Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] This is a little disturbing
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Sat, 17 May 2003 23:31:22 -0400

Salve Q. Cassius Calvus

I asked that very question before running for Quaestor and was told that
everything was ok. I don't know if that is true but that's what I was told.

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Quaestor et Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

----- Original Message -----
From: "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:52 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] This is a little disturbing


> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Does no one other than myself find it a little disturbing that the
> Aerarium Saturni has not been updated since the third quarter of 2001?
> While I'm sure that Nova Roma is in decent financial shape and
> nothing unseemly has happened to the funds, asking for a little
> accountability to the tax payers is not out of order.
>
> Valete,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Eagle Staff site at Yahoogroups
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 00:15:29 -0400

Salve friends

If you are a member of the Eagle staff and are not a member of the Eagle staff site at Yahoo groups, please take a few moments to sigh up as it is important that I be able to send one e-mail that will go to the whole staff at the same time. It is also available to discuss any Eagle related issue you may want to bring up. You can subscribe at:

Novaromaeagle-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Consular Cohors
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 04:45:30 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

I took L. Cornelius' advice and have read through the roughly 296K of
material related in one way or the other (and there were many tangents
to this debate) to the size of the senior consul's cohors in January
and I have a few comments on it. There were six major arguments given
against a cohors of the size that senior consul has appointed:

1. There is no precedent for a cohors of this size.
This is true. However, lack of precedent is characteristic of any act
of originality, including a great deal of the legislation proposed and
enacted under some of the principal critics of the cohors' size and I
would challenge anyone who claimed that their original contributions
to NR law should be criticised because they were without precedent.

2. There is no need for a cohors of this size.
This largely rests on the definition of need. If the underlying
assertion is that previous consules have had successful terms with
much smaller cohortes, that is certainly true. However, if need is
measured in terms of the working environment which a consul finds most
comfortable for maximum efficiency, then it makes sense to defer
judgment on this until the end of the term when a comprehensive review
of the term can be made. There is another sense in which need can be
an irrelevant criterion: I don't necessarily need an automobile to be
able to go from one place to another, but it beats the hell out of
walking for miles; so also can it be with staffing arrangements.

3. The size of the cohors makes it difficult to supervise efficiently.
This may well be a problem, but there is little evidence thus far on
which to decide the matter. There is no intrinsic reason to suppose
that thirty people should be more difficult to supervise than three.
It depends on the work habits of the cohors, the difficulty of the
tasks, and the managerial skills of the magistrate. The fact that
there have been what I would describe as mainly public relations
problems arising from postings of a member or two of the cohors may
suggest a managerial problem, but may merely prove that the modern
aphorism "stercus accidit" applies in the best managed of
organisations. If a legislative programme is not presented for
enactment by September, the criticism may be telling.

4. The size of the cohors increases bureaucracy.
This is probably true, but unless one asserts simply that bureaucracy
in principle is a bad thing (as anarchists and libertarians do), there
needs to be evidence of the way in which the size of the cohors
manifestly introduces a _damaging_ bureaucracy for such a criticism to
prevail except as a philosophical preference

5. The century points awarded to accensi in a cohors of this size
result in skewing the lower numbered centuries in favour of the senior
consul and giving an unfair advantage in voting in the Comitia.
This is an empirical question. I have examined the total number of
citizens in each century, the mean number of century points awarded to
the citizens of each century, the range of century points within each
century, and the century and century points held by each member of the
senior consul's cohors (there is one member of the cohors whose
century and century points are not recorded in his entry in the Album
Civium and I excluded minors since minors cannot accrue century
points). Under the most generous algorithm the censores might apply
there are no more than three members of the cohors whose five points
for service as accensus might advance them to a lower numbered century
than they would be afforded without those points. Further, it is
unclear that service in the cohors entails agreement with the senior
consul on every issue or candidate presented to the Comitia.

6. The number of elected magistrates in the cohors creates potential
conflicts of interest.
I'm not clear as to why this should be so. If there is a conflict
between the senior consul and an inferior elected magistrate (except,
of course, tribuni plebis), the senior consul can always prevail by
intercessio anyway and if the inferior magistrate disagrees with the
senior consul, he can resign from the cohors. In at least one
pertinent case (see below) the problem was the absence of a
potentially useful consultation between elected magistrates and the
senior consul rather than consular manipulation of other magistracies.

7. The size of the cohors potentially intimidates citizens from
expressing dissent.
I can see some point in this criticism, but the size of the cohors
hasn't deterred some of the most intense and hostile criticism I've
seen in the archives. Perhaps some less vocal citizens have been
intimidated, but they have could avail themselves of plenty of cover
from unintimidated, vocal critics. I wish also to make clear that I
think that public office by its nature subjects the holder to harsh
criticism and someone who cannot accept that fact has probably made a
mistake in attempting to ascend the cursus honorum.

There were also four criticisms of the cohors which are not strictly
related to its size:

1. The awarding of century points for service is in principle wrong.
This is a perfectly respectable position to take. It is, however, not
particularly pertinent to the size of the cohors, since the same
argument could be deployed against a cohors of only one accensus.

2. Membership of elected magistrates in the cohors distracts those
magistrates from their primary responsibilities.

There are six elected magistrates in the cohors. Two are consular
quaestores and entirely appropriate in any consular cohors. One is
quaestor to a curulis aedilis; so long as the magistrate to whom he is
assigned hasn't complained about his job performance I see no reason
to believe that his attention to his elected responsibilities has been
diminished. One is curator araneum; there doesn't seem to be any
criticism of the website or evidence of diminished capability. Two
are curules aediles. In this last case there is some reason for
concern in my view, but not for the reasons cited by the critics. I
have high praise for the work of Gn. Equitius for his work on the ludi
and, with one exception, the work of F. Apulus on the ludi; by and
large they have coordinated their staff well to provide worthy
celebrations. The Cohortes Aedilium websites are attractive and
informative, and the work they have done with the factiones is
praiseworthy. I disagreed with F. Apulus' macronational political
declaration in connection with the ludi, but it is a matter over which
reasonable people can disagree. The matter over which I have concern
is the aediles' edicta on commercium; it seems to me that the close
consultation and exchange of advice with the senior consul which is
implied by membership in the cohors seems not to have happened over
these edicta. It is true that the aediles are not obligated to
discuss their edicta with the senior consul, but it suggests that an
opportunity to avail themselves of the counsel of the senior consul
was lost here. That is something worth thinking about for all
concerned. In another connection, Q. Cassius' recent comment on the
aerarium may harbinger discovery of a problem with quaestorial
oversight, but that remains unproven.

3. Minors cannot validly undertake the apparitorial oath.
This is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. As a
matter of historical Roman law, there were circumstances under which
the claim is false.

4. The apparitorial oath creates clientage.
It's clear from postings that members of the cohors do not think this
is so and they are the people on whom the obligations of clientage
would fall if the oath created clientage (it is, after all, on their
conscience's if they have perjured themselves and none of us has a
window into their minds). Even if were were the case that the oath
creates a clientele, I don't see what the problem is (although I grant
that my taste for historical verisimilitude in NR is greater than that
of others): junior magistrates were often in the clientele of more
powerful politicians in republican Rome. Clientage had degrees in
practise and the clientage of a free-born person to a patron had quite
different different implications for dignitas from the obligations of
freedman to former master.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Two questions on Roman History
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 00:53:20 -0400

Salve Friends

I would like to ask two question on Roman history.


1. In your opinion who was the most outstanding personality in the 1229 years of Roman civilization from 753 BCE to 476 CE ( I do not include Byzantium). This person would be the culmination of Roman civilization.



2. Acknowledging the fact that it was a multifaceted event,

Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the start of the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Aerial Archaeology
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 06:29:58 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "Aerial Archaeology" site:

http://www.archaero.com/archeo31.html

The site was created by Jacques Dassie and contains a wealth of
fascinating scientific material introducing the theory and practise of
aerial surveys in archaeology and a very detailed discussion of the
use of these techniques to map Romano-Gallic sites. The site is
available in French and English.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Two questions on Roman History
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 02:40:39 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/03 9:55:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, spqr753@msn.com
writes:


> Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the start of
> the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.
>
>

Gaius Marius
QFM


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

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Two questions on Roman History
From:	"jlasalle" <jlasalle@sbcglobal.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 01:46:36 -0500

Sulla

GB Agricola
-----Original Message-----
From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com [mailto:qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:41 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Two questions on Roman History


In a message dated 5/17/03 9:55:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
spqr753@msn.com
writes:


> Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the start
of
> the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.
>
>

Gaius Marius
QFM


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Two questions on Roman History
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 06:54:55 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, T. Galeri.

> I would like to ask two question on Roman history.
>
>
> 1. In your opinion who was the most outstanding personality in the
1229 years of Roman civilization from 753 BCE to 476 CE ( I do not
include Byzantium). This person would be the culmination of Roman
civilization.

I'm not certain how reasonable a question this is. If one understands
"culmination" as ultimate embodiment in time, an argument could be
made for the emperor Julian, but Cato the Elder would have regarded
him as an utterly un-Roman Helleniser. If what you are getting at is
the person who most contributed to making Rome what it was as a
civilisation, I'd suggest Augustus, whose creation of the principate
was an act of genius of the first order at a time when Rome could
easily have much worse, but, then, characterising one individual as
the exemplar of more than a millenium in a civilisation's history is a
bit of an arbitrary business.

> 2. Acknowledging the fact that it was a multifaceted event,
>
> Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the
start of the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.

A bit tongue in cheek, but... Marcus Licinius Crassus. If Crassus
hadn't gotten himself killed at Carrhae, the political dynamics which
led to the civil war would have been very different and even if one
believes that the break between Caesar and Pompeius Magnus was
inevitable, the troops lost in the Parthian campaign would have
provided the margin for a relatively quick victory for the side to
which Crassus committed (I'd guess that Crassus would have supported
Caesar, but that is just a speculation, albeit one which the
correspondence of Cicero suggests to me).

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Two questions on Roman History
From:	"Gregory Rose" <gfr@intcon.net>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 07:06:00 -0000

G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Fabio Maximo et G. Basilicato Agricolae salutem
dicit.

Salvete, Q. Fabi et G. Basilicate.

I'm not so certain that the republic was doomed before the collapse of
the First Triumvirate. The compromises over the Sullan reorganisation
in the 70-60's BCE seemed to bring at least a decent chance of
stability. Certainly there are some problematic continuities in the
republican system from at least the time of the Gracchi, but it seems
a little teleological to argue that that system was doomed from the
days of Marius and Sulla. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Two questions on Roman History
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 08:32:29 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Tib. Galeri.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Friends
>
> I would like to ask two question on Roman history.
>
>
> 1. In your opinion who was the most outstanding personality in the
> 1229 years of Roman civilization from 753 BCE to 476 CE ( I do not
> include Byzantium). This person would be the culmination of Roman
> civilization.

That is extremely easy: Marcus Ulpius Traianus. After all, he was
born in Hispania :-).

> 2. Acknowledging the fact that it was a multifaceted event,
> Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the
> start of the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Cassius and Brutus. If Caesar had not been killed, there wouldn't
have been yet *another* civil war, would it?

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Two questions on Roman History
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <scorpioinvictus@hotmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 00:31:26 +0200

Salve Tiberi Galeri,

I can't answer the first question. The concept of 'what is truly Roman' cannot be easily defined in a civilisation that stretches over a millennium. It also depends, in hindsight, on your own sympathies. I have a lot of sympathy for emperor Hadrianus despite or perhaps even precisely because he was no traditional emperor. But imho this question is a bit the same as asking "Who is the most Russian personality in Russian history?". You might get caricatural answers aimed at clichés, or just the most fervent nationalist. But certainly not the most virtuous person.

About the second question, I would say "the optimates faction" and "the leading classes in general". While the populares were all but saints themselves I believe that if the optimates had been more lenient and if both factions had not stuck to their amateuristic principles that the empire would have remained under Republican control. The key date in this was 146BCE. The empire had become so large that it logically couldn't be controlled anymore by an amateuristic Senate and an oligarchy, but they stubbornly persisted, which gave rise to the war of the socii in the eighties, Marius' drastic reforms, Sulla's reactionary dictatorship, Caesar's triumvirate, and ultimately his death and the creation of an autocratic Empire.

My 2 denarii.

Vale bene,
M. Octavius Solaris


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: A small remark turned into quite some issue ;)
From:	"jachthondus" <rompy@xs4all.nl>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 10:13:36 -0000

Being a simple Rome-Freak,

Am I allowed as to ask You, (Right-Honourable Senators, Consuls, or-
Whatever" of this "Nova-Roma), were these conversations about Your
private "Cursus Honorum" are leading us to?

One more humble-remark; (if I may)?
Reading these messages, one doesn't get very happy about the
Historical-Roma-quality of this "Roma-micro-Nation".

If I may advise You:
Do take effords NOW, not to let your "life-work" fade-away into
a "micro-banana-Nation", before it will be too late...

Yours Sincerely,

Jachthondus.




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Solaris"
<scorpioinvictus@h...> wrote:
> Salve iterum Sulla,
>
> Been a long time since we debated, no? ;)
>
> << Sulla: Become a Senator, they [the records about
the 'embezzlement' he claims] are in the Senatorial archieves. >>
>
> MOS: That is *not* what I call evidence. There is no law forbidding
you to quote from the senatorial archives.
>
> << Sulla: I do not know [why he would have lied if Sulla is
correct in his assumptions]. I do not know the man. >>
>
> MOS: I actually asked *when exactly* it occurred after Vado
resigned. One month, four months... it makes a difference.
>
> << Sulla: I believe that Vado and Fabius were friends as well. >>
>
> MOS: Vado hated Fabius and vice versa.
>
> << Sulla: Vado was a Senator and member of the board of
directors and appointed as govenror of the provincia of Britannia.
It was his responsibility as govenror to collect, maintain, and
transfer those funds to the central treasury. He bears the
responsibility for its misappropriation. Before I answer your
question, you should answer mine, What dollar amount in your mind
would be sufficient to justify the term embezzlement? $10.00?
$100.00? $1,000.00...or would you prefer to base it on a precentage
of the Nova Roma Treasury? In my mind, the amount of money taken was
not the issue. >>
>
> MOS: Board of directors you say? To my knowledge provincia
Britannia was no legal entity. Did he ever promise to put this money
into the central treasury? If he did, he made a mistake. If he
didn't, the money on Bicurratus' account is technically theirs. You
can't embezzle money if it's your own, and as I said before it
actually *was* their own money they had given to provincia Britannia
(a non-legal entity which therefore cannot own money).
>
> That aside, what I think qualifies as embezzlement is a nice trick
to make me throw out hard numbers but the answer is not that simple.
If it actually is embezzlement we're talking about (I first need
proof of it, or someone to refute my reasoning above), then any
number technically is embezzlement, just like a group of five people
governing hundred people is technically speaking an oligarchy. But
you know as well as you do that embezzlement bears a grave
connotation and is a term usually used when dealing with very high
figures. And now, please answer my question: how much was on that
account? If you say embezzlement you need to give us numbers, not the
other way around.
>
> Furthermore, why was the money, even if it was really technically
embezzled, never retrieved? Why didn't you just sue Vado and
Bicurratus if it really was embezzlement? What happened to the
investigation, if there really was one? And "become Senator and check
the Senatorial archives" will not do as an answer, thank you very
much! :)
>
> Optime vale in pace deorum,
> M. Octavius Solaris
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Aerarium Saturni
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 09:06:51 -0400

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 03:16 AM, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Does no one other than myself find it a little disturbing that the
> Aerarium Saturni has not been updated since the third quarter of 2001?
> While I'm sure that Nova Roma is in decent financial shape and
> nothing unseemly has happened to the funds, asking for a little
> accountability to the tax payers is not out of order.

I actually did a first-quarter report for 2003 (Scipio is the Quaestor
responsible, but I was asked to fill in during his absence). I
submitted it to the Senate, but never posted it on the Web. My
apologies, and I'll post that right away.

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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 09:25:53 -0400

On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:16:24PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you name one single person here who is familiar with the work
> of the
> > Cohors _and_ has criticized it? I don't know about anyone else, but
> I
> > call such "criticism" (a misnomer, since the critical faculty
> cannot be
> > applied without data) an attack.
>
> I see, criticism that there is lack of evidence of work in progress
> is now an attack.

That's not what I've said. I was not talking about criticism *of* lack
of evidence, but criticism of the Cohors without any evidence. However,
the subtle-as-a-brick difference is apt to elude those who are looking
for a bone of contention.

> What is next> Is dissent is to be called
> treason? Is this Nova Roma or some Orwellian state?

<rolling eyes> What's next, a Noh play about the futility of polishing
snail antennae with frozen hammers? Is chopped liver to be called
/gehakte leiber/? Is this a Los Angeles cafeteria or a shoe-shine parlor
in West Algeria?

Man, the histrionic posturing has been overused and is getting *old*.
Give it a rest. It's also unconnected to anything that's been said.

> Being in public
> office does not make one immune from criticism. In fact it does the
> exact opposite. Being in public office is to criticism is akin to
> swinging a 5 Iron in a thunderstorm. If one does not wish to be
> stuck by lightning then one ought to stay off the golf course during
> thunderstorms.

Your attempt to advise me in politics - prompted, no doubt, by QFMs
silly assumptions about the thickness of my skin - is hilariously
malapropos. I've coped with a politically-charged environment that
would turn your knees to jelly for the first third of my life, and
require no tutoring. Make a note: lack of political _ambition_ does not
in any way imply a lack of political _awareness._

I also note that the "thin skin" defense, in its usual disguise as
patronizing advice, is usually used by those who don't want to - or are
unable to - take the heat for their own words or actions. In general, I
can only suggest that they take their own advice - or stay out of that
kitchen.

> Let's put it this way. With 25 people working a minimum average of 1
> hour a week for 20 weeks that is 500 man hours. Is it really all
> that unreasonable for the people to have some expectation of some
> visible and tangible result?

Nope - it's not unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable is your belief
that those results must be presented on *your* schedule, or on anyone's
except the person whose job it is to decide when they will be presented.

> Yes, taking an oath to a person rather than the people collectively.
> If I remember correctly, the edict regarding the oath states "I,
> __enter Roman name here____________do hereby solemnly swear to uphold
> the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of
> __enter name of appointing magistrate here____ while I hold this
> office, except when such action would be illegal or
> unconstitutional......."
>
> In fact that is what it does state as I look it up at
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/consul-2003-01-01-iii.html
> Hmmm, no where in it is a oath to act in the best interests of Nova
> Roma, but only in the best interests of the appointing magistrate.
> An act may neither be illegal nor be unconstitutional, but it may not
> be in Nova Roma's best interests. Who should decide what is in Nova
> Roma's best interest? A little group of 25 or the people
> collectively in their respective Comitia? I vote for the people in
> their Comitia.

Your vote in this instance makes no difference. The oath I and the other
Accensi swore is the one that we were asked to swear by a Consul of Nova
Roma, in accordance to the current law of Nova Roma. If you have a
problem with a law or an edict, why are you complaining about it to me?
That seems pointless in the most charitable interpretation.

Incidentally, I now note that it's a "little group of 25". Make up your
mind. It's either a ravening horde which threatens Nova Roma's very
existence - or it's a tiny group which is incapable of even simple
consensus. The entire structure of your argument is tottering on those
shaky legs; better prop it up quick.

> What was it that Romans called those people who took oaths to act in
> the best interests of another way back then? It's on the tip of my
> tongue. Oh yes, CLIENTS! Despite the use of client as an invective
> here in the past, I must commend you for your loyalty to your patron,
> a very noble and Roman attribute.

Come now; you can do better than *that*. Loyalty to a capable leader has
been called far, far worse things by countless poltroons and
incompetents throughout history. If you're raring to join their ranks,
you can surely dig up something much more effective.


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

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: A small remark turned into quite some issue ;)
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 09:51:11 -0400

Salve, Jachthondus -

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:13:36AM -0000, jachthondus wrote:
> Being a simple Rome-Freak,
>
> Am I allowed as to ask You, (Right-Honourable Senators, Consuls, or-
> Whatever" of this "Nova-Roma), were these conversations about Your
> private "Cursus Honorum" are leading us to?

<chuckle> Just as my personal opinion, they're not supposed to lead
anywhere. The context here is that some people on this list are notable
for their attempts to revise or distort history and fact, and others
have simply assumed the thankless task of correcting their
disinformation whenever they try to spread it. There's not much real
content in it, just a little struggle for accuracy.

> One more humble-remark; (if I may)?
> Reading these messages, one doesn't get very happy about the
> Historical-Roma-quality of this "Roma-micro-Nation".

You know, that really is an interesting statement, all the more so for
the fact that it often gets repeated here. My perception - and it may
well be a mistaken one in which I'm more than willing to be corrected -
is that all the silly bickering *is* fairly close to what happened in
the past, despite our wishes to idealize Roman history (not that I would
have minded if NR _was_ a place where people acted much closer to those
ideals, but - oh well.) I think that it would benefit Nova Roma if this
was one of the things we chose *not* to emulate here, but this seems to
be the reality of the day.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Libertas inaestimabilis res est.
Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
-- Corpus Iuris Civilis: Digesta

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 14:53:49 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:16:24PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus
wrote:
> > I see, criticism that there is lack of evidence of work in
progress
> > is now an attack.
>
> That's not what I've said. I was not talking about criticism *of*
lack
> of evidence, but criticism of the Cohors without any evidence.
However,
> the subtle-as-a-brick difference is apt to elude those who are
looking
> for a bone of contention.

That is correct, there is a difference, one you chose to ignore and
twist criticism of the lack of cocrete results into something else
entirely. The politically correct term is " putting a spin" but I'm
not so politically correct and I still call it, "bullshit artist".


> > What is next> Is dissent is to be called
> > treason? Is this Nova Roma or some Orwellian state?
>
> <rolling eyes> What's next, a Noh play about the futility of
polishing
> snail antennae with frozen hammers? Is chopped liver to be called
> /gehakte leiber/? Is this a Los Angeles cafeteria or a shoe-shine
parlor
> in West Algeria?

The very fact you attempt to dismiss the concern that the next step
in the game after calling critical analysis being attacks is to start
labeling the dissenters as traitors in such an abusrd manner means
you have no arguement against that. Very telling, very telling.

> Your attempt to advise me in politics - prompted, no doubt, by QFMs
> silly assumptions about the thickness of my skin - is hilariously
> malapropos.

Nope, not advise, just stating it the way it is.

> > Let's put it this way. With 25 people working a minimum average
of 1
> > hour a week for 20 weeks that is 500 man hours. Is it really all
> > that unreasonable for the people to have some expectation of some
> > visible and tangible result?


> Nope - it's not unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable is your
belief
> that those results must be presented on *your* schedule, or on
anyone's
> except the person whose job it is to decide when they will be
presented.

Wrong! The Cohors serves the Consul, the Consul serves the People.
Hence the schedule and the agenda the Consuls should be following is
that of the People.

> Your vote in this instance makes no difference. The oath I and the
other
> Accensi swore is the one that we were asked to swear by a Consul of
Nova
> Roma, in accordance to the current law of Nova Roma. If you have a
> problem with a law or an edict, why are you complaining about it to
me?
> That seems pointless in the most charitable interpretation.

I see. My belief in the People of nova Roma to decide what is best
for Nova Roma makes no difference. How true, since the people have
to date been offered NOTHING. Everything has been rule by decree
where the people have had no say in the matter. I'm glad we have
competent Tribunes this year.

> Incidentally, I now note that it's a "little group of 25". Make up
your
> mind. It's either a ravening horde which threatens Nova Roma's very
> existence - or it's a tiny group which is incapable of even simple
> consensus. The entire structure of your argument is tottering on
those
> shaky legs; better prop it up quick.

Have I ever said the Cohors is a raving horde descending on Nova
Roma? No, on the contrary I have not. However a tiny group incapable
of reaching a concensus is just as dangerous. Floating around
aimlessly is as dangerous to the ship of state as a raging political
hurricane.

> Come now; you can do better than *that*. Loyalty to a capable
leader has
> been called far, far worse things by countless poltroons and
> incompetents throughout history. If you're raring to join their
ranks,
> you can surely dig up something much more effective.

Did I say that client-patron relationships are a bad thing? No I
have never said that such relationships are a bad thing so long as
its public knowledge of who is beholden to whom. Did I say your
loyalty and defense of your Consul as an Accensi was a bad thing?
Absolutely not, in fact I commended you for it!

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Aerarium Saturni
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 14:59:49 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Cassia <pcassia@n...>
wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 03:16 AM, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
> > Does no one other than myself find it a little disturbing that the
> > Aerarium Saturni has not been updated since the third quarter of
2001?
> > While I'm sure that Nova Roma is in decent financial shape and
> > nothing unseemly has happened to the funds, asking for a little
> > accountability to the tax payers is not out of order.
>
> I actually did a first-quarter report for 2003 (Scipio is the
Quaestor
> responsible, but I was asked to fill in during his absence). I
> submitted it to the Senate, but never posted it on the Web. My
> apologies, and I'll post that right away.
>
> -----
> Patricia Cassia
> Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
> Nova Roma . pcassia@n...

Salve,

No need to apologize. Was just wondering what had happened. Perhaps
disturbed was too strong a word. "Concerned," in hindsight would
have been more appropriate. When making the decision to join Nova
Roma one thing that impressed me was the financial documents being
accessable. While the dollar amounts may not be impressive, the
accountability for even the meger amounts is.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 11:40:44 -0400

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:53:49PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:16:24PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus
> wrote:
> > > I see, criticism that there is lack of evidence of work in
> progress
> > > is now an attack.
> >
> > That's not what I've said. I was not talking about criticism *of*
> lack
> > of evidence, but criticism of the Cohors without any evidence.
> However,
> > the subtle-as-a-brick difference is apt to elude those who are
> looking
> > for a bone of contention.
>
> That is correct, there is a difference, one you chose to ignore and

One _I_ chose to ignore? You're the one that chose to twist what I
wrote.

> twist criticism of the lack of cocrete results into something else
> entirely. The politically correct term is " putting a spin" but I'm
> not so politically correct and I still call it, "bullshit artist".

Indeed, that's what you're coming off as. Now you're trying to lie your
way out of a mistake that you could have simply admitted; clearly, a
self-labelling act that needs no further demonstration.

> The very fact you attempt to dismiss the concern that the next step
> in the game after calling critical analysis being attacks is to start
> labeling the dissenters as traitors in such an abusrd manner means
> you have no arguement against that. Very telling, very telling.

<laugh> Ah, trying to invent a bogeyman and propping it up with
suspicious-sounding but content-free garbage. Your master's technique is
showing; better tuck in that leash before it becomes too obvious.

Oh, be sure to get ready to point an accusing finger whenever I call
anyone a traitor; surely, it's a precipitous calamity that will fall on
Nova Roma anytime now.

> > > hour a week for 20 weeks that is 500 man hours. Is it really all
> > > that unreasonable for the people to have some expectation of some
> > > visible and tangible result?
>
> > Nope - it's not unreasonable at all. What is unreasonable is your
> belief
> > that those results must be presented on *your* schedule, or on
> anyone's
> > except the person whose job it is to decide when they will be
> presented.
>
> Wrong! The Cohors serves the Consul, the Consul serves the People.
> Hence the schedule and the agenda the Consuls should be following is
> that of the People.

As soon as the people decide to make you their voice, they'll be sure to
let you know by voting you Consul. You're welcome to these infantile
tantrums until then.

> > Your vote in this instance makes no difference. The oath I and the
> other
> > Accensi swore is the one that we were asked to swear by a Consul of
> Nova
> > Roma, in accordance to the current law of Nova Roma. If you have a
> > problem with a law or an edict, why are you complaining about it to
> me?
> > That seems pointless in the most charitable interpretation.
>
> I see. My belief in the People of nova Roma to decide what is best
> for Nova Roma makes no difference.

That's exactly right. Your beliefs do not run Nova Roma; the laws that
the people have voted on do.

> How true, since the people have
> to date been offered NOTHING. Everything has been rule by decree
> where the people have had no say in the matter. I'm glad we have
> competent Tribunes this year.

Ah, lashing out at other random targets now. How appropriate. Did you
skip your Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft cocktail this morning?

> > Come now; you can do better than *that*. Loyalty to a capable
> leader has
> > been called far, far worse things by countless poltroons and
> > incompetents throughout history. If you're raring to join their
> ranks,
> > you can surely dig up something much more effective.
>
> Did I say that client-patron relationships are a bad thing? No I
> have never said that such relationships are a bad thing so long as
> its public knowledge of who is beholden to whom. Did I say your
> loyalty and defense of your Consul as an Accensi was a bad thing?
> Absolutely not, in fact I commended you for it!

In that case, let me commend you for having stopped beating your wife
and abusing small animals. What, you don't feel complimented? I'm
shocked, frankly shocked.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
De gustibus non est disputandum.
That is a matter of taste.
-- N/A

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Electoral Reform and the Consular Staff (WAS: Voting results)
From:	Diana Moravia Aventina <diana_aventina@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 08:50:39 -0700 (PDT)

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@strategikon.org> wrote:
Salve A Apollonius,

Sorry for the delayed answer. I am spending about
12 hours per day at the hospital and then to top
it off this is barely what anyone would call an
internet connection. It took me 15 minutes to
edit your email and delete your replies to other
people. Anyway, once again i don't know why if
someone questions sonmething it is thought of as
an attack or that that person is mad or angry. Of
course I am not angry and think that you would
make a fine Tribune next year, but sorry to say
that I really dont agree with you at all.
First of all back in
February I am sure that you asked me not to
propose anything in the CPT and to wait for the
Senior Consuls proposal which I did not have a
problem with. Now you are saying that you never
said such a thing and insinuate that I am lying
and volunteer to post our private emails here.
Feel free to do so- If I misunderstood your
original email then you should have clarified it
in your second email to me.
First you
said: > > > In the mean time, he has been
discussing
> his
> > > proposed
> > > changes with the Tribunes,

And now: > It is
> a
> matter of public record that the Consul has
> been
> discussing this matter with you, since I have
> been
> doing it on his behalf on the e-mail list of
> the
> Plebeian Assembly, to which any citizen may
> subscribe.
> The Consul is a Patrician and therefore unable
> to post. Huh?? So
in other words when you post and sign your name
it is actually from the Senior Consul? So how do
I know when an email is really from you or when I
am really speaking to the Senior Consul since now
you are saying that I have publicly been
discussing things with *him* when in actuality
the emails were from you. To whom am I speaking
to now? I am confused... In any case, my
apologies Senior Consul for not replying to your
emails. I thought that they were just chatty
emails from a Apollonius Cordus. I obviously
missed the part where Cordus announced that all
of his emails were on your behalf. However, since
(I think) Cordus said that none of the Tribunes
responded to you, I suspect that they also did
not realize that all of Cordus' emails posted on
the CPT list are actually from you the Senior
Consul.I'll be sure to go through the archives
when I return to belgium and send you a proper
answer. Vale Diana Moravia, Tribunus Plebis

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] CC
From:	Diana Moravia Aventina <diana_aventina@yahoo.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 09:53:32 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,
MM Scaevola writes to LC Sulla:
> > Who, precisely, is "us"? Are you trying to
> coopt Diana into some faction
> > of your own, and do you have her permission
> to speak for her?
No he doesn't have permission to speak for me but
in this case I admit that I agree with his posts.
As far as anyone coopting me into their faction
that has not happened. I am a bit too hard headed
and stubborn to be told what to do :-) But IF if
I had joined a faction what would be the problem?
It s not unconstitutional. There are elected
magistrates who are also sworn advisiors and
assistants of the Senior Consul, as everyone nows
swearing to act in his best interests. To me this
makes it impossible for them to make a decision
within their elected position that goes against
the Senior Consuls wishes. In my opinion this is
a conflict of interest but as yet is not
unconstitutional. So my comment to the above
statement by Scaevola would be; People in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones.
Q Fabius
said> You say we have freedom of speech here. I
am
> exercising it on the behalf
> of a lot of citizens that seem to be scared of
> you. I do not understand
> that,
> but I guess there is strength in numbers.
I agree with the above
statement. Factionless and alone, I have been
literally afraid of saying any word against the
CC and CA since january because I have been
afraid of getting verbally trashed by the +/-
Cohors extended family on and off list. Anyway, I
have spoken out anyway and lucky for me that I am
way way behind on my emails because I haven't had
a chance to read all for the hate mail :-)
Vale, Diana Moravia


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: CC
From:	"Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <sacro_barese_impero@libero.it>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 17:38:50 -0000

Salve Diana,

> It s not unconstitutional. There are elected
> magistrates who are also sworn advisiors and
> assistants of the Senior Consul, as everyone nows
> swearing to act in his best interests. To me this
> makes it impossible for them to make a decision
> within their elected position that goes against
> the Senior Consuls wishes. In my opinion this is
> a conflict of interest but as yet is not
> unconstitutional.

What do you mean, Diana? Maybe do you mean the Magistrates of our Res
Publica (me too) elected by the Nova Romans are obliged to think in a
different way by the Consul? Do you think we are submited to the
wishes of the Consul un-able to take decisions or positions "by our
mind"? I think what you're saying is very offensive for us
Magistrates and all Nova Romans appointing us. And I invite you to
cancel your statement giving us your apologies.
Yes, I'm an assistant of Quintilianus helping him in little works of
comunication but I'm not the un-able "little pet" of the Consul. I'm
a good friend of Quintilianus and in the past we had hard discussions
showing as I CAN decide for myself.
Diana, I think (IMHO) you wrong because this is not a conflict of
interests, this is politic. In the past december your factio lost the
elections and the majority of the appointed Magistrates were friends
of Quintilianus working togheter to grow NR. This is a free
government appointed by Nova Romans in free elections. A factio wins,
the other loose ... maybe in the next december the loosers will win
the elections, this is Democracy. Yes, I agree lucky this is not
unconstitutional.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 20:18:06 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:53:49PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus
wrote:

Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola,

This is my last post to you on this matter. It is obvious that one
can not have a debate with you because you use circular arguments.

Someone says it appears that nothing is being done vis a vis the
Consular Cohors

You reply, not true a lot is being done.

They reply, like what?

You reply, I'm not at liberty to tell you and you have no evidence
that a lot isn't being done.

They reply, Well, what evidence is there to show that anything is
being done?

Anything you don't wish to discuss you reply with childish insults
and inane comments like frozen hammers on snails or some such
nonsense.

As for the Prozac, ect statements. I am not on any medication and
your insinuation without evidence (where as the client thing there is
evidence via the oath and the way it is written) borders on slander.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

And around and around it goes.

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Two questions on Roman History
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 20:38:44 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Friends
>
> I would like to ask two question on Roman history.
>
>
> 1. In your opinion who was the most outstanding personality in the
1229 years of Roman civilization from 753 BCE to 476 CE ( I do not
include Byzantium). This person would be the culmination of Roman
civilization.

Calvus: That is a tough one. I'd have to say Hadrian since it was
pretty much all down hill from there.


> 2. Acknowledging the fact that it was a multifaceted event,
>
> Who in your opinion is the one individual MOST responsible for the
start of the civil war that lead to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Calvus: Publius Scipio Nasica, at his instigation the Tribune
Tiberius Gracchus was assassinated. Once the taboo of harming a
Tribune was broken after that everything was permissible.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	"Benjamin A. Okopnik" <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 17:19:48 -0400

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 08:18:06PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:53:49PM -0000, quintuscassiuscalvus
> wrote:
>
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola,

Salve, Quintus Cassius Calvus -

> This is my last post to you on this matter.

Excellent; it'll reduce the useless noise level in here considerably.

> It is obvious that one
> can not have a debate with you because you use circular arguments.

No; you can't have a debate with me because you flail uselessly, change
issues constantly, and distort facts. As long as you keep doing these
things, it's not a debate - it's a pissing match. The main issue that I
responded to in Diana's post was answered simply by her after a calm
discussion, and I was more than satisfied with the results of it.
Most of what came after that was just useless noise that produced no
positive effect whatsoever.

> Someone says it appears that nothing is being done vis a vis the
> Consular Cohors
>
> You reply, not true a lot is being done.
>
> They reply, like what?
>
> You reply, I'm not at liberty to tell you and you have no evidence
> that a lot isn't being done.

So far, so good. I note that when someone makes a claim, the burden of
proof is on the original claimant.

> They reply, Well, what evidence is there to show that anything is
> being done?
>
> Anything you don't wish to discuss you reply with childish insults
> and inane comments like frozen hammers on snails or some such
> nonsense.

Whoops, you've just lost it... but you had no way out, so I understand.
The above nonsense was a clear parody of your posturing and not a
factual reply. See what I mean about distortion?

Now, _I_ will finish the logic chain that you'd started. Since the
burden of proof is on the claimant, you *can't* build a logical
structure that shows me wrong - this is why I knew going in that you
would lose the argument. So, to requote:

> They reply, Well, what evidence is there to show that anything is
> being done?

And I say, there can be none until the Consul chooses to share whatever
information he decides is appropriate - which may or may not include how
much work the Cohors has done.

That's the end of the chain. That's the thing I've been saying from the
very beginning. That's the thing that you, Sulla, and QFM have been
ignoring. All of you have been flailing away at me for *no* reason,
since the above chain terminates in a very simple, easily reached
solution - which NONE of you have taken instead of flailing, screaming,
insults, and attacks. I wonder if any of you would be capable of
explaining why.

I am willing to admit when I'm wrong (not always - I'm quite human, and
have my faults - but I give it my best); Diana had pointed out where I
was inaccurate in labeling her actions, and I immediately admitted my
error. None of the three of you, however, seem capable of such
admissions, nor of presenting a reasoned argument that has merit
(although I know the reason for that one in the first two cases and can
guess at it where you're concerned.) Note that when you started this,
I answered your logic with logic.

In short, if you think that your insults and attacks will carry the day
against me, you'd better bring your lunch.

> As for the Prozac, ect statements. I am not on any medication and
> your insinuation without evidence (where as the client thing there is
> evidence via the oath and the way it is written) borders on slander.

Somehow, your impotent little threats fail to intimidate me. Better luck
next time.


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] CC
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 17:42:52 -0400

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
> Salve,

Salve, Diana Moravia Aventina -

> MM Scaevola writes to LC Sulla:

I believe it was Fabius, actually.

> > > Who, precisely, is "us"? Are you trying to
> > coopt Diana into some faction
> > > of your own, and do you have her permission
> > to speak for her?
> No he doesn't have permission to speak for me but
> in this case I admit that I agree with his posts.
> As far as anyone coopting me into their faction
> that has not happened. I am a bit too hard headed
> and stubborn to be told what to do :-) But IF if
> I had joined a faction what would be the problem?

Nope. I didn't say that it would. However, your statements were being
coopted for someone else's purposes (whether you agreed with them
_later_ is not the issue; you had not expressed either agreement or
disagreement at the time.) If I knew that Fabius is allowed to speak for
you at all times, I would not have asked the above question; since I
don't believe that he does, I did. Feel free to let me know if I was
wrong to defend your right to make your own statements.

> It s not unconstitutional. There are elected
> magistrates who are also sworn advisiors and
> assistants of the Senior Consul, as everyone nows
> swearing to act in his best interests. To me this
> makes it impossible for them to make a decision
> within their elected position that goes against
> the Senior Consuls wishes. In my opinion this is
> a conflict of interest but as yet is not
> unconstitutional. So my comment to the above
> statement by Scaevola would be; People in glass
> houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sorry, you've got the wrong glass house - Scaevola doesn't live in this
one. (I live in a steel house and use polycarbonate glasses, but it
messes up the metaphor something terrible. :) I'm not an elected
magistrate, and can't speak to the above issue anyway - I haven't given
it enough thought to have a firm opinion.

> Q Fabius
> said> You say we have freedom of speech here. I
> am
> > exercising it on the behalf
> > of a lot of citizens that seem to be scared of
> > you. I do not understand
> > that,
> > but I guess there is strength in numbers.
> I agree with the above
> statement. Factionless and alone, I have been
> literally afraid of saying any word against the
> CC and CA since january because I have been
> afraid of getting verbally trashed by the +/-
> Cohors extended family on and off list.

I'm sorry to hear that. Do you feel that _I_ have verbally trashed you?
I most certainly hope not, since this was never my intention in your
case, and I sincerely apologize if that is your perception. I do feel
free to disagree with you publicly, but I believe that there's a broad
ditch and a high wall between those two things.

> Anyway, I
> have spoken out anyway and lucky for me that I am
> way way behind on my emails because I haven't had
> a chance to read all for the hate mail :-)

There is none from me, I assure you. I cannot speak for anyone else, but
I would be surprised to learn that there was any from either the CA or
the CS.


Optime vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Quid rides? Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
Why are you laughing? Change the name and the story is about you.
-- Horace, "Satirae"

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] CC
From:	Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@callahans.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 17:49:49 -0400

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 05:42:52PM -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 09:53:32AM -0700, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I
> > have spoken out anyway and lucky for me that I am
> > way way behind on my emails because I haven't had
> > a chance to read all for the hate mail :-)
>
> There is none from me, I assure you. I cannot speak for anyone else, but
> I would be surprised to learn that there was any from either the CA or
> the CS.
^^^^^^

That would be the CC, of course.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nil desperandum!
Never despair!
-- Horace, "Carmina"

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Diana's Freedom ofSpeech (was CC)
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 22:12:21 -0000

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Diana Moravia.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Diana Moravia Aventina
<diana_aventina@y...> wrote:
> Q Fabius said
> > You say we have freedom of speech here. I am exercising it on
> > the behalf of a lot of citizens that seem to be scared of
> > you. I do not understand that, but I guess there is strength in
> > numbers.
> I agree with the above
> statement. Factionless and alone, I have been
> literally afraid of saying any word against the
> CC and CA since january because I have been
> afraid of getting verbally trashed by the +/-
> Cohors extended family on and off list. Anyway, I
> have spoken out anyway and lucky for me that I am
> way way behind on my emails because I haven't had
> a chance to read all for the hate mail :-)
> Vale, Diana Moravia

Sorry, Diana; but I have not understood your statement above.
Do you really mean that you are afraid of speaking out your mind, or
it was just an ironic remark?

Please excuse my lack of empathy there, but English is a foreign
language for me, after all :-).

I know that you will need some time to reply to this message. Do not
worry; reply whenever you feel like it.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 23:35:39 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Rogator Q. Cassius Calvus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

On the matter of whether or not there should be an
oath for assistants at all, I can understand your
view, and I'm not altogether antipathetic to it.
However, I personally would feel uncomfortable working
for a magistrate without some sort of statement making
explicit what the working relationship is, what the
limits are of what I am expected to do, and whether
there are any conditions. I agree that an oath is
perhaps not ideal - I would prefer a brief contract.
However, I would rather have the oath than nothing, as
it gives me a good idea of the nature of my job and
makes it less likely that my employer and I will
disagree about the nature of my employment, wasting
time which could be far better spent disagreeing about
policies or legal terminology!

I'd also like to pick up on something you said to
Minucius Scaevola, if I may:
> Wrong! The Cohors serves the Consul, the Consul
> serves the People.
> Hence the schedule and the agenda the Consuls should
> be following is
> that of the People.

I may have misunderstood your line of thinking here,
but it sounds like one which sometimes appears as an
interpretation of how elective democracy works which I
don't follow. The argument goes: the officer
(magistrate in our case) is elected by the voters to
do a particular job; therefore the officer's mandate
to to the job comes from the people; therefore the
officer must follow the people's wishes in the manner
in which he does the job. So in this case, the Consul
was elected by the people, so if the people want him
to produce legislation before the end of May, he must
do it.

This is, of course, not correct. The job which the
Consul is elected to do is being Consul. Nowhere in
law or custom is it set out that Consuls must produce
legislation before the end of May, or indeed ever.
Senator Cornelius Sulla argues that without military
campaigning legislation is the only way for a Consul
to leave his mark to posterity - fair enough, but it
is not a Consul's job to leave his mark if he doesn't
want to. There would be some validity to this line of
thinking if the Consul had made an election promise to
pass legislation before the end of May, but I don't
think this particular one did.

By electing a magistrate the people are mandating him
to do fulfill the duties of the office, and to fulfill
whatever election promises he has made. There are no
grounds for them to demand more than that - if they
wanted a Consul who would legislate by the end of May,
they should have asked all the candidates before the
election whether they would undertake to do so, and
vote accordingly. It is perfectly reasonable for the
voters to demand that the Consul fulfills his election
promises; it is not reasonable of them to demand that
he do something he never said he would do and is not
part of his job. Naturally they have every right to
request and petition, but the suggestion that by not
legislating by the end of May, or whetever date one
may care to set, the Consul would be failing in his
duties is untenable.

Cordus


=====


www.strategikon.org


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 19:10:07 EDT

In a message dated 5/18/2003 5:24:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ben@callahans.org writes:

> No; you can't have a debate with me because you flail uselessly, change
> issues constantly, and distort facts. As long as you keep doing these
> things, it's not a debate -- it's a pissing match. The main issue that I
> responded to in Diana's post was answered simply by her after a calm
> discussion, and I was more than satisfied with the results of it.
> Most of what came after that was just useless noise that produced no
> positive effect whatsoever.

Caius Minucius Scaevola:

I am not so sure they are failing uselessly. I have silently, and patiently,
watched this debate. To be honest, I have seen the criticism proposed by
Sulla, and I can see his point.

For the record I like the Senior Consul. I do not belong to any faction that
serves to officially oppose him. I do think his extremely large group of
advisors is too much, but its his choice to make. It does, however, send up
a few red flags -- in my opinion -- when nothing has been presented to the
populace. He has also been pretty silent on the main list.

So what I would propose. . . .Instead of spending all the time and effort
responding to criticism, work on those projects that should be presented to
the whole citizenry. I would image I can speak for several -- who feel as I
do -- that the back and forth e-mails is getting out of hand. We would like
to SEE something. Additionally, I do not understand "not at liberty to
say..." A simple checklist of..."we are working on this, this, and this. We
are almost done with A, and project B is about half done."

I would also like to mention that Nova Roma has more than one Consul, and we
have Praetor's who can assist in leading our Republic. I have to confess,
that I do see a DIFFERENCE between the leadership this year and the
leadership from last year (hats off to Octavius and Sulla). But I remain
patiently optimistic.

In closing I would caution you Caius Minucius Scaevola. Please do not take
the same defensive, and attacking posture with me as you do with Sulla --
what I mention here today, I would gladly bring up whether the Senior Consul
is present or not. I voted for the Senior Consul, and I have a right to say
what I have to say. Let us see some action.

In Fellowship & Peace:

G. Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Electoral Reform and the Consular Staff (WAS: Voting results)
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2003 00:10:18 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to Tribune Diana Moravia Aventina
and all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> Sorry for the delayed answer.

There is no need to apologize at all - I understand
your technical difficulties, and I also know that my
messages can get very long, for which I apologize.

> Anyway, once again i don't know why if
> someone questions sonmething it is thought of as
> an attack or that that person is mad or angry. Of
> course I am not angry and think that you would
> make a fine Tribune next year, but sorry to say
> that I really dont agree with you at all.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that you were
making an attack by raising a perfectly reasonable
question - it was just that the tone of your message
startled me, since in comparison to your usual mild
and conciliatory manner it seemed harsh to me. But
perhaps I misinterpreted. You have said elsewhere that
you find it intimidating to criticize the Consul's
staff, and that you feel you receive "hate mail" as a
result. This is very sad news, and I can now
understand better why your tone may have been less
light than usual. In any case, I'm glad to hear that
you're not angry, and if anything I have ever said in
defence of the Consular Cohort has felt to you like
hate mail, I am truly sorry.

> First of all back in
> February I am sure that you asked me not to
> propose anything in the CPT and to wait for the
> Senior Consuls proposal which I did not have a
> problem with. Now you are saying that you never
> said such a thing and insinuate that I am lying
> and volunteer to post our private emails here.
> Feel free to do so- If I misunderstood your
> original email then you should have clarified it
> in your second email to me.

I did not mean to say that this did not happen, and I
don't think that that is the implication of my last
reply to you. What I disagreed with was your statement
that I "told" you not to propose anything. Senator
Sulla quite rightly expressed grave concern about
this, because not a Consul and certainly not a
Consul's assistant has the right to tell a Tribune
what to do - so I felt it important to clarify that I
suggested (or asked, if you prefer), but did not
order. My offer to show people the relevant message
was not a threat of any kind, merely a gesture to
reassure anyone who had concerns about this that no
such malpractice had occurred. I am not proposing to
paste anything to the main list, nor would I show
anyone a single word that you wrote to me in private;
but I am happy to show to any individual who is
worried about this the message that I wrote to you.

I absolutely do not mean to suggest that you are
lying, merely that if you understood me to have been
trying to order you to do something, that was neither
my intention nor was it what my message to you said.
If it is how it seemed to you, I'm sorry for that.

> First you
> said: > > > In the mean time, he has been
> > discussing
> > his
> > > proposed
> > > changes with the Tribunes,
>
> And now: > It is
> > a
> > matter of public record that the Consul has
> > been
> > discussing this matter with you, since I have
> > been
> > doing it on his behalf on the e-mail list of
> > the
> > Plebeian Assembly, to which any citizen may
> > subscribe.
> > The Consul is a Patrician and therefore unable
> > to post.
>
> Huh?? So
> in other words when you post and sign your name
> it is actually from the Senior Consul? So how do
> I know when an email is really from you or when I
> am really speaking to the Senior Consul since now
> you are saying that I have publicly been
> discussing things with *him* when in actuality
> the emails were from you. To whom am I speaking
> to now? I am confused...

I am always very careful to make it clear when I am
writing in an official capacity. In the message to the
Plebeian List which we are talking about here, which
carried the subject line "Elections: Proposal from the
Senior Consul" (and was sent on Weds 9th April if
anyone is interested), the greeting was addressed
thus:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to the Tribunes and all
> plebeians and guests, greetings.

Notice the explicit address to the Tribunes.

It went on:

> I am pleased now to be able to address you on this
> subject not unofficially but now in my official
> capacity as a member of the Senior Consul's cohort.
> As the Consul has already mentioned in the Forum, he
> has a proposal ready to be presented soon which
> will, if passed, reform the electoral procedures for
> the Centuriate Assembly. He is more than happy for
> the principles of his proposal to be adapted for use
> in the Plebeian Assembly, and for this reason he has
> asked me (since he is currently occupied and is in
> any case not a plebeian) to sketch the proposed
> reform to you all so that you can consider it before
> the full text is released.

I then proceeded to do just that, in some detail. I
concluded:

> I hope you will give this proposed system careful
> thought, and that you'll agree that it's the best
> possible long-term solution to the problems we've
> been having.

I would have hoped that this made it all fairly clear
that I was writing in an official capacity, on behalf
of the Senior Consul, addressing the Tribunes with the
hope that they would consider the proposed system.

> In any case, my
> apologies Senior Consul for not replying to your
> emails. I thought that they were just chatty
> emails from a Apollonius Cordus. I obviously
> missed the part where Cordus announced that all
> of his emails were on your behalf. However, since
> (I think) Cordus said that none of the Tribunes
> responded to you, I suspect that they also did
> not realize that all of Cordus' emails posted on
> the CPT list are actually from you the Senior
> Consul.

If you are being sarcastic, I'm disappointed. You
already said that you are not angry or upset, you are
not involved in an attack on anyone, you are merely
raising reasonable questions. I fully believe this,
and I don't understand why therefore it is necessary
to engage in sarcasm and exaggeration.

Yes, you evidently did miss the part where I specified
that I was speaking on behalf of the Consul. Since
this came right at the beginning of the message, after
the sentence addressing the message to you and your
colleagues, I can only assume that my writing is so
boring that you fell asleep as soon as you saw my
name! :) I can actually quite easily believe that,
and I do not doubt that you and your colleagues made
an honest mistake in overlooking this message. You
must have been very busy at the time trying to think
of a solution to the problems with the electoral
system, and many people were posting their ideas, so
it would have been understandable, though I must say
remiss and regrettable, of you to fail to read the
Consul's suggestion as I passed it on.

> I'll be sure to go through the archives
> when I return to belgium and send you a proper
> answer.

I'm very glad to hear that, and I hope your colleagues
will go back and read the message too. I honestly
believe that the Consul's system is the best solution
to these problems, and I would very much like to see
the Plebeian Assembly benefit from the hard work he
has done on it, with the help of myself and my
colleagues.

Best wishes,

Cordus


=====


www.strategikon.org


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Apollonius=20Cordus?=" <cordus@strategikon.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2003 00:19:02 +0100 (BST)

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Modius Athanasius and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I hope neither you nor Minucius Scaevola mind me
intercepting a small piece of your message to him to
add my own comments.

> Additionally, I do not understand "not at liberty to

> say..." A simple checklist of..."we are working on
> this, this, and this. We are almost done with A,
> and project B is about half done."

This is a reasonable request. The problem is that the
Consul is away, though I believe he is returning in
the next day or two. Before he left he gave us no
instructions to announce publicly what we are or have
been working on, and it would not be appropriate for
us to announce this without his permission. He has
given us permission to say that we have been working
on electoral reform, so we have said so.

I can think of no reason why he should not wish to say
what we have been working on, and I expect if you ask
him when he returns he will tell you. Until then, it
wouldn't be totally fanciful to imagine that he and
his assistants have been working on some of the things
he said he would work on in his election platform. But
however reasonable your request is, it's not within
our rights to grant it without permission. I hope you
understand.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2003 19:23:53 EDT

In a message dated 5/18/2003 7:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cordus@strategikon.org writes:

> I can think of no reason why he should not wish to say
> what we have been working on, and I expect if you ask
> him when he returns he will tell you. Until then, it
> wouldn't be totally fanciful to imagine that he and
> his assistants have been working on some of the things
> he said he would work on in his election platform. But
> however reasonable your request is, it's not within
> our rights to grant it without permission. I hope you
> understand.

I understand...but I find it odd that since there something like four
levels/degrees of advisors that one of them is not empowered to act on the
Consuls behalf. That is a process known as delegation. With a Cohors so
large delegation is essential.

Additionally...we have TWO Consuls within Nova Roma. Is Titus Labienus
Fortunatus doing anything?

Vale;

G. Modius Athanasius


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