Ambrosius Celetrus Equitio Cato S.D.

Michael wrote:

> As I mentioned, in Judaism it
> was a gradual process towards monotheism, although as far as the
> word "gods" in Psalm 82:1, see also Psalm 58:2, where it is made
> clear that the writer is referring to human judges who would make
> themselves gods among men yet act unjustly,

Salve Cato,

I am well aware that the Hebrews were originally polytheists, and that
the journey to monotheism was a prolonged process. I am also aware the
"elohim" has other meanings, but Psalm 58 is not Psalm 82, and the first
use does not pertain to the second.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please use my private address.

Vale

Salve,

Join together with a legislative magistrate and propose something to
fix it to the Comitia.

So easy. No cries, No stress, No damage, everything legal.

Don´t you think I do not feel lots of things wrong within NR laws? Am
I pulling my hair? No, I am proposing changes to the Comitia. Right
now on the Contio of current law proposals.

The fine and good system is the System of the Comitias.

"A system where that can happen is not something I'm willing to
support."

So, propose a legislation to change this! So easy! No cries, No
stress, No damage, everything legal.

What a hell! Could a Tribune be accused by trying to follow the laws,
even to cut down some law inside the current law?

You are too emotional. Be careful, specially with the tongue.
Coriolanus lost himself that way. And none was more virtuous than
Coriolanus that time.

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus
Tribunus Plebis


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

>
> > If we have a opposition to a Law, propose, by the right

magistrates,

> > a Law to the Comitia revoking/correcting it! Not make civil

unrest!

> >
> > We have a so fine and good system of proposing laws to the people,
> > why messing up everything?
>
> That "fine and good system" has led us to an utterly unacceptable
> situation, where anyone can be paralyzed at whim by a baseless suit
> from a political opponent.
>
> A system where that can happen is not something I'm willing to

support.

> I am prepared to walk away if that's what you're building here.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
> http://www.graveyards.com/
> Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
> moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

Gaius Modius Athanasius Lucio Arminio Fausto salutem dicit

Let us not forget the will of the GODS either.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 5/20/2004 8:56:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lafaustus@... writes:

> And the will of the roman people of the quirites is the very KEEPER
> of the spirit of NR.

Salvete Quirites, et salve Marce Octavi,

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

[in reply to Tribune Faustus]

>>If we have a opposition to a Law, propose, by the right magistrates,
>>a Law to the Comitia revoking/correcting it! Not make civil unrest!
>>
>>We have a so fine and good system of proposing laws to the people,
>>why messing up everything?
>
>
> That "fine and good system" has led us to an utterly unacceptable
> situation, where anyone can be paralyzed at whim by a baseless suit
> from a political opponent.

You are extrapolating a lot from one datapoint. Let's review this,
shall we?

- Fuscus filed a Petitio Actionis against Scaurus, under the terms of
the Lex Salicia that Scaurus himself helped to write.

- Scaurus asked the Consuls, Astur and me, to interpose our Imperium in
order to suspend prosecution of the charge while Scaurus is serving in a
Curule magistracy.

- We agreed, with the understanding that the correlary from the mos
maiorum, which required prior curule magistrates to have settled any
lawsuits before running again, also would apply.

Now it would arguably be a Very Good Thing for us to actually encode
this whole practice in law. But until we can do that, Astur and I are
going to use the mos maiorum as our guide. The alternative to that
would be for us to allow serving curule magistrates to be tied up in
lawsuits while they're trying to do their jobs.

I'll also admit to being downright stunned by your stated intention to
utilize your Censorial authority to obstruct the electoral process. You
have just managed to verify the fears of many who worry that you have
too much control over Nova Roma's computer based resources.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve

>We can live with an excellent praetor in Maior

I agree that Maior is excellent, but obviously he has some other
problem. I have phoned him in Brazil a few times and asked for mails.
But I haven't got any mails back. Something is wrong there too. I
will try to phone him tonight again.

I sent an e-mail to Maior in the past few days and I have not heard from him as of yet. I am beginning to believe that we have a bigger problem than just one missing Praetor?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: If we had an active praetor, I might get in trouble for saying this but what the heck


Salve Amice!

>G. Iulius Scaurus G. Equitio Catoni salutem dicit.
>
>Salve, Cato.
>Is there no one the censors can depute to actually go to
>his residence and determine whether he is still alive, for the Gods'
>sake?

Once again I say here on the main list that I have tried this (but
found no one) and many other things already. I still have a citizen
living in Austria looking into different possibilities. Now I have
tried people further from Noricus' hometown/-country, let's see what
they can find out. But soon I must say that I have reached the end of
the road. Maybe someone else has an idea? I have phoned him from
Sweden many times and I am prepared to do so again, but I need
another phone number. Anyone?

>We can live with an excellent praetor in Maior

I agree that Maior is excellent, but obviously he has some other
problem. I have phoned him in Brasil a few times and asked for mails.
But I haven't got any mails back. Something is wrong there too. I
will try to phone him tonght again.

> until a definitive
>determination can be made.

I think we can do that soon.

Please join me and pray for my friend and our Praetor Illustris
Gnaeus Octavius Noricus!

>Vale.
>
>Scaurus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness




Yahoo! Groups Links







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

> Why try to bring back the Roman virtues when we can just sit around

and argue about what the word bugger means? Once again, it shows me
what an idiot I am for having joined an online roman society.

>
> Its great telling your friends about it also.
> "What are you doing?"
> "Checking my Nova Roma mail."
> "Cool, what are they talking about?"
> "Well, they are spending 3 days argueing over the word

bugger.....so you wanna join?"

ROFL! My boyfriend told me that I'm becoming like the girl from the
movie American Pie. I said "which one?" His reply: "the one who
says 'and one time, at band camp' but in your case it's 'and one
time, in Nova Roma." I'll spare you his more base (as in crude)
summation of Nova Roma, even if was funny.

The problem is that, like you, most my stories revolve around all the
asinine things like the definition of slang terms, the finer points
of capitalization, & (my personal favorite) "1,001 ways to take
something out of context & twist it's meaning to suit the needs of a
pointless arguement" rather than topics I thought I would get to read
(i.e. Roman history for one). Perhaps we should form an Asatru
group? At least then we can discuss the finer points of mead if
nothing else. ;)

Agrippina Modia Aurelia

Salvete G Iuli Scaure et omnes,

Scaure, you made a point a little while ago about some people here
knowing less about Ancient Rome than grammar school students etc.
I just wanted to comment that don't you think this is all a question
of relative to what? For example, in my case I cannot compare my
classical knowledge to you or QFM as well as your university or
other grammar school students but if I left the confines of the
academic campus, I'm sure my general knowledge would be quite
phenomemal compared to your average Joe in a neighbourhood pub or
cocktail party circle and I might do reasonably well on a quiz show
on questions of Rome.

Having said that, I know my limitations. I can point out to people
that the Colosseum did not exist in Nero's time, Commodus was really
strangled in a bath by a wrestler and Caligula did not persecute
Christians, as well as the lineup for the Julio - Claudian family.
What I shy away from or no very little about are the intriquit
details of various lexes, heavy political customs and their
legalities and most of all these reserected legal issues divised
from Ancient Rome.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

That is why the ancient said "Vox populi, vox dei" :)

Vale bene,
L. Arminius Faustus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Lucio Arminio Fausto salutem dicit
>
> Let us not forget the will of the GODS either.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 5/20/2004 8:56:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lafaustus@y... writes:
>
> > And the will of the roman people of the quirites is the very
KEEPER
> > of the spirit of NR.

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend Domitius
Constantinus Fuscus, and to all his fellow-citizens
and all peregrines, greetings.

I quite agree with your analysis; I'd just like to add
one point:

> It could be in fact said that the Constitution
> states “Should one of the
> ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties,
> that magistrate may be removed
> by a law originating in the comitia that elected
> him.”, yet doesn’t state how
> the magistrate shall be found so.

True, but I think the implication of that sentence
that you quote is fairly clear: the body which decides
whether a magistrate is derelict in his duties is the
comitia. And that makes sense: it suggests a procedure
essentially like a trial before the assembly, in which
the charges are heard, and then the assembly delivers
its verdict.

It's a pity that some people are, apparently, failing
to distinguish between the idea "the assembly ought to
be called to decide whether the Praetor is derelict in
his duties" and the idea "the Praetor is derelict in
his duties". It is perfectly possible to agree with
the first idea and disagree with the second; and
disagreeing with the second is not a good reason for
disagreeing with the first.

I hope the consuls will be able to help the tribunes
to understand this point. If the tribunes feel that
the Praetor is not derelict in his duties, then it is
perfectly appropriate for them to argue for a 'no'
vote, but it is not appropriate for them to forbid the
assembly to vote at all.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Ambrosius Celetrus A. Modiae Aureliae S.P.D.

Agrippina Modia Aurelia wrote:

> summation of Nova Roma, even if was funny.
>
> The problem is that, like you, most my stories revolve around all the
> asinine things like the definition of slang terms, the finer points
> of capitalization, & (my personal favorite) "1,001 ways to take
> something out of context & twist it's meaning to suit the needs of a
> pointless arguement" rather than topics I thought I would get to read
> (i.e. Roman history for one). Perhaps we should form an Asatru
> group? At least then we can discuss the finer points of mead if
> nothing else. ;)

Salve Modia Aurelia,

And well said.

From the Preamble to our Constitution: "The primary functions of Nova
Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman
civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of
Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate
in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics,
art, literature, language, and philosophy."

This fooled you, too, did it?

Salve Gnae Iuli,

I must admit that I'm not one for a 'me too' posts,
but sometimes, as in this instance, it is quite
unavoidable. Your missive is absolutely spot on.

Very well said.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus


--- Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
wrote:
---------------------------------
Salvete omnes,

We cannot afford to lose one citizen. Even less can we
afford to
lose a citizen that pays taxes. It is terrible to lose
a citizen
that has held or holds public office and has
contributed to Nova
Roma through dedication of time, effort, creativity
and their own
money. It would be a disaster of unmitigated
proportions to lose
someone who is dedicated, and a vast resource of
knowledge. I would
view the departure of Scaurus as the latter.

I view his intended prosecution as a complete waste of
time and
diversion of energy. In fact given the very threadbare
nature of the
laws we have to frame actions/prosecutions around, it
becomes an
exercise in futility. This is a small community. Who
are the iudices
going to be? Someone who knows him, or certainly knows
of him. Will
they be friend or foe? Will they be neutral? As to the
latter who
truly does not have an opinion one way or another?
Therefore what
level of impartiality can a Nova Roman court promise a
defendant?
Given the amount of publicity this issue has received
who will not
have prior knowledge and thus a pre-formed opinion?
Will not this
just be a "show trial" - a pantomime of politics in a
court?

I suspect a far greater purpose in this prosecution
than "righting a
wrong". I believe the prosecution was mounted with the
intent of
setting limits on discussion - moderation through
trial. I do not
believe for one instant that this prosecution is about
what Scaurus
said about Fuscus or Italy, but what he says in
general, what he
stands for and how he says it. That to me is an abuse
of a legal
system that is so nascent and shaky that if this farce
goes ahead
and fails it will bring the whole of Nova Roman law
into complete
disrepute. Then when someone truly has a genuine need
of it (as
opposed to the need to ride a political horse on top
of the law), it
will be battered, bruised and probably held (rightly)
in contempt.

There is a lot more work to be done on our laws before
the system
will support actions/prosecutions in a fair and
impartial manner
(and given our population that will always be in
doubt).

I don't want anyone to leave, especially Scaurus. I
don't want to
see pointless prosecutions - be they of Scaurus or
Fuscus, and if
that doesn't sway you as individuals, can you at least
put the legal
knives away until you have a really competent and
developed legal
system, then you can butcher each other to your
heart's content.

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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.






____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Vipsani,

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa asked:

> As a side note, for the proceedings of the Peitio, do the
> litigants need to place a monetary deposit

It's called a sponsio. But no, the Lex Salicia does not require a
sponsio to be posted. It was considered when the law was being drafted,
but Salix Astur decided against it.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato D. Constantio Fusco Ambrosio Celetro S.P.D.

salvete,

LOL yup. It was a diversion brought on by the whole capitalization
thing. I'll refrain from more. Celetrus, fascinating and maybe a
subject of private discussion...

valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "G.C." <dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:
> Ave Omnes
>
> umm.. maybe I am wrong, but I think a discussion about the nature
of
> (the christian and jewish) God by itself, unless somehow attached
to
> a subject related to Rome or in any case to the classic world
(like,
> just to make an example, the influence of christianity over the
> change of roman society or, to make another example, the different
> perception of the nature of the divinity in the polytheist and
> monotheist religions), is a tad off-topic and should be moved to
> private mails.
>
> Just a suggestion, of course.
>
> vale
>
> DCF
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis
> Curator of teh Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini

Salve G. Iulius Scaurus Aedilis Curulis


My intent was not to make your job more difficult but to enforce the laws of Nova Roma.
I am not required to administer the law? If no one knows that this Senatus Consulta is on the books how can they adhere to it.

I did not write it I just found it and I will enforce it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Rose
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Senatus Consulta: The Edicta Commentary Period of Marcus Iunius Iulianus


G. Iulius Scaurus T. Galerio Paulino salutem dicit.
]
Salve, T. Galeri.:

>I hereby serve notice that one week from today I will pronounce intercessio against any and all edits of any magistrate that does not at adhere to this Senatus Consulta and publishes their Edicts "in a public forum (i.e. e- groups, Nova Roma message board, etc.) simultaneously, for commentary".
>

Thank you so very much for now making speedy, efficient resolution of
market disputes in the Marcellum completely impossible.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis

>
>






Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> I did not write it I just found it and I will enforce it.

And I will ask the Senate to rescind it. It's pretty obviously out of
date, and should have been rescinded years ago.

However, you are to be complimented for your dilligence. Thanks for
bringing this matter to our attention.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Minuci,

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus wrote:

> If a citizen cannot run for office with a pending Petitio Actionis
> against them, what is going to prevent a rash of lawsuits being used as
> political weapons when election time roles around again?

Praetorian Imperium. The current year's praetors can decide that there
is a time after which they will not accept petitiones actiones.

Of course, this depends heavily on the current Praetors being active and
cognizant of the finer points of their duties. It might be better to
amend the Lex Salicia to explicitly address cases involving sitting
curule magistrates and candidates for magistracies.

> It seems there
> may be some serious potential for abuse here... are there any safeguards
> to prevent this from happening?

Since for now we're relying on the mos maiorum as our basis for holding
the prosecution of sitting curule magistrates in abayence, it follows
that we should also look to the mos maiorum to see how the Romans of
antiquity imposed safeguards. Roman praetors generally suspended
acceptance of new legal proceedings against potential candidates some
number of market intervals prior to elections. If a petition had
already been accepted, the Praetor would do what he could to reach a
conclusion. Of course some very serious charges were heard by a jury of
Senators, but in most cases the Praetors could resolve cases in a matter
of weeks and clear any unjustly accused potential candidates to run for
office.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve Romans

A few days ago I posted this brief e-mail:

"Salve Romans ( If we had an active praetor, I might get in trouble saying this but what the heck)
Today, after reading some of the most endearing posts I have ever read on the main list and from some of Nova Roma's leading lights no less, I was wondering if I am the only citizen who would like to hold a a nice Roman feast for some of our long term citizens to thank them for all their hard work over the years ( I really mean this) and then escort them to the Tarpeian Rock and PUSH."

I was wrong to write it the way I did and I apologize for this post.

This was meant as a joke and not intended to be taken seriously . It was in response to a number of posts that I felt were over the top and from some of the best citizens we have.

I was wrong. I am sorry for writing it. It injured the dignity of a number of our citizens and I am truly sorry for that and I ask their forgiveness.

It was not my intent to cause them any harm. It was a lame attempt at levity that fell way short.

I was wrong to write it the way I did and I apologize for this post.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus





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

Salve Romans

I have sent this to the Consuls and the Tribunes for their consideration. I submitted it to you for comment

As Article I section A 2 states

"This Constitution may be amended by a Lex passed by the comitia centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate."

I do not believe that a Lex must be passed first but Senate action can start the amending process. As the Senate is in session I would suggest the following be added to the Senate agenda.

Constitutional amendment

Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution is amended to read as follows.
IV. Magistrates are the elected and appointed officials responsible for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. There are two categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are ordinarily elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally appointed or elected). Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia.

1.. The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are as follows. Should an office in mid-term become vacant, and a vacancy shall have occurred if the magistrate resigns, dies while in office or has not been for in contact for a period of two months. The Censors will declare publicly that they have tried and failed to find the missing magistrate and and that if suitable candidates are at hand, an election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the censors public declaration. Should one of the ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties, that magistrate may be removed by a law originating in the comitia that elected him.
Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs



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

> I'll also admit to being downright stunned by your stated intention to
> utilize your Censorial authority to obstruct the electoral process.

You

> have just managed to verify the fears of many who worry that you have
> too much control over Nova Roma's computer based resources.
>
> -- Marinus

Consul, if you want me to resign, say so and I'll do it without
hesitation. If you want to move to a server that I don't control,
pull out your checkbook.

Salve,

We should add ´censor and its proconsul/propraetor´ where is simply
written 'censor' - The governor has even better oportunities to seek
a citizen.

When the elected but never oathed plebeian aedile was dismissed by
the Tribuni, we have awaited the censor and propraetor speak of the
vanishing.

Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


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

> Salve Romans
>
> I have sent this to the Consuls and the Tribunes for their

consideration. I submitted it to you for comment

>
> As Article I section A 2 states
>
> "This Constitution may be amended by a Lex passed by the comitia

centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate."

>
> I do not believe that a Lex must be passed first but Senate action

can start the amending process. As the Senate is in session I would
suggest the following be added to the Senate agenda.

>
> Constitutional amendment
>
> Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution is amended to read as

follows.

> IV. Magistrates are the elected and appointed officials responsible

for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. There are
two categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are ordinarily
elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally
appointed or elected). Qualifications necessary to hold these
positions may be enacted by law properly passed by one of the
comitia.

>
> 1.. The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are as

follows. Should an office in mid-term become vacant, and a vacancy
shall have occurred if the magistrate resigns, dies while in office
or has not been for in contact for a period of two months. The
Censors will declare publicly that they have tried and failed to find
the missing magistrate and and that if suitable candidates are at
hand, an election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a
successor to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days
of the censors public declaration. Should one of the ordinarii be
found to be derelict in his duties, that magistrate may be removed by
a law originating in the comitia that elected him.

> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nova Roma,
Hello. I have joined this group because of my own
interests in the ancient Roman culture and government. Religion is
of no concern to me but let me not insult anyone with this comment.
I'm sure I will catch on to the lingo and get in on all of the
topics soon enough. And thus having announced myself may I ask the
eternal question: Why do Romans always have british accents in
flicks?

Brutal

Just testing my new account...
Po

Flavius Vedius Germanicus Nova Romanii S.P.D.,

Salvete omnes,

As has been pointed out, our esteemed Collegium Pontificum recently
enacted a decretum declaring that the conduct of animal sacrifices
is acceptable as part of the rites of the Religio Publica, as
determined by the conscience of the individual sacerdote. It is also
explicitly stated that such blood sacrifices shall not be funded
from the state treasury, for the foreseeable future.

That, of course, leaves the procurement of animals intended for
sacrifice to private funds.

As someone who believes that animal sacrifice is not only a proper
practice of the Religio Publica, but also a necessary one, I would
like to start a private fund, completely divorced from the state
treasury, to collect donations from private individuals with the
intention of reimbursing those sacerdotes who wish to undertake
animal sacrifices as part of their duties in the administration of
the Religio Publica.

Donations to the fund would be entirely voluntary, of course, but
hopefully we will come to a point where priests who wish to follow
the ancient practice will not have to reduce themselves to penury to
do so.

I myself will pledge $50 to the fund to start things off, with more
to follow as circumstances allow.

If anyone else is interested in helping with such a fund, please
feel free to get in touch with me via private email. If enough
people express interest, I will setup something via PayPal to
facilitate donations.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Salve Quirites, et salve Brutal,

Brutal writes:

> Hello. I have joined this group because of my own
> interests in the ancient Roman culture and government.

Welcome to Nova Roma.

[...]

> Why do Romans always have british accents in flicks?

Because the german accents were already taken.

(That being the flippant answer.)

More seriously, when Hollywood started making the old "swords and
sandals" movies, one of the major reference books was Gibbon's _Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire_, in which Gibbon went to great lengths to
draw out the connection between the British Empire and the Roman Empire.
At least that's how it's been explained to me in the past.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve!

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Wrote:

�If a citizen cannot run for office with a pending Petitio Actionis against them, what is going to prevent a rash of lawsuits being used as
political weapons when election time roles around again? It seems there may be some serious potential for abuse here... are there any safeguards to prevent this from happening?�

MTV: I would like to hope that Roman citizen�s would not use such a petty way to attempt to change, forge or otherwise cripple the Republic. I would hope we all remember the virtues: Dignitas, Gravitas, Honestas, Pietas, Veritas, Iustitia, Libertas and last but not least Genius.

They need to be more than words! Long Live Nova Roma!

May the Gods bless you all!

mTv


Gaius Minucius Hadrianus <c.minucius.hadrianus@...> wrote:C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quititibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

If a citizen cannot run for office with a pending Petitio Actionis
against them, what is going to prevent a rash of lawsuits being used as
political weapons when election time roles around again? It seems there
may be some serious potential for abuse here... are there any safeguards
to prevent this from happening?

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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.




------------------------------------------------------------
Gens Traiana Home Page
www.geocities.com/genstraiana

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year

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

Salvete omnes,

I too along with my Legate and Propraetor stand shoulder to shoulder
with Scaurus on this.

I find moderation through lawsuits to be thoroughly un-Roman, a very
dangerous precedent and a huge threat to the Republic. We stand on
the brink of a huge chasm where citizens regardless of their
faction, belief or interest group will be intimidated into muting
what they say.

Legislating a person into silence or obediance is a tool of
represive Soviet/Marxist style regimes. It is the tactic of the show
trial, the denunciation and hounding of free speech. It has a
history in repression and brutality.

Being British I have an aversion to lawsuits. When I left "Blighty"
eight years ago, being sued was something that happened to other
people. Since moving to Canada I realise that this rush to the law
courts is a very North American feature of life. I am stunned that
in Italy, the home of Rome - the "sacred land" I have heard it
referred to by citizens of that province, the American prediliction
for running post haste to a lawyer has taken hold.

What happened to gumption and spine, to standing ones ground in
rhetorical debate? What happened to being Roman? At what point did
people develop baby soft skin that a point of view becomes
unanswerable through debate, and we have to turn to baby thin
skinned laws? In my view this is an appalling lack of Romanitas to
do such a thing.

Law suits to moderate free speech, which is the result of what would
occur if this disgusting farce is allowed to proceed, are a grave
threat to our Republic. Once our spiritual forefathers had to fear
informers - an equal blot on the landscape. Now we have to fear the
professional mewler and whiner running at full tilt to the Praetors
to suppress facts or opinions, or both, that they obeject to.

Regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum I call on
all citizens to recognise we are about to embark on a dangerous path
which will end in the death of free speech. People may poo poo that -
but sit calmly and think about it for a moment. It will happen as
surely as the sun rising and setting.

Citizens of Nova Roma I call on you all to defend the Roman right to
free speech. I call upon you all to raise yourself out of silence
and to forget factional divides.

I call for the defence of Gaius Iulius Scaurus from a dangerous
precedent setting prosecution which threatens all our liberties. I
call on you all to recognise that our legal system is so nascent as
to provide scant hope of a fair trial.

I call upon the the Tribunes to consider on behalf of Nova Roma and
all citizens whether prosecution for the sake of moderation is in
itself a denial of free speech as guaranteed under the constitution.

I call on those Tribunes, if they find that to be so, to interpose
their veto on any such decisions made by a magistrate to proceed to
trial.

In short I call upon you ALL for once, just once, be united in the
face of a common danger to our Republic; one that could one day be
used on any of you out there.

To defend Scarus is to defend yourself. To defend yourself is to
defend the Republic.

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Salve Consul et salvete omnes,

Hahaha!

In the new movie "Troy" Odysseus often speaks with a Scottish
brouge. I pretty sure it is unintentional as is some of the other
humor in the movie.

Valete,

G. Popillius Laenas



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:

> Salve Quirites, et salve Brutal,
>
> Brutal writes:
> > Hello. I have joined this group because of my own
> > interests in the ancient Roman culture and government.
>
> Welcome to Nova Roma.
>
> [...]
> > Why do Romans always have british accents in flicks?
>
> Because the german accents were already taken.
>
> (That being the flippant answer.)
>
> More seriously, when Hollywood started making the old "swords and
> sandals" movies, one of the major reference books was Gibbon's

_Decline

> and Fall of the Roman Empire_, in which Gibbon went to great

lengths to

> draw out the connection between the British Empire and the Roman

Empire.

> At least that's how it's been explained to me in the past.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Marce Octavi,

Matt wrote:

> Consul, if you want me to resign, say so and I'll do it without
> hesitation.

What I want you to do, Censor, is your job. The job you agreed to do
when you stood for election. While we're at it, I'd also like you to
look around for the Dignitas you seem to have set aside and try to
assume it again. You're acting more like a truculent adolescent than a
Roman magistrate.

> If you want to move to a server that I don't control,
> pull out your checkbook.

I shall bring that question up in the Senate.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salvete Omnes:

As a candidate for the office of Plebeian Aedile, I, Lucius Suetonius Nerva, have been asked by the honorable Lucius Arminius Faustus to comment on the current proposed laws regarding the powers of the Plebeian Aedile. Having read the law, as posted under "Proposal I" of Tribune Arminius' Call of May 19, I would like to make the following comments:

Item 2): "To organize and moderate the Comitia Plebis Tributa Forum."

A good idea, but I believe this item needs to be more explicit about the duties entailed.

Item 4): "To organize at least two big plebeian ludes"

Excellent. Juvenal's snide comment referencing, "panem et circenses," and their importance to the common people, was not far off the mark. As with all good satire, there was solid kernel of truth at the heart of his sneering. Games were an essential component in the life of a Roman and their cultivation must be a primary concern of Nova Roma.

Sub-item 4.4): "responsibility for the moral and dignitas of the ludi."

This sub-section is problematical. The term, "moral," is indeterminate and susceptible to misappropriation by radical elements seeking to impose on Nova Roma a fundamentalist agenda. I suggest the following re-wording: 4.4): "The Plebeian Aediles will have the final responsibility for maintaining the dignitas of the ludi."

I foresee objections, based on the definition of, "dignitas." Let me address those concerns. "A sense of self-worth and personal pride." is the dictionary definition of, "dignitas" cited at www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/virtues. I believe such a definition is acceptable to a majority of Nova Romans. If I am wrong, I invite all Nova Romans to contact and debate me, in the public Forum, on this issue.

I have no other problems with the Lex Arminia de Officiis Aedilium Plebis. It elaborates, constructively, on Article IV.5 of the Nova Roma Constitution which deals with the office and duties of the Aediles Plebis. I will be voting in its favor and hope that it will be endorsed by the Comitia.

Valete Omnes.

Lucius Suetonius Nerva

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

Salve,

Excellent post! Thanks very much by supporting the laws.

Yes, I wrote the law deliberated open. Why? Because who has the power
to define ´moral and dignitas´ shall be the own aedile. If we make
laws very specifical, why having magistrates with ´Potestas´? And
Potestas, between other duties, is ´the power to interpret and apply
roman law´. If the law is suficiently to define all its scope, bring
the lawyers.

It is like on Ancient Rome. The aedile changed, and the ´taste´ of
the game changed.

Vale bene,
L. Arminius Faustus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "John Walzer" <jwalzer5@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes:
>
> As a candidate for the office of Plebeian Aedile, I, Lucius
Suetonius Nerva, have been asked by the honorable Lucius Arminius
Faustus to comment on the current proposed laws regarding the powers
of the Plebeian Aedile. Having read the law, as posted
under "Proposal I" of Tribune Arminius' Call of May 19, I would like
to make the following comments:
>
> Item 2): "To organize and moderate the Comitia Plebis Tributa
Forum."
>
> A good idea, but I believe this item needs to be more explicit
about the duties entailed.
>
> Item 4): "To organize at least two big plebeian ludes"
>
> Excellent. Juvenal's snide comment referencing, "panem et
circenses," and their importance to the common people, was not far
off the mark. As with all good satire, there was solid kernel of
truth at the heart of his sneering. Games were an essential
component in the life of a Roman and their cultivation must be a
primary concern of Nova Roma.
>
> Sub-item 4.4): "responsibility for the moral and dignitas of
the ludi."
>
> This sub-section is problematical. The term, "moral," is
indeterminate and susceptible to misappropriation by radical elements
seeking to impose on Nova Roma a fundamentalist agenda. I suggest
the following re-wording: 4.4): "The Plebeian Aediles will have the
final responsibility for maintaining the dignitas of the ludi."
>
> I foresee objections, based on the definition of, "dignitas."
Let me address those concerns. "A sense of self-worth and personal
pride." is the dictionary definition of, "dignitas" cited at
www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/virtues. I believe such a definition
is acceptable to a majority of Nova Romans. If I am wrong, I invite
all Nova Romans to contact and debate me, in the public Forum, on
this issue.
>
> I have no other problems with the Lex Arminia de Officiis
Aedilium Plebis. It elaborates, constructively, on Article IV.5 of
the Nova Roma Constitution which deals with the office and duties of
the Aediles Plebis. I will be voting in its favor and hope that it
will be endorsed by the Comitia.
>
> Valete Omnes.
>
> Lucius Suetonius Nerva
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---Salve Galerius Tribunis, Salvete, Omnes;

First off, congratulations Tribune, in producing a possible
contructive solution to the predicament we are faced with.

I think this would be a good measure, and if one wanted to insert a
clause regarding the imperium, should it become a question again, this
would make it a bit tighter...although the role of the Comitia Curiata
even in antiquita was, according to the sources I've encountered,
quickly relegated to a formality, once the comitiae of the people were
established and their function manifest. Perhaps, prior to the
election by the comitia (not after) 'the Censores shall call upon a
member of the comitia curiata to declare him 'too long outside the
walls of the city' or whatever, and thus nullify his imperium.

Some of the literature states that the Praetor urbanus' imperium, that
is, magisterial imperium as opposed to military imperium which they
could also hold and have extended beyond their term in some cases, was
confined to within the city walls. Moreover, they were expected while
in active term not to leave the city for anymore than 5 to 7 days. (we
do not have a Praetor peregrine)

What does this mean? Po talks too much and should take up knitting?
No :) NO!!!! not the knitting nooooo

This means, that it could be argued that, when a Praetor is absentia,
they are infact relinquishing their own administrative imperium,
unless of course they have received a commission from the Consuls or
the Senate to engage in military activity on behalf of Nova Roma.

Just some thoughts, and I wonder how others feel about this.

And another thing, is it not customary for the Tribunes to inform the
populace that the Senate is in session, if an agenda has been
established, assuming that an agenda has been compiled for the Senate
to formally be called into session. Just wondering...

Pompeia


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

> Salve Romans
>
> I have sent this to the Consuls and the Tribunes for their

consideration. I submitted it to you for comment

>
> As Article I section A 2 states
>
> "This Constitution may be amended by a Lex passed by the comitia

centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate."

>
> I do not believe that a Lex must be passed first but Senate action

can start the amending process. As the Senate is in session I would
suggest the following be added to the Senate agenda.

>
> Constitutional amendment
>
> Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution is amended to read as follows.
> IV. Magistrates are the elected and appointed officials responsible

for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. There are two
categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are ordinarily
elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally appointed
or elected). Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be
enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia.

>
> 1.. The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are as

follows. Should an office in mid-term become vacant, and a vacancy
shall have occurred if the magistrate resigns, dies while in office
or has not been for in contact for a period of two months. The Censors
will declare publicly that they have tried and failed to find the
missing magistrate and and that if suitable candidates are at hand, an
election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor
to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the
censors public declaration. Should one of the ordinarii be found to be
derelict in his duties, that magistrate may be removed by a law
originating in the comitia that elected him.

> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are religous implications involved in the granting of Imperium.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

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

> Salve Romans
>
> I have sent this to the Consuls and the Tribunes for their

consideration. I submitted it to you for comment

>
> As Article I section A 2 states
>
> "This Constitution may be amended by a Lex passed by the comitia

centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate."

>
> I do not believe that a Lex must be passed first but Senate action

can start the amending process. As the Senate is in session I would
suggest the following be added to the Senate agenda.

>
> Constitutional amendment
>
> Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution is amended to read as follows.
> IV. Magistrates are the elected and appointed officials responsible

for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. There are two
categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are ordinarily
elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally appointed
or elected). Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be
enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia.

>
> 1.. The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are as

follows. Should an office in mid-term become vacant, and a vacancy
shall have occurred if the magistrate resigns, dies while in office
or has not been for in contact for a period of two months. The Censors
will declare publicly that they have tried and failed to find the
missing magistrate and and that if suitable candidates are at hand, an
election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor
to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the
censors public declaration. Should one of the ordinarii be found to be
derelict in his duties, that magistrate may be removed by a law
originating in the comitia that elected him.

> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> What I want you to do, Censor, is your job. The job you agreed to do
> when you stood for election.

I stood for election as magistrate of a group that was to be "a beacon
for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome". But over the
following years it morphed into a version of "Fight Club" with lawyers.

If I want to be a party to stupid and frivolous "lawsuits" I can buy
stock in SCO. Nova Roma should have been something better.

Salvete omnes,

I always thought the idea of going after accents in movies was
rather funny. Some critics for example pointed out Kevin Costner did
such a poor job playing Robin Hood since he did not speak with an
English or Aussie accent like Errol Flyn before him. I've seen 12
century English (maybe 50% Norman French also) at that time
demonstrated and I couldn't understand any more than 10% of what was
being said; in short it really doesn't matter.




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:

> Salve Quirites, et salve Brutal,
>
> Brutal writes:
> > Hello. I have joined this group because of my own
> > interests in the ancient Roman culture and government.
>
> Welcome to Nova Roma.
>
> [...]
> > Why do Romans always have british accents in flicks?
>
> Because the german accents were already taken.
>
> (That being the flippant answer.)
>
> More seriously, when Hollywood started making the old "swords and
> sandals" movies, one of the major reference books was Gibbon's

_Decline

> and Fall of the Roman Empire_, in which Gibbon went to great

lengths to

> draw out the connection between the British Empire and the Roman

Empire.

> At least that's how it's been explained to me in the past.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

In a message dated 5/20/04 9:50:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brutal7100@... writes:

> And thus having announced myself may I ask the
> eternal question: Why do Romans always have british accents in
> flicks?
>

Several reasons. Shakespeare, and culture. Early English talkies that did
Iulius Caesar, had English actors. As time went on the Patricians were
assumed to be of culture and leisure like English nobility, while the Plebeian
suburbanites were more like brash Americans.
Kubruck took advantage of showing this in "Spartacus." Who does not want to
imitate one of the great cinematic geniuses of the 20th century? Of course
you end up with some funny moments, like Wayne's Centurio in "Ben Hur"
"Dat Mahn was indeed tha Son of Gahd" No doubt a western Latin accent.

The second reason were the "sword and sandal" epics of the 50s and 60s from
the Italians and Spanish. In order to be dubbed for foreign distribution, the
producers used actors who spoke English, from England.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

In a message dated 5/20/04 10:15:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ksterne@... writes:

> In the new movie "Troy" Odysseus often speaks with a Scottish
> brouge. I pretty sure it is unintentional as is some of the other
> humor in the movie.
>

Well to the cultured Mykes, Odysseus being a red necked rube might come off
like a highlander did to the English.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Ex officio Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Tribunus Plebs

The Senate of Nova Roma is in session


This session shall last from 17:00 in Rome (CET) ante diem XV Kal.
IVNIAS MMDCCLVII a.u.c. (May 18th) until until dusk in Rome
(20:30 CET), a.d. XI Kal. IVNIAS MMDCCLVII a.u.c. (May 22nd).

Voting shall start immediately thereafter, lasting until dusk in Rome
(20:30 CET), pridie Kal. IVNIAS MMDCCLVII a.u.c. (May 31st). Senators
should note that XXI and XXIII Mai are Nefastus Publicus days, and that
XXII and XXIV Mai are Dies Fastus. All other days are Dies Comitialus.
I have provided additional days in the schedule to accommodate the
restrictions of the religious calendar.

Subtract 6 hours from the time in Rome to determine the time on the
East Coast of North America. Half past noon in Rome is therefore 6:30
AM in New York City.

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

AGENDA:

I. Prorogation of Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus as Propraetor America
Medioccidentalis Superior.

II. Prorogation of Marcus Darius Firmitus as Propraetor of Canada
Orientalis.

III. Prorogation of Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus as Propraetor
of Venedia.

IV. Approval of Gaia Fabia Livia as Propraetor of Britannia.

V. Approval of Lucius Rutilius Minervalis as Propraetor of Gallia.

VI. Approval of Senatus Consultum to waive asiduus requirement for C.
Argentinus Cicero, to be eligible for appointment as propraetor of
Argentina.

VII. Approval of Caius Argentinus Cicero as propraetor of Argentina.

VIII. Approval of Petrus Domitianus Artorinus Longinus as Translator of
Polish.

IX. Withdrawal of Nova Roma sponsorship from the Ludus Magnus
Gladiatorial Academy, a former unit of Legio XXIV Mediatlantica and now
a separate organization.

X. Approval of the Senatus Consultum concerning the association of
Balticum with Venedia.

******************************************************************************************
Salve Pompeia Minucia Tiberia and my fellow Romans

"And another thing, is it not customary for the Tribunes to inform the
populace that the Senate is in session, if an agenda has been
established, assuming that an agenda has been compiled for the Senate
to formally be called into session. Just wondering...'

Yes it is and it was my responsibility this month to inform the citizens of Nova Roma that the Senate is in session.
Thank you for the reminder. I have no excuse for not doing it earlier.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs





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

Salve Senator et Pontifex L. Sicinius Drusus

What would you suggest we do to take these implications into consideration?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A proposed constitutional amendment


There are religious implications involved in the granting of Imperium.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> I have sent this to the Consuls and the Tribunes for their
consideration. I submitted it to you for comment
>
> As Article I section A 2 states
>
> "This Constitution may be amended by a Lex passed by the comitia
centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate."
>
> I do not believe that a Lex must be passed first but Senate action
can start the amending process. As the Senate is in session I would
suggest the following be added to the Senate agenda.
>
> Constitutional amendment
>
> Article IV of the Nova Roma Constitution is amended to read as follows.
> IV. Magistrates are the elected and appointed officials responsible
for the maintenance and conduct of the affairs of state. There are two
categories of magistrates: ordinarii (those who are ordinarily
elected) and extraordinarii (those who are only occasionally appointed
or elected). Qualifications necessary to hold these positions may be
enacted by law properly passed by one of the comitia.
>
> 1.. The ordinarii, in decreasing order of authority, are as
follows. Should an office in mid-term become vacant, and a vacancy
shall have occurred if the magistrate resigns, dies while in office
or has not been for in contact for a period of two months. The Censors
will declare publicly that they have tried and failed to find the
missing magistrate and and that if suitable candidates are at hand, an
election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor
to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the
censors public declaration. Should one of the ordinarii be found to be
derelict in his duties, that magistrate may be removed by a law
originating in the comitia that elected him.
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tribune Galeri,

> The Senate of Nova Roma is in session

[...]

I note that I added an agenda item XI to the current Senate agenda
earlier today. It proposes that the Senate rescind an old senatus
consultum from 2000. If the Tribune hasn't yet received that message, I
can forward it to him.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Salve Romans

When did the Romans think that the Trojan war took place?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

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

Salve Tiberi,

> When did the Romans think that the Trojan war took place?

A long, long time ago. The best reckoning I can imagine from a Roman
perspective is that G. Iulius Caesar the Dictator traced his geneaology
to the goddess Venus and Aeneas, who preceeded him by 42 generations.
Assuming a standard 20 year generation that works out to 840 years
before Caesar's birth, or 940 BCE for the birth of Aeneas' son Iulis.
Add in a few more years for Aeneas to work his way over to Italy, and
you have the Trojan War happening somewhere around 955-945 BCE.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Ex officio Tiberius Galerius Paulinus, Tribunus Plebs

The Senate of Nova Roma is in session and the Consul, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus has added item XI

"(XI) ... concerning revocation of the Senatus Consultum of 11/09/2000 entitled "The Edicta Commentary
Period of Marcus Iunius Iulianus."


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs



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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Minucius Hadrianus
<c.minucius.hadrianus@n...> wrote:

> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quititibus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete.
>
> If a citizen cannot run for office with a pending Petitio

Actionis

> against them, what is going to prevent a rash of lawsuits being

used as

> political weapons when election time roles around again? It seems

there

> may be some serious potential for abuse here... are there any

safeguards

> to prevent this from happening?
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Salve amice,

The only safeguard is for the Praetors to be on the ball and
recognize a SLAPP "strategic lawsuit (or litigation) against public
participation" for what it is and dismiss the case. Otherwise you
have no protection whatsoever.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Athanasius, Salvete Omnes ~

It is customary usage in English to refer to the Judeo-Christian Diety
as "God", which is capitalized because it is used by them as a name.
It is equally customary in English to refer to the Greco-Roman Dieties
as "gods" in the small case, as it is merely considered a plural noun
like any other plural noun. Personally, I do capitalize the word as
"Gods", but it is a personal affectation and not proper English.

There is no "pettiness" in using the small case, "gods", nor is it a
slight in any way ~ it is merely proper English. Those of us who do
use the capitalized form do so as an added respect, but it is in no way
disrespectful to use the lower case.

Valete
~ Troianus

On Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 12:08 AM, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

> Cato:
>
> How petty am I going to get?
>
> Considering you claim to be playing respect to ancient custom by
> refering to my Gods as gods and your god as God. I frankly find that
> extremely disrespectful. I know there will be several people who will
> voice thier opinion in support or you and your right to believe the
> way you do, and that is fine. It still doesn't make it right in my
> opinion.
>
> If Nova Roma was left in your hands, we would see the Religio pushed
> aside to some sort of museum piece. And now...I shall keep the rest
> of my opinions to myself otherwise I will be accused of being
> "religiously intolerant" and would most likely find a suit filed
> against me as well.
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 5/19/2004 11:08:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mlcinnyc@... writes:
>
>> How petty are we going to get here?
>>
>> 1. It is not an act of my subconscious; I believe in One God, the
>> Father Almighty...in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
>> God...in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life; the Holy
>> Trinity. I have never pretended otherwise. It is entirely
>> consciously and willingly that I capitalize "God" when referring to
>> the Christian one, as He is the God I worship. (N.B. - no offense is
>> intended by the use of the male pronoun; it is simply a convention.)
>>
>> 2. The Romans (and the Greeks and the Egyptians and Sumerians and
>> Babylonians and Assyrians etc. et al.) were not in the habit of
>> capitilizing the word "god" in their own various languages; mostly
>> because there simply was no differentiation between "capital"
>> and "lower-case" letters in their alphabets. So it is in keeping with
>> historical practice that I use a lower-case letter if referring to
>> the gods of these religions.
>>
>> If you prefer to capitalize the word "gods", be my guest. I have
>> never objected to it on this List, and it is an unnecessary and crude
>> attempt at diversion to suddenly throw this up; somewhat akin to
>> question Fuscus' abilities as a magistrate when he got a
>> name
>> confused.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Sp. Postumius Tubertus SPQR Salutem Dicit

Salvete Omnes, et Salve Senatus Romanus,

Meaning no disrespect whatsoever to the Senate nor to the Roman People, of which I am both happy and proud to be a part, I publicly pose this question to the Senate, and to those of the Roman People who so choose to offer a response: As regards the titles of our provincial governors, why is it that we, a People of Laws, do not follow the Senatus consultum of 7 Sex. 2754 (http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/1998-08-07-i.html) which specifically outlines and standardizes the titles of provincial magistrates?

Valete Optime in Pace Deorum,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Fetialis
Accensus
Scriba Praetoris
Scriba Aedilis Curulis
Retiarius, The Great Provincia Lacus Magni
Citizen of Rome

Sp. Postumius Omnibus sal.

Salvete Omnes,

It has come to my attention that many of you may have recieved a good deal of spam with any one of my e-mail addresses (listed below). For this, I deeply apologize. That being said, if there has been any mail which may have been sent recently to any of the below listed e-mail addresses which has bounced, please send it again to spuriustubertus AT gmx DOT net. Again, I truly apologize.

Valete,

Spurius Postumius Tubertus

Formerly at:

postumius AT gmx DOT net
princeps_senator AT gmx DOT net
postumius AT novaroma DOT org

Currently at:

spuriustubertus AT gmx DOT net

Salve Consul

but it happen around the 320's b.c.e and Rome was already old

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Roman History question


Salve Tiberi,

> When did the Romans think that the Trojan war took place?

A long, long time ago. The best reckoning I can imagine from a Roman
perspective is that G. Iulius Caesar the Dictator traced his geneaology
to the goddess Venus and Aeneas, who preceeded him by 42 generations.
Assuming a standard 20 year generation that works out to 840 years
before Caesar's birth, or 940 BCE for the birth of Aeneas' son Iulis.
Add in a few more years for Aeneas to work his way over to Italy, and
you have the Trojan War happening somewhere around 955-945 BCE.

Vale,

-- Marinus





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salve Tiberi,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

>
> Salve Consul
>
> but it happen around the 320's b.c.e and Rome was already old

I think you've dropped a "1" from your date. The traditional date
accepted by Greek writers for the fall of Troy is 1220 bce. Currently,
though there is some dispute, it is commonly accepted in archeological
circles that Troy VIIa was the actual city of Priam. It was destroyed
about 1250 bce.

As to what the Romans believed the date to be, Consul Marinus' reasoning
seems quite sound.

Vale.

Ambrosius Celetrus

Salve Ambrosius Celetrus

you are right

vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Ambrosius Celetrus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Roman History question


Salve Tiberi,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Salve Consul
>
> but it happen around the 320's b.c.e and Rome was already old

I think you've dropped a "1" from your date. The traditional date
accepted by Greek writers for the fall of Troy is 1220 bce. Currently,
though there is some dispute, it is commonly accepted in archeological
circles that Troy VIIa was the actual city of Priam. It was destroyed
about 1250 bce.

As to what the Romans believed the date to be, Consul Marinus' reasoning
seems quite sound.

Vale.

Ambrosius Celetrus



Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salve Honorable Spurius Postumius Tubertus!

I follow this S.C. in Provincia Thule and in the Regula Provincia
Thules, but I don't have to. Please take a look at the Constitution:
V. Senate : especially 5.

V. Senate
C. The Senate may, by Senatus Consultum, create provincia for
administrative purposes and appoint provincial governors therefor,
who shall bear such titles as the Senate may deem appropriate. The
Senate may review each governor on a yearly basis and it remains in
the discretion of the Senate whether or not to prorogue such
governors, although this review shall not constitute a ban on the
authority of the Senate to remove governors from office as its
discretion. Governors shall have the following honors, powers, and
obligations:

1. To hold imperium and have the honor of being preceeded by six
lictors solely within the jurisdiction of their provincia;
2. To proclaim those edicta (edicts) necessary to engage in those
tasks which advance the mission and function of Nova Roma, solely
within the jurisdiction of their provincia (such edicts being binding
upon themselves as well as others);
3. To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of
their provincia;
4. To appoint officers to whom authority may be delegated, subject
to those restrictions and standards as the Senate shall deem
appropriate;
5. To remove officers whom they have appointed, or make changes to
their titles and/or delegated authority, subject to those
restrictions and standards as the Senate shall deem appropriate.

Until now the Senate hasn't set any standards and restrictions so
none exists. This were also the the main idea when "LEX VEDIA DE
PROVINCIIS" was approved:

"I. This Lex Vedia de Provinciis is hereby enacted to enable
governors and the Senate more flexibility in establishing and
maintaining the administrative institutions and mechanisms of
provincia."

Until now the Senatus consultum "Standardization of Titles for
Provincial Magistrates" (8/4/98) has continued to be a guiding text,
but not the ruling text as the Constitution say otherwise.

I think that the change of the Constitution that was "Lex Vedia de
Proviniis" was good for the provinces as each provincia is very
different, this require different and flexible administration as
decided by the Governors and their advisors. Just take these example.
Thule Provincia that includes five separate nations (Norway, Finland,
Denmark, Iceland and Sweden). Germania includes three nations
(Germany, Schweiz and Austria), Italai only one (Italia) and in USA
the provinces are "only" a number of of states and not even the
whole of USA. All these provinces have different culture, religion,
history and language. A complex situation that once called for a Lex
and change of the Constitution that took this in regard.

The Senate and Consuls seem to have taken these facts in regard and
let the Governor continue to make the rules. This is a situation that
I think is for the best as only people how live in and know each
provincia should decide how to administer her.

>Sp. Postumius Tubertus SPQR Salutem Dicit
>
>Salvete Omnes, et Salve Senatus Romanus,
>
>Meaning no disrespect whatsoever to the Senate nor to the Roman
>People, of which I am both happy and proud to be a part, I publicly
>pose this question to the Senate, and to those of the Roman People
>who so choose to offer a response: As regards the titles of our
>provincial governors, why is it that we, a People of Laws, do not
>follow the Senatus consultum of 7 Sex. 2754
>(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/1998-08-07-i.html) which
>specifically outlines and standardizes the titles of provincial
>magistrates?
>
>Valete Optime in Pace Deorum,
>
>Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>Fetialis
>Accensus
>Scriba Praetoris
>Scriba Aedilis Curulis
>Retiarius, The Great Provincia Lacus Magni
>Citizen of Rome

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is ante diem XII Kalendae Iunii and the Agonalia; the day is
nefastus publicus. The Agonalia of Maius was sacred to Vediovis.

Tomorrow is ante diem XI Kalendae Iunii; the day is fastus.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salve Sp. Postume Tuberte,

may I answer you on two aspects.
A Consul did not govern a provincia in ancient times. The same for a Praetor. The title would be correct for a former Consul Proconsul and for a former Praetor Propraetor. This are Promagistrates and had their imperium only in the provincae they governed. A Proconsul had also the imperium for the legions in his provinciae the Propraetor had not this imperium.

Vale
Philippus Flavius Conservatus Maior



21.05.04 04:18:38:

Sp. Postumius Tubertus SPQR Salutem Dicit

Salvete Omnes, et Salve Senatus Romanus,

Meaning no disrespect whatsoever to the Senate nor to the Roman People, of which I am both happy and proud to be a part, I publicly pose this question to the Senate, and to those of the Roman People who so choose to offer a response: As regards the titles of our provincial governors, why is it that we, a People of Laws, do not follow the Senatus consultum of 7 Sex. 2754 (http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/1998-08-07-i.html) which specifically outlines and standardizes the titles of provincial magistrates?

Valete Optime in Pace Deorum,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Fetialis
Accensus
Scriba Praetoris
Scriba Aedilis Curulis
Retiarius, The Great Provincia Lacus Magni
Citizen of Rome



Yahoo! Groups Links







_______________________________________________________________________
Moechten Sie Ihre SMS noch ausdrucksstaerker und emotionaler gestalten?
Fuegen Sie einfach ein Bild hinzu! http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021194

Ave Gneus and omnes

A fine speech, maybe mostly based on a series of petitio principis
and falling in the argumentum ad misericordiam, but full of things
that no one can't but agree with nonetheless. Who, in fact, can deny
that free speech is one of the most important things, that censorship
is to be looked upon with contempt? Not I, nor any of the cives.

Yet, your long, passionate mail (and some of the ones that preceded
yours, too) fails to see, it seems to me, that the discussion is, or
was intended to be before it got twisted along the way, of different
nature. The matter is not about what you are entitled to say, but in
which way you decide to say it. The matter, or frivolous lawsuit as
someone else liked to called it, or the farce as you decided to
present it (and out of curiosity, have you actually read the petitio
actionis at all?), it is indeed about free speech, but not about
suppressing it by asking a judgment, on the contrary, it is about
defending, upholding, protecting it using the rules the cives have
put in place, with their vote, for themselves .

Free speech is, in fact, the opportunity given to everyone to express
his toughs and for those thoughts to be received with respect and, in
case, with respect to be rejected with different arguments. One of
the basis of free speech is, indeed, respect. One of the rules of
free speech is that you can counter an idea with another idea
presented, if not logically, at least respectfully, not with a
blatant and virulent insult. Of course, is much easier to dismiss an
argument with a "you are an (idiot, public enemy, blaspheme,
ignorant, Â…) so what you say is not worth of even being addressed and
wrong by principle", yet it's not good for the community. That's the
reason why, in every democracy, together with the freedom of speech,
there is always a law against libel and slandering.

Free speech is to be able to say whatever you want, but NOT to be
able to say that in any way you want it. Subtle distinguish?
Legalistic trick? I assume that definition will be regarded as such
by several people around this list, yet it is part of the very core
of democracy: you can despise the idea that the person in front of
you is bringing forward, yet you have to contain yourself in the
expression of your opposition to it within civil limits, given my
conscience, dignity, moral and ethics before, and rules and laws
after, exactly as the other has to. Why? Because if you are free to
submerge your opponent with insults rather than with your own ideas,
your opponent will do the same to you and when the ideas will have
vanished under the yells, sooner or later someone will raise his hand
to close your mouth with a punch, and then knives will follow, and
eventually guns.

Bringing the matter to Nova Roma, we are both talking of freedom of
speech. I am bringing forward, in the only way I deem possible at
this point, the principle that a civis must be able to present his
ideas, in a civil way of course, having the absolute right not to be
covered in mere insults for it just because the other side is unable
or unwilling to counter his ideas with other ideas. What are you
suggesting, on the other hand? That some cives have the right to be
excused whatever thing they say to another civis? That someone
shouldn't be judged because than any civis could be judged? Isn'' it
the basic of a democracy, that all civis are equal and the same in
front of the law? Then why couldn't Fabia Vera say what she said and
had to be moderated? And if moderation thro magistrates is so
condemnable, shall we abolish all the laws and edicts of judicial
nature regarding the freedom of speech, like, for instance, the
blasphemy edict?

Of course not, that would be an absurd. We all want discussions full
of ideas, yet full of respect with the others, don't we? It is just
when a someone who is close to us, who is a friend, that breaks that
rule that we'd wish the rule wouldn't be there at all and then the
moderation that we wished a day before for a stranger raises to awful
censorship. Too easy.
Over the last two days I've read the most amazing things over this
mailing list: that our legal system wouldn't be ready to sustain its
duties (then why to put forward laws at all?), that using the rules
we have given ourselves equals to "frivolous lawsuits" (then, why
electing the Praetores at all?), and finally that some cives (one,
actually, but I'm sure the argument would be used for others, should
they find themselves in the same predicament) are so above the
standard that make exceptions to the general rule that would apply to
all the other cives. Who shall judge the standard then, and who shall
take the responsibility of making all the cives equal, but some cives
more equal than others? You, Gneus? Censor Germanicus, who thought
well to step in the duties of a Praetor and decide that a petitio
was "frivolous" without even adding a line of explanation and at the
same time to threat of killing the right to vote for everyone? We
have already arrived at the famous punch that closes the opponent's
mouth, it seems.

Voltaire, one of the greatest men human kind produced over the last
two thousands years, who is universally famous for having said "I may
not agree with what you say, but to the death, I will defend your
right to say it", who is brought forward usually as the greatest
defender of the freedom of speech, said another, less known maybe,
thing: "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our
tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard" which is the principle that
you can open your mouth and say whatever you want, but you have to do
it taking the responsibility for what you said and how you said it.

That's another thing that is needed in democracies: responsibility.
You take responsibility for the things you do and for the things you
say. And given that surely the one who feels insulted can't decide
about the existence and gravity of the insult, nor can the alleged
insulting one, here you have the rules to nominate a third person to
rule about the issue, and the right for him to issue a judgment on
the single case. A law and a legal system to enforce it, another rule
of a democracy.

What is more dangerous to the freedom of speech: mandating to a
magistrate, following a set of rules voted upon by the whole body of
the cives, to decide about the violation of a basic rules of
democracy, the one of the respect for the person and his ideas, or
delegitimizing the whole legal system of Nova Roma and giving to
someone the right of free insulting, affirming that you can say
whatever you want no matter how violently you choose to do it,
depriving by that the cives of the right to expose their ideas
without for that suffering the verbal abuses of others, eventually
denying the very freedom of speech if not in theory, in practice?

Vale

DCF
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I too along with my Legate and Propraetor stand shoulder to

shoulder

> with Scaurus on this.
>
> I find moderation through lawsuits to be thoroughly un-Roman, a

very

> dangerous precedent and a huge threat to the Republic. We stand on
> the brink of a huge chasm where citizens regardless of their
> faction, belief or interest group will be intimidated into muting
> what they say.
>
> Legislating a person into silence or obediance is a tool of
> represive Soviet/Marxist style regimes. It is the tactic of the

show

> trial, the denunciation and hounding of free speech. It has a
> history in repression and brutality.
>
> Being British I have an aversion to lawsuits. When I left "Blighty"
> eight years ago, being sued was something that happened to other
> people. Since moving to Canada I realise that this rush to the law
> courts is a very North American feature of life. I am stunned that
> in Italy, the home of Rome - the "sacred land" I have heard it
> referred to by citizens of that province, the American prediliction
> for running post haste to a lawyer has taken hold.
>
> What happened to gumption and spine, to standing ones ground in
> rhetorical debate? What happened to being Roman? At what point did
> people develop baby soft skin that a point of view becomes
> unanswerable through debate, and we have to turn to baby thin
> skinned laws? In my view this is an appalling lack of Romanitas to
> do such a thing.
>
> Law suits to moderate free speech, which is the result of what

would

> occur if this disgusting farce is allowed to proceed, are a grave
> threat to our Republic. Once our spiritual forefathers had to fear
> informers - an equal blot on the landscape. Now we have to fear the
> professional mewler and whiner running at full tilt to the Praetors
> to suppress facts or opinions, or both, that they obeject to.
>
> Regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum I call on
> all citizens to recognise we are about to embark on a dangerous

path

> which will end in the death of free speech. People may poo poo

that -

> but sit calmly and think about it for a moment. It will happen as
> surely as the sun rising and setting.
>
> Citizens of Nova Roma I call on you all to defend the Roman right

to

> free speech. I call upon you all to raise yourself out of silence
> and to forget factional divides.
>
> I call for the defence of Gaius Iulius Scaurus from a dangerous
> precedent setting prosecution which threatens all our liberties. I
> call on you all to recognise that our legal system is so nascent as
> to provide scant hope of a fair trial.
>
> I call upon the the Tribunes to consider on behalf of Nova Roma and
> all citizens whether prosecution for the sake of moderation is in
> itself a denial of free speech as guaranteed under the

constitution.

>
> I call on those Tribunes, if they find that to be so, to interpose
> their veto on any such decisions made by a magistrate to proceed to
> trial.
>
> In short I call upon you ALL for once, just once, be united in the
> face of a common danger to our Republic; one that could one day be
> used on any of you out there.
>
> To defend Scarus is to defend yourself. To defend yourself is to
> defend the Republic.
>
> Vale
>
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Salvete Omnes,
yes, I agree with Senator Maximus, this is an heritage of the 60's
peplum era when the movies have been created in Italy (Cinecittà)
for the american public with anglo-american actors. During the past
years the movie-makers ever thought that the accent was not
important for the public. I remember Russel Crow in The Gladiator
claiming in the arena "Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant" with an
horrible american accent "Aeve Sizar, motiooree ti saloothan'.." or
something similar ... :-(

Maybe one of the best latin accents used in a flick is the accent of
Pontius Pilatus in The Passion by Mel Gibson. He's the italian actor
Ivano Marescotti and he have an hard and heavy accent, with a metric
very similar to the modern german. It seems the latin had this kind
of tone. In any way, in The Passion the latin have a good tone
because the majority of the actors are italian (Claudia Gerini in
the wife of Pilatus for example) and the italian pronounciation is
very similar to the latin. The only actor with a strange accent is
James Caviezel but it don't seems unsuitable thinking to a Christ
talking in a language different from the aramaic

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/20/04 9:50:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> brutal7100@y... writes:
>
> > And thus having announced myself may I ask the
> > eternal question: Why do Romans always have british accents in
> > flicks?
> >
>
> Several reasons. Shakespeare, and culture. Early English talkies
that did
> Iulius Caesar, had English actors. As time went on the Patricians
were
> assumed to be of culture and leisure like English nobility, while
the Plebeian
> suburbanites were more like brash Americans.
> Kubruck took advantage of showing this in "Spartacus." Who does
not want to
> imitate one of the great cinematic geniuses of the 20th century?
Of course
> you end up with some funny moments, like Wayne's Centurio in "Ben
Hur"
> "Dat Mahn was indeed tha Son of Gahd" No doubt a western Latin
accent.
>
> The second reason were the "sword and sandal" epics of the 50s and
60s from
> the Italians and Spanish. In order to be dubbed for foreign
distribution, the
> producers used actors who spoke English, from England.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Censor and Senator Consularis Caeso Fabi,

I thank you for your prompt response. I must say that I do agree with you, too, in that I also feel that each governor should have the right to choose the titles of his appointed assistants.

However, I think, I probably should have been more specific in my question. While the naming of provincial assistants does come up in the Senatus consultum to which I referred, my main question is why the Senate has not held to its own policy in the naming of the governors themselves. That is my true question.

But in any case, thank you, Censor. The fact that you chose to respond quickly to a citizen concern shows you to truly be a servant of the people.

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:
[about the Trojan War]

> but it happen around the 320's b.c.e and Rome was already old

What's your source for that date? The 320's BCE would have been 100
years after the 2nd Peloponesian War, as reported by Thucidides. Given
that the Greeks who Thucidides wrote about thought of the Trojan War as
ancient history, I can't reconcile the dates without recourse to a time
machine.

According to Britannica.com, the Trojan War was a "legendary conflict
between the early Greeks and the people of Troy in western Anatolia,
dated by later Greek authors to the 12th or 13th century BC."

Valete,

-- Marinus

Salve Honorable Sp. Postumius Tubertus!

It is probably my bad knowledge of English or something else ;-), but
I'm still not sure that I understand. Do You mean the titles of the
Governors? Please give an example of what You mean!

>Salve Censor and Senator Consularis Caeso Fabi,
>
>I thank you for your prompt response. I must say that I do agree
>with you, too, in that I also feel that each governor should have
>the right to choose the titles of his appointed assistants.
>
>However, I think, I probably should have been more specific in my
>question. While the naming of provincial assistants does come up in
>the Senatus consultum to which I referred, my main question is why
>the Senate has not held to its own policy in the naming of the
>governors themselves. That is my true question.
>
>But in any case, thank you, Censor. The fact that you chose to
>respond quickly to a citizen concern shows you to truly be a servant
>of the people.
>
>Vale,
>
>Sp. Postumius Tubertus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve,

Although a inauspicata magistrature like the Tribuneship has no
duties about the public religio, the roman calendar must be followed.

Today is a day nefastus publicus. No public debate about the laws on
the incoming Comitia can be done on public foruns today. Keep yopur
questions for Saturday.

On Sunday we will have the same case. Keep your questions for Monday.


Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP

Gaius Modius Athanasius Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit

The bottom line on this is that several individuals within Nova Roma are disgusted by the silly lawsuits. Lawsuits that you bring forward and praise so much. If these lawsuits are going to be the norm within Nova Roma then I see citizens leaving in disgust, many of these citizens I feel have contibuted greatly to our Republic (and there are more than one).

I believe these lawsuits will be the death of Nova Roma. I see that you disagree, but I know that I am not alone in my belief that if Nova Roma is to be crippled then these lawsuits will continue; if Nova Roma is to proceed and prosper then they have to stop.

If you wish to perpetuate the non-sense of helping to cripple our Republic then continue on your current path. But I am not alone in my assessment of the situation.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 5/21/2004 6:35:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dom.con.fus@... writes:

> Ave Gneus and omnes
>
> A fine speech, maybe mostly based on a series of petitio principis
> and falling in the argumentum ad misericordiam, but full of things
> that no one can't but agree with nonetheless. Who, in fact, can deny
> that free speech is one of the most important things, that censorship
> is to be looked upon with contempt? Not I, nor any of the cives.

[Cut for brevity...]

> What is more dangerous to the freedom of speech: mandating to a
> magistrate, following a set of rules voted upon by the whole body of
> the cives, to decide about the violation of a basic rules of
> democracy, the one of the respect for the person and his ideas, or
> delegitimizing the whole legal system of Nova Roma and giving to
> someone the right of free insulting, affirming that you can say
> whatever you want no matter how violently you choose to do it,
> depriving by that the cives of the right to expose their ideas
> without for that suffering the verbal abuses of others, eventually
> denying the very freedom of speech if not in theory, in
> practice?
>
> Vale
>
> DCF
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis
> Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini

Salvete Omnes,

Freedom of Speech IS being threatened in Nova Roma. You aren't
violating someone's rights by expressing a viewpoint, even if that
person dosen't like the viewpoit. I can say that Nemo isn't
trustworthy as shown by the massive ammout of hucksterism and by
generally showing himself to be a shyster, and all I have done is
state my views about Nemo.

A Violation of Nemo's rights occurs when I state something about Nemo
that is damaging and untrue, and that I know is a falshood, ie I make
a false claim that Nemo is a drug addict or that he has been arrested
numerous times for male Prostitution.

If Noricus was getting a bunch of petitions from people who weren't
doing more than crying "He called me a name" like a pack of tattling
three year olds, then I can understand him taking a powder. I Wouldn't
want to waste a year of my life dealing with childish nonsense like that.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "G.C." <dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:
> Ave Gneus and omnes
>
> A fine speech, maybe mostly based on a series of petitio principis
> and falling in the argumentum ad misericordiam, but full of things
> that no one can't but agree with nonetheless. Who, in fact, can deny
> that free speech is one of the most important things, that censorship
> is to be looked upon with contempt? Not I, nor any of the cives.
>
> Yet, your long, passionate mail (and some of the ones that preceded
> yours, too) fails to see, it seems to me, that the discussion is, or
> was intended to be before it got twisted along the way, of different
> nature. The matter is not about what you are entitled to say, but in
> which way you decide to say it. The matter, or frivolous lawsuit as
> someone else liked to called it, or the farce as you decided to
> present it (and out of curiosity, have you actually read the petitio
> actionis at all?), it is indeed about free speech, but not about
> suppressing it by asking a judgment, on the contrary, it is about
> defending, upholding, protecting it using the rules the cives have
> put in place, with their vote, for themselves .
>
> Free speech is, in fact, the opportunity given to everyone to express
> his toughs and for those thoughts to be received with respect and, in
> case, with respect to be rejected with different arguments. One of
> the basis of free speech is, indeed, respect. One of the rules of
> free speech is that you can counter an idea with another idea
> presented, if not logically, at least respectfully, not with a
> blatant and virulent insult. Of course, is much easier to dismiss an
> argument with a "you are an (idiot, public enemy, blaspheme,
> ignorant, Â…) so what you say is not worth of even being addressed and
> wrong by principle", yet it's not good for the community. That's the
> reason why, in every democracy, together with the freedom of speech,
> there is always a law against libel and slandering.
>
> Free speech is to be able to say whatever you want, but NOT to be
> able to say that in any way you want it. Subtle distinguish?
> Legalistic trick? I assume that definition will be regarded as such
> by several people around this list, yet it is part of the very core
> of democracy: you can despise the idea that the person in front of
> you is bringing forward, yet you have to contain yourself in the
> expression of your opposition to it within civil limits, given my
> conscience, dignity, moral and ethics before, and rules and laws
> after, exactly as the other has to. Why? Because if you are free to
> submerge your opponent with insults rather than with your own ideas,
> your opponent will do the same to you and when the ideas will have
> vanished under the yells, sooner or later someone will raise his hand
> to close your mouth with a punch, and then knives will follow, and
> eventually guns.
>
> Bringing the matter to Nova Roma, we are both talking of freedom of
> speech. I am bringing forward, in the only way I deem possible at
> this point, the principle that a civis must be able to present his
> ideas, in a civil way of course, having the absolute right not to be
> covered in mere insults for it just because the other side is unable
> or unwilling to counter his ideas with other ideas. What are you
> suggesting, on the other hand? That some cives have the right to be
> excused whatever thing they say to another civis? That someone
> shouldn't be judged because than any civis could be judged? Isn'' it
> the basic of a democracy, that all civis are equal and the same in
> front of the law? Then why couldn't Fabia Vera say what she said and
> had to be moderated? And if moderation thro magistrates is so
> condemnable, shall we abolish all the laws and edicts of judicial
> nature regarding the freedom of speech, like, for instance, the
> blasphemy edict?
>
> Of course not, that would be an absurd. We all want discussions full
> of ideas, yet full of respect with the others, don't we? It is just
> when a someone who is close to us, who is a friend, that breaks that
> rule that we'd wish the rule wouldn't be there at all and then the
> moderation that we wished a day before for a stranger raises to awful
> censorship. Too easy.
> Over the last two days I've read the most amazing things over this
> mailing list: that our legal system wouldn't be ready to sustain its
> duties (then why to put forward laws at all?), that using the rules
> we have given ourselves equals to "frivolous lawsuits" (then, why
> electing the Praetores at all?), and finally that some cives (one,
> actually, but I'm sure the argument would be used for others, should
> they find themselves in the same predicament) are so above the
> standard that make exceptions to the general rule that would apply to
> all the other cives. Who shall judge the standard then, and who shall
> take the responsibility of making all the cives equal, but some cives
> more equal than others? You, Gneus? Censor Germanicus, who thought
> well to step in the duties of a Praetor and decide that a petitio
> was "frivolous" without even adding a line of explanation and at the
> same time to threat of killing the right to vote for everyone? We
> have already arrived at the famous punch that closes the opponent's
> mouth, it seems.
>
> Voltaire, one of the greatest men human kind produced over the last
> two thousands years, who is universally famous for having said "I may
> not agree with what you say, but to the death, I will defend your
> right to say it", who is brought forward usually as the greatest
> defender of the freedom of speech, said another, less known maybe,
> thing: "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our
> tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard" which is the principle that
> you can open your mouth and say whatever you want, but you have to do
> it taking the responsibility for what you said and how you said it.
>
> That's another thing that is needed in democracies: responsibility.
> You take responsibility for the things you do and for the things you
> say. And given that surely the one who feels insulted can't decide
> about the existence and gravity of the insult, nor can the alleged
> insulting one, here you have the rules to nominate a third person to
> rule about the issue, and the right for him to issue a judgment on
> the single case. A law and a legal system to enforce it, another rule
> of a democracy.
>
> What is more dangerous to the freedom of speech: mandating to a
> magistrate, following a set of rules voted upon by the whole body of
> the cives, to decide about the violation of a basic rules of
> democracy, the one of the respect for the person and his ideas, or
> delegitimizing the whole legal system of Nova Roma and giving to
> someone the right of free insulting, affirming that you can say
> whatever you want no matter how violently you choose to do it,
> depriving by that the cives of the right to expose their ideas
> without for that suffering the verbal abuses of others, eventually
> denying the very freedom of speech if not in theory, in practice?
>
> Vale
>
> DCF
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis
> Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > I too along with my Legate and Propraetor stand shoulder to
> shoulder
> > with Scaurus on this.
> >
> > I find moderation through lawsuits to be thoroughly un-Roman, a
> very
> > dangerous precedent and a huge threat to the Republic. We stand on
> > the brink of a huge chasm where citizens regardless of their
> > faction, belief or interest group will be intimidated into muting
> > what they say.
> >
> > Legislating a person into silence or obediance is a tool of
> > represive Soviet/Marxist style regimes. It is the tactic of the
> show
> > trial, the denunciation and hounding of free speech. It has a
> > history in repression and brutality.
> >
> > Being British I have an aversion to lawsuits. When I left "Blighty"
> > eight years ago, being sued was something that happened to other
> > people. Since moving to Canada I realise that this rush to the law
> > courts is a very North American feature of life. I am stunned that
> > in Italy, the home of Rome - the "sacred land" I have heard it
> > referred to by citizens of that province, the American prediliction
> > for running post haste to a lawyer has taken hold.
> >
> > What happened to gumption and spine, to standing ones ground in
> > rhetorical debate? What happened to being Roman? At what point did
> > people develop baby soft skin that a point of view becomes
> > unanswerable through debate, and we have to turn to baby thin
> > skinned laws? In my view this is an appalling lack of Romanitas to
> > do such a thing.
> >
> > Law suits to moderate free speech, which is the result of what
> would
> > occur if this disgusting farce is allowed to proceed, are a grave
> > threat to our Republic. Once our spiritual forefathers had to fear
> > informers - an equal blot on the landscape. Now we have to fear the
> > professional mewler and whiner running at full tilt to the Praetors
> > to suppress facts or opinions, or both, that they obeject to.
> >
> > Regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum I call on
> > all citizens to recognise we are about to embark on a dangerous
> path
> > which will end in the death of free speech. People may poo poo
> that -
> > but sit calmly and think about it for a moment. It will happen as
> > surely as the sun rising and setting.
> >
> > Citizens of Nova Roma I call on you all to defend the Roman right
> to
> > free speech. I call upon you all to raise yourself out of silence
> > and to forget factional divides.
> >
> > I call for the defence of Gaius Iulius Scaurus from a dangerous
> > precedent setting prosecution which threatens all our liberties. I
> > call on you all to recognise that our legal system is so nascent as
> > to provide scant hope of a fair trial.
> >
> > I call upon the the Tribunes to consider on behalf of Nova Roma and
> > all citizens whether prosecution for the sake of moderation is in
> > itself a denial of free speech as guaranteed under the
> constitution.
> >
> > I call on those Tribunes, if they find that to be so, to interpose
> > their veto on any such decisions made by a magistrate to proceed to
> > trial.
> >
> > In short I call upon you ALL for once, just once, be united in the
> > face of a common danger to our Republic; one that could one day be
> > used on any of you out there.
> >
> > To defend Scarus is to defend yourself. To defend yourself is to
> > defend the Republic.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Salve Censor!

I believe what he is asking is why are not initial Propraetors refered to as Praetor, and then when they are proroged refered to as Propraetors. This is my interpretation of his original e-mail. [Although someone pointed out that this is ahistorical, and I tend to agree and prefer the system in vogue now.]

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 5/21/2004 7:48:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, christer.edling@... writes:

> It is probably my bad knowledge of English or something else ;-), but
> I'm still not sure that I understand. Do You mean the
> titles of the
> Governors? Please give an example of what You mean!

Salvete Gai Modi et Omnes,

>But I am not alone in my assessment of the situation.

You most certainly are not.

I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for some time now,
and I too am disturbed by this recent trend towards
the threatening of a law suit every time someone says
something to which others take exception.

I may have said a harsh word or two myself in the
past. Certainly I have received as good as I have
given. Yet it would never occur to me to take legal
recourse because of words written on this list.

Perhaps I am made of sterner stuff, though I doubt it.
Perhaps, as mentioned by Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, it is
an inherent 'Britishness' that prevents me from
thinking 'lawsuit' every time I am offended. Perhaps
it is because I am not here to have my ego flattered
and engage in some sort of mutual appreciation
society. Who knows. I do know that if the current
trend continues, the a haemorrhage of good people from
Nova Roma will, in all likelihood, become unavoidable.


Valete

Decimus Iunius Silanus





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Ave Fuscus,

Bravo and well said. No doubt more insults and inane rhetoric will soon
be on the way to you, for you have done the unforgivable. You have
defended your position with reasoned intelligence. Your willingness to
abide by the laws of the Republic is a refreshing change from the
histrionic cris de coeur employed by your opponents.

Ambrosius Celetrus

Ave,

Constant lawsuits and countersuits will certainly mean the end of Nova
Roma as anything other than the Shyster game where Role Playing
Ambulance Chasers engage in fantsy court battles among the few dozen
remaining citizens who have an intrest playing that sort of game. This
is just the sort of thing I feared when the Lex Salica was introduced.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit
>
> The bottom line on this is that several individuals within Nova Roma
are disgusted by the silly lawsuits. Lawsuits that you bring forward
and praise so much. If these lawsuits are going to be the norm within
Nova Roma then I see citizens leaving in disgust, many of these
citizens I feel have contibuted greatly to our Republic (and there are
more than one).
>
> I believe these lawsuits will be the death of Nova Roma. I see that
you disagree, but I know that I am not alone in my belief that if Nova
Roma is to be crippled then these lawsuits will continue; if Nova Roma
is to proceed and prosper then they have to stop.
>
> If you wish to perpetuate the non-sense of helping to cripple our
Republic then continue on your current path. But I am not alone in my
assessment of the situation.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2004 6:35:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dom.con.fus@f... writes:
>
> > Ave Gneus and omnes
> >
> > A fine speech, maybe mostly based on a series of petitio principis
> > and falling in the argumentum ad misericordiam, but full of things
> > that no one can't but agree with nonetheless. Who, in fact, can deny
> > that free speech is one of the most important things, that censorship
> > is to be looked upon with contempt? Not I, nor any of the cives.
>
> [Cut for brevity...]
>
> > What is more dangerous to the freedom of speech: mandating to a
> > magistrate, following a set of rules voted upon by the whole body of
> > the cives, to decide about the violation of a basic rules of
> > democracy, the one of the respect for the person and his ideas, or
> > delegitimizing the whole legal system of Nova Roma and giving to
> > someone the right of free insulting, affirming that you can say
> > whatever you want no matter how violently you choose to do it,
> > depriving by that the cives of the right to expose their ideas
> > without for that suffering the verbal abuses of others, eventually
> > denying the very freedom of speech if not in theory, in
> > practice?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > DCF
> > PF Constantinia
> > Aedilis Urbis
> > Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini

Ave,

If you do buy any SCO stock I hope it's to cover a short, the stock
has dropped from 18.24 in January to 4.78 yesterday. It has lost over
2/3 of it's value in less than 6 months this year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

Nova Roma's population level will show a similar or worse performance
than SCO's stock prices if these petty lawsuits continue.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Matt " <hucke@c...> wrote:
>
> > What I want you to do, Censor, is your job. The job you agreed to do
> > when you stood for election.
>
> I stood for election as magistrate of a group that was to be "a beacon
> for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome". But over the
> following years it morphed into a version of "Fight Club" with lawyers.
>
> If I want to be a party to stupid and frivolous "lawsuits" I can buy
> stock in SCO. Nova Roma should have been something better.

> Constant lawsuits and countersuits will certainly mean the end of Nova
> Roma as anything other than the Shyster game where Role Playing
> Ambulance Chasers engage in fantsy court battles among the few dozen
> remaining citizens who have an intrest playing that sort of game. This
> is just the sort of thing I feared when the Lex Salica was introduced.

I am in complete agreement with Senator Lucius Sicinius Drusus. He and I
have certainly called each other worse things than "bugger", and survived.

This almost makes me learn for the days of Formosanus. He fought us with
words, and gave as good as he got; no need for shyster tricks on either
side.

Nova Roma is a shell of what it once was, propped up by role-players
and armchair lawyers. The rot has to stop while there's still something
to salvage.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus. http://www.graveyards.com/

Nova Roma: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength. Slander Lawsuits promote Free Speech.

Salve Drusus ~

What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have we ever seen
resignations on a large scale as a result of Lawsuits being filed, or
is this mere scaremongering?

Vale
~ Troianus

On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 09:22 AM, Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> Ave,
>
> If you do buy any SCO stock I hope it's to cover a short, the stock
> has dropped from 18.24 in January to 4.78 yesterday. It has lost over
> 2/3 of it's value in less than 6 months this year.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
>
> Nova Roma's population level will show a similar or worse performance
> than SCO's stock prices if these petty lawsuits continue.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Matt " <hucke@c...> wrote:
>>
>>> What I want you to do, Censor, is your job. The job you agreed to do
>>> when you stood for election.
>>
>> I stood for election as magistrate of a group that was to be "a beacon
>> for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome". But over the
>> following years it morphed into a version of "Fight Club" with
>> lawyers.
>>
>> If I want to be a party to stupid and frivolous "lawsuits" I can buy
>> stock in SCO. Nova Roma should have been something better.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Tiberius Galerius

The final destruction of Troy was around 1200 B.C.E., with the Great
Bronze Age Catastrophe which led to a Dark Ages lasting around 400
years; therefore the War commemorated in the Illiad must have taken
place prior to that time.

As for Roman belief, they had several different versions. Most popular
was that Anneias brought the Trojan refugees to the area of Rome after
a long wandering; they were in the region before the Founding in 753.
Thus the Romans believed the Trojan war took place between 800 and 760
B.C.E. (allowing for various lengths of "wandering") - So the Romans
were off by over 450 years.

Vale
Troianus

On Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 10:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> Salve Consul
>
> but it happen around the 320's b.c.e and Rome was already old
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] A Roman History question
>
>
> Salve Tiberi,
>
>> When did the Romans think that the Trojan war took place?
>
> A long, long time ago. The best reckoning I can imagine from a Roman
> perspective is that G. Iulius Caesar the Dictator traced his
> geneaology
> to the goddess Venus and Aeneas, who preceeded him by 42 generations.
> Assuming a standard 20 year generation that works out to 840 years
> before Caesar's birth, or 940 BCE for the birth of Aeneas' son Iulis.
> Add in a few more years for Aeneas to work his way over to Italy, and
> you have the Trojan War happening somewhere around 955-945 BCE.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve,

I'm stating a viewpoint, just like I did when the Lex Salica was
introduced. I Was correct in my assement that it was open to abuse.

Few people have any intrest in Shysterism. It certainly isn't the
reason I joined Nova Roma, and I doubt that there is more than a tiny
minority that have an intrest in wasting their time on playing the
Lawsuit game. If I want to engage in Fantsy Role Playing I'll start a
Dungeons and Dragons campaign. Fighting Fantsy Monsters is more
intresting than fighting Role Playing Shysters.

If you want to play the Lawyer game then do so on the Laws list. There
are few citizens who are intrested in being compelled to join you
either as defendants or as jurors. They are more likely to resign or
to vanish than to get drug into wasting their time on lawsuits.

L. Sicinius Drusus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

> Salve Drusus ~
>
> What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have we ever seen
> resignations on a large scale as a result of Lawsuits being filed, or
> is this mere scaremongering?
>
> Vale
> ~ Troianus
>
> On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 09:22 AM, Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > If you do buy any SCO stock I hope it's to cover a short, the stock
> > has dropped from 18.24 in January to 4.78 yesterday. It has lost over
> > 2/3 of it's value in less than 6 months this year.
> >
> > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
> >
> > Nova Roma's population level will show a similar or worse performance
> > than SCO's stock prices if these petty lawsuits continue.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Matt " <hucke@c...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What I want you to do, Censor, is your job. The job you agreed

to do

> >>> when you stood for election.
> >>
> >> I stood for election as magistrate of a group that was to be "a

beacon

> >> for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome". But over the
> >> following years it morphed into a version of "Fight Club" with
> >> lawyers.
> >>
> >> If I want to be a party to stupid and frivolous "lawsuits" I can buy
> >> stock in SCO. Nova Roma should have been something better.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~-->
> > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Troianus;

When Senator Drusus and Censor Germanicus both agree on something, and both are very passionate about their belief then that sends a message -- in my opinion at least.

People will leave Nova Roma. Citizens will fear posting on the main list, out fear of a lawsuit, and our Republic will be a shell of what it once was.

That is my prediction. Call it scaremongering if you will, but I predict it none the less.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 5/21/2004 9:49:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermeticagnosis@... writes:

> Salve Drusus ~
>
> What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have we ever seen
> resignations on a large scale as a result of Lawsuits being
> filed, or
> is this mere scaremongering?
>
> Vale
> ~ Troianus

Salve Troianus,

I'm not sure there will ever be evidence of large scale resignations
per se. Most people probably will not do us the favor actually
resigning. They will simply disappear, never to be heard from
again. I would guess-timate that over half of our current population
falls into that category. As I have pointed out in the past, 50% of
the citizens in 3 states I'm in charge of as Legate don't really
exist anymore. Their snail mail and email addresses are invalid, yet
they are still technically citizens. From my perspective, once NR
degenerates into a full fledged online role-playing game most people
will simply unsub from the lists and go away. Why bother officially
resigning from something that bears no resemblance to the
organization you thought you were a member (citizen) of?

Just a thought.

Vale,

Agrippina Modia Aurelia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

> Salve Drusus ~
>
> What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have we ever

seen

> resignations on a large scale as a result of Lawsuits being filed,

or

> is this mere scaremongering?
>
> Vale
> ~ Troianus

G. Equitius Cato quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete omnes,

Hmmm... on this List, I have been called many things, including
(but not limited to):

"idiot"
"foolish"
"arrogant"
"blind"
"closed-minded"
"petty"
"ingoramus"
"dangerous"
"uneducated"
"absurd"
"useless"

...yet somehow, I manage to keep writing. Perhaps I am indeed made
of "sterner stuff" than Fuscus (or perhaps I am simply a
dolt), but then the question becomes "who decides how much abuse a
single citizen must be forced to take?" There were laws introduced
into NR specifically to avoid the kind of abuse that gets tossed
around regularly in here; yet when one of our citizens decides he (or
she) has had enough, and appeals to the magistrates to uphold the
law, will they always be subjected to the kind of petty vilification
that has erupted? I could care less whether or not someone likes me
or what I say, but if I say something in a particularly brutish or
nasty way, I expect to be called on it and then I will simply stop,
and find a less abusive way of expressing myself. Even Athanasius &
I, who have wrangled repeatedly on this List, have been able to start
working out a way of conversing that follows an orderly path, without
the use of defamation.

It seems to me that some of the very people who hold up their
Romanitas like some sort of golden shield are the ones who would like
to see the laws enforced when it suits them but, if they
become "inconvenient", are unwilling to let the law be used for its
intended purpose. Whenever a discussion seems to be going in a way
they disagree with, out come the silly diversions and back-stabbing,
the questioning of so-and-so's education, background, ability to
perform their duties, and commitment to "making NR a better place",
etc. Oh yes, appeal to the great virtues --- unless someones says
something you don't like. Then character assassination and
subversion of the law is justified. If these were the hallmarks of
the "good old days", then they are better left dead.

Once again, I state that the core issue here is a division between
those who see NR as a private cultus solely for the worship of the
Roman gods, and those of us who see bigger, more all-encompassing
things available.
Marcus Octavius Germanicus: in the current state of NR, where I was
told in no uncertain terms that we will *never* be more than a self-
styled micronation, and where the only communal piece of physical
reality attached to NR is a piece of land in Texas (apart, of course,
from paying taxes), what are the options available? Is role-playing
bad? Is armchair discussion inherently evil? Did the ancient Romans
ever tie each other up in knots using the legal system? NO, NO, and
YES.

The ancient Romans did a whole pile of stuff including simple
physical violence --- using armed mobs to interrupt or cancel the
voting process, or simply assassinating a political rival, for
example --- that we would cringe at. In NR, we've adopted laws to
prevent this...part of winnowing out "the best of ancient Rome" from
the less desirable.

valete,

Cato



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

>
> > Constant lawsuits and countersuits will certainly mean the end of
>Nova Roma as anything other than the Shyster game where Role Playing
> Ambulance Chasers engage in fantsy court battles among the few
>dozen remaining citizens who have an intrest playing that sort of
>game. This is just the sort of thing I feared when the Lex Salica
>was introduced. I am in complete agreement with Senator Lucius
>Sicinius Drusus. He and I have certainly called each other worse
>things than "bugger", and survived.
>
> This almost makes me learn for the days of Formosanus. He fought
>us with words, and gave as good as he got; no need for shyster
>tricks on either side.
>
> Nova Roma is a shell of what it once was, propped up by role-players
> and armchair lawyers. The rot has to stop while there's still
>something to salvage.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus. http://www.graveyards.com/
>
> Nova Roma: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
> Ignorance is Strength. Slander Lawsuits promote Free Speech.

Ave

You mean when

a) the senator who last year managed to be temporanely removed from
the senate and get a censorial note (then withdrawn) for having
bypassed the rules of Nova Roma and going to yahoogroups to have
someone removed from this list (talk about freedom of speech) and

b) the censor who just yesterday dropped the threat of making it
impossible for the nova roman cives to exercise their right to vote

agree on something that should send a message?

For once we agree, yes, that should send a message alright.

vale

DCF

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Troianus;
>
> When Senator Drusus and Censor Germanicus both agree on something,
and both are very passionate about their belief then that sends a
message -- in my opinion at least.
>
> People will leave Nova Roma. Citizens will fear posting on the
main list, out fear of a lawsuit, and our Republic will be a shell of
what it once was.
>
> That is my prediction. Call it scaremongering if you will, but I
predict it none the less.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>

Salva Agrippina ~

What you say is true beyond question: Most merely drift away, without
resigning.

I did a brief survey once ~ Informal & unofficial, just a "whatever
happened to this person...?" Of those I had seen Post who subsequently
departed, fewer than a third officially resigned.

All those who announce their resignation, I write to. About a third of
them write back. Of those who write back, a significant majority
mention lack of Civility as the reason they left. None have mentioned
Lawsuits to me.

Hence my repeated concerns about Civility, and my lack of concern about
Lawsuits. For matters of Law, we have clear proceedures; none who are
innocent need be concerned. For Civility, though, we have only
subjective opinion and unenforced Guidelines. Many who see nothing
wrong in their behaviour are nonetheless costing us Citizens. If that
behaviour is now resulting in Lawsuits, then so be it. The Law will
decide if the behaviour was wrong or not.

Vale
~ Troianus

On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 10:09 AM, Agrippina Modia Aurelia wrote:

> Salve Troianus,
>
> I'm not sure there will ever be evidence of large scale resignations
> per se. Most people probably will not do us the favor actually
> resigning. They will simply disappear, never to be heard from
> again. I would guess-timate that over half of our current population
> falls into that category. As I have pointed out in the past, 50% of
> the citizens in 3 states I'm in charge of as Legate don't really
> exist anymore. Their snail mail and email addresses are invalid, yet
> they are still technically citizens. From my perspective, once NR
> degenerates into a full fledged online role-playing game most people
> will simply unsub from the lists and go away. Why bother officially
> resigning from something that bears no resemblance to the
> organization you thought you were a member (citizen) of?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Vale,
>
> Agrippina Modia Aurelia
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
>> Salve Drusus ~
>>
>> What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have we ever
> seen
>> resignations on a large scale as a result of Lawsuits being filed,
> or
>> is this mere scaremongering?
>>
>> Vale
>> ~ Troianus
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Drusus ~

Thanks for clarifying that it was only an opinion.

As for the system being "abused", that remains to be seen: If the Suits
are deemed to have merit, then clearly it isn't abuse of the system.

I will agree that points of Law aren't what most of us come here for;
I'd even go so far as to say that most haven't read our Laws closely
and that few have a clear understanding of what the current Law
actually is.

Nevertheless, we do have a set of Laws, and all Citizens have agreed to
abide by these Laws when they became Citizens.

So what if these little used Laws are now being invoked? They are
currently in force, they are the Laws of our Republic. If you truly
respect the Republic, then let its institutions do what they were
designed to do.

If you truly don't care for the Republic and its Laws, then leave. Go
join a group that is only social, that has no Laws. Of course, in such
groups your continued participation is up to the whim of the Moderator
or Owner. Personally I prefer the Law of the Citizenry to the Whim of
a Group Owner.

Vale
~ Troianus

SALVETE AMICI!

We hereby Congratulate You to your marriage tomorrow! We wish we
could be at this important and wonderful event!

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator

Titus Octavius Pius
Senior Legatus

Gallus Minicius Iovinius
Legatus Regio Suecica
Procurator Aerarium

Vibius Minucius Falco
Procurator ad Res Internas Thules

Benny Wallin
Amicus
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Agrippina Modia Aurelia"
<whiterose13.geo@y...> wrote:

> Salve Troianus,
>
> I'm not sure there will ever be evidence of large scale resignations
> per se. Most people probably will not do us the favor actually
> resigning. They will simply disappear, never to be heard from
> again.

Quirte true. The fact that we have such a low number of assidui this
year(I believe a lower number than last year) is a symptom of this
slow death of NR we are watching all around us.

Vale,

Palladius


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

I recently noticed a post where one Marcus Bianchius Antonius (not a historical name by the way, but my grandmother was really happy about...being a Bianchi and all) called me and idiot. I believe that since we should not call anyone anything and only have fun, happy civil debates about really important issues that face us....such as what to do with all that nifty land we have, I want to sue me.
Also, I would like to bar me from talking to myself anymore, then all will be right with the world (or Nova Roma at least).

Vale,

MBA

Marcus Bianchius Antonius <imperialreign@...> wrote:
Why try to bring back the Roman virtues when we can just sit around and argue about what the word bugger means? Once again, it shows me what an idiot I am for having joined an online roman society.

Its great telling your friends about it also.
"What are you doing?"
"Checking my Nova Roma mail."
"Cool, what are they talking about?"
"Well, they are spending 3 days argueing over the word bugger.....so you wanna join?"

Lovely,




Marcus Bianchius Antonius
Propraetor, The Great Provincia Lacus Magni
Paterfamilias, gens Bianchia
Quaestor, Nova Roma



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year

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

Salve Athanasius ~

If I recall correctly (& I confess that I am no expert in Nova Roma
Law), it is illegal to deliberately do harm to the Republic and its
goals. If this is indeed the case, then you have a means of redress
for the wrongs that you perceive.

Yes, this would mean more legal wrangling but I submit that such legal
measures serve a good end: Much in our Laws and codes is vague; this
can either be resolved by passing more Legislation or by building up
Case Law and Precedent.

Legislation is difficult and only serves to make our Law Code more
convoluted, as some clauses are undone and others left untouched,
sometimes with unintended or unclear results. Case Law, on the other
hand, serves to define the Law through concrete examples: "Such & such
has been found to be unacceptable, period".

Like it or not, we have Laws. Yes, they can be bloody inconvenient,
but they are there and we are beholden to them. They are far from
perfect, but they are much better than the capricious whim of a
Chatroom Group Owner.

Since we do have Laws, the way to shape the Republic more to your
liking is to either pass Legislation or use the existing Legal Code to
shape Precedent. I will even go so far as to say that it's the Roman
thing to do!

Respectfully yours,
~ Troianus

On Friday, May 21, 2004, at 08:33 AM, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

> Gaius Modius Athanasius Domitio Constantino Fusco salutem dicit
>
> The bottom line on this is that several individuals within Nova Roma
> are disgusted by the silly lawsuits. Lawsuits that you bring forward
> and praise so much. If these lawsuits are going to be the norm within
> Nova Roma then I see citizens leaving in disgust, many of these
> citizens I feel have contibuted greatly to our Republic (and there are
> more than one).
>
> I believe these lawsuits will be the death of Nova Roma. I see that
> you disagree, but I know that I am not alone in my belief that if Nova
> Roma is to be crippled then these lawsuits will continue; if Nova Roma
> is to proceed and prosper then they have to stop.
>
> If you wish to perpetuate the non-sense of helping to cripple our
> Republic then continue on your current path. But I am not alone in my
> assessment of the situation.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2004 6:35:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> dom.con.fus@... writes:
>
>> Ave Gneus and omnes
>>
>> A fine speech, maybe mostly based on a series of petitio principis
>> and falling in the argumentum ad misericordiam, but full of things
>> that no one can't but agree with nonetheless. Who, in fact, can deny
>> that free speech is one of the most important things, that censorship
>> is to be looked upon with contempt? Not I, nor any of the cives.
>
> [Cut for brevity...]
>
>> What is more dangerous to the freedom of speech: mandating to a
>> magistrate, following a set of rules voted upon by the whole body of
>> the cives, to decide about the violation of a basic rules of
>> democracy, the one of the respect for the person and his ideas, or
>> delegitimizing the whole legal system of Nova Roma and giving to
>> someone the right of free insulting, affirming that you can say
>> whatever you want no matter how violently you choose to do it,
>> depriving by that the cives of the right to expose their ideas
>> without for that suffering the verbal abuses of others, eventually
>> denying the very freedom of speech if not in theory, in
>> practice?
>>
>> Vale
>>
>> DCF
>> PF Constantinia
>> Aedilis Urbis
>> Curator of the Codex Juris Novae Romae Constantini
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>