| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Legion XXIV Vicesima Quarta Newsletter Nov - 2002 |
| From: |
Legion XXIV <legionxxiv@comcast.net> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:52:47 -0500 |
|
VICESIMA QUARTA - NEWSLETTER
NOVEMBER 2002
LEGION XXIV MEDIA ATLANTIA
Defending the Frontiers of Ancient Rome
in the Mid-Atlantic Province of North America
Gallio Velius Marsallas
George W. Metz Praefectus / Commander
13 Post Run - Newtown Square PA 19073
legionxxiv@comcast.net 610-353-4982
www.legionxxiv.org
John Ebel, Primus Palus, Lead Gladiator
Box 2146 - East Hampton, NY 11937
631-329-2430 home 800-926-2306 office
Avete et Salutatio Commilitones
LUDUS MAGNUS and LEGION XXIV GOES TO THE UNIVERSITY
Four gladiators and three legionaries went to the University of Pennsylvania
Museum on Saturday November 2nd to maybe learn; but mainly to teach
and lecture!
Maximus Mercurius Gladius (John Ebel), Lupus Brittanicus, "The Wolf" (Mike Catellier), Aulus Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (Al Barbato), Petreius Tibaronies,
"Urbico the City Boy" (Peter Santamaria) and Commander Marsallas, accompanied by Marcus Quintius Clavus (Quinton Johanson) and Cnaeus Valerous Dannicus (Daniel Zeidler) turned out to do a "Show and Tell" on the
gladiatorial arts and legionary dress for the several hundred patrons who
came to the Museum to see its galleries and attend a showing of the movie "Gladiator".
The participants arrived by 10:30 AM, got themselves into gear, moved our
displays into place and were roaming around the Museum by 11:15.
"Dannicus" Zeidler, just back from an Air Force tour in Korea, had indicated
he was coming to get an idea of what we did at an event. He showed up in
"civvies" and it was soon evident that he was itching to get more involved.
Maximus supplied a red tunic and the Commander came up with a pair of
caligae and a cingulum belt; and presto! - we had another legionary on
duty! Dannicus also donned a gladiator helmet and took part in Maximus'
gladiator lecture, before the movie showing.
Welcome aboard, Dan! - Your in Legion XXIV Now!!
Due to the hard and slippery terrazzo floors throughout the museum,
a practical gladiatorial demonstration would have been very treacherous
and possibly injurious, so instead, a lecture and display of tactics was done
on the stage of the auditorium; which was well received by all in attendance.
The Ludus and Legion had been invited to come and enhance the first day
of the Museum's month-long Saturday film series, Ecco Roma, Città Eterna:
A Cinematic Journey of Discovery. As a tribute to the "Gladiator" effect
and the enormous impact the film "Gladiator" had in redefining the
classical world in modern popular culture, UPM unveiled a display of
weaponry and armour created for that film; which will be at the Museum until
early December. These original props include a collection of gladiatorial
equipment from the provincial arena scenes (shield, axe, flail, mace and
swords, and helmet) and from the opening battle scenes between Romans
and barbarians, such as a legionary cuirass, helmet, belt, sword, and special
effects retractable dagger. A larger display of costumes and weaponry from
the movie, and the sword used by Russell Crowe in the Colosseum scenes,
is planned to coincide with the opening of "Worlds Intertwined: Etruscans, Greeks, and Romans" on March 16, 2003; at which our Ludus and Legion
will have a central role.
In addition to the presence of the Ludus and Legionaries, Tim Pafik, author
of the forthcoming book, "Gladiator, The Armour, Costumes, and Weaponry",
presented a lecture illustrating how the designers and armourers of the film
"Gladiator" began with historical research ( which they largely ignored),
brought their ideas into the workshop, and saw their creations used on the battlefields and arenas of "Gladiator." The audience learned the Hollywood secrets of special effects weaponry and armour. A selection of props from
the film were available for the audience to inspect first-hand.
While we as reenactors may not consider the Movie "Gladiator" and its
props to be as authentic as we might wish, it was still interesting to hear the
details behind the Production and get an "up-close" look at the props.
"VEXILLATION" UNITS
There are now quite a few members who are some distance from the
Mid-Atlantic Province (PA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CN) and are therefore unable
to regularly serve with the main unit of the Legion.
These detached members will now be assigned to "Vexillation" duty; that is,
they will be considered as serving in units that are detached from the main
body of the Legion; which were termed "Vexillations" in Roman times.
The largest of these vexillations would be the four members of the "Collins"
unit (Daniel, John, Stephen and Karen), originally stationed in the Provincia
Texas and now serving in Las Vegas, NV.
NEW RECRUITS:
Bruce Peltzer (Servius Peltrasius Germanus) has joined up as a conscribere.
He is from Bensalem, in the middle of our Provincia, and we look forward to
having him "kitted-out" and in service to Rome for our upcoming campaigns.
Paul Adcox (Augustus Aggrippa Ageptus) of Reno, NV has been signed up
as a member of our "Vexillation" (detached unit serving away from the main
body of the Legion) on the western frontiers.
We hope to have him with us if he ever gets "back-east".
Stephen Hyland will also be representing Rome, on detached "Vexillation"
duty, in the desert province of Mesa, AZ.
PLEASE ADVISE WHEN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS CHANGES
A number of e-mail returns of the Vicesima Quarta occur each month.
If your e-mail or snail mail address has or is going to change, please let
us know. We do not want you to miss a single exciting? issue of the V.Q.!
UPCOMING CAMPAIGNS:
Mark your calendars for the major UPM Campaign in March 2003!
Dec 13-14, FR-SA, 6PM Market Place 29AD Advent Program, Christ UMC,
Broomall, PA This is an easy-going campaign providing an
Imperial Roman Atmosphere to the scripted program put on by
the members of the church. This will be the fourth year we have
participated with them.
2003
Mar 15, FR, Roman atmosphere for Univ.-PA Museum Gala and
Grand March to Exhibit, 5PM - 9PM, Philadelphia
Mar 16, SA Legion and Gladiatorial Encampment and Demonstrations,
UPM, with Legion XX. 10AM - 4PM
Mar 19 or 20 Roman atmosphere for UPM Member's Opening Party,
6 - 9PM, Philadelphia
BOOK ON ROMAN IRON AND STEEL
This book tip comes from the Legion XX "Adlocvtio" Newsletter.
A book called "Iron for the Eagles" by David Sim and Isabel Ridge,
published by Tempus, 2002, ISBN 0 7524 1900 5.
It nominally covers iron production for the Roman army in Britain,
but draws on evidence from all over the empire and even from other eras. Basically, it is fascinating, going into great detail on how iron is mined and processed, from washing and roasting the ore to making weapons and
other items. The differences between different types of iron and steel are
very well-explained, as are various techniques of smelting and forging.
If you want to know more about basic Roman metallurgy, get this book!
It's available from David Brown Book Company or Amazon UK.
Check our Website. www.legionxxiv.org
There have been a number of updates to the
Chronology Pages and the new Signum-Vexillum Page.
Thanking you for your continued interest and support of Legion XXIV,
I manere in Viresium et Honorare
I remain in Strength and Honor
(take your pick)
Tuus in Sodalicio Romanae Republica
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Republic
Tuus in Sodalicio Romanae Imperi
Yours in the Comradeship of the Roman Empire
Gallio / George
[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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Gens Velia Outreach Looking for Lollia Britannia |
| From: |
Legion XXIV <legionxxiv@comcast.net> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:45:54 -0500 |
|
I have lost contact with a member of my Gens: Lollia Velius Britannia.
Her e-mail address is rejecting.
If you are out there Lollia, please respond with your e-mail addy.
Could all members of Gens Velia please respond to this message to
legionxxiv@comcast.net and verify your contact info.
I value your membership in Gens Velia and want to be sure that I have
your current contact info and that you are receiving Legion XXIV's
Vicesima Quarta Newsletter.
Be sure to Vote!! in the current elections!!
Thank You
Gallio Velius Marsallas aka George Metz
Paterfamilias, Gens Velia, Nova Roma
www.legionxxiv.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Taverna II |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:20:53 -0800 |
|
Avete Omnes,
----- Original Message -----
From: jmath669642reng@webtv.net
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Taverna II
In the early days of Nova Roma, there was a "Taverna" where all gathered
to talk over the days thoughts and business.
Sulla: Just to educate our newer citizens, the Taverna was not an email list, but a chatroom, a live chatroom. It was a chatroom that was hosted by Beseen. The Taverna was named by Nocta who ran it as a barkeep.
I had even compiled a
detailed description of the inside and outside of the Taverna, and
provided it to the webmistress. This was in the days before the present
"back alley" with it's filthy talk and political manuevering.
Sulla: LOL, you certainly had no problem participating in the "filthy talk," I almost wonder which Audens is the real one. The one who was a carefree gent who participated in jokes and good humor or this one who is so anal its unbelievable. And as for political maneuvering you complain about politics on the ML, and now your complaining about politics on the BA? I think you wont be happy till there is no politics at all, unless if it is the politics of just your friends.
It was a pleasant place, just off a "back alley" somewhere in Rome.
Sulla: Wrong, the Taverna was a live chatroom. Back alley is an email list. But I understand your limited Technical knowledge might be a hinderance here.
I
was often pleased to find a seat there on the "shady side" with a goblet
of Falernian and some friends.
Sulla: Sure Role Playing was allowed there and we all participated. But it never overshadowed the true purpose of NR.
The "Taverna" of those days is no longer alive , having been usurped by
something much less pleasing and more of a open sewer than a place to
meet one's friends.
Sulla: Yep he is right, the Taverna is no longer alive. It was killed when citizens misused the chatroom to imitate priests and had fake suicides. It was killed when people used it as a place to try to defame other citizens and try to organize impeachments. It died when citizens started lurking in there without the knowledge of other citizens.
As the Honorable Junior Consul has been so eager to
remind all, I once again returned to "back alley" seeking the place that
I had remembered and finding unfortunately something very different.
Sulla: Obviously, you are confused with the chatroom and a email list.
Your idea, therefore has merit, and I should again like to rest these
weary bones on padded bench on the "shady side". and again savor the
flavor of Falerian served in "redware" cup. However, I suspect that
without a significant amount of effort such an undertaking might well
turn into another "back alley" which would be unfortunate indeed, in my
humble view.
Sulla: The Back alley has a very respectable history in NR, its been around almost as long as NR has been around. It served as the remaining communication center during the Civil War that you helped create. It was not shut down by the Powers that Be, unlike the website and the ML. No one has ever been moderated on the BA, unlike the ML. And everyone is completely welcome on the BA. If anything the BA is more Roman than anything else in Nova Roma. It is not PC, nor will it ever be PC. Its in your face just like the ancients were. I find it interesting that you are endorsing the creation of something that already essentially exists. Is this the limit of your vision? To re-create the wheel?
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proud Owner of the Back Alley
[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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Voter Code |
| From: |
Piparskeggr Ullarsson <piparskegg@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:18:45 -0800 (PST) |
|
M'Aidez, m'aidez!!!
I've written to the auto send page from the Nova Roma Gens page, but have not
received my new voter code!!!
If my email address is bouncing, try the gen_sulleria@yahoo.com one, please!!!
I take my voting duty quite seriously.
Gratias - Venator
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Apollonia Acta -- Roman News and Archeology |
| From: |
Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:40:24 -0800 (PST) |
|
Salvete,
a lot of exciting news this week!! Qumran, more about Antinous' temple, a tourist project
and an incredible find in Greece... All of this at:
http://www.fr-novaroma.com/Archeology/
Come in!!
Valete,
=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Candidate for Quaestor
My program at: http://www.fr-novaroma.com/Quaestorship/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Velia Outreach Looking for Lollia Britannia |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Decimus=20Iunius=20Silanus?= <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:42:51 +0000 (GMT) |
|
Salve Gallio Velius Marsallas,
>I have lost contact with a member of my Gens: Lollia
>Velius Britannia.
I'm positive that she is still active. I had a
conversation with her very recently when she joined
the Britannia Provincia mailing list.
I shall forward your post there. I'm sure she is still
subscribed.
Vale
Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae.
__________________________________________________
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] Taverna II the explanation |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 05:25:00 EST |
|
In a message dated 11/21/02 8:24:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:
Salvete. Let me translate the Latin of the Junior Consul. He is still
speaking in back alley pathos
> In the early days of Nova Roma, there was a "Taverna" where all gathered
> to talk over the days thoughts and business.
>
It was a chat room on Beseen. And it where all us active Nova Romanoii would
gather between the hours of 6 PM and 5 AM daily that first year. It was not
a list.
> I had even compiled a detailed description of the inside and outside of
> the Taverna, and provided it to the webmistress. This was in the days
> before the present "back alley" with it's filthy talk and political
> manuevering.
OK, actually Aelius Ericus former Propraetor of CAL drew up the plans. He
mailed them to me. I still have them put away in my pre civil war
memorabilia. I'm sure Municius remembers giving input. We all did.
> Sulla: LOL, you certainly had no problem participating in the "filthy
> talk," I almost wonder which Audens is the real one. The one who was a
> carefree gent who participated in jokes and good humor or this one who is
> so anal its unbelievable. And as for political maneuvering you complain
> about politics on the ML, and now your complaining about politics on the
> BA? I think you wont be happy till there is no politics at all, unless if
> it is the politics of just your friends.
>
And I think as long as NR strives to be a nation, there is going to be
politics and political discussion. And it will happen where ever the
citizens gather. It is unavoidable.
> It was a pleasant place, just off a "back alley" somewhere in Rome.
>
> Sulla: Wrong, the Taverna was a live chatroom. Back alley is an email
> list. But I understand your limited Technical knowledge might be a
> hindrance here.
>
Guys!
The Tavern as concieved by Nocta, Marius and Aelius, was in the Servian wall
inside, just a bowshot from the Milvian gate
> I was often pleased to find a seat there on the "shady side" with a goblet
> of Falernian and some friends.
>
> Sulla: Sure Role Playing was allowed there and we all participated. But
> it never overshadowed the true purpose of NR.
>
True, role playing was more our stock in trade in those days. We really had
no choice. We had a true oligarchy running things, five senators, who were
the Consuls, Censors, and even the Virgo Maxima. The assemblies were non
existent, since neither the Tribes nor the Centuries had been formed yet. So
we laughed together on line, virtually drank and all became fast friends.
> The "Taverna" of those days is no longer alive, having been usurped by
> something much less pleasing and more of an open sewer than a place to
> meet one's friends.
> Sulla: Yep he is right, the Taverna is no longer alive. It was killed
> when citizens misused the chartroom to imitate priests and had fake
> suicides. It was killed when people used it as a place to try to defame
> other citizens and try to organize impeachments. It died when citizens
> started lurking in there without the knowledge of other citizens.
>
Part of the problem we discovered here in the republic, was we had
technocrats who understood their way around on line with in this system with
no security.
So we started to have identify theft, eavesdropping or as what Cornelius
Sulla calls lurking, on private conversations, false identities, you name it.
Certain citizens started tormenting others, but under assumed names. It was
a mess. We (Senate) finally had to close it down, in 2000.
> As the Honorable Junior Consul has been so eager to
> remind all, I once again returned to "back alley" seeking the place that
> I had remembered and finding unfortunately something very different.
>
I love these guys' rhetoric. Can't either of you say something nice about
the other?
Sulla: The Back alley has a very respectable history in NR, its been around
almost as long as NR has been around. It served as the remaining
communication center during the Civil War. It was not shut down by the
Powers that Be, unlike the website and the ML.
To continue. In 1999, Citizen Crystalina wanted to have her own list that
was not NR owned, and subject to moderation. Crys did not like censorship,
and she wanted a place where citizens could hang out and gossip. She asked
me for suggestions, and I told how the best graffiti was always at the
crossroads, so she started her first list called the "Via trames." It was
this list that was left operating when the government collapsed, after the
Censor shut down everything.
This left Marius' Catalin list, and Via trames operating However since
membership
to Marius' list was exclusive, and anybody could join the crossroads, by mid
day that July we had most of NR signed up. I spent 10 hours that day at the
keyboard in LA, while Cry was doing the same in Min, shuttling e-mail from
citizens to magistrates, and vice versa. We had resignation speeches, cries
of persecution etc, and I saved it all.
However after the dictatorship, Cry decided to switch ISPs and she lost the
crossroads. She started the first Back alley on e-groups, before Yahoo
bought them. She started the current one and left the control to Cornelius
and I after Yahoo bought e-groups and she left NR.
I have said, the whole idea of Back alley was simple...No censorship. You
want to insult me the way Monrovia did there recently, go ahead. Roman BAs
were terrible places. But they were a part of Rome, just like taverns, the
Forum, the Senate House, and the Temples. And if M. Municius doesn't want to
go there, he shouldn't be forced.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] apology to Maximus |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@gensmoravia.org> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:09:10 +0100 |
|
Salve Maximus,
[>] I have said, the whole idea of Back alley was simple...No censorship.
You
[>] > want to insult me the way Monrovia did there recently, go ahead.
Roman BAs
[>] > were terrible places.
Is Monrovia me? That's kind of cute-- reminds me of Marilyn Monroe.
I don't really remember insulting you, but if so my apologies. I have just
been being straight forward and very direct as the rest of the Back
Alley-ers.
Vale,
Diana Moravia Aventina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:31:06 +0000 (GMT) |
|
M. Marcius Rex wrote:
> Please read again:
> "a. The paterfamilias may, at his discretion,
> exercise the rights
> ennumerated in paragraph II.B. of this Constitution
> on behalf of
> impuberes in their gens, with the exception of the
> right to vote
> (paragraph II.B.3.) and the right to join the Ordo
> Equester
> (paragraph II.B.8.)."
I can see that the intent is here to prevent the
unjust treatment of under-age citizens, but I don't
see that this is in fact what it does. It's possible
that some of the phrases used in this clause have a
meaning in legal terminology which is not the same as
their obvious meaning: if so, I welcome correction of
my interpretation, but I would add that since the body
of legal precedent in this nation is minimal, it can
hardly be safe to use language which may have a clear
legal meaning in other nations but which is not
generally understood here to have any meaning beyond
the obvious, especially as there is no requirement for
any of our officials who have jurisdiction to have any
legal training.
So, on to the text: it says that the paterfamilias
'may... exercise the rights... on behalf of impuberes
in their gens'. But how does one exercise the right to
'complete authority over [one's] own personal and
household rites, rituals, and beliefs' on behalf of
another person? How does one 'remain subject to the
civil rights and laws of the countries in which [one]
reside[s]' on someone else's behalf, especially when
one may live in a different country? How can one
'remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
person, and property' on behalf of another individual?
These ideas are nonsensical, and I do not see how any
Praetor or other magistrate with jurisdiction could
interpret them in any useful way.
Moreover, the text states that 'The paterfamilias may,
at his discretion,' exercise these rights. What if an
under-age citizen has his or her rights infringed and
the paterfamilias is inactive? Well, perhaps this
could be dealt with using the law enabling the
Praetors to act on his behalf, though this might well
be taken to constitute a conflict of interest if it
were the Praetors who were hearing the case and / or
were accused of the infringement. But in any case,
what if the paterfamilias is active but chooses not to
exercise these rights of behalf of the individual in
question? Can we really consider that that individual
has rights if they can only be exercised at the
discretion of another person who can choose to deny
them of those rights with no explanation or reason?
I would be grateful if you or anyone else could
reassure me that my interpretation is at fault,
because if it is not then this seems to me a deeply
worrying situation.
Jamie
=====
www.strategikon.org
__________________________________________________
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
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] Taverna II |
| From: |
"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:54:14 -0800 (PST) |
|
This is the sort of role-play and activity that was
going on in that chatroom? That's...sick.
I'm glad it vanished before I joined NR.
---
Renata
Sulla: Yep he is right, the Taverna is no longer
alive. It was killed when citizens misused the
chatroom to imitate priests and had fake suicides. It
was killed when people used it as a place to try to
defame other citizens and try to organize
impeachments. It died when citizens started lurking
in there without the knowledge of other citizens.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.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] Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:59:02 -0800 (PST) |
|
Slave,
The sections dealing with minors are written to insure
that Nova Roman adults who's children are regestered
as citizens retain parental authority over thier
children.
Our long term goal is the ability to raise natural
families within Nova Roma. This parental authority
does cause some problems for minors who gain
citizenship on thier own rather than through belonging
to thier parents family, but that is preferable to
creating a conflict of authority within a natural
family.
--- Jamie Johnston <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> M. Marcius Rex wrote:
>
> > Please read again:
> > "a. The paterfamilias may, at his discretion,
> > exercise the rights
> > ennumerated in paragraph II.B. of this
> Constitution
> > on behalf of
> > impuberes in their gens, with the exception of the
> > right to vote
> > (paragraph II.B.3.) and the right to join the Ordo
> > Equester
> > (paragraph II.B.8.)."
>
> I can see that the intent is here to prevent the
> unjust treatment of under-age citizens, but I don't
> see that this is in fact what it does. It's possible
> that some of the phrases used in this clause have a
> meaning in legal terminology which is not the same
> as
> their obvious meaning: if so, I welcome correction
> of
> my interpretation, but I would add that since the
> body
> of legal precedent in this nation is minimal, it can
> hardly be safe to use language which may have a
> clear
> legal meaning in other nations but which is not
> generally understood here to have any meaning beyond
> the obvious, especially as there is no requirement
> for
> any of our officials who have jurisdiction to have
> any
> legal training.
>
> So, on to the text: it says that the paterfamilias
> 'may... exercise the rights... on behalf of
> impuberes
> in their gens'. But how does one exercise the right
> to
> 'complete authority over [one's] own personal and
> household rites, rituals, and beliefs' on behalf of
> another person? How does one 'remain subject to the
> civil rights and laws of the countries in which
> [one]
> reside[s]' on someone else's behalf, especially when
> one may live in a different country? How can one
> 'remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
> person, and property' on behalf of another
> individual?
> These ideas are nonsensical, and I do not see how
> any
> Praetor or other magistrate with jurisdiction could
> interpret them in any useful way.
>
> Moreover, the text states that 'The paterfamilias
> may,
> at his discretion,' exercise these rights. What if
> an
> under-age citizen has his or her rights infringed
> and
> the paterfamilias is inactive? Well, perhaps this
> could be dealt with using the law enabling the
> Praetors to act on his behalf, though this might
> well
> be taken to constitute a conflict of interest if it
> were the Praetors who were hearing the case and / or
> were accused of the infringement. But in any case,
> what if the paterfamilias is active but chooses not
> to
> exercise these rights of behalf of the individual in
> question? Can we really consider that that
> individual
> has rights if they can only be exercised at the
> discretion of another person who can choose to deny
> them of those rights with no explanation or reason?
>
> I would be grateful if you or anyone else could
> reassure me that my interpretation is at fault,
> because if it is not then this seems to me a deeply
> worrying situation.
>
> Jamie
>
> =====
>
>
> www.strategikon.org
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>
=====
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!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Taverna II |
| From: |
"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:29:50 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., jmath669642reng@w... wrote:
>>This was in the days before the present
"back alley" with it's filthy talk and political manuevering.<<
>>The "Taverna" of those days is no longer alive , having been
usurped by something much less pleasing and more of a open sewer<<
Well I feel this slanders and insults the citizens who read and
write on this list and as such diminishes the Senators dignitas.
The Back List IS uncensored. Many things are discussed there: NR
Politics, World Politics, Music, on and on. There is the occasional
curse word. I personally don't see how someone so intolerant of
occasional strong langauge could even function in the real world.
However, if you are such a person, the BA is not for you.
I invite everyone who is interested to stop by and see for
yourself. "Lurking" is permitted and you may even make some new
friends.
Gaius Popillius Laenas
Back Alley Member and
Filthy Sewer Dweller
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Taverna II |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@webtv.net |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:56:34 -0500 (EST) |
|
Gentlemen;
You are quite right Consul Sulla. My technical expertise on the
internet is primative. I suppose that is simply because I choose to use
it more as a typewriter, than a substitute for my outside life. It
enables me to contact those far-reaching individuals that I deal with on
a face-to-face basis each month as I need to, together with those who
work with me in the various service projects in which I am engaged. It
also allows me the privaledge of getting to know better those in foriegn
countries, and allows me the further privaledge of haviing friends like
Senator Quintillianus, Praefectus Scipio, and Dominus Praefectus
Serapio, and all of the people at the Academia, and the other friends
that I have made here in NR. However, it is not a substitute for my
community service, reenactment activities and events, and my studies and
research in areas other than NR. In short it is simply another addition
to the life that I enjoy, and not a substitute for it.
Senator Maximus, I have on several occasion said "something nice" about
Consul Sulla, and in each case he has returned with some stupid act or
comment which has, in my personal view, injured Nova Roma. My last
comment was to him personnally in response to his message to another
Senator. He never replied.
I appreciate both of you leaping to my assistance and setting everyone
straight in regard to the Taverna. I am not sure technically what
difference it makes whether it was a list or a chatroom, at this point,
but I am sure that someone will hasten to make the distinction, in order
to show everyone a further detailed knowledge of this medium. The old
Taverna is dead, as has been detailed by you gentlemen, but my purpose
was simply to make my friends aware of the situation.
In response to your determined defence of "back alley", it is certainly
your list, and you may do with it as you please. I was under the
impression that Nova Roma was created to bring to this century the best
of the Roman Culture, not the worst, however, I may well be wrong in
that supposition. I am quite pleased that the "b-a list" is outside of
Nova Roma, and I hope that it will stay that way.
In regard to the comment by Consul Sulla regarding the long service of
the "b-a list" to Nova Roma, I am sure that he believes what he says.
However, there are a number of very good people who are no longer
members of the list or of Nova Roma who would disagree with him. I am
sure that he will disniss this comment with the accusation that these
people were in some way weak or desirous of injuring Nova Roma, but I
know these people fairly well, and they all have my respect and my
support.
My first comment regarding the Taverna, was a precautionary one to the
Honorable Marinus and friends, as I believed that I owed them some kind
of historical notion of the first Taverna. I thank both of you for your
very detailed and specific embroidery in that matter. I thank Consul
Sulla for his input, but both Marinus and I already are aware of what
"back alley" is and what it encourages, hence my earlier message.
As you, of all people, Senator Maximus should know, no one will allow me
or disallow me to go, do, or say that which I determine is necessary. I
will, of course, be pleased to listen to anyone who has another view,
even if the other view is hostile, and I will endeavor to extract from
that view anyhing which I think is beneficial for NR, and use my "voice"
here to promulgate such, regardless of past actions or statements by the
individual in question. However the final decision on what I do, will
be mine. My Magistrate's Oath allows nothiing else.
In closing, should I decide to join Taverna, such will be based solely
on the free time which I have to devote to NR. However, I can assure
you that such a decision will NOT hinge on the character of the "owner"
of the list as I know Marinus to be an honorable and hard-working
individual whose views on common decency and gentlemanly behavior, is
equal to my own.
Vale;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:55:43 +0100 (CET) |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Jaimie.
--- Jamie Johnston <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk> escribió:
<<snipped>>
> I would be grateful if you or anyone else could
> reassure me that my interpretation is at fault,
> because if it is not then this seems to me a deeply
> worrying situation.
>
> Jamie
Unfortunately, I can not reassure you that your interpretation is at
fault. Reading your messages, I am understanding that we actually have
to re-examine the status of minors in Nova Roma.
I think that some of the things you are pointing out are extremely
interesting. I think that minors should *not* have the same rights of
an adult citizen, but I think that they should have a complete set of
legally established rights and duties of their own.
Please keep asking for this. This is the only way we can improve Nova
Roma: through new ideas. If I am elected praetor (and this is not an
electoral trick, since most voters have already voted), I invite you to
contact me privately to discuss this issue further on.
=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.
_______________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Nueva versión: Webcam, voz, y mucho más ¡Gratis!
Descárgalo ya desde http://messenger.yahoo.es
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:10:40 -0000 |
|
Salve Jamie,
>
> So, on to the text: it says that the paterfamilias
> 'may... exercise the rights... on behalf of impuberes
> in their gens'. But how does one exercise the right to
> 'complete authority over [one's] own personal and
> household rites, rituals, and beliefs' on behalf of
> another person? How does one 'remain subject to the
> civil rights and laws of the countries in which [one]
> reside[s]' on someone else's behalf, especially when
> one may live in a different country? How can one
> 'remain sovereign and secure within one's own home,
> person, and property' on behalf of another individual?
> These ideas are nonsensical, and I do not see how any
> Praetor or other magistrate with jurisdiction could
> interpret them in any useful way.
>
This may be difficult to understand for those who have not been
whipped through lawschool (I guess you were spared such a fate so
far, lucky you!) but I believe you first have to understand that with
regard to rights you have to distinguish between two very basic
abilities.
The first one is the ability to carry rights at all. You and me of
course have this ability by the very fact that all our legal systems
are mainly built for and around natural, living persons. There are
questions when you start to become such a natural person (before you
were born? only after you were born?) and when you end to be a
natural person (Brain death? cease of all bodily functions?). But
there is no doubt that our impuberes have this ability as well and
our Constitution bestows many (but not all) rights on them (or else
the passage I pointed out to you would indeed not make any sense).
However, the fact that you can carry rights does not automatically
mean that you can exercise them. For this you need an ability to act
in a legal, meaningful way. Think of legal persons, they are just
constructs that need natural persons to act for them. A company does
not act itself if it wants to aquire or shed rights, its officers
(all natural persons!) do that for it. Think of mentally challenged
people, people in a coma etc. They all carry rights but cannot
exercise them and therefore need other people to act on their behalf.
Now with children there have always been discussions about when they
should start to carry the legal ability to act for themselves (or be
held accountable for their deeds, such as crimes). In ancient Rome
this was even part of a dispute between two schools of jurists, the
Proculians and the Sabinians. One school argued that children should
be allowed to act once they reach actual maturity, so each child
would gain this ability to act at a different age. The other school
argued that a child should be allowed to act for itself only once it
reaches an age, which was commonly thought to be the normal threshold
for maturity.
You will not be surprised to hear that most legal systems (as does
NR) chose the latter way as it is the only practical one (sometimes
of course there are exceptions made for clearly manifest
extraordinary early or extraordinary late maturity).
What does that all mean for NR?
I would say that impuberes carry all the rights you mentioned and are
also subject to many obligations. However, as long as they have not
reached maturity (which is 18 in our case) they cannot under Nova
Roman law actively eg choose to take part in an academia course about
the Religio if their patresfamiliae do not allow it (impuberes can of
course in their own macronation, if the law allows it there; I was
allowed to exercise this right at the age of 14, so from then on I
could choose NOT to participate in the religion classes in public
school even though my parents objected, only from 14 on my signature
counted with the school authorities).
If one of their rights is violated (e.g. their right to remain secure
in their home because a fellow NovaRoman broke into his/her personal
computer), they need their Patresfamiliae to pursue these rights, to
seek legal redress etc. The point simply is that in the NR legal
system an impuber could not file a suit.
Does all this make sense? You bet it does. It makes sense for the
reason Lucius Sicinius Drusus gave you regarding the right of parents
to educate their children. It also makes sense because the judicial
system should not be confronted with "immature" claims. It also makes
sense to protect the impuberes from themselves and their own
immaturity (what if a six year old child could enter into legally
binding contracts and so could sell his inherited house for sweets?).
> Moreover, the text states that 'The paterfamilias may,
> at his discretion,' exercise these rights. What if an
> under-age citizen has his or her rights infringed and
> the paterfamilias is inactive? Well, perhaps this
> could be dealt with using the law enabling the
> Praetors to act on his behalf, though this might well
> be taken to constitute a conflict of interest if it
> were the Praetors who were hearing the case and / or
> were accused of the infringement.
That is actually not really a problem. In such exceptional cases I
could easily envision ex officio the Praetor as part of his/her
imperium appointing a special curator for the case. If the case
involves the Praetor as a party he should excuse himself from it (we
have the luxury of two Praetors).
But in any case,
> what if the paterfamilias is active but chooses not to
> exercise these rights of behalf of the individual in
> question? Can we really consider that that individual
> has rights if they can only be exercised at the
> discretion of another person who can choose to deny
> them of those rights with no explanation or reason?
That could in extreme cases be an abuse of paterfamilias power and
this is why in real life we have family courts that keep watch over
that everything happens in the best interest of the child (sometimes
parents need themselves the permission of a family court if they want
to act on a child's behalf). I see no reason why Praetors should not
be allowed to do the same ex officio (i.e. without someone suing for
it) in NR, if such an abuse came to their notice. If the Praetors
overstep the line here, the Tribunes could always veto them.
>
> I would be grateful if you or anyone else could
> reassure me that my interpretation is at fault,
> because if it is not then this seems to me a deeply
> worrying situation.
>
> Jamie
I hope I did just that, although it is necessarily just a cursory
overview!
Ave et vale
Marcus Marcius Rex
Candidate for Tribune
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Tavern II |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@webtv.net |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:07:55 -0500 (EST) |
|
Marinus;
My thanks for your very welcome invitation. I have not forgotten your
background, and I would suppose that such was only one of the many
things that bind us together as friends, a fact that I have stated
elsewhere.
My purpose in an earlier post was to make mention of a similar
predessor. I rather thought that someone would fall all over themselves
to correct me, point out my shortcomings, and provide the smaller
details. I was apparently correct in my surmise.
When my other errands and commitments are completed, I would be pleased
to join you.
Respectfully;
"Audens"
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
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] New Photographs |
| From: |
"Ivlia A.A. Musa" <aneaapollonia@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:38:42 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
I am Ivlia Aenea Apollonia Musa; daughter of Cassandra Iana, grand
daughter of Barbara Svzana, great grand daughter of Maria Lovisa. I
am new to the group and would just like to make my presence known. I
have posted some photographs of mine taken earlier this year in Roma.
I was impressed by how well they turned out so at the behest of
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, I decided to share them. Hope you enjoy. May
the Gods smile upon your families.
Vale,
I.A.A.Musa
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: Taverna II |
| From: |
MarcusAudens@webtv.net |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:59:32 -0500 (EST) |
|
Back Alley Member and Filthy Sewer Dweller, Gaius Laenus,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and the place of your
dwelling. What I have said is, that such is not for me. Further, ir
apparently is not for many of those in NR who are friends, associates,
and personages in NR of significant stature.
As to how anyone can deal in the modern world without dealing with
gutter language, actually it is quite simple. I do not associate with
people who must use that kind of language, and I let it be known that I
do not wish to have such epithets directed to me or used in my presence.
That generally takes care of it quite nicely.
Apparently you were not a member of "b-a" when this kind of talk was
rife, and if it has moderated, as you have indicated, then that is an
improvement, in my view.
As to insulting / slandering anyone, I have indicated how I feel
regarding the use of such language and activities. Anyone else is
perfectly free to immerse themselves in whatever bathwater that they
wish to. I do not seek to tell others what they can and cannot do, but
rather to mention for the benefit of those who have indicated thier
interest; the limit of my desire to participate thusly.
In regards to my dignity, it is mine to determine. I face myself each
morning, and the day that I deterine that I have wronged anyone, they
will be the first person to be notified.
In regards to your invitation to others to get familiar with "b-a", that
is for others to make up thier mind. It may well be that friends can be
found there, and it may well be that there may be an entertainment of a
kind to be found there as well. However, for my part, I do not frequent
an Islamic house of worship to make Christain friends, nor do I make
mud-pies in preparation to bake a cake. However, such is my personal
feeling and anyone has the freedom of choice. I only mention those who
have left NR because of "b-a", and those are without exception, very
good and valued friends.
Marcus Minucius Audens
A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!
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] Re: Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
"jamiekjohnston" <cordus@dygo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:13:02 -0000 |
|
Responses to Drusus and Astur.
L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> Slave,
Goodness, I thought we'd done away with that kind of thing here! :)
> The sections dealing with minors are written to insure
> that Nova Roman adults who's children are regestered
> as citizens retain parental authority over thier
> children.
Well, I can understand that. Personally I'm not sure I hold with the
idea that guaranteeing children basic human rights is a bad thing.
There's recently been some discussion about this in the U.K. after a
report was published suggesting that it was rather backward of that
country to have failed to prohibit corporal punishment of children by
their legal guardians, so this debate is fresh in my mind and I would
be glad to engage in it, but I'll restrain myself and stick to the
matter at hand.
You say that this is the intention, and that it is important that
that intention not be sacrificed to provide under-age citizens
without citizen parents with legal protection. Well, again, I would
be glad to divert from the main thrust of my argument to ask why we
cannot do both, and why, if we genuinely cannot do both, we should
prefer to sacrifice the rights of citizens who do exist at this
moment for the rights of those whom, so far as I know, do not yet
exist. But again I'll move on to the most important point, which is
this:
I do not believe that the provisions of the constitution as it
stands, including the articles pointed out by Marcius Rex, actually
do anything to protect the rights of any under-age citizens, whoever
their parents are, because there are at least three very important
rights (I quoted them in my last message on this subject) which it is
logically impossible for any person to exercise on behalf of any
other person. When a law is unjust, well, that is something for
discussion. But when a law is nonsensical, surely it needs to be
changed to something, anything, that is comprehensible and enforcible!
Lastly, Cn. Salix Astur wrote:
>Unfortunately, I can not reassure you that your interpretation is at
>fault. Reading your messages, I am understanding that we actually
have
>to re-examine the status of minors in Nova Roma.
I agree (as you know). There's no good reason I can see why this
subject should not be fully treated in a separate constitutional
provision, as you suggest, rather than a bit tagged on to the adult
rights provision. To be honest, I personally feel that there would be
no harm in simply giving under-age citizens all the rights they are
currently allowed to 'have exercised for them', but I can see that
some might disagree, and the main point is to make sure that there is
some protection for them. I'm grateful for your recognition of the
problem, and I hope that even if you don't have the fortune to be
elected, there will be some magistrates willing to look at this
problem.
Jamie
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] Re: The Cult of Antinous |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Equitius Marinus" <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:23:05 -0000 |
|
Carus Cornelius Aedituus writes:
> I think this is an interesting suggestion... don't like the idea of
> a "gay temple" but think a temple for a deity that promotes a way of
> life applicable to gay men would be very useful.
Yeah, I think positive role models are sadly lacking for men
who are attracted to men. Having a temple within the Religio
which provided guidance based in the Virtues could be a very
good thing.
> Some suggestions for deities enshrined?
> Arcus Consiliarus
> Eros
> Hecate
> Apollo/Hyacinth
> Pallas
> Hermes
> Heracles
I looked up the story of Apollo and Hyacinth, and it looks like
it might be a good foundation to base such an organization on.
(I also note that Hyacinth seems to have been adopted by some
gay men's groups already.)
But since my interest in this is secondary, and I wouldn't be
part of the group it's intended for, I'd really like to see the
discussion include some practitioners of the Religio Romana with
a direct interest. Anyone?
-- Marinus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: The Cult of Antinous |
| From: |
"David Blackwell" <goodboi24@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:23:53 -0000 |
|
Ave,
I think this is an interesting suggestion... don't like the idea of
a "gay temple" but think a temple for a deity that promotes a way of
life applicable to gay men would be very useful.
Some suggestions for deities enshrined?
Arcus Consiliarus
Eros
Hecate
Apollo/Hyacinth
Pallas
Hermes
Heracles
The first two would seem to me to be the most appropriate but other
deities like Hecate have a history of Gay or transgendered priesthoods
vale,
Carus Cornelius Aedituus
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Gnaeus Equitius Marinus"
<equitius_marinus@y...> wrote:
> Q. Octavius Hispanicus writes:
>
> > By other hand, moderns gay people doesn´t need a Roman Temple,
Greek
> > history and 20Th century is enough
>
> While there's something to be said for this, I think that modern
> Roman gay men just might need (for some value of need fairly well
> up Maslow's Hierarchy) a Roman temple which promotes ethical and
> honest practices while enshrining the good aspects of men who
> are attracted to men.
>
> (I'll note that I'm an odd choice to be saying this, as a flaming
> heterosexual, but I do support the rights of others to love whomever
> they wish.)
>
> -- Marinus
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: The Cult of Antinous |
| From: |
me-in-@disguise.co.uk |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:14:34 +0000 (GMT) |
|
-----Original Message-----
>From : Quintus Lanius Paulinus <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
>
>But there are some cross dressers and drag queens who are indeed
>hetero and others that are gay. Some gays are effiminate yet others
I fully agree. That's why I find our stereotypes so ridiculous. If you think about it, it is more likely that macho army types and fearful frilly women will be attracted to their own gender than those who prefer company of the opposite, even if they are not aware of it themselves. Augustus actually legislated against trousers as 'barbarian effeminacy'. I suppose som of the point is that horseriding is going to be prety rough on bare legs especially without stirrups.
I simply find the stereotype a personal annoyance because damned if after teenage years of being told to be 'queer' I didn't find exactly the same thing happening again "because it's alright now" for the same stupid gender stereotypes but, significantly, it is now the gay activists themselves who are ordering teenagers off the oher sex if they fail to conform. In this supposedly 'liberal' age where the unspoken can be spoken, I would be interested to see even one publication dare to question modern 'any=all' attitudes in comparison with previous societies.
>afterwhich pants became the norm. Still, I say it is possible that
>Hadrian could have worn socks.Emperors like Caligula were reported to
>b AC - DC and dress in feminine attire on occasion.
>
They must have had something to stop caligae and stiffer boots from chafing surely? As for Caligula, it would be interesting to know just what he had, in pathological terms, and whether it was a full-blown version of something that ran through the entire family or maybe just what happens to teenagers from dysfunctional familes given supreme power in a world without the morality of modern religious backgrounds.
Vibius.
--
Personalised email by http://another.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: New Photographs |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Equitius Marinus" <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:25:36 -0000 |
|
Ivlia A.A. Musa writes:
> I have posted some photographs of mine taken earlier this year
> in Roma.
They're really impressive photos. Interested persons can see them
at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/nova-roma/lst?.dir=/I.A.A.Musa%27s+Photos&.src=gr&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/
Yes, I realize that's a long link. If you're reading from the
Yahoo website, you can click on the "Photos" link, and then the
I.A.A.Musa folder.
She does very nice black & white photography.
-- Marinus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Under-age citizens (Was: Another Question) |
| From: |
"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:48:02 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "jamiekjohnston" <cordus@d...> wrote:
>
> I do not believe that the provisions of the constitution as it
> stands, including the articles pointed out by Marcius Rex, actually
> do anything to protect the rights of any under-age citizens,
whoever
> their parents are, because there are at least three very important
> rights (I quoted them in my last message on this subject) which it
is
> logically impossible for any person to exercise on behalf of any
> other person. When a law is unjust, well, that is something for
> discussion. But when a law is nonsensical, surely it needs to be
> changed to something, anything, that is comprehensible and
enforcible!
Jamie,
I have to leave for an internet free environment for the weekend and
I am late already, so just this:
I have the feeling you simply do not want to understand. You mix up
the ability to choose and the ability to have.
Take a person in a coma. It has no way of exercising its right to
remain sovereign in his property? That is nonsensical. Of course he
can decide to sell his house: His legal guardian (usualy court
appointed) can do it for him.
A toddler is baptised. He has no way of choosing his religion
himself. His parents do it on his behalf until he reaches the age
when he can choose for himself. So much for authority over one's
belief and the possibility to exercise it on someone else's behalf.
And the right to remain subject to the civil laws of your country?
That is pretty much self-executing. There is no need for an
additional act by a paterfamilias. Can you see that?
Everything you quoted is based on a misunderstanding of what the
Constitution (which of course could be written better and less
confusing sometimes, if it is posted at all) provides for. It
provides for rights for minors and legal guardians to exercise them,
where this is necessary. It has a court system to enforce these
rights and magistrates with imperium to ensure that no one gets left
behind.
Ave et Vale
Marcus Marcius Rex
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Taverna II |
| From: |
"gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <ksterne@bellsouth.net> |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:02:32 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@y..., MarcusAudens@w... wrote:
> Back Alley Member and Filthy Sewer Dweller, Gaius Laenus,
>>Apparently you were not a member of "b-a" when this kind of talk
was rife, and if it has moderated, as you have indicated, then that
is an improvement, in my view.<<
GPL: Apparently, you don not remember who I am even though we have
had several discussions / disagreements. Perhaps it is because you
do not consider me a "person of stature" or maybe I am just not that
memorable.
>>As to insulting / slandering anyone, I have indicated how I feel
regarding the use of such language and activities. Anyone else is
perfectly free to immerse themselves in whatever bathwater that they
wish to. I do not seek to tell others what they can and cannot do,
butb rather to mention for the benefit of those who have indicated
thier interest; the limit of my desire to participate thusly.<<
GPL: Perhaps you see the use of adjectives like "filthy"
and "sewer" as the stating of an opinion, I find them insulting
coming from someone who knows very little of which he speaks.
>>I only mention those who have left NR because of "b-a", and those
are without exception, very good and valued friends.<<
GPL: My memory is not perfect, but I know of NO ONE who left NR
because of the Back Alley. I believe the person of which you speak
(I know of only one)left the Back Alley becuase of single post,
meant as a joke (that admittedly did contain some "bad" language).
He did so even though an apology was forth coming. He later left NR
because of another joke he took as an insult to his religion, again
even though he received an apology. I also admired many things about
this individual, unfortunately he was very thin skinned with regard
to at least those 2 subjects. It is this type of thin skin that I
mean when I say it must hamper one's ability to function in the real
world. It certainly hampered his ability to learn from and enjoy
his NR experience. Perhaps if I were so sensitive, I would resign
over what I view as your insults.
Vale,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
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/
|
