> A. Apollonius Cordus to Cn. Iulius Caesar, and to all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> Would it be terribly rude of me to ask that you give
> some indication in your posts of who you are
> addressing and what you are replying to? Only
> yesterday I made a quite unnecessary response to a
> message I took to be aimed at me but which was not,
> and I rather fear I may be doing the same now.
> Nonetheless I shall err on the side of self-defence.
>
> In a different message - one which you did address to
> me - you wrote:
>
> > The Strawman Argument is a favourite tool of people
> > who seek to
> > deflect the focus from their beliefs. Teenagers
> > frequently adopt this
> > technique to avoid the questions of parents,
> > especially when they
> > have something to hide. Deflection and diffusion are
> > terms that can
> > equally be applied. It is a cheap trick of
> > politicians the world over.
>
> I really cannot understand why you are telling me
> these things. I have not made any straw-man arguments,
> not accused anyone else of making one, nor asked what
> sort of people tend to use them.
>
> > The use of the example of slavery, however well
> > intentioned, was
> > bound to de-focus the discussion from the Mos to the
> > emotive. Using
> > this example could lead those who haven't followed
> > this discussion
> > and probably countless others when this topic was
> > raised, to believe
> > that someone has been militating for this under the
> > blanket of a call
> > for a return to the Mos. This of course is false.
>
> I have used this example because I simply cannot think
> of another which suits my argument as well. The reason
> it suits is partly that Senator Drusus, currently the
> most vocal advocate of the 'possible and practical'
> doctrine, has frequently and clearly expressed his
> views on the subject. This is, in turn, probably
> because it is, as you say, an emotive subject, and has
> many times been raised in anger or intellectual
> confusion, or even deliberately as a genuine
> straw-man. I cannot think of any other Roman historic
> practice which does not currently exist in Nova Roma
> on which he has expressed his reasons for opposition
> so clearly and consistently.
>
> I do not believe that it is remotely inevitable for my
> raising of the subject to give people the impression
> that the Senator, or anyone else, has proposed
> reviving slavery, since both he and I have carefully
> stated precisely the opposite in almost every message
> we have written on the subject. It would require a
> staggering degree of stupidity or inattention to make
> such a deduction from what we have written.
>
> > As a tactic, it either achieved its end perfectly or
> > added to the
> > general perception that the Mos is linked to
> > abhorent practices. The
> > Mos as we know it in Nova Roma, frankly barely
> > exists. That a small
> > flicker of flame exists where it is concerned is
> > amazing given all
> > the disinformation and scaremongering that surrounds
> > discussion of
> > this topic.
>
> Again, there has been no attempt on my part to defame
> the mos maiorum, except inasmuch as I have suggested
> that it was wrong in one particular respect. There are
> many, many people who I have suggested over the years
> are wrong in one particular respect, and none of them
> have ever accused me of defamation. If you are worried
> about the fact that I have linked the mos maiorum to
> an abhorrent practice (if that is how you feel about
> slavery - I never used those words), well, I am quite
> prepared to own up to that. For me to deny that the
> owning of slaves was part of the mos maiorum would be
> an outright lie, and I am not prepared to tell such a
> lie even in the interests of bolstering public respect
> for the mos maiorum as a whole (which is certainly a
> goal I strive after).
>
> > It is a specious argument anyway to say Nova Roma
> > gave this up. It
> > did no such thing...
>
> Indeed, and I hope you will acknowledge that I have
> never said any such thing.
>
> > So to say that based on these sort of examples we
> > can willy-nilly
> > bend and chop what is left of the Mos is again a
> > specious argument.
>
> As above, I agree, and I hope you will acknowledge
> that I have never said any such thing.
>
> > The Mos is in any case far more complex and involved
> > than these
> > simplistic examples of a few of its former
> > constituent parts. You
> > have to view the Mos in a holistic manner, not at
> > the sub-atomic
> > level.
>
> True again, and this is an important reason why the
> burden must be on anyone who proposes change - not
> only a burden to prove that change is desirable or
> necessary, but also a burden to say how such a change
> may be effected without harming or distorting the
> whole fabric into which the element which is to be
> changed is woven. As the two of us have discussed
> privately, this has been a failing of previous 'gens
> reform' proposals - they have failed to understand
> that the creation of a largely historical family
> system requires not slight adjustments but a complete
> overhaul of patria potestas, the criteria for being
> sui iuris, the legal position of women in the family,
> and so on. These things are inextricably connected,
> but that does not mean that no change is ever possible
> - it just means that change must be very carefully and
> thoroughly planned, with the greatest possible degree
> of scholarship and attention to detail.
>
> I pass over your comments on 'opponents' of the mos
> maiorum and the 'morass of legislation', for I do not
> think they can possibly be aimed at me.
>
> > It also presupposes that people on here are so
> > gullible that they
> > cannot recognise a stinking fish when they see one.
>
> I must utterly disagree with you here. My argument
> concerning slavery is based, like every argument I
> have ever made, on the assumption that those who read
> it are intelligent enough to understand them precisely
> as I write them. If you are suggesting that I ought
> not to discuss in a serious, honest, and logical
> manner the subject of slavery because such discussion
> will cause people to fear the imminent re-introduction
> of slavery, or because it will cause people to lose
> all control of their emotions and start fighting each
> other in the streets, or because it will cause people
> to regard the mos maiorum as a bastion of wickedness,
> then I respectfully suggest that you, and not I, are
> treating those people as too stupid, inattentive, or
> emotionally unstable to cope with calm and rational discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

> The Oath of Office that I took as rogator would
> abrogate even the slightest
> suggestion that any further supervision, by the
> praetors or any other
> magistrate, would be necessary. All rational and
> accountable beings who put their
> faith in the Maker and the Gods know that to swear
> falsely or break their oath is
> anathema. If I were to discover that a fellow
> rogator had violated his Oath
> of Office and broken the confidentiality of the
> electoral process, I would make
> every effort to see that individual stripped of
> their office and cast out of
> Nova Roma. It always pains me to read even the
> slightest suggestion that we
> cannot take on faith that the Oath of Office is
> sacred and we should trust one
> another until such time as it can be proven that
> someone is either an oath
> breaker, an incompetent, or of unsound mind.

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Cn. Iulius Caesar, and to all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>

>Would it be terribly rude of me to ask that you give
>some indication in your posts of who you are
>addressing and what you are replying to? Only
>yesterday I made a quite unnecessary response to a
>message I took to be aimed at me but which was not,
>and I rather fear I may be doing the same now.
>Nonetheless I shall err on the side of self-defence.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> Would that be anything similar to the way that someone else constantly
> accused another candidate for office of being a political thug and
client of another
> citizen whenever they posted an opinion in opposition to their own?
Or how
> someone felt free to announce to all the citizenry that the members
of a
> consular cohors was engaging in political intimidation or the
suggestion that the
> size of any magistrate's cohors automatically opened the way for
divulging
> confidential information without any basis in fact or record? If
that is the case,
> then there is a documented history that even members of the Senate
and the
> Sacred Colleges are capable of supporting the most absurd conspiracy
theories.
> Of course, there is the belief that just because someone disagrees with
> someone else, the person who disagrees is stalking them on the main
list. Ah, there
> is nothing like the incredible paranoia one can find in Nova Roma
along with
> the total lack of civility one can see in even the highest circles
of our
> organization. This is just an opinion and some questions addressed
to the general
> populace and should not be construed as stalking. Valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Salvete omnes and most particularly to:
> A. Apollonius Cordus and Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> If you'll pardon, I believe it was me, at least in part, he was
> responding to.

> Salve Annia Octavia Indagatrix,
>
> I don't think anything (yet) has got me to the spitting fury stage

> NR. Put simply I understand clearly why you cited this as an

> and why Cordus took the position he did.
>
> The discussion over the MM is fraught enough already that I was
> suggesting that using an example that has been abused by others

> political reasons (that is not saying that you or Cordus
> are "abusers", may not have been tactically the best choice in

> to advance your position.
>
> All this discussion is totally premature anyway since there has to

> evidence of a general level of understanding of what the MM is and

> not, and also significant evidence for a serious move to re-

> it to its former position. Until both of those factors are present
> discussing what forms part of a revived MM is an utter waste of

> outside of an intellectual pursuit between individuals.
>
> I think that you and I both know there is aboslutely NO evidence

> significant move towards a return to the MM. Quite the contrary in
> fact.
>
> Vale
> Gn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aoctaviaindagatrix"
> <christyacb@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes and most particularly to:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus and Cn. Iulius Caesar
> >
> > If you'll pardon, I believe it was me, at least in part, he was
> > responding to.

> Salvete omnes and most particularly to:
> A. Apollonius Cordus and Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> If you'll pardon, I believe it was me, at least in part, he was
> responding to. I believe it is that the entire gist of the thread
> was lost, or mixed up, that is adding to the confusion a bit. It
> took a while to figure out which ones he's looking at too.
>
> Essentially, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, I think it went
> like this (keeping in mind this is very general). I'm using the
> three letter codes for names for speed, please do pardon that as
> well.
>
> 1) We were messaging about the Mos and the normal exchange about
> change or not-to-change line.
> 2) AAC (A. Apollonius Cordus) wrote about how we had already

> it and listed 3 examples: slavery, women's rights and the use of
> English.
> 3) GIS (G. Iulius Scaurus) responded, putting comments directly
> beneath that paragraph, "This is the single most powerful argument

> have ever seen presented for > not yielding a single inch further

> compromise with modernity. I have > always mistrusted the claims

> the modernists that they were only > tweaking Roman principles
> around the edges to make Nova Roma possible in > the modern world."
> 4) AOI (myself) felt the above phrasing, and the further comments,
> could not be a complete picture because they are all entirely
> logical changes that had to be made, whether for legal reasons or
> overwhelming need. I wrote back asking him what about those changes
> engenders distrust and asked, point blank, which of those changes
> pointed to too much change. Unfortunately, I did it using old "I
> can't believe you would disagree with xxx" tactic, which, if not
> read correctly, may actually be taken to mean that I was in
> disbelief that he didn't agree with those changes (taken to mean I
> thought he did), rather than in the vein that I wouldn't believe
> those particular ones were ones he disagreed with so what else was
> there?
> The only one I dedicated any time to was the question of

> since as one fluent in latin, perhaps he did hold that view.
> 5) AAC then posted a great message about the reason behind any
> changes or elimination being important.
> 6) several posts that completely misunderstood the intent were
> posted.
> 7) AOI posted a rather basic, multiple choice example, version of
> the same thing, namely, the reason one discards or changes anything
> is just as important as the change itself because it goes to the
> heart of the matter. To avoid looking at what, apparently, was
> simply too inflammatory (slavery) as an example, I included others
> like bribing juries. I had hoped that it would clear up any
> misunderstandings.
> 8) LSD, GIC and others then posted various responses that were
> clearly still not seeing the point of it being only an example
> rather than a topic, so I gave up.
> 9) By appearance, last one is a response to that last grouping of
> messages.
>
> Conclusion: It appears that something so logical, meaning a change
> that was made because it matched every criteria necessary for
> change, is a very very bad example due to the passion attached to
> it. In retrospect, and for further examples, I intend to use
> different ones, like exposing babies, bribing juries, paterfamilia
> rights over all dependents to include extinguishing life or any
> other topic that isn't that one. Examples abound and will be

> it is just that a few of them simply jump past all logic right to
> the spitting fury stage.
>
> Valete,
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus to Cn. Iulius Caesar, and to all
> > citizens and peregrines, greetings.
> >
>
> >Would it be terribly rude of me to ask that you give
> >some indication in your posts of who you are
> >addressing and what you are replying to? Only
> >yesterday I made a quite unnecessary response to a
> >message I took to be aimed at me but which was not,
> >and I rather fear I may be doing the same now.
> >Nonetheless I shall err on the side of self-defence.
> <SNIP>

> It is my personal judgment that it is impossible to
> change the
> compromises to which Nova Roma has already agreed.
> If you think it
> possible that the Comitia and Senate would agree to
> retract those
> compromises, then you know something which has
> escaped me entirely.
> Would I prefer that a number of them not have been
> made? Certainly.
> Do I think it they can be unmade? Just as
> certainly not.

> I am, perhaps, not making myself clear. The status
> of the mos maiorum
> for a practitioner is fundamental and adherence to
> it is the very fabric
> of the Religio Romana. I have no doubt that some
> non-practitioners may
> have exactly such an attitude toward the mos
> maiorum, probably in the
> same sort of way that Cicero did. After all,
> Cicero's Peripateticism
> led him, an augur, to the view that augury was in
> itself meaningless
> supersititon (this is the central thrust of most of
> the second book of
> "De Divinatione"). However, he concluded that,
> despite this
> intellectual attitude, precise, public adherence to
> all the forms and
> rituals of the ars auspicii was absolutely essential
> to the maintenance
> of the state and the social order. The problem is
> that I see very
> little of that attitude in those non-practitioners
> who advocate
> discarding much of the mos maiorum in favour of
> their modern political
> theories and personal preferences.....

> I did not say that they all were unqualified and
> undeserving to comment,
> although I think the great majority of
> non-practitioners (and a not
> insignificant minority of practitioners) areliteral
> unqualified to
> comment in the sense that their comments are not
> grounded to a degree
> nececssary for responsible commentary by adequate
> historical and
> language skills.

> ... People may not like to hear it, but such
> well-intentioned
> (and, frankly, some not so well-intentioned)
> ignorance in choosing what
> to keep and what to cast aside is just as likely to
> kill reconstruction
> of the Religio Romana in its infancy.

> If you genuinely think that the citizenry of Nova
> Roma is as
> knowledgeable about the mos maiorum as the classics
> and ancient history
> faculties of Oxford University, then you could make
> a fortune retailing
> what you are smoking :-). The principal difference
> between
> practitioners and non-practitioners at this stage of
> Nova Roma's
> development is that practitioners by and large have
> a greater
> recognition of the costs of choosing unwisely in
> discarding portions of
> the mos maiorum and are, therefore, much less like
> to make fatal
> compromises with modernity than most
> non-practitioners are.

> Paulinus claimed in the posting to which I was
> responding that
> practitioners of the Religio were careening toward
> declaring
> non-practitioners persona non grata in Nova Roma.
> It is to that
> perceived "threat" that I was responding.

> To my certain knowledge there has been not a single
> action of any
> institution of the Religio Romana which has
> infringed on the right of
> non-practitioners to participate in any
> non-religious activity in Nova
> Roma. Do I think there are citizens who make false
> and malicious
> characterisations of the Religio and its
> institutions and the mos
> maiorum? Yes, I certainly do. Has the Religio
> Romana taken any steps
> to deprive them of their citizenship or its free
> exercise? No, not one.

> I have no doubt that there are citizens like
> yourself who can see the
> issues from both sides, but I think you are ignoring
> a fundamental fact
> of life in Nova Roma. The majority of the citizenry
> is non-practitioner
> and the predominance of the Religio in NR persists
> only at their
> sufferance. It is safe today largely because most
> of them do not find
> it particularly salient, but I am as certain as I am
> of anything that
> were they given a choice between the mos maiorum and
> modernity, they
> would instinctively choose modernity almost every
> time. At this point
> the Religio is relatively secure, but it takes
> little imagination to
> realise that the day is not long off when there will
> be no incumbent
> practitioner consuls or tribunes, and then it will
> take only a handful
> of demagogues to rally a non-practitioner majority
> on the basis of
> innocuous-sounding modern prejudices to legislate
> the reconstruction of
> the Religio Romana in Nova Roma to its doom. I
> recognise that you can
> afford to treat this contingecy as inconsequential;
> as a pontifex
> charged by the mos maiorum and the laws of Nova Roma
> to defend the
> Religio, I cannot.

> LEX ARMINIA DE FOVENDA LINGVA LATINA
>
> This law is intended to encourage classical studies
> and increase the usage of Latin among the citizens
> of Nova Roma, recognizing that the fostering of the
> Latin language is one of the most important and
> strategic concerns of Nova Roman government.
>
> I. A citizen who is skilled enough in the Latin
> language that he or she can correct existing texts
> in Latin [i.e., proofread them] and translate
> accurately from his or her native language into
> Latin, and who has served the Republic in this
> capacity, may request the Senate for the honorary
> title of 'Latinist.'
>
> II. The application of the citizen shall be send to
> the Senate throught the consules. The Senate will
> vote on the proposal and a simple majority shall be
> sufficient to approve the title.
>
> III. The latinist shall be released from paying the
> tax of the following year. To be considered assidui,
> the latinist shall only need to write to the
> Consular Quaestor in charge of tax collection during
> the tax payment period confirming the status of
> Latinist.
>
> IV. The Latinist title must be evaluated annually by
> the Senate. It will be valid from the time of
> approval until the end of the year. The tax release,
> however, will be valid only for the following year,
> regardless of renewal..
>
> V. A senatusconsultum may specify other rules for
> Latinist´s application.
>
> VI. The title of latinist shall be considered a
> honour title granted by the Senate to citizens for
> their services to the Res Publica in the promotion
> of Latin studies.

> LEX ARMINIA EQVITIA DE IMPERIO
>
> This law is intended to correct the use of an
> ancient roman definition in the Nova Roma legal
> system and to be a basis for present and future
> legislation.
>
> I. POTESTAS
> In Nova Roma, we understand potestas as:
> 1.1) Ius coercendi minor, the power to compel
> obedience in the name of the state, within the
> duties of the magistrate.
> 1.2) Ius edicendi, the power to issue edicts and
> nominate scribes.
> 1.3) Partial iurisdictio, the power to interpret the
> law within the duties of the magistrate holding the
> Potestas.
> 1.4) Ius contionem habendi, the power to hold a
> contio, including a question in a Comitia already
> called by a magistrate. The question must be
> included by the magistrate who called the comitia
> under the offical authority of the magistrate
> holding the ius continem habendi.
>
> II. IMPERIUM
> In Nova Roma, we understand Imperium as:
> 2.1) Having all right of potestas, as described
> before.
> 2.2) Ius agendi cum populo, calling the People to
> vote by any of their legislative Comitia.
> 2.3) Ius agendi cum senatu, calling to Senate to
> vote or placing a proposed senatus consultum into
> the Senate agenda.
> 2.4) Ius coercendi maior, the power to compel
> obedience using major force, on all Nova Roma
> subjects. In Nova Roma, this explicitly excludes
> physical force, and includes the force of law.
> 2.5) Full iurisdictio, the power to interpret the
> law, on all levels on all Nova Roma subjects.
>
> III. TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS
> In Nova Roma, we understand Tribunicia Potestas as:
> 3.1) The special powers held by a Tribunus Plebis,
> powers outside of and separate from Potestas and
> Imperium, as determined by the uses of the Mos
> Maiorum of Roma Antiqua or specifical legislation of
> Nova Roma.
> 3.2) The holder of the Tribunicia Potestas is not
> subject to any Potestas or Imperium when acting ex
> officio on its Tribunicia Potestas.
> 3.3) The Tribunicia Potestas possesses all the
> rights of Potestas defined in paragraph I above.
> 3.4) The Tribunicia Potestas do not grant
> automatically to its holder the concept of
> ´Sacrosainctness´ by the Mos Maiorum of Roma Antiqua
> or any lex or decretum in Nova Roma.
>
> IV. OTHERS DETERMINATIONS
> 4.1) It is not within the scope of this law to
> define which magistratures have Potestas, Imperium
> and Tribunicia Potestas as described here.
> 4.2) All legal uses of the terms Potestas, Imperium
> and Tribunicia Potestas will follow the definition
> of this law.
> 4.3) This law recognizes the Imperium of two
> different magistrates have degrees, and the higher
> Imperium overrides the lower Imperium. However, the
> level of Imperium as compared to others shall be
> specified in the legislation attributing Imperium to
> a magistrature. Identical levels of Imperium within
> the same magistrature may veto each other.
> 4.4) Identical levels of Potestas within the same
> magistrature may veto each other.
> 4.5) The Imperium can have geographic boundaries.
> These boundaries will be called provincia. An
> Imperium within a provincia will have all the rights
> described by this lex, except paragraphs 1.1; 1.3;
> 1.4; 2.2 and 2.3. Imperium within a provincia also
> gains the right to be a representative of the Nova
> Roma government inside the Provincia on all
> subjects.

> you declared for praetor, and as far as
> I'm aware, that is a situation that remains
> unresolved.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Stinking fish (was: Re: The Strawman Argument.)


G. Equitius Cato A. Octaviae Indagatrix L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.

salvete, Octavia Indagatrix et Sicinius Drusus.

Octavia, actually, to clarify, it was I that made the post (#24751)
to which Scaurus responded...I, too, asked Scaurus in that very post
to name the things that he thought had already been sacrificed on the
altar of "modernism" that made him so angry that he would refuse to
move "another inch". I believe he is in the process of putting
together a response, to which I look forward with great expectation.

But you are absolutely correct: the point is *not* to discuss ad
nauseum the particular issues (e.g., slavery) in and of themselves,
but rather to *use* those examples to make broader points about the
process by which a particular part of the mos maiorum of the ancients
may be found necessarily invalid in our own time. Apollonius Cordus
used slavery to pinpoint the inherent weakness in the strictest
possible understanding of the "practical and possible" argument that
Sicinius Drusus champions, not to accuse Sicinius Drusus of wanting
to revive slavery. That is why it is not a "straw man" argument: no-
one is saying that *anyone* wants to revive slavery; the point is
that if we do indeed interpret the reconstruction of the mos maiorum
of the ancients in the strictest possible sense then the revival of
slavery is inevitable if the circumstances arose in which it might be
possible.

Another point that Apollonius Cordus made that seems to have been
lost in the tangle is one I found extraordinarily compelling: the
existence of slavery in Nova Roma was not dismissed simply because
the Founding Fathers were playing willy-nilly with the mos maiorum of
the ancients; it was dismissed simply because it is morally
reprehensible: it is *wrong*. That it took 1500 years from the time
in which Nova Roma is centred to reach that conclusion, in Western
civilization, is one tiny piece of support for the idea that it is
possible to adjust the mos of the ancients in accordance with the
evolution of societal morality.
Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in another and more important way. Nova Roma is an incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State of Maine is governed under the United States. Under the Constitution of the United States slavery is outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma, because the governing body that governs the institution has prohibited it. Not because the founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly reason. One that does not make sense over the greater issue of legal ramifications.

<Snip the rest>

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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

> Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in
> another and more important way. Nova Roma is an
> incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
> of Maine is governed under the United States. Under
> the Constitution of the United States slavery is
> outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that
> slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma,
> because the governing body that governs the
> institution has prohibited it. Not because the
> founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the
> Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly
> reason. One that does not make sense over the
> greater issue of legal ramifications.

----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Stinking fish (was: Re: The Strawman Argument.)


A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator and Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla, and to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

> Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in
> another and more important way. Nova Roma is an
> incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
> of Maine is governed under the United States. Under
> the Constitution of the United States slavery is
> outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that
> slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma,
> because the governing body that governs the
> institution has prohibited it. Not because the
> founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the
> Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly
> reason. One that does not make sense over the
> greater issue of legal ramifications.

To take the last part first: I have never commented on
the reasons why the founders of Nova Roma 'decided'
not to have slavery in Nova Roma. I have no idea what
they were thinking. My discussion has focused entirely
on the question under what circumstances people might
propose the restoration of slavery.

Sulla: Thenk you need to correct the person to whom I was responding. He was the one who made the claim, "Another point that Apollonius Cordus made that seems to have been
lost in the tangle is one I found extraordinarily compelling: the
existence of slavery in Nova Roma was not dismissed simply because
the Founding Fathers were playing willy-nilly with the mos maiorum of
the ancients; it was dismissed simply because it is morally
reprehensible: it is *wrong*. That it took 1500 years from the time
in which Nova Roma is centred to reach that conclusion, in Western
civilization, is one tiny piece of support for the idea that it is
possible to adjust the mos of the ancients in accordance with the
evolution of societal morality." Correct his assumption. And that citizen's name was G. Equitius Cato.

Your explanation of why slavery cannot be revived in
Nova Roma is a very reasonable one (though it makes
the assumption so many American Nova Romans seem to
make, that it would be utterly physically impossible
to incorporate Nova Roma anywhere outside the U.S.).

Sulla: Nova Roma is only incorporated in the State of Maine. That is my only concern. The Constitution of the United States of America prohibits slavery, therefore Nova Roma governed under the incorporation laws of the State of Maine cannot have slavery, pure and simple.
The place of incorporation is one of many things which
make the revival of slavery impossible and
impractical.

Sulla: I am glad we agree.

My interest is not in whether it is
possible, or ever will be possible, to revive slavery.
I know there is almost zero chance that it will ever
be possible. The question is, if it *were* possible,
ought Nova Roma to do it?

Sulla: Why would you even want to discuss such a hypothetical question when the likelyihood which you and I both agree on is virtually null and void. Seems like and awfully waste of time when there are far more important things to fix and deal with.

And it is all very well to say that the question is
irrelevant and of no practical importance, but in fact
it is not.

Sulla: You just said in the above, "The place of incorporation is one of many things which
make the revival of slavery impossible and
impractical." Are you changing your story now?

I'm sure you'd agree that the ideological
differences between 'strict reconstructionists' and
'modernists' has very practical relevance and
importance to the here and now in Nova Roma. So it is
very relevant to ask the question, 'which of them, if
either, is right?' And here comes my question: if it
were possible for Nova Roma to revive slavery, ought
we to do it? If the answer is no, then the strict
reconstructist doctrine which Senator Drusus espouses
must be incorrect. That doesn't tell us who *is*
right, but it narrows it down. Isn't that important?

Sulla: I think your doing word play Cordus. You and I both agreed that it is impractical that slavery would ever exist. Since that is practical conclusion we should leave it at that and move on to more important issues and stop speculating on what if's. If I wanted to debate a what if scenario I would join a Turtledove Society! Instead I joined Nova Roma. If you feel like debating what if's perhaps you should consider joining some of www.yahoogroups.com lists devoted to the various what if's of history.

Vale,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator and Consular L.
> Cornelius Sulla, and to all citizens and peregrines,
> greetings.
>
> > Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in
> > another and more important way. Nova Roma is an
> > incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
> > of Maine is governed under the United States. Under
> > the Constitution of the United States slavery is
> > outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that
> > slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma,
> > because the governing body that governs the
> > institution has prohibited it. Not because the
> > founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the
> > Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly
> > reason. One that does not make sense over the
> > greater issue of legal ramifications.
>
> To take the last part first: I have never commented on
> the reasons why the founders of Nova Roma 'decided'
> not to have slavery in Nova Roma. I have no idea what
> they were thinking. My discussion has focused entirely
> on the question under what circumstances people might
> propose the restoration of slavery.
>
> Your explanation of why slavery cannot be revived in
> Nova Roma is a very reasonable one (though it makes
> the assumption so many American Nova Romans seem to
> make, that it would be utterly physically impossible
> to incorporate Nova Roma anywhere outside the U.S.).
> The place of incorporation is one of many things which
> make the revival of slavery impossible and
> impractical. My interest is not in whether it is
> possible, or ever will be possible, to revive slavery.
> I know there is almost zero chance that it will ever
> be possible. The question is, if it *were* possible,
> ought Nova Roma to do it?
>
> And it is all very well to say that the question is
> irrelevant and of no practical importance, but in fact
> it is not. I'm sure you'd agree that the ideological
> differences between 'strict reconstructionists' and
> 'modernists' has very practical relevance and
> importance to the here and now in Nova Roma. So it is
> very relevant to ask the question, 'which of them, if
> either, is right?' And here comes my question: if it
> were possible for Nova Roma to revive slavery, ought
> we to do it? If the answer is no, then the strict
> reconstructist doctrine which Senator Drusus espouses
> must be incorrect. That doesn't tell us who *is*
> right, but it narrows it down. Isn't that important?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Stinking fish (was: Re: The Strawman Argument.)


A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator and Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla, and to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

Okay, Senator, now, you're going to have to trust me
when I tell you that you haven't quite understood what
I'm saying. Maybe that's my fault.

But just answer me one question. If the answer if yes,
I'll go on talking to you about this all night if you
want. If not, I'll go to bed. Here's the question:

Do you honestly want to understand what I really mean?





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

> If Slavery is such an overwhealming concern of
> yours, then why are you
> tilting at windmills in Nova Roma rather than
> fighting the existance
> of the practice in the Sudan?

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Stinking fish (was: Re: The Strawman

>
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator and Consular L.
> Cornelius Sulla, and to all citizens and peregrines,
> greetings.
>
> > Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in
> > another and more important way. Nova Roma is an
> > incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
> > of Maine is governed under the United States. Under
> > the Constitution of the United States slavery is
> > outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that
> > slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma,
> > because the governing body that governs the
> > institution has prohibited it. Not because the
> > founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the
> > Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly
> > reason. One that does not make sense over the
> > greater issue of legal ramifications.
>
> To take the last part first: I have never commented on
> the reasons why the founders of Nova Roma 'decided'
> not to have slavery in Nova Roma. I have no idea what
> they were thinking. My discussion has focused entirely
> on the question under what circumstances people might
> propose the restoration of slavery.
>
> Sulla: Thenk you need to correct the person to whom I was

> lost in the tangle is one I found extraordinarily compelling:

> existence of slavery in Nova Roma was not dismissed simply

> the Founding Fathers were playing willy-nilly with the mos

> the ancients; it was dismissed simply because it is morally
> reprehensible: it is *wrong*. That it took 1500 years from the

> in which Nova Roma is centred to reach that conclusion, in

> civilization, is one tiny piece of support for the idea that it

> possible to adjust the mos of the ancients in accordance with the
> evolution of societal morality." Correct his assumption. And

>
> Your explanation of why slavery cannot be revived in
> Nova Roma is a very reasonable one (though it makes
> the assumption so many American Nova Romans seem to
> make, that it would be utterly physically impossible
> to incorporate Nova Roma anywhere outside the U.S.).
>
> Sulla: Nova Roma is only incorporated in the State of Maine.

> The place of incorporation is one of many things which
> make the revival of slavery impossible and
> impractical.
>
> Sulla: I am glad we agree.
>
> My interest is not in whether it is
> possible, or ever will be possible, to revive slavery.
> I know there is almost zero chance that it will ever
> be possible. The question is, if it *were* possible,
> ought Nova Roma to do it?
>
> Sulla: Why would you even want to discuss such a hypothetical

>
> And it is all very well to say that the question is
> irrelevant and of no practical importance, but in fact
> it is not.
>
> Sulla: You just said in the above, "The place of incorporation

> make the revival of slavery impossible and
> impractical." Are you changing your story now?
>
> I'm sure you'd agree that the ideological
> differences between 'strict reconstructionists' and
> 'modernists' has very practical relevance and
> importance to the here and now in Nova Roma. So it is
> very relevant to ask the question, 'which of them, if
> either, is right?' And here comes my question: if it
> were possible for Nova Roma to revive slavery, ought
> we to do it? If the answer is no, then the strict
> reconstructist doctrine which Senator Drusus espouses
> must be incorrect. That doesn't tell us who *is*
> right, but it narrows it down. Isn't that important?
>
> Sulla: I think your doing word play Cordus. You and I both

>
> Vale,
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-

>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

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

> Ave A. Apollonius,
>
> I think I have understood your question when you would rather deal

>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> In the case of my vote against the proposed lex, my complaint is not
> with its terms, which I find excellent, but rather with the fact that
> our good Consul has chosen to enshrine them in the body of a Constitutional
> amendment, [...]

> I wish to emphasize that the timing of my comments on the lex are only
> the result of my own sloth in not making the fullest use of the Contio
> period, and are in no way intended to be any slight to the Consul's efforts.

> One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> the lead century had an impact on those that
> followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> since results of each centuryÂ’s vote are unknown
> until all are tallied.

> Salve,
>
> A Question,
>
> If Slavery is such an overwhealming concern of yours, then why are

> tilting at windmills in Nova Roma rather than fighting the existance
> of the practice in the Sudan?
>
> If it means so much to you then why aren't you attempting to rescue
> the Christians and Animists who have been reduced to Chattel slavery
> under the extreamist government in the Sudan?
>
> This isn't a vauge "what if" theory about something that is unlikely
> ever to occur, this is real live human beings who are being held as
> chattels at this very moment.
>
> If you are serious about your oppostion to slavery then do something
> that makes a real differance in the lives of real human beings

> of engaging in feelgoodism in Nova Roma.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator and Consular L.
> > Cornelius Sulla, and to all citizens and peregrines,
> > greetings.
> >
> > > Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in
> > > another and more important way. Nova Roma is an
> > > incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
> > > of Maine is governed under the United States. Under
> > > the Constitution of the United States slavery is
> > > outlawed. I believe that is the primary reason that
> > > slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma,
> > > because the governing body that governs the
> > > institution has prohibited it. Not because the
> > > founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the
> > > Mos Maiorum of the ancients. That to me is a silly
> > > reason. One that does not make sense over the
> > > greater issue of legal ramifications.
> >
> > To take the last part first: I have never commented on
> > the reasons why the founders of Nova Roma 'decided'
> > not to have slavery in Nova Roma. I have no idea what
> > they were thinking. My discussion has focused entirely
> > on the question under what circumstances people might
> > propose the restoration of slavery.
> >
> > Your explanation of why slavery cannot be revived in
> > Nova Roma is a very reasonable one (though it makes
> > the assumption so many American Nova Romans seem to
> > make, that it would be utterly physically impossible
> > to incorporate Nova Roma anywhere outside the U.S.).
> > The place of incorporation is one of many things which
> > make the revival of slavery impossible and
> > impractical. My interest is not in whether it is
> > possible, or ever will be possible, to revive slavery.
> > I know there is almost zero chance that it will ever
> > be possible. The question is, if it *were* possible,
> > ought Nova Roma to do it?
> >
> > And it is all very well to say that the question is
> > irrelevant and of no practical importance, but in fact
> > it is not. I'm sure you'd agree that the ideological
> > differences between 'strict reconstructionists' and
> > 'modernists' has very practical relevance and
> > importance to the here and now in Nova Roma. So it is
> > very relevant to ask the question, 'which of them, if
> > either, is right?' And here comes my question: if it
> > were possible for Nova Roma to revive slavery, ought
> > we to do it? If the answer is no, then the strict
> > reconstructist doctrine which Senator Drusus espouses
> > must be incorrect. That doesn't tell us who *is*
> > right, but it narrows it down. Isn't that important?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Why I voted as I did


A. Apollonius Cordus to Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Father of the Nation, and to all citizens and
peregrines, greetings.

> One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> the lead century had an impact on those that
> followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> since results of each century's vote are unknown
> until all are tallied.

Actually the voting system was changed last year, so
this isn't so. I will be announcing the provisional
result of the voting in century 9 at about this time
tomorrow, or maybe a little later.

I'm also slightly puzzled as to how you come to be in
the centuria praerogativa. The lex Cornelia Maria de
civitate eiuranda states that no citizen returning
from a period of resignation will have his former
titles or century points carried over. I imagine the
lack of a webmaster is the cause of the problem here,
since the allocation of century points is done
automatically by a computer programme.

Please note that I don't mean any offence to you
personally. I continue to address you as Father of the
Nation, because I don't think one can cease to be one
of the founders of Nova Roma as the result of a period
of resignation. But as I'm sure you'd be the first to
agree, a law is a law.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

> I believe there was an exemption for Flavius Vedius since he was

>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Why I voted as I did
>
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus to Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Father of the Nation, and to all citizens and
> peregrines, greetings.
>
> > One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> > praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> > the lead century had an impact on those that
> > followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> > since results of each century's vote are unknown
> > until all are tallied.
>
> Actually the voting system was changed last year, so
> this isn't so. I will be announcing the provisional
> result of the voting in century 9 at about this time
> tomorrow, or maybe a little later.
>
> I'm also slightly puzzled as to how you come to be in
> the centuria praerogativa. The lex Cornelia Maria de
> civitate eiuranda states that no citizen returning
> from a period of resignation will have his former
> titles or century points carried over. I imagine the
> lack of a webmaster is the cause of the problem here,
> since the allocation of century points is done
> automatically by a computer programme.
>
> Please note that I don't mean any offence to you
> personally. I continue to address you as Father of the
> Nation, because I don't think one can cease to be one
> of the founders of Nova Roma as the result of a period
> of resignation. But as I'm sure you'd be the first to
> agree, a law is a law.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-

>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

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

----- Original Message -----
From: aoctaviaindagatrix
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I voted as I did


Salve,

Are you sure that wasn't specific to the either the first or
second time he resigned? I certainly don't remember it for the third
one. I confess I can't remember if it applied to all of his
collective resignations or just one.

Vale,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> I believe there was an exemption for Flavius Vedius since he was
founder. If I recall it was a Senatus Consultum.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Why I voted as I did
>
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus to Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Father of the Nation, and to all citizens and
> peregrines, greetings.
>
> > One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> > praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> > the lead century had an impact on those that
> > followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> > since results of each century's vote are unknown
> > until all are tallied.
>
> Actually the voting system was changed last year, so
> this isn't so. I will be announcing the provisional
> result of the voting in century 9 at about this time
> tomorrow, or maybe a little later.
>
> I'm also slightly puzzled as to how you come to be in
> the centuria praerogativa. The lex Cornelia Maria de
> civitate eiuranda states that no citizen returning
> from a period of resignation will have his former
> titles or century points carried over. I imagine the
> lack of a webmaster is the cause of the problem here,
> since the allocation of century points is done
> automatically by a computer programme.
>
> Please note that I don't mean any offence to you
> personally. I continue to address you as Father of the
> Nation, because I don't think one can cease to be one
> of the founders of Nova Roma as the result of a period
> of resignation. But as I'm sure you'd be the first to
> agree, a law is a law.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-
NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to the Senator L. Sicinius
> Drusus, and to all citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> > If Slavery is such an overwhealming concern of
> > yours, then why are you
> > tilting at windmills in Nova Roma rather than
> > fighting the existance
> > of the practice in the Sudan?
>
> Slavery isn't an overwhelming concern of mine. It's an
> example used to illustrate a logical argument.
>
> What I have been doing for the last few days in Nova
> Roma is not campaigning against slavery. That would be
> a waste of time, since there is no slavery. I've been
> trying to explain to you the logical flaws in your own
> views on reconstruction.
>
> Perhaps I've been making too many assumptions. Let's
> go back a few steps. Do you consider your views on
> reconstruction logically coherent?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

> *From:* aoctaviaindagatrix [mailto:christyacb@...]

> *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:24 PM

> *To:* Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

> *Subject:* [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I voted as I did

>

> Salve,

>

> Are you sure that wasn't specific to the either the first or

> second time he resigned? I certainly don't remember it for the third

> one. I confess I can't remember if it applied to all of his

> collective resignations or just one.

>

> Vale,

> Annia Octavia Indagatrix

> Sicinius Drusus, I must take issue with your post regarding the

> necessity of following the rites and rituals of the religio romana

> exactly and without flaw (#29466), and I quote:

>

> "You can't simply do what ever trips your trigger and call it a

> correctly performed ritual of the Religio Romana. There is no gray

> area, there is no wiggle room. If you don't perform each and every

> step of the Ritual correctly then the entire ritual is invalid."

>

> You yourself, in a post to Fuscus (#24477), admitted that many pieces

> of the religio are unknown, even to the most erudite scholars today,

> and that we are forced to "compromise", making things up, filling in

> the blanks, hoping that we get it right, and I quote:

>

>

> "In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost all

> of the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that time

> knew details about the Religio that are now lost to time and unknown

> to the most learned moderns." and

>

> "In Nove [sic] Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are

> non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods are

> still in the process of learning how to do it.The Citizens of 2000

> years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous policy. Most of the

> citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine the fine points of

> policy..." and

>

> "The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the

> Republic. The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion

> that had existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is

> similar to that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done, of

> when it needs to be done. There are gaps in the historic record that

> have to be filled in."

>

> You can't have it both ways. Either you stick to your original

> claim that we're basically doing the best we can with the limited

> knowledge we have, or we should just stop altogether for fear of

> angering the Di irreparably by our ignorance.

>>From September 7th, 1998 by Flavius Vedius Germanicus

>>From December 4th, 2001

>>From March 15th, 2002

> Fl Vedius Germanicus S.P.D. A Octaviae Indagatrix,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> > *From:* aoctaviaindagatrix [mailto:christyacb@y...]
>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:24 PM
>
> > *To:* Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> > *Subject:* [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I voted as I did
>
> >
>
> > Salve,
>
> >
>
> > Are you sure that wasn't specific to the either the first or
>
> > second time he resigned? I certainly don't remember it for the

>
> > one. I confess I can't remember if it applied to all of his
>
> > collective resignations or just one.
>
> >
>
> > Vale,
>
> > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
>
>
>
> I confess I am somewhat puzzled.
>
>
>
> I left Nova Roma twice, not three times. The first time, as a

>
>
>
> The second time, as a matter of pure burn-out, was in 2002, and

>
>
>
> Where, may I ask, did you get the impression that I had resigned

>
>
>
> Di vos incolumes custodiant,
>
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>
> Pater Patriae
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Oh Gads! Okay. Let's put this into very nicely digestible chunks.
> Let us completely ignore the example of the "s" word..some are
> refusing to get past the word itself.
>
> Example 1: RA espoused the exposure of infants that were, for
> whatever reason, unsuitable or unwanted.
> NR does not espouse this tradition.
>
> Why do we not?

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Flavius Vedius Germanicus,

> > One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> > praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> > the lead century had an impact on those that
> > followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> > since results of each century's vote are unknown
> > until all are tallied.
>
> Actually the voting system was changed last year, so
> this isn't so. I will be announcing the provisional
> result of the voting in century 9 at about this time
> tomorrow, or maybe a little later.
>
> I'm also slightly puzzled as to how you come to be in
> the centuria praerogativa. The lex Cornelia Maria de
> civitate eiuranda states that no citizen returning
> from a period of resignation will have his former
> titles or century points carried over. I imagine the
> lack of a webmaster is the cause of the problem here,
> since the allocation of century points is done
> automatically by a computer programme.
>
> Please note that I don't mean any offence to you
> personally. I continue to address you as Father of the
> Nation, because I don't think one can cease to be one
> of the founders of Nova Roma as the result of a period
> of resignation. But as I'm sure you'd be the first to
> agree, a law is a law.

> I believe it was referred to the latest time he resigned because we
>purposely kept the Vedian Gens open and as a Patrician in the event
>he came back.

>
> Sulla
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aoctaviaindagatrix
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:24 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I voted as I did
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Are you sure that wasn't specific to the either the first or
> second time he resigned? I certainly don't remember it for the

> one. I confess I can't remember if it applied to all of his
> collective resignations or just one.
>
> Vale,
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
> <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > I believe there was an exemption for Flavius Vedius since he

> founder. If I recall it was a Senatus Consultum.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: A. Apollonius Cordus
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Why I voted as I did
> >
> >
> > A. Apollonius Cordus to Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> > Father of the Nation, and to all citizens and
> > peregrines, greetings.
> >
> > > One of the prerogatives of voting in the centuria
> > > praerogativa in Roma Antiqua was that the voting in
> > > the lead century had an impact on those that
> > > followed. In our modern system, that is difficult,
> > > since results of each century's vote are unknown
> > > until all are tallied.
> >
> > Actually the voting system was changed last year, so
> > this isn't so. I will be announcing the provisional
> > result of the voting in century 9 at about this time
> > tomorrow, or maybe a little later.
> >
> > I'm also slightly puzzled as to how you come to be in
> > the centuria praerogativa. The lex Cornelia Maria de
> > civitate eiuranda states that no citizen returning
> > from a period of resignation will have his former
> > titles or century points carried over. I imagine the
> > lack of a webmaster is the cause of the problem here,
> > since the allocation of century points is done
> > automatically by a computer programme.
> >
> > Please note that I don't mean any offence to you
> > personally. I continue to address you as Father of the
> > Nation, because I don't think one can cease to be one
> > of the founders of Nova Roma as the result of a period
> > of resignation. But as I'm sure you'd be the first to
> > agree, a law is a law.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express

> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------

> -----------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

> of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

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

>III. If a vote is cast during a voting phase in which
>that voter is not eligible to vote, and no vote is
>cast by that voter during the correct voting phase,
>the rogatores will count as valid the vote which was
>cast during the incorrect phase.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pat
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:56 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Stinking fish (was: Re: The Strawman Argument.)


Salvete omnes,

Cornelius Sulla, at the risk of touching a tar baby I should really have
more sense than to get near--or perhaps it's more a question of rolling in
the stinking fish with several of you--I wish to correct one statement you
made.

Sulla: But Cordus is incorrect about that in another and more important
way. Nova Roma is an incorporated body in the State of Maine. The State
of Maine is governed under the United States. Under the Constitution of
the United States slavery is outlawed. I believe that is the primary
reason that slavery is never going to be a factor in Nova Roma, because the
governing body that governs the institution has prohibited it. Not because
the founding fathers were playing willy-nilly with the Mos Maiorum of the
ancients. That to me is a silly reason. One that does not make sense over
the greater issue of legal ramifications.

Your understanding of the status of slavery in the USA is what is
commonly--but quite sloppily--taught. It is, legally speaking, inaccurate.

The text of Section I of the Amendment actually states (emphasis mine,
added to make the point) "Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, EXCEPT
AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction."

It might be repugnant to the society at this time, but slavery, per se, is
not banned in the USA. It is merely strictly constrained. It cannot be
applied to anyone save as a punishment for a crime. It cannot therefore be
an inherited status, for example.

Now, I am NOT advocating slavery. But it is thus entirely plausible that
slavery could be permitted within the context of Nova Roma as a corporation
duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maine. It simply would
have to be limited in a manner not offensive to the Federal
Constitution. But enslavement as a punishment for crime was an entirely
historic path into slavery, so one can imagine a Nova Roman senator with a
legal slave in tow at a Nova Roman event. I don't think it's going to
happen. But were it to be meted out by some State as a lawful
punishment... say... to Ken Lay....

Valete,
M Umbrius Ursus



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



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

> Fl Vedius Germanicus S.P.D. G Equitio Cato
>
>
>
> S.V.B.E.E.V.
>
>
>
> > Sicinius Drusus, I must take issue with your post regarding the
>
> > necessity of following the rites and rituals of the religio romana
>
> > exactly and without flaw (#29466), and I quote:
>
> >
>
> > "You can't simply do what ever trips your trigger and call it a
>
> > correctly performed ritual of the Religio Romana. There is no gray
>
> > area, there is no wiggle room. If you don't perform each and every
>
> > step of the Ritual correctly then the entire ritual is invalid."
>
> >
>
> > You yourself, in a post to Fuscus (#24477), admitted that many

>
> > of the religio are unknown, even to the most erudite scholars

>
> > and that we are forced to "compromise", making things up, filling

>
> > the blanks, hoping that we get it right, and I quote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "In the Ancient Republic they had an active religion that almost

>
> > of the citizens were bought up in. The Average citizen of that

>
> > knew details about the Religio that are now lost to time and

>
> > to the most learned moderns." and
>
> >
>
> > "In Nove [sic] Roma a very large percentage of the citizens are
>
> > non-beleavers, and most of those who do attempt to honor the Gods

>
> > still in the process of learning how to do it.The Citizens of 2000
>
> > years ago had the knowledge to determine Religous policy. Most of

>
> > citizens of today lack the knowledge to determine the fine points

>
> > policy..." and
>
> >
>
> > "The Pontiffs have a far harder task than the Pontiffs of the
>
> > Republic. The Republican Pontiffs only had to maintain a Religion
>
> > that had existed for hundreds of years. We face the task that is
>
> > similar to that of King Numa, of deciding what needs to be done,

>
> > when it needs to be done. There are gaps in the historic record

>
> > have to be filled in."
>
> >
>
> > You can't have it both ways. Either you stick to your original
>
> > claim that we're basically doing the best we can with the limited
>
> > knowledge we have, or we should just stop altogether for fear of
>
> > angering the Di irreparably by our ignorance.
>
>
>
> At the risk of jumping into a conversation to which I have only

>
>
>
> Many pieces of the Religio are indeed missing, and will likely

>
>
>
> As regards the first point, it is a thing that requires a high

>
>
>
> It is also true that, according to the tenets of the Religio,

>
>
>
> I hope this clarifies things from the standpoint of pagan

>
>
>
> (How go your efforts to set up a local group in NYC, by the way? We

>
>
>
> Di vos incolumes custodiant,
>
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>
> Pater Patriae
>
>
>
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
>
> -----------------------------7d433f1c1380328Content-Disposition:

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

> The wording is a little unclear about precisely how
> one qualifies for the status of Latinist. Is it
> available only when one actually is acting as a Latin
> translater, or does one remain a Latinist even if one
> has stopped serving as a translator? Or is this one of
> the issues you've chosen to leave to the senate's
> discretion?

>
> In article 1.4, what is meant by a 'question'? Does
> this include proposals for laws?
>
> Also, when 1.3 and 2.5 define iurisdictio as the power
> to 'interpret the law', does this include (as it did
> in ancient Rome) the power to hear and decide legal
> cases?
>
> Thank you in advance for your answers. I hope you and
> other citizens will understand that as rogator I do
> not feel at liberty to either endorse or oppose these
> proposals - I am sure the public is well able to make
> up its mind without my advice! :)
>

> You are right about his century points, he is
> ineligible for them.
> However, Pater Patrie is an honorific awarded by the
> Senate that
> carries no century points and I would argue is one
> he is still
> legally eligible to use.