete bene

L. Arminius Faustus

Scriba propraetoris Brasiliae

Member of Decuriae Interpretes - (portuguese chair)

Visit my office at http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/index.html

Se de �cio estou, divirto-me escrevendo,

Entre os defeitos meus, este enumero...

Satira Quarta, Hor�cio

---------------------------------
Yahoo! PageBuilder - O super editor para cria��o de sites: � gr�tis, f�cil e r�pido.

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 14:17:09 -0300

Em Seg, 2002-07-29 �s 11:07, Marcus Octavius Germanicus escreveu:
> Salve Senatrix Cornelia,
>
> > This was not made a Cornelia issue until the Senior Consul made it so.
>
> This is not a Cornelia issue, and I did not "make it so". This law
> is concerned with principles, not personalities.
>
> > The evidence that there is a problem with gens relations in NR I
> > requested was soley about Cornelia...
>
> Yes, some examples of a paterfamilias denying or delaying the departure
> of a citizen can be found in the history of Gens Cornelia, and were
> part of the inspiration for this law.
>

Gens Cornelia is an example, mainly due to the fact that it is the
largest gens in NR and therefore will be the first affected with this
sort of problems. The personnality of its paterfamilias is secondary in
this.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> I have tried to keep this debate focused on the principles involved,
> and not the history of your gens, but my colleague insisted that
> the past incidents that I had discreetly and obliquely referred to
> be made public.
>
> I see no reason to dissect these incidents and analyze them. They are
> in the past. The intent of this law is not to prosecute, persecute,
> or penalize participants in those events of two years ago; the
> purpose of this law is to clearly state that a citizen has a
> certain right, the right to choose to leave a gens, and that no one
> may interfere with this.
>
> Let us think of the future. Let us not quibble about the details
> of certain events in the past - instead, let us concentrate on
> what will be acceptable behaviour in the future.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 80
From:	"Greg Guy" <warhammerpriest@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:44:44 -0400

"I have one idea, I propose that anyone making such requests, including name
changes et cetera, be Assidui. I don't know about other magistrates, but I
think our time is worth something."

I have a question in regards to this quote. When the tax lex went into
effect I was not online due to relocation. When it went into effect and the
deadline passed before I was back online. Now I am set as the status Capite
Censi. I have made attempts to remedy this and unless something has changed
in the last few months, the Lex does not cover my situation. I would also
assume that is the reason behind the slow proccess of my request for Gens
and name change, am I correct?

Quintus Volcatius Romanus

Message: 20
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:32:18 -0400
From: "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Subject: Digest Number 76 Lex de Libertate Gentilium

CENSOR LUCIUS EQUITIUS CINCINNATUS QUIRITBUS SPD

I must join the growing list of citizens who are ambivalent on this issue. I
do see, believe me I do, both sides of the argument. I want to say that
aside from a very few instances there is no need for this LEX. My main
concern is for the citizen who cannot make a move on an issue because of the
non responsiveness of a Mater/Pater.

What I would like to see is a provision in the constitution that allows
intervention by the Censores, but as things stand we cannot.

I have one idea, I propose that anyone making such requests, including name
changes et cetera, be Assidui. I don't know about other magistrates, but I
think our time is worth something.

I'm not against the proposed lex on principle; however, I think the lex
needs to address adoption. For example, should a person be required to
change their Nomen when/if they leave one gens and join another? Why force
an applicant to become a member of a gens when all they want is to have a
certain name? Perhaps we should allow applicants to choose whatever
name/gens combination they want as long as they meet some pre-established
guidelines.

I have a few comments below. I have taken the time to edit the text for
brevity.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Labienus comments on Lex Octavia Salicia
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:11:30 -0400

Salve Marcus Marcius,

rexmarciusnr wrote:

> Salve Marcus Cornelius!
>
> Yes it was you and you are quite skilled in the art of
> interpretation. I can see that much ;-)

Thank you, you're not bad yourself :)

>>per�son Pronunciation Key (p�rsn)
>>n.
>>1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson;
>>
> spokesperson;
>
>>salesperson.
>>2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
>>3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual
>>personality; the self.
>>4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
>>
>>
>
> Well I could go on lecturing you about the German concept of person
> (ality) rights but let me shorten this by just adding the next two
> definitions that you obviously left out:

Indeed, but because this document is written in English and is not a
translation from German, or any other language, one only needs to appeal
to English usage of the terminology to try to understand the intent and
meaning behind the words.

> 5. Physique and general appearance.
> 6.Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

I left these out because they, along with the first three usages, didn't
apply in this case, but it would have seemed odd to simply paste usage
4., skipping over the rest :) I think the context speaks clearly to
usage 5. not being the one intended in II.B.6. Usage 6. could only have
been the intended meaning if the individual was being referred to as
"person," but in fact the legal object whose rights are being listed is
covered by the pronoun "one" in the statement:

"The right to remain sovereign and secure within one's own home, person,
and property;"

Furthermore, I would suggest that the grammatical construction of
"person" being something possessed by the human (in this case referred
to by the pronoun) only fits usage 4. in the dictionary *and* is the
common legal way in which to refer to a human's body in legal jargon in
English.

>
>> Please pay special attention to the fourth usage which is
>>
> grammatically
>
>>in keeping with the usage in II.B.6.
>>
>>
> Now for our legal purposes I would stress the sixth usage which
> clearly shows that there is more to a person than just his/her
> physical appearance as you want to imply. I hope you will agree with
> me that in a mainly Internet environment a person's physical
> appearance cannot even hope to have the same weight as its role as a
> focal point for rights and obligations.

As per my above examination, usage 4. seems to fit the usage in the
Constitution far more closely. The grammatical construction of it being
something possessed by the human is the give-away. See above. I will
deal with the issue of an Internet Environment below.

>
>> The term "sovereign" expands on the basic right to freedom
>>
> from harm that
>
>>"secure" implies, and affirms one's supreme authority over one's
>>physical condition in all its aspects. In other words, you have the
>>right to dress how you want, eat what you want, take on mannerisms
>>
> that
>
>>you want, in *addition* to being secure, i.e. safe from injury or
>>attack. In short, you are allowed to do with your body as you wish.
>>
>>
>
> Well that argument is only correct if a "person" is simply the guy
> you shake hands with. As I pointed out to you with the very
> dictionary you threw at me, a person is a bit more than that
> especially as regards law. And what sovereignty means in my mind I
> dealt with in my last post.

I agree, and I think above I make a good case for "person" being the
body, here something possessed of the human who is the citizen and not a
reference to the citizen himself ("one," the pronoun), as the correct
interpretation.

>
>> There is no reason to understand the scope of II.B.6. as
>>
> extending to
>
>>circumstances that do not affect your "home", "person,"
>>
> and "property."
>
>>It does not address rights of association (via mailing lists or
>>otherwise), but II.B.4. does, which in turn, does not assert any
>>
> right
>
>>to flee a gens. So, I must strongly disagree and assert that it is
>>
> clear
>
>>that the Constitution does not mandate the law.
>>
>>
>
> Well I think there IS reason in Nova Roma.
>
> BTW If your interpretation were right, II.B.6. would have almost no
> significance whatsoever in Nova Roma today. I believe the
> Constitution should be a guide for us today as much as it should be
> tomorrow. Your interpretation renders it pretty much useless today -
> where would it ever apply before Nova Roma actually achieves its goal
> of nationhood? My interpretation on the other hand, as does the
> Praetor's, extracts the guiding principle in the norm and thus gives
> it a meaning relevant to us today.
>
> That alone should be grounds enough to support it.

Firstly, I am not going to assume that when the Constitution was drafted,
the legal language was intended to sharply deviate from the conventional
usage whereby "person" as something possessed of the individual is a
reference to the body. If the intent was to sharply deviate and employ a
non-standard usage, then we should consult the drafters and ask them
what they meant :) Moreover, it would not speak well to us in in the
community of the "real world" if we employed language that was cryptic.

Secondly, I think it is a valid question why they would be affirming the
physical rights of the citizen in addition to the many others
delineated, if this is strictly an online organization. However, a
moment's reflection should answer the question: this Constitution is
ultimately designed for a real, landed, organization, and not strictly
one online. I would like to suggest that II.B.6. harks directly to that
desire and there is no reason to assume it was put in with any other
intent. Furthermore, I think it would be a *bad* precedent to begin
interpreting clauses that have a clear legal meaning outside of NR
differently within NR simply because we don't have land and aren't
established as a real nation. That, to me, sounds like an insidious
tendency toward role-playing in a "virtual" world.

I will be flabbergasted if it turns out that the drafters intended for
"person," used grammatically as it was, to apply to rights of
association on mailing lists, gentes, and anything else you can imagine
:o) Such a loose intent of meaning can be used to justify almost any
wild "right" you want to give the civis. Perhaps we should ask them? :o)

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Cornelia
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:25:19 -0000

---Salve Honoured Tribune:

Never once did I say that there was anything derrogatory about
communism. I merely cited this as being the reason the individuals
left Nova Roma, citing their political views as incompatible with
NR....that was their rationale, not mine

Don't shoot the messenger :) !!

Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> Em Dom, 2002-07-28 �s 23:37, pompeia_cornelia escreveu:
> > ---
> >
> > Salve Honoured Pontifex Maximus:
> >
> > In begging to differ with you, it has *everything* to do with
> > Cornelia. Crys and Don were mishandled...Sulla has contended
that he
> > realizes this. It has been cited publicly by the Senior Consul
as a
> > major reason for this....plus the 'communists' in question who
> > resigned for political reasons...
> >
> > Being the largest gens in Nova Roma...by virtue of shear numbers
we
> > are bound to have more conflicts that other gens.
> >
> > I am saddened that our gens members have been displayed as drones
> > held captive by a Paterfamilias who made that mistake in the
past,
> > but no longer makes it now.
> >
> > As Praetor, I am saddened that the importance of the gens is
being
> > cheapened by legislation which invites a 'come and go tea'
approach
> > to Roman familia, the center in part of religious worship of
> > antiquita. A come and go, with no accountability or need for
> > accountability by those ascribing to emulate the Roman way.
> >
> > And for the record...the word 'communists' is a name that those
in
> > question assigned to themselves. Drusus Cornelius freely
admitted he
> > was a communist....freely.
> >
>
> And ?
> What is wrong with that political opinion?
> The CP is a respected party all around the world. Together with the
> other version of communism (trotskism, maoism etc.) they usually
> represent some 15-20 % of the electorate (this used to be some 30%
some
> years ago).
> Is this a reason for forcing the resignation of NR? Clearly not, or
is a
> totalitarian state which discrimates people based on their opinions?
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 14:34:26 -0300


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octavia Salacia...
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 14:34:26 -0300


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:36:18 -0400

Salve,

I do not believe the problem should be anticipated. Hitherto, issues that
have arisen were amicably handled and the law would not have been needed
in those contexts. I think your steadfastness in anticipating every
possible contingency makes sense in your profession as system
administrator and not as legislator. One can imagine all sorts of
problems that can arrise and clog the tabularium with laws for every
occasion.

When it comes to human interaction, there is a certain amount of autonomy
we can and should allow those in power. In this case, I think it quite
reasonable to trust paters not to hold cives hostage in their gentes.
They were allowed to start their own gens because they were deemed fit
to take on the responsibility. If they are unable to resolve serious
dischord between themselves and their members, perhaps it speaks more to
their lack of ability to handle their position than anything else, in
which case, simply allowing a civis to run away will not be a solution
and will be an insult to the position with regard to those paters (all
of them, so far) that handle it well.

In short, not only would this law have been superfluous while the cases
which were cited were current (because issues were resolved amicably)
but it insults the position. As such, I find it bad law. One should not
draft laws based on potential and possible contigencies that have not
shown to actually happen and do not threaten to happen in the future.
The utter lack of cases where an "escape value" was needed in the years
that NR has been around is a testament both to the resilience of the
current system and the irrelevance of such a law. Don't fix something
that isn't broken :)

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Marce Corneli,
>
>
>> Although your modification does seem adequate for preventing "gens
>>hopping," that was only one point of opposition. I, for one, am still
>>not convinced that a law needs to be implemented for a problem that
>>doesn't exist.
>>
>
> I believe that possible problems should be anticipated. I anticipate
> problems for a living.
>
> I work as a sysadmin and programmer. In both of these positions,
> one must anticipate problems, and have a solution in place that
> will adequately handle those problems - before they occur. In
> these professions, a person who does not do this is considered
> incompetent.
>
> For example, consider a program such as a text editor or word
> processor that writes to a file when you hit "Save". In the
> vast majority of "Save File" operations, nothing goes wrong:
> the file is successfully written. However, the author of
> that program had to anticipate those errors that might occur.
> Perhaps the file is owned by another user (on a multiuser
> system), and the current user does not have permission to
> write to it. Perhaps it is on a network drive, and the server
> that houses that file location has gone down. Perhaps the
> disk is full, and the entire file cannot be written.
>
> If any of these situations occur, and the program either
> fails silently, falsely claims to have been successful,
> or crashes, users will be outraged, and rightfully so.
>
> I applied the same philosophy to the writing of this law that I
> apply every day in my professional life - when a problem occurs,
> the means of handling it should already be in place.
>
> Currently, there is no law that allows a citizen to leave a gens
> freely; there is also no law that says a paterfamilias must give
> a citizen permission to leave. The decision is left to the
> Censores - who might be reluctant to act without a clear mandate.
>
> I wrote this law in response to a brief description of events that
> occurred a few years ago; but those events are in the past, and
> this law will do nothing to change the outcome or punish anyone
> involved. Rather, this law is designed for situations that may
> arise in the future.
>
> It does not address a common problem; it addresses an uncommon
> problem. As our society grows, it is inevitable that this will
> occur. It may be years before this lex is applied; but it is
> needed.
>
> If this lex allows even *one* citizen to escape from a situation
> intolerable to them, all of this effort will have been worthwhile.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>
>


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	jmath669642reng@webtv.net
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:09:46 -0400 (EDT)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

In regard to the extensive discussion on the part of the proposed Lex
regarding family, I would ask, just as Senator Labienius has indicated
that we should all step back for a moment, and separate the Proposed Lex
from the Gens Cornelia.

I have a great respect and admiration for many members of that Gens and
it grieves me greatly to see that fine family's name dragged through
mud, by unthinking comments and messages.

Looking at the Lex, it seems to me, that the quiet, and studious Senior
Consul has been very successful in putting together a very reasonable
proposal pointed directly at potential problems which can and will occur
in the future of this micro-nation. ProConsul Julianus has indicated,
and he is certainly right, that the right of a Gens Leader to forbid the
change of Gens will raise it's ugly head again as it has once already.

I am a Paterfamilias of a small but select group of Nova Romans. We
communicate, and respect one another, but much as in most families each
of us have our own life to live, and as most of the members of my family
/ Gens I have a limited time to devote to Nova Roma, having many outside
interests. I do not live on the intenet day and night, I do not have
the personal need to be loved and caressed by a large family group, I do
not require the time and effort to be in the middle of every dispute and
discussion within Nova Roma, and I do not have the need to be in control
of the personal actions of others, as I have experienced much of that
during my earlier responsibilities in my life. From my communications
with my Gens members I find them for the mst part to be of the same mind
as myself.

I normally make my points on this list and leave those points for the
reasonable and intelligent citizens of Nova Roma to use as they may wish
to do. I have no need nor desire to continually try to shout down the
opposition, nor to rant and rave when my suggestions are opposed by
those properly elected to place before the Citizens thier offerings for
a decision. My disagreements are crafted to be as much of the honorable
citicen as those to whom they are aimed will allow me to be, by thier
behavior. The Citizens of Nova Roma have always, when given a choice
and or the opportunity, been able to choose wisely the best course of
action or direction in the past, and I have every supposition that they
will do so in the future. They, as a body, do not need my constant
reminder or consistant yammering to wear them down, or to make up thier
mind for them, something which others here seem all to willing to strive
to do.

I will vote "YES," on the subjet Lex, because I firmly believe in the
freedom of Nova Roman citizenship, which allows men and women to speak
with freedom, rather than slaves, which allows the equality between men
and women, and which allows citizens of Nova Roma to make decisions
which benefit their own needs and desires, and not be dependent upon the
whims of others, or the extremely doubtful ability of one person to
learn a needed lesson from a former act of stupidity. I assure you,
there is nothing illogical about heavy doubt in that area!!!!!

With that, I leave my comments for you to decide, and I call upon my
friends in countries around the world to consider seriously the elements
of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in the past of those who
under Soviet Communism, and former Axis policies, made thier historical
decisions regarding individual freedom, much as some who oppose this Lex
would like to do. Items with which you will be much more familiar than
I.

When you have reached your decision then I would ask you to let others
know of your feelings as those who would oppose individual freedom here
in Nova Roma have done in thier turn. For my part, I have earned my
freedom of choice, and no one person will ever tell me what I may or may
not do, ever again. I make my own choices and rely on no-one to decide
for me what I may or may not do, regarding any action for which I am
willing to take responsibility. Further, that freedom, I gladly share
with those who have accepted the Minucia Gens, the Mathews name, and or
any and all organizations in which I have some modicum of control. I
find that with such an attitude, I do not have to "work out problems "
with reluctant people, but rather they come to me, unbidden, to share
with me thier concerns. Personally, I find that method of dealing with
others far superior to "controlling" any or all actions of others.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 80
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:11:12 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Quinte Volcati,

> I have a question in regards to this quote. When the tax lex went into
> effect I was not online due to relocation. When it went into effect and the
> deadline passed before I was back online. Now I am set as the status Capite
> Censi.

The Senate voted to authorize accepting late payments at a higher amount:
$18. Those who pay before the original due date, typically February
or March, would pay the lesser amount of $12. The difference in
amounts is intended to be an incentive to pay early.

We can accept payments at any time - send via paypal to
payments@novaroma.org - but changes to your citizen status cannot
take place during an election or a contio. After the elections
have finished, in about two weeks, I will restore the web page
that contained the payment button, and we can begin to promote
Capite Censi to Assidui status.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:26:58 -0700 (PDT)

--- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
SNIP
>
> With that, I leave my comments for you to decide,
> and I call upon my
> friends in countries around the world to consider
> seriously the elements
> of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in the
> past of those who
> under Soviet Communism, and former Axis policies,
> made thier historical
> decisions regarding individual freedom, much as some
> who oppose this Lex
> would like to do. Items with which you will be much
> more familiar than
> I.

I Have stated my reasons for opposing this lex and
they are connected with Roman traditions.

The action of calling people Communists AND Facists
because of a disagrement over the future of Nova Roma
is despicable, and having it come from a person who
complained so much about being being called an
ogliarch, makes it an act of hypocracy in addition to
being a vile tatic.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	29 Jul 2002 16:05:57 -0300

Em Seg, 2002-07-29 �s 15:26, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
>
> --- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> > With that, I leave my comments for you to decide,
> > and I call upon my
> > friends in countries around the world to consider
> > seriously the elements
> > of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in the
> > past of those who
> > under Soviet Communism, and former Axis policies,
> > made thier historical
> > decisions regarding individual freedom, much as some
> > who oppose this Lex
> > would like to do. Items with which you will be much
> > more familiar than
> > I.
>
> I Have stated my reasons for opposing this lex and
> they are connected with Roman traditions.
>
> The action of calling people Communists AND Facists

Reread the post and you will see that Senator M.M.A. did not call
anybody fascist or communist, HE knows the difference between the
politic ideas and the totalitarism that were implemented in the SU and
Axis Countries.

> because of a disagrement over the future of Nova Roma
> is despicable, and having it come from a person who
> complained so much about being being called an
> ogliarch, makes it an act of hypocracy in addition to
> being a vile tatic.

Tyrannic power (even if excerced in an enlightent way) given to somebody
over others is totalitarian. Defending this tyrannic power is defending
totalitarism (whatever politic ideas are behind that).

And no defending totalitarism does not mean that you are totalitarian,
this has been done again and again in the past in the name of the
"defence of freedom". Is it bad to defend totalitarism for whatever
reason, in my opinion yes, but opinions can differ.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:16:14 -0700 (PDT)

The Comparison was clear and intended, and bringing
that sort of language into this discussion is only
going to lead to a repeat of all the ill will and hard
feelings that we had during the name change debates.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
> Em Seg, 2002-07-29 �s 15:26, L. Sicinius Drusus
> escreveu:
> >
> > --- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > With that, I leave my comments for you to
> decide,
> > > and I call upon my
> > > friends in countries around the world to
> consider
> > > seriously the elements
> > > of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in
> the
> > > past of those who
> > > under Soviet Communism, and former Axis
> policies,
> > > made thier historical
> > > decisions regarding individual freedom, much as
> some
> > > who oppose this Lex
> > > would like to do. Items with which you will be
> much
> > > more familiar than
> > > I.
> >
> > I Have stated my reasons for opposing this lex and
> > they are connected with Roman traditions.
> >
> > The action of calling people Communists AND
> Facists
>
> Reread the post and you will see that Senator M.M.A.
> did not call
> anybody fascist or communist, HE knows the
> difference between the
> politic ideas and the totalitarism that were
> implemented in the SU and
> Axis Countries.
>
> > because of a disagrement over the future of Nova
> Roma
> > is despicable, and having it come from a person
> who
> > complained so much about being being called an
> > ogliarch, makes it an act of hypocracy in addition
> to
> > being a vile tatic.
>
> Tyrannic power (even if excerced in an enlightent
> way) given to somebody
> over others is totalitarian. Defending this tyrannic
> power is defending
> totalitarism (whatever politic ideas are behind
> that).
>
> And no defending totalitarism does not mean that you
> are totalitarian,
> this has been done again and again in the past in
> the name of the
> "defence of freedom". Is it bad to defend
> totalitarism for whatever
> reason, in my opinion yes, but opinions can differ.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Advertisment to citizens of Hispania
From:	"Claudius Salix Davianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:22:49 -0500

Salvete Hispani,

Quisiera recordar a los ciduadanos de Hispania que todav�a no est�n subscritos a la lista provincial de la provincia que su direcci�n es: NRHispania-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Cl. Salix Davianus

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


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] More on Gentes
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT)

I'd like to know if I could get some clarification on
exactly what a Nova Roman gens is supposed to be.

My experience so far has been, 'A Nova Roman gens is a
group of NR citizens who share the same last name.'
This is why I haven't sought entry into another gens;
I love my cognomen. :)

But what I'm hearing from some of you is, 'A Nova
Roman gens is an institution of Nova Roma that will go
down through the generations as a bulwark of NR
culture...' (my words)

Since I joined NR, I have thought that the most
close-knit NR gentes were analogous to 'households' in
the Society for Creative Anachronism. These are
groups of people who freely choose to be together for
the purposes of friendship, skills training, or common
interest. Members of an SCA household are usually
invited in, though they may request to join, and they
are free to leave at any time, with no need to ask
permission of anyone. An SCA-er may also be a member
of more than one household at a time. Nor does an
SCA-er consider the head of his household to be his
'father' or the other household members to be his
'family'--unless they actually are.

This is why I am likely to support the Lex Octavia
Salicia and will probably not support any legislation
to limit the number of times a person may choose to
leave a gens.

To me, gentes are not 'families,' except when a
macronational family has formed their own NR gens. To
me, the best gentes are groups of friends. And when
you can't leave a group of friends, freely--even if
it's the second or third time you've left such a
group--I have a strong disagreement with that.

I probably sound like the ultimate cynic. That wasn't
my intent, but....

Renata Corva

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens-Cornelia
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:23:18 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Gai Cassi Athanasi.

--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/28/2002 6:43:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> haase@konoko.net writes:
>
>
> > What we're trying to do is to extend the right of
> > self-determination to persons who might be unhappy in their gens.
>
> What happens if someone goes from a Patrician Gens to a Plebeian one?
> I assume they would switch to the Plebeian Order?
>
> Gaius Cassius Athanasius

I would say that that would be the case.

Just like if I left my current gens and joined the gens Cornelia; I
would become a patrician.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octava Salacia...
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:14:17 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Helvetice.

--- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Salvete quirites
>
> --- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> > A. Hirtius Helveticus writes:
> >
> > I myself am _not_ against the possibility for cives
> > to
> > leave a gens at all! Once again, I do agree on the
> > lex' goal, but I can't support the way it wants to
> > achieve it.
> >
> > Cassius:
> > If you agree with the goal of the Lex, but do not
> > agree with the way it is
> > worded, what would you propose in its stead? Laws
> > are posted to the list so
> > that they may gain constructive feedback... not
> > merely so individuals can
> > announce how they'll vote on unchanged text!
>
> Well, I think, I did that already... Anyway, let me
> just outline my concerns again. I have the following
> two objections against the proposed law:
>
> a) *Gens-hopping*
> I myself am sure, that there will be more citizens
> changing gens because they are unhappy with their
> chosen name than because they have problems with their
> paterfamilias. Obviously, I am not alone with this
> thought.
>
> This morning, Cassius Nerva proposed a compromise with
> which I fully agree and I would like to see
> implemented. That way, this problem would be solved.

I will speak about Cassius Nerva's proposition later on tonight. By
now, I will just say that if that is the main concern of those who
oppose this proposal, I have nothing against modifing it to cover that
"loophole", even if I think that it would not be a situation as common
as some of you seem to think.

> b) The procedure itself
> As I already pointed out, in my opinion, changing gens
> should be done properly. That is via
> adrogatio/adoption. What does that mean: If any
> citizen wants to leave his/her gens (out of whatever
> reason), he/she should _first_ find a new, better
> fitting gens, before able to take any further action.
> The paterfamilias of the new gens should then adress
> the censores and express his/her will to adopt that
> citizen. Only after that, the procedure as described
> in the lex should be applied.
> Why this? I think, that citizens willing to leave
> their gens should first be encouraged to join another
> one and not simply leave and then form their own gens
> (as I fear it will happen). Of course the possibility
> to form a new gens should be maintained. But the
> censores should be able to agree on that _before_ the
> citizen may leave the gens. The written plea to form a
> new gens should have the same effect as the expressed
> will of a paterfamilias to adopt a citizen.

I would like to address the issue of adoption once and for all.

Adoption is, from my point of view, already contemplated in our
legislation. Our laws state that a citizen can be incorporated into a
gens if (and only if) that gens's leader sends a statement to the
censores declaring that he or she is accepted (that is adoption to me).
So if a citizen wants to enter a different gens, he or she certainly
needs the permission of the new gens pater or mater.

But a civis could also want to found his or her own gens. So requiring
a petition from another pater or mater would do no good in this kind of
situation.

So, as you can see, I think that adoption is already conveniently
contemplated in our laws.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Attention Voters! Invalid voter codes
From:	"artoriusp" <rabotnik@wp.pl>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0000

Salvete!

votes number 4058, 4061, 4060, 6026 have invalid voter codes
please check yours voter codes befor you go vote this is very
importent it makes yours vote valid

Valete!

Petrus Domitianus AL
Propraetor Venediae
NR Rogator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:45:39 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Cassi Nerva.

--- gcassiusnerva <gcassiusnerva@cs.com> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> The main concern of the proponents of this lex is to prevent
> someone from being "punished" by a hypothetical abusive Pater or
> Mater and forced to stay in a gens which is no longer a healthy place
> to be.
>
> The main concern of the opposition seems to be the law will foster
> an attitude of "shopping around" various gens, making NR look more
> and more like a role-playing game in which loyalty and dedication
> mean little.
>
> Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person may
> switch gens.
> The first time there will be the mandatory cooling off period to
> allow for a possible solution.
>
> A SECOND SWITCH will be permitted only in the most serious of cases.
> {Example---threats of violence, discovery that a psychotic ex-spouse
> is in the gens, pater attempts to sodomize gentile in the shower,
> discovery that Mater is a member of Al Quaeda....you get the idea}
> Such cases must be documented.
>
> A third attempt can be treated as a second resignation of
> citizenship.
> The gentile is "shown the door" and may reapply to NR after two
> years.
>
> These restrictions would also apply to the open gens, such as Cassia.
>
>
> Lastly, the restriction would NOT apply in cases of marriage. So,
> for example, if Stupidicus marries Bimbonia, and Bimbonia wishes to
> follow her husband into his Gens, she may do so, with no penalty or
> justification required.
>
> Naturally, I do not expect that this specific compromise is the only
> form a compromise can take. But I do believe that this, or something
> similar, will be sufficient to discourage and prevent any
> "gens-hoppers" from playing musical-gens.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Gaius Cassius Nerva

First of all, I would like to thank you, Nerva, for taking the mental
effort to present this reasonable solution of compromise. It was much
needed.

Secondly, I will comment your proposal later on, after we have
dilucidated if the law's text can actually be changed during the
contio. Let's say for now that I am willing to reach a compromise that
limits the possibility of frivolous "gens hopping".

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Lex Octava Salacia...
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:07:43 +0200 (CEST)

Honoured Tribunus, salvete quirites

> I would like to address the issue of adoption once
> and for all.
>
> Adoption is, from my point of view, already
> contemplated in our
> legislation. Our laws state that a citizen can be
> incorporated into a
> gens if (and only if) that gens's leader sends a
> statement to the
> censores declaring that he or she is accepted (that
> is adoption to me).
> So if a citizen wants to enter a different gens, he
> or she certainly
> needs the permission of the new gens pater or mater.

I am aware of this.

But once again: I am not happy with the fact, that a
citizen who wants to leave his gens can do so simply
by sending a request to the censores (*so long, and
thanks for all the fish*). I think that a citizen
should at least present the censors a new gens that is
willing to *adopt* him/her or name good reasons for
founding a new gens _togehther_ with his/her written
will of leaving his/her gens AND actions should only
be taken by the censors AFTER they made their decision
on that.
Why, you may ask. Well, if the lex passes as it is,
the following is possible: M. Bombasticus wants to
leave his gens because a) he dislikes now his chosen
name and b) the paterfamilias is a complete jerk. So
he writes a mail to the censors: "Censors, I want to
leave my gens Bombastica, valete, M. Bombasticus". The
censors then contact the paterfamilias etc. pp. as
described in the proposed lex. AND? Well, our M.
Bombasticus is no longer a member of the gens
Bombastica, but he hasn't really cared about a new
name or gens so far, so...
Maybe you understand my point now: I want to prevent
exactly this from happening! How? By assuring that all
these pending questions get solved BEFORE a citizen
can leave his/her gens. Simple but evident, no?

> But a civis could also want to found his or her own
> gens. So requiring
> a petition from another pater or mater would do no
> good in this kind of
> situation.

Where did I suggest that a citizen willing to found a
new gens would also need a petition from another
paterfamilias? Please re-read my posting: A petition
should be necessary, if that citizen wants to join a
existing gens. If he wants to found a new one, the
censores should first decide on that _before_ that
citizen is allowed to leave his/her gens.

> So, as you can see, I think that adoption is already
> conveniently
> contemplated in our laws.

In a way, yes. But not the same as I suggested it.

Bene valete,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] How about a Compromise?
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:19:00 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, consul Octavi.

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> wrote:
> Salve Gai Cassi,
>
> > Please consider this suggestion for a compromise Lex: ADD a
> > provision to this lex to *restrict* the number of times a person
> may
> > switch gens.
>
> This is a very good suggestion.

Agreed.

> We are already in the Contio, and thus the current proposal cannot
> be changed

Are you sure? I thought that the intent of the contio was to receive
feedback from the People, in order to introduce ammendments to a
legislative proposal.

I would like to change my current proposal, if it is possible. Are we
all *completely* sure that it is not possible? If it isn't, maybe we
should change our laws to make it possible :-) (for other occasions,
that is).

> - however, I would be willing to introduce a law
> at the earliest opportunity that would limit the number of gens
> changes that may be made.

Ditto.

> I like your idea of the second change being allowed only in the
> event of an emergency, and the third change being somehow made
> more difficult - something less than revocation of citizenship,
> however; one of the goals of the current proposal is to avoid
> the situation where a citizen must resign citizenship in order
> to escape from a bad situation.

Perhaps the judicial system should decide if a citizen's second (or
third) petition is frivolous or simply necessary. Perhaps fines could
be imposed to frivolous gens changers.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:15:37 -0400

Salve,

Indeed, completely outrageous. A very underhanded tactic that is not only
inflammatory, but unfounded. Refusal to codify a "right" in the
tabularium doesn't mean it is not de facto respected by the population.
Hitherto it has been clear that through the amicable resolution of the
issues that were cited that the "system" works well and doesn't enforce
tyrannical control of its cives. As long as it works, there is no cause
to insult paters by assuming they can not handle such overwhelmingly
rare cases on an individual basis with virtue and Reason.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> --- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
> SNIP
>
>>With that, I leave my comments for you to decide,
>>and I call upon my
>>friends in countries around the world to consider
>>seriously the elements
>>of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in the
>>past of those who
>>under Soviet Communism, and former Axis policies,
>>made thier historical
>>decisions regarding individual freedom, much as some
>>who oppose this Lex
>>would like to do. Items with which you will be much
>>more familiar than
>>I.
>>
>
> I Have stated my reasons for opposing this lex and
> they are connected with Roman traditions.
>
> The action of calling people Communists AND Facists
> because of a disagrement over the future of Nova Roma
> is despicable, and having it come from a person who
> complained so much about being being called an
> ogliarch, makes it an act of hypocracy in addition to
> being a vile tatic.
>
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Lex
From:	"M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus" <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:25:22 -0400

Salve,

"Totalitarian" implies control over all aspects of one's life. That is
hardly what is at stake here. I can't help but think you are
equivocating on the term to unnecessarily employ it in this discussion
and incite emotions. Moreover, I find employing 20th century political
terminology in analysing our attempt at reconstructing an ancient
social/political system both an anachronism and bereft of any incite
into the supposed problem.

Respectfully,

M. Cornelius Gualterus

Michel Loos wrote:

> Em Seg, 2002-07-29 �s 15:26, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
>
>>--- jmath669642reng@webtv.net wrote:
>>SNIP
>>
>>>With that, I leave my comments for you to decide,
>>>and I call upon my
>>>friends in countries around the world to consider
>>>seriously the elements
>>>of this proposed Lex, in view of the actions in the
>>>past of those who
>>>under Soviet Communism, and former Axis policies,
>>>made thier historical
>>>decisions regarding individual freedom, much as some
>>>who oppose this Lex
>>>would like to do. Items with which you will be much
>>>more familiar than
>>>I.
>>>
>>I Have stated my reasons for opposing this lex and
>>they are connected with Roman traditions.
>>
>>The action of calling people Communists AND Facists
>>
>
> Reread the post and you will see that Senator M.M.A. did not call
> anybody fascist or communist, HE knows the difference between the
> politic ideas and the totalitarism that were implemented in the SU and
> Axis Countries.
>
>
>>because of a disagrement over the future of Nova Roma
>>is despicable, and having it come from a person who
>>complained so much about being being called an
>>ogliarch, makes it an act of hypocracy in addition to
>>being a vile tatic.
>>
>
> Tyrannic power (even if excerced in an enlightent way) given to somebody
> over others is totalitarian. Defending this tyrannic power is defending
> totalitarism (whatever politic ideas are behind that).
>
> And no defending totalitarism does not mean that you are totalitarian,
> this has been done again and again in the past in the name of the
> "defence of freedom". Is it bad to defend totalitarism for whatever
> reason, in my opinion yes, but opinions can differ.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>