Salve Druse,

Please allow me to be one of the first to welcome you to NR. You
scarecly scratched our message board and I see a few excellent ideas
already. You know, I bet if we ran some sort of farm it would be a
good "dry run" for more larger dreams and projects down the road.
There has been a series on tv in North America and English about
reenacting and recreating an iron age village; maybe we could
recreate a Roman out post and take turns living on that for a year or
so, growing our foods, raising animals and above all - wine making.
Please visit sodalistas coq et coq where there are interesting
discussions on food and drink. Our moderator Pipar just posted a
great mead recepie which I shall try when I return from the babrarian
wilderness.

I know others on the list will wish to speak with you but I'll wager
many sesteri that they're off watching the Julius Caesar Miniseries
tonight. I don't get that particular station on satellite here but
I'll settle again for "Druids".

When you have a moment, would you please tell us how you found Nova
Roma and what recommendations you would suggest for attracting new
citizens like yourself. Enjoy and we look forward to seeing your
postings!


Vale bene,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "David John White"
<davidwhite432003@y...> wrote:

> Salve
> I admire the dedication and enthusiasm of Nova Roma's
> citizens in recreating not only the technical structure, ideas and
> philosophy of Rome but allowing everybody to see and feel Roman

life.

> Even smell and taste it if they eat the food.
> Roman laws, virtues, natural religion and its family values are a
> good basis for any community in the modern world.
> Perhaps we can guide more of the lost souls of today's greedy
> barbaric society to live well, respect each other, work hard and

live

> in harmony with nature.
> The Nova Roma site is extensive and well structured with much of
> interest both to Citizens and enthusiasts from outside.
> It would be nice to do more extensive recreations of Roman life.
> Maybe a farm producing food the Roman way or small ecologically

sound

> communities.
> I look forward to Citizenship in a strong and growing Republic.
> Vale,
>
> Drusus Maxentus Silvanus
>
> P.S
> Do we have Environmental policies or guidelines for life or future
> businesses?

A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor, Senator & Consular
Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus, and all citizens and
peregrines, greetings.

> A brief aside to Apollonius Cordus. Corde, you
> seemed genuinely upset by my suggestion and such was
> not my intention. Try to appreciate the suspicion
> that the cohors arise in many people due to their
> size and the seeming tag team intimidation tactics
> used by them. As such, a proposed law put forward by
> the cohors will be viewed with skepticism. I fully
> appreciate the work you have put into the
> proposed lex and accept your intentions as for what
> you intended the law to achieve.

I am glad that your intention was not to upset me,
though I never thought that it was - I feel I'm far
from being such a prominent and divisive member of the
community that anyone would feel it worth his while to
deliberately upset me.

However, if you are surprised that I am genuinely
upset, then I am astonished by your surprise. Do you
genuinely believe that every member of the Consul's
staff is involved in a conspiracy with the Consul to
commit treason? And if not, did it not occur to you
that accusing them of so being would probably cause
make them feel profoundly upset, insulted and angry?

I must also say that this is one of the most striking
non-apologies I have ever seen. We are all used to the
standard-issue non-apology: 'I'm sorry that I upset
you [but I'm not sorry for what I actually did /
said]'. Politicians use it all the time. But here is
not even 'I'm sorry I upset you' - just 'I didn't mean
to'. This gesture is not even made in a dedicated
message, but concealed in the middle of a message to
another individual who has nothing whatever to do with
it.

Moreover, you are not even content with accusing me
and my colleagues of treasonable intent and then
pointedly failing to retract the accusation; you
immediately go on to try to gain my sympathy by
explaining why it seems perfectly natural to suspect
us of conspiracy, treason and deception. You do, at
last, concede that I, at least, had no treasonable
intent, but you leave the implication hanging that you
are not prepared to say the same of all my colleagues;
or, if I interpret the 'you' to be in the plural, you
still fail to exclude the Consul from that
implication.

I am sorry if I seem grudging, self-important or
self-righteous, but I am not prepared to accept the
view of this community that you seem to be putting
forward: one in which it is 'understandable' for a
Consul and his assistants to attempt to rig the
electoral system for their own ends; in which it is
reasonable to assume that a group of public servants
is a sinister subversive organization simply because
it contains more than a dozen members who are all
prepared publicly to support ideas they believe in; in
which a Consular and sitting Praetor can accuse a
sitting Consul of treason without either evidence or
apology; and in which it is surprising when someone so
accused is upset about it.

I believe that Nova Roma is, and should be, a place
where honourable men do not make serious accusations
frivolously; where honourable men do not assume public
servants to be self-serving megalomaniac gangsters
simply because they disagree with their policies; and
where honourable men acknowledge when they have
something to apologize for and apologize for it
clearly, openly and using the word 'sorry' or
'apologize' at least once before they've finished.

My dignity may be less than yours, Consular, but it is
what I have and I will defend it when it is assailed,
as would any Roman.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus,
Caesariensis (forgive me, I cannot remember your
praenomen or nomen) and all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

Thank you both for your helpful and comprehensive
replies - I am now better informed about this word
than any other Latin word I know.

I suspect I shall mostly use the version that treats
'-familias' as indeclinable, since it means I need
only remember how to decline 'pater'; but it's nice to
have other options for when I feel adventurous.

Thanks again,

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator L. Sicini Druse.
>
> I think that we are both beginning to really bore
> the citizenry to
> death :-). You will have to excuse me, but I will
> limit my responses.
> Otherwise, we will really tire our citizens.
>
> I will reply to your latest message. My next reply
> will take longer.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > LSD: Then you haven't looked very hard Senator. As
> recently as last
> > July I drafted a proposal for the Junior Consul
> that was presented
> > BEFORE the proposal you did support.
> >
> > You ignored that proposal. You showed ZERO intrest
> in reconciling
> > the diferences between them. Now you are
> pretending that it was
> > never made.
>
> I do remember your proposal. As you have pointed
> out, it was prepared
> for last year's Iunior Consul, who was the last
> person on Earth to
> want a gens reform. As such, your proposal failed at
> bringing the
> system closer to its historical counterpart. It was
> a proposal
> taylored to fit the Iunior Consul's objectives, who
> were to keep
> things as they were then. It should not come as a
> surprise that it
> was mainly ignored by the citizenship.
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > LSD: While you threw caution to the wind and
> ignored repeated
> > warnings that you were on a path that would cost
> Nova Roma citizens.
> >
> > Where are the Corneli? They were very active on
> this list BEFORE
> > last years proposal.
>
> It has already been pointed out that that people was
> receiving a
> pretty biased account of all that happened.
>
> Besides that, that line of reasoning does not go
> very far. Otherwise
> I simply have to say: "I will resign unless
> everybody does what I am
> saying" to get anything done.
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > LSD: So where was this all important issuse of
> Gens reform BEFORE
> > you and others used it as a red herring to divert
> attention away
> > from crictism of the proposed Election law?
> >
> > Why haven't you made daily calls for Gens reforms
> over the past 6
> > months like you have over the past few days?
> >
> > This issue was ignored for months and only raised
> to devert
> > attention away from cricitism of an ahistoric
> election law.
> >
> > Once the discussion about the election law is over
> will you put
> > this back on the shelf again until you are ready
> to attempt to
> > divert crictism away from yet another ahistoric
> proposal.
> >
> > You may think you are being sly, but you are as
> transparent as
> > glass. You aren't fooling anyone.
>
> The reason why I haven't been claiming for gens
> reform every single
> day is that a gens reform proposal is being
> prepared. When it is
> ready, we will have the opportunity to see you and
> your friends
> repeating the same old show once more: you will
> claim that gens
> reform is dangerous and too costly; you will call
> for a defense of
> Roman Tradition represented in the current gens
> system (until it is
> once more pointed out that the current gens system
> is not
> historically correct); you will then find minor
> jusitifications to
> try to delay the reform... Always trying to keep the
> unhistorical
> system as it is while claiming to defend Roman
> Tradition.
>
> Last year, you had to resort to what could be
> considered a coup
> d'etat; the Iunior Consul blocked the government for
> months (against
> the explicit wish of the People and the Senate).
> This time, you will
> not be able to do that, since the People of Nova
> Roma wisely kept
> your faction out of blocking positions. This time,
> we will finally
> have the opportunity to hear the People's Will on
> the gens reform
> issue.
>
> So do not worry; you will hear more about this. Not
> now. Not yet. But
> much sooner than what you would like.
>
> CN�SALIX�ASTVR�T�F�A�NEP�TRIB�OVF
>
>

Haven't you flogged that dead horse long enough?

Do you expect us to beleave that it was mere chance
that you jumped on a flawed proposal that gave you a
chance to attack the Junior Consul, didn't mention it
for months, and jumped on it again when you thought
you could use it as a club to bash me over the head?

Your intrest in reform only seems to surface when you
think you can use it as a weapon against someone.

Your game isn't working Senator. It's very plain that
you are only trying to divert attenion away from
crictism of the Election proposal.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

Apologies if I am intruding on a private party; I
merely wondered about something you said:

> Your game isn't working Senator. It's very plain
> that
> you are only trying to divert attenion away from
> crictism of the Election proposal.

I don't understand why the Praetor would want to
divert attention from the Consul's proposal when he in
fact, as he said to you not more than a few hours ago,
supports the sequential system outlined by Iulius
Scaurus.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus
> and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> Apologies if I am intruding on a private party; I
> merely wondered about something you said:
>
> > Your game isn't working Senator. It's very plain
> > that
> > you are only trying to divert attenion away from
> > crictism of the Election proposal.
>
> I don't understand why the Praetor would want to
> divert attention from the Consul's proposal when he
> in
> fact, as he said to you not more than a few hours
> ago,
> supports the sequential system outlined by Iulius
> Scaurus.
>
> Cordus
>

LSD: His personal grudge against Cornelius Sulla was
very aparant in his last post. It's well known that
Lucius Cornelius and myself are friends, so anything
that I support has to be opposed, lest the hated
Sulla's forces win a victory.

It would be simple to get the Praetor to suddenly
oppose a Gens reform measure. All that is needed is an
endorsement from Cornelius Sulla, Fabius Maximus, and
myself.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salve Drusus Maxentus Silvanus and welcome to Nova Roma.

Where in the Republic do you reside. I live in Maryland a part of the Mediatlantica province. I currently edit Nova Roma's newsletter, the Eagle and have been fortunate in having a great staff working with me from all over the Republic. What are your Roman interests? As an aside please take everything on the main list with a grain of salt, everybody really means well but sometimes some of us do get carried away.

Again welcome and please enjoy your next 30-40 years in Nova Roma!!!!!


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

----- Original Message -----
From: David John White
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:34 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Salve from a new citizen


Salve
I admire the dedication and enthusiasm of Nova Roma's
citizens in recreating not only the technical structure, ideas and
philosophy of Rome but allowing everybody to see and feel Roman life.
Even smell and taste it if they eat the food.
Roman laws, virtues, natural religion and its family values are a
good basis for any community in the modern world.
Perhaps we can guide more of the lost souls of today's greedy
barbaric society to live well, respect each other, work hard and live
in harmony with nature.
The Nova Roma site is extensive and well structured with much of
interest both to Citizens and enthusiasts from outside.
It would be nice to do more extensive recreations of Roman life.
Maybe a farm producing food the Roman way or small ecologically sound
communities.
I look forward to Citizenship in a strong and growing Republic.
Vale,

Drusus Maxentus Silvanus

P.S
Do we have Environmental policies or guidelines for life or future
businesses?





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/





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

Salve

Ah, then you will find yourself served by the firm that represents me. Dewey, Cheatem & Howe will contact you shortly.

Regards,
LCS

Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote: Some stuff I ignored.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Salve Marce Cassi Juliane,

My regards to you and your family during this difficult time. I pray for the well-being of you and yours.

Vale,
LCS

cassius622@... wrote:
Salvete,

My father, (the owner of my family business), has advanced lung cancer, and
has been out of commission while receiving chemotherapy. The extra workload for
me has caused me to fall behind on all the NR forums. :(

As I've been catching up here, the "Compulsory Latin in NR" post by Quintus
Lanius Paulinus caught my eye as an *excellent* example of how difficult it can
be to communicate on these lists.

Quintus Lanius Paulinus was NOT advocating that there be compulsory Latin in
NR. He was not even making a joke about it.

In a nutshell, he was trying to say that 'forcing our new Citizens to deal
with NR politics is a lot like a requirement for us all to speak Latin would
be... many of us would find the task too confusing or too difficult, and would
drop out.' He was merely showing us an example of something equally as
difficult as NR politics can be.

His point is well taken - and deserves some consideration. Perhaps one of the
reasons we 'lose' some new citizens is that Nova Roman politics (and our
list) can get so difficult that it's easier to leave than sort it all out! (I'll
try to think about this some more, maybe something can be done.)

What I'm writing about here, however, is how *easily* his message was
confused. Everyone took his example of 'over-the-top' behavior seriously - and within
two or three replies the example was being referred to as "the proposed lex."
(!!!!!), with citizens stating they'd have to leave should it be voted in.

Quintus' post might perhaps have been clearer... but it wasn't *that* obtuse.
My guess is that people read the message quickly and never noticed the real
message he was trying to convey.

The 'moral' of the story? I dunno. But I will say that I personally will try
to pay more attention to the intent of messages from here on in. Almost any
situation can be mistaken as this one was... and that can make the list even
more confusing and difficult.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus






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


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
Subject: Re: Re: The Paterfamilis (was Modernist and Traditonalist Factions)


--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> > You took a misunderstanding that had occured two
>years
> > earlier and had long been set right,
>
>A misunderstanding that had been set right? No - a
>malicious
>act that caused citizens to depart. How was it "set
>right"?

LSD: WHERE are the Cornelians Senator? They haven't
submited resignations, but they also aren't taking
part in the affairs Nova Roma like they were before
you started your crusade. You were warned, repeatadly,
that your actions could result in Nova Roma losing
citizens, and you persisted, blind to anything other
than your new status as Nova Roma's "Freedom Crusader"



Dear L. Sicinius Drusus
We are still here , waiting ,watching,and when Novaroma
wants to to come back to her founding heritage we will be here.
Marcus Cornelus Felix
roman Citizen since: 1999 / 01 / 30

>
> > blew it up into a
> > crusade attacking your fellow Consul that
>Formosanus
> > would have been proud of.
>
>I see; in your eyes anyone who tries to improve the
>lot of any
>citizen is a Formosanus. Thank you, Senator
>McCarthy.
>

Marcus Cornelius Felix
*Godwin is invoked*

No, someone who attempts to improve the lot of a
citizen isn't a Formosanus. Someone who launches a
"Crusade for Freedom" that blinds them to any and
every thing else is a Formosanus, and that does
describe your conduct last year.

You like Formosanus AND Senator McCarthy latched onto
an issue, blew it up into a "holy crusade" against the
forces of "evil", and ran amok, blind to any thing
else.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen


LSD very well said
MCF

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "christyacb" <bryanta003@h...>
wrote:

> Salve Christy,

Your point of view is very wise. I am not going to question the
integrity of this particular professor but from what I've seen,
seemingly harmless interviews can get military people in a lot of
trouble. Some men of an elite airborne regiment in Canada who had
been to Somalia did candid interviews with some nice-guy reporters,
probably over a few drinks spilled their hearts out telling all about
their shennanigans, social and anti social attitudes, hazings etc.
This hit the national news just after some questionable beatings; one
fatal of Somalis who broke into their compounds. Tiny though our
armed forces are, they made world headlines because the whole
regiment was disbanded - defeated by some young civilian reporters,
not a terrorist group. The wife of a friend of mine who is in our
armed forces practices Wicca but as she told me, she sure keeps it
under wraps, especially living on a base and gives no interviews. Its
so easy for something to be taken out of context.

Oh, last time I remember hearing about a religious contraversy in the
US military was in the mid 1970's. Apparently it concerned some sort
of military service or perhaps funeral for a sailor who was neither
Christian or Pagan but a professed Satanist who wanted whatever the
ceremony to be conducted by one of the priests from that group. I
don't remember hearing what happened in that case but that's another
story.


Yours respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

>
> You are quite right in that it isn't illegal, but I've been in

for

> 17 years and can speak, as an officer who is pagan, that your

career

> is definitely hampered by being such. Perhaps enlisted can get away
> with it and have no effect on their career, but the community is
> simply too small in the officer world for it not to follow you.

Like

> myself, most other pagan officers that I know keep it very, very
> quiet and simply draw no attention to it. Those who "come out" are
> suddenly walking into the wardroom that becomes silent upon entry,
> are "missed" on the email list for wardroom golfing outings (read

as

> schmoozing for face time), and other informal outings. For myself,
> I'm silent as can be on the topic of my religion to avoid that. I
> want the promotions and the assignments I need to get them. It

might

> be construed as taking the safe way out and thereby not promoting

the

> cause of equality but I've seen too much honesty backfire.
>
> Valete,
> Christy Nemo
>
>

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here are links to two essays by Olivier Bianchi (Laboratoire d'analyse
informatique de la parole de l'Université de Lausanne) which delineate
a research programme aiming at integrating phonological, phonetic, and
linguistic methods with instrumental analysis of speech to develop a
classical Latin speech synthesizer for testing of various theories of
pronunication.

First, "Simulation of Ancient Languages":

http://www.unil.ch/imm/docs/LAIP/LAIPTTS_old_lang.htm

And "LAIPTTS-L, an experimental speech synthesis for Latin":

http://www.unil.ch/imm/docs/LAIP/LAIPTTS_L_SpeechMill_dl.htm

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Gnaeus Salix,

<In fact, it is D. Iunius Palladius himself the one who claims to be a
<member of a "faction".
Ok, I must have missed that.

DMA > But as you (plural) point your fingers and name names, don't forget

> to mention that these 3 gentlemen were citizens from nearly day one
> of this micronation. If it weren't for their persistence, there
> probably would not be a Nova Roma to bicker in as we have now.

GSA <I would prefer it if you actually addressed your message to whomever
<it is directed, given that I am not a plural collective.

I think we are in an email misunderstanding. I was really trying to be
polite when saying 'you' plural. I saw that a few people have been naming
names and I didn't want you to think that I was pointing you out as the only
person who had done so.... I really wasn't trying to shove you into a
collective of any kind. My apologies if you thought so. In any case, you've
already explained that D Iunius Palladius named himself, so I stand
corrected.

GSA: All that is true, of course. But I simply think that opposing a
<certain proposal just because it has been proposed by a certain
<person is *not* the right thing to do.

I absolutely 100% agree with you, but I don't think this is happening. I
think that the citizens who are disagreeing are doing so solely because they
don't like the proposals and not because of who is proposing it.

<A proposal's true merits (and
<flaws) should be examined. In that way, Nova Roma can benefit from a
<constructive criticism.
I agree with you 100% there. In fact your criticism of my email is quite
constructive ;-)

<If I recall correctly, the senior consul issued an intercessio before
<the tribuni plebis did it.
Solely for discussion's sake, unfortunately the Tribunes interceded first on
Feb 17 and were followed immediately afterwards by a veto from Curule Aedile
Gn. Equitius Marinus. The Senior Consul posted a statement on the subject a
few hours later.

Vale,
Diana Moravia
Tribunus Plebis

Salve again Junior Consul,

DMA> <And yes I am always sympathetic towards the minority. They have a
right

> <to be heard along with the majority.

TLF <An excellent play for sympathy, O orator (oratrix?)!
Me? Orator? Hey, there was a compliment in there even if it was by accident
:-)

<Actually, all kidding aside, I often wonder about Nova Roman demographics.
Since
<we're so disparate, and such a small proportion of our populace posts to
<this list, it's hard to tell what opinions really are in the minority.

I agree with you there. That is why I am happy to see that we'll have a
Census this year.

<I think it's also due to a desire not to be easily tarred with one brush.
Agreed again. There are a lot of shades of grey between black and white.

Vale,
Diana Moravia

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:

> It would be simple to get the Praetor to suddenly
> oppose a Gens reform measure. All that is needed is an
> endorsement from Cornelius Sulla, Fabius Maximus, and
> myself.

Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Salvete Quirites,

Recently some people sought to attack my credibility
with a false assertation that I had opposed Gens
reform. They were attempting to decive you to futher
thier own agenda.

Last year I drafted a proposal for Gens reform that
would remove legal barriers that prevent those who
wish to set up thier Gens in a historic manner and
went no futher.

Under the proposal I drafted for the Junior Consul
each of you would have the power to decide if you
wanted to arrange your Gens along historic lines,
retain it's present structure, or go for something
inbetween the two.

It would have given you the power to decide your
affairs. I Would hope that you would opt for the
historic route, but that choice was left up to you, as
it should be.

Giving that kind of power to citizens wouldn't feed
the egos of the social planners who wish to issue
orders to you on how to conduct your affairs. My
proposal also had another "flaw". It couldn't be used
as a weapon against those whom the social planners
disagreed with.

The proposal consisted of a series of changes to Nova
Roma's constitution that would have removed the
barriers that stand in the way of setting up a Gens
along historic lines. Here is the proposal that I gave
to the Junior Consul last July.

Section II C 2 (for some reason there isn't a section
II C 1) currently reads

Ordo patricius (patrician order). The patrician order
shall consist of belonging to those gentes that were
among the first thirty to join Nova Roma. Should one
of these spots become vacant, the censors shall have
the power to elevate a plebeian gens to patrician
status in its place.

I sugest this section read

Ordo patricius (patrician order)
a. The Patrician Order shall consist of a minium of
30 families.
b. Should there be less than 30 Patrician Families
the Senate shall have the power to nominate a Plebian
Family to the Comitia Curiata for elevation to
Patrician Status.
c. The Senate shall have the power to nominate
additional families to the Comitia Curiata for
elevation to Patrician Status if this elevation does
not cause the Ordo
Patricius to exceed 5% of the population of Nova
Roma.
d. A Patrician Family may allow it's members to form
new Patrician Families.
e. At the time of adoption of this amendment the
Family of the Paterfamilis of a Gens recognized as
Patrician shall be recognized as a Patrician Family.

Section II D currently reads

Gentes. Families and clans being the backbone of
Roman society, the prerogatives and responsibilities
of the family are of primary importance to Nova Roma.
Except where specifically dealt with in this
constitution and the law, each gens shall have the
right to determine its own course of action, and
parents shall have the undisputed right and
responsibility to see to the education and raising of
their children
1.Each gens shall be registered with the censors,
who will maintain records of gens membership and other
relevant information.
2. No two gentes may have the same nomen (surname)
unless they are differentiated by an agnomen. The
censors shall be responsible for ensuring this rule is
observed
3. Each gens shall, through whatever means it may
determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the gens
and speak for it when necessary. The holder of this
position must be registered as such with the censors.
The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel
members of their gens, or accept new members into it

I suggest this read

Gentes and Families. Families being the backbone of
Roman society, the prerogatives and responsibilities
of the family are of primary importance to Nova Roma.
Except where specifically dealt with in this
constitution and the law, each family shall have the
right to determine its own course of action, and
parents shall have the undisputed right and
responsibility to see to the education and raising of
their children
1. Each gens shall be registered with the censors,
who will maintain records of gens membership and other
relevant information.
2. No two gentes may have the same nomen. The
censors shall be responsible for ensuring this rule is
observed.
3. Each Gens shall consist of a minium of one
family.
4. No two families within a Gens may have the same
Cognomen (surname) unless they are differentiated by
an Agnomen. The Censors shall be responsible for
ensuring this rule is observed
5. Each family shall, through whatever means it may
determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the
family and speak for it when necessary. The holder of
this position must be registered as such with the
censors. The paterfamilias may, at his or her
discretion, expel members of their family, accept new
members into it by adoption, or allow members who are
sui juris to form new families belonging to the same
order as the Paterfamilis.

I suggest that subsections 3, 4, and 5 be added to the
section dealing with the Comitia Curatia making it
read

The comitia curiata (Assembly of Curiae) shall be made
up of thirty lictores curiatae (curia lictors),
appointed to their position by the collegium
pontificum (college of pontiffs). It shall be called
to order by the Pontifex Maximus, and the collegium
pontificum shall set the rules by which the comitia
curiata shall operate internally. It shall have the
following responsibilities:
1. To invest elected and appointed magistrates with
Imperium (which is necessary to employ coercitio (the
power to compel obedience to his edicts), interpret
and execute law, and possess the honor of being
preceded by lictors as a symbol of office), without
right of refusal individually or as a body;
2. To witness the appointment of official priests
and priestesses of the Religio Romana, adoptions, and
the recording of wills.
3. To approve or reject the elevation of a Plebian
Family to Patrician Status
4. To approve or reject an adoption that elevates a
Plebian to the Patrician Order or lowers a Patrician
to the Plebian order.
5. To approve or reject an application from a
Patricain who wishes to renounce his status and become
a member of the Plebian order.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

I Have posted the reform I drafted for the Junior
Consul last year.

We Could have voted on this measure last year, and
those who wished to do so could be sitting up thier
Gens along historic lines at this very moment.

--- Kristoffer From <from@...> wrote:

> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
> > It would be simple to get the Praetor to suddenly
> > oppose a Gens reform measure. All that is needed
> is an
> > endorsement from Cornelius Sulla, Fabius Maximus,
> and
> > myself.
>
> Salve, Luci Sicini Druse.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
> Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> LSD: Then you haven't looked very hard Senator. As
> recently as last July I drafted a proposal for the
> Junior Consul that was presented BEFORE the proposal
> you did support.

> You ignored that proposal. You showed ZERO intrest in
> reconciling the diferences between them. Now you are
> pretending that it was never made.

Your proposal was considered by the senate and found inadequate.

> LSD: So where was this all important issuse of Gens
> reform BEFORE you and others used it as a red herring
> to divert attention away from crictism of the proposed
> Election law?

Who exactly is it that brought up the issue as a diversion? The first
I saw of it was your posts on the subject, using last year's issues
as yet another way to attack the modernists and liberals you so despise.

Was it someone else who started this discussion? If so, who?


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

>
> Do you expect us to beleave that it was mere chance
> that you jumped on a flawed proposal that gave you a
> chance to attack the Junior Consul,

Perhaps in your world that's the only possible motivation that anyone
could have. But not everyone operates the way you do, not everyone
is a schemer, a manipulator, and a liar such as you are. Senator
Astur has supported the prosposal from the beginning, and was on the
record as favoring gens reform as early as 2001.

> didn't mention it for months, and jumped on it again when you thought
> you could use it as a club to bash me over the head?

Oh, this is all about you, is it? Poor little Sicinius, who was
attacked for no reason!

You attacked me and my policies, even though I was taking no part
in the election reform debate. It is you who began this.

> Your intrest in reform only seems to surface when you
> think you can use it as a weapon against someone.

More lies from a habitual liar. Senator Astur supported the reform from
the beginning, long before he had any reason to dislike your faction.

> Your game isn't working Senator. It's very plain that
> you are only trying to divert attenion away from
> crictism of the Election proposal.

Lies, lies, lies.


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

> Recently some people sought to attack my credibility
> with a false assertation that I had opposed Gens
> reform. They were attempting to decive you to futher
> thier own agenda.

The truth of the matter is that Lucius Sicinius and his allies tried
to derail my gens reform proposal by substituting one of their own.
Sicinius' proposal was considered by the Senate and found, by those
of us who had initiated the idea for reform, to be a move in the
wrong direction.

That's what this is really about. Lucius Sicinius, who was not even
a Senator at the time, is consumed with bitterness that the Senate was
not at his beck and call and that we gave our own proposals more
consideration than his.

His proposal was never anything more than an attempt to neutralize
mine. After his was read and found wanting, Senator Cassius drafted
another, which many of us did support, and it is that which will
likely be the foundation for future reforms. Sicinius may burn
with jealously all he likes, but he is not a king, and the Senate
and People are free to reject his dictates.

When the Senate or the People do consider a gens reform proposal, it
will be one that is supported and authored by those who the People
elected to higher office - it will not be the proposal of some
random fool who attempts to hijack a cause so that he can take credit
for reform himself.

Vale, Octavius.

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

--- Salvete Omnes:

I've had a wrist injury as of late and don't post often. But I can't
let this slide, even if I hurt all day from typing....

That L. Sicinius draft proposal for Gens Reform was NOT written just
to rain on your parade, Marcus Octavius.....that is a MISTRUTH

"Random fool, highjacking a truth to take credit for it?" You owe
Senator Sicinius an apology...that is an open attack based on your
subjective interpretation...and that's a polite way of putting it.

The man did not become a citizen yesterday.He has been here for I
believe 2 1/2 years. So I don't think this can be, at this state,
remotely resembling truth.

Senator Sicinius drafted his proposal in 2001....check the NovaRoma
Laws list archives...There was alot of discussion between Sicinius
himself, Salix Astur and T. Labienius...with comments from myself and
others. Your interest, or atleast 'input' into this entire issue did
not materialize until your consulship last year.

How would you like it if I suggested publically that perhaps you
rekindled this whole issue last year as a tool to vindicate your own
aspirations, spiting, say, your consular colleague, Lucius Cornelius,
who happens to have a rather large gens? Now that wouldn't be nice,
would it?

***Po hands Octavius a level.....here, get your facts straight***

Do not accuse Sicinius of petty spite. His concern was that our
current system is not historically accurate, which it is not. At the
time I didn't think it was needed, but neither was the can of worms
you later opened, so suddenly, Sicinius proposal looked like parts of
it were written by the Gods. Your proposed law to allow people
to 'gens hop' like they were squaredancing was full of holes and more
dangerous than any proposal could ever be...And those who objected
to it or expressed concern were responded to by you and others as
though their brains were on vacation.



With respect to the Pontifex Maximus, (which I believe Marcus
Octavius you are advocating also) I felt that his proposal of
everyone being their own familia would dilute us to the extent where
our ties with oneanother would be weak and we, as a still-small group
would have difficulty 'knitting' together. This potentially amounts
to us having a roster of inactive citizens (which we already have)



L. Sicinius proposal was reviewed for those components which would be
potentially desirable to the populace. Another proposal, drafted by
myself, Q. Fabius and T. Labienus was presented to the Senate, giving
people choices within a specific timeframe, fostered ties between
familiae/gens,facilitated respect for the religio, involved the
collegium, et al. It allowed choices in terms of modern exingencies,
special circumstances (there are reasons why you should be allowed to
leave or can be booted:) but protected the sanctity of the Ancient
via Romana with regard to family structure.

It is ahistorical not to have familia, as the pater/mater is the
priest (ess) of his/her household. Further, it seems a lonely temple
with only one person (one person family) making offering. Translated
into Christian terms...like having several cathedrals each with only
one-person congregations, which is the priest or minister....why
bother?

You can almost set your watch by these gens reform
discussions...check the archives for July of 2002 :)

Valete
Pompeia Cornelia
former Praetor
former Senator
Tribune et Benefacarius Praefectum
Sodalitas Militarium NOVA ROMA




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@c...>
wrote:

>
> > Recently some people sought to attack my credibility
> > with a false assertation that I had opposed Gens
> > reform. They were attempting to decive you to futher
> > thier own agenda.
>
> The truth of the matter is that Lucius Sicinius and his allies tried
> to derail my gens reform proposal by substituting one of their own.
> Sicinius' proposal was considered by the Senate and found, by those
> of us who had initiated the idea for reform, to be a move in the
> wrong direction.
>
> That's what this is really about. Lucius Sicinius, who was not even
> a Senator at the time, is consumed with bitterness that the Senate

was

> not at his beck and call and that we gave our own proposals more
> consideration than his.
>
> His proposal was never anything more than an attempt to neutralize
> mine. After his was read and found wanting, Senator Cassius drafted
> another, which many of us did support, and it is that which will
> likely be the foundation for future reforms. Sicinius may burn
> with jealously all he likes, but he is not a king, and the Senate
> and People are free to reject his dictates.
>
> When the Senate or the People do consider a gens reform proposal, it
> will be one that is supported and authored by those who the People
> elected to higher office - it will not be the proposal of some
> random fool who attempts to hijack a cause so that he can take

credit

> for reform himself.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
> Censor, Consular, Citizen.
> http://cynico.net/~hucke/

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to L. Sicinius Drusus. Salve.

I do not understand what you mean. I have no idea what other gens may be doing in regards to their members but I do know that the Galerii are content with the current arrangement and we get along very well even though we have not all met each other yet. However, that may change soon. Perhaps you could email me privately and explain what you are talking about on this issue. I have always found most of your detailed posts informative. Vale.

Salve iterum Diana Moravia

> Me? Orator? Hey, there was a compliment in there even if it was by accident
> :-)

Tongue in cheek, perhaps, but certainly not by accident.

> >Actually, all kidding aside, I often wonder about Nova Roman demographics.
>
> I agree with you there. That is why I am happy to see that we'll have a
> Census this year.

The unhistorical census (as opposed to the relatively historical census, which
we currently call gens registration) won't tell us anything about Nova Roma's
political demographics. The only thing it will tell us that we don't already
know is which of the current capite censi are actually active. This may or may
not be of substantial value to us (I remain unconvinced, but other intelligent
people think it will be useful), but it won't answer the question implied in my
statement above.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to Diana Moravia, T. Labienus Fortunatus, et al. Salvete.

I have been out of touch for a few days but the threads on the main list seem to have become somewhat maniacal in my absence. I cannot understand why people believe that there is a lot of difference between OR & NR; both are/were full of traditions and rituals that no one really understood and both are/were pragmatic and adaptable to circumstances and problems.
Factions exist in NR just as they existed in OR. Sometimes it is a faction based on politics, other times on common interests or personality. I know that I am a member of the Galerii faction because they are my NR family; I am a member of the faction of Caeso Fabius because he is my boss and I am his accensus; and I am a member of The Eagle faction because I contribute articles to it and believe it to be a positive good. However, before any of these factions, I am a citizen of the micronation of Nova Roma and I believe that all of our citizens take pride in being in the faction of the micronational world. Vale.

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to M. Audens et al. Salve.

At last, someone who understands. I propose that we, the peaceful moderate independents of Nova Roma, use Marcus Audens' statement as our standard for a new faction in NR. One without a leader or leaders; one without meetings or chatroom; one without a website or smoke-filled rooms or back alleys. The Pax et Concordia de Nova Roma (Peace and Concord) is founded on personal freedom and our right to vote on how we perceive and want NR to grow in the future. We respect everyone's opinion even though we may not agree with it. We look for humor, wit, and intelligence in our fellow citizens and not in sarcasm, insults, and pride (but the occasional well thought out bon mot is welcome). Let us live and let live and be happy in Nova Roma. Valete.

PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... writes:

> F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to M. Audens et al. Salve.
>
> At last, someone who understands. I propose that we, the peaceful moderate
> independents of Nova Roma, use Marcus Audens' statement as our standard for
> a new faction in NR. One without a leader or leaders; one without meetings
> or chatroom; one without a website or smoke-filled rooms or back alleys.
> The Pax et Concordia de Nova Roma (Peace and Concord) is founded on
> personal freedom and our right to vote on how we perceive and want NR to
> grow in the future. We respect everyone's opinion even though we may not
> agree with it. We look for humor, wit, and intelligence in our fellow
> citizens and not in sarcasm, insults, and pride (but the occasional well
> thought out bon mot is welcome). Let us live and let live and be happy in
> Nova Roma. Valete.

An excellent idea, F. Galerius! I'd be quite happy to join you and
Marcus Audens in this. Come on by the Taverna and we can get ourselves
properly ... established.

-- Marinus (who notes that NR_Taverna is open to all Nova Romani and their
interested friends)

Salvete omnes,

It seems that the week-end of 4/5 October 2003 has been favoured by all
citizens who have expressed themselves so-far. So that week-end it is !

I am pleased to announce that a British gathering is now being (cautioulsy)
organised for that date. We have had a few people who have declared
themselves interested to attend on our provincial list. It is my pleasure to
advertise this event on the main list for our fellow britons who have yet to
discover the joy of a list closer to home ;-)

Please send your comments and eventual confirmation of intention to :
CornMoraviusL@...

Optime valete

Corn. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
"To a man with a hammer, every issue looks like a nail"

A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

My thanks to you, Senator, for posting the details of
your proposal. I, probably like others who arrived
slightly late for the original gens reform debate,
have often seen references in the archives to this
proposal but never been able to find a copy.

It certainly strikes me as a reasonable 'minimal'
plan, and I understand that it is as a minimal plan
that you intended it. I can understand why others
might wish for a more comprehensive and, if I may use
an ugly word, pro-active scheme, as would I myself,
but I acknowledge that this was not your intent in
drafting your proposal.

If I may, however, I should like to suggest a couple
of additions which seem to me necessary even for a
minimal plan.

Where you suggest:

> 5. Each family shall, through whatever means it

may

> determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
> materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the
> family and speak for it when necessary.

It would seem to me a shame, if the goal is greater
historical accuracy, not to specify that the
materfamilias or paterfamilias should be the actual or
adoptive parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or
other living ancestor of the other members of the
family. This would not, I think, infringe anyone's
rights, for it recognizes extended families, nuclear
families or families formed by adoption rather than by
birth; it would merely avoid the slightly absurd
possibility that a person could be his own father's
paterfamilias.

In the same paragraph, you suggest:

> The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion,
> expel members of their family, accept new
> members into it by adoption, or allow members who

are

> sui juris to form new families belonging to the same
> order as the Paterfamilis.

I am slightly nervous about the power of a
paterfamilias to expel a member of his family: is
there any historical basis for this? Surely however
much one may dislike one's children one cannot stop
them being one's children?

Also, I wonder whether it would be useful to make
clear whether a person being adopted requires only the
permission of his or her would-be adoptive parent, or
whether he or she also needs the permission of his or
her current parent.

It strikes me that if these small changes were made,
the proposal would make either a sound minimal reform
or an equally solid foundation for a more general and
thorough reform.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 6/30/03 11:20:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cordus@... writes:

Salvete.

> I am slightly nervous about the power of a
> paterfamilias to expel a member of his family: is
> there any historical basis for this? Surely however
> much one may dislike one's children one cannot stop
> them being one's children?

Yet this was very Roman. And while in reality, the head of the family had
life and
death authority over all of his family, this is not going to play well in
Nova Roma.
So since in Nova Roma the equivalent of death is banishment for life, and
since all citizens' rights are protected under the constitution this is something
the family head cannot do. So this is a compromise. It acknowledges the
Roman rights to the head of the family and yet allows the filius protection under
the constitution. Expelled but not banished.

>
> Also, I wonder whether it would be useful to make
> clear whether a person being adopted requires only the
> permission of his or her would-be adoptive parent, or
> whether he or she also needs the permission of his or
> her current parent.
>

We had discussed that, Apollonius, but so with many heads of Gens are missing
in action
that becomes problematic. Perhaps the clause should read "...if they can be
found."

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...> wrote:

>
> --- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites; et salve, Q. Lani Pauline.
> SNIP
> >
> > I think that senator L. Sicinius Drusus is
> referring
> > to the following
> > law:
> >
>

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-02-27-ii.html

> > This law defines English as the official language
> of
> > the Republic of
> > Nova Roma.
>
> No it dosen't. It defines Latin as the Offical
> language and English as the Business language. Those
> sections of the lex are directly from a Sentus
> Consulta passed on 15 November 2754.
>
> See
>

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2001-11-15-results.html

>
> English doccuments do have precedance over
> doccuments
> written in other languages in the event of a dispute
> over meaning. It's common in international treaties
> to
> include a clause like this in the event of a
> dispute.
>
> Since English is the business language, it was the
> logical choice for which doccument would have
> preferance in the event of a dispute over divergent
> translations.
>
>

With all due respect, I must disagree with the
interpretation given by Senator Drusus. I do agree
with him that is does not establish English as the
official language of Nova Roma, but nor does it
establish Latin as such.
But there is an important word in the lex and that
was in the Senatus consulta that the Senator did not
mention. The lex states in II. "Latin is hereby
adopted as the official CEREMONIAL language of Nova
Roma." (emphasis added) It does not establish Latin
as the official language, but rather as the official
ceremonial language, which are two different animals.
An official language is a language in which the
business of government and commercial business is
generally conducted. For example, in most places in
America English is the official language, but
translators and other resources are often provided for
those who do not understand the official language.
There are U.S. cities in which Spanish is the official
language.
But the lex also defines for us what it means by
adopting Latin as a ceremonial language. "As such, it
[Latin] shall be used in rites conducted by the curule
magistrates and appointed priests of Nova Roma on
behalf of the entire nation, as well as other
circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate."
This is esentially making Latin the liturgical
language of Nova Roma, while English as the business
language partakes somewhat of the nature of an
official language, as that term is generally
understood.
It is analagous to Jews that use Hebrew in
synagagogue services, Yiddish for home conversation,
and whatever the national language is for business and
other things.

Lucius Quintius Constantius

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete,

Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans knew, people on the Middle Ages knew also.

Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?


Vale,



L. Arminius Faustus

Senior Plebeian Aedile, Quaestor,

Interpreter (lingua lusitaniae), Scriba propraetoris Brasiliae.

Visit my office at http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/index.html



"I too in words could fight even Immortals..."

Iliad, Homer, book XX

The answer of Hector about Achilles' speeches.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Mais espaço, mais segurança e gratuito: caixa postal de 6MB, antivírus, proteção contra spam.

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

That's it!

You have spent the past few days on a non stop
campaign of slander and lies directed at me.

First you and Senator Salix Raise the issuse of Gens
reform lying through your teeth about my postion in a
transparent attempt to discredit me, then when that
fails you lie again accusing me of raising it.

At first I politly pointed out the errors, but the two
of you persisted in a non stop attack on my dignitas,
growing shriller and more hate filled by the day.

I Shouldn't have been surprised. It was the same
McCarthyite tatics that you employed against your
fellow Consul last year when you turned your toga and
went over to the faction that you had opposed prior to
then

A Clever plot on your part. Pretend to be in one camp
to draw support for an election, only to switch to the
other after achieving power.

So if your latest plot to destroy the Traditionalists
works, how long will it be before you turn your toga
again and stab your new allies in the back?

Is the "modern" style of government you have been
advocating of late? One where unprincipaled and
unprovoked attacks at launched by government officals
in an effort to silence any voice that refuses to
support thier policies.

A Government where a snake in the grass political hack
betrays first one side then the other as he climbs the
political ladder?

You have claimed to want only "the best of Roma" while
your actions have clearly shown that your intent is
inflict the worst aspects of Modern governments on
Nova Roma in your self serving bid for personal power.

Over the past 18 months you have repeatadly proven
your self to be a Liar, A Slanderer of reputations, A
Backstabber, and in general the least trustworthy
person in Nova Roma.

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

> >
> > Do you expect us to beleave that it was mere
> chance
> > that you jumped on a flawed proposal that gave you
> a
> > chance to attack the Junior Consul,
>
> Perhaps in your world that's the only possible
> motivation that anyone
> could have. But not everyone operates the way you
> do, not everyone
> is a schemer, a manipulator, and a liar such as you
> are. Senator
> Astur has supported the prosposal from the
> beginning, and was on the
> record as favoring gens reform as early as 2001.
>
> > didn't mention it for months, and jumped on it
> again when you thought
> > you could use it as a club to bash me over the
> head?
>
> Oh, this is all about you, is it? Poor little
> Sicinius, who was
> attacked for no reason!
>
> You attacked me and my policies, even though I was
> taking no part
> in the election reform debate. It is you who began
> this.
>
> > Your intrest in reform only seems to surface when
> you
> > think you can use it as a weapon against someone.
>
> More lies from a habitual liar. Senator Astur
> supported the reform from
> the beginning, long before he had any reason to
> dislike your faction.
>
> > Your game isn't working Senator. It's very plain
> that
> > you are only trying to divert attenion away from
> > crictism of the Election proposal.
>
> Lies, lies, lies.
>
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
> Censor, Consular, Citizen.
> http://cynico.net/~hucke/
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Sp. Postumius Tubertus L. Sicinio Druso Quiritibusque et A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.

Salvete,

> My thanks to you, Senator, for posting the details of
> your proposal. I, probably like others who arrived
> slightly late for the original gens reform debate,
> have often seen references in the archives to this
> proposal but never been able to find a copy.

Let me second the thanks of my friend Cordus with my thanks, for the same reasons.

> It certainly strikes me as a reasonable 'minimal'
> plan, and I understand that it is as a minimal plan
> that you intended it. I can understand why others
> might wish for a more comprehensive and, if I may use
> an ugly word, pro-active scheme, as would I myself,
> but I acknowledge that this was not your intent in
> drafting your proposal.

I would be one of those wishing for something more, but I can appreciate a starting point, which is what I see this proposal as.

> If I may, however, I should like to suggest a couple
> of additions which seem to me necessary even for a
> minimal plan.
>
> Where you suggest:
> > 5. Each family shall, through whatever means it may
> > determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
> > materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the
> > family and speak for it when necessary.
>
> It would seem to me a shame, if the goal is greater
> historical accuracy, not to specify that the
> materfamilias or paterfamilias should be the actual or
> adoptive parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or
> other living ancestor of the other members of the
> family. This would not, I think, infringe anyone's
> rights, for it recognizes extended families, nuclear
> families or families formed by adoption rather than by
> birth; it would merely avoid the slightly absurd
> possibility that a person could be his own father's
> paterfamilias.

And with this, Senator, I agree with Cordus. This then preserves the historical aspect, which I believe is what you proport yourself to be striving for a greater closeness to, and gives a real-world, modern recoginition for what we realize to be a Roman family. Do you not agree?

> In the same paragraph, you suggest:
> > The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion,
> > expel members of their family, accept new
> > members into it by adoption, or allow members who are
> > sui juris to form new families belonging to the same
> > order as the Paterfamilis.
>
> I am slightly nervous about the power of a
> paterfamilias to expel a member of his family: is
> there any historical basis for this? Surely however
> much one may dislike one's children one cannot stop
> them being one's children?

I would like to draw from what Quintus Fabius responded to this. He stated:

".... It acknowledges the Roman rights to the head of the family and yet allows the filius protection under the constitution. Expelled but not banished."

Therefore, on this point, from the view of getting more historical accuracy, I have to respectfully disagree with my friend Cordus on this. However, though this proposal is not getting quite to the various specifics, were we to get to that point, I would therefore only make the provision that the citizen, by being expelled from the familia, only lose his/her cognomen (should such a citizen have one) and become a member of the familia "Nemo" of the gens in which such a citizen is currently enrolled, until such a citizen either is adopted into another familia within Nova Roma or begins a new familia. **Example: I am of the Postumii Tuberti. I am expelled. I become of the Postumii Nemines, until I am adopted, begin a new gens, or start a new family within a currently existing gens.**

I would also propose that we put a time limit on this. Say, five nundinae (33 days). This gives the citizen time to look at other familia to be adopted into, and time to petition the paterfamilias of a family for adoption. If a petition for adoption or the creation of a new familia or adoption is not recieved by the Censores by the end of this time period, the Censores have the option of assigning the citizen to a familia, with the consent of the paterfamilias of the familia such a citizen would be entering. The mater-/paterfamilias of the familia into which the citizen shall be entering is permitted to choose the praenomen of the incoming citizen (a praenomen should be required for males, but not for females, in the interest of being historical), and would then have the full rights of a paterfamilias over that citizen.

I realize there are a lot more details left out here, but I am trying to be concise, which, a pleasure for some, is a chore for me.

> Also, I wonder whether it would be useful to make
> clear whether a person being adopted requires only the
> permission of his or her would-be adoptive parent, or
> whether he or she also needs the permission of his or
> her current parent.

Again, rare though this is, I agree with Fabius on this. "...if they can be found." I would also propose there be a time limit on this, perhaps of one nundinae (9 days).

In any case, I think at last, Senator Druse, you have provided the populace with something which they may find useful.

Valete Omnes in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

There are African parrots too. I think they may be the blue & yellow ones where American are red & green. The Greek is something that related in German Papagei, Papagenos maybe?


-----Original Message-----
From : =?iso-8859-1?q?Lucius=20Arminius=20Faustus?= <lafaustus@...>
To : LISTONA <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Date : 30 June 2003 21:45:10
Subject : [Nova-Roma] Parrots on Rome
Salvete,

>
>Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans knew, people on the Middle Ages knew also.
>
>Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?
>
>
>Vale,
>
>
>
>L. Arminius Faustus
>
>Senior Plebeian Aedile, Quaestor,
>
>Interpreter (lingua lusitaniae), Scriba propraetoris Brasiliae.
>
>Visit my office at http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/index.html
>
>
>
>“I too in words could fight even Immortals...“
>
>Iliad, Homer, book XX
>
>The answer of Hector about Achilles' speeches.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Mail
>Mais espaýo, mais seguranýa e gratuito: caixa postal de 6MB, antivýrus, proteýýo contra spam.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Truth hurts. Not the searching after, the running from. - John Eyberg



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

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

Salve Armini Fauste et omnes,

I don't know if our forefathers knew parrots in Rome but we sure have
heard many of our fellow citizens repeating themselves lately ;-)

Thank you for a refreshing question...

Optime Valete

Moravius Laureatus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know

parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans knew,
people on the Middle Ages knew also.

>
> Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?
>

Salve Armini,

They had parrots alright but obviously not the central and South
Amrican pirate varieties.

It is believed they were the Psittaciformes:

The Psittaciformes (parrots, lories, cockatoos, parakeets) are an
unique order within the birds of this world. In taxonomic systems
they are normally filed between the Columbiformes (Pidgeons) and
Cuculiformes (Cuckoos and Touracos). The psittacine birds exist in
all shapes and sizes. The size varies from 8.5 cm in Pygmy Parrots to
100 cm in the Macaws and the colors from a dull dark brown (Vasa
Parrot) to bright colorful mixtures of red, green, blue and yellow.
(Sun Conures, Lories). Often sexual dimorphism is absent but also in
some genera/species very obvious.


Environment:
These birds live in a great variety of environments from hot tropical
rainforests to nearly antarctical climate. Many of their species are
highly specialized in nutrition and biotop requirements. Others seem
to be cosmopolites. There are more than 330 different species
distributed from equatorial to near antarctical regions of the world.
Some species like Myiopsitta (Quaker) or Psittacula sp. (Ringnecks)
which escaped from captivity have settled successfully in cities and
parks which do not form their native environment.

Human History:
In human history we know of the first parrots brought to the ancient
Greece. At the court of Artaxerxes II, the pysician Ctesias gave a
description of the Plum-headed Parakeet and noticed it's ability to
speak. Parrots from the genus Psittacula were well known in ancient
Rome and with the discovery of the New Worlds in the 15th and 16th
century the trade in live parrots started to become a regular
business.
Nowadays the world-wide trade of live psittacines has reached such an
extent that there is an urgent need for controlling. Also the
business brought many of the species to the fringe of extinction and
many efforts have to be taken to preserve of what is left. Another
reason for the decline of the parrots as well as other animals of the
world is the destruction of habitats and environments by humans which
regardless the known problems increases year by year.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know

parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans knew,
people on the Middle Ages knew also.

>
> Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> Senior Plebeian Aedile, Quaestor,
>
> Interpreter (lingua lusitaniae), Scriba propraetoris Brasiliae.
>
> Visit my office at

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/lafaustus/index.html

>
>
>
> "I too in words could fight even Immortals..."
>
> Iliad, Homer, book XX
>
> The answer of Hector about Achilles' speeches.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Mais espaço, mais segurança e gratuito: caixa postal de 6MB,

antivírus, proteção contra spam.

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

--- "Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@...>
wrote:

> Sp. Postumius Tubertus L. Sicinio Druso
> Quiritibusque et A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> > My thanks to you, Senator, for posting the details
> of
> > your proposal. I, probably like others who arrived
> > slightly late for the original gens reform debate,
> > have often seen references in the archives to this
> > proposal but never been able to find a copy.
>
> Let me second the thanks of my friend Cordus with my
> thanks, for the same reasons.
>
> > It certainly strikes me as a reasonable 'minimal'
> > plan, and I understand that it is as a minimal
> plan
> > that you intended it. I can understand why others
> > might wish for a more comprehensive and, if I may
> use
> > an ugly word, pro-active scheme, as would I
> myself,
> > but I acknowledge that this was not your intent in
> > drafting your proposal.
>
> I would be one of those wishing for something more,
> but I can appreciate a starting point, which is what
> I see this proposal as.
>
> > If I may, however, I should like to suggest a
> couple
> > of additions which seem to me necessary even for a
> > minimal plan.
> >
> > Where you suggest:
> > > 5. Each family shall, through whatever means
> it may
> > > determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias
> (fem.
> > > materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of
> the
> > > family and speak for it when necessary.
> >
> > It would seem to me a shame, if the goal is
> greater
> > historical accuracy, not to specify that the
> > materfamilias or paterfamilias should be the
> actual or
> > adoptive parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or
> > other living ancestor of the other members of the
> > family. This would not, I think, infringe anyone's
> > rights, for it recognizes extended families,
> nuclear
> > families or families formed by adoption rather
> than by
> > birth; it would merely avoid the slightly absurd
> > possibility that a person could be his own
> father's
> > paterfamilias.
>
> And with this, Senator, I agree with Cordus. This
> then preserves the historical aspect, which I
> believe is what you proport yourself to be striving
> for a greater closeness to, and gives a real-world,
> modern recoginition for what we realize to be a
> Roman family. Do you not agree?
>

The main problem with our present Constution is that
it mandates ahistoric Gens. If a Gens wished to set
itself up on strictly historic grounds, that
organization would have no legal sanction under Nova
Roma's constitution.

This is clearly wrong. Those who wish to strive for a
historic Gens structure should be allowed to do so.

However not all of our citizens are ready to make that
leap at this time. In Consider it to be unfair, to
borrow a favorite term from the modernists ;), to let
people enter an organization under one set of rules,
and then to suddenly change them.

My view is that we should limit ourselves to
empowering the citizens who wish to achive a historic
structure in thier Gens without forcing any change on
those who aren't ready yet.

That is what my proposal does. Any Gens that wants a
historic structure could reorganize itself as soon as
this law was passed. Those who weren't ready wouldn't
have to make any changes, wouldn't have to jump
through any hoops to retain thier structure. They
would barely notice a change in the law.

I feel that given time and education all of our Gens
would opt for the historic structure. They should be
given that time, not forced to adopt something they
aren't ready for.

Historic Gens are an ideal worth striving for, but
while we are seeking that ideal we can't lose sight of
the fact that we are dealing with Human beings, not
lead figures that we can rearrange at will.

I say make it possible (but not required) to set up
our Gens and families on a historic basis. Once that
is done then start educating our citizens about the
Roman family and let them make the choice when they
are ready.

I Have enough faith in our citizens to beleave that
given a free choice and knowledge allmost all of them
will opt for a historic Gens within a short time, a
year or two, and do so without Nova Roma going through
yet another painful battle where one side seeks to
impose it's will apon the other.

My postion was and remains ALLOW Gens reform, but
don't FORCE it.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete omnes,

In case we discuss ancient technology further, I found some
interesting articles in this website. Everything is concise and to
the point for quick reference. I hope this helps; I relly like the
article on Archemides.

Ancient Technology Bookmarks

http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/donmillsci/library/lessons/ancient_tech.htm

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator L. Sinicius Drusus
> and
> all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> My thanks to you, Senator, for posting the details
> of
> your proposal. I, probably like others who arrived
> slightly late for the original gens reform debate,
> have often seen references in the archives to this
> proposal but never been able to find a copy.
>
> It certainly strikes me as a reasonable 'minimal'
> plan, and I understand that it is as a minimal plan
> that you intended it. I can understand why others
> might wish for a more comprehensive and, if I may
> use
> an ugly word, pro-active scheme, as would I myself,
> but I acknowledge that this was not your intent in
> drafting your proposal.
>
> If I may, however, I should like to suggest a couple
> of additions which seem to me necessary even for a
> minimal plan.
>
> Where you suggest:
> > 5. Each family shall, through whatever means it
> may
> > determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
> > materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the
> > family and speak for it when necessary.
>
> It would seem to me a shame, if the goal is greater
> historical accuracy, not to specify that the
> materfamilias or paterfamilias should be the actual
> or
> adoptive parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or
> other living ancestor of the other members of the
> family. This would not, I think, infringe anyone's
> rights, for it recognizes extended families, nuclear
> families or families formed by adoption rather than
> by
> birth; it would merely avoid the slightly absurd
> possibility that a person could be his own father's
> paterfamilias.

I Can't recall the source but I do recall reading
about a case like that occuring in Antiquita. It
concerned a legal case. A Natural father had
emancipated his son so that he would be free to accept
a bequest in a will. The father then manuvered his son
into adopting him, making the son the Paterfamilias of
the father. The father then bilked his
son/Paterfamilias out of the bequest, and the
son/paterfamilis sued the Father/filus.

Enough of that digression however. I really don't
think that the type of Paters we have today will be a
problem within a few years of allowing our citizens to
form historic Gens. Give our citizens the power and
teach them Roman family structure, and within a year
or two most of our Gens will be historic. A few years
more and the type of Gens we have now will be rare, if
not totally gone.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit.

Salve, A. Apolloni.

>Where you suggest:
>> 5. Each family shall, through whatever means it
>may
>> determine appropriate, have a paterfamilias (fem.
>> materfamilias) who shall act as the leader of the
>> family and speak for it when necessary.
>
>It would seem to me a shame, if the goal is greater
>historical accuracy, not to specify that the
>materfamilias or paterfamilias should be the actual or
>adoptive parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or
>other living ancestor of the other members of the
>family. This would not, I think, infringe anyone's
>rights, for it recognizes extended families, nuclear
>families or families formed by adoption rather than by
>birth; it would merely avoid the slightly absurd
>possibility that a person could be his own father's
>paterfamilias.

While rare, this situation did occasionally arise in Roman where a
citizen had been penally enslaved and later manumitted after purchase
from the state by a relative. A freedman could not stand in the
relation of paterfamilias to the one who had manumitted him, even if
he were the manumittor's own father.

>In the same paragraph, you suggest:
>> The paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion,
>> expel members of their family, accept new
>> members into it by adoption, or allow members who
>are
>> sui juris to form new families belonging to the same
>> order as the Paterfamilis.
>
>I am slightly nervous about the power of a
>paterfamilias to expel a member of his family: is
>there any historical basis for this? Surely however
>much one may dislike one's children one cannot stop
>them being one's children?

In the Republican period a paterfamilias could put a child to death
with legal impunity (although the social repercussions could be
considerable ifthe reason for the execution weren't significant, e.g.,
cowardice in theface of the enemy and premarital pregnancy were
socially acceptable reasonsfor killing an offspring, just being angry
as hell wasn't), as well as disinherit and expel from the familia. It
may not change the biological fact of paternity, but it could change
the legal facts.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salvete Omnes,

after two internal Ludi and waiting for the green races, the
following websites are updated:

LUDI CIRCENSES
http://aediles.novaroma.org/ludicircenses.htm

FACTIO ALBATA
http://aediles.novaroma.org/albata/

FACTIO VENETA
http://aediles.novaroma.org/veneta/

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

Salvete Omnes,

if you are yet thinking to come in Bologna (Provincia Italia) for the
International Nova Roman Rally 2756 maybe this information could be
useful for you.
I reservated a couple of flats in the medieval and quiet
residence "Da Ercole" (Hercules) for our Illustri guests. The price
is 35 Euro per night. If you want a preview of the flats, please
visit www.residencebologna.com
Repeat, I reservated the flats but maybe I could take others for you.
Hurry up!!!

NOVA ROMA INTERNATIONAL RALLY 2756
Bologna - Italy
from 1st to 3th August 2003

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

--- qfabiusmaxmi@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/03 11:20:10 AM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> cordus@... writes:
>
> Salvete.
> > I am slightly nervous about the power of a
> > paterfamilias to expel a member of his family: is
> > there any historical basis for this? Surely
> however
> > much one may dislike one's children one cannot
> stop
> > them being one's children?
>
> Yet this was very Roman. And while in reality, the
> head of the family had
> life and
> death authority over all of his family, this is not
> going to play well in
> Nova Roma.
> So since in Nova Roma the equivalent of death is
> banishment for life, and
> since all citizens' rights are protected under the
> constitution this is something
> the family head cannot do. So this is a compromise.
> It acknowledges the
> Roman rights to the head of the family and yet
> allows the filius protection under
> the constitution. Expelled but not banished.
> >
> > Also, I wonder whether it would be useful to make
> > clear whether a person being adopted requires only
> the
> > permission of his or her would-be adoptive parent,
> or
> > whether he or she also needs the permission of his
> or
> > her current parent.
> >
>
> We had discussed that, Apollonius, but so with many
> heads of Gens are missing
> in action
> that becomes problematic. Perhaps the clause should
> read "...if they can be
> found."
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

Last year we had an edict that allowed a Praetor to
act in place of a missing head of a Gens. Enacting
this into a lex would cover any problems with AWOL
Paters.

There is also the matter of the Censorial edicta that
allows a citizen to leave one Gens for another even if
a Pater objects. This was drafted for the style of
Paters we have now, but it should be plain that this
dosen't apply to what some are calling "Real" Paters.

The scope of the lex only covered changes to the
Constitution. An adoption lex would be needed to
clairfy moving from one family to another.

There is also a need for a naturalization lex that
covers granting citizenship. Since this reform would
make it possible for a Gens to have many Paters I feel
that ANY Pater in a Gens should be able to grant a new
citizen entry into the Gens. A Magistrate could also
grant entry into his Gens even if he wasn't a Pater.
This would include the Propraetors in the provinces.

This would ease the problem of AWOL Paters holding up
aplications for months.

This is in keeping with ancient traditions.

Citizenship could be gained in several ways.

A Block grant to a town or region. In this case the
Italian Gens or Gaelic Clan, or whatever structure was
in the area granted citizenship became a Roman Gens
for all practile purposes. This wouldn't apply to Nova
Roma unless at some future date we merged with another
Roman Micronation.

A Slave could be freed. The former slave then became
the head of a Plebian Family in his former master's
gens.

A Client could be granted entry into a Gens by his
patron. The Patron would allmost certainly be a Pater.
This happened mainly in the earliest days of Roma.

A Magistrate could grant citizenship to a foriegner.
The new citizen would become a member of the Gens of
the magistrate.

Clientage was also involved in these grants of
indiviual Roman citizenship, but few if any would
consider making all new citizens somebody's client
desirable and there is no doubt about it's lack of
political fesibility, so there is no point in
considering it.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

> You have spent the past few days on a non stop
> campaign of slander and lies directed at me.

It was you who started this, resurrecting a long-dormant issue
merely to harm my reputation and that of my friends. I entered into
this only to protect my reputation from your malicious assault.

> First you and Senator Salix Raise the issuse of Gens
> reform lying through your teeth about my postion in a
> transparent attempt to discredit me, then when that
> fails you lie again accusing me of raising it.

You have yet to successfully point out where we have been lying. Your
story changes every hour, every time you are caught in a contradiction,
you either weasel out of it or ignore it.

> At first I politly pointed out the errors, but the two

Politely? Venom has dripped from every one of your messages.

> I Shouldn't have been surprised. It was the same
> McCarthyite tatics that you employed against your
> fellow Consul last year when you turned your toga and
> went over to the faction that you had opposed prior to
> then

Cassius? Caeso? Labienus? Are they the faction that I had "opposed"?

The faction that I opposed when I was allied with Sulla the year before -
principally Formosanus and Piscinus - has long since departed.

As for "turning..toga", you forget which Consul it was that broke
our truce last year - with the surprise legislation to disempower the
Censors that was announced last June, days after I had been given
only an incomplete and inaccurate summary of its contents.

Whatever peace there was between us for the first part of the year, it
was not I who broke it.

> A Clever plot on your part. Pretend to be in one camp
> to draw support for an election, only to switch to the
> other after achieving power.

So, because I agreed with you, Sulla, and Q. Fabius about one issue,
I am to be bound to you forevermore, as a slave without any opinions
of his own?

I pretended nothing. I was allied with you because of my dislike for
Formosanus. With him gone there was nothing to bind me to your
faction, except your idiotic support-me-once, support-me-always notion.

> So if your latest plot to destroy the Traditionalists
> works, how long will it be before you turn your toga
> again and stab your new allies in the back?

Sicinius, you are a vicious and monstrous liar. I have never "turned
toga"; it was I who was betrayed by a Consul who lied to me about his
legislative proposals.

> Is the "modern" style of government you have been
> advocating of late? One where unprincipaled and
> unprovoked attacks

Unprovoked? *You* attacked me, as the readers of this list well know.

You are either insane, or lying, or both.

You drew me back into this. I had not posted anything of any importance
on this list for months before your hate-filled war against me began.
And now, you cry foul when given a taste of your own medicine.

> You have claimed to want only "the best of Roma" while
> your actions have clearly shown that your intent is
> inflict the worst aspects of Modern governments on
> Nova Roma in your self serving bid for personal power.

My record speaks for itself. I have done more for Nova Roma
than you ever have or ever will.

> Over the past 18 months you have repeatadly proven
> your self to be a Liar, A Slanderer of reputations, A
> Backstabber, and in general the least trustworthy
> person in Nova Roma.

I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.

Citizens, I have nothing further to say to this person. He is
beyond reason. The history of last year's events are in the archives
on the website, for anyone who care to discover the truth.

No doubt that the next time gens reform is proposed, Sicinius and
his allies will turn it into another crusade against me; I trust that
you will be able to see past his machinations.


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
<lafaustus@y...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know

parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans knew,
people on the Middle Ages knew also.

>
> Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?
>

Salve L. Arminius Faustus

There are several species of African parrots most of their native
ranges are sub-saharan, though the Meyer's parrot and the

Salve Romans

I would like to ask all Nova Romans, who have a company or other service that lends itself to advertising , to PLEASE place an ad in the Eagle. I would like to increase the amount on advertising in the Eagle even if that means giving away a few FREE ads to get things going.

So it you have something to sell here is your chance at a free ad.

If you send it soon it will make the July issue!!!!!!!!

Please send the copy to me at spqr753@...



Vale


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum
Fortuna Favet Fortibus


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@a...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Arminius Faustus
> <lafaustus@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Coming back of a long trip, I was wondering - Did the romans know
> parrots? Alas, how they called a parrot on latin? If the Romans

knew,

> people on the Middle Ages knew also.
> >
> > Or the Parrots were discovered just on America?
> >
>

Salve L. Arminius Faustus

There are several species of African parrots most of their native
ranges are sub-saharan, though the Meyer's parrot and the Red-
Bellied do have native ranges in what is now the Sudan and Ethiopia,
so it is theoretically possible that the Romans did indeed encounter
parrots by way of Egypt. I know that wealthy Romans did take great
pride and pleasure in keeping of exotic birds. According to
http://www.junglenest.com/parrot-history.html
"Aristotle studied and wrote about his pet bird, Psittace, which
formed the basis for the scientific name for all parrots - Psittacine"

So it is quite possible the Romans knew of and kept parrots, and
given the love of the exotic I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
"Calvus wants a cracker" <G>

Salve Censor Octavius! Salvete omnes!

I know I have stood at the sidelines of these policy discussions. I
believe a Tribune, who may be called upon to check the
constitutionality of any proposal put to the Commitiae, should not
commit to any position but rather keep his/her independence and
neutrality. I would advise my colleagues to do likewise.

But the limits of informed silence have been reached. When someone
attacks a Censor, Consular and Senator who undoubtedly has done far
more than enough to deserve the honorary title of Pater Patriae next
to the founder of this micronation it is time to speak out and take
sides.

Censor Octavius, I believe your honour and dignitas stand intact. I
could not say the same thing about your opponent. Please accept my
deep appreciation for not backing down but rather fighting back in a
gentlemanlike way when attacked with such rabid madness as I have
witnessed over the last few days. Your clarity and reasonable style
are an example to follow for all of us.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex
Citizen

Salve Senator Druse,

"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...> wrote:
I Have enough faith in our citizens to beleave that
given a free choice and knowledge allmost all of them
will opt for a historic Gens within a short time, a
year or two, and do so without Nova Roma going through
yet another painful battle where one side seeks to
impose it's will apon the other.

I really shouldn't continue to stir this can of worms (mixed metaphor, anyone?), but I do not share your faith that almost all of us will opt for historicity. I will certainly attempt to do so myself, as well as help anyone who wishes to do so.

I do, however, agree with you that we shouldn't pass legislation to enforce a Gens restructure. Some of our citizens are here for valid reasons that may not include recreating family and gens structure. I believe we are better off for their presence and if cumbersome legislation will force them to take their talents and insight elsewhere, I will oppose it.

I will support legislation that allows it and as you have described it.

Vale,
LCS


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Does anyone have any helpful hints for understanding, remembering, and
using participles? I have a hard time with them in English, and in Latin it
is almost unbearable.

Dryantilla

Salve Censor Octavi,

I do believe that Tribunus Marcus Marcius has said it best. The limits of informed silence _have_ been reached. They have been reached, and your opposition has exceeded such. You _have_ done more for Nova Roma, if not enough to deserve the title of Pater Patriae, then at least the title of Princeps Senator, which you mentioned instituting last year. Your honor and dignitas _are_ intact. And I, for one, can certainly and unquestionably admire your judgement, character, and your conduct in dealing with your opponent as of late. You have, Senator, my deepest admiration, and an undying reverence I can only say two others in Nova Roma, and only one beyond that, to have.

Optime Valete, Censor, in Pace Deorum,

Spurius Postumius Tubertus
Citizen

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...>
wrote:

>
> You have yet to successfully point out where we have
> been lying. Your
> story changes every hour, every time you are caught
> in a contradiction,
> you either weasel out of it or ignore it.

Quirites,

After days of being accused of not holding to the
Traditionalist postion for "opposing" Gens Reform, I
think posting the proposal I wrote last year was proof
that I have indeed supported reform of the system, and
did so in a way that would give each Gens the freedom
to follow it's own course.

Now perhaps we can get back on topic, the election
proposal.

If you recall my original point on the proposal was
that we shoiuldn't vote on any change in our election
leges unless we test them out.

The reasons are clear. In 2754 the Consul Vedius
Germanicus and Tribune Labienus Fortunatus proposed
changes in our election leges on the old main list.
Before the laws were promulgated. They listened to the
input from the citizens and even incorprated some
sugestions that were made into the reforms.

These reforms recived widespread support from many
citizens, including myself when they were promulgated.

No one, niether the Authors of the leges, nor any
citizen foresaw that these leges would result in an
increased number of runoffs. No One is at fault for
this. We are humans, and we lack the foresight of the
Imortals.

We might have avoided the runoff problem if we had
tested the leges in a mock election but no one thought
of that at the time. The Consul and Tribune didn't
think of it. I didn't think of it. I Don't recall a
single sugestion that we test the proposals before we
enacted them.

Quirites,
We still lack the Imortals foresight, but we do have
the human capicty to learn from our errors. We enacted
election leges without testing them in 2754, not
realizing that we were making a mistake. It was an
inocent error then, but if we repeat it we can't claim
inocence a second time.

We have a proposal from the Consul. We also have Giaus
Iulius sugestions for a more historic system which
could form the basis for an excellent law.

I Propose that we develop Gius Iulius ideas into a
full proposal and test BOTH of them in mock elections.

If one of the two clearly works better in that test,
then that is the proposal that we should enact.

If niether of them works in a mock election, then
neither should be passed, and we seek another answer.

If they both work, then we should opt for the more
historically correct of the two proposals.

This will not eliminate all possibility that we are
making another mistake. The effects of an election law
on the dynamics of an election is a complex phenomena.
It might take several years before some effects of a
change are noticible.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

So I take it you approve of The Censor's attempts to
decive the citizens by lying about my record.

How intresting that a Tribune of the Plebs would
approve of an attempt by a Patrician to browbeat a
Plebian into silence.

But it couldn't posibly be the effects of factional
politics, since the Modernists refuse to admit they
are a faction.

Oh well,
I Opt for the old adage,
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck, then it is a duck.

--- rexmarciusnr <RexMarcius@...> wrote:

> Salve Censor Octavius! Salvete omnes!
>
> I know I have stood at the sidelines of these policy
> discussions. I
> believe a Tribune, who may be called upon to check
> the
> constitutionality of any proposal put to the
> Commitiae, should not
> commit to any position but rather keep his/her
> independence and
> neutrality. I would advise my colleagues to do
> likewise.
>
> But the limits of informed silence have been
> reached. When someone
> attacks a Censor, Consular and Senator who
> undoubtedly has done far
> more than enough to deserve the honorary title of
> Pater Patriae next
> to the founder of this micronation it is time to
> speak out and take
> sides.
>
> Censor Octavius, I believe your honour and dignitas
> stand intact. I
> could not say the same thing about your opponent.
> Please accept my
> deep appreciation for not backing down but rather
> fighting back in a
> gentlemanlike way when attacked with such rabid
> madness as I have
> witnessed over the last few days. Your clarity and
> reasonable style
> are an example to follow for all of us.
>
> Ave et Vale
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
> Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salve Druse!

> How intresting that a Tribune of the Plebs would
> approve of an attempt by a Patrician to browbeat a
> Plebian into silence.

How interesting that you would introduce Patrician/Plebeian into the
discussion. Do you see a chance to sow discord here as well?

Tribunes are here for the protection of the rights of all citizens,
including Patricians who have served Nova Roma well. But as you may
have noticed I signed this not as a Tribune but as a disgusted
citizen. The defense of the public honour is in the hands of the
Censors and this is where your have caused more concern than anyone
else in the recent discussions.

You have always had a taste for the extreme and your arguments always
seem to jump effortleesly from Stalin to Pol Pot back to Hitler and
then over the pond to McCarthy again and certainly always so when you
are describing people that are not in agreement with you. Please bear
with me if I declare publicly that I cannot stand this any longer.
Get out of your tiny wooden box of a mind and come to your senses
again.

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex