Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 00:33:08 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:

> The price of freedom is tolaration
> of other's freedom. Other citizens don't have a duty
> to meet your standards. You have the right not to read
> posts that don't meet your standards, but do NOT have
> the right to prevent others from making them.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>

Salvete

I could not agree more with this statement. There are of course
limits to tolerance (like when one intentionally disturbes the peace
and threatens others with murder, as has happened on this list
before) but we should aspire to set those limits as wide as possible.
As pointed out by Lucius Sicinius, the NR Constitution gives some
indication on what is acceptable and what not (in II.B.4. but also in
the description of the role of the Censors).

In practice our limits of free speech are set by laws (like the Lex
Fabia on Internet stalking) and magisterial actions, namely those of
the Curator Sermo (a vigintisexviri position), the Praetors and the
Censors.

In view of the recently issued warning by the Praetrix ("If you want
to challenge the competance of a magistrate, or another citizen for
whatever reason [sic!!! MMR], please use the Senate or Praetor's
Court.") I believe it is necessary that everyone understands that a
(rather vague) new limit of free speech is about to be introduced. As
this is an important precedent I would ask the Tribunes to state
their official opinion, whether this magisterial action is indeed in
the spirit of the NR constitution.

Ave et vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] List issues and food
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:00:32 -0400

I would like to join my husband in noting that the tone on the NR list
is much improved from days of yore, and to publicly thank Pompeia
Cornelia for her role in keeping it so.

I have been a list moderator for six years (and even moderated this one
for a time). One thing I've discovered is that if you are bothered by a
controversy, the thing to do is NOT to leap in and tell everyone
involved in the controversy why they're wrong or stupid or whatever.
Instead, start a conversation about something that DOES interest you.

On that note, and related to the earlier cooking discussion: I've just
been reading a fascinating book, "Food and Society in Classical
Antiquity" by Peter Garnsey. He goes beyond recipes and descriptions of
upper-class dinner-parties to try to research what average and
lower-class Greek and Roman citizens ate, and whether ancient systems
of food production and distribution worked to give adequate nutrition
to everyone. His conclusion is that much of Roman society spent their
energy on food production and that many people were malnourished at
various times.

-----
Patricia Cassia
Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 20:15:05 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Marci,

> In view of the recently issued warning by the Praetrix ("If you want
> to challenge the competance of a magistrate, or another citizen for
> whatever reason [sic!!! MMR], please use the Senate or Praetor's
> Court.") I believe it is necessary that everyone understands that a
> (rather vague) new limit of free speech is about to be introduced. As
> this is an important precedent I would ask the Tribunes to state
> their official opinion, whether this magisterial action is indeed in
> the spirit of the NR constitution.

I believe that Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia was referring specifically
to the allegations that a magistrate's actions were due to the
influence of drugs.

Whether anyone is influenced by drugs (or any psychiatric or
medical condition) should be a private matter, and thus the
list keeper intervened.

Each of us should be judged by our words and actions alone.
A magistrate who takes an unpopular position should face criticism
for that. Calling someone a tyrant, or unethical, or power-mad,
or any of the other rhetoric usually found in these debates, is
certainly acceptable, and I would intervene if any attempt was
made to limit these.

Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia has made no moves to limit such debate;
she has only proclaimed off-limits discussion of a very private
matter. I believe this is legal and approipriate.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 02:15:22 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Marce Marci,
>

> Each of us should be judged by our words and actions alone.
> A magistrate who takes an unpopular position should face criticism
> for that. Calling someone a tyrant, or unethical, or power-mad,
> or any of the other rhetoric usually found in these debates, is
> certainly acceptable, and I would intervene if any attempt was
> made to limit these.
>
> Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia has made no moves to limit such debate;
> she has only proclaimed off-limits discussion of a very private
> matter. I believe this is legal and approipriate.
>
> Vale, Octavius.

Salve Consul!

Thank you for your explanation! I believe this was needed so that
clever lawyers later do not twist words ;-)

But just for clarification: Would it in any event be prohibited to
point out that someone

runs a pornography site?
supports a fascist party?
is a convicted felon?

Largely depending on the circumstances, I can see arguments both for
and against banning such public statements provided that they are
truthful in the first place (these are hypothetical only!).

Ave et vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 02:48:51 -0000

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Where you can unsubscribe from this list if you don't
> want to recive posts from citizens exercising thier
> freedom of speech. The price of freedom is tolaration
> of other's freedom. Other citizens don't have a duty
> to meet your standards. You have the right not to read
> posts that don't meet your standards, but do NOT have
> the right to prevent others from making them.

I couldn't agree more. As long as it is not libel or slander, I may
not agree with someone else opinion, but I will defend their right to
express it. I wish I could remember the exact quote and who said it,
but it was to the effect that if 5,999,999,999 people in the world
are of the same opinion, they haven't the right to silence the
remaining one person from expressing his.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 03:13:37 -0000

Salve,


--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@a...> wrote:
> But just for clarification: Would it in any event be prohibited to
> point out that someone
>
> runs a pornography site?
> supports a fascist party?
> is a convicted felon?
>
> Largely depending on the circumstances, I can see arguments both
for
> and against banning such public statements provided that they are
> truthful in the first place (these are hypothetical only!).

I know you asked this of the Consul, but if you permit me a moment....
Assuming that in your hypothetical the above statements were all true
If the "Published material meeting three conditions: the material is
defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement
is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the
material must be distributed to someone other than the offended
party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander" it is then
potentially libel and not only could result in legal problems for
individual but Nova Roma as a legal corporate entity. (Quote from
THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm) (See http:\\www.lectlaw.com )

Vale,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] e-mail report
From:	asseri@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 23:17:39 EDT

Salvete,
I'm not sure why but my e-mail settings are finally working . Let the words
flow my good friends and citizens

Valete
Prima Fabia Drusila


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:46:46 -0700 (PDT)

--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@aol.com> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> > The price of freedom is tolaration
> > of other's freedom. Other citizens don't have a
> duty
> > to meet your standards. You have the right not to
> read
> > posts that don't meet your standards, but do NOT
> have
> > the right to prevent others from making them.
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
>
> Salvete
>
> I could not agree more with this statement. There
> are of course
> limits to tolerance (like when one intentionally
> disturbes the peace
> and threatens others with murder, as has happened on
> this list
> before) but we should aspire to set those limits as
> wide as possible.
> As pointed out by Lucius Sicinius, the NR
> Constitution gives some
> indication on what is acceptable and what not (in
> II.B.4. but also in
> the description of the role of the Censors).
>
> In practice our limits of free speech are set by
> laws (like the Lex
> Fabia on Internet stalking) and magisterial actions,
> namely those of
> the Curator Sermo (a vigintisexviri position), the
> Praetors and the
> Censors.
>
> In view of the recently issued warning by the
> Praetrix ("If you want
> to challenge the competance of a magistrate, or
> another citizen for
> whatever reason [sic!!! MMR], please use the Senate
> or Praetor's
> Court.") I believe it is necessary that everyone
> understands that a
> (rather vague) new limit of free speech is about to
> be introduced. As
> this is an important precedent I would ask the
> Tribunes to state
> their official opinion, whether this magisterial
> action is indeed in
> the spirit of the NR constitution.
>
> Ave et vale
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex

In an Ideal world the state should establish a system
where libel can be persued as a civil matter in an
impartial court that follows objective guidelines
determining what is and is not lible. The Stae also
should protect the public peace by placing limits on
speech that is a clear and immediate danger to the
public peace, ie encouraging a riot in a time of
tension.

Unfortunaly we do not live in an ideal world. No
Macronation recognizes Nova Roma as anything other
than a private non profit corparation. The Lible laws
in some Macronations, including the United States,
hold Nova Roma Inc. responbible for posts made on this
list. Until this matter is rectified we have on option
other than following the laws established by the
Macronations that Nova Roma Inc. operates in.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 06:05:35 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@a...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Assuming that in your hypothetical the above statements were all
true
> If the "Published material meeting three conditions: the material
is
> defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory
statement
> is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and
the
> material must be distributed to someone other than the offended
> party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander" it is then
> potentially libel and not only could result in legal problems for
> individual but Nova Roma as a legal corporate entity. (Quote from
> THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm) (See http:\\www.lectlaw.com )
>
> Vale,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus


Salve Quinte!

Thanks for this, however I put it to you that even in the US there
are defenses against libel claims (I can say with certainty only for
Asutrian law).

"The primary defenses to a defamation claim are that the statements
are true, are statements of opinion or otherwise not statements of
fact, or are privileged. Truth and opinion are complete defenses to a
defamation claim. In addition, some defamatory statements may be
protected by privilege, meaning that in certain circumstances the
interest in communicating a statement outweighs the interest in
protecting reputation." (this according to the Libel Defence Resource
Center see www.ldrc.com)

My question to the Consul was more in how far we would restrict true
statements that can be backed by proof.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 01:54:36 -0700 (PDT)

--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@aol.com> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus"
> <richmal@a...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > Assuming that in your hypothetical the above
> statements were all
> true
> > If the "Published material meeting three
> conditions: the material
> is
> > defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the
> defamatory
> statement
> > is about someone who is identifiable to one or
> more persons; and
> the
> > material must be distributed to someone other than
> the offended
> > party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander"
> it is then
> > potentially libel and not only could result in
> legal problems for
> > individual but Nova Roma as a legal corporate
> entity. (Quote from
> > THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY(tm) (See
> http:\\www.lectlaw.com )
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Quintus Cassius Calvus
>
>
> Salve Quinte!
>
> Thanks for this, however I put it to you that even
> in the US there
> are defenses against libel claims (I can say with
> certainty only for
> Asutrian law).
>
> "The primary defenses to a defamation claim are that
> the statements
> are true, are statements of opinion or otherwise not
> statements of
> fact, or are privileged. Truth and opinion are
> complete defenses to a
> defamation claim. In addition, some defamatory
> statements may be
> protected by privilege, meaning that in certain
> circumstances the
> interest in communicating a statement outweighs the
> interest in
> protecting reputation." (this according to the Libel
> Defence Resource
> Center see www.ldrc.com)
>
> My question to the Consul was more in how far we
> would restrict true
> statements that can be backed by proof.
>
> Ave et Vale
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
>
>
US Lible laws are fairly strict. In most US States the
plantif has to prove that the statement was made with
"reckless disregard" for the truth and that it was
intended to defame. That is a tough standard. However
we would have to retain a lawyer to defend us, and the
cost of defending ourselves far excedes the funds in
the treasury. If we couldn't find a lawyer who would
accept the case pro bono I'm afraid we would likely
lose a case that had little merit. The small size of
our treasury does have one advantage however. It means
that in most cases Nova Roma isn't worth the effort of
suing. This wouldn't protect us from a case where the
plantif was determined to sue even if it cost him more
money than he could ever hope to recover.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 10:21:44 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> >
> US Lible laws are fairly strict. In most US States the
> plantif has to prove that the statement was made with
> "reckless disregard" for the truth and that it was
> intended to defame. That is a tough standard. However
> we would have to retain a lawyer to defend us, and the
> cost of defending ourselves far excedes the funds in
> the treasury. If we couldn't find a lawyer who would
> accept the case pro bono I'm afraid we would likely
> lose a case that had little merit. The small size of
> our treasury does have one advantage however. It means
> that in most cases Nova Roma isn't worth the effort of
> suing. This wouldn't protect us from a case where the
> plantif was determined to sue even if it cost him more
> money than he could ever hope to recover.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus

Salve Druse!

So what you are saying is that anything even remotely resembling a
defamation on the mainlist - no matter how truthful it may be - is
actually an "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" due to the
threat of litigation? That is a valid argument and if it is indeed
likely to happen, I rest my case (and we might as well close shop all
together).

>From your description it seems that it does not really matter what
the claims against Nova Roma are or how trumped up they may be:
because of our lack of funds we would go under anyway. Is there
really no legal (US) way we can ensure that all those using the
mainlist release Nova Roma (the corporation) from any future claims
they might have against her resulting from mainlist communications?

Maybe something over the entrance reading:

"abandon hope all who enter here"

(note: I cannot really claim copyright for this one ;-) )

Ave et vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@foxcable.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:29:43 -0700

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix writes:

>I researched and located peoples were settled in Israel by the Assyrians.
According to II Kings 17:24 it states: "Then the king of Assyria brought
people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and from Sepharvaim, and placed
them in the cities of Samaria instead of the Children of Israel." It was
the intermingling of these immigrants and the remaining Jews who were not
deported that fathered the Samaritans.

>I hope that this information also assists you. If you would like to
continue this discussion further please feel free to subscribe yourself to
the NR_Jewish_Sod@yahoogroups.com or email me privately and I can add you to
that list.

Salvete omnes,

As I recall from my seminary days, it was a bit of a class issue too. The
Babylonians deported the upper classes, the priests, the merchants, anyone
who could "cause trouble." They left behind the poor, ordinary folk (who,
it would appear from Kings and it's revision, Chronicles, never took to
monotheism very well anyway). So when the Persians brought those Israelites
back who wished to return, there were already a huge class and cultural
differences in place.

Just dust from my attic ;o)

Valete,

CN. IVLIVS STRABO

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	Kassandra Velez <kvelez@iris.nyit.edu>
Date:	Fri Oct 4 19:35:08 2002

Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis wrote:
> While on the subject of ancient languages, does anybody have suggestions for how the letter Z was pronounced in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin? I have seen that it classes as a double letter along with Xi and Psi but was never used in Greek where a Ts would be appropriate (Xi is used - question: was Xi pronounced as Ts in these cases?)

I'm unfamiliar with xi being used in these situations - in my experience, t or tt generally alternates with ss! The ancient value of zeta is currently up in the air; various theories propose 'zd', 'dz' (often written 'tz' by modern Greek speakers), 'ts', or possibly even other sounds.

> and this is its later Latin value and remains so in Italian and German. In Icelandic it has become S but replaces a Ts and likewise in French it replaces Ts and has become voiced (Assez=Ad Satis, Voyez=Videtis). The references refer to it as 'Sd', a difficult combination and maybe Ds were more appropriate but then the Romans would have written Ds for it as Ps for Psi. Given that it often occurs in agricultural words having Y elswhere: Zygon=Iugum=Yogah and that Y=>J (dzh) in Italian and French maybe it was closer to English J?

Just about anything is possible, but keep in mind that a few centuries of sound shifts can effect a good deal of change, and depalatalization is a fairly simple step. There's no particular reason Greek z needs to be palatal or postalveolar; of course, there's no good reason it can't be, either.

> In which case, was this its original Semitic sound as well? Certainly where it is used in the English Bible, there is confusion between ancient Z=Tsaddi and the rarer Z=Zain. (So Zionists are actually Tsionists)

Um. We've gotten pretty far out of my area of expertise now. :) Greek did completely overhaul the functions of a goodly number of letters (vowels, for example, and the sibilant system).

Have I been obfuscatory enough for you? :)

--Lucia Galeria Drusilla

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <pectus_roboreus1@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:01:48 -0400

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:33:08AM -0000, rexmarciusnr wrote:

Salvete, Marcus Marcius Rex et omnes -
>
> In view of the recently issued warning by the Praetrix ("If you want
> to challenge the competance of a magistrate, or another citizen for
> whatever reason [sic!!! MMR], please use the Senate or Praetor's
> Court.") I believe it is necessary that everyone understands that a
> (rather vague) new limit of free speech is about to be introduced. As
> this is an important precedent I would ask the Tribunes to state
> their official opinion, whether this magisterial action is indeed in
> the spirit of the NR constitution.

And I will join my voice to yours in that request. Moderation on this
list, in my opinion, should not be guided by the Praetrix' personal
disapprobation but by the best interests of NovaRoma. I do not see
fear-mongering (baseless implications of liability, etc.) as serving
those interests.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Faber est suae quisque fortunae.
Every man is the artisan of his own fortune.
-- Appius Claudius Caecus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Communication
From:	"R. Jason Boss" <bigbrother@jrboss.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:55:50 -0400

Salvete.

The purpose of my post is not to limit anyone's freedom to express
themselves in any manner they so desire, but rather to suggest that insults,
sarcasm, and negative remarks, while perfectly normal and common, are
perhaps a poor way to communicate. If it would encourage folks to listen to
me, I could point to mass communications abstracts on research proving
(relevantly to the upcoming election season, apparently) that negativity in
campaigning and the debate/discussions turns citizens away from the
political process?
I'm not just complaining about an argument, I'm trying to make
politicians aware of the consequences of their choice of language. Since
this is an open forum, this also means that potentially anybody could join
in a heated debate and make it worse from this perspective. No one has to
act a certain way, but know that this is a fairly well-documented
phenomenon, and that modern political campaign strategists use it as part of
their repertoire, intentionally lowering the turnout in regions where it is
to their advantage to do so.
Moving politics offlist is probably unnecessary, but realize that my
Paterfamilias is correct that some people will turn away as a result of
things they see here, things that are not central to NR. My initial sarcasm
was ill-considered. Obviously the Romans were more than willing to attack
each other in Senate (with words or daggers) or in public. The question is
facing us concerns what we wish to emulate from that past, and what of that
we wish to hold out to fellow citizens and interested folk.
Again, I am not seeking censorship other than the reasoned
self-censorship that no doubt nearly everyone on this list uses every day.
Internet lists and discussion groups are easy prey for argument, the
detached medium and ability to carefully craft an argument or retort can be
very seductive. Just remember the effects that even electronic words have
on real world people, whether intended or not.
Thank you for your time and thought, I doubt I will have further to add
in this discussion.

Valete,
][ason
Marcus Velius Iasonus
R. Jason Boss
bigbrother@jrboss.net

Subject:	[Nova-Roma]: Freedom of Speech
From:	caiustarquitius@gmx.de
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 06:05:30 +0200 (MEST)

Valete!
I was encouraged to post again on this list....
So here my opinion to the discussion:

I think everybody should be able to say what he thinks within the frame of
NR directions or laws, or statutes or whatever. Sure, this can be matter of
interpretation. But the community will decide what is accepted and what not.

In fact it is so, that people speaking bad about others usually try to avoid
the community seeing their own inadequacy or incompetence by pointing to
others. Those who listen to them and cheer usually are subject to the same
procedure or just stupid and mindless. So everybody with a sense for community and
some brains will ignore such talk / rumours and be able to make his own,
personal opinion about others anyway. Usually this is the process in which a
free society decides, expecting a free ability to choose from it's members. One
could expect such a behaviour from NR citizens, too. Thus comments about
others are obsolete, those who give such comments shine their very own light on
themselves, which is, I assume, not too bright in colour....

I am quite aware of the fact that I did not make myself friends with my
statement among certain people, but maybe other friends are gained. The process
described above will be seen in answers or no answers given to this statement.

Valete, Caius Tarquitius Saturninus

Bonis nocet, qui malis parcit.

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Günstige DSL- & Modem/ISDN-Tarife!

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 08:29:33 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Marci,

> But just for clarification: Would it in any event be prohibited to
> point out that someone
>
> runs a pornography site?
> supports a fascist party?
> is a convicted felon?

I certainly would hope not - and I would work to prevent any such
censorship, and to oppose anyone who tried to impose restrictions
against those.

All of your examples above are based upon an individual's character,
words and actions, and, in my opinion, are "fair game".

Vale, Octavius.

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	"Numerius Cassius Niger" <menippus@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:55:34 -0000

Salve V. Ambrosi Caesariensis!
Well, you made me break out the ol' Hebrew dictionary. :)
We have a golden opportunity in comparing Greek to Hebrew in the
fact that despite their different lingual families, their alphabets
(or alephbet) shares a common ancestor.
Now if we trace the lineage of Zayin, which can be found at
<http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/4_7_zan.html> , we see that the proto-
Hebrew Zan, becomes the modern Hebrew Zayin and the Greek Zeta. The
Zayin in both modern and ancient Hebrew was, as far as I know, a
voiced apico-alveolar fricative. As for the Zeta, L. Galeria
Drusilla pointed out the controversy there.
Tracing the lineage of Tsade <http://www.ancient-
hebrew.org/4_18_tsad.html>, we see that the proto-Hebrew Tsad
becomes the modern Hebrew Tsade and the now defunct Greek San (which
was only in Corinthian, Argosian, and Euboeaian alphabets). The San
was a voiceless apico-alveolar fricative, which explains why it was
replaced by Sigma. The Tsad and the Tsade are voiceless retroflex
fricatives. In proto-Hebrew the Tsade used to have a deep glottal to
it. The Greeks seem to have not liked glottal sounds. Replacing
Tsade with Zeta seems to make sense, if you keep in mind that the
Greek letter Xi has a value of [ks]; [ts] and [ks] and not too far
away from each other in the mouth.
Just as a cautionary tale, you might want to be very careful about
the pronunciation of Zion. As you point out, the first letter of
Zion in Hebrew is the Tsade. Zion, in Hebrew, is correctly
pronounced like (tsi-YON). If you pronounce Zion as it's currently
pronounced in English, it sounds like the Hebrew word for gun or
penis (ZA-yin). It always amuses Israeli soldiers when female
tourists ask, in Hebrew, to see their guns. :)
- N. Cassius Niger

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: List issues and food
From:	"Julilla Sempronia Magna" <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:06:43 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Patricia Cassia <pcassia@n...> wrote:
<snipped>
>
> On that note, and related to the earlier cooking discussion: I've
just been reading a fascinating book, "Food and Society in Classical
> Antiquity" by Peter Garnsey. He goes beyond recipes and
descriptions of upper-class dinner-parties to try to research what
average and lower-class Greek and Roman citizens ate, and whether
ancient systems of food production and distribution worked to give
adequate nutrition to everyone. His conclusion is that much of Roman
society spent their energy on food production and that many people
were malnourished at various times.
>
> -----
> Patricia Cassia
> Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis



That is quite interesting indeed! Let me add to Garnsey's assertion
by citing a chapter on food production from "Life, Death and
Entertainment in the Roman Empire," edited by D.S. Potter and D.J.
Mattingly.

The chapter "Feeding the City: the organisation, operation and scale
of the supply system for Rome," written by Greg S. Aldrete and David
J. Mattingly goes into quite a lot of detail about the state's
possible role in importation of such staple foods as grain, wine and
olive oil. While they admit that "attempts at quantifying ancient
trade are highly dangerous and the results often questionable," they
make a fair case for the feasibility of an organised system of
importation.

Here are a few examples from the chapter:

Assuming the average inhabitant of Rome's 1,000,000 population ate
237 kg of wheat per year, at least 237,000 metric tons would be
needed to feed the city per year.

Dividing this number by the capacity of the average ship of 250 tons,
948 ships would be needed to supply wheat for Rome. Spoilage of the
product and the hazards of sea travel would have required a
significantly higher number of ships carrying grain.

Let's look at olive oil, an essential component of the Roman diet:

Their admittedly conservative estimate for personal consumption is 20
litres per year results in 18,000 metric tons of oil, plus another
8,000 metric tons to account for the weight of 285,714 oil amphorae,
for a total cargo of 26,000 tons per year - just for olive oil! This
yields, the authors state, an absolute minimum of 104 shiploads of
oil each year for the minimum food requirements of the city.

Well I could go on, but I sense eyes might be glazing over. The
authors hypothesize also that urban plebs on the annona, or the grain
dole, were not likely to be subsisting solely on this largesse, but,
in fact, worked as seasonal dockworkers in Portus and Ostia to serve
as porters. Since they themselves admit that their estimates are
conservative, I believe they make an excellent case for a vast, and
highly organised system for food imports, for, even despite
occasional shortages and food riots, in excess of one million people
were fed, year after year, in this pre-industrial society -- an
amazing feat indeed, and one to ponder as ports up and down the west
coast of the US are shut down.

Calen orexin!

---

@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| Rogatrix, MMDCCLV
Scriba, Nova Roma Curator Araneae
Curatrix Araneae,
America Boreoccidentalis
http://ambor.konoko.net

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:09:11 -0000

Salve,

Thank you, L. Sicinius Drusus, for expanding and clarifying my
point. Nova Roma's meager means does protect it against someone
who's motivation in a civil suit being to receive fair value in
damages, but puts it in jeapordy against someone who's motivation is
to bankrupt and drive Nova Roma out of existence.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

-- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> US Lible laws are fairly strict. In most US States the
> plantif has to prove that the statement was made with
> "reckless disregard" for the truth and that it was
> intended to defame. That is a tough standard. However
> we would have to retain a lawyer to defend us, and the
> cost of defending ourselves far excedes the funds in
> the treasury. If we couldn't find a lawyer who would
> accept the case pro bono I'm afraid we would likely
> lose a case that had little merit. The small size of
> our treasury does have one advantage however. It means
> that in most cases Nova Roma isn't worth the effort of
> suing. This wouldn't protect us from a case where the
> plantif was determined to sue even if it cost him more
> money than he could ever hope to recover.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:22:26 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@a...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> Thank you, L. Sicinius Drusus, for expanding and clarifying my
> point. Nova Roma's meager means does protect it against someone
> who's motivation in a civil suit being to receive fair value in
> damages, but puts it in jeapordy against someone who's motivation
is
> to bankrupt and drive Nova Roma out of existence.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
>

Salve Quinte Cassi!

But would you not agree, my right honorable amice, that someone who
is intent on bankrupting Nova Roma and to drive it out of existence
would do so anyway and whether we exercise our free speech rights or
not?

If we overly restrict ourselves because of this theoretical threat we
will have given in to blackmail before it even occured. Not very
Roman to my mind!

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

P.S: I also want to express my appreciation for the Consul's answer
to my question. But list policy discourages simple "yes I think so
too" posts ;-)

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"Brighn \(Paul Kershaw\)" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:31:52 -0400

Salvete Omnibus:

Marcus Marcius Rex, you wrote:

"So what you are saying is that anything even remotely resembling a
defamation on the mainlist - no matter how truthful it may be - is actually
an "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" due to the threat of
litigation? That is a valid argument and if it is indeed likely to happen, I
rest my case (and we might as well close shop all together)."

The parenthetical statement at the end is disparaging to all users of the
list, and as such is a defamation of me as a user, and as such I shall
commence suing you and the Nova Roma list forthwith. I realize that this act
of mine is another "imminent and clear danger to the Republic," as any
lawsuit is, so I would anticipate a countersuit if I were actually serious.

My opinion on the subject -- and all it is, of course, is an opinion -- is
that:
(1) users should be diligent to avoid making defamatory comments, especially
in fits of pique;
(2) the NR Moderators should be diligent about commenting on or removing
defamatory statements, while allowing what are clearly opinions presented in
a reasonably civil manner to stand;
(3) creating policies that restrict *all* statements which could even be
interpreted as defamatory -- to be on the "safe side" -- will lead to
policies in direct violation of the freedom of speech;
(4) for the most part, it should be possible for the mature population of
Nova Roma -- as most of its membership represents -- to take accountability
for its own statements, without either relying on the Senators/Moderator to
chastise those statements, or deliberately flouting the rules solely as an
act of defiance.

As to the issue that started this thread, the disclosure of medical
information, with the greatest respect to Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
et alia, I must concur with those who feel that people who are not medical
professionals, and who are echoing public statements of medical conditions
made in public and without pretext of confidentiality, are not violating any
reasonable, socially innate ethical standard. However, I know I certainly
don't feel strongly enough about the specific issue, and don't personally
refer to anyone's diagnosed mental weaknesses other than my own, so if there
were such a policy in place, my concern with it would be whether such a
policy would lead to a general erosion of speech rights. If not, I support
it.

The so-called "Nanny Government" (a term I use hesitantly, and as an
American) of the United States is, in my opinion, the result of individuals
repeatedly demonstrating an inability to behave in a civil manner,
justifying all sorts of verbal abuse and recklessness under the defense of
the "First Amendment," which is not only a right of individuals in a free
society, but also a responsibility. I would hate to see Nova Roma go down
the same road.

Valete,
Festus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"Brighn \(Paul Kershaw\)" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:42:15 -0400

All of your examples above are based upon an individual's character,
words and actions, and, in my opinion, are "fair game".

Vale, Octavius.

Salve, Octavius:

This does raise an interesting conundrum. One thing for which you can be convicted as a felon is child molestation, which indeed is held in the United States as especially "fair game" crime -- laws like Megan's Law not only encourage but, in some cases, require that certain authorities make certain criminals public. On the other hand, many (if not most) cases of child molestation are the direct result of a mental dysfunction, and the publicizing of the felony could be construed as a publicizing of the dysfunction. While I would hope that NR would never be faced with such a quandary, it is a potentiality. If we bar all public disclosure of mental dysfunction, would we not be violating disclosure of such felonies?

This is a question for the list, and I have no immediate answer in mind.

Vale,
Festus


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Absence of Tiberius Annaeus Otho
From:	tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:11:12 +0200

Salvete quirites,

Starting in a few hours, I will be away on my honeymoon, together with my
wife, Roscia Annaea Pia, who is also a citizen of Nova Roma. We will be
away on a cruise through the 'mare nostrum' and will not have internet access!!

Curate ut valeatis,


Tiberius Annaeus Otho

Lictor curiatus
Translator linguae Germanicae
Paterfamilias gentis Annaearum
Praefectus scribarum regionis Germaniae Superioris
Tribunus laticlavius militum legionis XI CPF
Homepage: http://www.tiano.ch.tt

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:17:16 -0700

Ave,

I know this might be a bit off topic, but in Los Angeles County there is a website (lacounty.info) where you can track on a map where sex offenders reside near your residence. They break it down to serious resk and high risk offenders and if there is just one person in a specific location or if there are more than one.

In case if you are wondering here is how Los Angeles County defines Serious and High Resk:

Sex Offender Classifications


Consistent with California's Megan's Law, the map provided on this website displays the general whereabouts of registered sex offenders, classified as either "Serious" or "High Risk", who were last known to reside in the County of Los Angeles.

"Serious" sex registrants are required to register with law enforcement if convicted of at least one felony sex crime. Additionally, "High-Risk" sex registrants create a unique group as they pose a greater threat of re-offending based on their prior criminal acts. The map does not reflect the locations of registrants known to be incarcerated, registrants that are transients with no associated address, and registrants with unknown addresses.


Lets just say that when I first observed this map I was pleased that my specific zip code did not have any "high risk" offenders.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Brighn (Paul Kershaw)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech


All of your examples above are based upon an individual's character,
words and actions, and, in my opinion, are "fair game".

Vale, Octavius.

Salve, Octavius:

This does raise an interesting conundrum. One thing for which you can be convicted as a felon is child molestation, which indeed is held in the United States as especially "fair game" crime -- laws like Megan's Law not only encourage but, in some cases, require that certain authorities make certain criminals public. On the other hand, many (if not most) cases of child molestation are the direct result of a mental dysfunction, and the publicizing of the felony could be construed as a publicizing of the dysfunction. While I would hope that NR would never be faced with such a quandary, it is a potentiality. If we bar all public disclosure of mental dysfunction, would we not be violating disclosure of such felonies?

This is a question for the list, and I have no immediate answer in mind.

Vale,
Festus


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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"Brighn \(Paul Kershaw\)" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:42:00 -0400

Salvete,

With respect, I personally didn't mean to bring up the issue of sex crime registration as a point of debate, since I have strong, unpopular, and extremely off-topic opinions on the matter, and I pre-emptively apologize to the list if the subject becomes another quagmire of emotional debate. I'll be ignoring anything else generated on that specific thread.

My point was, there are contexts in which mentioning someone's felony record may strongly imply someone's mental incapicitation. Ianuaria (my wife) mentions to me off-list that the best way of handling that situation is to allow mentioning the record while avoiding any sort of implications of why the person *has* the record (as far as mental dysfunction goes). It may have just been a capricious example that wandered into my head and should have wandered back out. =)

-- Festus

From: L. Cornelius Sulla
Ave,

I know this might be a bit off topic, but in Los Angeles County there is a website (lacounty.info) where you can track on a map where sex offenders reside near your residence....


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:40:31 -0700

Ave Marcus Marcius,

Just to inform you, when you resigned your citizenship and were gone from Nova Roma the People of Nova Roma voted to eliminate the Curator Sermo position. The Praetors have taken up those responsibilities and duties. The law that was promulgated was: Lex Octavia de Sermone and can be found here: http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-06-05-i.html.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: rexmarciusnr
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:33 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speech


--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:

> The price of freedom is tolaration
> of other's freedom. Other citizens don't have a duty
> to meet your standards. You have the right not to read
> posts that don't meet your standards, but do NOT have
> the right to prevent others from making them.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>

Salvete

I could not agree more with this statement. There are of course
limits to tolerance (like when one intentionally disturbes the peace
and threatens others with murder, as has happened on this list
before) but we should aspire to set those limits as wide as possible.
As pointed out by Lucius Sicinius, the NR Constitution gives some
indication on what is acceptable and what not (in II.B.4. but also in
the description of the role of the Censors).

In practice our limits of free speech are set by laws (like the Lex
Fabia on Internet stalking) and magisterial actions, namely those of
the Curator Sermo (a vigintisexviri position), the Praetors and the
Censors.

In view of the recently issued warning by the Praetrix ("If you want
to challenge the competance of a magistrate, or another citizen for
whatever reason [sic!!! MMR], please use the Senate or Praetor's
Court.") I believe it is necessary that everyone understands that a
(rather vague) new limit of free speech is about to be introduced. As
this is an important precedent I would ask the Tribunes to state
their official opinion, whether this magisterial action is indeed in
the spirit of the NR constitution.

Ave et vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 12:04:05 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Lancaster
To: 'Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com'
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language


Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix writes:

>I researched and located peoples were settled in Israel by the Assyrians.
According to II Kings 17:24 it states: "Then the king of Assyria brought
people from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath and from Sepharvaim, and placed
them in the cities of Samaria instead of the Children of Israel." It was
the intermingling of these immigrants and the remaining Jews who were not
deported that fathered the Samaritans.

>I hope that this information also assists you. If you would like to
continue this discussion further please feel free to subscribe yourself to
the NR_Jewish_Sod@yahoogroups.com or email me privately and I can add you to
that list.

Salvete omnes,

SULLA: Avete Omnes,

As I recall from my seminary days, it was a bit of a class issue too.

SULLA: Yep it was when I attended college as well.

The
Babylonians deported the upper classes, the priests, the merchants, anyone
who could "cause trouble."

SULLA: Yes, but I am certain they they deported some common folk as well. If I recall correctly they deported about 60,000 people in the last deportation as well, in the final distruction of Jerusalem. There were 3 previous deportations prior to that. 2 to Babylon 1 to Egypt (on their way back from losing the battle of Carcamisch (sp.) when they dethroned the King who took Josiah's place. I would not think that by the last deportation there were many wealthy people remaining in Judah.

They left behind the poor, ordinary folk (who,
it would appear from Kings and it's revision, Chronicles, never took to
monotheism very well anyway).

SULLA: I do not think Chronicles is a revision of the books of Kings. If anything Chronicles is more of a religious book and Kings is more historical, giving information regarding both Kingdoms (Israel and Judah).

So when the Persians brought those Israelites
back who wished to return, there were already a huge class and cultural
differences in place.

SULLA: I agree there was some cultural differences between those who remained in the land and those who were deported. But the Torah does not describe much of those differences other than to say the land was near barren and unkept. What I wonder and am in discussion with my tutor in Partners in Torah is how many people remained in the land, how productive it was and if the land was repopulated by the Babylonians.

SULLA: If you would like to continue this discussion on the NR_Jewish_Sod list please let me know. I am hesistant about keeping this topic on the ML since it might be considered off topic.

Most Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Just dust from my attic ;o)

Valete,

CN. IVLIVS STRABO

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] On the question of personal accusation
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:44:05 +0100 (BST)

Greetings all.

I hope I shan't be considered out of order in participating in this discussion while not yet a citizen. If I am so considered, I shall be content to stay out of it hereafter.

I can't offer any greater knowledge of the legal implications of this question than many citizens have already displayed, but another aspect of the issue interests me: in the ancient Republic, the private moral conduct of a public figure would have been considered inseparably linked to his or her public standing, worthiness to hold office, and so on, as is clear from the powers of the Censors, as guardians of public morality, to intervene in the political and social status of individuals. Today, however, there is not so much ethical unanimity, and some would regard the spheres of public life and private moral conduct distinct (I'm sure we can all think of times in recent years when the question has arisen whether a politician's private life should affect his or her political standing).

So I should like to ask of the Censors, who according to the Constitution are, like those of ancient Rome, responsible for public morality, whether it is their official view that citizens' private moral conduct is of relevance to their public standing and status, and, if it is, whether the ethical criteria which they would apply to a citizen when considering a case of alleged immoral behaviour would be those commonly accepted in the ancient Republic, their own personal ones, or ones arrived at in some other way.

I ask this in the public forum as it strikes me as a matter of public interest, but if the Censors or the moderators disagree then I shall be happy to discuss it privately.

Jamie




www.strategikon.org




---------------------------------
Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Absence of Tiberius Annaeus Otho
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:58:39 +0100 (BST)

tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch wrote:
> Salvete quirites,
>
> Starting in a few hours, I will be away on my honeymoon, together with my
> wife, Roscia Annaea Pia, who is also a citizen of Nova Roma. We will be
> away on a cruise through the 'mare nostrum' and will not have internet access!!



Congratulations and good sailing. Or, if you have already set off by the time I send this: welcome back, what a tan you have. :)



Jamie




www.strategikon.org




---------------------------------
Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: New Exciting Website
From:	MLCRASSVS@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 15:47:51 EDT

MARCVS CALIDIVS GRACCHVS MANIO CONSTANTINO SERAPIO S.P.D.

AVE,

I should be most honoured to accept, especially if I can be of any help to
you, your colleagues and to the service and greater glory of Rome.

As I said, my particular interest and knowledge is in LEGIO III AVGVSTA
LIBERATRIX PIA VINDEX which was stationed and served mainly in AFRICA
PROCONSUVLARIS. However, as you rightly ascertain, I have a general
interest in that Province.

Please contact me and let know how I may be of assistence.

VALE


M. CALIDIVS GRACCVS
CIVIS NOVAE ROMAE

TVVS IN SODOLICIO RES PVBLICA ROMANAE













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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:08:53 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : “L. Cornelius Sulla“ <alexious@earthlink.net>
>
>
> Sulla: In this I would respectfully disagree. I believe the concept of being a Jew developed during the Divided Kingdom when the 10 Tribes went their own separate way. Residents of Judah and Benjamin (and those people who immigrated to Judah's territory) were called Jew. Those of the northern tribes continued to be called Israelites.
>
I would not disagree with this or entirely agree with it. Presumably yes, Iudaioi generically derive from specifically the Kingdom of Judah (I often wonder how much of the gospel attacks on 'the Jews' might actually refer to Judaeans as disliked by Galileeans, since the term is ambiguous). However, it's quite possible that while there was already a common religio-ethnic identity, this became increasingly refined with the finalising refinement taking place in Babylon when they had to maintain their identity in a cosmopolitan city no doubt as happy to swap divinities around as Rome later. Inevitably that would lead to expurgating common myth & legend or rewriting it with a specifically Jewish twist. For instance, the Garden of Eden is unique in regarding the serpent as evil for reveling the wisdom that man is divine rather than for guarding that information. Even if a process of differentiation was well underway, the Exile appears to have finished it. We just don't know, except from the constant Biblical attacks on heresy, what the ordinary situation was but subsequent Christian history may have merely continued a tradition of factional fighting and mutual heresy denunciation.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:23:16 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Kassandra Velez <kvelez@iris.nyit.edu>
>
Salve Lucia!

>I'm unfamiliar with xi being used in these situations - in my experience, t or tt generally alternates with ss! The ancient value of zeta is currently up in the air; various theories propose 'zd', 'dz' (often written 'tz' by modern Greek speakers), 'ts', or possibly even other sounds.
>
Pratto/Prasso Presumably that implies a stage where TT was pronounced as Ts. I was thinking of the nominative S termination on a root ending in T. Of course I can't think of a single example :(
>
>Just about anything is possible, but keep in mind that a few centuries of sound shifts can effect a good deal of change, and depalatalization is a fairly simple step. There's no particular reason Greek z needs to be palatal or postalveolar; of course, there's no good reason it can't be, either.
>
Possibly it varied according to dialect and with time. My guess is that Romans treated foreign languages their Greek rather as English (or even worse, French!) does and most people approximated with a sound familiar to them.
>
>Have I been obfuscatory enough for you? :)
>
Don't know about me but probably for half the list anyway! Still, makes a change from obfuscatory points on politics and the military I suppose.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:29:00 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Numerius Cassius Niger <menippus@attbi.com>

>pronounced like (tsi-YON). If you pronounce Zion as it's currently
>pronounced in English, it sounds like the Hebrew word for gun or
>penis (ZA-yin). It always amuses Israeli soldiers when female
>tourists ask, in Hebrew, to see their guns. :)
Freud *was* Jewish wasn't he? Maybe that explains a lot :)
In general terms, thank you: most informative. I can think of a direct Z-J correspondance: Greek ZWH = Sanskrit Jiivah. I'm afrain I just got stuck with Teach Yourself Biblical Hebrew and turned to C++ as more necessary (and at least as confusing)!
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: List issues and food
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:35:44 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Julilla Sempronia Magna <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>
>highly organised system for food imports, for, even despite
>occasional shortages and food riots, in excess of one million people
>were fed, year after year, in this pre-industrial society -- an
>amazing feat indeed, and one to ponder as ports up and down the west
>coast of the US are shut down.
>
We must remember that they ate, and continue to eat, a lot that Anglophones do not. Italians and southern French are notorious for eating anything that flies and much that slithers and hops. There is also be a wider variety of fungi and leaves. In particular they seem to have appreciated a member of the Angelica-Parsley family called Alexanders and spread it everywhere sandy. Unfortunately as well as providing most spices, that family all look very similar and most of them associated with watery conditions are extremely poisonous, Hemlock being the commonest example.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 14:30:10 -0700

Avete Omnes,
----- Original Message -----
From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, language


-----Original Message-----
From : Numerius Cassius Niger <menippus@attbi.com>

>pronounced like (tsi-YON). If you pronounce Zion as it's currently
>pronounced in English, it sounds like the Hebrew word for gun or
>penis (ZA-yin). It always amuses Israeli soldiers when female
>tourists ask, in Hebrew, to see their guns. :)
Freud *was* Jewish wasn't he? Maybe that explains a lot :)
Sulla: Yep Freud was Jewish.

In general terms, thank you: most informative. I can think of a direct Z-J correspondance: Greek ZWH = Sanskrit Jiivah. I'm afrain I just got stuck with Teach Yourself Biblical Hebrew and turned to C++ as more necessary (and at least as confusing)!

Sulla: I agree thank you it was very informative as well. I am slowly trying to learn Hebrew and this helps me in that process.

Most Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On the question of personal accusation
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:54:24 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : =?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= >
>
>I can't offer any greater knowledge of the legal implications of this question than many citizens have already displayed, but another aspect of the issue interests me: in the ancient Republic, the private moral conduct of a public figure would have been considered inseparably linked to his or her public standing, worthiness to hold office, and so on, as is clear from the powers of the Censors, as guardians of public morality, to intervene in the political and social status of individuals.

I think their view would be much more relatavistic than ours, almost hypocritical in that who was involved mattered far more than what. The situation probably applies in any slave society. It's unlikely they would have given a hoot about buying slaves for any sadistic purpose or dropping round to a brothel of children of either sex: neither involved citizens. On the other hand, adultery or fighting your father would probably have your name in the mud for life.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Freedom of Speech
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:59:55 -0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Praetor Marco Marcio Rex et Populesque:

Surprise surprise!

In the absence of directly addressing the crux of my problems with
the dicussions on furnishing complete information with respect to the
appraisal of someones competance or incompetance, I am fighting my
way around a very large banner of 'freedom of speech'.

The only difficulty I have with that,Marce Marci,is that such a
banner can be swung so vigorously that damage is done to the walls,
windows, roofs which we have collectively toiled to build up.

However, it is a clever display, and one that readily appeals to
those who value the freedoms and liberties we are blessed with today.
However, as has been demonstrated in several posts to date, not
everyone is buying your position.

Let me make my points as succinct as possible, Councillor, with
respect to freedoms:

One is 'not' free to make suggestive remarks about the competance of
another's policies, character, etc. based on 'incomplete truths', no
written evidence, or other halfspinnings which obscure the past with
the present, rendering said written offering a subject of potential
libel,previously published or not. Legally, a false statement has
been publically asserted, adversely affecting someone else.

It matters not 'who said it'....it is a case in point and one that
needs to be addressed.

One is 'not' free to put this corporation in a libelous situation,
over the need to vindicate one's self.

I am sorry that these 'infactions' of your desired freedoms are
distasteful to you.




I am out to protect this republic from potential harm, and to render
this list a civil place where we can generate community, caring and
celebrate the cultures,religion of Roma antiquita. That this plunges
you into such despair and frustration is indeed dismaying.

You have circumferenced this issue quite widely, and you have
included pornography...ahh, ok...

In your quest to talk about pornography on the list, or to lump
pornographers (those who watch too?) in with felons and child
molesters is legally incongruent. It has a very loose association
with the moderator's warning I produced.

Pornography, although tabled by some as 'immoral', is not illegal and
is not equitable legally, to a felon or a child molester. Not all
pornographers can be assumed to be the associated with illegalities.

You confuse your own personal value judgements with legal crimen.

If you can obtain permission from the Pontifex Maximus or the Censors
to allow you to talk about porn on this list, ad nauseum, in the name
of 'freedom', to make you happy, do let me know and I shall defer to
them and adjust the list accordingly. Until that time, if it is not
related to antiquita, I should think it is offtopic. There are other
places to go.

If you want to talk Porn, how about starting a discussion on the
presence of erotia in the art at Pompeii?

You need to clarify your personal values, councillor, no? I mean,
you could in future end up with a client who has been in pornography
who is clearly not guilty of corporate embezzlement or murder in the
first degree.

I hope that one day Nova Roma will grow large enough that she will be
able to afford lawyers who indeed love this republic and want to
steer her out of legal harm, rather than wave a flag of false
promises that these scenerios will never affect us. Indeed they may,
and as we grow larger and richer, they will.

And what does SIC!!! mean?

Pompeia

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] SIC People
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 23:58:00 -0000

Salve Pompeia,

'SIC' is a Latin term which means 'in this way'. It is used when
quoting someone else who makes spelling or grammatical errors, and
lets your reader know that the error is not yours, but appears this
way in the source you are quoting.

For example, here is an excerpt from a public resignation speech
from March 15, 2002, written by an honorable man who saw so little
good in Nova Roma that he could no longer remain in it. Note where I
use SIC in the excerpt, to show that certain spellings are not mine,
but his.

"But after Senator Aelius's departure and after the way my daughter
Livia was treated by the Senate I knew that before long not enough
would be left here that I really liked and that would make it
worthwhile to stay.

I, therefore, also made a decision to leave this Community and to
share my Romanitas only with those people I could really associate
myself with. I mean I could live with an Octavius, a Cassius and
certainly with a Minucius Audens but I can only leave with a
Germanicus, a Fabulus {SIC} Maximus and a Pornelius {SIC} Sulla.

So by this notice I formally resign and depose myself
from the citizenship of Nova Roma"

Gaius Cassius Nerva

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Correction
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Oct 2002 23:59:56 -0000

PS. I made an error in my previous post to Pompeia. The erroneous
sentence should read, "Here is a public resignation letter from March
15, 2001", instead of 2002.

GCN