--- 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

--- 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

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

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@...> 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

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

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

--- 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.

--- 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.

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

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"

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 07:10:07PM -0400, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

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

<smile> We have a slight problem here: I don't know whether you've
misread/musunderstood the word that I used ("flailing" rather than
"failing"), or whether you have understood and simply misspelled it. No
great matter, but I do wonder.

> 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.

I have also noted the point of some of Sulla's criticisms - a number of
them were, in my opinion, capably answered by Cordus. For me, most of
Sulla's points are drowned by his rhetoric, insults, and attacks; if
those were absent, I would gladly try to answer the criticisms to the
extent that I can - but as things stand, that's not what happens.

> 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.

Strange as it may seem, I can't come up with a metric of any sort for
how often a Consul should post on the main list. Please don't take this
as an argument - I simply can't estimate what a reasonable level would
be in this case.

> 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.

I understand that; the point has been made by enough people, including
those whose judgement I respect, that it is very clear. Can you
understand that this decision does not lie in my hands, or the hands of
anyone else in the Cohors?

> 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 believe that Cordus has just addressed that issue; I don't really have
anything to add to it.

> 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.

If you look at my posts carefully - and I would appreciate you granting
me that courtesy - you will see that I do not attack first except where
I'd been previously attacked by my opponent (and I am usually willing to
respond in kind if my opponent's tone changes; I can cite examples, if
you wish.) I believe that it is a military truism that an attacker must
vanquish while a defender must only survive, and I prefer the stronger
position. I will also ask you to note that I have had nothing to gain in
these debates: I have simply attempted to defend a group of people
unjustly judged and in some cases attacked - at some cost to myself.

> I voted for the Senior Consul, and I have a right to say
> what I have to say. Let us see some action.

You certainly do have a right to say it, and I support that right. You
have stated your viewpoint without insulting or attacking anyone - and
you got back a reasoned reply in return. If I do have a /modus
operandi/, it is exactly this; I trade respect for respect, gentle
speech for gentle speech, and insult for insult. In all cases, I strive
to have my reply of a better grade than the original post - figuring out
where that leads in all three cases should not be a difficult matter.

My compliments to you, by the way (and Diana, whom I had forgotten to
mention under this heading) on posting into what you both perceived as
an automatically hostile environment.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dictum, factum.
Said and done.
-- Terence, "Heautontimorumenos"

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a Dutch site on the excavation of a Roman barge, "Ontdekking
van een Romeins schip in die Leidsche Rijn" (Discovery of a Roman ship
in Leidsche Rijn):

http://archeologie.kennisnet.nl/schip/

The site reports on the Netherlands Institute for Maritime
Archaeology's excavation of an extraordinarily well-reserved Roman
barge near the city of Utrecht (in a housing project called Leidsche
Rijn). It has a weekly journal of the excavations, two webcams aimed
at the barge itself, and a gallery of photographs from the dig. The
site takes a while to load, but is well worth the wait. The site is
in Dutch with an English summary (Free Translation --
http://www.freetranslation.com/ -- has a Dutch-English machine
translation facility, but like most such things it is a hit-and-miss
affair).

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve

I have a question. I know that the Senior Consul holds the Fasces for May,
but does he have to? If he is going to be absent can't he and the junior
Consul swap months. In the Ancient Republic didn't one Consul remain in Rome
to govern while the other attended to the military campaign of the moment? I
know that both were equally in command on different days but both left only
when Rome was fighting on two fronts.

We have a system of twin executives can this not meet the needs of a absents
of one?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors


> 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
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Salve Francisce Apule,

> Diana, I think (IMHO) you wrong because this is not
> a conflict of
> interests, this is politic.

There is a difference between a serving magistrate
holding similar political views to the consul and
being tied to the same by an oath of loyalty. In my
opinion there is a clear conflict of interest in the
latter, especially amongst the more senior magisterial
positions - As an Aedile, you are charged with
upholding the rules and regulations pertaining to the
marketplace...as such, your loyalty should be to the
state and the state alone and you should be bound by
no oath to a sitting consul during your tenure of
office. This holds even more true for our praetors,
who are charged with upholding our judiciary and
monitoring the flow of speech in NR public forums.

> 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.

Nova Roma is a Republic not a Democracy.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

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

Salvete,

Can anyone help this chap. Please post all replies to
this list and then I can forward them to him directly.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Scriba Censoris.

> > TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
> >
> > I found your website immensely fascinating. I
> study
> > ancient civilizations as a private passion. First
> and
> > foremost I study the mighty Persians. Then I deal
> > with Hellenic Rome (particularly as the Romans
> > pertained to the Middle East). Then I am
> interested
> > in early Christianity and the Byzantine period.
> But
> > anyway...
> >
> > I am curious what name you think would be
> appropriate
> > for me. My name is Rom Hashemi. I am ethnically
> > Persian and I am a Christian. My last name has
> > Semitic origins meaning in Hebrew "The Name of
> mine".
> > Bad grammar but "Hashem" is the way Jews referred
> to
> > God out of reverence (instead of saying "yahweh",
> > "elijah", or "jehova"). The name is also Arabic,
> > meaning "from the crusher of evil" it is also the
> name
> > of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's tribe. I also
> study
> > at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
> where I
> > have almost completed my two degrees in Middle
> Eastern
> > Studies and Political Science. I was born in
> > Columbia, Missouri. My career is pointing towards
> > law.
> >
> > I don't know - I was thinking something like:
> >
> > Romulus Hasemius(or Asemius) Jesus(or Pius)
> Persius
> > Columbius
> >
> > Let me know what you think. Thanks again.
> >
> > Excited,
> > Rom Hashemi
> >
> > =====
> > "Grant us prudence in proportion to our power,
> > Wisdom in proportion to our science,
> > Humaneness in proportion to our wealth and might."
> > -- Thomas Merton, excerpt from his prayer before
> the House of
> Representatives, 1962
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >

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

Hello, dear Caius Municius Scaevola!

Before being pushed-off from the "Tarpeic-Rock" for having "critised"
the Honoured Rulers of this RM-micro-nation "too much", I hope that
they will give me the chance, (together with my last cigarette), to
thank YOU for your comment on my message in this mailing-list?!...

(I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for their allowance, though)!

And if my "faults" ever would lead to exile? I will ask Cicero-
himself to do his utmost to deny that we EVER "met" eachother on the
18th of May.

Fare thee well, my Friend!

Jachthondus.









--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
wrote:

> 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

Salve Silanus,

> There is a difference between a serving magistrate
> holding similar political views to the consul and
> being tied to the same by an oath of loyalty. In my
> opinion there is a clear conflict of interest in the
> latter, especially amongst the more senior magisterial
> positions - As an Aedile, you are charged with
> upholding the rules and regulations pertaining to the
> marketplace...as such, your loyalty should be to the
> state and the state alone and you should be bound by
> no oath to a sitting consul during your tenure of
> office. This holds even more true for our praetors,
> who are charged with upholding our judiciary and
> monitoring the flow of speech in NR public forums.

So, do you mean my full job in Nova Roma is a conflict of interests?
Following your words, I can't be assistant of the Curator Araneum
and Propraetor Provinciae Italiae because my duties as Curule Aedile
could be meet the interests of the Curator Araneum and of the
Provincia Italia.
In the majority of the modern States the Ministries make own oath in
front of the State (President) and of the Premier (winner politic
man in the last election) and he have to follow the guidelines of
the Government. Thi sis what happen, I think...
However, Silanus, as our Trinbune Diana said, serving a Consul and
having imperium by a Magistracy is not uncostitutional in Nova Roma.

> Nova Roma is a Republic not a Democracy.

Republic is a political system, democracy is an ideal too and first
of all. There is big difference, the Republis is a way to apply the
Democracy. Do you mean the Nova Roman Res Publica is not democratic?

Vale
Fr,. Apulus Caesar

Salve Francisce Apule,

> Following your words, I can't be assistant of the
> Curator Araneum
> and Propraetor Provinciae Italiae because my duties
> as Curule Aedile
> could be meet the interests of the Curator Araneum
> and of the
> Provincia Italia.

As propraetor, your oath is to the state, so there is
certainly no conflict there. You can also 'assist' the
Curator Aruneum to your hearts content, should you
desire to to do. My argument is that as a serving
senior magistrate, you should not be bound in oath to
any one individual. That is a clear conflict of
interest. How do you proceed if that individual
violates the laws of the Macellum as laid down by your
own edicts?

> However, Silanus, as our Trinbune Diana said,
> serving a Consul and
> having imperium by a Magistracy is not
> uncostitutional in Nova Roma.

Absolutely, though of course that doesn't make it
right :-)

> > Nova Roma is a Republic not a Democracy.
>
> Republic is a political system, democracy is an
> ideal too and first
> of all. There is big difference, the Republis is a
> way to apply the
> Democracy. Do you mean the Nova Roman Res Publica is
> not democratic?

I didn't make myself clear perhaps...my apologies.
Nova Roma emulates the ancient Roman Republic, we are
not here to emulate a modern democratic state. Most
constitutional experts would not consider the ancient
Republic a true democracy.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.


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

Salvete Quirites,

Let me first make it clear here that I don't belong to Quintilianus' cohors, nor do I belong to those who so fiercely oppose him. I am a scriba of Fortunatus, the other consul, but I'm not speaking on his behalf and I'm not writing this mail from my 'job' as scriba (actually he just hired me as a Latin dude).

Quintilianus' opponents have to explain me something. When he appointed his large consular staff a huge outcry followed, accusing Quintilianus of forming some sort of mafia, with all kinds of shady arguments and assertions which have, hithereto, not been proven. It seems like everything he does is automatically suspicious (although there is no proof of anything and no one is coureageous enough to point the finger and make a concrete accusation of something he allegedly did or is doing wrong). But now it gets even funnier: everything he *doesn't* do is suspicious too! He can never do anything good, I suppose, for his loyal opponents. I think his hard-headed adversaries have forgotten his Academia Thules initiative, which was unparallelled by any other in Nova Roma. Or the fact that he, as an aedilis last year, revitalised the ludi circenses and attracted capable webmasters to make their websites. He did more than any other aedilis had done before him and set a new standard for future aediles to live up to.

I recall that there once was a time here when criticising the so-called 'zombie magistrates' was considered not done. 'Zombie magistrates' were the type of lads and lasses who, once elected, did *absolutely nothing* but collecting mothballs and - when they felt like it - voting in the Senate, to which they had been elevated although they had done nothing more than being elected. There are numerous examples in the lists and annals of ex-magistrates no one has ever heard of. Luckily times have changed for the better in this respect, but I simply remark that among those who now criticise the senior consul, there are people who used to defend the 'zombie magistrates' two years back.

But let me ask Quintilianus' opponents another question: what is it that you really *expect* him to do? No one seems to have concrete proposals, except for Sulla who hinted at creating legislation to leave his mark, but I think we will all agree that you can't just make legislation for the sake of making legislation. Let me tell you this, however: I, *too*, await some results of a consular staff of 25 people but you'll all have to admit that we're not even halfway the year yet, and you'd be holding Quintilianus to higher standards than you ever held former magistrates by.

I would like to note that the "poor-me"-argument expressed by some that there is a certain fear to speak up against the senior consul because there is a risk that you'll get 25 people all over you, is very feeble. For instance, only three, maybe four people of the consular cohors usually react. And surely if your critical arguments are sound and undeniably correct they can only be squelched by an overwhelming mass hysteria - which has *not* occurred.

In concluding, I'd like to invite everyone to simply wait and see what this year's magistrates will do. It's good they are being reminded every now and then of their duties, but we will have to wait until the year is over to make a final assessment.

Optime valete,
M. Octavius Solaris Draco


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

The Aerarium Saturni section of the Web site has been updated with the
most recent information I have. Thank you for the reminder!

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

Salve Decime Iuni,

Just a small remark and a few questions for clarification.

<< I didn't make myself clear perhaps...my apologies. Nova Roma emulates the ancient Roman Republic, we are
not here to emulate a modern democratic state. Most constitutional experts would not consider the ancient Republic a true democracy. >>

You might not be aware of this, but in the past the false mantra "republic, not democracy" has frequently been hurled around here. I just wanted to make it clear once more - not to you, but to everyone in general - that these are not mutually exclusive. Compare: my hair is blonde, but it is also long. Not all long hair is blonde and not all blonde hair is long.

However, it is true that by many politicologists the ancient Republic would not be considered a democracy because women could not vote, there was slavery and only a small percentage had voting rights. But the site of Nova Roma explicitly states that we are here to recreate the best of ancient Rome, religion and culture in the first place. Do you think that we should follow the ancient model, and if so, in what aspects? Or, as an additional question, do you dislike the concept of a 21st century democracy and for what reasons? Mind you, I am not trying to make you sound suspicious, I'm just asking these questions because I'd like to have clarifications with regards to your viewpoints.

Optime vale,
Marcus Octavius Solaris Draco


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

Dear Cousin:

I would say that the answer to the first part of your question would be Augustus. He structure the Principate to restore as much of the best part of the Republic as he could while keeping power in his hands for the good of the Roman people. He stabilized the Roman state after a period of over 100 years of internal chaos and intercine warfare. He restored temples and public buildings; settled the Spanish revolts; and attempted to expand the territory of Rome.
In regards to your second question, Marius was the most outstanding personality that led to the civil wars by opening the legions to the disfranchised and the poor. His action took the lower classes (who primarily fought as velites and slingers in the Servian armies) and out of the direct control of their ancestral patrons. By making them the swords of Rome, he gave them the power to back successful generals for positions of power and led them to hold the Senate in contempt.

Flavi Galeri

Salve Marce Octavi,

> You might not be aware of this, but in the past the
> false mantra "republic, not democracy" has
> frequently been hurled around here. I just wanted to
> make it clear once more - not to you, but to
> everyone in general - that these are not mutually
> exclusive.

Certainly not mutually exclusve in the modern sense of
the terms republic and democracy...however the Roman
Republic was far from a democractic by modern
standards.

> However, it is true that by many politicologists the
> ancient Republic would not be considered a democracy
> because women could not vote, there was slavery and
> only a small percentage had voting rights.

Further, those voting rights were skewed in terms of
the wealth of the voter.

> But the
> site of Nova Roma explicitly states that we are here
> to recreate the best of ancient Rome, religion and
> culture in the first place. Do you think that we
> should follow the ancient model, and if so, in what
> aspects?

Ok hands up....I'm guilty. As imperfect as it may seem
by todays moral sensibilities, I have a great degree
of respect and admiration of the Roman political
system. What they achieved is amazing, especially
given the technology of the age. As yes, I want to
recreate it as near as damn it...thats why I am here.
If I wanted to help create a modern democratic
republic, I would be elsewhere.

BTW, if we had slavery, state sponsered sexual
discrimination or simply threw citizens off the
tarpeian rock because we felt like it, I would not be
here then either. We all have our own opinions as to
what constitutes the 'best' of Rome. Its about as
subjective as you can get. These are just some of my
opinions.

> Or, as an additional question, do you
> dislike the concept of a 21st century democracy and
> for what reasons?

I don't dislike it at all. If anything, I have a
passionate dislike towards my own nations hereditary
head of state system. But then again if NR were
attempting to recreate the principate, I would not be
here either.

> Mind you, I am not trying to make
> you sound suspicious, I'm just asking these
> questions because I'd like to have clarifications
> with regards to your viewpoints.

Then you could have mailed me privately of course :-)

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus

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

Salve Decime Iuni,

[snip]

<< Ok hands up....I'm guilty. As imperfect as it may seem
by todays moral sensibilities, I have a great degree
of respect and admiration of the Roman political
system. What they achieved is amazing, especially
given the technology of the age. As yes, I want to
recreate it as near as damn it...thats why I am here.
If I wanted to help create a modern democratic
republic, I would be elsewhere.

BTW, if we had slavery, state sponsered sexual
discrimination or simply threw citizens off the
tarpeian rock because we felt like it, I would not be
here then either. We all have our own opinions as to
what constitutes the 'best' of Rome. Its about as
subjective as you can get. These are just some of my
opinions. >>

MOS: Okay, point taken!

[snip]

> Mind you, I am not trying to make
> you sound suspicious, I'm just asking these
> questions because I'd like to have clarifications
> with regards to your viewpoints.

<< Then you could have mailed me privately of course :-) >>

MOS: Certainly. But since your statement was a public one, I responded in public. I usually work that way. I'm a very simple man, lol :).

Optime vale!
M. Octavius Solaris Draco


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

A. Apollonius Cordus to D. Iunius Silanus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> As propraetor, your oath is to the state, so there

is

> certainly no conflict there. You can also 'assist'
> the Curator Aruneum to your hearts content, should
> you desire to to do. My argument is that as a

serving

> senior magistrate, you should not be bound in oath

to

> any one individual. That is a clear conflict of
> interest. How do you proceed if that individual
> violates the laws of the Macellum as laid down by
> your own edicts?

If I may, I'd like to repeat a remark I made earlier
concerning the assistants' oath. It is true that a
magistrate, oath-bound to serve the best interests of
the state, who is also an assistant to another
magistrate, and oath-bound to act in the best
interests of that magistrate during his or her term as
assistant, could conceivably come into a position in
which those two oaths conflict.

If this were to occur, there would be no great crisis.
The person in question would have to resign from one
or other of those offices, thereby cancelling the
relevant oath. To decide which position to resign, he
or she would have to consider whether it would be more
in the interests of the state and of the other
magistrate to continue to serve the state or to
continue to serve the magistrate.

Imagine a certain Albinus who is a Praetor and also an
assistant to a Censor. If he were in such a position,
he might think, 'well, I am a good Praetor, there is a
major court case coming up which will need my
attention, and it would be very disruptive to the
state for me to resign as Praetor; on the other hand,
the Censor is doing fine and doesn't need me that
much; so I'll resign from his staff and stay on as
Praetor'. Alternatively, Albinus might think, 'the
census is coming up, and the Censor will need all the
help he can get; as Praetor, I haven't really been
doing much lately and the year's nearly over; so I'll
resign my Praetorship and stay helping the Censor'.
Neither of these decisions would break either of
Albinus' oaths, and either way he would no longer have
a conflict of interests. Fairly straightforward,
really.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


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

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:39:43AM -0000, jachthondus wrote:

> Hello, dear Caius Municius Scaevola!

Salve, Jachthondus!

> Before being pushed-off from the "Tarpeic-Rock" for having "critised"
> the Honoured Rulers of this RM-micro-nation "too much", I hope that
> they will give me the chance, (together with my last cigarette), to
> thank YOU for your comment on my message in this mailing-list?!...

<laugh> You're more than welcome. Fortunately for us both, no one seems
to know where the Tarpeian Rock is around here, or several people bodies
- almost certainly including mine - would be lying, broken and pierced,
on the rocks and shoals of jagged rhetoric.

> (I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for their allowance, though)!

<LOL> Despite my name, neither would I; I'd hold out for a far loftier
goal. I didn't pick my cognomen lightly.

> And if my "faults" ever would lead to exile? I will ask Cicero-
> himself to do his utmost to deny that we EVER "met" eachother on the
> 18th of May.

Heh. I'm really getting a wonderful chuckle out of your sense of humor -
history by implication... as long you avoid the terror squads roaming
the streets, all will be fine. :)

> Fare thee well, my Friend!

And you as well.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Quam bene vivas refert, non quam diu.
The important thing isn't how long you live, but how well you live.
-- Seneca Philosophus, "Epistulae"

Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus -

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Salve
>
> I have a question. I know that the Senior Consul holds the Fasces for May,
> but does he have to? If he is going to be absent can't he and the junior
> Consul swap months. In the Ancient Republic didn't one Consul remain in Rome
> to govern while the other attended to the military campaign of the moment? I
> know that both were equally in command on different days but both left only
> when Rome was fighting on two fronts.
>
> We have a system of twin executives can this not meet the needs of a absents
> of one?

That's a fairly good question if considered on a broader scale than that
of the present moment, actually. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an
edict or a law that would grease the wheels of that particular
mechanism, just in case of future need. However, some relevant questions
would be:

1) How long of an absence would be considered sufficient for this
purpose? What happens if an absence that was planned as short-term (say,
a day short of whatever the limit happens to be) gets extended by a
continued (or new) emergency?

2) What happens if a Consul has emergencies come up for two months in a
row? Does the other Consul hold the fasces straight through, and is that
a fair load on him?

Just to bring things back to the present for the moment, I don't believe
that the Consul's current absence would meet any reasonable definition
of point 1. But these are, I think, interesting and important questions.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Audentes fortuna iuvat.
Fortune favours the brave.
-- Vergil, "Aenis"

Salve Aule Apolloni,

Your example resides on the fact that a conflict of
interest requires a 'trigger' or 'incident' to come in
effect. However, in your example, praetor Albinus also
happens to be responsible for moderation of Nova
Roma's Main List...our main channel of communication.
To ammend your example slightly, Albinus now works for
a senior consul and is included in a team of
individuals who regularly engage in political debate
on this channel. Conflict of interest? I personally
think so.

Anyways, specific examples sometimes offer little to
enhance an argument one way or another. We have both
provided examples that provide evidence of this in
this instance. Generally speaking, you do not see the
oaths as problematic because there is always the
option to resign should a trigger activate the
conflict of interest. I personally would rather that
we should not arrive in that juncture in the first
place. Magistracies and appointed positions should not
be entered into lightly and I personally would
consider a resignation of a magistracy only in extreme
or unavoidable circumstances.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

> If I may, I'd like to repeat a remark I made earlier
> concerning the assistants' oath. It is true that a
> magistrate, oath-bound to serve the best interests
> of
> the state, who is also an assistant to another
> magistrate, and oath-bound to act in the best
> interests of that magistrate during his or her term
> as
> assistant, could conceivably come into a position in
> which those two oaths conflict.
>
> If this were to occur, there would be no great
> crisis.
> The person in question would have to resign from one
> or other of those offices, thereby cancelling the
> relevant oath. To decide which position to resign,
> he
> or she would have to consider whether it would be
> more
> in the interests of the state and of the other
> magistrate to continue to serve the state or to
> continue to serve the magistrate.
>
> Imagine a certain Albinus who is a Praetor and also
> an
> assistant to a Censor. If he were in such a
> position,
> he might think, 'well, I am a good Praetor, there is
> a
> major court case coming up which will need my
> attention, and it would be very disruptive to the
> state for me to resign as Praetor; on the other
> hand,
> the Censor is doing fine and doesn't need me that
> much; so I'll resign from his staff and stay on as
> Praetor'. Alternatively, Albinus might think, 'the
> census is coming up, and the Censor will need all
> the
> help he can get; as Praetor, I haven't really been
> doing much lately and the year's nearly over; so
> I'll
> resign my Praetorship and stay helping the Censor'.
> Neither of these decisions would break either of
> Albinus' oaths, and either way he would no longer
> have
> a conflict of interests. Fairly straightforward,
> really.
>
> Cordus
>
> =====
>
>
> www.strategikon.org
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Plus
> For a better Internet experience
> http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
>
> ------------------------ 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
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

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

Salve Franciscus Apulus, While I
agree that the below topics are every
interesting, I dont think it is a good idea to
try to suppress people when they feel that
something is not quite right. A lot of us have
been active in this discussion - from your side
too-- and yet you left those names and pointed
out Sulla as if he is trouble maker number one,
when actually I am the one who started this
discussion :-p Honestly it
is pretty obvious why you want to change the
subject (you're on the Senior Consul's staff no?)
and I cant blame you, but once agai you seem to
confuse the job of an Aedile for a Praetor:it is
their job to tell citizens when enough is enough
and to change the subject. Vale, Diana Moravia
Aventina

> Hey,

Sulla, maybe we could talk about Ancient

> Rome, Classic Culture,
> live events, archeology, History, military
> strategies, classes and
> historical training, latin language, Religio,
> roman Tresuries,
> restoration of Temple of Magna Mater,
> organization of galleries and
> museums, books, relationships between Rome and
> other cultures,
> salvation of the cultural and historical
> patrimony, roman life,
> philosophy, roman astrology, satire, theatre
> and latin writers,
> etc. ;-) This topics bore you? LOL
>
> Vale
> FAC

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

Salvete Quirites!

I am back from a short visit to Berlin in Germany and is quite
astonished that my five days trip to Berlin (2000 km away) seem to
have left some citizens very confused and worried. I am sure that
most of the previous Consuls have left their home for many more and
longer trips during their term without this becoming such a big
circus.

I am of course flattered by the importance some seem to give me as a
person, but I am sure that my respected and competent Consular
Colleague Illustrus Titus Labienus Fortunatus was and will be able to
keep the rudder of the Res Publica on a steady course for the few
days I had, and will have to, go away. As I will do for him when he
is away.

I will soon further address the discussion about my Cohors and work
as Senior Consul. But I start my argument for this new Census law by
publishing my article from "Roman Times" from April 1st.

It is sad to see that my efforts to keep all the citizens informed of
my plans and activities has passed unnoticed by so many, as this
article also mentions some of my future plans for legislation. Please
observe in the future that Roman Times always will _continue_ to
strive to keep all citizens informed of my plans and projects. Please
read "Roman Times"!!! http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
.

****************

Census Reform - Activating Cives, energizing Provinciae

My colleague and I have, as he has already said in the "Roman Eagle,"
found a good sound base to work on. I feel privileged to be able to
concentrate on constructive issues, as fights between us, the Consuls
of Nova Roma, are not likely to happen.

I will address the first legislative proposal that will take up a lot
of my time during the next month.

My "Officina Iuris et Rei Politicae" (Law and Politics Office) has
prepared a new Census law after my instructions. What was wrong with
the old one, you may ask? I think that there were two major problems.

First the fact that the old law would have been too expensive to
execute, and then nothing was said about what should happen with
those citizens that didn't respond during the Census.

I think that by using the Provincial administrations, the Census
would be both more effective and also cheaper than building a new
Censorial organisation just for the Census. Still there are some
Provinces that will need the help of the Censors, those without a
Provincial administration and those with an insufficient one. So
there will still be work to do for the Censors during the Census.

When the Census was discussed I found a couple of things that would
be problems if we didn't take care of our passive citizens. Those are
the citizens that will not answer to the call of the Census, but
don't actively resign their citizenship. Among this category we have
found that quite a few will return later.

I think that we should allow these passive citizens an easy way to
keep their Roman name and the chance to come back as active citizens.
I have decided to call these citizens that don't answer the Census,
but do not resign as citizens either, socii.

This means "allies," and will leave the door open to a group that
probably will be quite easy to recruit active citizens from when they
want to reactivate themselves. I also see these passive citizens as a
group that has already taken a positive stand _for_ Nova Roma, and
because of this I want to be able to use them to reinforce the
impression that Nova Roma is a force to reckon with.

There are those who think that the socii just will make an impression
of weakness. I see it another way. A micronation with 600 (acive)
citizens and 1200 (supportive) socii seems stronger that a
micronation with only 600 citizens. That was a fact in Roma Antiqua,
and is a fact even now.

After the Census Law I will present a new law for the election of
Magistrates and for legislation in the Comitia Centuriata, and after
that a new law about "local groups". My Cohors is at the moment also
looking into a few other interesting areas to deal with. I will also
continue to keep in touch with other magistrates within Nova Roma,
and individuals outside Nova Roma, with the goal to improve our
position in the future.
--

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

Salve Diana,

once again you disinformed the content of the message not reading
the previous messages.
This was an answer to a direct question to me written by Sulla
Never I invited to the silence Illustrus Senator Sulla, each of us
have the freedom of speech and I'm not the judge able to keep in
silence a Senator.
I just said that the continuos discussions like these are boring me
and I would like to read more messages about the below issues.
During the 16th May, Sulla written 15 messages about this discussion
and just one about the Ancient Rome, Our topic.
But he's free to talk about everything here, I only suggested him
other topics with clear emoticons in the end of the message (;-) and
LOL mean "joke").
Where you have readen my becoming Praetor or my suppressing the
people?
Please, Diana, try to be honest really! ;-)

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Diana Moravia Aventina
<diana_aventina@y...> wrote:

> Salve Franciscus Apulus, While I
> agree that the below topics are every
> interesting, I dont think it is a good idea to
> try to suppress people when they feel that
> something is not quite right. A lot of us have
> been active in this discussion - from your side
> too-- and yet you left those names and pointed
> out Sulla as if he is trouble maker number one,
> when actually I am the one who started this
> discussion :-p Honestly it
> is pretty obvious why you want to change the
> subject (you're on the Senior Consul's staff no?)
> and I cant blame you, but once agai you seem to
> confuse the job of an Aedile for a Praetor:it is
> their job to tell citizens when enough is enough
> and to change the subject. Vale, Diana Moravia
> Aventina
> > Hey,
> Sulla, maybe we could talk about Ancient
> > Rome, Classic Culture,
> > live events, archeology, History, military
> > strategies, classes and
> > historical training, latin language, Religio,
> > roman Tresuries,
> > restoration of Temple of Magna Mater,
> > organization of galleries and
> > museums, books, relationships between Rome and
> > other cultures,
> > salvation of the cultural and historical
> > patrimony, roman life,
> > philosophy, roman astrology, satire, theatre
> > and latin writers,
> > etc. ;-) This topics bore you? LOL
> >
> > Vale
> > FAC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com

Salve:

My suggestion is the following:

If you like to join the NR republic then you may choose a nomen from the many families you see in the album gentium.

If you preffer to found your own family, and bear in mind it entails some responsibilities, for a praenomen look up the Nova Roma list of praenomina as these were not names in the modern sense and were rather more like nicknames: Gnaeus, Gaius, Marcus etc..

For a nomen you could use: Hashemius. There is precedence to this you may know. Josephus (the historian) is a hebrew name that was romanized. and Parthicus for cognomen. Don't add an agnomen unless it is bestowed on you by a magistrate or you'll sound pretentious.


Decimus Iunius Silanus <danedwardsuk@...> wrote:
Salvete,

Can anyone help this chap. Please post all replies to
this list and then I can forward them to him directly.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Scriba Censoris.

> > TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
> >
> > I found your website immensely fascinating. I
> study
> > ancient civilizations as a private passion. First
> and
> > foremost I study the mighty Persians. Then I deal
> > with Hellenic Rome (particularly as the Romans
> > pertained to the Middle East). Then I am
> interested
> > in early Christianity and the Byzantine period.
> But
> > anyway...
> >
> > I am curious what name you think would be
> appropriate
> > for me. My name is Rom Hashemi. I am ethnically
> > Persian and I am a Christian. My last name has
> > Semitic origins meaning in Hebrew "The Name of
> mine".
> > Bad grammar but "Hashem" is the way Jews referred
> to
> > God out of reverence (instead of saying "yahweh",
> > "elijah", or "jehova"). The name is also Arabic,
> > meaning "from the crusher of evil" it is also the
> name
> > of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's tribe. I also
> study
> > at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
> where I
> > have almost completed my two degrees in Middle
> Eastern
> > Studies and Political Science. I was born in
> > Columbia, Missouri. My career is pointing towards
> > law.
> >
> > I don't know - I was thinking something like:
> >
> > Romulus Hasemius(or Asemius) Jesus(or Pius)
> Persius
> > Columbius
> >
> > Let me know what you think. Thanks again.
> >
> > Excited,
> > Rom Hashemi
> >
> > =====
> > "Grant us prudence in proportion to our power,
> > Wisdom in proportion to our science,
> > Humaneness in proportion to our wealth and might."
> > -- Thomas Merton, excerpt from his prayer before
> the House of
> Representatives, 1962
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >

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

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

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

Secopnd attempt to send...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve

Salve,

> I have a question. I know that the Senior Consul holds the Fasces

for May,

> but does he have to? If he is going to be absent can't he and the

junior

> Consul swap months. In the Ancient Republic didn't one Consul

remain in Rome

> to govern while the other attended to the military campaign of the

moment? I

> know that both were equally in command on different days but both

left only

> when Rome was fighting on two fronts.
>
> We have a system of twin executives can this not meet the needs of

a absents

> of one?

Absolutely. The passing of the fasces is merely a phrase of
convienience to give one consul a break for a month and a way to
revive an ancient tradition. Nothing binds either consul to abide by
it. It wasn't used in NR until 2000 by Fabius and Audens. Vedius et
Cassius did not do it during their second consulship in 2001. It is
merely a custom that some consuls choose to honor.

During a period of absence by one consul, the other should assume all
duties that are necessary. However, I don't think that necessarily
means promulgating legislation on behalf of the other unless they
worked on the legislation together. In such a case, the absent consul
should delegate a member of his staff to speak for him on what he has
been working on or be left open to the type of arguably justifiable
criticism we have seen here.

Decius Iunius Palladius

Ex Officio Consulis Senioris Caesonis Fabii Quintiliani

Edictum Consulare CFQ VII de Comitiorum Populi Tributorum Convocatione


As the auspices are favourable the Comitia Populi Tributa is hereby
convened to pass the following "Lex Fabia de Censo".

I. Formal debate (Contio) shall begin at 18.00 Roman time Monday the
19th of May

II. Voting shall begin at 18.00 Roman time Saturday the 24th of May.

III. Voting shall end at 18.00 Roman time Thursday the 29th of May

IV. LEX FABIA DE CENSO (on the Census)

The Lex Cornelia de Censo is hereby superceded with this Lex Fabia.

Pursuant to the Constitution of Nova Roma (II.A. 4 and IV.A.1.b) the
following law is hereby enacted to determine accurately the number of
citizens who make up Nova Roma.

I. A Census of all citizens of Nova Roma should be done every 2
years. This would be the responsibility of the Censors.

II. The Nova Roma Census will last for a period of 16 weeks, and must
be completed by the "Pridie Kal. Novembris" (the 31st of October).
The start and end of the Census period will be announced by the
Censors on the NR website, official lists, and in the major forums.
The official lists are currently located at nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
and NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com. Notification must also be
published on the Nova Roma Message board. The Censors shall also ask
the Governors to announce the Census period on the provincial level.

III. The Census will consist of the following:
Those who meet any of the following criteria will still be considered citizens:
1. Those who voted in the main election (in November and/or December)
2. Those who have paid taxes for the current calendar year
3. Patres Familias who have successfully responded to the yearly
registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis Gentium Novaromanarum
Agendis
4. Persons who became citizens during the current calendar year
5. Persons who are successfully contacted as described in section IV.

IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet at least one of
the conditions in III. The following will lay down some of the
procedures to contact inactive citizens. Inactive citizens are those
who will need to be contacted by the National Census. The following
methods will be used to contact inactive citizens:
A. Bulk Email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
citizen via this avenue.
B. Surface mail. "Inactive" Citizens who are unreachable by email
shall receive a mailing. This shall be done on the provincial level
by Governors and legati under the supervision of the Censors. In
those Provinciae where there aare not a Governor and in those areas
not included in a Provincia yet the Censors shall ask a Governor of a
Provincia as near as possible to where that "inactive" Citizen lives.
If this is not possible it shall be
done by the Censors. Surface mail information should be forwarded to
whatever official Nova Roman address that is specified by the
Censors. Surface mail information must reach the Censors before the
"Pridie Kal. Novembris" (the 31st of October). The Current Official
address of all Nova Roman Mail correspondence is:
Nova Roma
P.O. Box 1897
Wells, ME 04090
At the time of the passage of this lex, the above address is the
official address; if the official address changes in the future, the
new address should be utilized.
C. Phone calls. If a Citizen is unreachable by e-mail or surface
mail, he/she shall be contacted by phone. This shall be done on the
provincial level by Governors and legati under the supervision of the
Censors. In those Provinciae where there is not a Governor and in
those areas not included in a Provincia yet this shall be optional,
and it can be done by the Governor of a Provincia as near as possible
to where the "inactive" Citizen lives upon request of the Censors, or
by a Censors themself.
D. A temporary banner and link will be put on the main Nova Roma
website for the duration of the Census, where individual citizens may
input their information to comply with the Census. Further, the
Censors shall recommend such a banner and link to be put on any other
Nova Roman website (Provinces, Magistrates, Sodalitates)

V. All communicated information pertaining to the Census shall be
noted in a database on the Nova Roma Website, the address of which
will be specified by the Censores at the beginning of the
Registration Period. Citizen information may be entered into this
database by the Censores, their appointed assistants, or by the
individual citizens.

VI. By the "Pridie Kal. Septembris" (the 30st of September)., the
Censors should post a list to the official email lists of Nova Roma
displaying the names of those citizens who have failed to respond.

VII. If a citizen fails to respond to the contact attempts, that
person will be considered a "Socius" (Ally), but not a citizen. If
he/she is a Pater/Mater Familias, he/she immediately lose this
position and the Censors will abide by the Constitution, any laws,
and any Censorial edict if the appointment of a Pater Familias is
necessary. However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this
clause if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the
citizen to remain incommunicado.

VIII. If a citizen knows of an extended period of unavailability that
will coincide with the census, he may contact the Censors up to 3
months before the census is to begin to inform them of his active
status and his desire to be counted in the census. Such contact will
be considered by the Censors as having fulfilled the citizen's duty
to reply during the census period. Proxies are not permitted during
the National Census effort.

IX. At any time, a Socius may contact the Censores and ask to regain
his/her Citizenship, which will then be granted unless there are
compelling reasons otherwise.

X. In the Album Civium it shall be clearly indicated whether an
individual is a Civis (citizen) or a Socius.

XI. At the end of the National Census Postage or Telephone expenses
incurred by the magistrate will be reimbursed by either a monetary
payment or a tax credit. All such payments or credits are done in
exchange for reciepts, reciept copies and bills (if reciepts are not
possible to get) and must be approved by the Senate.

It will be up to the Censors to choose which of these two methods to
follow to compensate the other involved magistrates, according to
criteria of saving. Further it will be up to the Senate to authorize
payout.

It shall be up to the Senate to choose which of these two methods to
follow to compensate the Censors, according to criteria of saving.

XII. A budget shall be allocated by the Senate to meet expenses to
compensate magistrates involved in the Census.

XIII. The First Census will take place during the Consulship of Caeso
Fabius Quintilianus and Titus Labienus Fortunatus (2756 AUC).

***********

Given 10th of January, in the year of the Consulship of Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus and Titus Labienus Fortunatus, 2756 AUC.
--

Vale

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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
NovaRoma-Announce-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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve
>
> I have a question. I know that the Senior Consul holds the Fasces

for May,

> but does he have to? If he is going to be absent can't he and the

junior

> Consul swap months. In the Ancient Republic didn't one Consul

remain in Rome

> to govern while the other attended to the military campaign of the

moment? I

> know that both were equally in command on different days but both

left only

> when Rome was fighting on two fronts.
>
> We have a system of twin executives can this not meet the needs of

a absents

> of one?

Absolutely. The passing of the fasces is merely a phrase of
convienience to give one consul a break for a month and a way to
revive an ancient tradition. Nothing binds either consul to abide by
it. It wasn't used in NR until 2000 by Fabius and Audens. Vedius et
Cassius did not do it during their second consulship. It is merely a
custom that some consuls choose to honor.

During a period of absence by one consul, the other should assume all
duties that are necessary. Howevber, I don't think that necessarily
means promulgating legislation on behalf of the other unless they
worked on legislation together. In such a case, the absent consul
should delegate a member of his staff to speak for him on what he has
been working on or be left open to the type of arguably justifiable
criticism we have seen here.

Decius Iunius Palladius

Salve Honorable G. Modius Athanasius!

>For the record I like the Senior Consul. I do not belong to any faction that
>serves to officially oppose him.

I appreciate You and your attitude and the feelings are mutual!

>I do think his extremely large group of
>advisors is too much, but its his choice to make.

I admit that my Cohors is an experiment, remember that my Cohors is
the first really organised staff of any Consul in Nova Roma's
history. But I never thought that it would be perfect from the
beginning. But as have been said before the size of a staff really
doesn't matter, both a small or big staff can do both a good or a bad
job. Though I do think that my Cohors will get the approval of most
when we can see the end result.

>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.

As You see I am getting the proposals out now, expect more proposals
in July and September. But it is not just to present laws there is a
lot of work before the laws are ready to be presented. We have seen a
lot of laws that were badly prepared in Nova Roma before. I will try
to not do that mistake.

>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.

This is a very good proposal and it will now be done with the
election law and "local groups" law as soon as I have fixed the last
paragraphs.

>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.

You can be sure that I will not take any part of it, as it is below
my Dignitas. I will let my actions speak for me, but I _do_ need You
to have patience for a couple of weeks.

>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."

This list has been published in Roman Times and I don't keep my
Accensi that hard. I think that my Accensi really love their work and
hope that their work will be best presented by me, because of that
they prefer to have me to answer questions.

By the way don't You think it is strange that all this discussion (I
know it wasn't started by You) came up when EVERYBODY knew that I
would be gone?

>I would also like to mention that Nova Roma has more than one Consul,

Also remember that there is a big difference between this year's
Consular pair and last year's, as my colleague and I cooperate very
well and the cooperation of last year's pair collapsed after about a
half year.

>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.

My hat is off for Illustrus Marcus Octavius Germanicus.

>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 am very sure that You always will act with honor and it is a
pleasure to try to answer your questions.

>I voted for the Senior Consul, and I have a right to say
>what I have to say.

I thank for your vote and I will do everything to deserve it! I will
always defend your and everybody else's right to say whatever you
want!

>Let us see some action.

You will!

>In Fellowship & Peace:
>
>G. Modius Athanasius
>Flamen Pomonalis

--

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

Salvete Omnes,
as you know my Cohors Aedilis is fully engaged in the Project of
Restoration of the Temple of Magna Mater.
We are working to meet as soon as possible the Director of the
Palatine Ruins, Prof. Pensabene, and the chief architect. Illustrus
Ilius Perusianus maybe will fix the meeting for the next weeks.
But before to meet them, we would like to have detailed archive of
informations about the Temple and Magna Mater.
Perusianus and my staff searched several informations about the
cult, the history of the Temple and the location. Perusianus was a
lot of time in Palatine making several photos. Everything is
published at http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus/project/ and
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/templemagnamater.htm
But it's never enough :-)
If you have informations, studies, images, news, etc. about the
architectural structure of the Temple, the history of the ruins, of
the religious cult, etc. please contact me at fraelov@...
Everything will be appreciated.

We hope to give you a report of the work in progress about the
Temple, please wait for.
Thank you again

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

On Mon, 19 May 2003 16:50:48 -0000, Franciscus Apulus Caesar wrote:

>We are working to meet as soon as possible the Director of the
>Palatine Ruins, Prof. Pensabene,

Sorry for my useless post, but I have to state publicly that this is
a very fitting (and funny) name for a professor. ;-)

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus
cn.octavius.noricus@...
19.05.2003 23:30:58

Salve Senatrix.

I tried to see the up-to-date information, however I received a "Not Found" message when trying http://www.novaroma.org/aerarium_saturni/2755financials.html.

Vale bene.

Patricia Cassia <pcassia@...> wrote:
The Aerarium Saturni section of the Web site has been updated with the
most recent information I have. Thank you for the reminder!

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


Titus Arminius Genialis.
tagenialis@...
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/tagenialis


---------------------------------
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]

Salve Caius Minucius Scaevolae

If a proposed law was drafted that outlined when the Consuls could swap
months and we ask those who have held this office for their input this law
could be adopted before the next election and any candidates would know it
terms and the new Consuls could plan accordingly.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Fortuna Favet Fortibus (is this not right?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Caius Minucius Scaevola" <ben@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors


> Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus -
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Salve
> >
> > I have a question. I know that the Senior Consul holds the Fasces for
May,
> > but does he have to? If he is going to be absent can't he and the
junior
> > Consul swap months. In the Ancient Republic didn't one Consul remain in
Rome
> > to govern while the other attended to the military campaign of the
moment? I
> > know that both were equally in command on different days but both left
only
> > when Rome was fighting on two fronts.
> >
> > We have a system of twin executives can this not meet the needs of a
absents
> > of one?
>
> That's a fairly good question if considered on a broader scale than that
> of the present moment, actually. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an
> edict or a law that would grease the wheels of that particular
> mechanism, just in case of future need. However, some relevant questions
> would be:
>
> 1) How long of an absence would be considered sufficient for this
> purpose? What happens if an absence that was planned as short-term (say,
> a day short of whatever the limit happens to be) gets extended by a
> continued (or new) emergency?
>
> 2) What happens if a Consul has emergencies come up for two months in a
> row? Does the other Consul hold the fasces straight through, and is that
> a fair load on him?
>
> Just to bring things back to the present for the moment, I don't believe
> that the Consul's current absence would meet any reasonable definition
> of point 1. But these are, I think, interesting and important questions.
>
>
> Vale,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Audentes fortuna iuvat.
> Fortune favours the brave.
> -- Vergil, "Aenis"
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Salve Cai Minuci,

> That's a fairly good question if considered on a broader scale than that
> of the present moment, actually. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an
> edict or a law that would grease the wheels of that particular
> mechanism, just in case of future need. However, some relevant questions
> would be:

It's best to keep the arrangement informal - this provides for
maximum flexibility. The alternation of months is simply a voluntary
arrangement between the Consuls, and either could become "active" if
his colleague was absent or otherwise occupied.

> 2) What happens if a Consul has emergencies come up for two months in a
> row? Does the other Consul hold the fasces straight through, and is that
> a fair load on him?

Both Consuls are always fully empowered, and can act if the other has
no objection. One of them steps back in alternate months merely as
a courtesy to the other.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/

Salve, Marce Octavi -

(I hope I got that right :)

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 06:51:08PM -0500, Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
> Salve Cai Minuci,
>
> > That's a fairly good question if considered on a broader scale than that
> > of the present moment, actually. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an
> > edict or a law that would grease the wheels of that particular
> > mechanism, just in case of future need. However, some relevant questions
> > would be:
>
> It's best to keep the arrangement informal - this provides for
> maximum flexibility. The alternation of months is simply a voluntary
> arrangement between the Consuls, and either could become "active" if
> his colleague was absent or otherwise occupied.

I saw the previous post by Decius Iunius Palladius, and agree
completely; I was simply unaware of the current system. Where there's an
arrangement that works well - and as described, it certainly sounds like
it - I far prefer that it be left alone rather than cluttering the
system with an unnecessary law.

> > 2) What happens if a Consul has emergencies come up for two months in a
> > row? Does the other Consul hold the fasces straight through, and is that
> > a fair load on him?
>
> Both Consuls are always fully empowered, and can act if the other has
> no objection. One of them steps back in alternate months merely as
> a courtesy to the other.

That makes sense. My perception had been that the assumption of the
fasces was more like the Ancient Roman system, and that turns out to be
incorrect; I thank you for the clarification.


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

In a message dated 5/19/03 4:53:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hucke@...
writes:

> The alternation of months is simply a voluntary arrangement between the
> Consuls, and either could become "active" if his colleague was absent or
> otherwise occupied.
>

The idea was instituted in the Early Republic as best I can tell. The idea
was that both Consuls would have equal share in running Rome. I thought it
was ideal demonstration
of the bi legality of the Republican system. The previous Consulships had
demonstrated
one guy in charge while the other stood on the sidelines and watched. Since
we had two
strong personalities involved, I saw it as a recipe for disaster unless a way
to share the limelight was constituted. Hence the revival of the old
Republican tradition.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus:

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 04:03:55PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevolae
>
> If a proposed law was drafted that outlined when the Consuls could swap
> months and we ask those who have held this office for their input this law
> could be adopted before the next election and any candidates would know it
> terms and the new Consuls could plan accordingly.

Now that Decius Iunius Palladius and Marcus Octavius Germanicus have
clarified the current informal arrangement, it would seem unnecessary.
The current system works fine, IMO, given that both Consuls are fully
empowered at all times.

> Fortuna Favet Fortibus (is this not right?)

> > Audentes fortuna iuvat.
> > Fortune favours the brave.
> > -- Vergil, "Aenis"

Interestingly enough (I've spent a few minutes Googling for both of
these phrases), it seems that both of these enjoy some currency. The one
I quoted is indeed from Vergil's "Aeneid", while yours is reputed to
have come from Terence. It is also the motto of the Scottish Clan Donal,
was the motto of a New York Fire Company which lost a number of people
on 9/11, and was also the motto of an LRRP unit in Vietnam.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Audietur et altera pars.
May the other part also be heard.

Just to clarify, Senator Maximus and I utilized the alternate period out
of what we both considered to be a necessity, since I had to undergo and
amputation, and Senator Maximus' sister was involved in a very bad auto
accident. In both of those situations each of us felt that we would not
be available, for an extended length of time too long to leave to
chance, and so we utilized the alternate months. However, it is with a
certain amount of pride that I wish to point out that while we served as
co-Consuls we were never very far from agreement in what we wished to
bring before the citizens of Nova Roma during that period.

It is certainly true that we have had our disagreemnets since our
service together, but during that year I cannot recall a single time
when we were not able to reach a concurrence by internet or by phone on
what we wanted to do, or a single instance when one did not immediately
agree to help the other out as needed and requested. This year of which
I speak, was one which I will remember with fondness for a valued
colleague for a long time, together with the fact that two people, who
have very different views in many areas, were able to come together so
oten and maintain a chain of agreements for the good of Nova Roma in
that year.

Something to do with being in the place where the "buck stops here" I
guess!!!

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary

Salve

I agree. If the Consuls can agree among themselves so much the better. No
need for a new law.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Caius Minucius Scaevola" <ben@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: reply re Cohors


> Salve, Marce Octavi -
>
> (I hope I got that right :)
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 06:51:08PM -0500, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
wrote:
> > Salve Cai Minuci,
> >
> > > That's a fairly good question if considered on a broader scale than
that
> > > of the present moment, actually. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an
> > > edict or a law that would grease the wheels of that particular
> > > mechanism, just in case of future need. However, some relevant
questions
> > > would be:
> >
> > It's best to keep the arrangement informal - this provides for
> > maximum flexibility. The alternation of months is simply a voluntary
> > arrangement between the Consuls, and either could become "active" if
> > his colleague was absent or otherwise occupied.
>
> I saw the previous post by Decius Iunius Palladius, and agree
> completely; I was simply unaware of the current system. Where there's an
> arrangement that works well - and as described, it certainly sounds like
> it - I far prefer that it be left alone rather than cluttering the
> system with an unnecessary law.
>
> > > 2) What happens if a Consul has emergencies come up for two months in
a
> > > row? Does the other Consul hold the fasces straight through, and is
that
> > > a fair load on him?
> >
> > Both Consuls are always fully empowered, and can act if the other has
> > no objection. One of them steps back in alternate months merely as
> > a courtesy to the other.
>
> That makes sense. My perception had been that the assumption of the
> fasces was more like the Ancient Roman system, and that turns out to be
> incorrect; I thank you for the clarification.
>
>
> Vale,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Saepe creat molles aspera spina rosas.
> Often the prickly thorn produces tender roses
> -- Ovid
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Salve

Agreed


Fortuna Favet Fortibus (is this not right?)

>
> > > Audentes fortuna iuvat.
> > > Fortune favours the brave.
> > > -- Vergil, "Aenis"
>
> Interestingly enough (I've spent a few minutes Googling for both of
> these phrases), it seems that both of these enjoy some currency. The one
> I quoted is indeed from Vergil's "Aeneid", while yours is reputed to
> have come from Terence. It is also the motto of the Scottish Clan Donal,
> was the motto of a New York Fire Company which lost a number of people
> on 9/11, and was also the motto of an LRRP unit in Vietnam.
>

Yes my source is Eugene Ehrlich book Amo, Amas, Amat and more and said it
was from Terence, in Phormio

He says that Fortes Fortuna Iuvat or (Juvat) is
fortune helps the brave.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Salvete friends! Sorry that I am going to
reply to a few citizens at once.
To Gnaeus Salix Astur,
Yes, i have been afraid to speak my mind,
really believing that i would be torn apart alive
on this list. BUT it hasn't happened and so I
guess that I was just being a bit insecure and
overly nervous! To A
Apollonius Cordus, Sorry for the
sarcasm. I was giggling a bit when I wrote the
part to the Senior Consul in an email to you. So
it was more me having a bit f a sarcastic sense
of humor once in awhile. in any case, as soon as
i get baqck home, i promise to red your emails in
detail and send you a proper answer. Honestly, I
really just missed the fact that they were
official. Again sorry!
To Scaevola, I must be
a sadist and/or a masochist because I enjoy
reading your emails when you get rolling.... Your
stamina is pretty amazing :-) And no one speaks
for me in NR or anywhere else which is probably
the reason that I have the largest collection of
engagemet rings this side of the Atlantic in my
jewelry box :-p
And lastly to Franciscus Apulus
Ceasar, I didn't
mean to insult you about the fact that you are an
elected magistrate who has sworn an oath to the
Senor Consul as an assistant. I just truly
believe that the potential for a conflict of
interest is huge. I dont see this as a problem
ONLY in the cohors consulis but as a potential
problem for NR in the future. It is just that the
CC has the largest amount of appointees who are
also elected officials. So I don't really take
back my words, but I really didn't mean to be
insulting.

To Paulinus: I still haven't managed a margarita
or some Tex Mex or real Mexican yet :-(( Dear
ole' Mom seems to think that I am still 12 years
old and too young to wander off by myself and
have a margarita....I did eat a bagel and some
French toast over the last days. All I need is a
slice of pizza, some poptarts and the Mexican
food and I'll have eaten everything on my list of
American junk food that I can't get on the east
side of the Atlantic :-)
Valete! Diana Moravia

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

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus (is this not right?)
>
> > > Audentes fortuna iuvat.
> > > Fortune favours the brave.
> > > -- Vergil, "Aenis"
>
> Interestingly enough (I've spent a few minutes Googling for both of
> these phrases), it seems that both of these enjoy some currency. The one
> I quoted is indeed from Vergil's "Aeneid", while yours is reputed to
> have come from Terence. It is also the motto of the Scottish Clan Donal,
> was the motto of a New York Fire Company which lost a number of people
> on 9/11, and was also the motto of an LRRP unit in Vietnam.

The line from Vergil (Aeneid, 10.284) is "audentis fortuna iuvat."
The line from Terence (Phormio, 1.4.25) is "fortes fortuna adiuvat."

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve, Diana!

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 06:06:10PM -0700, Diana Moravia Aventina wrote:

> To Scaevola, I must be
> a sadist and/or a masochist because I enjoy
> reading your emails when you get rolling.... Your
> stamina is pretty amazing :-)

<tongue in cheek mode> That's why I have the largest black book
this side of the Atlantic. Good looks only take you so far.

> And no one speaks
> for me in NR or anywhere else which is probably
> the reason that I have the largest collection of
> engagemet rings this side of the Atlantic in my
> jewelry box :-p

I don't doubt it in the least. Despite the popular picture of the
Average Male who is theoretically terrified of assertive women, there
are lots of guys who'd settle for nothing less. Ex-biker chick, has her
own mind, is assertive... that ring collection should be very large
indeed. :)

> To Paulinus: I still haven't managed a margarita
> or some Tex Mex or real Mexican yet :-(( Dear
> ole' Mom seems to think that I am still 12 years
> old and too young to wander off by myself and
> have a margarita....I did eat a bagel and some
> French toast over the last days. All I need is a
> slice of pizza, some poptarts and the Mexican
> food and I'll have eaten everything on my list of
> American junk food that I can't get on the east
> side of the Atlantic :-)

If you're looking for good Mexican food in NYC, Veracruz in Williamsburg
(just over the Manhattan Bridge) is Da Place. Fantastic burritos that
take two hands to hold, /pico de gallo/ and /salsa verde/ that's to die
for, really good Margaritas, and they make everything fresh. <quick check>
Yep, looks like they're still in business -

195 Bedford Av, Brooklyn NY 718-599-7914

(Darn, now *I* want some. Where am I going to find a Mexican restaurant
here in Northern Florida, this time of night?)


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ridentem dicere verum, quid vetat?
What prohibits us to tell the truth laughing (through a joke)?
-- Horace, "Satirae"

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:38:45AM -0000, GÂ¥IVLIVSÂ¥SCAVRVS wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, C. Minuci.

Salve, G. Iulius Scaurus -

> The line from Vergil (Aeneid, 10.284) is "audentis fortuna iuvat."
> The line from Terence (Phormio, 1.4.25) is "fortes fortuna adiuvat."

Much appreciated; I'll correct/update the entries in my quote file
(which I would imagine contains far worse errors.) My copy of the Aeneid
is in English, and I do not have anything by Terence at all.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur.
Through unity the small thing grows, through disunity the largest thing crumbles.
-- Sallust, "Jugurtha"

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Diana.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Diana Moravia Aventina
<diana_aventina@y...> wrote:

> To Gnaeus Salix Astur,
> Yes, i have been afraid to speak my mind,
> really believing that i would be torn apart alive
> on this list. BUT it hasn't happened and so I
> guess that I was just being a bit insecure and
> overly nervous!

I am happy to see that everything is solved now.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to an online tour of Ephesus, the capital of the
province of Asia:

http://www.focusmm.com/aceph_0.htm

The site was created by "Focus on the World" online magazine. While
the article has, as one might expect, a touristic tone, the
photographs are splendid. On a more serious note, the Perseus Project
has a catalog entry on Ephesus with links to excavations and artifacts:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/siteindex?lookup=Ephesos

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salvete Quirites; et salve, M. Octavi Solaris.

With your permission, cives, I would like to make a few comments on
one of Solaris's latest messages.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Solaris"
<scorpioinvictus@h...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> I recall that there once was a time here when criticising the so-
> called 'zombie magistrates' was considered not done. 'Zombie
> magistrates' were the type of lads and lasses who, once elected,
> did *absolutely nothing* but collecting mothballs and - when they
> felt like it - voting in the Senate, to which they had been
> elevated although they had done nothing more than being elected.
> There are numerous examples in the lists and annals of ex-
> magistrates no one has ever heard of. Luckily times have changed
> for the better in this respect, but I simply remark that among
> those who now criticise the senior consul, there are people who
> used to defend the 'zombie magistrates' two years back.

I remember it, my friend.
It is true. We had a *real* problem with inactive magistrates a few
years ago. And I would say that Quintillianus did a lot to change
that trend during his term as aedilis. He was an example to any
Novoroman magistrate.

> But let me ask Quintilianus' opponents another question: what is it
> that you really *expect* him to do? No one seems to have concrete
> proposals, except for Sulla who hinted at creating legislation to
> leave his mark, but I think we will all agree that you can't just
> make legislation for the sake of making legislation.

I fully agree with you there.
I think that drafting legislation is a serious business, that needs
much thinking and much talking. The goal of legislation is *not* to
serve as a monument to a magistrate; it is to rule our relationship,
to help our Nation's growth.

Anyone can write a law in five minutes. But a *good* law simply takes
more time.

> Let me tell you this, however: I, *too*, await some results of a
> consular staff of 25 people but you'll all have to admit that we're
> not even halfway the year yet, and you'd be holding Quintilianus to
> higher standards than you ever held former magistrates by.

I think that Quintillianus is actually quite happy with those higher
standards :-).

We all expect much from our current consules, because we have seen
them doing much in the past. Let us give them the opportunity to
prove their worth (once again). And, if they succeed, we will have to
remember it; that would be the fair thing to do.

Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

Salve Diana,

> And lastly to Franciscus Apulus
> Ceasar, I didn't
> mean to insult you about the fact that you are an
> elected magistrate who has sworn an oath to the
> Senor Consul as an assistant. I just truly
> believe that the potential for a conflict of
> interest is huge. I dont see this as a problem
> ONLY in the cohors consulis but as a potential
> problem for NR in the future. It is just that the
> CC has the largest amount of appointees who are
> also elected officials. So I don't really take
> back my words, but I really didn't mean to be
> insulting.

Diana, ok, I understand your position and your good intentions.
Yes, in some points I agree, but this is Ars Politica, this is the
ancient and modern way to govern. The majority of a political system
are all in the same factio, this is the result of the elections.
In each system there is the high risk to have a conflict of interest
and the "adulte" systems are able to avoid it. Is Nova Roma an adult
political system able to avoit it? I think yes.

When we are appointed as magistrates we gave an Oath to the Res
Publica and this is the most important statement here and for us.
Nobody and nothing must cancel the Oath and it's my first "goal". If
my friend and Consul Quintilianus make some "bad actions" in the
market place, the friendship and the factio will not exist for me,
because I'm a Magistrate serving the Res Publica. I think this is
normal and accepted by each Magistrate.
At the end, I 'm happy to know you didn't want insult and I thank
you. :-)

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Salvete Omnes,
I remember you all the subscriptions to the International Nova Roman
Rally in Bologna (Italy) from 1th to 3th August 2003.
Subscribe is very easy, visit
http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus/meeting

There is also a special mailing list for the Meeting's partecipants
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomanMeeting2003 where we'll
give you all the informations about.

I invite who have subscribed the meeting before May to re-contact me
to the confirmation.

Hurry up, Nova Romans, enjoy the Meeting!

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

Salkvete Quirites!

Last year I had the privilege to take the initiative to and lead the
first International Nova Roman Rally in Belgium in my capacity as
Senior Aedile. This year's Senior Aedile has taken upon himself to,
together with his Cohors and Italia Provincia, organize another Rally
in Bologna in Italy.

Hereby I publicly support this important initiative and encourage
Senators, Magistrati and all citizens of Nova Roma to join with me
and other citizens in Bologna in the beginning of August this year.

Together with other citizens I will also go to Roma Aeterna for one
or two weeks after the Rally. I hereby invite other citizens to join
me and my friends there too.

Don't make the mistake to think that I only want to see close friends
in Bologna and Roma. I would really enjoy to see as many as possible
of my "opponents" there. I have already discussed this possibility
with some of those that I am sure don't want to call themselves my
supporters. ;-) Now it is my hope that as many as possible among the
citizens will see each other in Italy!

I have had the privilege to meet some citizens in person and I think
that it would help us to make the relations between opponents a bit
warmer and more personal. To change the inner climate in Nova Roma
would be very good for Nova Roma's possibility to grow and prosper in
the future!

I hope to see more than one hundred citizens in Bologna and Roma this
coming August! ;-)

>Salvete Omnes,
>I remember you all the subscriptions to the International Nova Roman
>Rally in Bologna (Italy) from 1th to 3th August 2003.
>Subscribe is very easy, visit
>http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus/meeting
>
>There is also a special mailing list for the Meeting's partecipants
>at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomanMeeting2003 where we'll
>give you all the informations about.
>
>I invite who have subscribed the meeting before May to re-contact me
>to the confirmation.
>
>Hurry up, Nova Romans, enjoy the Meeting!
>
>Valete
>Fr. Apulus Caesar
>Senior Curule Aedile

--

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

My apologies, Titus Arminius! The link has been fixed, and I appreciate
your calling it to my attention.


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

Salvete!
I'm Drusilla Lania Iris and I'm interested in the Isis cult. There
are two priests in Nova Roma site. I've tried to e-mail them but it
doesn't works. Help me, please.
Gratias Ago
Iris
P.S Sorry about my english!!!!
P.S II - I speak french, spanish and bad english!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "iris_serva" <iris_serva@h...>
wrote:

> Salvete!
> I'm Drusilla Lania Iris and I'm interested in the Isis cult. There
> are two priests in Nova Roma site. I've tried to e-mail them but it
> doesn't works. Help me, please.
> Gratias Ago
> Iris
> P.S Sorry about my english!!!!
> P.S II - I speak french, spanish and bad english!

Salve Cousin Drusilla,

Your English is good enough. If you keep writing to us on the main
list your English will get perfect very fast. Good work!
I'm sure some of the priests will answer you soon. The priests also
hold other offices in Nova Roma and I believe a few are away either
organizing some events or looking after some family problems.

I'll try to start a discussion here:

Isis was and is to some people the most long lasting godess of the
ancient world. Originally she was one of the great goddesses of
ancient Egypt. She was the sister and girlfriend of Osiris and she
put him back together after he had been cut to pieces by his evil
brother set. She later became pregnent by dead Orisis. She gave birth
to a son called Horus who later took revenge on set.

Over time, Isis became a fertility god and a universal Mother figure.
By the 2 century BC, sailors and traders were bringing her cultic
influences throughout the Mediterranean world. In the Greek areas
Isis became identified with Demeter but her statues assumed the more
Greek - like appearences. They soon began appearing in Africa, Asia
minor and Spain.

On many occasions there was popular resistance to foreign cults in
the Roman Empire but Isis was far more successful than other gods.
Her followers moved from Pompeii and by 50 BC a temple was erected to
her in Rome. Her greatest moment in Rome came thanks to the Emperor
Caligula. He built a large temple for her in the Campus Martius. She
got the title " Isis Campensis".

Now the temple of Isis had elaborate ceremonies and complex mysteries.
Her high disciplined priests dressed in white linen garments and
performed beautiful rituals with music. There was a well organized
spiritual structure that was easy for her followers to understand and
practice. Isis lasted for centuries but her position was eventually
replaced by Christianity's Madonna.

I think her similarities to the Virgin Mary are interesting; she was
impregnated by another god, had a son who took revenge on set who was
a snake - like god and evil like the devil(I think). Perhaps some of
our Christian belief in Mary evolved from her. I'll have to read more
on that.

My question to my Pagan brothers and sisteres in NR. Is this cult of
Isis still practiced in the world and would you tell Drusill and me
more about the rituals?

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

On ledice by this pretty good proposal, some comments:

I´ve translated Lex Cornelia and had some problem with this terms,
bulk email, surface email et alli. They are a little bit confusing
for non-english speakers. I recommend that on the text of the law,
they are changed by other terms to make clearer.


IV.

>
> IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet at least one of
> the conditions in III. The following will lay down some of the
> procedures to contact inactive citizens. Inactive citizens are

those

> who will need to be contacted by the National Census. The following
> methods will be used to contact inactive citizens:
> A. Bulk Email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
> citizen via this avenue.
> B. Surface mail. "Inactive" Citizens who are unreachable by email
> shall receive a mailing. This shall be done on the provincial level
> by Governors and legati under the supervision of the Censors. In
> those Provinciae where there aare not a Governor and in those areas
> not included in a Provincia yet the Censors shall ask a Governor of

a

> Provincia as near as possible to where that "inactive" Citizen

lives.

> If this is not possible it shall be
> done by the Censors. Surface mail information should be forwarded

to

> whatever official Nova Roman address that is specified by the
> Censors. Surface mail information must reach the Censors before the
> "Pridie Kal. Novembris" (the 31st of October). The Current Official
> address of all Nova Roman Mail correspondence is:
> Nova Roma
> P.O. Box 1897
> Wells, ME 04090
> At the time of the passage of this lex, the above address is the
> official address; if the official address changes in the future,

the

> new address should be utilized.
> C. Phone calls. If a Citizen is unreachable by e-mail or surface
> mail, he/she shall be contacted by phone. This shall be done on the
> provincial level by Governors and legati under the supervision of

the

> Censors. In those Provinciae where there is not a Governor and in
> those areas not included in a Provincia yet this shall be optional,
> and it can be done by the Governor of a Provincia as near as

possible

> to where the "inactive" Citizen lives upon request of the Censors,

or

> by a Censors themself.

And this proposal of creating socii is REALLY WONDERFUL! Sure it
enlights the citizenship iself.

> VII. If a citizen fails to respond to the contact attempts, that
> person will be considered a "Socius" (Ally), but not a citizen. If
> he/she is a Pater/Mater Familias, he/she immediately lose this
> position and the Censors will abide by the Constitution, any laws,
> and any Censorial edict if the appointment of a Pater Familias is
> necessary. However, the Censors have the discretion to waive this
> clause if both Censors feel there are legitimate reasons for the
> citizen to remain incommunicado.

Vale
L. Arminius Faustus, Plebeian Aedile, Interpreter

Salvete,

A clarification from a governors point of view would be welcome.

> III. The Census will consist of the following:
> Those who meet any of the following criteria will still be

considered citizens:

> 1. Those who voted in the main election (in November and/or

December)

> 2. Those who have paid taxes for the current calendar year
> 3. Patres Familias who have successfully responded to the yearly
> registration of the Lex Cornelia de Tabulis Gentium Novaromanarum
> Agendis
> 4. Persons who became citizens during the current calendar year
> 5. Persons who are successfully contacted as described in section

IV.

>
> IV. "Inactive" citizens are those who fail to meet at least one of
> the conditions in III. The following will lay down some of the
> procedures to contact inactive citizens. Inactive citizens are

those

> who will need to be contacted by the National Census. The following
> methods will be used to contact inactive citizens:
> A. Bulk Email. At least two attempts should be done to contact
> citizen via this avenue.
> B. Surface mail. "Inactive" Citizens who are unreachable by email
> shall receive a mailing. This shall be done on the provincial level
> by Governors and legati under the supervision of the Censors.

How many citizens do you anticipate will need to be contacted by this
method? I would anticipate 50% to be a not unreasonable assumption.
This mean that as governor, I personally (with my staff) would need
to snail mail about 40 individuals. If it is as many as this, the
time and cost implications would be far too prohibitive for me to
proceed. To contact 40 cives by snail mail will cost in the region of
£20 ($30). Multiply this by all the provinces and that is a lot of
time and money expenditure. Are cives that fail to keep in touch with
NR and provide her with an up to date email address worth that kind
of expenditure?

> C. Phone calls. If a Citizen is unreachable by e-mail or surface
> mail, he/she shall be contacted by phone.

Is this after the incurred expenditure of a letter. Again, if the
amount of citizens involved are too large will it be actually worth
it?

I wholly support the need to conduct a census of Nova Roman citizens
and will do the utmost to assist with the process. However, should
there not be a provision within the edict by which the process is
altered or halted should it become immediately apparent that the time
and cost implications involved are too great to make it cost
effective? It would be a great shame to lose a substantial portion of
our treasury on an exercise in contacting inactive NR citizens who
can't be bothered to keep in touch with us.

Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus
Propraetor Britanniae.

Salvete omnes,

I was watching this political wrangling over the last few days. It is
interesting and necessary and differences between our government
representatives must be discussed and resolved. I have jumped in and
given my two cents worth before so I am no different even though I
hold no office yet.

Still, I was thinking that it may be a good idea to open another NR
group ML specifically for political debates and internal differences
that need to be addressed. What concerns me is that we seem to get
into these long heavy arguments which can sometimes last for days. I
know it is just cooincidental but whenever we have several potential
new Nova Romans wanting to join our ranks, these heavy internal
debates seem to be in progress. New potential NR's may be coming from
other discussion groups which do not have a government like ours. Now
if we are discussing issues on how the Republican government worked
and how its actions would apply to todays world, great. On the other
hand if we're into drawn out discussions about what bill no. Senator
Qlp did 2 years ago that threw Tribuna Flavia who had been stabbed in
the back by Consul Caligula in revenge for not helping him to curb
the expenditures of Lex xx1 suggested by Titus whos arrogance caused
the Eagle to fold...
Well I fear that such drawn out discussions on this ML which I always
considered thr "gateway" to Nova Roma, may wellleave a sour taste in
the mouths of new potential Nova Romans. Any suggestions or ideas on
this?

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

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

> To A Apollonius Cordus,
> Sorry for the
> sarcasm. I was giggling a bit when I wrote the
> part to the Senior Consul in an email to you. So
> it was more me having a bit f a sarcastic sense
> of humor once in awhile. in any case, as soon as
> i get baqck home, i promise to red your emails in
> detail and send you a proper answer. Honestly, I
> really just missed the fact that they were
> official. Again sorry!

It's quite all right - I hope you'll find your fears
allayed when you have time to check the archives, and
I hope also that our correspondence on this issue has
been mild enough to encourage you to raise questions
and criticisms without fear!

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm

A. Apollonius Cordus to D. Iunius Silanus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> Generally speaking, you do not see the
> oaths as problematic because there is always the
> option to resign should a trigger activate the
> conflict of interest. I personally would rather that
> we should not arrive in that juncture in the first
> place.

Fair enough - this seems a good juncture at which to
conclude that we understand one another and probably
will not agree unless further evidence comes to light.
I hope I'm right in trusting that magistrates will
always have the sense to perceive a conflict of
interests when it appears, whether 'triggered' or
ongoing, but only time will tell.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm