| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:16:02 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/6/03 2:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
salixastur@yahoo.es writes:
> It does; but it just shows how mistaken you are, sorry :-).
>
>
Fine, lets meet next week in Madrid with sharpened Gladiuses. Then we will
see who is mistaken.
Once again you prove nothing except that you a newcomer has no clue what we
are about.
That's my opinion, but I think the rest of the college will agree.
If you wanted a light hearted entertainment, then don't pattern it on a real
event. If you just called it a Ludi, I couldn't care less. I was
entertaining the populace with virtual gaming, long before you were
interested in NR.
If what you are saying is this is not a recreation of the Megalesia, then I
understand your puzzlement at my outrage. So why even involve the college,
then?
Oh and you aren't a very astute. Our whole constitution is based on
precedent, as was most
the rulings by Iudex. That was why formulae were invented. To standardize.
So since this is not a true recreation of the Megalesia as you have said, hey
no harm no foul.
FABIVS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 00:20:23 -0000 |
|
Salvete Maximus and others,
I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you, Sulla
and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus Gnaeus
Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
people are
> saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.
What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the majority
of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we
are
> picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight we
are not
> much of a recreation are
> we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
would not be
> making
> this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently that
told you
> this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday? What
kind of punishment they suggested you?
I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
controversy?
> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
this is true,
> tells me
> that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes
bloodless
> games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is welcome
to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We
have
> attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, or
when unable
> to do so use divine inspiration
> to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess,
one who is
> dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
Goddess
> arrival in Rome and her intervention
> allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to the
prophecy.
Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the intervation
of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years and
I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor
with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to
throw a
> giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to
Rome and
> winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
right since we
> do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
Magistrates could
> not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
state
> function.
> That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this from
happening.
I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy Magna
Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project for
a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of the
ruins, the study of a big project.
And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games (Naumachiae,
Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
honorate and make happy my Goddess.
What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not writing
bloodly scenes?
Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more to
make happy the Gods?
Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
friends.
> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood
is being
> shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making
their own
> decisions on
> how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
carried out.
> There in lies the
> harm.
I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of the
Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The majority
of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and I'll
not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except your
friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my Office.
Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate elected
by the Nova Romans?
I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the higher
Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
Tradition?...
> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
necessary or not,
>
> it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of a
political
> statement.
Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I have
changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent scenes.
Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
changement of the Tradition?
MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
LUDI??
Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none of
> us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
large Texas
> cookout
> is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow, cook
it, then
> eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses, maybe
in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
accept your objections. They are not logical and several people and
Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect about
your position and move a step back.
[After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com |
| Date: |
Sun, 06 Apr 2003 20:47:10 -0400 |
|
So there will be another run-off election. That will make it five correct? I think perhaps election reform is in order.
G. Modius Athanasius
In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar writes:
> Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
>
> Salvete,
>
> The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant office of Tribunus Plebis
> have been certified by the Rogatores.
> Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes, the identities of the
> citizens that voted could easily
> be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by each candidate will not be
> published.
> Here below are the results given to me by honorables rogatores :
> The votes for the fourth run-off election for Tribunus
> Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
>
> 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes, in
> 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
>
> While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did not
> receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as follows:
>
> Count of Uncontested Tribes:
>
> Geminius: 5
> Modius: 11 Tribes
> Popillius: 10 Tribes
>
> Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for in
> two tribes , but did not win them.
>
> As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the tied
> tribes, so this, resulted in:
>
> Modius: 16 Tribes
>
>
> On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3 candidates for their continued participation and fortitude!
> My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for all of their hard work and helpfulness.
>
> Valete,
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Tribunus Plebis
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:58:32 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete,
Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
to build stages for performances. We have to make due
with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
that for the present.
My Objection isn't based on the historic accuracy of
our games. It's based on the concept of a magistrate
making changes based on political or personal beliefs.
Games that are held on behalf of the state should
never be changed because of a magistrate's personal
beliefs. If any citizen feels that his/her personal
beliefs would prevent him/her from carrying out the
duties attached to an office then they should refrain
from contesting that office or resign from it.
This only applies to games held on behalf of the
state. If a citizen wishes to stage private games as a
matter of largesse, then they have more freedom.
If these were your private games I would make no
objection. If the Gods were displeased with them, then
thier displeasure would fall on you, not on the state.
However these aren't your games. They are Nova Roma's
games, and you can't place Nova Roma is a postion of
posibily displeasing the Gods because of a personal
whim.
--- Franciscus Apulus Caesar <fraelov@yahoo.it> wrote:
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my
> "mistaken", why you, Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to
> Illustrus Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct
> answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do
> understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past
> message, the majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus
> Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize
> violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the
> precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the
> past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are
> recreation of Rome, and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st
> century hindsight we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as
> you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to
> recently that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild
> guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
> yesterday? What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position
> like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to
> stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact
> that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation
> at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova
> Roma," and he promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice
> and he is welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive
> the Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the
> ancients' writings, or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of
> the Great Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great
> Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration
> commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War,
> according to the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert,
> please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke
> the intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what
> Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and
> violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the
> last two years and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to
> maintain her favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not
> just an excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to
> think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say
> that her coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine,
> that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are
> elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The
> Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety
> like this from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I
> make happy Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a
> REAL project for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is
> happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my
> work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution,
> the check of the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4
> games (Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria),
> prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer
> video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is
> my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as
> Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if
> I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but
> i'm not writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I
> could do more to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you,
> Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual,
> and no real blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected
> magistrates are making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious
> meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The
> majority of the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting
> games. The majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
> declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my
> Office and I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However
> nobody (except your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to
> resign my Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a
> Magistrate elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody
> (except the higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you
> want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood
> sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition
> for the sake of a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I
> ask you what I have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other
> Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't
> violent scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
> Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't
> organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the
> "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE
> TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being
> since none of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it
> out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all,
> that is all a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You
> slaughter a cow, cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and
> running horses, maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue
> my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using
> this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble
> and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and
> several people and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have
> to reflect about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I
> started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly
> and I don't feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
=====
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] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 18:09:44 -0700 (PDT) |
|
I Concur.
The Elections have been drug out far too long,
primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires a
canidate who fails to reach a minium level of support
in an election or a runoff be striken from the ballots
only leaving serious canidates that have a reasonable
chance of being elected.
--- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> So there will be another run-off election. That
> will make it five correct? I think perhaps election
> reform is in order.
>
> G. Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar writes:
>
> > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant
> office of Tribunus Plebis
> > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes,
> the identities of the
> > citizens that voted could easily
> > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by
> each candidate will not be
> > published.
> > Here below are the results given to me by
> honorables rogatores :
> > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> Tribunus
> > Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
> >
> > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes,
> in
> > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> >
> > While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did
> not
> > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as
> follows:
> >
> > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> >
> > Geminius: 5
> > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> >
> > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for
> in
> > two tribes , but did not win them.
> >
> > As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the
> tied
> > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> >
> > Modius: 16 Tribes
> >
> >
> > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius
> Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> candidates for their continued participation and
> fortitude!
> > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for
> all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > Tribunus Plebis
>
>
=====
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: Scattered thoughts on race |
| From: |
"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 00:52:27 -0000 |
|
G. Iulius Scaurus Cn. Iulio Straboni salutem dicit.
Salve, Cn. Iuli, propinque.
Rereading my posting I discovered a typo which completely reversed
what I meant to say. It should have read:
"I had vaguely recalled the passage in Dio, but did _not_ remember exactly
how the Greek went."
Vale, propinque.
G. Iulius Scaurus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 23:07:21 -0400 |
|
Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
I have a better and simpler solution.
If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune, where five are elected,
then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up to, but no more than
five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five or less but no more than
five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and each voter should be
allowed to vote for each office.
In the election for Consul each voter would be allowed to vote for up to two
candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
If we adopt this reform or something close to it the need for run off
election will most likely come to and end.
Vale
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>; <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
<tribunes@yahoogroups.com>; <NR_Argentina@gruposyahoo.com.ar>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
> I Concur.
>
> The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
> on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
>
> I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires a
> canidate who fails to reach a minium level of support
> in an election or a runoff be striken from the ballots
> only leaving serious canidates that have a reasonable
> chance of being elected.
>
>
> --- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > will make it five correct? I think perhaps election
> > reform is in order.
> >
> > G. Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar writes:
> >
> > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant
> > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes,
> > the identities of the
> > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by
> > each candidate will not be
> > > published.
> > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > honorables rogatores :
> > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > Tribunus
> > > Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
> > >
> > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes,
> > in
> > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > >
> > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did
> > not
> > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as
> > follows:
> > >
> > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > >
> > > Geminius: 5
> > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > >
> > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for
> > in
> > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > >
> > > As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the
> > tied
> > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > >
> > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > >
> > >
> > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius
> > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > candidates for their continued participation and
> > fortitude!
> > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for
> > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:18:38 -0700 (PDT) |
|
That would decrease representation. I will use the
names of the American Political Parties as an example.
The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
will feel they have no stake in it's government.
--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
>
> I have a better and simpler solution.
>
> If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> where five are elected,
> then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> to, but no more than
> five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> or less but no more than
> five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> each voter should be
> allowed to vote for each office.
>
> In the election for Consul each voter would be
> allowed to vote for up to two
> candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
>
> If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> need for run off
> election will most likely come to and end.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
> Fortuna Favet Fortibus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> <NR_Argentina@gruposyahoo.com.ar>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> results
>
>
> > I Concur.
> >
> > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> name
> > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> >
> > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> a
> > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> support
> > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> ballots
> > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> reasonable
> > chance of being elected.
> >
> >
> > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> election
> > > reform is in order.
> > >
> > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar writes:
> > >
> > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > >
> > > > Salvete,
> > > >
> > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> vacant
> > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> Tribes,
> > > the identities of the
> > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> by
> > > each candidate will not be
> > > > published.
> > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > Tribunus
> > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> resolved.
> > > >
> > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> votes,
> > > in
> > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > >
> > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> the
> > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> did
> > > not
> > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> are as
> > > follows:
> > > >
> > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > >
> > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > >
> > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> for
> > > in
> > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > >
> > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> uncontested
> > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> are
> > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> the
> > > tied
> > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > >
> > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> Didius
> > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > fortitude!
> > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> for
> > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
=====
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] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 23:44:16 -0400 |
|
Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
That may be true and it may not be true.
We have five Tribunes of the people and all were so posed to take office
January 1, the fourth one took office a few weeks ago. It is now April 6th
the next and last tribune will most likely not take office until May at the
earliest.
FIVE MONTHS into office.
I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
We have five county Commissioners that are elected in the general election
out of 10 candidates from the major political parties. Sometimes the
Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans do. Most of the time it
is a majority that cross party lines and is held together by different
views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no Growth.
Elections are the place where a "factions" ideals get tested.
It was once said in the USA that that on any given day in a legislative body
there are "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies" because each issue
will bring about new "factions" and new groupings.
Election reform is needed. What form if will finally take I do not know but
the debate on it is just beginning.
Vale
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
> That would decrease representation. I will use the
> names of the American Political Parties as an example.
> The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
> and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
> lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
> will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
> will feel they have no stake in it's government.
>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> >
> > I have a better and simpler solution.
> >
> > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > where five are elected,
> > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> > to, but no more than
> > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> > or less but no more than
> > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> > each voter should be
> > allowed to vote for each office.
> >
> > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > allowed to vote for up to two
> > candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
> >
> > If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> > need for run off
> > election will most likely come to and end.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <NR_Argentina@gruposyahoo.com.ar>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> > results
> >
> >
> > > I Concur.
> > >
> > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> > name
> > > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> > >
> > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> > a
> > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > support
> > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > ballots
> > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > reasonable
> > > chance of being elected.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> > > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > election
> > > > reform is in order.
> > > >
> > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > > Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete,
> > > > >
> > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > vacant
> > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > Tribes,
> > > > the identities of the
> > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> > by
> > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > published.
> > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > > Tribunus
> > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > votes,
> > > > in
> > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > > >
> > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> > the
> > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> > did
> > > > not
> > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> > are as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> > for
> > > > in
> > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > uncontested
> > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> > are
> > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> > the
> > > > tied
> > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > >
> > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > Didius
> > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > > fortitude!
> > > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> > for
> > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > >
> > > Roman Citizen
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > forms, and more
> > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"deciusiunius" <bcatfd@together.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 03:52:29 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites.
Salve G. Salix,
> Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are, just
>in case someone does not know. The ludi are basically fictional
> *stories* written by the members of the aedilician cohors.
>
> So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
> case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact, it
> is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.
>
> What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is going
> to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will die! That
> is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).
Well, then if one turns this argument around, one could reasonably
say it sounds absurd to say there will be no blood in games that are
already bloodless since they are virtual. One might even ask how it
can go against one's conscience to describe virtual, *fictional*
games in which virtual and *fictional* animals or people may die?
> If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
> starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
> would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows; I
> think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana believe
> that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are talking
>about stories. Fictional narration. Fun and entertainment.
Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we were
able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have a
crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I am
not able to understand his perspective on this issue. Next I suppose
the Age of Empires tournament that has been discussed would have to
be cancelled because it portrays deaths of game characters.
> This is simply a non-issue. I personally take the Religio Romana
> *very* seriously. What the aedlician cohors do does not look like a
> religious practice to me, so it is highly improbable that they
>might be performing an impious action.
I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not an
official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.
Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?
Vale,
Decius Iunius Palladius
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy |
| From: |
"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:57:17 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Since you have brought it up.
I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
There has been a find of chemicals that have had the
solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to be
small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.
Brutis
--- me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From : “L. Sicinius Drusus“ <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
>
> >He's a specilist in Chem/Bio Warfare defense, so
> I'm
> >pretty sure He's near Baghdad, since that is where
> >they are most worried that the Butcher would use
> the
> >weapons. We haven't heard from him since the first
> day
> >of the war.
> >
> What would frighten me is the possibility of
> infecting Iraqis with some plague with or without
> antidote so they do not succumb themselves, and hand
> the invaders a batch of Typhoid Annies.
>
> Caesariensis.
>
>
> --
> Personalised email by http://another.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"deciusiunius" <bcatfd@together.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 04:17:54 -0000 |
|
Salve Druse,
Not to mention we have used this system in the past. NR voting was
held that way for the first couple of years. We switched from one
vote per open office to one vote per position to prevent any powerful
faction from dominating NR politics. It forces them to prioritize
their votes.
I was actually against switching to the current system. I thought
that only one vote per position was partially disenfranchising the NR
voter. In retrospect, I admit I was wrong and believe the current
system is a good safeguard against factional politics. I do think
that changing the requirement from a majority to a plurality would
help prevent constant runoffs.
In the current election, it would be the noble thing for the
candidate with the least support to drop out of the race.
Vale,
Palladius
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> That would decrease representation. I will use the
> names of the American Political Parties as an example.
> The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
> and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
> lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
> will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
> will feel they have no stake in it's government.
>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> >
> > I have a better and simpler solution.
> >
> > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > where five are elected,
> > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> > to, but no more than
> > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> > or less but no more than
> > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> > each voter should be
> > allowed to vote for each office.
> >
> > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > allowed to vote for up to two
> > candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
> >
> > If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> > need for run off
> > election will most likely come to and end.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <NR_Argentina@g...>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> > results
> >
> >
> > > I Concur.
> > >
> > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> > name
> > > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> > >
> > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> > a
> > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > support
> > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > ballots
> > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > reasonable
> > > chance of being elected.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > election
> > > > reform is in order.
> > > >
> > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > > Standard Time, danielovi@c... writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete,
> > > > >
> > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > vacant
> > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > Tribes,
> > > > the identities of the
> > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> > by
> > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > published.
> > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > > Tribunus
> > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > votes,
> > > > in
> > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > > >
> > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> > the
> > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> > did
> > > > not
> > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> > are as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> > for
> > > > in
> > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > uncontested
> > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> > are
> > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> > the
> > > > tied
> > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > >
> > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > Didius
> > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > > fortitude!
> > > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> > for
> > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > >
> > > Roman Citizen
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > forms, and more
> > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:22:50 -0700 (PDT) |
|
I Do agree that reform is needed. The Tribune
Elections are being hled under a lex who's preamble
states
" Preamble. Given that, for some of the magistracies
of the Res Publica, run-off elections have proved to
be a frequent affair; and given that those run-off
elections mean a serious waste of time and effort both
for our magistrates and our citizenry, this law
pursues to reduce the frequency of those run-off
elections by increasing the number of votes cast by
each citizen"
Since we have had more runoffs under this lex than
under previous laws it has to be regarded as a
failure.
This problem first surfaced when we moved to a
majority of all the tribes as the threshold for
election.
I would like to move back to having the canidates who
recive the greatest number of votes elected with a
minimum threshold of 40% in the event that a great
number of canidates are running, with each citizen
casting 1 vote. In the event of a runoff there needs
to be a minimum ammount of support to make the runoff
ballot, or a cutoff of the number of open postions
plus one, ie if there are three open spots for
tribunes in a runoff only the top four non elected
canidates would be eligable for the runoff ballot.
--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> That may be true and it may not be true.
>
> We have five Tribunes of the people and all were so
> posed to take office
> January 1, the fourth one took office a few weeks
> ago. It is now April 6th
> the next and last tribune will most likely not take
> office until May at the
> earliest.
>
> FIVE MONTHS into office.
>
> I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
> We have five county Commissioners that are elected
> in the general election
> out of 10 candidates from the major political
> parties. Sometimes the
> Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans
> do. Most of the time it
> is a majority that cross party lines and is held
> together by different
> views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no
> Growth.
>
> Elections are the place where a "factions" ideals
> get tested.
>
> It was once said in the USA that that on any given
> day in a legislative body
> there are "no permanent friends and no permanent
> enemies" because each issue
> will bring about new "factions" and new groupings.
>
> Election reform is needed. What form if will finally
> take I do not know but
> the debate on it is just beginning.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> results
>
>
> > That would decrease representation. I will use the
> > names of the American Political Parties as an
> example.
> > The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> > canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> > Republicans they will always elect both the
> Consuls,
> > and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This
> will
> > lead to frustration and soon the minority
> Democrats
> > will start drifting away from Nova Roma because
> they
> > will feel they have no stake in it's government.
> >
> > --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> > >
> > > I have a better and simpler solution.
> > >
> > > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > > where five are elected,
> > > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for
> up
> > > to, but no more than
> > > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for
> five
> > > or less but no more than
> > > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office
> and
> > > each voter should be
> > > allowed to vote for each office.
> > >
> > > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > > allowed to vote for up to two
> > > candidates , because we are electing two
> Consuls.
> > >
> > > If we adopt this reform or something close to it
> the
> > > need for run off
> > > election will most likely come to and end.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Citizen
> > > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <NR_Argentina@gruposyahoo.com.ar>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis
> tributa
> > > results
> > >
> > >
> > > > I Concur.
> > > >
> > > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > > primarly because one canidate, who has not
> activly
> > > > campaigned nor recived much support has left
> his
> > > name
> > > > on the ballot throughout these endless
> runoffs.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that
> requires
> > > a
> > > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > > support
> > > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > > ballots
> > > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > > reasonable
> > > > chance of being elected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > So there will be another run-off election.
> That
> > > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > > election
> > > > > reform is in order.
> > > > >
> > > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM
> Eastern
> > > > > Standard Time, danielovi@ciudad.com.ar
> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > > vacant
> > > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > > Tribes,
> > > > > the identities of the
> > > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers
> won
> > > by
> > > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > > published.
> > > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election
> for
> > > > > Tribunus
> > > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > > resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > > votes,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4
> tribes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that
> candidate
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The
> results
> > > are as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was
> voted
> > > for
> > > > > in
> > > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > > uncontested
> > > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a
> candidate
> > > are
> > > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > tied
> > > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues
> Marcus
> > > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > > Didius
> > > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our
> 3
> > > > > candidates for their continued participation
> and
> > > > > fortitude!
> > > > > > My personal thanks to our team of
> Rogatores
> > > for
> > > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > >
> > > > Roman Citizen
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > > forms, and more
> > > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
=====
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] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:38:51 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salve,
Since the canidate with the least support has shown no
intention to step aside for the good of Nova Roma,
despite causing repeated runoffs persuing a hopeless
canidacy, we need an election law that sets minimum
standards to make the ballot for the runoff so that in
the future minor canidates with little support won't
tie up elections for months by forcing repeated
runoffs.
--- deciusiunius <bcatfd@together.net> wrote:
>
> Salve Druse,
>
> Not to mention we have used this system in the past.
> NR voting was
> held that way for the first couple of years. We
> switched from one
> vote per open office to one vote per position to
> prevent any powerful
> faction from dominating NR politics. It forces them
> to prioritize
> their votes.
>
> I was actually against switching to the current
> system. I thought
> that only one vote per position was partially
> disenfranchising the NR
> voter. In retrospect, I admit I was wrong and
> believe the current
> system is a good safeguard against factional
> politics. I do think
> that changing the requirement from a majority to a
> plurality would
> help prevent constant runoffs.
>
> In the current election, it would be the noble thing
> for the
> candidate with the least support to drop out of the
> race.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > That would decrease representation. I will use the
> > names of the American Political Parties as an
> example.
> > The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> > canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> > Republicans they will always elect both the
> Consuls,
> > and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This
> will
> > lead to frustration and soon the minority
> Democrats
> > will start drifting away from Nova Roma because
> they
> > will feel they have no stake in it's government.
> >
> > --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> > >
> > > I have a better and simpler solution.
> > >
> > > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > > where five are elected,
> > > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for
> up
> > > to, but no more than
> > > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for
> five
> > > or less but no more than
> > > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office
> and
> > > each voter should be
> > > allowed to vote for each office.
> > >
> > > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > > allowed to vote for up to two
> > > candidates , because we are electing two
> Consuls.
> > >
> > > If we adopt this reform or something close to it
> the
> > > need for run off
> > > election will most likely come to and end.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Citizen
> > > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <NR_Argentina@g...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis
> tributa
> > > results
> > >
> > >
> > > > I Concur.
> > > >
> > > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > > primarly because one canidate, who has not
> activly
> > > > campaigned nor recived much support has left
> his
> > > name
> > > > on the ballot throughout these endless
> runoffs.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that
> requires
> > > a
> > > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > > support
> > > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > > ballots
> > > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > > reasonable
> > > > chance of being elected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > > > > So there will be another run-off election.
> That
> > > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > > election
> > > > > reform is in order.
> > > > >
> > > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM
> Eastern
> > > > > Standard Time, danielovi@c... writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > > vacant
> > > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > > Tribes,
> > > > > the identities of the
> > > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers
> won
> > > by
> > > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > > published.
> > > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election
> for
> > > > > Tribunus
> > > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > > resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > > votes,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4
> tribes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that
> candidate
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The
> results
> > > are as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was
> voted
> > > for
> > > > > in
> > > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > > uncontested
> > > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a
> candidate
> > > are
> > > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > tied
> > > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues
> Marcus
> > > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > > Didius
> > > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our
> 3
> > > > > candidates for their continued participation
> and
> > > > > fortitude!
> > > > > > My personal thanks to our team of
> Rogatores
> > > for
> > > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > >
> > > > Roman Citizen
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > > forms, and more
> > > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com> Yahoo! Tax Center - File
> online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
=====
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] Moderation Announce |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:11:43 -0700 |
|
He is a member of the Gens Cassia, for your info.
Respectfully,
Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Moderation Announce
Salvete Quirites.
A message has been sent to this list from the address
BiggPoppaPump420@aol.com under the title "Secret Ancient Roman Info".
That message just contains a link that does not seem related to
Ancient Rome.
I have decided to censor that message, because it seems spam to me.
If the person who sent it thinks that I am wrong, please contact me
privately and we will talk about it.
Thank you.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
PRAETOR
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:17:24 -0700 |
|
Ave,
I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to me. Can you please point it out?
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Maximus and others,
I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you, Sulla
and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus Gnaeus
Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
people are
> saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.
What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the majority
of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we
are
> picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight we
are not
> much of a recreation are
> we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
would not be
> making
> this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently that
told you
> this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday? What
kind of punishment they suggested you?
I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
controversy?
> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
this is true,
> tells me
> that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes
bloodless
> games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is welcome
to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We
have
> attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, or
when unable
> to do so use divine inspiration
> to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess,
one who is
> dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
Goddess
> arrival in Rome and her intervention
> allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to the
prophecy.
Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the intervation
of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years and
I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor
with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to
throw a
> giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to
Rome and
> winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
right since we
> do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
Magistrates could
> not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
state
> function.
> That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this from
happening.
I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy Magna
Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project for
a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of the
ruins, the study of a big project.
And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games (Naumachiae,
Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
honorate and make happy my Goddess.
What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not writing
bloodly scenes?
Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more to
make happy the Gods?
Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
friends.
> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood
is being
> shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making
their own
> decisions on
> how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
carried out.
> There in lies the
> harm.
I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of the
Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The majority
of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and I'll
not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except your
friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my Office.
Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate elected
by the Nova Romans?
I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the higher
Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
Tradition?...
> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
necessary or not,
>
> it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of a
political
> statement.
Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I have
changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent scenes.
Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
changement of the Tradition?
MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
LUDI??
Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none of
> us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
large Texas
> cookout
> is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow, cook
it, then
> eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses, maybe
in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
accept your objections. They are not logical and several people and
Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect about
your position and move a step back.
[After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 00:41:05 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Please don't take this the wrong way.
I know I have not became a part of the conversations about the games but I really think the answer maybe as close as the nose on your faces. Why not just simple find out who may want the bloodily games than e-mail them a copy of the games "with blood" so they will be happy, but on the main list only show the one "without blood."
It's like Beer......"less filling...... tastes great".....Give the people what they want, and you have peace. Take away their right to choose and you have more e-mails about blood. OR JUST A REALLY GOOD CAT FIGHT!!......LOL
I think this could fix everything, unless I'm total of base, head stuck in the clouds, or just plan wrong.
G.Porticus Brutis
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:31:49 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes
> Since we have had more runoffs under this lex than
> under previous laws it has to be regarded as a
> failure.
There is currently a discussion ongoing among the Tribunes how to
resolve this issue. There are several options available and I amsure
that all the already elected Tribunes will try their utmost to
determine the best short and long-term course to take under the
circumstances. I am certainly listening to the discussion and will
take the arguments presented into account.
Avete et Valete
Marcus Marcius Rex
Tribune of the Plebs
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:53:36 -0000 |
|
Salve Iunius,
> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
were
> able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have
a
> crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I
am
> not able to understand his perspective on this issue.
Mine is not a crisis of coscience, mine IS coscience.
I reapeat again for the 10th or maybe 20th time ... we don't organize
bloodly games respecting the people, soldiers, civilians, people
witth familiars, in war and the general and NEUTRAL idea of peace.
Writing violent virtual scenes and organizing entertainment based
over the blood IMHO can hurt citizens involved in this sad situation.
For teh Gods what is the difference between a virtual Ludi where
there ins't real blood and virtual ludi where there isn't explicit
real blood?
Iunius, I'm honourating Magna Mater in a different and most important
way, restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill, The blood not WRITTEN
is substituted by a most big real offer!
> Next I suppose
> the Age of Empires tournament that has been discussed would have to
> be cancelled because it portrays deaths of game characters.
We decided to continue the Age of Empire match because this game is
closed to few people. Only 10-12 citizens can see the game, only 10-
12 citizens can be entertain with murders and war.
We think this game don't hurt directly and indirectly the involved
people and could interest people like you.
> I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
> fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not
an
> official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
> statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.
It's a your opinion, not mine.
> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?
Having one only Augur is absurd too and it's clear the two Pontiffs
are using their religious power like a political power. I'm awiting
for the Collegium.
Vale
Fr. Apulus CAesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 09:07:45 -0000 |
|
Salve Senattor,
please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the Main
mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and
I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but
beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to
me. Can you please point it out?
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you,
Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome,
and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight
we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday?
What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings,
or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to
the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years
and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her
favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy
Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project
for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of
the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
(Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more
to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real
blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of
the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and
I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except
your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the
higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of
a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I
have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none
of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all, that is all
a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow,
cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses,
maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and several people
and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect
about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't
feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roman Controversy |
| From: |
"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 05:01:53 -0000 |
|
G. Iulius Scaurus G.Portico Bruti salutem dicit.
Salve, G. Portice.
Scripsisti:
> Since you have brought it up.
> I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
> calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
> There has been a find of chemicals that have had the
> solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
> burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to be
> small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.
Reuters, the BBC, and MSNBC report that the material originally
thought to be a chemical weapon has turned out to be a barrel of
agricultural pesticide. When this all concludes, I suspect we'll find
that a great number of people have been put at risk on a pretext of
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. I have trouble
imagining that a dictator as brutal as Saddam would have restrained
himself from using chemical weapons, if he had them, when they might
have had a military effect long before the coalition tanks were at the
gates of Baghdad (after all, even an American threat of nuclear
retaliation wouldn't be much of a deterrent, since he's going to be a
dead man regardless).
Vale.
G. Iulius Scaurus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Gladiatorial Link |
| From: |
"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 07:38:42 -0000 |
|
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.
Avete, Quirites.
Here's a link to the "Roman Gladiatorial Games" website:
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/gladiatr/
This site, created by Roger Dunkle (Classics Dept.,Brooklyn College),
is the best I've found on the net on munera and venationes ludorum.
Valete, Quirites.
G. Iulius Scaurus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Moderation Announce |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:54:05 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Senator Sulla.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> He is a member of the Gens Cassia, for your info.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
Yes; I have been now informed about that :-). It is sometimes
difficult to differentiate spam from legitimous messages, especially
if they are not signed and contain nothing but a link that does not
seem connected with our topic :-).
If this gentleman would like to contact me, I will be glad to help
him in any way.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] A short history of NR games |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:00:22 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING LUDI??
>
In answer to that question. When Antonios Gryllus and I started to discuss
games in early '99, it was more to be the bread and circus type with no
religious connotations. Frankly we had just started researching the Religio
seriously, and while we were aware of the feasts and festivals, we never
thought to tie one with the other.
Our games were more about entertainment: a plus to be part of Nova Roma.
We used minatures, had non NR citizens as players to play the part of
Gladiators, or Charioteers. We never thought about recreating Beast hunts or
Naval battles since those were properly set in the Principate, and we were
the republic. (Little history lesson there.)
The bouts were recreated by using rules of my design, (I used to make my
living while in college, by designing and selling military history games,)
while the Chariot races were done using modified Circvs Maximvs.
We invited citizens to a special chatroom and described the action, much like
a radio broadcast. We never held these during religious festivals, until
2000, when we held a live
Gladiator fight during Flora's feast day. This was staged at USC. Now, I
have found no
example of a munus in Flora's honor, but that was what the Gens organizing
the
bouts wanted, so I went along with it. We had a large turnout of 25 people,
I say large as
it was the last week of the semester, and the campus was deserted. We
actually shed blood during one of the bouts, a fighter got his helmet knocked
off, and his forehead cut.
This munus was never seen or heard even though I taped it, as we had no way
to stream video to the NR populace, though I hope that will change in the
future.
The big difference between my concept and that of the current crop of Aediles
the last two years is that they want to get the citizens involved in the
gaming process. In reality the
citizens would not, slaves and prisoners of war did all the fighting, winning
or dying, and
the citizens were spectators who bet on the outcome. When NR started to coin
its own money, I thought "there was the way for the citizens to be involved."
They would bet. But we are still working on that aspect of gaming.
That pretty much sums up the history of the Nova Roma virtual gaming.
Now that we are actually tying the festivals to the Religio, the games will
take on a more important function. However I really think we should not do
this yet, until we iron out the
bugs in the system. Entertainment for the populace sure. Religious
appeasement, no.
Also it bothers me that the Aediles pick and choose their festivals. Mars'
week came and went, and we had no races by the youth, nor did we have the
great procession.
Several people wrote and said they were experts on the Great Goddess. I have
to ask, who did their castration? Also, since she is a foreign deity, and
comes from Anatolia, one of the most bloodthirsty areas around, the fact she
doesn't like blood, is a very strange comment.
Since I am un castrated man, I make no attempt to understand her or her ways.
However
I appreciate her help in defeating the Carthaginians, and setting Rome on her
path to greatness. By the by I found no mention of a munus held during the
Megalesia. But I
have not completed all my research yet.
Valete
FABIVS
[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: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:03:11 +0100 (BST) |
|
-----Original Message-----
>From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
If you try hard enough you can of course read anything into anything and you are trying enough to find what you know perfectly well is not there. See a psychiatristic about your obsessive bigotry.
>> Have you heard them before? I haven't.
>
>Therefore, your labels of “more accurate“ and “devoid of prejudice“ are
What has not been heard before has had no 'pre' to judge has it? Therefore cannot be prejudiced.
>so much bunkum. You've used different symbols to represent _exactly_ the
>same concepts as had been represented by terms deemed to be prejudiced
Yes: exactly the same concepts of colour-defined races that happened to be the matter under discussion. The prejudice lies with the use of words invoked, not with the physical characteristics being described.
>(else why look for aliases?), and are hiding your prejudiced behavior
>behind neologisms.
>
Do you understand the meaing of the word Prejudice - or are you just an ignorant example of it?
>> I am using the words: I choose the words I wish use to avoid racist connotations.
>
><shrug> You have failed miserably and conspicuously.
>So would Martin Luther King with a bigot as dertermined to find fault as yourself.
>Your recognition isn't relevant, given that you were the one using the
>racist terminology; an honest admission and an attempt to correct the
I was the one avoiding racist terminology. I have yet to hear anyone take offence as such terms as red-haired, black-haired, olive-skinned, sallow-complacioned. So what do you find so offensive about pink-skinned, brown-skinned and gold-skinned? Are you more familiar with terms like honky,nigger and chink?
>language that you may want to rethink, which presumed decency and lack
>of racial prejudice on your part; all that happens now is that these
>presumptions are changed.
>
I used words I deliberately selected as literal description of appearance to avoid any racist connotations accruing to previous usage in the hope that they might catch opn as anti-racist terminology. Have you complained about the depiction of anti-Semitic elements in Schindler's List yet?
Caesariensis.
--
Personalised email by http://another.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:03:58 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
>
I think it was our candle and incense to Aesculapius myself, but what do I
know?
FABIVS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:16:42 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> So What are we to make of the Mos Maiorum?
> Isn't that a set of Precedents set by our ancestors?
> One that had a major bearing on how the Romans of
> Antiquita conducted thier affairs, including the law?
There is a difference between the Mos Maiorum and the idea of
precedent. We follow the Mos Maiorum (that's what being a Roman is
mainly about), but that does not mean that the actions of a
magistrate are binding to future magistrates.
> Wasn't it common for a Praetor taking office to
> announce that he would govern under the edicts of a
> predecessor? Isn't that a matter of precedent?
In fact, the case you are considering is an excellent example of the
difference between the Mos Maiorum and precedent :-).
The edicta issued by a magistrate are valid during the term of office
of that magistrate. That is why a new magistrate must issue an
edictum saying which ones of the previous magisterial edicta are
still valid (he does not have to accept *all* of them). If precedent
was a basis of our legislative system, that would be not necessary,
since *all* previous edicta would be considered valid. And a
magisterial edictum can revoke or modify a previous edictum.
By having time-limited edicta, we are actually enforcing the Mos
Maiorum (because that was exactly the way in which our forefathers
did things).
I hope that the difference is clearer now :-).
> Are you claiming that no magistrate ever defended his
> actions by pointing out that they were in keeping with
> the Mos Maiorum as shown an earlier magistrate doing
> the same thing?
No; I am not claiming that.
A magistrate can certainly say that his actions are in keeping with
the Mos Maiorum. And a magistrate can certainly say that a previous
magistrate has done the same thing. But the fact that a previous
magistrate did a certain thing does not force a magistrate to do
exactly the same thing.
> If Nova Roma lasts for generations like The Roma of
> Antiquita did then won't our ancestors look apon our
> actions in areas not covered by the ancient Mos
> Maiorum as constituting a new Mos Maiourum? That our
> precedents will be look to for advice on conducting
> the affairs of Nova Roma?
Our descendants may very well look upon us for inspiration. Or they
may think in a different way. That is up to them. That is what the
Mos Maiorum is: something you can refer to.
Our forefathers changed things constantly: they adopted new
technology (like the corvus or the gallic helmet), they drafted new
laws, they adopted new Gods (like Cybele Herself). They always kept
an eye on what they ancestors had done, to learn from the past. But
Rome was *not* a static, unchanging society. It was a thriving
civilization, ready to accept foreign influences and new ideas (or to
reject them).
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:43:45 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Maxime.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Fine, lets meet next week in Madrid with sharpened Gladiuses. Then
> we will see who is mistaken.
You will have to forgive me, but I will take that as a joke :-).
> Once again you prove nothing except that you a newcomer has no clue
> what we are about.
I have been around for over two years now. Nova Roma, I have been
told, is just five years old; so I have been here for more than a 40%
of the time :-). If that makes me a newcomer whose opinion is not to
be considered, I wonder where that leaves all those citizens who have
arrived here more recently :-).
> That's my opinion, but I think the rest of the college will agree.
> If you wanted a light hearted entertainment, then don't pattern it
> on a real event. If you just called it a Ludi, I couldn't care
> less.
*I* just called it "ludi". But, in any case, I never suspected that
someone would mistake such a thing for a religious ceremony. I
thought that we all were pretty serious on what a religious ceremony
was.
> I was entertaining the populace with virtual gaming, long
> before you were interested in NR.
Were you? That's excellent :-). And did anyone accuse you of impietas
for doing that?
> If what you are saying is this is not a recreation of the
> Megalesia, then I understand your puzzlement at my outrage.
What Galaicus and I thought was not supposed to be a religious
ceremony. It never occurred to me that anyone could mistake the
action of writing entertaining stories with a cultual act.
> So why even involve the college, then?
I don't know; I didn't involve the Collegium Pontificium when we
arranged ludi in Hispania.
Perhaps our aediles just wanted to add some entertainment to a
religious festival. You could play "charade" or "Monopoly" during a
Saturnalia dinner in your house, and that wouldn't be a cultual
practice. It would just be fun.
> Oh and you aren't a very astute. Our whole constitution is based
> on precedent, as was most the rulings by Iudex. That was why
> formulae were invented. To standardize.
Where is the principle of precedent established in our Constitution?
Please direct me to the specific paragraph, because I have been re-
reading it and I couldn't find it.
As for formulae and the rulings of a Iudex, may I direct you to
paragraphs V and VI of the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria?:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-iii.html
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:55:56 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salvete,
> Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
> We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
> to build stages for performances. We have to make due
> with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
> that for the present.
I do not think that the Gods will accept our little "tell-tales"
games as a substitution for *real* cultual practices. There is just
*one* way to perform a Roman cult; they way of our ancestors. There
are no substitutes. It is true that we can not currently perform what
we would like to do (although I think that we could certainly improve
our current efforts); but that is not an excuse.
> My Objection isn't based on the historic accuracy of our games.
> It's based on the concept of a magistrate making changes based on
> political or personal beliefs. Games that are held on behalf of the
> state should never be changed because of a magistrate's personal
> beliefs. If any citizen feels that his/her personal beliefs would
> prevent him/her from carrying out the duties attached to an office
> then they should refrain from contesting that office or resign from
> it.
My good Druse; Roman history is full of examples of politicians
changing the games :-). In fact, an ambitious aedilis was *expected*
to add new features to the games. And sometimes there were
gladiatorial games where no one died: they were called "sponsiones",
if I remember correctly (I do not have access to my sources right
now).
> This only applies to games held on behalf of the
> state. If a citizen wishes to stage private games as a
> matter of largesse, then they have more freedom.
>
> If these were your private games I would make no
> objection. If the Gods were displeased with them, then
> thier displeasure would fall on you, not on the state.
> However these aren't your games. They are Nova Roma's
> games, and you can't place Nova Roma is a postion of
> posibily displeasing the Gods because of a personal
> whim.
There is a difference between a real cultual practice and simple
entertainment. I am sure that the Gods can tell the difference.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roman Controversy |
| From: |
"G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 05:10:18 -0700 (PDT) |
|
To NR
Not to bother the others in NR this will be the last
I'll speak on the war. I will take it off the ML.
To the Honorably G. Iulius Scaurus
The wall street journal reports:•Marines Report Signs
of Chemical Weapons Disposal.Marines report discovery
of mustard-gas agents, cyanide in the Euphrates
river.Friday,a Marine unit drawing drinking water from
the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah said it found
concentrations of cyaiyah and mustard-gas agents in
the water, apparently dumped there by Iraqi forces.
<Mon April 7, 2003 06:43 AM ET
NEAR BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. biological and chemical
weapons experts believe they may have found an Iraqi
storage site for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a
U.S. officer told Reuters on Monday.
"Our detectors have indicated something," said Major
Ros Coffman, a public affairs officer with the U.S.
3rd Infantry.
"We're talking about finding a site of possible WMD
storage. This is an initial report, but it could be a
smoking gun," he said, adding that the site was south
of the central Iraqi town of Hindiyah.
"It is not as if there is a cloud of gas hanging
everywhere endangering soldiers lives. We're talking
about a facility," Coffman added.
This is not meant to show they have WMD but the
possibility still remains.Do not presume that they
don't or do, just let time be the judge.
I'm sure we shall learn the truth.
Scaurus please do not take what I have found as
offends, but I invite you to e-mail me off the ML.
This way we don't offend the other Romans.
Friend
Brutis
--- Gregory Rose <gfr@intcon.net> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus G.Portico Bruti salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, G. Portice.
>
> Scripsisti:
>
> > Since you have brought it up.
> > I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
> > calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
> > There has been a find of chemicals that have had
> the
> > solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
> > burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to
> be
> > small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.
>
> Reuters, the BBC, and MSNBC report that the material
> originally
> thought to be a chemical weapon has turned out to be
> a barrel of
> agricultural pesticide. When this all concludes, I
> suspect we'll find
> that a great number of people have been put at risk
> on a pretext of
> Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that don't exist.
> I have trouble
> imagining that a dictator as brutal as Saddam would
> have restrained
> himself from using chemical weapons, if he had them,
> when they might
> have had a military effect long before the coalition
> tanks were at the
> gates of Baghdad (after all, even an American threat
> of nuclear
> retaliation wouldn't be much of a deterrent, since
> he's going to be a
> dead man regardless).
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:14:55 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, collega.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Well, then if one turns this argument around, one could reasonably
> say it sounds absurd to say there will be no blood in games that
> are already bloodless since they are virtual. One might even ask
> how it can go against one's conscience to describe virtual,
> *fictional* games in which virtual and *fictional* animals or
> people may die?
To tell you the truth, collega (and I hope that Apulus does not get
too nervous about it), I agree with you :-).
I do not think that Apulus's decision was a good decision (sorry,
Apule; we just have different perspectives here, it seems) . But I am
sure that it was not an impious decision or an illegal decision. So
that makes Apulus's determination a matter of personal taste; and he
is the one who arranges these games, after all :-).
<<snipped>>
> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
> were able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may
> have a crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual*
> games? I am not able to understand his perspective on this issue.
I think that you have understood perfectly well my point of view :-).
In fact, I would *not* have done what Apulus has done, if I had been
an aedilis curulis.
>From my perspective, Apulus's is just staging an activity to
entertain our citizenship. I might agree with the way he does that or
I might disagree; but I won't be asking for Apulus's head just
because he has decided to change a minor detail of an innocent
activity which I would have kept unchanged. That would not be fair or
reasonable.
> Next I suppose the Age of Empires tournament that has been
> discussed would have to be cancelled because it portrays deaths of
> game characters.
I personally don't like real-time war games :-). I prefer things
moving in turns (although I haven't played any of these games for a
long, long time; perhaps that Age of Empires is worth trying) ;-).
> I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
> fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not
> an official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
> statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.
That is your opinion, and its an excellent one. In fact, I would also
like to see some blood in those games :-).
So we have an opinion. We can say: "C'mon, Apulus; give us some
blood!" :-). If Apulus says: "Not this time; I am tired of blood. I
would like to do a different thing this time", we have two
alternatives:
1.- Wait for the blood in the next games.
2.- Write our *own* games as private citizens and put there 285
gallons of blood ;-).
> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?
And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Lucius Arminius Faustus" <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:17:51 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
I´m taking a ride on the excellent post of Salix Astur to show my
aprovation and support to the pretty good work of the coohrs of the
fellow Curule Aedile Apulus Caesar. A bold decision very sensitive.
And I really urge the ones who are claiming about ´sacrilege´ that
propose a legislation reguling the games, so. Until it be aproved,
the Ludi will be held by the sense of the assigned Aediles.
I and my colleague Curio Britanicus are starting the Cerealia Ludi on
12 april. May Ceres find our little virtual game pleasant. We know it
is just a smallest resemblance of the glorious days, poorly email
based, but the offers of humble hearts do not dismiss, mother Ceres,
if you still hear us.
L. Arminius Faustus
Senior Plebeain Aedile
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> > Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
> > We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
> > to build stages for performances. We have to make due
> > with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
> > that for the present.
>
> I do not think that the Gods will accept our little "tell-tales"
> games as a substitution for *real* cultual practices. There is just
> *one* way to perform a Roman cult; they way of our ancestors. There
> are no substitutes. It is true that we can not currently perform
what
> we would like to do (although I think that we could certainly
improve
> our current efforts); but that is not an excuse.
>>
> There is a difference between a real cultual practice and simple
> entertainment. I am sure that the Gods can tell the difference.
>
> CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:43:00 +0200 |
|
Salve Drusus,
< The Elections have been drug out far too long,
< primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
< campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
< on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
I'm not sure that it is Geminus' fault that the elections have dragged on
for so long. On the other side, I personally don't agree that a candidate
never posts and has a one sentence candidacy speech. A candidate should be
active in NR so that everyone can see that he would be a worker when/if he
assumes office. At this point the 'team' of Tribunes is a good one: all of
us are active and working as a team even if we have different opinions. I
find myself in a very pleasant atmosphere.
But like my colleague Marcus Marcius Rex, I would like to also say that I am
reading these discussions with great interest and that the Tribunes have
been discussing a way to improve things. Our Senior Consul also has a few
ideas and we are also waiting to see what he proposes.
Vale,
Diana Moravia Aventina
Tribune
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 06:59:05 -0700 |
|
Ave G. Porticus,
Its not that easy, its tied to the Religio. It would be like going to Church and not having Communion on Sunday (for the Xtians) or the Jews, it would be like not needing to go through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: G.Porticus Brutis
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Please don't take this the wrong way.
I know I have not became a part of the conversations about the games but I really think the answer maybe as close as the nose on your faces. Why not just simple find out who may want the bloodily games than e-mail them a copy of the games "with blood" so they will be happy, but on the main list only show the one "without blood."
It's like Beer......"less filling...... tastes great".....Give the people what they want, and you have peace. Take away their right to choose and you have more e-mails about blood. OR JUST A REALLY GOOD CAT FIGHT!!......LOL
I think this could fix everything, unless I'm total of base, head stuck in the clouds, or just plan wrong.
G.Porticus Brutis
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:01:12 -0700 |
|
Ave Fr. Apulus,
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:53 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Iunius,
> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
were
> able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have
a
> crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I
am
> not able to understand his perspective on this issue.
Mine is not a crisis of coscience, mine IS coscience.
I reapeat again for the 10th or maybe 20th time ... we don't organize
bloodly games respecting the people, soldiers, civilians, people
witth familiars, in war and the general and NEUTRAL idea of peace.
Writing violent virtual scenes and organizing entertainment based
over the blood IMHO can hurt citizens involved in this sad situation.
Sulla: Maybe you should consider resigning the Office then, since you obviously cannot meet a major portion of the responsibilities of the office.
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:01:46 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Email them privately to me, and I will respond.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Senattor,
please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the Main
mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and
I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but
beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to
me. Can you please point it out?
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you,
Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome,
and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight
we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday?
What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings,
or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to
the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years
and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her
favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy
Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project
for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of
the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
(Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more
to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real
blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of
the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and
I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except
your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the
higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of
a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I
have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none
of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all, that is all
a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow,
cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses,
maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and several people
and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect
about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't
feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
|
| Subject: |
RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Quote of the day: |
| From: |
"jlasalle" <jlasalle@sbcglobal.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:20:45 -0500 |
|
I prefer the term "blue eyed devils"
G B Agricola
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:37:11PM +0100, me-in-@disguise.co.uk wrote:
> -----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
Not particularly. I had read it previously, and understood the point you
were making. My objection was not to your main point - with which I
mostly agree, by the way - but with the racism of the term "Pinkskins".
> 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.
So... these so-called "more accurate" terms are *not* overloaded with
prejudicial baggage? I'm so glad you told me. Certainly, now that you
have said so, it _must_ be true. Oh, one last thing: by whose authority
was this fiat issued? I'm sure that I will quake at the name; it must be
some overarching, multicultural, multinational organization to whom all
must pay heed and reverence.
Unless you have something of substance to say, I won't belabor this
issue any further; I believe I've made my point clearly.
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?
-- Said by the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna to encourage his son
Johan when
he doubted his ability to represent Sweden at the Westphalian peace
conference.
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:23:36 -0400 |
|
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Francisco Apulo SPD
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:53:36 -0000
From: "Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it>
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Iunius,
> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games,
<SNIP>
> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?
Having one only Augur is absurd too and it's clear the two Pontiffs
are using their religious power like a political power. I'm awiting
for the Collegium.
Vale
Fr. Apulus CAesar
L Equitius: You specious argument is duly noted. Often those who accuse
others of nefarious motives need to look at their own actions as the
template. Your use of the Religio to make political statements is nothing
short of hypocritical.
I believe you have heard from several Pontificies, none supporting your
statement. How many more must it take for you to listen? Must we make it
public only to hear the, "why did this have to be public, why didn't this
get settled in private?" whine.
BTW Though Nova Roma is not a 'theocracy', religious positions are
political! The Religio is part of the State! Go back and read the
Constitution and related documents.
The Consules issued a direct statement that Nova Roma is neutral concerning
the current conflict. I wonder what anyone would say if I, as Flamen
Martialis Novae Romae, were to make an offering to Mars requesting success
of coalition forces?
I've kept my opinions to myself and I wish others would do the same.
"Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one and they all stink."
(the same goes for excuses)
To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
"And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"
I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the State
Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.
Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder why did F
Apule made such a
to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II", must have been
important to him.
Mars nos protegas
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] j-j-j-jayhawks |
| From: |
"jlasalle" <jlasalle@sbcglobal.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:33:37 -0500 |
|
The LaSalle Law Office
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using
the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the
original message to the sender. Thank you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration |
| From: |
"Marcus Iulius Perusianus" <m_iulius@virgilio.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:45:54 -0000 |
|
Avete omnes,
after this busy weekend spent writing the Magna Mater report (hope
you have appreciated), I've now the time to express my point of view
about the joint declaration, which I have subscribed.
First, let me say that it was deeply discussed before sending,
because we feared that somebody could be hurted somehow. We changed
things, smoothed others and signed what we thought it was best to
express our feeling before start writing, playing and enjoying these
games.
Please, trust us, our first thought was to avoid anyone be hurted:
not by a declaration though (which is only an unofficial text NOT a
law, an edict or whatever) BUT by the Entertainmnet, the nature of
the games, seemed in contrast in this moment of sadness in the world.
I don't think it sounds so strange to have had such a worry!
I do believe Peace is an universal ideal, and most of all, neutral.
With that we didn't blame US or UK to begin this war, because peace
could be obtained at the same time if i.e. Iraqi troops surrendered.
It has perfectly the same result: no one is going to be killed in
this war. That is the important!
respectfully
M IVL PERVSIANVS
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:00:49 -0700 |
|
Ave, M. Iulius,
You as Magistrates, should have known better than to even tamper with the Religio without the full consent of the Pontiffs and Augur. You and your fellow magistrates went to the CP before and got information, and established a working relationship. Why did you not continue to use your established relationship with the CP and Augur before you tried to publish this "Joint Declaration?" This answer has not been forth coming to date.
The issue, of "Peace, and being against the war" and all those good things are not the issue. The fact that you have exercised your position, to the determint of the Religio is the issue. Had you just made a politcal statement that you are against the war, is fine. But you have done more than that, by issing your "Joint Declaration" You and your fellow magistrates have created policy. You have corrupted an area of the Religio Romana, regardless if that is how you see it or not. Let us not forget that it was these very Aediles who in February tried to pass an edict that would have created a Police state and the establishment of a secret police!
I respectfully ask that this "Joint Declaration" be removed, revoked or whatever necessary and if it is not, I respectfully ask for impeachment of those magistrates who continue to mock, cheapen and corrupt the Religio Romana.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Senator
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Avete omnes,
after this busy weekend spent writing the Magna Mater report (hope
you have appreciated), I've now the time to express my point of view
about the joint declaration, which I have subscribed.
First, let me say that it was deeply discussed before sending,
because we feared that somebody could be hurted somehow. We changed
things, smoothed others and signed what we thought it was best to
express our feeling before start writing, playing and enjoying these
games.
Please, trust us, our first thought was to avoid anyone be hurted:
not by a declaration though (which is only an unofficial text NOT a
law, an edict or whatever) BUT by the Entertainmnet, the nature of
the games, seemed in contrast in this moment of sadness in the world.
I don't think it sounds so strange to have had such a worry!
I do believe Peace is an universal ideal, and most of all, neutral.
With that we didn't blame US or UK to begin this war, because peace
could be obtained at the same time if i.e. Iraqi troops surrendered.
It has perfectly the same result: no one is going to be killed in
this war. That is the important!
respectfully
M IVL PERVSIANVS
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2003 12:44:49 -0300 |
|
Salve,
the original law was not that bad, it is the roman law, but in order to
work, there must be a much larger number of citizens in each tribe.
All the other propositions will turn us away from the historical model.
The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific moment of Roman
history with a much larger number of citizens.
At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in fact only 1 before
the absorption of the surrounding cities).
Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
later when we have much more citizens.
Vale
Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: j-j-j-jayhawks |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:56:20 -0000 |
|
Is there something missing here or is Yahoo now using invisibile
fonts?
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "jlasalle" <jlasalle@s...> wrote:
>
>
> The LaSalle Law Office
> 417 East 13th Street
> Kansas City, Missouri 64106
> (816).471.2111
> (816).510.0072(cell)
> (816).471.8412(Fax)
> The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney
privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the
individual or
> entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient,
> or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received
> this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by using
> the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the
> original message to the sender. Thank you.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:00:21 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete Quirites
As a Rogator it is not my duty to comment on this
matter, I think. But I do so anyway...
--- Michel Loos wrote:
> the original law was not that bad, it is the roman
> law, but in order to
> work, there must be a much larger number of citizens
> in each tribe.
>
> All the other propositions will turn us away from
> the historical model.
> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the
> possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.
That is, imho, correct. As far as I recall, we once
already had a discussion about this last year.
Speaking for myself and not as elected magistrate, I
strongly believe that we should stay as close as
possible to the ancient system. Nevertheless,
non-voting citizens cause troubles (ties in tribes
with only two [sic!] votes, tribes not voting at all).
Therefore we really should diminish the numbers of our
tribes until we are a big enough society to fill them
all.
Let's stick with the ancients and let us not implement
modern electoral systems. I hope that our Tribunes
will consider this, too!
But until then, we have to stick with the current
situation and have another round. Sure, I got other
things to do, but on the other hand, counting votes is
what I was elected for by you, my fellow citizens!
Curate ut valeatis,
=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration |
| From: |
"Marcus Iulius Perusianus" <m_iulius@virgilio.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:00:49 -0000 |
|
Ave Senator Sulla,
> You as Magistrates, should have known better than to even tamper
with the Religio without the full consent of the Pontiffs and Augur.
You and your fellow magistrates went to the CP before and got
information, and established a working relationship. Why did you not
continue to use your established relationship with the CP and Augur
before you tried to publish this "Joint Declaration?" This answer
has not been forth coming to date.
well, I've been told that I am not a Magistrate as Scriba Aedilis
when I made my oath for Apparitoria. This would be wonderful to me,
because, as any other Roman citizen, I would like to climb the steps
of Cursus Honorum. :-)
To answer your question, I guess the reason is why it was only a
declaration, something that anyone of us liked to express before the
beginning of the games. But this is only my opinion, nothing
official. I usually don't relate with the CP when a write a Report
about Magna Mater or organize a ludi.
Changing topic for a while: after such a long report who costed my
efforts, money and time I would have liked to receive some "thanks,
well done, nice job" stuff, maybe also from the CP. But, not being a
relationship between them or you and me, I think this is quite normal.
> The issue, of "Peace, and being against the war" and all those good
things are not the issue. The fact that you have exercised your
position, to the determint of the Religio is the issue. Had you just
made a politcal statement that you are against the war, is fine. But
you have done more than that, by issing your "Joint Declaration" You
and your fellow magistrates have created policy. You have corrupted
an area of the Religio Romana, regardless if that is how you see it
or not. Let us not forget that it was these very Aediles who in
February tried to pass an edict that would have created a Police
state and the establishment of a secret police!
Have we corrupted an area of Religio? I still don't know, we're
waiting for a response.
I don't know anything about the last topic (Police State and secret
police). I should inform about this and reply. But I wonder why I
should? Does it change the importance of this fact we're arguing
about?
And are you saying giving me a personal opinion or the Aedilis were
found guilty of something?
Here is a personal opionion of mine: what I know for sure, is that
these Adeilis and their staff are doing a good job and their efforts
and devotion to Nova Roma are great. This is why I am in the Cohors
Aedilis. I can't say anything else about their behavior.
> I respectfully ask that this "Joint Declaration" be removed,
revoked or whatever necessary and if it is not, I respectfully ask
for impeachment of those magistrates who continue to mock, cheapen
and corrupt the Religio Romana.
This was my oath for Apparitoria:
>I, Marcus Iulius Perusianus, do hereby solemnly swear to
>uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
>interests of Franciscus Apulus Caesar while I hold this office,
>except when such action would be illegal or unconstitutional.
if my behavior, signing that declaration, will be considered an
action illegal or uncostituional then I'll have no problem resigning
my position.
M IVL PERVSIANVS
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: j-j-j-jayhawks |
| From: |
"Charlie Collins" <cotta@spamcop.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:05:29 -0500 |
|
>From a K-State Fan: Gooooo Hawks!!!!!!!!!!
Cotta
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:47:56 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much clearer picture of the true number of citizens.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Loos
To: NovaRoma
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement
Salve,
the original law was not that bad, it is the roman law, but in order to
work, there must be a much larger number of citizens in each tribe.
All the other propositions will turn us away from the historical model.
The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific moment of Roman
history with a much larger number of citizens.
At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in fact only 1 before
the absorption of the surrounding cities).
Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
later when we have much more citizens.
Vale
Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: j-j-j-jayhawks |
| From: |
Krysialtemus@aol.com |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:10:07 -0400 |
|
>From a Pitt fan: Go Big East/Syracuse, dalmatica
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:11:22 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
voted the results were announced. this influanced to
vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
vote for one of the leading canidates.
To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
would look something like this.
Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
thier tribe participation would drop.
The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
requiring a majority of the tribes without also
allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
is going is the cause of our problems.
--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> the original law was not that bad, it is the roman
> law, but in order to
> work, there must be a much larger number of citizens
> in each tribe.
>
> All the other propositions will turn us away from
> the historical model.
>
> The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific
> moment of Roman
> history with a much larger number of citizens.
>
> At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in
> fact only 1 before
> the absorption of the surrounding cities).
>
> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the
> possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
> --
> Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
>
>
=====
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] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2003 13:17:12 -0300 |
|
Em Seg, 2003-04-07 às 13:11, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
> Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
> voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
> voted the results were announced. this influanced to
> vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
> citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
> canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
> vote for one of the leading canidates.
>
> To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
> have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
> would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
> able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>
> Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
> being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
> thier tribe participation would drop.
>
> The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
> requiring a majority of the tribes without also
> allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
> is going is the cause of our problems.
It is also one of the causes, I agree.
With less tribes, we could implement the following, nearly historical
system:
Sort out tribe 1, continue in predefined order.
Tribe 1 votes day 1, results published imediately after the end of
voting.
tribe 2 day 2 etc.
This would make long elections but perhaps much less run-off elections
which IMHO is much better.
Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:16:31 -0700 |
|
1 Tribe to vote for one day? Interesting....we cannot even have the entire Senate vote and the voting period for that is a minimum of 48 hours.
Vale,
Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Loos
To: NovaRoma
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement
Em Seg, 2003-04-07 às 13:11, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
> Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
> voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
> voted the results were announced. this influanced to
> vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
> citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
> canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
> vote for one of the leading canidates.
>
> To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
> have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
> would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
> able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>
> Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
> being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
> thier tribe participation would drop.
>
> The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
> requiring a majority of the tribes without also
> allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
> is going is the cause of our problems.
It is also one of the causes, I agree.
With less tribes, we could implement the following, nearly historical
system:
Sort out tribe 1, continue in predefined order.
Tribe 1 votes day 1, results published imediately after the end of
voting.
tribe 2 day 2 etc.
This would make long elections but perhaps much less run-off elections
which IMHO is much better.
Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:18:38 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete again!
--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we
> have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much
> clearer picture of the true number of citizens.
Good point!
Oh, BTW: What happened to the reform of our Gens
system? (Can't wait to start arguing over that again
;o)
Valete bene,
=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:36:28 -0700 |
|
Ave A. Hirtius,
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Hirtius Helveticus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement
Salvete again!
--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we
> have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much
> clearer picture of the true number of citizens.
Good point!
Sulla: Yes, the Census should be very revealing, and give us a much more accurate picture before any dramatic reforms are proposed.
Oh, BTW: What happened to the reform of our Gens
system? (Can't wait to start arguing over that again
;o)
Sulla: LOL!!! Oh yeah I just can't wait! <g> On a more serious note, again, we should wait til the Census is completed because, once again that will give us a much more accurate picture before any reforms are proposed.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Valete bene,
=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Electoral reform (and the Census) |
| From: |
"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:47:03 +0100 (BST) |
|
A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.
I must stress that nothing in this message is
official, it is all my personal opinion, and I take
full responsibility for it.
There is a solution to the electoral problem which is
historical, efficient and fair. I have a strong
suspicion that you will see it being proposed to the
next meeting of the Senate.
I also have a sneaking feeling that Senators at that
same meeting may well be discussing a significant step
towards holding the Census.
This is all, however, only a suspicion, and I'm afraid
that I can't comment further, so don't ask. ;)
Cordus
=====
www.strategikon.org
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Tribunician Statement |
| From: |
"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:30:08 -0000 |
|
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>
Salve Drusus,
I would hope that somewhere in the schedule would be 10:00 to 10:05
Roman time the Rogators get a potty break! <G>
While this would be more historical I'm not sure how practical it
would be. It's hard enough to get people to vote at a time of their
convenience over the course of several days let alone get them to
vote at a time that may turn out to be most inconvenient such as one
hour window that opens at 2 in the morning local time.
Vale,
Q. Cassius Calvus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:42:57 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Cincinnate.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@s...>
wrote:
<<snipped>>
> To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
> "And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
> more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
> religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"
>
> I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the
> State Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.
I am afraid that you do answer to me, senator. You answer to all the
citizens of Nova Roma.
Being a priest does not mean belonging to a selected club; it means
being a *public servant*, whose duty is to provide for the cultus
publicus. You have a responsability towards the People of Nova Roma.
> Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder
> why did F Apule made such a to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI:
> Joint Declaration II", must have been important to him.
I don't know; perhaps he really thought that it was an important
thing :-). In any case, that does not make him impious.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] RE: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater |
| From: |
Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@foxcable.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:52:31 -0700 |
|
Salvete Quirites:
I very much enjoyed reading the report on the Palatine Magna Mater. In
regards to:
>It was perhaps removed by Elagabalus to his temple (q.v.) on the Palatine
(Hist. Aug. Elag. 3; cf. LR 134-138; but cf. BC 1883, 211; HJ 53-54, n.
44).<
It's my understanding, from either Dio or Herodian (I don't have the
references with me at work) that when the temple of Elagabalus was
reconsecrated under Severus Alexander to Jupiter Ultor (I believe), all the
sacred icons that had been collected by Antoninus #3 into that temple were
returned to their proper homes, including the meteor of Ilahu-Gabal, which
was sent back to Emesa. To my knowledge, Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
(#3) aka "Elagabalus", did not actually destroy or lose any sacred objects,
whatever other scrapes he may have gotten into.
Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .
Valete,
CN IVLIVS STRABO
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:22:50 -0700 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Cincinnate.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@s...>
wrote:
<<snipped>>
> To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
> "And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
> more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
> religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"
>
> I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the
> State Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.
I am afraid that you do answer to me, senator. You answer to all the
citizens of Nova Roma.
Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not agree Praetor?
Being a priest does not mean belonging to a selected club; it means
being a *public servant*, whose duty is to provide for the cultus
publicus. You have a responsability towards the People of Nova Roma.
Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club, in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.
> Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder
> why did F Apule made such a to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI:
> Joint Declaration II", must have been important to him.
I don't know; perhaps he really thought that it was an important
thing :-). In any case, that does not make him impious.
Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: correction and resignation |
| From: |
"Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@pandora.be> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:24:35 +0200 |
|
Salvete,
I have just gone back in the archives and I am a bit embarrased to see that
my name was signed to the joint declaration regarding the Megalesia Ludi,
which I did not even read until 5 minutes ago because I have been pretty
much absent from all of the NR lists for the last month. Hindsight tells me
that I should have sent an 'official' absentio email so that it would clear
that the only emails that I would read would be those posted to the Tribune
list.
Had I read the statement beforehand, I would not have agreed to have my name
signed to it for 3 reasons:
- I see it as a political statement even if I personally agree with peace
- As a Priestess in the Religio (albeit a very minor one and surely not the
most knowledgeable one) I would not sign my name to anything that even
slightly involves the Religion without the approval of the Collegium
Pontificum
- As a Tribune I find putting my name to the statement of any other
magistrate to be a conflict of interest.
So to whomever is in charge of 'officially' adding these types of documents
to out official records, please remove my name. Thanks!
Lastly, I hereby resign my position as Scriba ad Narrationes since personal
obligations will most likely prevent me from being able to write any of the
narrations this year.
Thanks & valete,
Diana Moravia Aventina
<Signed by the following members of F. Apulus Caesar Cohors Aedilis:
> * F. Apulus Cesar - Senior Curule Aedile
> * M. Constatinus Serapio - Quaestor
> * Gn. Salix Galaicus - Scriba Ludorum Primus
> * M. Iulius Perusianus - Scriba Historicus Primus
> * G. Fabia Livia - Scriba Historica Secunda
> * L. Didius Geminus Sceptius - Scriba Ludorum Secundus
> * C. Curius Saturninus - Scriba Ludorum
> * D. Moravia Aventina - Scriba ad Narrationes
> * Renata Corva - Scriba ad Narrationes
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results |
| From: |
"Decimus Iunius Silanus" <danedwardsuk@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:40:51 -0000 |
|
Salve,
In the macronational world, whom we vote for is very much affected by the
socio-economic situation of the day. Political ideology is great, but it
doesn't put food on the table. Nova Roma voters have no such concerns, and
as such we are far less likely to witness the rise and fall of factions.
> I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
> We have five county Commissioners that are elected in the general election
> out of 10 candidates from the major political parties. Sometimes the
> Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans do. Most of the time
it
> is a majority that cross party lines and is held together by different
> views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no Growth.
Vale
Decimus Iunius Silanus.
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Multiple Runoffs |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:42:47 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/7/03 8:46:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
loos@qt1.iq.usp.br writes:
Salvete et Salve Mani Villi Limitane!
> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.
>
I felt that this should have been done three years ago. However such things
are hard to
carry out when going against tradition.
In all my studies I have found Roman citizens did not vote for one candidate
at a time, especially when multiple candidates were on the ballot. It
appears it is this one "one vote, one candidate" that is causing the problem.
Valete
FABIVS*MAXIMVS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater |
| From: |
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:55:39 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/7/03 10:53:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jlancaster@foxcable.com writes:
> Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
> phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .
>
Very Good. Though I believe he was a spoiled brat, who found himself on the
stage of
destiny. Like Caligia he wished to implement Diocletianus reforms years too
early.
Interesting that his cousin Alexander, who was a stronger and better ruler,
was also brought down during his German campaign. There was just no pleasing
the Roman army at this point.
FABIVS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] CERELIA LITERARY CONTEST - RULES |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@yahoo.com.br> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:56:13 -0300 (ART) |
|
CERELIA LITERARY CONTEST - RULES
Our ancestors, O judges, ordained that the sacred rites of Ceres should be performed with the very strictest religious reverence and the greatest solemnity;
M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Flacco
OVERVIEW: For the greater glory of Nova Roma, enlightening of our people, and satisfaction of Mother Ceres, the Cerealia Ludi this year is granting a great literary Contest opened to all citizens.
LANGUAGES: The text can be presented on Latin, English, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish. We strongly recommend that a English abstract follow the non-english texts.
THEME: Free! (Roman themes are always recommended, but if the daughters of Mnemosine inspire on other way, who can resist?)
STYLE: Free!
I – Prose
II – Poetry
III – Historical Essay
IV – Political Speech
V – Religious Hymn
VI – Play (Theater)
LENGTH: Free!
SUBSCRIPTIONS: The text must be sent as plain email text to Aedile L. Arminius Faustus (lafaustus@yahoo.com.br) until the ides of april (15th april). The email must have the subject: “Cerealia Literary Contest” and the following information as a header:
a) Roman Name
b) Province
c) Title
--- Text
JUDGES: The four members of the Collegium Aediles shall judge, the Honourable Curules Aediles and the Illustrious Plebeian Aediles; they will judge as the muses shall fit. Anyone desiring to be a judge can contact the Aedile L. Arminius (lafaustus@yahoo.com.br) until 10th april.
MULTIPLE PARTICIPATION: Texts running on other contest, as the fine Megalesia Epigram Contest, can run on Cerealia as well.
But when the home of Cybele they make with toil out-worn
O'er much, they lay them down to sleep and gifts of Ceres scorn;
Till heavy slumbers seal their eyelids langourous, drooping lowly
And raving frenzy flies each brain departing softly, slowly.
Gaius Valerius Catulus, Carmina
WINNERS: The winners shall be known until four days after the end of the Cerealia Ludi. As a reward, a virtual monument will be granted on the Aediles site to the winner.
And now 'tis done: more durable than brass
My monument shall he, and raise its head
O'er royal pyramids: it shall not dread
Corroding rain or angry Boreas.
Nor the long lapse of immemorial time.
I shall not wholly die: large residue
Shall 'scape the queen of funerals. Ever new
My after fame shall grow, while pontiffs climb
With silent maids the Capitolian height.
“Born,” men will say, “where Aufidus is loud,
Where Daunus, scant of streams, beneath him bow'd
The rustic tribes, from dimness he wax'd bright,
First of his race to wed the Aeolian lay
To notes of Italy. Put glory on,
My own Melpomene, by genius won,
And crown me of thy grace with Delphic bay.
Q. Horatius Flaccus, Odes
Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
Senior Plebeian Aedile
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
O melhor e-mail gratuito da internet: 6MB de espaço, antivírus, acesso POP3, filtro contra spam.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
me-in-@disguise.co.uk |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:38:37 +0100 (BST) |
|
-----Original Message-----
>From : “L. Cornelius Sulla“ <alexious@earthlink.net>
>
through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.
>
You can as long as you change *form* rather than *significance* - or no religion would ever have developed. I can think of a few I wish had never developed but that is not the point: magick and religion are filled with innovators discovering new techniques within traditional context. There's barely a god in the Vedas recognised today in Hindu temples but no doubt that it is the same religion. The Ludi did develop as time went on - in fact they became more bloodthirsty and more directed to pure entertainment with the religious side ever more perfunctory. There's no *principle* to object to change. The Naumachia itself was an innovation. Whether the *reason* given is valid is a different debate. I contend that (a certain Star Trek 1 episode notwithstanding), had the Empire continued and maintained the old Religio, it would have changed to a more benign form at least in recent centuries just as execution for other reasons ceased to be public entertainment and animal sacrifice dropped out of religions such as Judaeism and less 'countrified' interpretations of Islam. All things develop and the Ludi no doubt would have continued to do so with citizens feeling human sacrifice, even disguised as battle, not truly appropriate. For the Republican period gladiatorial Ludi often were not lethal, gladiators being too much of an investment to lose. That they degenerated into mass displays of blindfold helmets and amateurs forced to fight each other might be what more conservatives Romans could have considered the reason the Iulio-Claudians generally came to such a bad end.
Caesariensis.
--
Personalised email by http://another.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:40:26 -0700 |
|
Ave,
If I am an Orthodox- Religiously observant Jew, I cannot eat Pork Shellfish and other non-Kosher foods, for there are strict regulations regarding Kosher Laws. If I am a Jew, I must be circumcised. You cannot change that. If you were not born a Jew, but wish to convert to Judaism, despite all attempts to dissuade you, you (as a man) must be circumcised, it happened to me (as I was born into a Jewish family [on my moms side of the family]), it happend to Sammy Davis Jr (who converted to Judiasm). There is no changing the form or significance about it.
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
-----Original Message-----
From : "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
>
through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.
>
You can as long as you change *form* rather than *significance* - or no religion would ever have developed. I can think of a few I wish had never developed but that is not the point: magick and religion are filled with innovators discovering new techniques within traditional context. There's barely a god in the Vedas recognised today in Hindu temples but no doubt that it is the same religion. The Ludi did develop as time went on - in fact they became more bloodthirsty and more directed to pure entertainment with the religious side ever more perfunctory. There's no *principle* to object to change. The Naumachia itself was an innovation. Whether the *reason* given is valid is a different debate. I contend that (a certain Star Trek 1 episode notwithstanding), had the Empire continued and maintained the old Religio, it would have changed to a more benign form at least in recent centuries just as execution for other reasons ceased to be public entertainment and animal sacrifice dropped out of religions such as Judaeism and less 'countrified' interpretations of Islam. All things develop and the Ludi no doubt would have continued to do so with citizens feeling human sacrifice, even disguised as battle, not truly appropriate. For the Republican period gladiatorial Ludi often were not lethal, gladiators being too much of an investment to lose. That they degenerated into mass displays of blindfold helmets and amateurs forced to fight each other might be what more conservatives Romans could have considered the reason the Iulio-Claudians generally came to such a bad end.
Caesariensis.
--
Personalised email by http://another.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater |
| From: |
me-in-@disguise.co.uk |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:54:12 +0100 (BST) |
|
-----Original Message-----
>From : Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@foxcable.com>
>
>was sent back to Emesa. To my knowledge, Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
>(#3) aka “Elagabalus“, did not actually destroy or lose any sacred objects,
>whatever other scrapes he may have gotten into.
>
If he really was thinking along lines of all gods aspects of or subordinate to the Emyssan sun-god (and isn't it Emyssa still a holy city under the name of Homs?) then is this a hint that such thinking was current in the East long before we hear of it as Diocletion's brilliant proposition of One Empire, One God, Four Emperors?
And where Ilahu-Gabal? Shades of Elijah (Eliyahu) but I thought the original was 'El-`Aga-Ba`al, of which the first and last would be God and Lord and the middle ancestral to the Afga Khan's title maybe?
>Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
>phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .
>
Auntie was. But then again far from simple :)
Caesariensis.
--
Personalised email by http://another.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 21:12:09 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to
> the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not
> agree Praetor?
There is a Latin phrase that reads: "Vox Populi, vox Deorum" :-).
> Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club,
> in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova
> Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and
> beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public
> servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they
> answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much
> more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.
Public priests serve the Senate and the People by performing the
rites of the sacra publica. That is their role. They are not
prophets, or messiah, or gurus. They do not set dogma, or dictate
what people should believe. They are the people who perform the
rites, and they do so according to the Mos Maiorum.
<<snipped>>
> Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a
> much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.
The Religio Romana has some particularities, senator. It is not
dogmatic, every paterfamilias is the high priest of the cultus
privatus of his familia, and public priests are there to perform the
rites of the cultus publicus. They are not there to tell what is
right or wrong; they are there to perform *rites*.
Some bodies (like the Collegium Pontificium, for example) do have a
say in establishing what is the proper way to perform rites, or to
organize priesthoods. But that is all.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Multiple Runoffs |
| From: |
"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 21:22:27 -0000 |
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Maxime.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
<<snipped>>
> In all my studies I have found Roman citizens did not vote for one
> candidate at a time, especially when multiple candidates were on
> the ballot. It appears it is this one "one vote, one candidate"
> that is causing the problem.
I tried to solve this problem last year by allowing for more than one
vote per citizen, but it seems that it has not worked.
Could you please provide a few reliable sources about the possibility
of more than one vote per voter? I think that we all would be
interested in considering a historically appropriate alternative.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
Fw: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:51:09 -0700 |
|
Forwarded, since it did not show up the first time.
Vale,
Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Cornelius Sulla
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to
> the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not
> agree Praetor?
There is a Latin phrase that reads: "Vox Populi, vox Deorum" :-).
Sulla: Yes I am familiar with that, but you have not answered the question.
> Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club,
> in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova
> Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and
> beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public
> servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they
> answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much
> more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.
Public priests serve the Senate and the People by performing the
rites of the sacra publica. That is their role. They are not
prophets, or messiah, or gurus. They do not set dogma, or dictate
what people should believe. They are the people who perform the
rites, and they do so according to the Mos Maiorum.
Sulla: Interesting that you are trying to imply that I am placing them in the status of prophets or messiahs. Which I am not. I am stating is that they perform their rituals and mantain the contract between us, the People of Nova Roma, and the Gods. With that role carries a responsibility. But also it includes the authority to speak on behalf of the Gods (in the role of determining what days are Dies Fast, Nefasti, or to preform auguries to determine auspices) . This is clearly something that they have authority to do. This goes beyond the role of just being a public servant.
<<snipped>>
> Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a
> much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.
The Religio Romana has some particularities, senator. It is not
dogmatic, every paterfamilias is the high priest of the cultus
privatus of his familia, and public priests are there to perform the
rites of the cultus publicus. They are not there to tell what is
right or wrong; they are there to perform *rites*.
Sulla: They do more than just perform *rites* You as a practioner should be much more aware of their role, espeically since you were going to teach a course on the Religio. (I have quoted the Constitution below for you to see how broad their jurisdictional authority is)
Some bodies (like the Collegium Pontificium, for example) do have a
say in establishing what is the proper way to perform rites, or to
organize priesthoods. But that is all.
Sulla: I would like to hear from members of the College if that is just all that they do, before I would take your word on the matter, because according to the Constitution, they have much more authority than that. According to the Constitution of Nova Roma, the CP has the authority to do the following:
The collegium pontificum (college of pontiffs) shall be the highest of the priestly collegiae. It shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina Sacrorum. The collegium pontificum shall appoint its own members. The collegium pontificum shall have the following honors, powers, and responsibilities:
1.. To control the calendar, and determine when the festivals and dies fasti and dies nefasti shall occur, and what their effects shall be, within the boundaries of the example of ancient Rome;
2.. To have ritual responsibilities within the Religio Romana; and general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the public Religio Romana;
3.. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum).
According to VI. B. 1 B, they have general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals and priesthoods of the Religio Romana. So, I disagree with your interpretation that their jurisdiction is limited to just *rites.* I quoted the above section from the Constitution so you can read it for yourself.
CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: A short history of NR games |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:03:32 -0000 |
|
Maximus, I repeat you my question: Hae you organized bloodly and
violent games as Aedile?
In a special way, have you organized Megalesia Ludi? And these Ludi
have beeen violent?
Why you think your Ludi were only entertainment and mine are more
religious?
Do you have organized other religious events like public prayers,
restoration of Temples, etc.?
And why you think now the Ludi have been tyed to the religious more
than yours? You have been Aedile like me, why your duties were less
than mine?
Abput your "wonderful" little lesson of history, we know well waht
were teh Naumachiae and we have organized them not thinking to
recreate the original Ludi but offering new excting games to Gods and
Nova Romans.
Vale
F. APulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@e... writes:
>
>
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING LUDI??
> >
> In answer to that question. When Antonios Gryllus and I started to
discuss
> games in early '99, it was more to be the bread and circus type
with no
> religious connotations. Frankly we had just started researching
the Religio
> seriously, and while we were aware of the feasts and festivals, we
never
> thought to tie one with the other.
> Our games were more about entertainment: a plus to be part of Nova
Roma.
> We used minatures, had non NR citizens as players to play the part
of
> Gladiators, or Charioteers. We never thought about recreating
Beast hunts or
> Naval battles since those were properly set in the Principate, and
we were
> the republic. (Little history lesson there.)
> The bouts were recreated by using rules of my design, (I used to
make my
> living while in college, by designing and selling military history
games,)
> while the Chariot races were done using modified Circvs Maximvs.
> We invited citizens to a special chatroom and described the action,
much like
> a radio broadcast. We never held these during religious festivals,
until
> 2000, when we held a live
> Gladiator fight during Flora's feast day. This was staged at USC.
Now, I
> have found no
> example of a munus in Flora's honor, but that was what the Gens
organizing
> the
> bouts wanted, so I went along with it. We had a large turnout of
25 people,
> I say large as
> it was the last week of the semester, and the campus was deserted.
We
> actually shed blood during one of the bouts, a fighter got his
helmet knocked
> off, and his forehead cut.
> This munus was never seen or heard even though I taped it, as we
had no way
> to stream video to the NR populace, though I hope that will change
in the
> future.
>
> The big difference between my concept and that of the current crop
of Aediles
> the last two years is that they want to get the citizens involved
in the
> gaming process. In reality the
> citizens would not, slaves and prisoners of war did all the
fighting, winning
> or dying, and
> the citizens were spectators who bet on the outcome. When NR
started to coin
> its own money, I thought "there was the way for the citizens to be
involved."
>
> They would bet. But we are still working on that aspect of
gaming.
>
> That pretty much sums up the history of the Nova Roma virtual
gaming.
>
> Now that we are actually tying the festivals to the Religio, the
games will
> take on a more important function. However I really think we
should not do
> this yet, until we iron out the
> bugs in the system. Entertainment for the populace sure.
Religious
> appeasement, no.
> Also it bothers me that the Aediles pick and choose their
festivals. Mars'
> week came and went, and we had no races by the youth, nor did we
have the
> great procession.
>
> Several people wrote and said they were experts on the Great
Goddess. I have
> to ask, who did their castration? Also, since she is a foreign
deity, and
> comes from Anatolia, one of the most bloodthirsty areas around, the
fact she
> doesn't like blood, is a very strange comment.
> Since I am un castrated man, I make no attempt to understand her or
her ways.
> However
> I appreciate her help in defeating the Carthaginians, and setting
Rome on her
> path to greatness. By the by I found no mention of a munus held
during the
> Megalesia. But I
> have not completed all my research yet.
> Valete
> FABIVS
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:06:19 -0000 |
|
Salve Maximus,
> I think it was our candle and incense to Aesculapius myself, but
what do I
> know?
No, I disagree with you because I doubt you have lighted real candles.
BTW my Cohors and me are engaged in a big project and in fun Ludi
honorating Magna Mater...
But you're the expert... ;-)
Vale
F. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:28:54 -0000 |
|
Salve Sulla,
> Sulla: Maybe you should consider resigning the Office then,
since you obviously cannot meet a major portion of the
responsibilities of the office.
Why, Iullstrus Sulla?
Our Costitution says:
"Aediles Curules (Curule Aedile). Two curule aediles shall be elected
by the comitia populi tributa to serve a term lasting one-year. They
shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
To hold Imperium;
To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of
public games and other festivals and gatherings, to ensure order at
public religious events, to see to the maintenance of any real public
facilities that the State should acquire, and to administer the law
(such edicts being binding upon themselves as well as others);
To pronounce intercessio against another aedile (curule or plebeian)
or magistrate of lesser authority;
To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other
tasks, as he shall see fit.
To maintain the venues where the Ordo Equester are engaged in
commerce, within Nova Roma property. It is the responsibility of the
Curule Aediles to report any changes of the Ordo Equaestor to the
Censors. "
Do you read detailed words about how I have to organize the Ludi? Is
written I have to offer violent and bloodly games?
I have several events, games, shows, projects offering to the Gods
and to the Nova Romans.
I disagree with you, as Curule Aedile I have 5 macro-duties and in
the second point I have 4 detailed goals. What you mean? I think I'm
following what the Costitution ask to do me.
And I'm not able to organize bloodly games in this moment because now
we live in sad time of war. I think you're hoping the war will
continue since the end of the year. I hope the war ends as soon as
possible, before my next Ludi.
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:32:54 -0000 |
|
Salve Sulla,
no, you're attacking me in a not-noble public way. So please answer
to my reasonable questions in the same public way.
You can read the questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/ and if you don't answer me I have to think you haven't the
answers...
The same things is for Illustrus Fabius Maximus and others. Please,
give the answers. I answered you, why you wan't do it?
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Email them privately to me, and I will respond.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salve Senattor,
>
> please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the
Main
> mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
> But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
>
> Vale
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
> <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday
and
> I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend)
but
> beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed
to
> me. Can you please point it out?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
> >
> >
> > Salvete Maximus and others,
> >
> > I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why
you,
> Sulla
> > and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
> Gnaeus
> > Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> >
> > > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand
why
> > people are
> > > saying what is the big deal.
> > > The big deal is perception and precedent.
> >
> > What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
> majority
> > of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso
fabius
> > Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and
bloodly
> > games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> > I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> > Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong
Ludi?
> >
> > > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of
Rome,
> and we
> > are
> > > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century
hindsight
> we
> > are not
> > > much of a recreation are
> > > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim,
you
> > would not be
> > > making
> > > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
> that
> > told you
> > > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
> >
> > And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
yesterday?
> What
> > kind of punishment they suggested you?
> > I think maybe do you use your religious position like a
political
> > position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a
political
> > controversy?
> >
> > > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you
think
> > this is true,
> > > tells me
> > > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> > >
> > > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
> promotes
> > bloodless
> > > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
> welcome
> > to do it.
> > >
> > > However, this is not the case.
> > > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
> Religio. We
> > have
> > > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients'
writings,
> or
> > when unable
> > > to do so use divine inspiration
> > > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
> Goddess,
> > one who is
> > > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the
Great
> > Goddess
> > > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according
to
> the
> > prophecy.
> >
> > Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us
a
> > description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
> intervation
> > of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater
(or
> > Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> > Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> > I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two
years
> and
> > I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> >
> > > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain
her
> favor
> > with Rome.
> > > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
> excuse to
> > throw a
> > > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
> coming to
> > Rome and
> > > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's
your
> > right since we
> > > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> > Magistrates could
> > > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia
is a
> > state
> > > function.
> > > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
> from
> > happening.
> >
> > I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make
happy
> Magna
> > Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL
project
> for
> > a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for
the
> > project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work
time,
> > my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check
of
> the
> > ruins, the study of a big project.
> > And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
> (Naumachiae,
> > Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers
and
> > rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's
match, an
> > archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way
to
> > honorate and make happy my Goddess.
> >
> > What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> > Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm
organizing
> > sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
> writing
> > bloodly scenes?
> > Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do
more
> to
> > make happy the Gods?
> > Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and
your
> > friends.
> >
> > > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no
real
> blood
> > is being
> > > shed, where is the harm?
> > > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
> making
> > their own
> > > decisions on
> > > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is
being
> > carried out.
> > > There in lies the
> > > harm.
> >
> > I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority
of
> the
> > Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
> majority
> > of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
declaration.
> > If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office
and
> I'll
> > not continue my career in the next year. However nobody
(except
> your
> > friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
> Office.
> > Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
> elected
> > by the Nova Romans?
> > I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except
the
> higher
> > Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> > Tradition?...
> >
> > > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> > necessary or not,
> > >
> > > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the
sake of
> a
> > political
> > > statement.
> >
> > Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you
what I
> have
> > changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates
didn't
> > organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
> scenes.
> > Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
Tradition?
> > Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize
real
> > games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is
a
> > changement of the Tradition?
> >
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
> ORGANIZING
> > LUDI??
> > Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> >
> > > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since
none
> of
> > > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > > However that may change in the future. After all, that is
all
> a
> > large Texas
> > > cookout
> > > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a
cow,
> cook
> > it, then
> > > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
> >
> > So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running
horses,
> maybe
> > in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard
work.
> >
> > At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> > declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I
can't
> > accept your objections. They are not logical and several
people
> and
> > Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to
reflect
> about
> > your position and move a step back.
> >
> > [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be
fine
> > from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I
don't
> feel
> > pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:38:26 -0700 |
|
Ave Fr. Apulus,
Well you can go ahead and repost the question, or since you have gone the trouble and provided the link to the groups page you can give me which message number you are referring too, and I will be more than happy to respond.
Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Sulla,
no, you're attacking me in a not-noble public way. So please answer
to my reasonable questions in the same public way.
You can read the questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/ and if you don't answer me I have to think you haven't the
answers...
The same things is for Illustrus Fabius Maximus and others. Please,
give the answers. I answered you, why you wan't do it?
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Email them privately to me, and I will respond.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salve Senattor,
>
> please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the
Main
> mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
> But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
>
> Vale
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
> <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday
and
> I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend)
but
> beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed
to
> me. Can you please point it out?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
> >
> >
> > Salvete Maximus and others,
> >
> > I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why
you,
> Sulla
> > and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
> Gnaeus
> > Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> >
> > > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand
why
> > people are
> > > saying what is the big deal.
> > > The big deal is perception and precedent.
> >
> > What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
> majority
> > of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso
fabius
> > Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and
bloodly
> > games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> > I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> > Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong
Ludi?
> >
> > > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of
Rome,
> and we
> > are
> > > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century
hindsight
> we
> > are not
> > > much of a recreation are
> > > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim,
you
> > would not be
> > > making
> > > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
> that
> > told you
> > > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
> >
> > And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
yesterday?
> What
> > kind of punishment they suggested you?
> > I think maybe do you use your religious position like a
political
> > position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a
political
> > controversy?
> >
> > > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you
think
> > this is true,
> > > tells me
> > > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> > >
> > > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
> promotes
> > bloodless
> > > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
> welcome
> > to do it.
> > >
> > > However, this is not the case.
> > > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
> Religio. We
> > have
> > > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients'
writings,
> or
> > when unable
> > > to do so use divine inspiration
> > > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
> Goddess,
> > one who is
> > > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the
Great
> > Goddess
> > > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according
to
> the
> > prophecy.
> >
> > Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us
a
> > description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
> intervation
> > of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater
(or
> > Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> > Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> > I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two
years
> and
> > I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> >
> > > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain
her
> favor
> > with Rome.
> > > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
> excuse to
> > throw a
> > > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
> coming to
> > Rome and
> > > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's
your
> > right since we
> > > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> > Magistrates could
> > > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia
is a
> > state
> > > function.
> > > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
> from
> > happening.
> >
> > I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make
happy
> Magna
> > Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL
project
> for
> > a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for
the
> > project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work
time,
> > my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check
of
> the
> > ruins, the study of a big project.
> > And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
> (Naumachiae,
> > Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers
and
> > rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's
match, an
> > archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way
to
> > honorate and make happy my Goddess.
> >
> > What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> > Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm
organizing
> > sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
> writing
> > bloodly scenes?
> > Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do
more
> to
> > make happy the Gods?
> > Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and
your
> > friends.
> >
> > > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no
real
> blood
> > is being
> > > shed, where is the harm?
> > > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
> making
> > their own
> > > decisions on
> > > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is
being
> > carried out.
> > > There in lies the
> > > harm.
> >
> > I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority
of
> the
> > Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
> majority
> > of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
declaration.
> > If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office
and
> I'll
> > not continue my career in the next year. However nobody
(except
> your
> > friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
> Office.
> > Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
> elected
> > by the Nova Romans?
> > I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except
the
> higher
> > Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> > Tradition?...
> >
> > > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> > necessary or not,
> > >
> > > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the
sake of
> a
> > political
> > > statement.
> >
> > Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you
what I
> have
> > changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates
didn't
> > organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
> scenes.
> > Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
Tradition?
> > Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize
real
> > games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is
a
> > changement of the Tradition?
> >
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
> ORGANIZING
> > LUDI??
> > Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> >
> > > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since
none
> of
> > > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > > However that may change in the future. After all, that is
all
> a
> > large Texas
> > > cookout
> > > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a
cow,
> cook
> > it, then
> > > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
> >
> > So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running
horses,
> maybe
> > in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard
work.
> >
> > At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> > declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I
can't
> > accept your objections. They are not logical and several
people
> and
> > Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to
reflect
> about
> > your position and move a step back.
> >
> > [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be
fine
> > from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I
don't
> feel
> > pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
|
| Subject: |
Re: [Nova-Roma] Multiple Runoffs |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com> |
| Date: |
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:44:54 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites et Salve Illustrus Senator!
>In a message dated 4/7/03 8:46:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>loos@qt1.iq.usp.br writes:
>
>Salvete et Salve Mani Villi Limitane!
>
>> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
>> later when we have much more citizens.
>>
>
>I felt that this should have been done three years ago. However such things
>are hard to
>carry out when going against tradition.
>In all my studies I have found Roman citizens did not vote for one candidate
>at a time, especially when multiple candidates were on the ballot.
Very interesting as I have a proposal for Comitia Centuriata that I
plan to present soon that uses such a system. I think that when the
ideas were gathered You were consulted and this should _partly_ be a
product of your studies. Sadly enough I must be short. I am at the
moment trying to help a young girl at my school ( I am a teacher as
You may remember). Friday night she tried to kill herself. I will
probably be able to do something good about this, but as I also have
an ordinary job to take care of I will not be on line for a few days.
At least I will probably be a bit "slow" to respond for the moment,
but I will do my best to be back as soon as possible.
> It
>appears it is this one "one vote, one candidate" that is causing the problem.
>
>Valete
>
>FABIVS*MAXIMVS
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 22:51:31 -0000 |
|
Salve Illustrus Cincinnatus,
I'm very displease, mine was an attack against you but against the
actual situation. I'm not criticing your functions or your job, I'm
only saying that we haven't a minumum of two Augures. Each system
where there is only one managing an issue isn't a good system because
there is the rick of not impartial actions.
Please don't feel hurted by me, I don't attack you, I critick the
situation.
> L Equitius: You specious argument is duly noted. Often those who
accuse
> others of nefarious motives need to look at their own actions as the
> template. Your use of the Religio to make political statements is
nothing
> short of hypocritical.
I disagree, Augur, I can't use the Religio as an hypocrittical
political statement because I'm not a man of Religio. I haven't
religious powers and I'm not appointed as expert of Religio.
About the political statement, I think wanting the peace and
respecting the involved people is not political.
> I believe you have heard from several Pontificies, none supporting
your
> statement. How many more must it take for you to listen? Must we
make it
> public only to hear the, "why did this have to be public, why
didn't this
> get settled in private?" whine.
I give you the same questions: "why the attackers didn't contact me
in private criticing our statement?" I can think they aren't
criticing as religious experts but they are attacking me in a
political field, they are using their religious powers to move a
political attack against me... But I don't know, I'm a poor Aediles
trying to serve the Gods and my res Publica offering Ludi and big
projects!
> BTW Though Nova Roma is not a 'theocracy', religious positions are
> political! The Religio is part of the State! Go back and read the
> Constitution and related documents.
Sorry, but Sulla said another thing and Maximus too.
So if I understand you're saying religion is political ... I noted...
> The Consules issued a direct statement that Nova Roma is neutral
concerning
> the current conflict.
Augur, please, read the past messages, Consul Quintilianus have
declared our declaration is not against the Declaration of Neutrality
because we didn't talk anything about the current war. Do you think
peace and respect is an eternal ideal or of a one moment?
> Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder
why did F
> Apule made such a
> to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II", must
have been
> important to him.
I think the Ludi is important for me because they are my job in Nova
Roma and I think everything in my life is important.
And I think Ludi are popular events in Nova Roma and 1.700 citizens
are reading what I'm writing. And maybe in this 1.700 citizens there
are people could be involved in the war and they could be hurted by
bloodly scenes or violent histories. This is important for me because
during the Ludi the spotlight light my job and the job of my
wonderful assistants.
And I think the peace and the respect for everybody is the most
important idea and this is important. And I think now there are
Citizens disagree with this concept and are hurting this ideas and
this important for me. But this men are not important for me!
Vale
F. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re:Re: Congratulatios to the two blues |
| From: |
"Daniel O. Villanueva" <danielovi@ciudad.com.ar> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:06:53 -0300 |
|
Salve honorable Consul Q. Caseo Quintiliane
As dominus factionis veneta I was referring to the fact that two blues are in the semifinals at the Ludi Megalenses, which it is an achievement by itself. And all the members of my factio have my support and "hurrah".
Cura ut valeas
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Senator
Tribunus Plebis
Propraetor provincialis Argentinae
Dominus Factionis veneta
|Message: 24
| Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 00:26:46 +0200
| From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus |<christer.edling@telia.com>
|Subject: Re: Congratulatios to the two blues
|
|Salve Illustrus Senator!
|
|What are You saying?
|
>Salvete omnes.
>
>Congratulations to the two blues that go to the semifinals :
>Ossifragus and Phobos!!. The best fortune during the semifinals!!!!
>
>Bene valete
>Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>Dominus factionis veneta
|
|--
|
|Vale
|
|Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
|Senior Consul et Senator
|Propraetor Thules
|Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia |Thules
|Civis Romanus sum
|************************************************
|Cohors Consulis CFQ
|http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
|************************************************
|Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
|"I'll either find a way or make one"
|************************************************
|Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
|Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
________________________________________________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:06:55 -0000 |
|
Salve Sulla,
> The issue, of "Peace, and being against the war" and all those good
things are not the issue. The fact that you have exercised your
position, to the determint of the Religio is the issue. Had you just
made a politcal statement that you are against the war, is fine.
Please, don't confuse, it seems you didn't read our will declaration.
We didn't say we are against the war, we said we are for the peace
and for the respect. It don't mean what you are saying.
> But you have done more than that, by issing your "Joint
Declaration" You and your fellow magistrates have created policy.
You have corrupted an area of the Religio Romana, regardless if that
is how you see it or not.
Please, Sulla, read the last message of Augur Cincinnatus, he
said "Religio is political". So I think "politic is religious", is it?
Against, now you are moving the idea wanting the peace is political.
I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think there is someone
want the war. So wanting the peace is an idae of everybody, is it
political?
About our "mistakes", in a time schedule of your attacks you all said:
1st - we made a political statement (several people disagreed with
you, this is not a law or an edictum and peace is not political)
2nd - we made a political statement against the Declaration of
Neutrality (Quintilianus said it's wrong and our declaration is not
against it)
3th - we made ahistorical Ludi (several people said there were Ludi
qithout murders and NR can't reproduce the original Ludi)
4th - we're changing the Ludi (the past Magistrates didn't organize
Ludi)
5th - we are sacrilege to Magna Mater (we're engaging in the big
project of restoration of the Temple)
6th - we are mixed religion to political affair (Cincinnatus said
religion is political)
7th - I'm not follow my duties (the Constitution don't say it)
8th - we corrupted the Religio and cracked the Gods (.. and the other
Magistrates? see the point about the Temple)
Please, explain me again about what you're attacking me...
> Let us not forget that it was these very Aediles who in February
tried to pass an edict that would have created a Police state and the
establishment of a secret police!
As Nova Romans know, I have withdrawed the Edicta confirming the
critics moved against my actions. Sulla, are you perfect or did you
some errors in your life?
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re:Re: Congratulatios to the two blues |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com> |
| Date: |
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 01:10:54 +0200 |
|
Salve Illustrus Senator!
>Salve honorable Consul Q. Caseo Quintiliane
>
>As dominus factionis veneta I was referring to the fact that two
>blues are in the semifinals at the Ludi Megalenses,
How do You know that? Have I missed something?
>which it is an achievement by itself.
Yes, I would agree. ;-)
>And all the members of my factio have my support and "hurrah".
As the Russata have my support! ;-)
Good night! I must sleep now!
>Cura ut valeas
>
>Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>Senator
>Tribunus Plebis
>Propraetor provincialis Argentinae
>Dominus Factionis veneta
--
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Eagle Website? |
| From: |
"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com> |
| Date: |
Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:15:19 -0400 |
|
Salve Romans
I need help building a web site for the Eagle can anybody help?
Also I would love to have a cartoon appear in the Eagle each month anybody interested?
Vale
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re:Re: Congratulatios to the two blues |
| From: |
"Lucius Pompeius Octavianus" <danielovi@ciudad.com.ar> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:17:43 -0000 |
|
Salve honorable Consul Q. Caseo Quintiliane
> >
> >As dominus factionis veneta I was referring to the fact that two
> >blues are in the semifinals at the Ludi Megalenses,
>
> How do You know that? Have I missed something?
>
Yes. The quarters of the games were announced at the main list.
bene vale
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: Eagle Website? |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:43:38 -0000 |
|
Salve Illustrus Curator Differium,
as you know I'm a professional visual designer specialized in web
projects. Please, take my offer to help you, I'll very proud to help
you creating the Eagle website.
You can look the my "Nova Roman" works at:
- http://italia.novaroma.org
- http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedile/ (please note the flash
movies)
- http://italia.novaroma.org/academiaitalica/
- http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus
and my personal professional portfolio at www.fraelovdesing.it
Abput the cartoons I can help you, I'm not an illustrator, I'm a
graphic dsigner (FreeHand is my left hand and photoshop is the
right) ;-)
Please conctact me privately.
Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> I need help building a web site for the Eagle can anybody help?
>
> Also I would love to have a cartoon appear in the Eagle each month
anybody interested?
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Curator Differum
> Fortuna Favet Fortibus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: correction and resignation |
| From: |
"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@yahoo.it> |
| Date: |
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:19:08 -0000 |
|
Salve Illustra Aventina,
as you know, I have sended several messages in the work list of my
Cohors asking for the confirmation of the signature. I know your
absence but you have been active for a short time during the creation
of the declaration.
BTW I accept your resignment and I thank you for your little job in
my Cohors, I appreciate it. However I would liked to read a your
history ...
Please, take my wishes for a soon wonderful moment and remember what
I said you in my list about your Fortuna.
vale Bene
Fr. Apulus Caesar
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I have just gone back in the archives and I am a bit embarrased to
see that
> my name was signed to the joint declaration regarding the Megalesia
Ludi,
> which I did not even read until 5 minutes ago because I have been
pretty
> much absent from all of the NR lists for the last month. Hindsight
tells me
> that I should have sent an 'official' absentio email so that it
would clear
> that the only emails that I would read would be those posted to the
Tribune
> list.
>
> Had I read the statement beforehand, I would not have agreed to
have my name
> signed to it for 3 reasons:
> - I see it as a political statement even if I personally agree with
peace
> - As a Priestess in the Religio (albeit a very minor one and surely
not the
> most knowledgeable one) I would not sign my name to anything that
even
> slightly involves the Religion without the approval of the Collegium
> Pontificum
> - As a Tribune I find putting my name to the statement of any other
> magistrate to be a conflict of interest.
>
> So to whomever is in charge of 'officially' adding these types of
documents
> to out official records, please remove my name. Thanks!
>
> Lastly, I hereby resign my position as Scriba ad Narrationes since
personal
> obligations will most likely prevent me from being able to write
any of the
> narrations this year.
>
> Thanks & valete,
> Diana Moravia Aventina
>
> <Signed by the following members of F. Apulus Caesar Cohors Aedilis:
> > * F. Apulus Cesar - Senior Curule Aedile
> > * M. Constatinus Serapio - Quaestor
> > * Gn. Salix Galaicus - Scriba Ludorum Primus
> > * M. Iulius Perusianus - Scriba Historicus Primus
> > * G. Fabia Livia - Scriba Historica Secunda
> > * L. Didius Geminus Sceptius - Scriba Ludorum Secundus
> > * C. Curius Saturninus - Scriba Ludorum
> > * D. Moravia Aventina - Scriba ad Narrationes
> > * Renata Corva - Scriba ad Narrationes
|
| Subject: |
[Nova-Roma] The matter of the games |
| From: |
"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org> |
| Date: |
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:52:12 +0100 (BST) |
|
A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.
This debate ceased to be civil some time ago. We have
now had to hear in the public Forum not only strife
and personal attacks but accusations of
unconstitutional conduct, official misconduct, impiety
and treason. We have heard magistrates called upon to
resign. We have heard Pontiffs attempting to exercise
the power of veto. We have heard an invitation to a
duel which I'm afraid to say was not unmistakably in
jest. It is enough.
If we disagree, we are free to discuss our
disagreements.
But if someone thinks there has been unconstitutional
conduct, let him call upon the tribunes to issue a
veto or make a ruling. If someone thinks there has
been official misconduct or treason, let him prosecute
those he accuses. If someone thinks there has been
impiety, let him seek to allay the anger of the gods
by attacking others. If someone thinks a magistrate
should resign, let him make a formal petition. If a
Pontiff wishes to use a veto, let him propose that the
Pontiffs be given an unhistorical power to veto. If
someone wishes to fight a duel, let him remember that
Romans do not fight duels.
These are all matters of the highest gravity. Anyone
who genuinely believes that these things have occurred
is under a heavy duty to take action. Anyone who does
not believe these things but says them anyway is not
only dishonouring himself but engaging in unprincipled
rabble-rousing on a level that I would not believe of
any citizen I have had the slightest dealings with.
To say these things though one does not believe them
is to be one who accuses another of murder knowing him
to be innocent. To believe these things and to make no
formal petition or file no lawsuit is to be one who
believes a murder is taking place but does nothing to
prevent or report it. I do not know which of these to
find more shameful, but I hope that no citizen of this
republic is either of those things, and I hope and
trust that anyone who has said such things will prove
themselves to be neither by issuing without delay
either an apology or a formal petition or suit. I hold
everyone who has engaged in the discussion to be an
honourable citizen, and I hope and trust that I will
not find myself mistaken.
Cordus
=====
www.strategikon.org
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
|
