Forum Romanum


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Discourses in the Forum, etc.
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 01:25:03 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Thanks Gaius Galerius, for thinking of others as you present your
thoughts.

With respect to the low level of discourse in the forum Gaius Galerius
Peregrinator discussed previous, as a cause for people leaving Nova
Roma........

No, this is not the only reason. We have mucho political
rangling/debating (to be expected in the main forum) and those who are
new kind of get 'buried in it' thinking there is nothing else here in
Nova Roma, which, is hardly the case. We have people from all walks of
life....influenced by many cultures and religions, and diffs in
opinion are bound to occur. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes
some of the rangling in this light.

The 'low level of discourse', to wit, the religious ostracization
occurs two or three times a year (I think once this year before
Agorius' appearance, but the situation was easily modified with
reason)....I was almost proud of the lack of major conflicts in the
forum....I spoke too soon :(

At any rate, Agorius is likely a troll, (Haven't seen him, have you?)
although he remains a citizen. He is more into the Gothic mysteries,
placating Hecate et al, so I am not entirely sure if he is even a
Religio practitioner in the sense that NR celebrates the mysteries of
the Gods and Goddesses.

We lose two or three good people per year due to irresponsible
'freedom of speech' and a lopsided constitution, which contradicts the
'welcome wagon' on the website. I tried to rewrite the list
guidelines for the benefit of everyone, referencing the constitution
and our obligations of Yahoo, but as a Praetor, I can't do anything
unless they are respected by magistrates senior to me, who instead,
ignore existing edicta of Nova Roma, and supplant either a)their own
sentiments and prejudices and/or b) their macronational laws, thinking
that what is good for their country is good for everyone, or good for
Nova Roma.

Check mate.

Many macronations, Canada and Germany for two, have hate laws in
place. You cannot make adhoc hate statements or accusatory statements
against entire sects or races of persons.

I pray that the language of the constitution gets ameliorated this
year; we all get disgusted with various religions, but berating our
own people in the process is probably not going to makes us grow,
except to increase perhaps our large number of dormant citizens.

Naturally, I am sceptical, as I have seen this ignored before.
Perhaps it is too handy a political tool for those whose moral compass
is perhaps an XXLarge :)

I would far rather the website say 'we lend ourselves quite weightedly
to the practise of Roman Paganism and promote these beliefs, which is
what makes us unique or something like that, rather than tell people
they are 'welcome' then subject them to treatment and prejudice we
wouldn't get away with macronationally.

Maybe a few people should tour some of the glue factories in Europe of
days gone by, or look at the accounts of the dealings of Croatia et
al, the Kurds in Iraq. Perhaps they would adopt a "I can but should
I?" stance to their often unnecessary 'freedom of speech at all cost'
attitude, when it comes to chastising persons here in NR who work
hard, mind their own business, respect the Gods, love their fellow
citizens, and do not attempt to impose their religious dogmas on others.

I am getting long here, but a few years ago I looked after a patient,
who was from another country, and was living here in Canada. When he
was seven years old, he was lined up in front of an open grave with
several others.....shot at...he fell in. He obviously survived. He
waited
...........and crawled our once his predators had left. They didn't
like his race or religion.......

Pretty grizzly, but what in the name of the Pantheon and all that is
divine did he do to deserve this? A little boy! An extreme example,one
of many I could give you, but nonetheless the end product of unbridled
propogation of hate.

"Freedom", like money, weapons, intelligence are tools....to be used
for good or evil. To produce positive outcomes they must be used with
due attention to virtue and common courtesy (a virtue too) toward our
fellow citizens and magistrates.

We cannot take our ill-defined, ill-enforced, and ambiguous practises
to the United Nations (a goal of some) and display ourselves as
something unique, and as kindred who 'have it all together'. As it
stands, and if we continue, we will just look like everyone else.

We need to take steps to nip this in the bud,well branch now, if we
are to promote any manner of nationalism within our republic, and any
sense of safety and security for future citizens and their impuberes.

Thanks for your time, and once again Galerius, thanks for thinking of
the people 'at the back of the bus'.

Pompeia Cornelia

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: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 02:09:48 -0000

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

And Po says: Salvete Luci Sicini et Alii:
>
> I Shall start out by saying that I'm not making any
> accusations about the intents of the Senior Consul.
> From the way he administered his Provincia I expected
> a large number of apointments once he assumed office.
> In his case it just seems to be his leadership style
> and not any neferious intentions.

Pompeia: I agree with this rationale, Luci Sicini.
>
> Why he made so many apointments dosen't change the
> fact that a precedent has been set for a huge staff. A
> Future Consul who's main intrest is building up a
> power base could use this precedent to make a large
> number of apointments solely for the purpose of
> awarding Century points to members of his faction so
> that his faction would have more power in the
> Centuries. This could become a means by which a
> faction could maintain it's grip on power.
>
> Once we reach the stage where apointments are a means
> of maintaining a faction in power it will be hard to
> put an end to the system. Before we reach that stage
> we should consider limits on the number of apointments
> a magistrate can make that recieve Century Points. I
> Don't think any of wants a "spoils system" where a
> faction can use the power of apointment to insulate
> itself from defeat at the polls.

Pompeia: I understand your concerns in this regard, and I know too,
that you speak sincerely and void of any malintention. We discussed
this last year with respect to the governors. The governors are
subject to the Senate so I didn't think a ceiling on appointees was
necessary.

Caeso Fabius Consul has always been devoted to getting people
involved, hence his larger cabinet I think. I am not worried about
him abusing power. Judging by the number of votes I think the
populace stated they were pretty much satisfied with his sense of good
judgement.

However, not everyone is a Caeso Fabius, any more than every Censor is
going to have the greatest judgement or conviction to virtue and
lawfulness. Indeed, not everyone has his years, his experience and his
wisdom.

It might be worth looking into a check of Accensus/Scribes for various
magistrates for next year. I don't think it will be necessary this
year. I have faith that Caeso Fabius has won people over not by
century points but by himself and what he is willing to try to offer
for our collective benefit.

I do believe, with due respect that more weighted precedents have been
set, to wit, from the office of the Censores, already adding to the
powers which remain undefined, and in some cases 'carte blanche' Like
the language concerning the impuberes, the language with respect to
the Censores remains like a seive, and precedent setting in this area
can conceivably hand the wrong person an emporer's septor.

With respect to the Censores, and I hope you and Pompeius will take
this with the sincerity it is intended, and not as a personal
judgement, I do not think it is prudent for Senators to be appointed
without consulting the Senate. It doesn't seem reasonable that two
men (well one)would have that much power, and maintain a republic.

When I saw the last Senate Agenda(has it been deleted?)on this list,
the item with respect to the Senate appointments was not taken up by
the Senate. I am thrilled for you, Druse et Pompeius, you both deserve
it, but I don't think it is appropriate, and I can't reasonably see
it happening with any regularity in antiquita.

Another area is the arbitrary deposing of an existing nonresigned
paterfamilias, even a dormant one, outside the parameters of the Gens
Registration Lex, which was voted in by comitia as a means of closing
the gens of dormant paters/maters and the gens procuring another one.
This is a recipe for abuse. No magisterial edicta, as you know too
Druse, outweighs what the people have selected as law.

The language in the constitution regarding the behaviour of existing
gens does not 'fit' when we are talking a dormant gens with an active
member applying. How shall we acheive a consensus of a gens when
there are only two people?

It is unfortunate that the populace was never afforded an opportunity
to discuss more concise wording with respect to powers of the
Censores, and the extent of their obligations to cooperate with the
Senate. So much fuss was made about the veto of Sulla with respect to
the gens reforms. But few realize that the proposals presented by
Sulla, better defining the Censoral authority were as swiftly vetoed
by his colleague/opponent.

I have faith in Censor Dio, that he will use his authority wisely, as
he is Senior Censor this year. Beyond his tenure, well, I suppose we
could call a dictatorship if the Censors run amok.

I am more "immediately" concerned about these precedents than a few
more than a few Consular assistants being appointed by a good man.

Three things, as I see it, based on what I have read, were responsible
for the demise of the Ancient Republic:

a complacent populace
client tribunes (talking hypothetically about antiquita here)
abusive censores ( ditto)

The above circumstances are a matter of historical documentation.

We need to learn from the mistakes of the ancients, not repeat them.
We don't have to recreat their mistakes :)

Bene valete,
Pompeia
>
> --- "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@s...>
> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
> > greetings.
> >
> > Senator & Consular Fabius Maximus wrote recently:
> >
> > > Now if the rest of your tentmates will do the
> > same,
> > > I'd have no objection to the Byzantine labyrinth
> > > Fabius created.
> >
> > He was referring to Postumius Tubertus' disavowal of
> > any Century Points he gains for being Accensus.
> >
> > If it would reassure the Senator and other citizens
> > who share his concerns, I should happily renounce my
> > claim to any additional Century Points resulting
> > from
> > me service on the Senior Consul's staff. I didn't
> > know
> > we would get them when I volunteered, and I shan't
> > miss them.
> >
> > However, it seems to me that this is beginning to
> > look
> > like the argument that only people who don't want
> > something should be given it. The Senator implies
> > that
> > service to the state with no desire for reward is a
> > 'Roman work ethic'. Well, he is a more eminent
> > historian than I, so I suspect that if he reflects
> > for
> > a moment he will agree that in some respects it is
> > quite the opposite of the classical Roman work
> > ethic.
> > It is certainly true that the Romans admired stories
> > like that of Cincinnatus, who was called from his
> > humble plough to defend the republic and then
> > returned
> > again to his fields. But I'm sure the Senator will
> > agree that in the middle and late republic, and
> > quite
> > possibly also in the early, Roman magistrates were
> > quite open and frank about their expectation that
> > if,
> > for example, they won an important victory they
> > should
> > be given a triumph. They even gave themselves
> > rewards
> > by putting up statues of themselves to commemorate
> > their achievements. The system of clientship, too,
> > contains the implicit assumption that 'one good turn
> > deserves another'.
> >
> > None of this is to say that the Romans thought that
> > an
> > official who did no work ought to be rewarded, of
> > course, merely that a Roman who thought he had done
> > something worthy of reward would be quite unbashful
> > about saying so. Patriotism and the desire to serve
> > Rome were not considered incompatible with being
> > praised and rewarded for doing it.
> >
> > So perhaps it would be appropriate to wait and see
> > whether, when elections are coming up and century
> > points can make an important difference, the Cohort
> > has earned its points or not. I've seen people in
> > the
> > Cohort working hard enough that if they keep it up
> > they'll have earned their century points and their
> > titles before the year is half gone. But that's my
> > opinion: the proof is in the proverbial.
> >
> > Cordus
> >
> > =====
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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:	[Nova-Roma] Candidacy for the Quaestorship
From:	gens.minius@club-internet.fr
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 03:07:39 CET

Salve,

I, Ca�us Minius Messala Bellator, make myself available as a candidate for the open (8th) Quaestorship. I realize I would have to wait until my 6th month to serve in office, and my term would end with everyone else's.

Valete in pace deorum.

Ca�us Minius Messala Bellator
Civis Gallia Provinciae
Civis Plebiae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

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] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:57:31 EST

In a message dated 1/5/03 8:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cordus@strategikon.org writes:

> The Senator implies that
> service to the state with no desire for reward is a
> 'Roman work ethic'. Well, he is a more eminent
> historian than I, so I suspect that if he reflects for
> a moment he will agree that in some respects it is
> quite the opposite of the classical Roman work ethic.
> It is certainly true that the Romans admired stories
> like that of Cincinnatus, who was called from his
> humble plough to defend the republic and then returned
> again to his fields. But I'm sure the Senator will
> agree that in the middle and late republic, and quite
> possibly also in the early, Roman magistrates were
> quite open and frank about their expectation that if,
> for example, they won an important victory they should
> be given a triumph. They even gave themselves rewards
> by putting up statues of themselves to commemorate
> their achievements. The system of clientship, too,
> contains the implicit assumption that 'one good turn
> deserves another'.
>

Salvete Apolloni,
If you raise one hundred thousand dollars for Nova Roma, or if you get us UN
recognition I will personally draft the SC for your Ovation., and order your
statue from New Statues for the Forum and pay for it with my own money. I'll
also request the Senate to vote for a new sestercii with your likeness on it,
and pay for minting of it out of my fortune.
However until then, you are here to learn, and learn well, so one day when
you are consul you understand how things work. Why should you be rewarded
for doing this simple thing as a scribe? You start your reward when you
enter the Cursus Honorum and the people see fit to reward your efforts with a
magistracy. Than you get points in leu of pay.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:33:41 -0300 (ART)

Salvete

--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
escreveu: > Salvete Quirites,
>
> I Shall start out by saying that I'm not making any
> accusations about the intents of the Senior Consul.
> From the way he administered his Provincia I
> expected
> a large number of apointments once he assumed
> office.
> In his case it just seems to be his leadership style
> and not any neferious intentions.

M.ARMINIUS: I agree fully with Lucius Sicinius and
many others in this issue. I believe in the capacity
of the Consul Senior in handling large and multiple
staffs to reach ambitious objectives. Good luck, Caeso
Fabius!

> Why he made so many apointments dosen't change the
> fact that a precedent has been set for a huge staff.
> A Future Consul who's main intrest is building up a
> power base could use this precedent to make a large
> number of apointments solely for the purpose of
> awarding Century points to members of his faction so
> that his faction would have more power in the
> Centuries. This could become a means by which a
> faction could maintain it's grip on power.

M.ARMINIUS: Yes, this is possible. I suggest a reform
in our Century Points system. Currently, the century
points are awarded according to the Lex Vedia
Centuriata, who is from 2752 AUC (1999 AD) and is
obsolete; for example, the Legates of provinces dont
receive century points, but the scribes (who had a
lesser status), receives 5 CPs. A discussion is needed
to see what positions deserves CPs, and leges need to
be created to replace the old Lex Vedia.

A check to this possibility is to limite the reward
for one by staff; that is, for example, if one is
named by a propraetor as Legatus and Scribe for the
same province, this one only receives CPs for the
highest position (should be Legate), and their another
title will only be mentioned in the Album Civium, but
without receiving CPs.

Currently, if the Propraetor of Brasil (that is, me)
name the hipotetical cive Caius Brasilicus four times
Scriba Propraetoris, for different tasks, he receives
the same CPs of a Consul (20 CPs); with this
modification, he only receives CPs of the higher
nomination.
This can be extended to every single staff (censorial,
consular etc.).

> Once we reach the stage where apointments are a
> means
> of maintaining a faction in power it will be hard to
> put an end to the system. Before we reach that stage
> we should consider limits on the number of
> apointments
> a magistrate can make that recieve Century Points. I
> Don't think any of wants a "spoils system" where a
> faction can use the power of apointment to insulate
> itself from defeat at the polls.

M.ARMINIUS: Since it is unlikely that this stage will
be reached this year, we can discuss with calm.

> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus

Vale
Marcus Arminius Maior

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que voc� procura na Internet
http://br.busca.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] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:50:51 -0300 (ART)

Salvete

--- qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com escreveu:
[..]
> Salvete Apolloni,
> If you raise one hundred thousand dollars for Nova
> Roma,
[..] Why should you be rewarded
> for doing this simple thing as a scribe? You start
> your reward when you
> enter the Cursus Honorum and the people see fit to
> reward your efforts with a
> magistracy. Than you get points in leu of pay.

M.ARMINIUS: According to the Lex Vedia Centuriata and
Iunia Centuriata (the second of the same name, number
XXI), we have four levels of reward: the higher
magistrate (Censor, Consul, Praetor) who receives 20
CPs; then we have the lesser magistrate (Aedilis,
Tribunus, Quaestor) who receives 10 CPs; the
Vigintisexviri (Curatores, Rogatores), who receives 10
CPs too; and the Apparitores (Assensus, Scribas,
Lictores, and Interpretes) who receives 5 CPs.

That is, according to the current practice, nearly
everybody who work in something (or have a title) here
in Nova Roma receives Century Points (shortly, CPs).

Just to clarify what you said, Quintus Fabius, do you
agree with the current system, or you believe that
scribes and/or minor magistrates dont deserve to
receive CPs?

> I hope you understand what I'm saying here.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus

Valete
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que voc� procura na Internet
http://br.busca.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] Discourses in the Forum, etc.
From:	aneaapollonia@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 5 Jan 2003 22:54:21 EST

P. Cornelia,
That was the single best thought out speech I have heard in several months,
and certainly the most important issue I have ever seen cross this message
board. Unfortunately I see more debate on how things used to be than how they
should be now, a living working breathing religion/ way of life should at its
core be functional. I really hope we don't end up crushing the spirit of the
thing we venerate for the sake of pride and the fleeting sensation of
superiority. There really is a bigger picture out there.... I promise.

Its good to see I'm not alone in thought and deed, I hope to hear more from
you again. May you live honorably and passionately.

Valete,
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] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:03:03 EST

In a message dated 1/5/03 7:52:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
marminius@yahoo.com.br writes:

> Just to clarify what you said, Quintus Fabius, do you
> agree with the current system, or you believe that
> scribes and/or minor magistrates dont deserve to
> receive CPs?
>

I do not, And I voted against the reform when it was put up as a lex.

Fabius Maximus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?M=20Arminius=20Maior?= <marminius@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:19:11 -0300 (ART)

Salvete

--- qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com escreveu: > In a message
dated 1/5/03 7:52:13 PM Pacific
> Standard Time,
> marminius@yahoo.com.br writes:
>
>
> > Just to clarify what you said, Quintus Fabius, do
> you
> > agree with the current system, or you believe that
> > scribes and/or minor magistrates dont deserve to
> > receive CPs?
> >
>
> I do not, And I voted against the reform when it
> was put up as a lex.
>
> Fabius Maximus

M.ARMINIUS: Thank you very much for your fast and
clear answer, Consular.

Particularly, i think that the century points system
is a way to stimulate the cives to work for Nova Roma,
like "hang a carrot in front of a horse, so he runs
faster", so to say.

But i understand your reasoning, Quintus Fabius. I
believe that you consider a Century Point extremely
valuable, more like a medal, for example. Hmm.

Vale
Marcus Arminius

_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O melhor lugar para encontrar tudo o que voc� procura na Internet
http://br.busca.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:	AW: [Nova-Roma] Thank you, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
From:	<3s@hsk-net.de>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 01:52:06 -0600 (CST)

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

I just want to give my public thanks to my former collega and friend Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur. I had the honor and pleasure to serve with him one year as Censor. A year in which he showed much dignity and industria to the tasks given to the office of Censor. He gave me all assistance I needed at the begin of my term.

Luci Equiti, thank you very much for all that. Thank you for the help, the discussions and debates. Thank you also for your kind and hard work. This year with you was a pleasure.

As a sign of honor, the Censors added the agnomen of distinction "Augur" to your name, a honor you deserve.

I wish you health, luck and success for the future tasks in your offices of Augur and Pontifex, and I�m looking for your advice in the Senate. We will stay in contact.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Censor

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] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 04:28:31 EST

In a message dated 1/5/03 8:20:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
marminius@yahoo.com.br writes:

> Particularly, i think that the century points system
> is a way to stimulate the cives to work for Nova Roma,
> like "hang a carrot in front of a horse, so he runs
> faster", so to say.
>

And it does accomplish its purpose Marcus Arminius,
acting as the "carrot" Except consider this.
Who decides who does what and deserves
what reward? I remember at one point, 5 CPs were
to be given out to Patricians for being the first
30 gens in Rome. I'm proud of my Patrician status,
proud that my Gens is one the early 30 of Rome, but to
be rewarded for that alone?
What nonsense!
Then we have the specter of incorrect points addition.
We were plagued by that in the early days, things have evened
out since, but to see citizens scrapple over points, sometimes only
a difference of five, seemed to me that the citizens were missing
the entire point of service to NR.

> But i understand your reasoning, Quintus Fabius. I
> believe that you consider a Century Point extremely
> valuable, more like a medal, for example. Hmm.
>

Ah, but you do not Marcus Arminius. No, I don't see it as a medal.
Your reward for service in a major magistracy contained in the
honorum, Provincial Praetorship, or being in the Senate, is
increased voting power, within the centuries itself.
Nova Roma rewards those citizens who dedicate themselves to her,
by allowing a greater voice in her government decision
making process. It is the one thing our enemies hate yet
since we don't have wealth qualification here,
it is the next logical thing to be measured by
those who measure such things.
My first "job" here in Nova Roma was
acting as Aedile A. Gryllus scribe.
Not because I wanted century points,
but because I wanted to learn.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[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] Digest No 386
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:16:32 -0500

Salvete iterum sodales quirites

Once again I'm honored to be acknowledged by Quirites whom I have come to
respect for their virtues.
It is my hope to one day meet them in person. I've had the pleasure of
meeting Patricia and Marcus Cassius and look forward to seeing them again
soon.
Thank you for your kind words, they truly mean a great deal to me.
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
>
> > In a quiet forthright manner, Lucius Equitius did great honor to this
> > office and to Nova Roma. He has more determination than anyone else
> > in our micronation, and rose to the office of censor after events
> > that would have made lesser men run for the door. While we have had
> > our differences, he will always have my admiration.
>
> Decius Iunius has deftly expressed a most honorable sentiment, and I
> will add my thanks and respect for Lucius Equitius' hard work,
> intelligence and good humor.
>

Thanks Patricia, I hope to be able to share some good humor since I don't
have to be the big bad Censor anymore :-)

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

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13

> Salvete
>
> > Gratias tibi ago, Luci Equiti Cincinnate. Ave!
>
> Iterum in me! L Equitius has done exemplary work for the Res Publica,
> and we have often come to see the wisdom of ideas that he presented well
> before they were popular. I wish him luck in all his endeavors, knowing
> he won't need it.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Hey, I need all the good luck I can get because one comes to times when they
feel, "If it weren't for bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all."
Anyway, having been able to make friends with such quality people as you all
easily made the work of Censor worth the effort.
Gratias Amice
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
>
> Salve Illustrus Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!
>
> As the Consul holding the fasces I want to publicly thank You for
> your formidable work for Nova Roma and especially your Censorship the
> two last years.
>
> In the name of the Roman people, the Senate and the whole Res
> Publica, thank You very much!
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Senior Consul et Senator
> Propraetor Thules

That's 'Proconsul Thules' now, isn't it? :-)

Valete, Lucius Equitius

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: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:13:46 -0600 (CST)

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> With respect to the Censores, and I hope you and Pompeius will take
> this with the sincerity it is intended, and not as a personal
> judgement, I do not think it is prudent for Senators to be appointed
> without consulting the Senate. It doesn't seem reasonable that two
> men (well one)would have that much power, and maintain a republic.

What do you mean by "two men (well one)"? There were two Censores
last year. There are two Censores this year. And the two new Senators
were discussed and approved unanimously by all three of us.

> It is unfortunate that the populace was never afforded an opportunity
> to discuss more concise wording with respect to powers of the
> Censores, and the extent of their obligations to cooperate with the
> Senate. So much fuss was made about the veto of Sulla with respect to
> the gens reforms. But few realize that the proposals presented by
> Sulla, better defining the Censoral authority were as swiftly vetoed
> by his colleague/opponent.

There was a world of difference in those two situations, as you well
know.

The gens reform proposal had been debated in the Senate for an entire
month and had undergone numerous revisions, in full view of every Senator.
The majority of the Senate was in favor of it - but because one man
refused to compromise, neither the Senate nor the People ever had the
chance to vote on it.

The proposal to restrict the Censores, on the other hand, was written
in secret and presented only in the form of a call for a Contio - too
late to make any changes to it. My colleague and I had debated and
negotiated for two days prior to that, and had agreed on a version that
could be presented for a vote -- that was NOT the one that was eventually
posted. It was vetoed as much for the lies and trickery that accompanied
it as for its content.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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:	AW: Re: [Nova-Roma] Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	<3s@hsk-net.de>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:13:56 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Quirites.

Are century points really a stimulation for the citizens to involve themselves in administrative positions? I don�t think so. As in all organizations based on voluntary membership, you have a larger proportion of inactive members and a minor proportion of dedicated and motivated ones.

The last fraction will involve without further rewards, simply because they want become involved and dedicate themselves to the organization. This is, btw, laso roman sense. In ancient times, as today, magistracies are not paid.

Cp�s are granted not only for offices and magistracies, but also for duration of citizenship and e.g. patrician status. So they cannot really be seen as a motivative tool.

If you ask me, the CP�s could be dropped if they wouldn�t be so vital for our voting system. I for myself would serve the res publica without any CP�s.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Censor, Senator

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

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


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 386
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:27:13 +0100

Salve Illustrus Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!

Right! I will fix it soon! ;-)

> > Message: 15
>>
> > Salve Illustrus Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus!
>>
>> As the Consul holding the fasces I want to publicly thank You for
>> your formidable work for Nova Roma and especially your Censorship the
>> two last years.
>>
>> In the name of the Roman people, the Senate and the whole Res
>> Publica, thank You very much!
>> --
>>
>> Vale
>>
>> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
>> Senior Consul et Senator
>> Propraetor Thules
>
>That's 'Proconsul Thules' now, isn't it? :-)
>
>Valete, Lucius Equitius

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

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] Birthday information , the Eagle and the Censors
From:	PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 11:04:00 -0500

No objection from your cousin, Flave. ante diem I Ides Quinctilis (14th July).

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: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:41:36 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
<haase@c...> wrote:
> Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

Salve Marcus Octavius:
>
> > With respect to the Censores, and I hope you and Pompeius will take
> > this with the sincerity it is intended, and not as a personal
> > judgement, I do not think it is prudent for Senators to be appointed
> > without consulting the Senate. It doesn't seem reasonable that two
> > men (well one)would have that much power, and maintain a republic.
>
> What do you mean by "two men (well one)"? There were two Censores
> last year. There are two Censores this year. And the two new Senators
> were discussed and approved unanimously by all three of us.

Pompeia: Exactly my point...to the exclusion of the Senate. In doing
so, there is the precedent that an indiscriminate Censor could 'stack
the Senate'. Yesterday I spoke with Drusus in this forum about
precedent setting. I think this is a far more dangerous precedent in
terms of 'potential factionalism' than handing out a few century
points to people willing to work for the republic.

I am sorry you do not care for my opinion, but it is nonetheless my
opinion, giving in good faith, for the benefit of the republic.
>
> > It is unfortunate that the populace was never afforded an opportunity
> > to discuss more concise wording with respect to powers of the
> > Censores, and the extent of their obligations to cooperate with the
> > Senate. So much fuss was made about the veto of Sulla with respect to
> > the gens reforms. But few realize that the proposals presented by
> > Sulla, better defining the Censoral authority were as swiftly vetoed
> > by his colleague/opponent.
>
> There was a world of difference in those two situations, as you well
> know.

Pompeia: The gens reform proposal formally started out as a lex
presented to comitia, to wit, the lex Octavia Salicia, and then the
major debates ensued in chambers. Unless I am having a brain fart, you
did not announce your intentions in this regard prior to you and the
tribune Astur presenting the lex. Prior to this, it was at best,
'casually touched on', if spoken about at all. Mind you I am no
longer privy to these archives, so it is your word against mine.
>
> The gens reform proposal had been debated in the Senate for an entire
> month and had undergone numerous revisions, in full view of every
Senator.
> The majority of the Senate was in favor of it - but because one man
> refused to compromise, neither the Senate nor the People ever had the
> chance to vote on it.
>
> The proposal to restrict the Censores, on the other hand, was written
> in secret and presented only in the form of a call for a Contio - too
> late to make any changes to it. My colleague and I had debated and
> negotiated for two days prior to that, and had agreed on a version that
> could be presented for a vote -- that was NOT the one that was
eventually
> posted. It was vetoed as much for the lies and trickery that
accompanied
> it as for its content.

Pompeia: So, because you thought the motive was illfated you
curtailed all discussion. I could say the same thing about the lex
Octavia Salicia. However, I choose to view legislation upon its
merits also. The lex Octavia Salicia was not 'all bad'; in my view it
was just incomplete. However, Salix Astur was pragmatic and just
enough to listen to the concerns of the populace and withdraw the
proposal in future favour of something more definitive and
comprehensive.

It sounds like there was a squabble (no!) between you and Sulla over
the Censores issues, and admittedly I don't believe I have the whole
story there. But you vetoed any discussion on the proposal, which may
have had some positive long term merits, despite your emotionalisms
toward your consular colleague. Why didn't you request that it be
rewritten, or state what you thought was wrong with it, instead of
stamping your foot on the whole thing, which is no different from your
colleague's actions regarding the gens reforms?

I assisted in the wording of a couple of paragraphs on a proposal
regarding the admission of Senators, in good faith, but I cannot be
responsible for any changes, dialogues or arguments between you two
privately that I was not privy to.

I maintain that you were too quick on the draw when you called this
one. Sorry.

Someone, somewhere along the line is going to end up using and abusing
this smorgasborg of administrative power, it is inevitable. I think we
should look at this issue before dictatorship becomes necessary to
correct things. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It doesn't take
a crystal ball to connect these dots.

My goodness!

Pompeia Cornelia

>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:18:27 -0600 (CST)

Salve Pompeia,

> > What do you mean by "two men (well one)"? There were two Censores
> > last year. There are two Censores this year. And the two new Senators
> > were discussed and approved unanimously by all three of us.
>
> Pompeia: Exactly my point...to the exclusion of the Senate.

I was asking what "(well one)" was intended to mean... do you think that
two of the recent/current censores were puppets of another?

> In doing so, there is the precedent that an indiscriminate Censor could
> 'stack the Senate'.

The two Censores together could try to stack the Senate, but they can
draw from only a very limited pool of candidates (those who have served
in the qualifying offices or been nominated by Senatus Consultum).
They can be stopped by the Tribunes. Out of all the qualifying candidates
right now, very few are active and known to be loyal to one faction or
another... the possibility of this happening is remote, and no more
likely to occur than abuses by the Consuls or Tribunes.

> Pompeia: The gens reform proposal formally started out as a lex
> presented to comitia, to wit, the lex Octavia Salicia, and then the
> major debates ensued in chambers. Unless I am having a brain fart, you
> did not announce your intentions in this regard prior to you and the
> tribune Astur presenting the lex.

That is incorrect. Here is the sequence of events:

July 6th (morning) - rough concept presented on Consular Staff list.
July 6th (evening) - threatened with veto (still on Consular Staff list)
July 6th (evening) - proposal posted to Senate list. Debate continues.
July 28th - announced for voting by Gnaeus Salix Astur; first appearance on
main list.

> Pompeia: So, because you thought the motive was illfated you
> curtailed all discussion.

Discussion? No. But it had been put up for a vote (the Contio had begun)
without my foreknowledge. The version which we had negotiated upon a
few days prior was nowhere to be seen. The veto was necessary to
demonstrate that I would not tolerate being lied or subjected to
"bait and switch" tactics from a supposed "colleague".

> However, Salix Astur was pragmatic and just
> enough to listen to the concerns of the populace and withdraw the
> proposal in future favour of something more definitive and
> comprehensive.

...which also got vetoed.

> But you vetoed any discussion on the proposal, which may
> have had some positive long term merits, despite your emotionalisms
> toward your consular colleague.

No - I vetoed the bringing of it to a vote. Discussion was still possible,
and that did occur on the Senate list - where it was obvious that the
proposal had almost no support.

> Why didn't you request that it be rewritten, or state what you thought was
> wrong with it,

I did - I stated that I believed it was unconstitutional, disrupted the
balance of power between the Senate and the magistrates elected by the
people, and would make the office of Censor so impotent that we'd never
be able to fill it again.

> I assisted in the wording of a couple of paragraphs on a proposal
> regarding the admission of Senators, in good faith, but I cannot be
> responsible for any changes, dialogues or arguments between you two
> privately that I was not privy to.

Certainly - I do not place any of the blame for that affair on you.
You had no way of knowing, then, that he privately showed me one proposal
and then put something completely different on the ballot.

> I maintain that you were too quick on the draw when you called this
> one. Sorry.

Perhaps if you were the one who had been lied to by a "colleague"
you'd feel differently.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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] Some remarks from an outside perspective
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:36:04 +0100

Salve Solaris,

Sorry, I am a bit behind on answering my emails!

> I mean that right now I am outside every political alliance, public or
secretive, and
currently not occupying a politically important or influential position.

Hmm, well it is not necessary to hold an important or influential position
or actually any position to be allied with someone. But ok, now I understand
what you personally meant by 'outsider'.

>MOS: On the contrary, I know from personal experience that the feeling of
being cornered < will only draw more people into the arena.

I think the opposite will happen, but from what I see, I am the only one
with that opinion <oops>. Time will tell and if I am wrong, I will be very
happy to admit it. But I find that most people just leave an email list when
they feel that their opinion doesn't matter. All of us feel valuable when
someone agrees with us. There is safety in numbers- human beings can't help
feeling that way, since we started off living in packs...

> I have enough personal trust in the abilities and capabilities of Caeso
and the people he's surrounding himself with that everything will run fine.

I made a big snip but I agree with you. I think it is easier to have a
cohors with no more than 14 members, like George Bush :-) But then again
our Senior Consul is an extremely able schoolteacher and has a lot of
experience with a room full of people all looking towards him for guidance
(sorry to talk about you in the third person Caeso Fabius!)

< Also think of the fact that the people in his staff have not been born
without critical facilities. We <have both personally met Saturninus, Scipio
and Serapio. I can't imagine that these people would <tolerate corruption.

Yikes, I never mentioned corruption or even thought it! The 'c' word is
quite a nasty one and not one to be thrown around lightly. Yikes again!

chatty stuff:

DMA<< LOL!! Certainly a big problem in Belgium where the average person
brushes
<< their teeth less than once per day. But most times neither solution
works:
<< better to get a new girlfriend with proper oral hygiene! >>

MOS: I wasn't speaking from personal experience, in case you were
wondering :o).

Nah, I was being a wise guy/gal because I knew you could take it :o)

MOS< Well, you *do* have an outsider's perspective here in our country
<snip>

LOL! A well-placed low blow !! And true unfortunately! I knew that you'd
come up with a good come back and you didn't disappoint me! :-)

Vale and I hope to see you guys again one of these days!

Diana Moravia Aventina

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] Century Points and the Work Ethics,...........to Marcus Octavius
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:00:08 -0000

Salvete Marcus Octavius et omnes:

Thank you so much for refreshing my memory regarding Senate Archives.

I will make this point separate from all the rest, as I do not want it
buried in the rubble, and I will answer your others separately.

The potential for Senate stacking is remote you say, if Senators are
nominated by Senatus Consultum. Yes, indeed! If a Senatus Consultum
utilized.

I totally agree with you, had their been a Senatus Consultum with
respect to the last Senate appointments I wouldn't be having this
discussion with you.

There wasn't........and this sets a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Senate
stacking and factionalizing. Three people appointed them, without
consulting the Senate. They are wonderful men......this time.

How do you propose the Tribunes stop these arbitrary appointments in
the absence of any reason under the consitution? A few reasons....too
young, too new to Nova Roma, never held an office.....still leave a
wide field of appointees......

Granted they were nominated earlier, and sadly, they lost because one
Senate vote was combined with another Senate vote to determine 'the
best of the best' as you explained to me.

I think the language of the Censores needs a spit and polish. They
are not clerks, but yet, they are not demigods either.

The worst case scenerio is that we couldn't appoint a dictator to
straighten out a mess, because the Senate wouldn't agree to it, for
partisan reasons......I think ahead, plan ahead, and it rubs off on my
thinking here in the republic. I don't want us turning into an empire
like the republica antiquita.

If you are trying to tell me that you are truly wonderful and that you
wouldn't 'dream' of doing anything corrupt and untoward, well that is
fine. I am not a goddess, priestess, your mother or a judge. But
that does not mean that in the future someone 'wouldn't employ avenues
(gaping holes) left open by untidy constitutional language.

At any rate, I think I have made my point to those who think ahead
with respect to potential outcomes of this republic.

Pompeia

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] Century Points and the Work Ethics,...........to
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 12:49:26 -0600 (CST)

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> The potential for Senate stacking is remote you say, if Senators are
> nominated by Senatus Consultum. Yes, indeed! If a Senatus Consultum
> utilized.

If the Censores are weakened, then the Consuls would be able to do
this stacking of the Senate with only slightly more difficulty.

Consider a modified system in which Senators were added by Senatus
Consultum, with the Censores being unable to stop it. This
effectively hands the Censores' current powers to the Consuls.
In such a hypothetical system, if these Consuls wanted to push
through a Constitutional amendment that was supported by less
than half the Senate, they'd begin by nominating some allies who
were obviously qualified and would probably get a few votes from
even the opposing faction; once these new Senators were in the
Consuls' faction would control more than half the Senate, and they
could add as many new Senators as they like. Once the "yes-men"
make up 2/3rds of the Senate, the Consuls are as kings.

Our present system wisely avoids this. The persons who create new
Senators - the Censores - have no power to introduce items for
voting. Thus there is less tempation to add a Senator so that he
will vote for a particular item.

Weakening the Censors will strengthen the Consuls. That is far
more dangerous than what we have now.

The Censores serve staggered terms, such that the senior has always
been in office for a year. The Consulship changes every year, but
the Censorship is more stable. While two persons of nefarious
intent could connive to become Consuls (and make a move to dominate
the Senate only a few months later), it takes over a year to do
the same thing to the Censores' office.

Proposing items for a vote, and selecting the persons who will vote
on them, should NOT be entrusted to the same people! THAT is what
will give us an Imperial system.

> How do you propose the Tribunes stop these arbitrary appointments in
> the absence of any reason under the consitution? A few reasons....too
> young, too new to Nova Roma, never held an office.....still leave a
> wide field of appointees......

Good point... if the appointment was not clearly illegal and the
Tribunes tried to block it, then it would effectively be war. (Of
course, the same thing could happen if the Consuls and Senate tried
to appoint a bunch of yes-men and then ignored the Tribunes' veto).

> But that does not mean that in the future someone 'wouldn't employ avenues
> (gaping holes) left open by untidy constitutional language.

Certainly... but weakening one element of a balanced system won't
fix this. It will make the problem worse.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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: Century Points and the Work Ethics,...........to Marcus Octavius
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:12:58 -0000

---Salve Marcus Octavius:

I do believe this is fruitless, but let me try again. There needs to
be a balance of power here, and a clearer definition of under what
circumstances a censor can say 'no'.

My main concern is that Senators are appointed at the 'complete'
exclusion of the Conscript paters, and you are not addressing this.
You are ignoring the fact that recently, a Senatus Consultum was not
utilized at all, creating a bad example, paving the way, giving the
'green light' to ignore the Senate and go one's merry way as a magistrate.

Although magistrates, by the letter of currently existing law 'can'
snub the Senate, 'should' they? They are the most august and highest
advisory body in the republic.....they are to be referenced and
ultilized as such,nonne? ......what else? for decorative purposes?

These are the things which smack of 'empire'

You would rather argue split hairs than say, yes, on the whole we
agree and we need to clean up the language so that the scenerios you
and I both present remain fairy tales as opposed to nightmares of
reality which could endanger everything we (and that means you too)
have worked for.

Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...>
wrote:
> Salve Pompeia Cornelia,
>
> > The potential for Senate stacking is remote you say, if Senators are
> > nominated by Senatus Consultum. Yes, indeed! If a Senatus Consultum
> > utilized.
>
> If the Censores are weakened, then the Consuls would be able to do
> this stacking of the Senate with only slightly more difficulty.
>
> Consider a modified system in which Senators were added by Senatus
> Consultum, with the Censores being unable to stop it. This
> effectively hands the Censores' current powers to the Consuls.
> In such a hypothetical system, if these Consuls wanted to push
> through a Constitutional amendment that was supported by less
> than half the Senate, they'd begin by nominating some allies who
> were obviously qualified and would probably get a few votes from
> even the opposing faction; once these new Senators were in the
> Consuls' faction would control more than half the Senate, and they
> could add as many new Senators as they like. Once the "yes-men"
> make up 2/3rds of the Senate, the Consuls are as kings.
>
> Our present system wisely avoids this. The persons who create new
> Senators - the Censores - have no power to introduce items for
> voting. Thus there is less tempation to add a Senator so that he
> will vote for a particular item.
>
> Weakening the Censors will strengthen the Consuls. That is far
> more dangerous than what we have now.
>
> The Censores serve staggered terms, such that the senior has always
> been in office for a year. The Consulship changes every year, but
> the Censorship is more stable. While two persons of nefarious
> intent could connive to become Consuls (and make a move to dominate
> the Senate only a few months later), it takes over a year to do
> the same thing to the Censores' office.
>
> Proposing items for a vote, and selecting the persons who will vote
> on them, should NOT be entrusted to the same people! THAT is what
> will give us an Imperial system.
>
> > How do you propose the Tribunes stop these arbitrary appointments in
> > the absence of any reason under the consitution? A few reasons....too
> > young, too new to Nova Roma, never held an office.....still leave a
> > wide field of appointees......
>
> Good point... if the appointment was not clearly illegal and the
> Tribunes tried to block it, then it would effectively be war. (Of
> course, the same thing could happen if the Consuls and Senate tried
> to appoint a bunch of yes-men and then ignored the Tribunes' veto).
>
> > But that does not mean that in the future someone 'wouldn't employ
avenues
> > (gaping holes) left open by untidy constitutional language.
>
> Certainly... but weakening one element of a balanced system won't
> fix this. It will make the problem worse.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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] Nova Britannia Edictum Propraetoricium III - VIII Id. Ianvarias MMDCCLVI A.U.C.
From:	"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:24:27 -0500

Nova Britannia Edictum Propraetoricium III regarding the appointment of
Provincial officers.

I. The following citizens are prorogued to their respective
offices of Legatus Regionis:

Senator Marcus Minucius Audens: Legatus Regionis
Connecticut.

Senator Marcus Cassius Iulianus: Legatus Regionis Maine.

Senator Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus: Legatus Regionis
Vermont.

II. Gaius Lanius Falco is hereby appointed as Legatus Regionis
Massachusetts and Scriba Propraetoris Nova Britannia. He is asked to
within one week, swear the public oath, using both his Nova Roman and
macro-national name, as found at
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/1999-10-19-ii.html on both the
main and Nova Britannia lists.

III. This edictum is effective immediately. Given VIII Id.
IANVARIAS, in the year of the Consulship of Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus and Titus Labienus Fortunatus, MMDCCLVI A.U.C.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus

Propraetor Nova Britannia

Lictor

Minerva Templi Sacerdotes

Patria est communis omnium parens.

"Our native land is the common parent of us all." - Cicero

[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] Nova Britannia Edictum Propraetoricium III - VIII Id. Ianvarias MMDCCLVI A.U.C.
From:	"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:29:34 -0500

Nova Britannia Edictum Propraetoricium III regarding the appointment of
Provincial officers.

I. The following citizens are prorogued to their respective
offices of Legatus Regionis:

Senator Marcus Minucius Audens:
Legatus Regionis Connecticut.
Senator Marcus Cassius Iulianus:
Legatus Regionis Maine.
Senator Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus:
Legatus Regionis Vermont.

II. Gaius Lanius Falco is hereby appointed as Legatus Regionis
Massachusetts and Scriba Propraetoris Nova Britannia. He is asked to
within one week, swear the public oath, using both his Nova Roman and
macro-national name, as found at
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/1999-10-19-ii.html on both the
main and Nova Britannia lists.

III. This edictum is effective immediately. Given VIII Id.
IANVARIAS, in the year of the Consulship of Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus and Titus Labienus Fortunatus, MMDCCLVI A.U.C.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Propraetor Nova Britannia
Lictor
Minerva Templi Sacerdotes

Patria est communis omnium parens.
"Our native land is the common parent of us all." - Cicero

[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] Re: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	"pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:31:28 -0000

---Salvete Marcus Octavius et alii:

Well, I always keep my promises, or try, and I shall answer the
remainder of your assertions in the post below:

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...>
wrote:
> Salve Pompeia,
>
> > > What do you mean by "two men (well one)"? There were two Censores
> > > last year. There are two Censores this year. And the two new
Senators
> > > were discussed and approved unanimously by all three of us.
> >
> > Pompeia: Exactly my point...to the exclusion of the Senate.
>
> I was asking what "(well one)" was intended to mean... do you think that
> two of the recent/current censores were puppets of another?

POMPEIA II: In any group of persons with common goals, there is
usually a leader. However you say your recent agreement with the
Censores and yourself as Senior Consul was unanimous. Ok, I accept
this. Yourself, the former Senior Consul and the office of the
Censores worked together to the exclusion of the Senate in the
appointment of two Senators. Actually similar actions have occurred
in the past between the three of you....to the exclusion of the
Senate. There is a name for this, Octavi. It is called a
TRIUMVIRATE....(gotcha!)

This doesn't make me feel any better about the current state of
affairs I'm afraid.

>
> > In doing so, there is the precedent that an indiscriminate Censor
could
> > 'stack the Senate'.
>
> The two Censores together could try to stack the Senate, but they can
> draw from only a very limited pool of candidates (those who have served
> in the qualifying offices or been nominated by Senatus Consultum).
> They can be stopped by the Tribunes. Out of all the qualifying
candidates
> right now, very few are active and known to be loyal to one faction or
> another... the possibility of this happening is remote, and no more
> likely to occur than abuses by the Consuls or Tribunes.
>
> > Pompeia: The gens reform proposal formally started out as a lex
> > presented to comitia, to wit, the lex Octavia Salicia, and then the
> > major debates ensued in chambers. Unless I am having a brain
fart, you
> > did not announce your intentions in this regard prior to you and the
> > tribune Astur presenting the lex.
>
> That is incorrect. Here is the sequence of events:
>
> July 6th (morning) - rough concept presented on Consular Staff list.
> July 6th (evening) - threatened with veto (still on Consular Staff list)
> July 6th (evening) - proposal posted to Senate list. Debate continues.
> July 28th - announced for voting by Gnaeus Salix Astur; first
appearance on
> main list.
>
> > Pompeia: So, because you thought the motive was illfated you
> > curtailed all discussion.
>
> Discussion? No. But it had been put up for a vote (the Contio had
begun)
> without my foreknowledge. The version which we had negotiated upon a
> few days prior was nowhere to be seen. The veto was necessary to
> demonstrate that I would not tolerate being lied or subjected to
> "bait and switch" tactics from a supposed "colleague".
>
> > However, Salix Astur was pragmatic and just
> > enough to listen to the concerns of the populace and withdraw the
> > proposal in future favour of something more definitive and
> > comprehensive.
>
> ...which also got vetoed.

POMPEIA II: I'll have to look. I think Astur withdrew it. Who would
or could 'veto' a proposal which is promulgated in part by a Tribune?
Tribs are not subject to veto, except by an interrex or dictator.
>
> > But you vetoed any discussion on the proposal, which may
> > have had some positive long term merits, despite your emotionalisms
> > toward your consular colleague.
>
> No - I vetoed the bringing of it to a vote. Discussion was still
possible,
> and that did occur on the Senate list - where it was obvious that the
> proposal had almost no support.

POMPEIA II: Well, why bother discussing something which doesn't have
a hope in hades of ever reaching a vote? But you are not the consul
this year, nor the Senior Censor, and I can only hope that these
issues are entertained again.
>
> > Why didn't you request that it be rewritten, or state what you
thought was
> > wrong with it,
>
> I did - I stated that I believed it was unconstitutional, disrupted the
> balance of power between the Senate and the magistrates elected by the
> people, and would make the office of Censor so impotent that we'd never
> be able to fill it again.

POMPEIA II: Maybe others will have some ideas on how we can safeguard
such important balances for the future integrity. That's why we have
a Senate and various magistrates. Not one of us has all the answers.
>
> > I assisted in the wording of a couple of paragraphs on a proposal
> > regarding the admission of Senators, in good faith, but I cannot be
> > responsible for any changes, dialogues or arguments between you two
> > privately that I was not privy to.
>
> Certainly - I do not place any of the blame for that affair on you.
> You had no way of knowing, then, that he privately showed me one
proposal
> and then put something completely different on the ballot.
>
> > I maintain that you were too quick on the draw when you called this
> > one. Sorry.
>
> Perhaps if you were the one who had been lied to by a "colleague"
> you'd feel differently.

POMPEIA II: I would feel badly about being deceived, but that is an
emotional ruling. How I 'feel' does not necessarily reflect what
actions I take which affect or potentially harm others. If I behaved
otherwise, it could be translated into "Don't make Po mad....or
else!"....others might live by that rule, but I try not too.

I'm sorry about your despair, but I do think the legislation had some
merit, and it is unfortunate that this, among many things transpired
the way they did.

Pompeia Cornelia
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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: Century Points and the Work Ethics,...........to
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:34:58 -0600 (CST)

Salve Pompeia Cornelia,

> I do believe this is fruitless, but let me try again. There needs to
> be a balance of power here, and a clearer definition of under what
> circumstances a censor can say 'no'.

I believe a Censor should be able to say "no" under any circumstances.
They are the highest magistrates defined by our Constitution. The
People elected them, and trust them to make decisions, as much as they
trust a Consul or Tribune to make decisions.

> My main concern is that Senators are appointed at the 'complete'
> exclusion of the Conscript paters, and you are not addressing this.

The Senate does have a say in the matter, but not the final say. The
Censores rely on the Senate to make the initial nominations. Even for
Propraetores, who are qualified as potential Senators ex officio, it
was the Senate who initially selected them.

The Censores cannot make Senators out of people who were not selected
by the Senate (in the case of propraetores or special S.C. nominees)
or the People (who elect Curule Aediles).

There isn't a complete exclusion. The Senate and the Censores
both have a place in this process; but the ultimate decision is - and
should be - in the hands of magistrates who cannot propose laws
or conduct a vote.

> You are ignoring the fact that recently, a Senatus Consultum was not
> utilized at all, creating a bad example, paving the way, giving the
> 'green light' to ignore the Senate and go one's merry way as a magistrate.

I do not consider it a bad example, but rather a natural and reasonable
exercise of powers granted to magistrates by the Constitution, no different
than a Consul publishing an edict. The two Censores and one future Censor
conferred and selected two candidates (who had been reviewed by the Senate
months earlier, and received no strong objections). The final decision
was made based on their merit and not their political allegiances. When
it was announced to the Senate, not one Senator protested (publicly or
privately), and they joined us a few days later.

I consider the December appointments to be a fine example of the
system working as designed. Magistrates elected by the people made
a command decision, as they are entitled to do, just as the Consuls
and Tribunes do.

> Although magistrates, by the letter of currently existing law 'can'
> snub the Senate, 'should' they? They are the most august and highest
> advisory body in the republic.....they are to be referenced and
> ultilized as such,nonne? ......what else? for decorative purposes?

The advice of the Senate can be solicited, but it should not be binding
on the Censores - for then the highest magistrates in the land would
then be, as you say, decorative.

> You would rather argue split hairs than say, yes, on the whole we agree

I wouldn't say we agree... I think the system is finely balanced the way
it is, and that the Censores' powers are reasonable and no more a danger
than the powers of the Consuls or Tribunes. It is important that those
who make the laws cannot also be the persons who choose those who will
make the laws.

> and we need to clean up the language

I have no objections to cleaning up the language; I'm in favor of
clarifying, but not further limiting, the Censores' powers.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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] Scriba Propraetoris Nova Britannia
From:	"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:36:53 -0500

Salvete,

I would like to extend an offer to the existing Scriba Propraetoris of
Nova Britannia Iasonus Serenus Carolus Peregrinus, Tiberius Ambrosius
Quintilianus, and Hyapatia Asinia Margali to continue in their offices.
If any of these individuals are interested, please inform me sometime
within the upcoming week (6-12 January), so I may issue an edictum to
that effect. Thank you!

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Propraetor Nova Britannia
Lictor
Minerva Templi Sacerdotes

Patria est communis omnium parens.
"Our native land is the common parent of us all." - Cicero

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:14:51 -0600 (CST)

Salve Pompeia,

> I accept this. Yourself, the former Senior Consul and the office of the
> Censores worked together to the exclusion of the Senate in the
> appointment of two Senators. Actually similar actions have occurred
> in the past between the three of you....to the exclusion of the
> Senate. There is a name for this, Octavi. It is called a
> TRIUMVIRATE....(gotcha!)

You got me there! We shouldn't have a triumvirate, so we'll have to
add a fourth... I'll see if one of the new Consuls is interested...

Seriously, though, the ability and the choice to create Senators
was soley that of the then-current Censores. They didn't have to involve
me (the future Censor), but consented to listen to my contribution.

[regarding the gens reform]
> POMPEIA II: I'll have to look. I think Astur withdrew it. Who would
> or could 'veto' a proposal which is promulgated in part by a Tribune?
> Tribs are not subject to veto, except by an interrex or dictator.

Right. He voluntarily withdrew it when we began talking about a deeper
reform, that would have required Constitutional changes - and was thus
subject to Consular veto. After that was dead, the Tribunes discussed
reviving the original proposal, but by then there was a Censores'
edict with the same result.

[regarding the alteration of censores' power]
> POMPEIA II: Well, why bother discussing something which doesn't have
> a hope in hades of ever reaching a vote?

A modified version of it could have been presented for a vote, if it
appeared to be widely supported in the Senate. But there didn't seem
to be much interest in reviving it.

> > > I maintain that you were too quick on the draw when you called this
> > > one. Sorry.
> >
> > Perhaps if you were the one who had been lied to by a "colleague"
> > you'd feel differently.
>
> POMPEIA II: I would feel badly about being deceived, but that is an
> emotional ruling. How I 'feel' does not necessarily reflect what
> actions I take which affect or potentially harm others.

There's more to consider than my personal anger, although that certainly
was a part of it. The dignity of the office of Consul was at stake -
one Consul had pulled a "bait and switch" on the other. If I had let it
go by without objecting in the strongest manner possible, I'd have given
him the keys to the kingdom, and myself been ineffectual for the rest
of the year.

No, I vetoed it for three reasons: I was angry at the deception; the
proposal was a bad idea; and the integrity of the Consulship had been
violated. The first of these by itself shouldn't merit a veto but the
others certainly did.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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] Senators. Censors and comfirmation...
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:39:18 EST

Right now Marcus Octavius, you are in a poor position to debate this subject
since you are a Censor. So you are biased. If we wish to have the censors
appoint our Senators to the Senate without the Senate having a say, it
defeats the spirit of old Rome since this never happened.
We have examples in Livius showing what happened to Censors that over stepped
their bounds. They were impeached and removed by the Senate. If the Senate
was powerless how could they do this?
Censors were not the highest magistracy in Rome. Dictators and Consuls were.
Polybios in our only example of a constitution does not even mention them in
his discourse about the Roman constitution in 160 BC, yet we know they
existed through Livius and Dionysios of Halicarnassus writings from the
earlier periods.
If they were so powerful why don't they have lictors? The one symbol of
Roman importance
of authority and control and they don't have them. So they have no imperium.
Cornelius Sulla during his dictatorship removed them, indicating that they
were rather unnecessary by this time.
It would appear originally this was an honorary position bestowed on a
deserving ex Consul, but controlled by the Consuls and Senate. We aren't
even sure when it became an elected office. It is certain however, based on
the historical record the current censorship bears little resemblence to the
one that were are to be emulating.
I do hope that the current Consulship will allow the Senate to vote and
confirm our new Senators, so appearances, going back five years to the first
Senate appointments, will be maintained.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Century Points and the Roman work ethic
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:46:04 EST

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:16:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, haase@konoko.net
writes:

> No, I vetoed it for three reasons: I was angry at the deception; the
> proposal was a bad idea; and the integrity of the Consulship had been
> violated. The first of these by itself shouldn't merit a veto but the
> others certainly did.
>

Oho! I'll be most interested in seeing how the other ex Consul answers these
charges...
Face it Octavius, you are just jockeying for your position in the history
books...I'd be doing the same thing after your consulship.

Q. Fabius Maximus.

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Senators. Censors and comfirmation...
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:56:06 -0600 (CST)

Salve Senator Quinte Fabi,

> Right now Marcus Octavius, you are in a poor position to debate this subject
> since you are a Censor. So you are biased.

My position is consistent with what it was eleven months ago, when the issue
of Censores' powers arose.

> If we wish to have the censors
> appoint our Senators to the Senate without the Senate having a say, it
> defeats the spirit of old Rome since this never happened.

The Senate does have a say. It does not have the *final* say; but the
only persons the Censores can appoint without the Senate's consent are
the Curule Aediles. All other candidates were first given Propraetorship
or a special S.C. by the Senate.

> We have examples in Livius showing what happened to Censors that over stepped
> their bounds. They were impeached and removed by the Senate. If the Senate
> was powerless how could they do this?

The Consuls may impeach the Censores now by convening the Comitia Centuriata.
Even if the Senate is packed with obedient lackeys by these Censores, they
cannot stop the Consuls from calling the Comitia.

> If they were so powerful why don't they have lictors? The one symbol of
> Roman importance of authority and control and they don't have them.
> So they have no imperium.

Right. They cannot compel citizens to follow their orders, nor command an
army, or convene the Senate. The nature of their power is different.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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] Eagle Editorial Board meeting and the February Issue
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:05:24 -0500

Salve Noble Romans:

As no one has RSVP with an affirmative to my meeting proposal of some days ago, I gather I AM NOT expected to meet anybody in COLLEGE PARK TONIGHT at 6 pm.

The January Eagle is done. I will take it to the printer tomorrow.

It includes a birthday greeting to all citizens (who have paid their taxes or those who are to new and not required to pay) Lists name and month only. If you do not want to be included e-mail me ASAP

If you are writing something for the February issue please remember the deadline is

January 27th.

I CAN NOT GIVE ANY EXTENSIONS FROM THIS POINT ON.

WE HAD THE WHOLE MONTH OF DECEMBER TO WORK ON THE JANUARY ISSUE BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT EXTRA TIME FROM HERE ON OUT.

If anybody wants a copy of the January issue and is not a subscriber please send a
BIG SASE ( for a one time only seek peek).

to: The Eagle
5496 Ross Court
New Market, Maryland 21774

THANKS THANKS THANKSTHANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS THANKS to everybody and anybody who help put together the January Eagle. I hope you like it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum et Quaestor
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Eagle Editorial Board meeting and the February Issue
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:52:55 EST

In a message dated 1/6/03 1:07:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, spqr753@msn.com
writes:

> As no one has RSVP with an affirmative to my meeting proposal of some days
> ago, I gather I AM NOT expected to meet anybody in COLLEGE PARK TONIGHT at
> 6 pm.
>
>

Actually when people try to mail you they get a mail box full message, as it
bounces. So how could you get your RSVP?

Q. Fabius Maximus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Senators. Censors and comfirmation...
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:57:46 EST

In a message dated 1/6/03 12:57:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, haase@konoko.net
writes:

> My position is consistent with what it was eleven months ago, when the issue
> of Censores' powers arose

Since I disagree with everything you say, I see no point in continuing this
conversation.
However this is not over, I will find a way to make the office more true to
its historical predecessor.

Q. Fabius Maximus

[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] Re: List Organization
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:08:44 EST

Pompeia Cornelia writes:

>While I was Praetor I compiled a list of sodalitates and groups to
which each new subscriber receives, in an attempt to orientate
newcomers. I also put the URL to the website in same, hoping they
would navigate to respective provincia contact, etc.

Cassius respondit:
An excellent practice, and one that will hopefully be continued! In addition
to such a letter, it would also be great if that sort of comprehensive list
could appear on the website. It is not unlikely that folks might need that
info at other times as well.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

[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:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Senators. Censors and comfirmation...
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:11:07 -0600 (CST)

> > My position is consistent with what it was eleven months ago, when the issue
> > of Censores' powers arose
>
> Since I disagree with everything you say, I see no point in continuing this
> conversation.

Now *that* is the happiest news I've had all week.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus, Censor

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: [NovaBritannia] A public thanks!
From:	jmath669642reng@webtv.net
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:14:52 -0500 (EST)

Nova Britannia ProPraetor Hadrianus;

My thanks for your very kind words. It was tme to pass the baton, as
some people were referring to Nova Britannia as "my province" which of
course is not true in any aspect.

My thanks for your acceptance of me as a Legatus for the Regio
Connecticut. I shall endeavor to do what I can in that area.

I wish you the best in your future efforts, and if I may be of any
assistance to you, I shall be glad to help i any way that I can.

Respecfully;

Marcus Minucius 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/