Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:00:53 -0500

Oe Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:06:11PM +0100, me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
> >
> >*That* sounds like straight-out racism. Would you care to explain why
> >you chose to insult a group of people based on the color of their skin,
> >or would you just prefer to apologize?
> >
> Who's supposed to be insulted by what?

Ah, the disingenuous act. Do you suppose it might work?... Here - I'll
restore the part that contains your racist remark and provides the
context and the attribution, which you so conveniently deleted:

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:01:03PM +0100, me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
>
> The
> colour makes it easier to indentify but I think that, like the Romans,
> there is more of a sense of cultural superiority to anybody, not of a
> true racism such as might have reluctantly accepted eg Colin Powell in
> his present position but still refused him access to the same
> amenities as Pinkskins

If you still need more clarification, here's an equivalently racist
statement (this is not a belief I hold but a polemical position that
illustrates yours):

"Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card."

You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alea iacta est!
Let the dice fly!
-- Julius Caesar, at the Rubicon

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 19:15:30 -0500

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 02:19:19PM -0800, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> Considering you are the first person to complain (privately or
> publically), I will take it under advisement. However, I do tend to
> favor posts that have included the past 1 or two posts they are
> responding to in the thread as opposed to a Sign line that is longer
> than the persons actual post.

So you require an overt complaint in order to "take [the list rules]
under advisement"? It's OK to violate them as long as no one says
anything? I must say that I find your perception of how the laws of Nova
Roma are to be obeyed - or not, apparently - fascinating. Unique, I
would say (and sincerely hope.)

As to the last part - you favor, say, an extraneous 200 lines over a
two-line signature following a one-line post? Your rationale escapes me.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Navigare necesse est.
To sail is necessary.
-- Plutarchos

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 01:17:02 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> Ah, the disingenuous act. Do you suppose it might work?... Here -
I'll
> restore the part that contains your racist remark and provides the
> context and the attribution, which you so conveniently deleted:
>
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:01:03PM +0100, me-in-@disguise.co.uk
wrote:
> >
> > The
> > colour makes it easier to indentify but I think that, like the
Romans,
> > there is more of a sense of cultural superiority to anybody, not
of a
> > true racism such as might have reluctantly accepted eg Colin
Powell in
> > his present position but still refused him access to the same
> > amenities as Pinkskins
>
> If you still need more clarification, here's an equivalently racist
> statement (this is not a belief I hold but a polemical position that
> illustrates yours):
>
> "Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position
if
> it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card."
>
> You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?

Salve,

I don't believe that Caesariensis is a racist. I believe that he
wrote was written as an example of racist thinking vs. classist
thinking. I think the real problem here is most likely English as a
second language. I understand Caesariensis' writing to mean: Romans
considered themselves superior because they were Romans (classism),
where as a racist would grudgingly accept Colin Powell as a mere
token but still consider him to be inferior to a white person
(racism).

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:19:52 -0500

Salve, Quintus Cassius Calvus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 01:17:02AM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> I don't believe that Caesariensis is a racist.

Nor did I say that he was; I said that his comment was racist.

> I believe that he
> wrote was written as an example of racist thinking vs. classist
> thinking. I think the real problem here is most likely English as a
> second language.

Hmmm. I've found Caesariensis able to express himself very clearly when
he chooses to do so.

> I understand Caesariensis' writing to mean: Romans
> considered themselves superior because they were Romans (classism),
> where as a racist would grudgingly accept Colin Powell as a mere
> token but still consider him to be inferior to a white person
> (racism).

Yes - except that the racist in his case was not a random entity as in
the above paragraph but a group described by the dismissive term
"Pinkskins". That implication - "pink skin == racist" - was precisely
what I found offensive.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas es.
Knowledge is power.
-- Sir Francis Bacon

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Political Statements or just sensible words?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:51:02 -0800 (PST)

Sensible Words?
No It's an example of the Brain Dead Feelgoodism that
the mindless sheep in the apeasement movement bleat
out.

If the sacred games are going to become a forum for
moronic politics, instead of honoring the Gods, then
it's time to reconsider my membership in an
organization that has a flipant and impius view of the
Gods.

--- "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes.
>
>
> >>If you are going to make a political stand, then
> do so openly, you will then get some respect along
> with the disagreement.
>
> SCEPTIVS: If I had to make a political statement
> referred to the current war, it wouldn't be here in
> this Forum just because it is not the accurate place
> to do so.
> I have signed and support that Declaration because I
> do believe that my words can be distressing for
> those who suffer now or ever -if I take care of
> them. Much more nowdays, of course, but sensible and
> sensitive people as I do consider myself try to
> avoid painful words to those who can suffer from
> them.
> I do not pretend anybody to agree with me on that,
> but just respect because CONCORDIA is one of the
> most beautiful virtues of Rome. It brought many
> conquers far away from battles.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:56:27 -0800

Ave Caius Municius,

Let me explain it to you simply since you might not have such a good understanding of legal processes. You are not a Praetor and because of that I do not have to answer to you. The Praetors, to date, have never approached me with any complaint about the snippage of posts, therefore I will take your own personal complaint under advisement. I have stated in my response, that I tend to keep the past two previous replies in my post to help maintain the flow of the conversation, but what I can start doing is snipping sig lines, like yours (and your sig line is not two-line, its more like 6) but so much for counting, eh, but your sig line is no where near the record, I think that resides with our Consul Caeso Fabius.

Vale,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo


On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 02:19:19PM -0800, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> Considering you are the first person to complain (privately or
> publically), I will take it under advisement. However, I do tend to
> favor posts that have included the past 1 or two posts they are
> responding to in the thread as opposed to a Sign line that is longer
> than the persons actual post.

So you require an overt complaint in order to "take [the list rules]
under advisement"? It's OK to violate them as long as no one says
anything? I must say that I find your perception of how the laws of Nova
Roma are to be obeyed - or not, apparently - fascinating. Unique, I
would say (and sincerely hope.)

As to the last part - you favor, say, an extraneous 200 lines over a
two-line signature following a one-line post? Your rationale escapes me.




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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:24:35 EST

Salvete...
The problem with being eight hours behind Spain makes posting timely
rebuttals in the Forum rather hard. So I ask the citizens' forbearance if
they have heard this all before from the other Pontiffs.
> fraelov@y... writes:
>
> > > There will be neither dead Gladiators nor Racers, and the
> Naumachiae > won't have a single dead > sailor.
> >
> > That's absurd. Repeat after me. This is virtual! No other
> military gaming > societies or reenactments through out the world has
> canceled their events, > nor should they. While the war in Iraq is
> tragic, it has nothing to do with > Nova Roma, and I believe you have
> over reacted when such over reaction is > completely unwarranted.
>
> SCEPTIVS: Humbly, Senator, I won't "repeat after you" because this is
> not a ludicrous declaration. We asked for respect, and maybe this
> word was misunderstanding, but I'll clarify it if possible.
> Due to the Joint Declaration of our current Consularii Nova Roma is
> Neutral to this war. We the team for the Ludi Megalesia has the duty
> of making the games to entertain the citizenship but as individuals
> we have also a mind and the will of not spreading the seeds for
> violence.
>
Humbly? Sceptius you are not being serious. NR has declared neutrality
during
this War! You are a magistrate of NR. By favoring "peace" in our games you
have abandoned our neutrality. Is that not clear to you? This is not your
call. If the College and the Pontifix Maximus had changed our pact with the
Gods, you would
have been the first to know. I cannot explain this any clearer that.
You are not humble. You are arrogant. You have gone against the wishes of
the consules and by inference the wishes of the people who elected the
consules.
Why can't you see that you are making a political statement?

Respect is taking this as a team-declaration in which you can be agree
> or disagree, but never tell it is an "Absurd."

Absurd in this case is the Aediles engaging in a political statement, when
policy for State
is already decided, and the religious policy as well.

>
> > You have brought a political statement, into a venue that does not
> > need such political statements. I see that you are all running for
> > magistracies.
>
> SCEPTIVS: Not at all, Senator. What are we running for? The most of
> all hold an office, and we are in April. So may I suggest that there
> is a demagogic will in your political statement?
>

I'm talking about next year. The Aedileship is but a stepping stone on the
cursus honorum.
In Nova Roma to be elected is the result of a popularity contest. You have
just made yourselves very popular with the anti war people.

Look, I just think you made an innocent mistake, Sceptius, I am against this
war as well, but I'd never fashion an anti war statement where I would
condone impiety. As a Pontiff of Nova Roma I cannot. I took an oath. As
did you. But you are not honoring our Gods. You are mocking them.

I hope you reconsider your ban of eliminating your blood sports, as we cannot
carry
out an appeasement without them. And that is what this Ludi is for.
Appeasement to the Goddess. If you are unwilling, the College of Pontiffs
will be forced to take other steps. I trust all the Aediles will reflect on
my words, and realize that while your intentions were noble, your
understanding of the seriousness of your actions was not.

To sum up:
You made policy, when it is not your job to do so.
You have disdained our reciprocal pact with the Gods.
You did this innocently, not understanding what you were doing. I and my
fellow
Pontiffs accept this, simply withdraw your declaration, and let the games
begin.

Valete
Q*FABIVS*MAXIMVS


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Racial prejudice in Rome - scattered thoughts
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 03:21:15 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@f...>
wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:

>From all the info I read about Rome it seems that the Roman Empire
was overall very multicultural. Certainly Julius Caesar is thought to
have been a little too biased on the negative side in regards to his
accounts of the Celts in Gaul and Britain when he left out tons of
details about their finer civilized points and technologies. Later
the Pretorian guard had a big Germanic contingent which miay show
that negative opinions gradually changed once a culture was absorbed
by Rome. On the other hand, when it came to slavery there was no
racial discrimination. There were many white blue eyed blondes as
well as darker skin slaves from all over the empire. Ah well, a
little food for thought!

Regards - Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 22:28:32 -0500

Ave, L. Corneli -

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 05:56:27PM -0800, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> Let me explain it to you simply since you might not have such a good
> understanding of legal processes.

Thank you for your concern, but at the moment, my understanding of what
a legal process is seems to be far better than yours. "Violate the rules
until someone complains" is a laughably naive way to approach _anything_
that resembles a legal system or a set of rules; most people grow out of
it by, say, the age of 8 or so.

> You are not a Praetor and because
> of that I do not have to answer to you.

You have not been required to answer to me; be assured that if you did,
you would not soon forget the experience. You were asked *politely* -
you may not recognize what that is, but I assure you that it's common
among other people - to do something that was in line with the rules.
Instead of a polite reply (hint: that is usually what is returned in
response to a polite request), you chose to make it into an opportunity
to take a cheap (and rather transparent) potshot at Caeso Fabius.

ClueBrick: once you pull the pin on Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your
friend. Cheap shots have a way of ricocheting.

> The Praetors, to date, have
> never approached me with any complaint about the snippage of posts,
> therefore I will take your own personal complaint under advisement.

The Praetors have no need to approach you; the rules are written for
everyone. There is no legal system I know of in which ignorance is a
defense. Take _this_ under advisement: we human beings have agreed-upon
sets of social codes that we are pleased to call "laws" and "rules". We
subscribe to these conventions in order to maintain our communities,
even though they may inconvenience us individually; this is known as
part of _cooperative behavior._ We practice these behaviors in order to
receive the benefits of being part of that community.

If you choose to be part of a community, then you need to adhere, as
best you can, to those laws and rules. If you do not want to do so, then
you are always welcome to leave the community. NOTE: The technical term
for a person who receives the benefits of being part of a community
without adhering to its rules is "criminal".

This has been a public service announcement for the socially-challenged
among us. You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like from the
fact that it's in a post addressed to you.

> I
> have stated in my response, that I tend to keep the past two previous
> replies in my post to help maintain the flow of the conversation, but
> what I can start doing is snipping sig lines, like yours (and your sig
> line is not two-line, its more like 6) but so much for counting, eh,
> but your sig line is no where near the record, I think that resides
> with our Consul Caeso Fabius.

The length of my .sigs varies - but so much for your paying attention
*or* being able to count, eh? Note that there's nothing in the rules in
regard to signatures. As to your obsession with CFQs .sig, I understand
that there's now treatment available. Ask your doctor to, erm, take it
under advisement.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Honores mutant mores.
The honours change the customs. (Power corrupts.)
-- N/A

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 20:06:55 -0800

Ave C. Municius

(This will be my last public response to this as this is clearly a conversation between two individuals and no longer needs to be aired on the ML) - a recommendation as stated in Section IV of the same edict.
----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo


Ave, L. Corneli -

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 05:56:27PM -0800, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> Let me explain it to you simply since you might not have such a good
> understanding of legal processes.

Thank you for your concern, but at the moment, my understanding of what
a legal process is seems to be far better than yours. "Violate the rules
until someone complains" is a laughably naive way to approach _anything_
that resembles a legal system or a set of rules; most people grow out of
it by, say, the age of 8 or so.

Sulla: My understanding of the legal process is quite clear. You can complain to me, which you have, and I have stated I would take it under advisement or you can take it to the Praetors and complain to them that you believe I am violating the guidelines and they can follow their guidelines and either warn me (which has not happened) or ignore you.
> You are not a Praetor and because
> of that I do not have to answer to you.

You have not been required to answer to me; be assured that if you did,
you would not soon forget the experience.

Sulla: Feel free to remember this experience.

You were asked *politely* -
you may not recognize what that is, but I assure you that it's common
among other people - to do something that was in line with the rules.

Sulla: I know what politely is, that would also include emaling someone privately off list as well, which you chose not to do, but that was entirely your choice. The animosity between you and I have been apparent for a while now, why should this go around be any different. :)
Instead of a polite reply (hint: that is usually what is returned in
response to a polite request), you chose to make it into an opportunity
to take a cheap (and rather transparent) potshot at Caeso Fabius.

Sulla: I disagree, it was an accurate assessment. You are more concerned about snipping away posts that maintain the flow of conversation. I believe the far more important issue is sig lines that are actually longer than original posts. For example, like your post when you *politely* tried to suggest I change the flow of my responses. That post was 5 lines. Your sig line on that post was 6 lines. By you leaving out your sig line, would have snipped half your post. And my inclusion of Consul Caeso Fabius's sig is entirely accurate, go back to the archieves and check. Or if you would like I can forward it to you and you can see for yourself. I think the post itself is FAR more important than a sig line....you obviously do not.

ClueBrick: once you pull the pin on Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your
friend. Cheap shots have a way of ricocheting.

Sulla: Now, I wonder if the Praetors might want to intervene on this above statement. But, that is totally up to them.

> The Praetors, to date, have
> never approached me with any complaint about the snippage of posts,
> therefore I will take your own personal complaint under advisement.

The Praetors have no need to approach you; the rules are written for
everyone.

Sulla: According to the Constitution, the Praetors administer the laws. (IV.A.3.b) So as administrators it would seem reasonable that they would approach me.

There is no legal system I know of in which ignorance is a
defense.

Sulla: There is a different interpretation that I have, in that I do not believe I have violated the guidelines in the first place. So, your above sentence does not apply to me.

Take _this_ under advisement: we human beings have agreed-upon
sets of social codes that we are pleased to call "laws" and "rules". We
subscribe to these conventions in order to maintain our communities,
even though they may inconvenience us individually; this is known as
part of _cooperative behavior._ We practice these behaviors in order to
receive the benefits of being part of that community.

Sulla: LOL you are so entertaining.

If you choose to be part of a community, then you need to adhere, as
best you can, to those laws and rules. If you do not want to do so, then
you are always welcome to leave the community. NOTE: The technical term
for a person who receives the benefits of being part of a community
without adhering to its rules is "criminal".

Sulla: A criminal is one who has been convicted of a crime (taken from dictionary.com and Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition). That has not happened til that has happened one could view your statement as almost libelous. Now would you really want to cross that line? I urge you not too.

This has been a public service announcement for the socially-challenged
among us. You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like from the
fact that it's in a post addressed to you.

Sulla: Personally I think you ought to drop the issue or take it to the Praetors, because your knowledge of the law is woefully inadequate.

> I
> have stated in my response, that I tend to keep the past two previous
> replies in my post to help maintain the flow of the conversation, but
> what I can start doing is snipping sig lines, like yours (and your sig
> line is not two-line, its more like 6) but so much for counting, eh,
> but your sig line is no where near the record, I think that resides
> with our Consul Caeso Fabius.

The length of my .sigs varies - but so much for your paying attention
*or* being able to count, eh? Note that there's nothing in the rules in
regard to signatures. As to your obsession with CFQs .sig, I understand
that there's now treatment available. Ask your doctor to, erm, take it
under advisement.

Sulla: The Praetors can easily remedy it if it becomes necessary, especially given the fact that the archieves on the Nova-Roma main list are very much limited in space by the requirements of Yahoo. Maybe I should send them a private email about it. Good idea, C. Municius.

Vale,

Sulla
(See I snipped your sig line again. <g>)

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2003 23:47:46 -0500

Ave, L. Corneli -

On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:06:55PM -0800, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>
> Thank you for your concern, but at the moment, my understanding of what
> a legal process is seems to be far better than yours. "Violate the rules
> until someone complains" is a laughably naive way to approach _anything_
> that resembles a legal system or a set of rules; most people grow out of
> it by, say, the age of 8 or so.
>
> Sulla: My understanding of the legal process is quite clear.

In which case, your ability to display even a trace of that understanding
is at fault.

> You were asked *politely* -
> you may not recognize what that is, but I assure you that it's common
> among other people - to do something that was in line with the rules.
>
> Sulla: I know what politely is, that would also include emaling
> someone privately off list as well, which you chose not to do, but
> that was entirely your choice.

Your extremely narrow view of the meaning of "politely" explains much of
your behavior, then.

> Instead of a polite reply (hint: that is usually what is returned in
> response to a polite request), you chose to make it into an
> opportunity to take a cheap (and rather transparent) potshot at
> Caeso Fabius.
>
> Sulla: I disagree, it was an accurate assessment. You are more
> concerned about snipping away posts that maintain the flow of
> conversation. I believe the far more important issue is sig lines
> that are actually longer than original posts.

Your belief is not supported by either common usage, common sense, or
the list guidelines. You lose three ways, and all you're left with is
a nonsensical obsession with sig files. According to your belief,
several hundred lines of repeated posts are less of an issue than (even
if we use your randomly inaccurate figure) six lines... the concepts
you're missing are "bandwidth hogging", "wasting storage space", and
"signal-to-noise ratio".

> For example, like
> your post when you *politely* tried to suggest I change the flow of
> my responses. That post was 5 lines. Your sig line on that post
> was 6 lines. By you leaving out your sig line, would have snipped
> half your post.

And you left in (rough estimate) 80 to 100 lines worth of irrelevant
material - which includes your signature. Since you also posted
irrelevant and incorrect information, that should also include your
entire post... but even if we ignore that, your signal-to-noise ratio
was two lines of content to ~100 lines of noise. And *you're* making
comments about people's signatures?

ClueBrick #2: Pot. Kettle. #000000.

> ClueBrick: once you pull the pin on Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your
> friend. Cheap shots have a way of ricocheting.
>
> Sulla: Now, I wonder if the Praetors might want to intervene on
> this above statement. But, that is totally up to them.

You're right - it is up to them. Fortunately, their understanding of
English is more than sufficient for what I've written, whereas yours
seems woefully inadequate. (Here, I'll be nice and translate for you:
"don't snipe, lest the sniping be used against you.")

> There is no legal system I know of in which ignorance is a
> defense.
>
> Sulla: There is a different interpretation that I have, in that I
> do not believe I have violated the guidelines in the first place.

In that case, you have either not read them, or have willfully ignored
the directly applicable passage.

> Take _this_ under advisement: we human beings have agreed-upon
> sets of social codes that we are pleased to call "laws" and "rules". We
> subscribe to these conventions in order to maintain our communities,
> even though they may inconvenience us individually; this is known as
> part of _cooperative behavior._ We practice these behaviors in order to
> receive the benefits of being part of that community.
>
> Sulla: LOL you are so entertaining.

Yes, I prefer to entertain as I teach. Oooh, look: shiny, pretty...

> If you choose to be part of a community, then you need to adhere, as
> best you can, to those laws and rules. If you do not want to do so, then
> you are always welcome to leave the community. NOTE: The technical term
> for a person who receives the benefits of being part of a community
> without adhering to its rules is "criminal".
>
> Sulla: A criminal is one who has been convicted of a crime (taken
> from dictionary.com and Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition).

Webster's dictionary lists a number of meanings that take up over sixty
lines. The primary one is "guilty of crime or sin". Only _one_ of those
60+ lines mentions conviction.

> That
> has not happened til that has happened one could view your statement
> as almost libelous. Now would you really want to cross that line?
> I urge you not too.

<laugh> You're fishing, and coming up empty. I challenge you to show
where I have libeled a specific person or group, or have come even close
to it.

> This has been a public service announcement for the socially-challenged
> among us. You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like from the
> fact that it's in a post addressed to you.
>
> Sulla: Personally I think you ought to drop the issue or take it to
> the Praetors, because your knowledge of the law is woefully
> inadequate.

<chuckle> My knowledge of the law is perfectly adequate to my
requirements; you know nothing about it and are simply trying (and
failing) to formulate an insult. However, if you're looking for
something totally inadequate, you don't have to go far: your estimation
of me, your perception of reality, and your ability to weasel out of a
nonsensical position all add up to less than a mustard seed's worth.

> (See I snipped your sig line again. <g>)

<rolling eyes>
Oh, you've wounded me to the quick. Someone call an ambulance!


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Primum est non nocere.
First of all, do no harm.
-- Hippocrates; The maxim has become an ethical guiding principle in medicine.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] New telecomm laws: possible problems
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 00:16:39 -0500

Salvete, omnes -

The current issue of the RISKS digest describes new telecommunication
laws that are being promulgated (and have in several cases already
passed) in several states. These laws have been described as "use a
firewall, go to jail" laws (which is, in effect, accurate.) They also
prohibit anonymous posting *or voting* - see a sample implementation of
this in the Michigan Penal Code, Section 750.540c (in effect as of
3/31/2003):

<http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-540c-amended>

Part of the relevant section reads:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access
device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to
deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those
devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or
knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used
to do any of the following:

(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
telecommunications service.

(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire,
intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption,
transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any
telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent
of the telecommunications service provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My concern, with regard to Nova Roma, is an obvious one. Until these
laws are challenged and either modified or struck down, those of us
living in Michigan (and several other states - see the list here:
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/28/1541230&tid=103>) would
be breaking the law by voting in NR. It's a chilling development for a
number of other reasons, but this one affects us immediately.

Thoughts, anyone?


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.
The way is made long through rules, but short and effective through examples.
-- Seneca Philosophus, "Epistulae"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Political Statements or just sensible words?
From:	"L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 06:10:34 -0000

Salve Senator Drusus

Well Senator, I didn't expect being called a "sheep". So I think I do
not have any reason to answer, as far as I just "bleat" instead of
speaking.
I honour the Gods, but it seems that it can't be done when accused
of "impius" views for being a "sheep".

vale bene,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Sensible Words?
> No It's an example of the Brain Dead Feelgoodism that
> the mindless sheep in the apeasement movement bleat
> out.
>
> If the sacred games are going to become a forum for
> moronic politics, instead of honoring the Gods, then
> it's time to reconsider my membership in an
> organization that has a flipant and impius view of the
> Gods.
>
> --- "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@y...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes.
> >
> >
> > >>If you are going to make a political stand, then
> > do so openly, you will then get some respect along
> > with the disagreement.
> >
> > SCEPTIVS: If I had to make a political statement
> > referred to the current war, it wouldn't be here in
> > this Forum just because it is not the accurate place
> > to do so.
> > I have signed and support that Declaration because I
> > do believe that my words can be distressing for
> > those who suffer now or ever -if I take care of
> > them. Much more nowdays, of course, but sensible and
> > sensitive people as I do consider myself try to
> > avoid painful words to those who can suffer from
> > them.
> > I do not pretend anybody to agree with me on that,
> > but just respect because CONCORDIA is one of the
> > most beautiful virtues of Rome. It brought many
> > conquers far away from battles.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
From:	"L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 06:28:03 -0000

Salve Senator Maximus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> Salvete...
> The problem with being eight hours behind Spain makes posting
timely > rebuttals in the Forum rather hard. So I ask the citizens'
forbearance if > they have heard this all before from the other
Pontiffs.
> You are not humble. You are arrogant. You have gone against the
wishes of > the consules and by inference the wishes of the people
who elected the> consules.

SCEPTIVS: So you add to my "sheep" name the atribute of "arrogant".
How can a sheep be arrogant?

> Why can't you see that you are making a political statement?

SCEPTIVS: I had answer to that before.

> Respect is taking this as a team-declaration in which you can be
agree > > or disagree, but never tell it is an "Absurd."
> Absurd in this case is the Aediles engaging in a political
statement, when > policy for State > is already decided, and the
religious policy as well.

SCEPTIVS: I'm not an Aedile, I write the Naumachie, so I think your
thread is cut somewhere. However, this seems to me like a "conspiracy
theory", Senator Maximus, more than a reasonable statement.

> I'm talking about next year. The Aedileship is but a stepping
stone on the > cursus honorum.
> In Nova Roma to be elected is the result of a popularity contest.
You have > just made yourselves very popular with the anti war
people.

SCEPTIVS: Do you really think I'm running for the aedelianship? Then
you are wrong, Senator, I humbly say. I'm not in that direction.

> Look, I just think you made an innocent mistake, Sceptius, I am
against this > war as well, but I'd never fashion an anti war
statement where I would > condone impiety. As a Pontiff of Nova Roma
I cannot. I took an oath. As > did you. But you are not honoring
our Gods. You are mocking them.
> I hope you reconsider your ban of eliminating your blood sports, as
we cannot > carry > out an appeasement without them. And that is
what this Ludi is for. > Appeasement to the Goddess. If you are
unwilling, the College of Pontiffs > will be forced to take other
steps. I trust all the Aediles will reflect on > my words, and
realize that while your intentions were noble, your > understanding
of the seriousness of your actions was not.

SCEPTIVS: As far as I'm concerned, I take advices from sensible
people, so Senator Maximus, I must say that your words seems to me
very paternalist but sewed in an incoherent way, so I must say that
if you are against my work as the Naumachiae Editor and you think I'm
being a "mock" to the Gods, I just offer you to write the Naumachiae
in the way *You* could be honouring the Gods.
I'm going to do so, but it seems that there is a fierce will of
turning out the points into demagogic debate. So for ending this, I
just ask you or any other to take the Honour of writing the
Naumachiae. So you could understand my intentions and actions, which
always try to be but HONEST.
I'm not being stubborn, just sensible. If I'm not honouring the Gods
with this idea, I let you do so if you believe I'm "impious".

> To sum up:
> You made policy, when it is not your job to do so.

SCE: This is *your* statement.

> You have disdained our reciprocal pact with the Gods.

SCE: I can't but believe you are joking, but my offer is still there.

> You did this innocently, not understanding what you were doing. I
and my > fellow> Pontiffs accept this, simply withdraw your
declaration, and let the games > begin.

SCEPTIVS: The Ludi will be carried on, so there is no stoppage, and
naive questions you put on my intentions could be more of a reprimend
a father give to his children than arguments well ellaborated. So I
just repeat my offer:
Honorable Senator Maximus, if you think you would write the
Naumachiae better than I because *you* disagree my way to honour the
Gods, why don't you take the stake of doing it for the good of Nova
Roma?

vale bene,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: To the Aediles
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:46:26 EST

Salvete Gn Equiti Marine
Francisce Apule Caesar
Marce Scriboni Curi Britannice
L. Armini Fauste
> I haven't published an official edictum, this is an informal
> declaration.
> We don't want cancel the Ludi and the games because as you have said
> the war not concern Nova Roma. Nova Roma is neutral and we want
> follow the guidelines indicating by our Illustres Consules.
>

Gentlemen,
Since both our Pontifix Maximus and our Augur are not responding, as they are
at other religious functions, I, as a Pontiff of Nova Roma, request that you
withdraw your declaration. By stating it you have made it official. By
binding our virtual games, you have created policy. You all took an oath to
honor the Gods of Nova Roma in your official
functions. Also you have defied the Consules of Rome by abandoning Nova
Roma's neutrality.
There is no choice here. As Aediles you agreed to hold Ludi to honor our
Gods and Goddesses. Without the Munus, there can be no appeasement.
Therefore this Ludi does not appease the Great Goddess and this exercise
rather becomes pointless.


> However we had a "brain storm" about the opportunity to organize
> violent Ludi. We all are for the peace and we feel this moment as a
> sad time for the people everywhere and of every Nations (Nova Roma
> too).
> The neutrality isn't indifference!
> We are only saying: "there are several people dying in Iraq,
> soldiers and civilians. In our opinion scene of blood and death and
> violence and murders could not respect this people. We prefer limit
> these scenes and organize more easy and peaceful games"

The people did not elect you to have "brainstorms" gentlemen, they elected
you
to carry your duties, and to full fill your oath. Please do so.
Withdraw your declaration, so that the games may began.

Q*FABIVS*MAXIMVS


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] To Tribune Sceptivs
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:48:09 EST

In a message dated 4/4/03 10:28:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, sceptia@yahoo.es
writes:
> SCEPTIVS: So you add to my "sheep" name the atribute of "arrogant".
> How can a sheep be arrogant?
>

Excuse me Sceptius. I believed you were one of the Aediles. My mistake. I
now see you are a Tribune.
Of course you cannot be held responsible for your magistrates' decisons. I'm
sorry that I singled you out, and I withdraw my charge of arrogance.

FABIVS


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 02:14:41 -0800 (PST)

To Caius Min
What is your deal man?
Are you looking to pick on people here in NR?
I have noticed that your e-mail as of late has been
aimed at starting conflict and strife.
Is there a problem?

I mean no disrespect, but really it does seem to me
that you have a bug up your butt.Sulla has ask you to
take this issue off the ML, but you still lash out at
him. It has become apparent that you have problems
with Sulla and in the past attacked him. If there is a
problem that you have with him, Get over it! I don't
think NR needs to hear you belittle him every chance
you get.
This only show your impolite behavior, and borders on
being a Troll.
Please try your own advice, be polite and do not run
people down.
G. Porticus Brutis


--- Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> wrote:
> Ave, L. Corneli -
>
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:06:55PM -0800, L.
> Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your concern, but at the moment,
> my understanding of what
> > a legal process is seems to be far better than
> yours. "Violate the rules
> > until someone complains" is a laughably naive
> way to approach _anything_
> > that resembles a legal system or a set of rules;
> most people grow out of
> > it by, say, the age of 8 or so.
> >
> > Sulla: My understanding of the legal process is
> quite clear.
>
> In which case, your ability to display even a trace
> of that understanding
> is at fault.
>
> > You were asked *politely* -
> > you may not recognize what that is, but I assure
> you that it's common
> > among other people - to do something that was in
> line with the rules.
> >
> > Sulla: I know what politely is, that would also
> include emaling
> > someone privately off list as well, which you
> chose not to do, but
> > that was entirely your choice.
>
> Your extremely narrow view of the meaning of
> "politely" explains much of
> your behavior, then.
>
> > Instead of a polite reply (hint: that is usually
> what is returned in
> > response to a polite request), you chose to make
> it into an
> > opportunity to take a cheap (and rather
> transparent) potshot at
> > Caeso Fabius.
> >
> > Sulla: I disagree, it was an accurate
> assessment. You are more
> > concerned about snipping away posts that
> maintain the flow of
> > conversation. I believe the far more important
> issue is sig lines
> > that are actually longer than original posts.
>
> Your belief is not supported by either common usage,
> common sense, or
> the list guidelines. You lose three ways, and all
> you're left with is
> a nonsensical obsession with sig files. According to
> your belief,
> several hundred lines of repeated posts are less of
> an issue than (even
> if we use your randomly inaccurate figure) six
> lines... the concepts
> you're missing are "bandwidth hogging", "wasting
> storage space", and
> "signal-to-noise ratio".
>
> > For example, like
> > your post when you *politely* tried to suggest I
> change the flow of
> > my responses. That post was 5 lines. Your sig
> line on that post
> > was 6 lines. By you leaving out your sig line,
> would have snipped
> > half your post.
>
> And you left in (rough estimate) 80 to 100 lines
> worth of irrelevant
> material - which includes your signature. Since you
> also posted
> irrelevant and incorrect information, that should
> also include your
> entire post... but even if we ignore that, your
> signal-to-noise ratio
> was two lines of content to ~100 lines of noise. And
> *you're* making
> comments about people's signatures?
>
> ClueBrick #2: Pot. Kettle. #000000.
>
> > ClueBrick: once you pull the pin on Mr. Grenade,
> he is no longer your
> > friend. Cheap shots have a way of ricocheting.
> >
> > Sulla: Now, I wonder if the Praetors might want
> to intervene on
> > this above statement. But, that is totally up
> to them.
>
> You're right - it is up to them. Fortunately, their
> understanding of
> English is more than sufficient for what I've
> written, whereas yours
> seems woefully inadequate. (Here, I'll be nice and
> translate for you:
> "don't snipe, lest the sniping be used against
> you.")
>
> > There is no legal system I know of in which
> ignorance is a
> > defense.
> >
> > Sulla: There is a different interpretation that
> I have, in that I
> > do not believe I have violated the guidelines in
> the first place.
>
> In that case, you have either not read them, or have
> willfully ignored
> the directly applicable passage.
>
> > Take _this_ under advisement: we human beings
> have agreed-upon
> > sets of social codes that we are pleased to call
> "laws" and "rules". We
> > subscribe to these conventions in order to
> maintain our communities,
> > even though they may inconvenience us
> individually; this is known as
> > part of _cooperative behavior._ We practice
> these behaviors in order to
> > receive the benefits of being part of that
> community.
> >
> > Sulla: LOL you are so entertaining.
>
> Yes, I prefer to entertain as I teach. Oooh, look:
> shiny, pretty...
>
> > If you choose to be part of a community, then
> you need to adhere, as
> > best you can, to those laws and rules. If you do
> not want to do so, then
> > you are always welcome to leave the community.
> NOTE: The technical term
> > for a person who receives the benefits of being
> part of a community
> > without adhering to its rules is "criminal".
> >
> > Sulla: A criminal is one who has been convicted
> of a crime (taken
> > from dictionary.com and Blacks Law Dictionary
> 4th edition).
>
> Webster's dictionary lists a number of meanings that
> take up over sixty
> lines. The primary one is "guilty of crime or sin".
> Only _one_ of those
> 60+ lines mentions conviction.
>
> > That
> > has not happened til that has happened one could
> view your statement
> > as almost libelous. Now would you really want
> to cross that line?
> > I urge you not too.
>
> <laugh> You're fishing, and coming up empty. I
> challenge you to show
> where I have libeled a specific person or group, or
> have come even close
> to it.
>
> > This has been a public service announcement for
> the socially-challenged
> > among us. You are welcome to draw whatever
> conclusions you like from the
> > fact that it's in a post addressed to you.
> >
> > Sulla: Personally I think you ought to drop the
> issue or take it to
> > the Praetors, because your knowledge of the law
> is woefully
> > inadequate.
>
> <chuckle> My knowledge of the law is perfectly
> adequate to my
> requirements; you know nothing about it and are
> simply trying (and
> failing) to formulate an insult. However, if you're
> looking for
> something totally inadequate, you don't have to go
> far: your estimation
> of me, your perception of reality, and your ability
> to weasel out of a
> nonsensical position all add up to less than a
> mustard seed's worth.
>
> > (See I snipped your sig line again. <g>)
>
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Ludi Megalesia - VENATIONES
From:	Manius Constantinus Serapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 02:19:41 -0800 (PST)

AVETE OMNES

Finally the third edition of the Venationes starts!
However, according to the Aedilian Edict about these
Ludi Megalesia with respect to the actual conflict in
Iraq, the narrations of the Venationes combats will be
plainer than in past editions.

Now let's see which animals the fighters of several
citizens will have to face!

-Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
SH 8,166
PRONEPOS (Ludus Matutinus) str35-res35
against
Rhinoceros (caught in Numidia) str49-res37

-----------------------

-Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
SH 333
LUCTATOR (Ludus Pentasius) str34-res36
against
Bear (caught in Pannonia) str30-res30

------------------------

-Tiberius Annaeus Otho
SH 7,500
TINGIS (Ludus Matutinus) str47-res51
against
Lion (caught in Egyptus) str50-res44

------------------------

-Roscia Annaea Pia
SH 12,500
PURPUREUS (Ludus Matutinus) str48-res34
against
2 Tigers (caught in Numidia) 1st: str40-res44 2nd:
str38-res47

------------------------

-Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus
SH 500
MAENAS (Ludus Matutinus) str32-res38
against
-Bull (caught in Gallia Cisalpina) str30-res46

--------------------------
-Tiberius Claudius Lucentius Vindex
SH 7,833
CALLIMORIUS (Ludus Matutinus) str38-res14
According to his owner's will, Callimorius will keep
training until next Venationes edition in order to get
more strength and resistance points.


==========================================
1st Combat

PRONEPOS VS RHINOCEROS

Salix Galaicus had to buy a new Venator for this
edition of the Venationes. Pronepos comes from
Gallaecia (i.e. a region of Provincia Hispania). He
has a strength and a resistance of 35 and trains in
Ludus Matutinus, the best one!
Today he will fight against a nice rhinoceros caught
in Numidia. Still this animal is stronger than
Pronepos, as he has a strength of 49 and a resistance
of 37!!! Well, we must tell you that this animal
already won in the Venationes....

The Aedilis Curulis decided that no man nor animal
will die during these Ludi Megalesia, so he will stop
the combat as soon as it is clear who the winner will
be. Well, actually it seems that the winner will be
the Rhino... but the Aedile doesn't stop the fight
(perhaps because it has still to start?)

The Rhino enters the arena of the great Circus
Flaminius
The fight start immediately an, after a few minutes,
Pronepos has a resistance of 31, as well as the
Rhinoceros!

You can see that Pronepos has been well trained, in
fact it doesn't take a lot to him to tire his foe.
Pronepos has now 27 resistance points, the Rhino 25.

But our nice animal is not so stupid. He knows he has
some strong feature, and decide to take advantage of
it. Rhino simply stops in the middle of the circus.
Pronepos runs against him and shove him with his
shoulder but........ ehm....
Salix Galaice, you should teach your fighter a bit of
zoology... Pronepos didn't know anything about the
cuirass these animals have! He falls down with a
resistance of 19, while Rhino keeps his 25 resistance
points!

The rhinoceros start running after Pronepos, which
runs very quickly through the circus. But Rhino
manages to "prickle" him with his horn. Pronepos 13,
Rhinoceros 23.
And not once, but even twice!
Ouch! The fighter has now a resistance of 7. The
Rhinoceros 21.

They keep running but the Aedile orders to stop the
fight, and declares that the winner is the Rhinoceros.

We are sorry, Galaice, you will get no award again!

---------------------------------------------------------------

2nd Combat

LUCTATOR VS BRUIN

After loosing his fighter in past Venationes, our
former Aedilis Plebis, Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix,
comes today again with a new fighter and less money.

His fighter, Luctator (which surprisingly means
"fighter"), comes from Numidia, trains in Ludus
pentasius and has a strength of 34 and a resistance of
36. All in all, a good fighter.
But his enemy is a good enemy as well. A huge bruin
caught in Pannonia, with 30 strength points and 30
resistance points, which already won in past
Venationes.

Let's see what happens!
Luctator shows his muscles to the people. Many girls
get crazy.
The bruin enters the
circus........................................

and start showing his muscles to the bears which wait
for their turn behind the gates. Many she-bears get
crazy.
But Luctator can't accept such an outrage, so he combs
his hair and runs toward his foe. On the other hand
the bruin accept the challenge. He combs his fur but
he takes a longer time so Luctator manages to hit him.
Luctator has a resistance of 32, the bruin 23.

Now that the animal is completely ruffled, he does no
longer take care of his noble look and attacks the man
wildly. But Luctator is quick in dodging the blow and
hits the bruin with the comb (never use you comb for
this kind of things: it's really dangerous). The bear
fals down.
Luctator has now 29 resistance points and his foe16!

Luctator jump on the bruin and start combing him. He
cries "It's impossible you are so ruffled! You don't
take care of yourself! I can't see you in this way!!!"
and keeps combing with full strength (and he has a
strength of 34, so he really combs strongly!)
Now Luctator has 26 resistance points, while the bear
has 7!

The Curule Aedile intervenes again. He can't bear such
a beauty treatment in the middle of the Circus
Flaminius.

Luctator wins!!!!!
Congratulations Apollonius Cicatrix!

----------------------------------------------------------

3rd Combat

TINGIS VS LION

Tingis comes again in the circus for another edition
of the Venationes. Tiberius Annaeus Otho should be
proud of his brave fighter. For those who don't know
Tingis yet, let's remind something about him. He comes
from Mauretania and already took part to two editions
of the Venationes, defeating a bruin and a
hippopotamus. After training a lot (now he trains in
Ludus Matutinus), he actually has 47 strength points
and 51 resistance points! This is one of the strongest
fighters e have!!!
But today he must face the king of the circus... a
wild lion caught in Egyptus which already created some
"problem" to other fighters in the past. This nice cat
has a trength of 50 and a resistance of 44!!!!!

Hey, this is really the biggest lion I ever saw...
what a mane, what strong legs and... what teeth!!! He
look hard at Tingis.

Oh, I forgot to tell you something... just before the
start of the Venationes, the official chef of this
event decided to barbecue some pork sausage. To make
everyting more interesting, he tied two tasty sausages
to Tingis' ankles while the fighter was taking a nap
before the start of this combat. Unfortunately Tingis
discovered them only now, as they are making the
lion's mouth water.

The lion attacks Tingis' ankles, but our guy frees
them and start using both sausages as two whips. The
lion jumps on Tingis, but the fighter lashes his foe,
which falls down under two merciless sausages.
Tingis has now 47 resistance points, the lion 37.

The fight continues. The lion doesn't know whether to
bite Tingis or the sausages. Tingis takes advantage of
this hesistation to keep lashing the big cat, even
though the animal tries to react.

1st lash:
Tingis 44, the lion 29.

2nd lash:
Tingis 40, the lion 23

3rd lash:
Tingis 36, the lion 17

Our fighter is a bit overworked, so he decides to play
while relaxing. He let the lion sniffing the sausages
and... oh, that's not nice. Tingis lashes the lion
once again, then he eats a piece of sausage! (I
wouldn't do it, you know... the ankles...the lion's
hair... it's not that clean).
Tingis has now a resistance of 31 and the lion a
resistance of 12.

Tingis is ready for the final action. He divide the
two sausages in a number of pieces and, while the lion
is clearly asking for something to eat, the man start
shooting them like arrows.
The Curule Aedile must stop the combat when Tingis has
a resistance of 27 and the lion has only 6 resistance
points.
The winner is Tingis!!!
Congratulation to the fighter, to Tiberius Annaeus
Otho and to the chef. Tonight we'll have a wonderful
dinner. And the lion will eat too, of course! ;-)

---------------------------------------------

4th Combat

PURPUREUS VS TWO TIGERS

Not a nice day for Roscia Annaea Pia, another citizen
which is not new in our Venationes. In fact, her dear
Purpureus will face two very strong foes. Purpureus
comes from Tracia, he trains in Ludus Matutinus, and
has 48 strength points and 34 resistance points. In
past editions he already defeated a hippopotamus
and... SIX crocodiles in one combat!!! Oh, I can
remember it: the great Venatio Magna during past Ludi
Plebei. There were three fighters against 10
crocodiles and Purpureus was the only winner!!! He's
expected to do wonderful things in the circus!
Now let's have a look at his enemies' profile. So, two
tigers (male and female) caught in Numidia a few
months ago. He has a trength of 40 and a resistance of
44, while she has a strength of 38 and a resistance of
47. Each of them is weaker than Roscia Annaea's
fighter, but toghether they could create him some real
problem.

Purpureus is ready and wait for his foes. Here thay
are! The two tigers enter the circus...
Wait a moment, please. They seem to be discussing. She
discuss with him looking at Purpureus. He growls
against her. Hey! This seems to be a jealousy matter!
The she tiger start walking towards our man. He's a
bit wrong-fooded, as he expected a wild attack. On the
contrary, as soon as the tiger reaches Purpureus, she
start rubbing herself. The other tiger flies into a
rage and suddendly runs, and jumps on the she-tiger
but... Purpureus is there and is involved in that
private row!
Strokes, dust and roars. After about 40 minutes the
cloud of dust vanishes.... our three friends lie
gasping on the ground.
Purpureus has 23 resistance points, the tiger 15 and
the she-tiger 12.

The man stands up and goes toward the tigers. "What's
up? Is everything ok? Do you whish something to
drink?" They shake their head and their tail.
That's enough for the Curule Aedile, which see that
the only one standing up is Purpureus and declares him
the winner! (that's not what we usually call a
glorious victory, anyway...)

Congratulation to Purpureus and to Roscia Annaea Pia!

==========================================

5th Combat

MAENAS VS BULL

Hey! A new participant of the Venationes! Quintus
Salix Cantaber Uranicus, a spanish citizen (as most of
Salices in Nova Roma!).
He bought a rather good fighter, Maenas, which comes
from Pannonia and trains in Ludus Matutinus. He has 32
strength points and 38 resistance points.
Today this guy shall face a bull which has just been
caught in Gallia Cisalpina. He has a strength of 30
and a resistance of 46. Interesting!

The bull is ready in the middle of the circus but...
Maenas is not there... The bull waits...the crowd
wait... the Curule Aediles is getting embarrassed...
Here he is! Finally Maenas enters the circus with a
red cloth in one hand and a croissant in the other
one!
The Curule Aedile orders Maenas to leave the red
cloth. These are the venationes, not a corrida! On the
contrary he can use the croissant, of course.

The bull starts running against the man but... Maenas
squashes the croissant on the bull's snout (I would
like to be that bull in this moment...). That's not
what we call a real weapon, but anyway... the bull
loses his balance and falls down together with Maenas.

The fighter has now 35 resistance points and the bull
37.

The bull immediately stands up, as well as Maenas. The
bull runs after Maenas but... a couple of servant
which have been paid by Salix Cantaber hand Maenas a
sack filled with croissant! But be careful!!! They are
not french croissant! They are the italian ones! This
means they are even more dangerous as they are filled
with... cream!!! (I'm sure you are asking yourselves
"How can he knows that sack contains italian croissant
if they're still *inside* the sack?" That's easy!
Because one of those two servants, while handing
Maenas the sack, told him "Take this sack which
contains a lot of croissants. But be careful! They are
not french croissants, they are italian!")

The massacre begins. Maenas throws dozen croissants at
the bull! That's a disaster! The ground is getting
more and more creamy! The bull slides, but Maenas
slides as well! (Maenas 27, the bull 36).
The crowd would like to receive some croissant or to
enter the circus!

The servants hand Maenas other sacks and Maenas start
throwing the sacks themselves! How many wasted
croissant! I can't see that! You are so merciless!

The bull tries running after Maenas, but the fighter
skates between the two sides of the circus. They both
keep skating and sliding. (Maenas 22, the bull 31).
The bull understand that the only solution is eating
each croissant Maenas flings.
During the first 20 minutes everything is ok, but then
the situation becomes difficult. The servants keep
handing Maenas the croissants, and Maenas keeps
throwing them. The bull can't bear this. He approaches
the gate of the circus. There are two cows which give
him a sack filled with pieces of parmisan cheese
(don't ask me why I know that it contains parmisan
cheese even thoug it still is inside the sack! The
reason is the same as before!)

While Maenas throws croissant, the bull throws
parmisan cheese (which is harder).
Now they walk into the cream. I can assure you that
cream and parmisan cheese toghether don't produce a
good smell at all!
Maenas has now 19 resistance points, the bull 22.

Oh, no! They ran out of stock! Hey! Maenas skates
toward the bull with the two last croissants! He jumps
over his target, he squash them on the head of the
bull and lands raising a wave of cream which falls on
the crowd! (how disgusting!)

The bull is on the ground with two croissants in his
mouth. Maenas stands up and jups all over the circus.
The Curule Aedile, all cream-stained, stop the fight
and declares Maenas the winner. In addition, he
establishes that during these Ludi the populace,
please, will eat savoury food only.

Maenas is the winner! Congratlations to Quintus Salix
Cantaber Uranicus!

=======================================================

That's all for this edition of the Venationes. The
combats between gladiators and wild animals will come
back soon in next months!!!
Soon I'll communicate you the amount of sestertii each
winner will be awarded with!
Enjoy the Ludi Megalesia!!! ;-)

OPTIME VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Qvaestor

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration
From:	"Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:18:24 -0000

AVETE OMNES

Sorry, but I never read in the Aedilian declaration:

1-that these Ludi will not take place

2-that the soldiers the declaration mentions are the iraqi ones

3-that the aediles are against this war so they took this decision.

What I think, is that our Aediles thought it could be a lack of
respect toward many people, to show blood and strong violence in a
period where many of us (independently on what each of us thinks) is
in some way involved in the actual conflict. There are American,
British and Australian soldiers in Iraq: some of them is dying
(again, I'm not saying whether for a right reason or not). Other
countries support the conflict officially (like Spain and Italy) or
offer airports and other facilities to USA and UK soldiers (like
France and Germany).
In Nova Roma there are American, Australian, British, French,
Spanish, Italian and German citizens. In my opinion this declaration
is meant not to hurt any of these citizens which are in some way
involved.

I would like to add one last thing. I think each of us wants peace,
and I am not referring to this actual war, but rather in a general
way. If you prefere, you can call it Pax Romana. This is a peace wich
must be put aside if necessary. But if there is a war, who whish it
to be eternal? To be as clear as possible, if i say I want peace, I
am not saying I am against the actual war, but rather that I hope it
eand as soon as possible, as this wold of course be better for
everyone.
So, please, if a person tell you he wants peace, don't think
immediatly he's making a political statement.

BENE VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Qvaestor

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 03:56:15 -0800 (PST)

Very well said..
Bravo
Manivs

May there be peace.
and let the games continue..
By the way Gnaeus Salix Galaicus was robbed! He should
have a rematch immediately,or after he can catch his
breath.
LOL
Brutis
--- Manius Constantinus Serapio <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
wrote:
> AVETE OMNES
>
> Sorry, but I never read in the Aedilian declaration:
>
> 1-that these Ludi will not take place
>
> 2-that the soldiers the declaration mentions are the
> iraqi ones
>
> 3-that the aediles are against this war so they took
> this decision.
>
> What I think, is that our Aediles thought it could
> be a lack of
> respect toward many people, to show blood and strong
> violence in a
> period where many of us (independently on what each
> of us thinks) is
> in some way involved in the actual conflict. There
> are American,
> British and Australian soldiers in Iraq: some of
> them is dying
> (again, I'm not saying whether for a right reason or
> not). Other
> countries support the conflict officially (like
> Spain and Italy) or
> offer airports and other facilities to USA and UK
> soldiers (like
> France and Germany).
> In Nova Roma there are American, Australian,
> British, French,
> Spanish, Italian and German citizens. In my opinion
> this declaration
> is meant not to hurt any of these citizens which are
> in some way
> involved.
>
> I would like to add one last thing. I think each of
> us wants peace,
> and I am not referring to this actual war, but
> rather in a general
> way. If you prefere, you can call it Pax Romana.
> This is a peace wich
> must be put aside if necessary. But if there is a
> war, who whish it
> to be eternal? To be as clear as possible, if i say
> I want peace, I
> am not saying I am against the actual war, but
> rather that I hope it
> eand as soon as possible, as this wold of course be
> better for
> everyone.
> So, please, if a person tell you he wants peace,
> don't think
> immediatly he's making a political statement.
>
> BENE VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Qvaestor
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Megalesia affair
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 13:14:27 -0000

Salvete Omnes,

sorry for my little absence, I had a complicated surgical operation
to a tooth yesterday and I'm not so fine. So I answer to all the
gentlemen have discussed about, Illustrus Consul and Illustrus
Pontefix too.

First of all the Joint declaration is by me and my Cohors. My
Illustres colleagues Aediles didn't sign it, so please don't consider
them.

I want to explain that we haven't said to not want organize the
games. We say we organize the games but without violent scenes.
What is bad here? Do you want blood? Why?
The blood and violence are not needed and obliged parts of the games.
Why do you don't want quiet Ludi?

Illustrus Labienus, Illustrus Maximus and everybody, have you readen
the histories of Venationes? Is this game so different from the game
of the last year? Is it less funny? Is it against the Gods because it
hadn't blood or murders? Do you think chariot races without accidents
could offense the Gods? Do you think Naumachiae without blood hurt
our Res Publica?
I thing not, however I thing a bloodly and tragical murder of
gladiator could hurt a citizen.

I don't think quiet Ludi are cracking the pact with the Gods and my
Oath as Magistrate. The Constitution say me that I have to organize
Ludi but it don't say me that I have to organize violent and bloodly
games. Where is written?
Yes, I agree, these Ludi are not historical correct but Ancient
Romans lived in a costant status of war. We are not in the 50 D.C.,
we are in a time where the war is a tragical event.

These Ludi are dedicated to Magna Mater and I know Magna Mater is not
the "War Goddess". Magna Mater is the Earth, is the Nature, is
fertility and prosperity. The war isn't Nature, isn't life, is death.
How I'm working against the Goddess Magna Mater? Maybe, Ludi without
blood are hurting Cybele? Please, Senator Maximus, explain me where I
have cracked the pact with the Goddess.

I don't think we didn't respect the declaration of neutrality of Nova
Roma. It say us the Res Publica is not supporting a factio or an
idea. Yes, I'm a Magistrate and I have to follow what my Res Publica
indicate. However first of all I'm a man and as a man I have feelings
and ideas. IMHO these ideas is not different by the guidelines of
Nova Roma. I don't say we are pro or against the war. I say I'm for
the eternal idea of the peace. Is this political? Is this against our
declaration of neutrality?
I can't work and imagine virtual murders thinking people far 1.500 km
to me are dying. Sorry, I'm a man. Maybe this is feelgoodism, this is
political, this is partial, I don't know, this is my idea!

As a my colleague have said, in this period everything is political.
Being for the war is political, being for the peace is political. But
I think this is stupid. We haven't said the war is correct or wrong,
we haven't said we are for USA or Iraq, we haven't said we are
against or pro-war, etc.
We are only saying we are for the peace, we don't want hurt
everybody, we want respect the soldier and the civilians in this
moment. Is this a political statements? Yes? I think not but if you
think yes, well, I'm writing a political statements and I don't
withdraw it.

We have been accused to be "feelgoodist", moronics, politicians,
arrogants, impuries, against the Gods, etc. Thank you very much to
everybody have said this. I thing it's early to run for an Office of
2757...
I think you are attacking and criticing and processing us before to
have seen. Someone have said this is demagogic, someone think is
political, I think it's stupid.

Maximus, you're asking me to withdraw an unofficcial and informal
declaration. This is not a law or an edictum! Please, wait for the
end of the Ludi and after judge. After, if you think my Megalesia
Ludi have hurted the Gods and I have cracked my Oath you'll can
realyze your threats, I'll present my jobs to the evaluation of the
Res Publica and Collegium of Pontiffs.

So at the end, we don't withdraw our Declaration. We don't organize
bloodly and violent games. We don't want hurt the Res Publica and the
Gods.
We organize quiet and peaceful Ludi. We follow the declaration of
nautrality or our Consules. We offer you funny shows.

BTW we ask the apologies of the citizens have hurted us (me and my
assistants) with harsh words written in the past messages. I ask to
the authorities to value these words and think about the actions
moved against us.
As Magistrate of Res Publica I remember you all that if you aren't an
higher Magistrate you don't must interfere with the running Ludi!

Well, thank you all for your attenction. Please, live quietly in this
tragical time. Have a funny festival and pray Magna Mater for a world
of peace. I hope you enjoy Megalesia Ludi.

I come back to the bed, my tooth is very very hurting and I'm tired.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Ludi Megalesia background
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 13:16:13 -0000

Salve,

Did a little background checking on the Ludi Megalesia and its
origins. As near as I can tell the Ludi Medalesia started during or
right after the Second Punic War. During the second Punic War the
Sibylline Books revealed that Hannnibal would leave Italy when the
Great Mother (Magna Mater/Goddess Cybele) was brought to Rome. In
about 204, her sacred black stone was shipped to Ostia, where Scipio
Nasica took custody of it and brought it to the city.

However, later the Romans discovered that worship of the Great Mother
included not just self-flagellation but castration of the priests.
As a result the cult of Magna Mater was restricted to non-Romans
until Emperor Claudius decreed otherwise. However, honor was still
paid to Magna Mater with a six day long Megalensia that included
sacrifices, feasts, chariot races and games.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:25:20 -0500

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:14:41AM -0800, G.Porticus Brutis wrote:
> To Caius Min
> What is your deal man?

$1000/day or $125/hour, with negotiable discounts for longer term
contracts.

> Are you looking to pick on people here in NR?

If you're looking to be picked on and consider yourself "people", I
could probably arrange something for you, but I'd have to subcontract
it; I don't "pick on people" and I don't deal with borderline trolls.

Incidentally, since I hadn't mentioned it previously: you're the only
poster on this list whom I thought of killfiling immediately after your
few initial posts. The only reason I didn't was that you quieted down.

> I have noticed that your e-mail as of late has been
> aimed at starting conflict and strife.
> Is there a problem?
>
> I mean no disrespect, but really it does seem to me
> that you have a bug up your butt.

Ah - I recognize that; it's killfile bait.

Goodbye, simple soul.

*PLONK!!!*


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In magnis et voluisse sat est.
To once have wanted is enough in great deeds.
-- Propertius, "Elegies"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] I'm still here & MEGALESIA LUDI
From:	"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:57:03 +0200

Salvete citizens,

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I have been very quiet lately :-)
Honestly, I have been just deleting all of my list emails without reading
them and I did not read the joint declaration.

I am against the current war and any war. But I don't think that we should
change the way we do things in Nova Roma because of it. These are virtual
games and even with the 'blood' they are (dare I say it?) fun... That said,
I am not sure if lack of blood dishonors our Gods. But.... I think that
alongside their Christianity or other faith, I believe that Nova Romans
(especially the magistrates) should honor our Gods just a bit more in their
daily lives and in their decisions here in our micronation.I realize that I
have just stepped on a few hundred toes <Diana watches as her political
career flies out the window> If we are emulating the ancient Romans then
the Religio should have a more important place here. The Romans performed
rituals because they often wanted something from the Gods. It was often an
'I'll give to you if you give to me' arrangement. Maybe as a nation we need
to do this a bit more, so as a nation we receive a bit more of the Gods'
blessings. Just my thoughts.

Valete,
Diana Moravia Aventina
(still here)
(still) Tribune
(still) Priestess of Venus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 06:14:10 -0800 (PST)

What in the world are you talking about?
Killfiling?
B.
--- Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:14:41AM -0800, G.Porticus
> Brutis wrote:
> > To Caius Min
> > What is your deal man?
>
> $1000/day or $125/hour, with negotiable discounts
> for longer term
> contracts.
>
> > Are you looking to pick on people here in NR?
>
> If you're looking to be picked on and consider
> yourself "people", I
> could probably arrange something for you, but I'd
> have to subcontract
> it; I don't "pick on people" and I don't deal with
> borderline trolls.
>
> Incidentally, since I hadn't mentioned it
> previously: you're the only
> poster on this list whom I thought of killfiling
> immediately after your
> few initial posts. The only reason I didn't was that
> you quieted down.
>
> > I have noticed that your e-mail as of late has
> been
> > aimed at starting conflict and strife.
> > Is there a problem?
> >
> > I mean no disrespect, but really it does seem to
> me
> > that you have a bug up your butt.
>
> Ah - I recognize that; it's killfile bait.
>
> Goodbye, simple soul.
>
> *PLONK!!!*
>
>
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> In magnis et voluisse sat est.
> To once have wanted is enough in great deeds.
> -- Propertius, "Elegies"
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 06:30:09 -0800 (PST)

Killfile is geekspeak for the file that contains email
filters. When it's used as a verb it means to set up
an email filter that will delete any posts from
someone who's correspondance isn't welcome.

--- "G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What in the world are you talking about?
> Killfiling?
> B.
> --- Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 02:14:41AM -0800,
> G.Porticus
> > Brutis wrote:
> > > To Caius Min
> > > What is your deal man?
> >
> > $1000/day or $125/hour, with negotiable discounts
> > for longer term
> > contracts.
> >
> > > Are you looking to pick on people here in NR?
> >
> > If you're looking to be picked on and consider
> > yourself "people", I
> > could probably arrange something for you, but I'd
> > have to subcontract
> > it; I don't "pick on people" and I don't deal with
> > borderline trolls.
> >
> > Incidentally, since I hadn't mentioned it
> > previously: you're the only
> > poster on this list whom I thought of killfiling
> > immediately after your
> > few initial posts. The only reason I didn't was
> that
> > you quieted down.
> >
> > > I have noticed that your e-mail as of late has
> > been
> > > aimed at starting conflict and strife.
> > > Is there a problem?
> > >
> > > I mean no disrespect, but really it does seem to
> > me
> > > that you have a bug up your butt.
> >
> > Ah - I recognize that; it's killfile bait.
> >
> > Goodbye, simple soul.
> >
> > *PLONK!!!*
> >
> >
> > Caius Minucius Scaevola
> >
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > In magnis et voluisse sat est.
> > To once have wanted is enough in great deeds.
> > -- Propertius, "Elegies"
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
> and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:21:11 -0500

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 06:30:09AM -0800, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> Killfile is geekspeak for the file that contains email
> filters. When it's used as a verb it means to set up
> an email filter that will delete any posts from
> someone who's correspondance isn't welcome.

Yes indeed. And "plonk!" is the notional sound made by dropping the
poster's header info into a killfile.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Melius frangi quam flecti.
It is better to break than to bend.
-- N/A

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 06:54:22 -0800 (PST)

What are you some kind of Jerk.
I have never had someone in NR act as you have.You are
nothing more than a punk! and NR should have you ban
from this group. There is no reason for you to
threaten me in any way!
Try to show off to someone who cares.

--- Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 06:30:09AM -0800, L.
> Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> > Killfile is geekspeak for the file that contains
> email
> > filters. When it's used as a verb it means to set
> up
> > an email filter that will delete any posts from
> > someone who's correspondance isn't welcome.
>
> Yes indeed. And "plonk!" is the notional sound made
> by dropping the
> poster's header info into a killfile.
>
>
> Vale,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Melius frangi quam flecti.
> It is better to break than to bend.
> -- N/A
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:44:17 -0500

Ave, Manius Constantinus Serapio!

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:18:24AM -0000, Manius Constantinus Serapio wrote:
>
> I would like to add one last thing. I think each of us wants peace,
> and I am not referring to this actual war, but rather in a general
> way. If you prefere, you can call it Pax Romana. This is a peace wich
> must be put aside if necessary. But if there is a war, who whish it
> to be eternal? To be as clear as possible, if i say I want peace, I
> am not saying I am against the actual war, but rather that I hope it
> eand as soon as possible, as this wold of course be better for
> everyone.
> So, please, if a person tell you he wants peace, don't think
> immediatly he's making a political statement.

Just to draw a separating line: I do not agree with Q. Fabius or L.
Sicinius in their strong characterizations of the people involved in
making this declaration. I believe that it was made from honorable
motives and a sincere desire for peace.

I'll leave aside the question of piety, which I do not consider myself
competent to judge; however, the declaration itself *is* a political
statement - not that "political" is necessarily something negative - in
that it affects us all as a group. To quote Webster's dictionary,

Of or pertaining to public policy, or to politics; relating to affairs
of state or administration.

It most certainly suits the definition.

I understand that you see this as making a statement for peace. The
problem is, it was not made just on the behalf of its signers - by
changing the Ludi, it becomes a statement on behalf of all Nova Roma. I,
for one, don't have anything against peace - but I do very much object
to having others take political positions on my behalf, and I do not
grant anyone the right to make political statements (especially
macronational ones) in my name. I usually avoid joining organizations
for that very reason.

The change in the games destroys a tangible benefit, at least for those
of us who perceive games as I do. What makes a game enjoyable, to me, is
the _risk:_ the chance of winning or losing. The loser goes down in
flames, the winner has his triumph... and - here is the wonderful thing
about games - you can do it all again the next time, with no _real_
bloodshed or loss. (For those whose egos aren't strong enough to take an
occasional bruising, well, there's always Myst and Adventure and such.
Oh, wait - they keep score too...) I believe that modeling violent
conflict in games - *which are themselves non-violent* - is an excellent
path for NR (and perhaps the rest of the world - imagine two countries
that, instead of going to war, play a game of chess to settle the /casus
belli/) to follow. Trying to make the games "bloodless" when they
already are by their nature makes them bloodless per one of the meanings
in Webster's: "without vigor or zest or energy".

I see this proposed change in the games - a change which, in my opinion,
destroys the very nature of those games - as strongly detrimental, and
hope that the people involved will reconsider their decision. They
_have_ made their statement for peace, and many people have read it;
however, changing the Ludi is far more than a personal statement.


Optime vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Saepe creat molles aspera spina rosas.
Often the prickly thorn produces tender roses.
-- Ovid

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: To Tribune Sceptivs
From:	"L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 15:24:41 -0000

Salve Senator Maximus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/4/03 10:28:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sceptia@y...
> writes:
> > SCEPTIVS: So you add to my "sheep" name the atribute
of "arrogant". > > How can a sheep be arrogant?
> >
>
> Excuse me Sceptius. I believed you were one of the Aediles. My
mistake. I > now see you are a Tribune. > Of course you cannot be
held responsible for your magistrates' decisons. I'm > sorry that I
singled you out, and I withdraw my charge of arrogance.
>
> FABIVS

I accept the apologize. As Tribune I have said *nothing* on this
issue. And I've separated things and made them clear. I hope it would
be clearer now to all, including your honorable colleague L. Sicinius
Drusus.

vale bene,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Digest No 529 Re: Political Statements
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 10:51:34 -0500

Pontifex Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Omnibus Quiritibus SPD

I call upon the Consules, Praetores, Aediles Curules to veto the "MEGALESIA
LUDI: Joint Declaration II" in it's present form which expresses political
sentiments at the expense of the game's real intent. The Ludi are to please
the
Gods, not men.
Let the call for the games (Ludi) be reissued in a more appropriate manner.

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:51:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Political Statements or just sensible words?

Sensible Words?
No It's an example of the Brain Dead Feelgoodism that
the mindless sheep in the apeasement movement bleat
out.

If the sacred games are going to become a forum for
moronic politics, instead of honoring the Gods, then
it's time to reconsider my membership in an
organization that has a flipant and impius view of the
Gods.

--- "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes.
>
>
> >>If you are going to make a political stand, then
> do so openly, you will then get some respect along
> with the disagreement.
>
> SCEPTIVS: If I had to make a political statement
> referred to the current war, it wouldn't be here in
> this Forum just because it is not the accurate place
> to do so.
> I have signed and support that Declaration because I
> do believe that my words can be distressing for
> those who suffer now or ever -if I take care of
> them. Much more nowdays, of course, but sensible and
> sensitive people as I do consider myself try to
> avoid painful words to those who can suffer from
> them.
> I do not pretend anybody to agree with me on that,
> but just respect because CONCORDIA is one of the
> most beautiful virtues of Rome. It brought many
> conquers far away from battles.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 24
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:24:35 EST
From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II

Salvete...
The problem with being eight hours behind Spain makes posting timely
rebuttals in the Forum rather hard. So I ask the citizens' forbearance if
they have heard this all before from the other Pontiffs.
> fraelov@y... writes:
>
> > > There will be neither dead Gladiators nor Racers, and the
> Naumachiae > won't have a single dead > sailor.
> >
> > That's absurd. Repeat after me. This is virtual! No other
> military gaming > societies or reenactments through out the world has
> canceled their events, > nor should they. While the war in Iraq is
> tragic, it has nothing to do with > Nova Roma, and I believe you have
> over reacted when such over reaction is > completely unwarranted.
>
> SCEPTIVS: Humbly, Senator, I won't "repeat after you" because this is
> not a ludicrous declaration. We asked for respect, and maybe this
> word was misunderstanding, but I'll clarify it if possible.
> Due to the Joint Declaration of our current Consularii Nova Roma is
> Neutral to this war. We the team for the Ludi Megalesia has the duty
> of making the games to entertain the citizenship but as individuals
> we have also a mind and the will of not spreading the seeds for
> violence.
>
Humbly? Sceptius you are not being serious. NR has declared neutrality
during
this War! You are a magistrate of NR. By favoring "peace" in our games you
have abandoned our neutrality. Is that not clear to you? This is not your
call. If the College and the Pontifix Maximus had changed our pact with the
Gods, you would
have been the first to know. I cannot explain this any clearer that.
You are not humble. You are arrogant. You have gone against the wishes of
the consules and by inference the wishes of the people who elected the
consules.
Why can't you see that you are making a political statement?

Respect is taking this as a team-declaration in which you can be agree
> or disagree, but never tell it is an "Absurd."

Absurd in this case is the Aediles engaging in a political statement, when
policy for State
is already decided, and the religious policy as well.

>
> > You have brought a political statement, into a venue that does not
> > need such political statements. I see that you are all running for
> > magistracies.
>
> SCEPTIVS: Not at all, Senator. What are we running for? The most of
> all hold an office, and we are in April. So may I suggest that there
> is a demagogic will in your political statement?
>

I'm talking about next year. The Aedileship is but a stepping stone on the
cursus honorum.
In Nova Roma to be elected is the result of a popularity contest. You have
just made yourselves very popular with the anti war people.

Look, I just think you made an innocent mistake, Sceptius, I am against this
war as well, but I'd never fashion an anti war statement where I would
condone impiety. As a Pontiff of Nova Roma I cannot. I took an oath. As
did you. But you are not honoring our Gods. You are mocking them.

I hope you reconsider your ban of eliminating your blood sports, as we
cannot
carry
out an appeasement without them. And that is what this Ludi is for.
Appeasement to the Goddess. If you are unwilling, the College of Pontiffs
will be forced to take other steps. I trust all the Aediles will reflect on
my words, and realize that while your intentions were noble, your
understanding of the seriousness of your actions was not.

To sum up:
You made policy, when it is not your job to do so.
You have disdained our reciprocal pact with the Gods.
You did this innocently, not understanding what you were doing. I and my
fellow
Pontiffs accept this, simply withdraw your declaration, and let the games
begin.

Valete
Q*FABIVS*MAXIMVS

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Veto (WAS: Re: Political Statements)
From:	"L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 16:18:37 -0000

Salve Honorable Senator Augur

Would I know if a veto can be used against a Will Declaration?

As in Title IV, Section A, chapter 5.a, Aediles can "Issue those
edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of public games and
other festivals and gatherings";
This seems to me a possible vetoed action, but I see that the
Declaration made *Is Not* an Edicta. Otherwise, I wouldn't disagree
for the possible veto.
But in this case, I ask again: Is it possible to use a veto against a
Will Declaration (And I mean a FREEDOM FOR SPEECH case)??

vale bene,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@s...>
wrote:
> Pontifex Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Omnibus Quiritibus SPD
>
> I call upon the Consules, Praetores, Aediles Curules to veto
the "MEGALESIA> LUDI: Joint Declaration II" in it's present form
which expresses political> sentiments at the expense of the game's
real intent. The Ludi are to please> the> Gods, not men.
> Let the call for the games (Ludi) be reissued in a more appropriate
manner.
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:51:02 -0800 (PST)
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...>
> Subject: Re: Political Statements or just sensible words?
>
> Sensible Words?
> No It's an example of the Brain Dead Feelgoodism that
> the mindless sheep in the apeasement movement bleat
> out.
>
> If the sacred games are going to become a forum for
> moronic politics, instead of honoring the Gods, then
> it's time to reconsider my membership in an
> organization that has a flipant and impius view of the
> Gods.
>
> --- "L. Didius Geminus Sceptius" <sceptia@y...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes.
> >
> >
> > >>If you are going to make a political stand, then
> > do so openly, you will then get some respect along
> > with the disagreement.
> >
> > SCEPTIVS: If I had to make a political statement
> > referred to the current war, it wouldn't be here in
> > this Forum just because it is not the accurate place
> > to do so.
> > I have signed and support that Declaration because I
> > do believe that my words can be distressing for
> > those who suffer now or ever -if I take care of
> > them. Much more nowdays, of course, but sensible and
> > sensitive people as I do consider myself try to
> > avoid painful words to those who can suffer from
> > them.
> > I do not pretend anybody to agree with me on that,
> > but just respect because CONCORDIA is one of the
> > most beautiful virtues of Rome. It brought many
> > conquers far away from battles.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
__
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:24:35 EST
> From: qfabiusmaxmi@a...
> Subject: Re: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
>
> Salvete...
> The problem with being eight hours behind Spain makes posting timely
> rebuttals in the Forum rather hard. So I ask the citizens'
forbearance if
> they have heard this all before from the other Pontiffs.
> > fraelov@y... writes:
> >
> > > > There will be neither dead Gladiators nor Racers, and the
> > Naumachiae > won't have a single dead > sailor.
> > >
> > > That's absurd. Repeat after me. This is virtual! No other
> > military gaming > societies or reenactments through out the world
has
> > canceled their events, > nor should they. While the war in Iraq
is
> > tragic, it has nothing to do with > Nova Roma, and I believe you
have
> > over reacted when such over reaction is > completely unwarranted.
> >
> > SCEPTIVS: Humbly, Senator, I won't "repeat after you" because
this is
> > not a ludicrous declaration. We asked for respect, and maybe this
> > word was misunderstanding, but I'll clarify it if possible.
> > Due to the Joint Declaration of our current Consularii Nova Roma
is
> > Neutral to this war. We the team for the Ludi Megalesia has the
duty
> > of making the games to entertain the citizenship but as
individuals
> > we have also a mind and the will of not spreading the seeds for
> > violence.
> >
> Humbly? Sceptius you are not being serious. NR has declared
neutrality
> during
> this War! You are a magistrate of NR. By favoring "peace" in our
games you
> have abandoned our neutrality. Is that not clear to you? This is
not your
> call. If the College and the Pontifix Maximus had changed our pact
with the
> Gods, you would
> have been the first to know. I cannot explain this any clearer
that.
> You are not humble. You are arrogant. You have gone against the
wishes of
> the consules and by inference the wishes of the people who elected
the
> consules.
> Why can't you see that you are making a political statement?
>
> Respect is taking this as a team-declaration in which you can be
agree
> > or disagree, but never tell it is an "Absurd."
>
> Absurd in this case is the Aediles engaging in a political
statement, when
> policy for State
> is already decided, and the religious policy as well.
>
> >
> > > You have brought a political statement, into a venue that does
not
> > > need such political statements. I see that you are all running
for
> > > magistracies.
> >
> > SCEPTIVS: Not at all, Senator. What are we running for? The most
of
> > all hold an office, and we are in April. So may I suggest that
there
> > is a demagogic will in your political statement?
> >
>
> I'm talking about next year. The Aedileship is but a stepping
stone on the
> cursus honorum.
> In Nova Roma to be elected is the result of a popularity contest.
You have
> just made yourselves very popular with the anti war people.
>
> Look, I just think you made an innocent mistake, Sceptius, I am
against this
> war as well, but I'd never fashion an anti war statement where I
would
> condone impiety. As a Pontiff of Nova Roma I cannot. I took an
oath. As
> did you. But you are not honoring our Gods. You are mocking them.
>
> I hope you reconsider your ban of eliminating your blood sports, as
we
> cannot
> carry
> out an appeasement without them. And that is what this Ludi is for.
> Appeasement to the Goddess. If you are unwilling, the College of
Pontiffs
> will be forced to take other steps. I trust all the Aediles will
reflect on
> my words, and realize that while your intentions were noble, your
> understanding of the seriousness of your actions was not.
>
> To sum up:
> You made policy, when it is not your job to do so.
> You have disdained our reciprocal pact with the Gods.
> You did this innocently, not understanding what you were doing. I
and my
> fellow
> Pontiffs accept this, simply withdraw your declaration, and let the
games
> begin.
>
> Valete
> Q*FABIVS*MAXIMVS

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Racial prejudice in Rome - scattered thoughts
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 04:12:07 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus Cn. Iulio Straboni salutem dicit.

Salve, Cn. Iuli propinque.

Scripsisti:

> "Antoninus belonged to three races; and he possessed none of their
virtues
> at all, but combined in himself all their vices; the fickleness,
cowardice,
> and recklessness of Gaul were his, the harshness and cruelty of
Africa, and
> the craftiness of Syria, whence he was sprung on his mother's side."
(Dio
> 78.6)

What Greek noun is being translated here as "races"? I don't have a
copy of Dio Cassius at home, so I can 't immediately check (and the
English of Loeb-series translations often has a quaintly antiquarian
flavour to it). There are several Greek words that could be
translated as "race": _ethnos_ (a people with a shared culture),
_phulon_ (from a common race, class, or tribe), _genos_ (kind,
origin), _gonos_ (of a common biological descent), _rhiza_ (from a
common root or origin), or _sperma_ (of a common origin or descent).
_Phulon_ is one word that sometimes has racial connotations similar to
the racial-prejudice sense of the word, as in such such prejoratives
as _pamphulos_ (of mixed/mingled races, half-breed, perhaps even with
resonances of the loathesome Nazi term "Mischling"). One of the
problems with translation is that the English word "race" has a much
wider semantic field than some of the Greek words it translates.

I do, however, agree that Roman society was more tolerant of racial
differences in general than modernity has tended to be. What I was
trying to point out in my initial post on this topic was that the
roseate view of Sherwin-White's book has been nuanced by more recent
research which does identify significant phenomena in Roman antiquity
which are analogous to modern attitudes of racial prejudice.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Megalesia affair
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:21:26 EST

In a message dated 4/5/03 5:16:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, fraelov@yahoo.it
writes:


> Well, thank you all for your attenction. Please, live quietly in this
> tragical time. Have a funny festival and pray Magna Mater for a world
> of peace. I hope you enjoy Megalesia Ludi.
>
> I come back to the bed, my tooth is very very hurting and I'm tired.
>

I'll light a candle to Asculapius for your pain, Aedile. I do hope you feel
better.

I realize that you believe you are operating in an unoffical status, and your
declaration
is not political. But any declaration you make especially with your title
becomes political.
I am sorry you cannot see that. Pity.

I take it you still intend to hold bloodless games?
If so, I and the College will have to take additional steps. Sorry it had to
come to this.

And "funny" in English means humorous. You might pick a better word.

FABIVS


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 05:09:00 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

I suspect that this is the last time I'll use "Greek fonts on Yahoo"
as a subject line :-). And, seriously, I have no desire to step into
any disagreement between L. Cornelius Sulla and C. Minucius Scaevola,
but I do have a question about Novaroman law. In historical Roman law
a praetor urbanus could not adjudicate a violation of the law by a
citizen unless an actio was presented by a citizen (in effect, all
criminal actiones were private actiones). From something said in this
thread I infer that a Novaroman praetor can take action against a
citizen for a violation of law without an actio being presented by
another citizen to that praetor. Is this inference correct?

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Greek fonts on Yahoo
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 17:27:13 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, C. Iuli Scaure.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Rose" <gfr@i...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> In historical Roman law a praetor urbanus could not adjudicate a
> violation of the law by a citizen unless an actio was presented by
> a citizen (in effect, all criminal actiones were private
> actiones). From something said in this thread I infer that a
> Novaroman praetor can take action against a citizen for a violation
> of law without an actio being presented by another citizen to that
> praetor. Is this inference correct?

A pretty good question.
The law that deals with that subject is the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria.
You can find it at:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-iii.html
Please take a look at it and let me know your opinion :-).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 07:05:37 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

I would like to clarify a few points in this matter of the Megalesia Ludi.

First, I do not believe for the moment that the curule aediles or
their cohors have sought to curry favor with those citizens who oppose
the war in Iraq. I am myself an American who is deeply opposed to my
country's invasion of Iraq; indeed, sufficiently opposed to have spent
much of this past morning standing with a sign in my hands in front of
the Federal Building in my city, demanding an end to the war. And I
was one who questioned the decision to "sanitize" the Ludi.

Second, I believe that the curule aediles and their cohors acted in
good faith in hope of alleviating any possible discomfort on the part
of their fellow Quirites. I have not long been a civis novaromanus,
but I have read the archives here and I see no reason in that history
to question their motives or integrity.

Third, I disagree with the decision of the curule aediles because I
believe that deviating from the mos maiorum in any matter involving
the religio romana except for the gravest of reasons is contrary to
the principles on which Nova Roma was founded and on which it recruits
citizens.

Fourth, I respectfully request that the curule aediles consult the
pontifices and augures before they implement their decision so as to
avoid any possible, UNINTENTIONAL impietas in the matter of the
Megalesia Ludi.

Fifth, I beseech my fellow civites to recall their dignitas and say
nothing in the heat of the moment that they may regret on calmer
reflection. Our magistrates and their cohortes are not hostes; their
contributions to Nova Roma are worthy of our deep respect.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 07:31:53 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

I am grateful for the suggestions on Greek fonts. I have nearly a
dozen of them that I can use locally, but I have been unable to
determine if Unicode UTF-8 is available for a Mac running OS 9.1. I
know that OS X is Unicode-compliant, but I'd like to avoid having to
install a system upgrade just to use Greek characters in the
occasional email. Any suggestions?

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Imperial Roman History
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 08:01:18 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia
of Roman Emperors" website:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/

This is one of the best historical websites I have ever seen and it is
supervised by a very distinguished editorial board consisting of some
of the foremost experts on imperial history. It includes biographies
of the emperors with extensive bibliographies, prosopographical
studies of imperial dynasties, accounts and maps of imperial battles,
a virtual catalogue of Roman coins, translations of primary sources,
and a plethora of links to other sites dealing with imperial history.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Imperial Roman History
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 08:06:57 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia
of Roman Emperors" website:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/

This is one of the best historical websites I have ever seen and it is
supervised by a very distinguished editorial board consisting of some
of the foremost experts on imperial history. It includes biographies
of the emperors with extensive bibliographies, prosopographical
studies of imperial dynasties, accounts and maps of imperial battles,
a virtual catalogue of Roman coins, translations of primary sources,
and a plethora of links to other sites dealing with imperial history.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Veto (WAS: Re: Political Statements)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:38:01 EST

In a message dated 4/5/03 8:20:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, sceptia@yahoo.es
writes:


> As in Title IV, Section A, chapter 5.a, Aediles can "Issue those
> edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of public games and
> other festivals and gatherings";
>

Salvete Tribunes
No, there is no danger to the Constitution, so you vetoing the declaration
simply because you disagree with it would be impossible. However, since the
statement also changes Nova Roma's stance from one of neutrality, to one of
the Peace nations, even though the Aediles claim that was not their
intentions, goes against Consules and the Senate's and by inference the
People's will.
Therefore it is a statement of perduellio against the stated wishes of the
Nova Roman
government. And that would give you grounds for the intercessio.
However, I hope that the Curule Aedile will withdraw the statement of his own
accord now that he understands the seriousness of the situation.

FABIVS


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration
From:	casca@post.com
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2003 12:22:45 -0500

Salve, Cives

I fully agree with the spirit that Manius Constantinus Serapio gave in his message, a portion of which, which reflects my own attitude, I shall leave in.

I am an American who who served twenty+ years in the Army on active duty, but I cannot feel the same for this conflict as I did the years I spent in SouthEast Asia.

I think this stems from the fact that this time it is not me who is involved, but a son in the Air Force, a son-in-law in the Army, and - by extension - my daughter who is married to that son-in-law.

I pray that this is over quickly, with as little loss of life to any side as possible. I've seen people hurt and killed. Ladies and Gentlemen, believe me, war sucks.

Valete,

Gaius Ursus Casca
Roman Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:18:24 -0000
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration

>In Nova Roma there are American, Australian, British, French,
> Spanish, Italian and German citizens. In my opinion this declaration
> is meant not to hurt any of these citizens which are in some way
> involved.
>
> So, please, if a person tell you he wants peace, don't think
> immediatly he's making a political statement.
>
> BENE VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Qvaestor> >
>

--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] To the Tribunes, Veto
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:49:57 EST

In a message dated 4/5/03 8:20:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, sceptia@yahoo.es
writes:
Salvete et Salve L·DIDI·GEMINE·SCEPTI

> But in this case, I ask again: Is it possible to use a veto against a
> Will Declaration (And I mean a FREEDOM FOR SPEECH case)??
>

Tribune,
We are not suppressing freedom of speech here. The Aedile is entitled to his
beliefs.
I agree with his personal stance BTW.
However, when he changes the very nature of the games to express this belief,
he has let his
personal opinion become a political statement. There is no longer any
individuality involved. He bends all of Nova Roma to his will, by changing
the games' nature, even their
very purpose, to something he wants to do.
We elect officials to handle things for us, since we personally do not wish
to do them for various reasons. By electing him, we assume he will carry
things out in the time honored tradition. He has not. Therefore we are
requesting that he be forced to do so.

FABIVS



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Respect (WAS: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:31:45 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
citizens & peregrines, greetings.

> > Senator Sinicius Drusus suggested that respect
> must be
> > earned by one's actions.
>
> Actually, that was me.

My apologies. I seem to have a habit of confusing one
person with another if the one's nomen has the same
initial as the other's cognomen - I believe I did it
once with Senators Cassius Iulianus and Iunius
Palladius.

> And I agree completely - but that degree of respect
> (at least in my
> opinion) is not something that can be gratuitously
> leveraged to silence
> opposing opinion.

Quite so, and I hope I am correct in reading the
Aediles' appeal for respect to mean not that they wish
on that account to avoid criticism, but that the
criticism itself be respectful, as I am sad to say it
has not altogether been, though I don't think you are
among those who have crossed that pomerium, and it
seems in any case that decorum now prevails on all
sides.

> I would have to disagree here. Showing respect to
> someone who does not
> deserve it is something that I consider deeply
> dishonest, and alien to
> my concept of dignity. I note that the above is
> often stated as an
> example of a proper way *for others* to behave, but
> I cannot say that
> I've ever seen it practiced in reality.

I can well understand this feeling, and indeed I
agree; however, since I am not persuaded that there is
any person who does not deserve respect, it brings me
back to my belief that to show respect to all is quite
consonant with dignity. This is not, of course, to say
that it is not appropriate to respect different people
to different degrees; merely that I do not feel it
appropriate to show disrespect to any.

As for the practice of one's own preaching, I take
your point, and I hope that if anyone catches me
straying from my own precepts they will tell me so -
respectfully, of course!

> I must strongly disagree with this. Respect does not
> equal duty; I am no
> more able to give my respect where I do not feel it
> than to pull the
> moon down from the sky. Likewise, I am just as
> unable to withhold it
> when I do feel it. There are laws that I must obey
> and forms that I must
> follow when I'm dealing with an elected official in
> an official context;
> this does not mean that they have my respect.

Well, naturally I would not seek to tell anyone that
he must feel what he does not feel, though I am of the
view that to observe forms of behaviour which do not
accord with one's own feelings is not hypocrisy
provided that it is done in the hope of transforming
one's inner state by means of one's outer actions; or
to put it less vaguely, one may shake the hand of a
man to whom one is well-disposed, but one may also
shake the hand of one to whom one is ill-disposed in
the hope that by shaking his hand one may come to feel
better disposed toward him.

There is an apsect of my argument which I think I did
not put across very well, which is this: here is our
nation, and here are the people, who are sovereign. We
respect the nation; this is the same as saying that we
respect the people. The will of the people is the
force on which the nation is based, and by which law
is made and officers elected. Thus we respect the will
of the people. This is exemplified by the fact that in
the ancient republic a veto could not be employed
against a legislative proposal once the polls had
opened and the voting had begun, because once the
voting had begun the people had begun to express its
will, which was superior to the force of any
magisterial veto - the swarming mass of voters heading
for the urns was like Zeus as he nodded, in that
famous passage of the Iliad whose chapter and verse I
forget.

So the law and the magistrates are effectively
expressions of the will of the people, and in that
capacity are to be respected as the people are to be
respected, and as indeed the republic itself is to be
respected. If, say, one of our Consuls went to meet
the diplomatic representative of another nation, we
would regard any disrespect shown to him as an act of
disrespect to our nation and ourselves; but he is no
less a representative of the nation at home that
abroad, and it is appropriate that we should show him
the same respect that we would expect from a foreign
ambassador.

Ambassadors and heads of state can, however, disagree
extensively, as we have seen in the last few months of
international events (and while I am sad to say that
there has been shameful disrespect shown in many of
these encounters, most people would regard this as
aberrant rather than proper, and rightly so).
Similarly there is no reason why we cannot both
respect and disagree with our own representatives.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:39:10 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator & Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla and to all citizens & peregrines,
greetings.

> I tend to keep the past two previous replies in my
> post to help maintain the flow of the conversation.

Since you raise this question (or perhaps it was
Minucius Scaevola who raised it in the first instance,
I forget), I hope you don't mind my saying that while
it is helpful to be able to refer back in a
conversation, I personally find it more helpful when
the relevant parts of previous messages are integrated
into the body of the message, as indeed you yourself
often do, rather than simply reproduced at the bottom.
Indeed I often don't notice when they are reproduced
at the bottom, as I generally assume when I reach a
signature that the message has ended, and so I stop
reading.

Of course I leave myself open to the objection that as
a student I can spend time editing and integrating
other people's messages in my replies which working
people cannot spare! But I thought since there was a
question as to what people find more helpful, I'd
chime in to state my own preferences.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] New telecomm laws: possible problems
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:51:35 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
citizens & peregrines, greetings.

> (1) A person shall not assemble, develop,
> manufacture, possess, deliver,
> offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful
> telecommunications access
> device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> deliver, offer to
> deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device
> intending to use those
> devices or to allow the devices to be used to do
> any of the following or
> knowing or having reason to know that the devices
> are intended to be used
> to do any of the following:
>
> (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or
> destination of any
> telecommunications service.
>
> (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit,
> retransmit, acquire,
> intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption,
> decryption,
> transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or
> interception of any
> telecommunications service without the express
> authority or actual consent
> of the telecommunications service provider.

This does sound worrying, but I'm having trouble
penetrating the jargon - I don't know whether it's
legal jargon or telecommunications jargon. Who are you
suggesting might be considered to be a "person [who
might] assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" a
telecommunications device? And what would constitute a
fulfilment of clauses a) or b)? I can't see any
mention anywhere of a person not being permitted to
*use* a telecommunications device which would do a) or
b), so which bit of this makes it illegal to cast an
anonymous vote?

Apologies for being so slow on the up-take.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 14:27:03 -0500

Ave, G. Iulius Scaurus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 07:31:53AM -0000, Gregory Rose wrote:
>
> I am grateful for the suggestions on Greek fonts. I have nearly a
> dozen of them that I can use locally, but I have been unable to
> determine if Unicode UTF-8 is available for a Mac running OS 9.1. I
> know that OS X is Unicode-compliant, but I'd like to avoid having to
> install a system upgrade just to use Greek characters in the
> occasional email. Any suggestions?

Since you have the fonts installed, I believe that simply setting your
browser to UTF-8 as the character encoding should do it. The Greek list
(Anamathetes) that I'm currently participating in has a number of people
using Macs; if the above setting doesn't handle the problem, I'm willing
to post your question there if you ask.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.
All of them wound, the last one kills.
-- In reference to the hours; old inscription found on clocks

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] New telecomm laws: possible problems
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:06:16 -0500

Salve, A. Apollonius Cordus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 07:51:35PM +0100, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
> citizens & peregrines, greetings.
>
> > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop,
> > manufacture, possess, deliver,
> > offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful
> > telecommunications access
> > device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> > deliver, offer to
> > deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device
> > intending to use those
> > devices or to allow the devices to be used to do
> > any of the following or
> > knowing or having reason to know that the devices
> > are intended to be used
> > to do any of the following:
> >
> > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or
> > destination of any
> > telecommunications service.
> >
> > (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit,
> > retransmit, acquire,
> > intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption,
> > decryption,
> > transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or
> > interception of any
> > telecommunications service without the express
> > authority or actual consent
> > of the telecommunications service provider.
>
> This does sound worrying, but I'm having trouble
> penetrating the jargon - I don't know whether it's
> legal jargon or telecommunications jargon.

All legal, from what I can see, although the terms come from the telecom
and security domains.

> Who are you
> suggesting might be considered to be a "person [who
> might] assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" a
> telecommunications device?

To strip it down to the essentials, there are several important effects:
under 1(b), any programmer who writes, e.g., a piece of software which
anonymizes an address - and voting software definitely fits that
description - is guilty of violating that law. Nova Roma, by possessing
that piece of software, would also be in violation. Further, anyone who
runs a firewall, router, address translator (NAT/Masquerade), or shares
their connection with other machines is also in violation. (BTW, a piece
of software is a "device" in the legal meaning; see the PGP/Zimmerman
case where it's defined as a "munition" as well.)

There's lots of discussion on these issues on RISKS, Bugtraq (security
forum), EFF.org, and many other sites concerned with privacy and
security.

> And what would constitute a
> fulfilment of clauses a) or b)? I can't see any
> mention anywhere of a person not being permitted to
> *use* a telecommunications device which would do a) or
> b), so which bit of this makes it illegal to cast an
> anonymous vote?

This would mostly reflect on Nova Roma receiving such communications.
Unless you yourself run a router... which you may, unknowingly.
Earthlink, for example, has been including firewall/NAT functionality in
their "home networking" package for a few years now; I wonder how
they're coping with this suddenly-created exposure. If you're an
Earthlink customer, note that you're exposed as well; if you use the NAT
feature and live in one of the affected states, you're definitely in
violation.

> Apologies for being so slow on the up-take.

Not at all. It's a highly complex issue, one that requires a good
understanding of technology and legal issues involved in it. The effect,
however, is as real as a hammer.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Imperium et libertas.
Empire and liberty.
-- Benjamin Disraeli; from Cicero and Tacitus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 22:23:38 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
>
>
>“Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
>it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.“
>
>You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
>
I think they would be insulted by reference to 'the race card'.


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

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 22:23:57 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
>
>
>“Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
>it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.“
>
>You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
>
I think they would be insulted by reference to 'playing the race card'.


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

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:16:10 -0500

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:23:57PM +0100, me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
> >
> >
> >?Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
> >it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.?
> >
> >You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
> >
> I think they would be insulted by reference to 'playing the race card'.

<mildly> Exactly who are "they", pray tell?


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dulce bellum inexpertis.
War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it.
-- Pindaros

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day:
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 22:37:11 +0100 (BST)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
>
>Yes - except that the racist in his case was not a random entity as in
>the above paragraph but a group described by the dismissive term
>“Pinkskins“. That implication - “pink skin == racist“ - was precisely
>what I found offensive.
>
The reference, if you need it spelt out in its entirety was that Romans like most ancient cultures were more dismissive according to cultural difference than to physical appearance and would discriminate according to behaviour whereas the mark of a racist would be [for example] to accept the reality of different-hued persons in high position while continuing to deny them equal access to the same facilities, as was the case in South Africa and in parts of the USA when world-renowned highly payed entertainers such as Sammy Davis Jr. found themselves debarred from staying or even drinking in the same hotel paying them a fortune to entertain. In the common situation it has been those with brown skins debarred from sharing with those of pink skin, though one might make a case for Papa Doc's Haiti or present Zimbabwe as a case of the reverse. As I have never seen anyone with white skin even on a slab with a Formaldhyde drip attached, nor of black skin outside of certain Indian demons and gods and those inaccurate terminologies are overloaded with prejudicial baggage, it seemed appropriate to use the more accurate neologisms Pinkskin, Brownskin and Goldskin as a generality.

Caesariensis.


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

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
From:	"Spurius Postumius" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:45:41 -0500

Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

I too have read the joint declaration of the Aediles that has caused much more controversy than I think is truly necessary, and in reaction to the endless posts that keep showing themselves in this forum, I feel that I must put in my thoughts on the situation.

First of all, I think Aedile Marcus Scribonius made the best point I have seen on this subject so far when he said, "Can't we all just enjoy the Ludi?" I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if that is of concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of the involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our esteemed magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were elected by the populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly, rather than being forced to accept their positions.

Secondly, I would like to point out that we are all here of our own free will. If you see something going that badly within *our* Republic, what are you going to do to rectify the situation? Step into the forum and merely complain that you dislike the current status quo? What does that do? If something is that wrong, when the time comes, put your toga on, step into the forum, and put yourself up for election. The people will voice their opinion, and if it is not in your favor, step back into your place and let the elected magistrates do their jobs. They were elected for a reason, let them serve as best they can.

Third, I have to ask: Must we always publicly criticize every action of a magistrate we disagree with? Honestly, Quirites, I have to say that this is unnecessary. I think we all have good enough command of language to take up our disagreements privately, and offer subsequent suggestions for better actions. But what I am curious to know is whether we have the maturity and the restraint to do so. But only time will show me whether or not we have this.

In any case, such is my stance.

Valete,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"In domo maiorum vivimus."

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] New telecomm laws: possible problems
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:55:00 -0600 (CST)

> (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
> offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access
> device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to
> deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those
> devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or
> knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used
> to do any of the following:

> (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
> telecommunications service.

They've just described every router and every host connected to the
Internet that runs a relatively recent operating system. Every
Cisco router has NAT; every Windows machine has it (which means that
Microsoft violates this law several thousand times daily).

This is a monumentally stupid law.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://konoko.net/~haase/

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 14:58:30 -0800

Ave!

I do understand. Personally what I do not find helpful are long sig lines and sig lines that are longer than the post. As I noted to C. Municius. Posts are far more important than sig lines (espeically if you already know who you are responding too, and it is clearly identified for other readers.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)


A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator & Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla and to all citizens & peregrines,
greetings.

> I tend to keep the past two previous replies in my
> post to help maintain the flow of the conversation.

Since you raise this question (or perhaps it was
Minucius Scaevola who raised it in the first instance,
I forget), I hope you don't mind my saying that while
it is helpful to be able to refer back in a
conversation, I personally find it more helpful when
the relevant parts of previous messages are integrated
into the body of the message, as indeed you yourself
often do, rather than simply reproduced at the bottom.
Indeed I often don't notice when they are reproduced
at the bottom, as I generally assume when I reach a
signature that the message has ended, and so I stop
reading.

Of course I leave myself open to the objection that as
a student I can spend time editing and integrating
other people's messages in my replies which working
people cannot spare! But I thought since there was a
question as to what people find more helpful, I'd
chime in to state my own preferences.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:03:55 -0800

Ave, Sp. Postimus,

I do not think you truly understand the issue here. Its not about the Ludi,
its about the Religio. Which is the official Religion in Nova Roma. When
it is tampered with, those citizens who actively believe and perform the
duties of the Religio take it with utmost seriousness. One simply cannot
change areas they do not believe about the Religio to suit their own needs.
This does not happen with Judiasm (the Religion I practice). It should not
happen to the practice of the Religio Romana. The Religio Romana should be
practiced in its pure form as it was practiced in the time of the ancients.
Of course this is just my opinion, but by reading your post, you did not
seem to understand the big picture here and the big picture is that the
Religio Romana is why Nova Roma was founded in the first place.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@gmx.net>
To: "Main List" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy


> Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> I too have read the joint declaration of the Aediles that has caused much
more controversy than I think is truly necessary, and in reaction to the
endless posts that keep showing themselves in this forum, I feel that I must
put in my thoughts on the situation.
>
> First of all, I think Aedile Marcus Scribonius made the best point I have
seen on this subject so far when he said, "Can't we all just enjoy the
Ludi?" I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if that
is of concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of the
involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our esteemed
magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were elected by the
populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly, rather than
being forced to accept their positions.
>
> Secondly, I would like to point out that we are all here of our own free
will. If you see something going that badly within *our* Republic, what are
you going to do to rectify the situation? Step into the forum and merely
complain that you dislike the current status quo? What does that do? If
something is that wrong, when the time comes, put your toga on, step into
the forum, and put yourself up for election. The people will voice their
opinion, and if it is not in your favor, step back into your place and let
the elected magistrates do their jobs. They were elected for a reason, let
them serve as best they can.
>
> Third, I have to ask: Must we always publicly criticize every action of a
magistrate we disagree with? Honestly, Quirites, I have to say that this is
unnecessary. I think we all have good enough command of language to take up
our disagreements privately, and offer subsequent suggestions for better
actions. But what I am curious to know is whether we have the maturity and
the restraint to do so. But only time will show me whether or not we have
this.
>
> In any case, such is my stance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>
> "In domo maiorum vivimus."
>
>
> 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] Nova Roman Controversy
From:	"Spurius Postumius" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:27:18 -0500

Salve Senator Sulla,

Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed understand the issue. I myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with the Ludi, but I also cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to respect the opinions of some of the citizens. But I don't think you understand what I tried to say. I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's actions, why not first take it up in private before bringing things into the public forum. While I cannot say that this course of action was not taken, I just want to make the point that the course of action would have most likely been more effective if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there is that much of a problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not take it, after bringing it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the Collegium Pontificium. The Religio is their responsibility.

Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think, was trying to please everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I think he tried to respect some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those who were not pleased, and move on.

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"In domo maiorum vivimus."

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:30:56 -0800

Ave, Sp. Postumius,

The problem is how can a man tamper and corrupt the Religio. I am
activately waiting for our Pontifex Maximus to return from his trip to
comment on this considering that our only Augur has asked for a veto, and
another Pontiff has voiced strong displeasure. I hope that the Magistrates
who are entitled to veto this "declaration" might for the sake of the
Religio veto this measure before the CP are summoned, but if not I will wait
for the Pontifex Maximus to intervene, and ask him privately via email to
intervene.

This attempt to dilute the Religo's practices and rituals is a corruption of
the offical Religion of Nova Roma, in my opinion. And as I have spoken out
when I have felt that members of Xtianity have been criticised, I am now
speaking out just as vehmently when I see the Official Religion in Nova Roma
being corrupted by men who do not have the knowledge, authority or
relationship with the Gods.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@gmx.net>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy


> Salve Senator Sulla,
>
> Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed understand the issue. I
myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with the Ludi, but I also
cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to respect the opinions of
some of the citizens. But I don't think you understand what I tried to say.
I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's actions, why not first
take it up in private before bringing things into the public forum. While I
cannot say that this course of action was not taken, I just want to make the
point that the course of action would have most likely been more effective
if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there is that much of a
problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not take it, after bringing
it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the Collegium Pontificium. The
Religio is their responsibility.
>
> Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think, was trying to please
everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I think he tried to respect
some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those who were not pleased,
and move on.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>
> "In domo maiorum vivimus."
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>