> Can someone explain how one is placed in the century
> that one finds themselves in ?

> Thank you first for your compliment. As for your
> lamentation, let me assure you that I am not against
> constitutions, I simply have very little affection for
> this particular constitution which we have at the
> moment. So when I say 'score one against the
> constitution', I mean just that: against *the*
> constitution, not against constitutions in general. Of
> course constitutions can be written well, and the fact
> that ours is not is no argument against the whole
> species.

> And yes, I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> be written down. I do not suggest, and have never
> suggested, that we abandon the idea of a written legal
> text regulating our political system, thus leaving the
> whole thing at the mercy of those with enough
> historical education to know how the Roman political
> system operated. Certainly it must be written down.

> By requests are three. One is that it be written down
> well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> protections which make it very difficult to change
> (not only one, as is considered sufficient in most
> countries, but three: a change can only be passed by
> the comitia centuriata, *and* must be ratified by the
> senate, and *and* must be ratified not by a mere
> majority but by two thirds of the senate!). None of
> these three requests is anti-constitutionalist, and
> none of them is to my mind remotely unreasonable.

> I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> be written down. [...]

> My requests are three. One is that it be written down
> well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> protections which make it very difficult to change

> Who's interested?

> If you'll look at the current year budget which is posted as an Excel
> spreadsheet in the Files section of the mainlist, you'll see that line
> 55 is the Fideicommissum (service/scholarship fund). As of 1 January it
> had $800 and our budget for this year added $200 to it, so now it stands
> at $1000.

> Could someone post an update on the current status of the scholarship fund.

> This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
> Who's interested?

> This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
> Who's interested?

> Ave Consul
>
> > Who's interested?
>
> Obviously, I would be interested.
>
> Vale Bene
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> > be written down. [...]
>
> > My requests are three. One is that it be written down
> > well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> > that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> > moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> > that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> > protections which make it very difficult to change
>
> I've been working for some time on a revision of the text of the

> Constitution to fix the typos, spelling errors, and errors of
> continuity. But as I've done so I continue to see many places where

> Republic would be served by a substantial rewrite of the entire
> document. This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
>
> Who's interested?
>
> Valete,
>
> -- Marinus

> Fabius Fabius, you have this very bad trait of zeroing on the ESLs (just to
> make
> two examples, with Apulus and Sulla at the last elections in November, now
> with
> Faustus) who make a mistake writing in english.
>
> Now, if it was a genuine effort to outline our mistakes in order to have us
> improving our english skills, that would be better done with private mails

> And apart from anything else, it's worth noting that
> 'recall' is no more correct in this context than
> 'remember'. Both 'remember' and 'recall' suggest that
> the Tribune was present at the actual event, which as
> anyone can see is not what he meant.
>
>

> I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> be written down. [...]

> My requests are three. One is that it be written down
> well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> protections which make it very difficult to change

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 10:20 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Constitutional Convention?


Salvete Quirites,

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

[...]
> I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> be written down. [...]

> My requests are three. One is that it be written down
> well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> protections which make it very difficult to change

I've been working for some time on a revision of the text of the current
Constitution to fix the typos, spelling errors, and errors of
continuity. But as I've done so I continue to see many places where the
Republic would be served by a substantial rewrite of the entire
document. This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.

Who's interested?

Valete,

-- Marinus


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]

> And the last is
> that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> protections which make it very difficult to change
> (not only one, as is considered sufficient in most
> countries, but three: a change can only be passed by
> the comitia centuriata, *and* must be ratified by the
> senate, and *and* must be ratified not by a mere
> majority but by two thirds of the senate!). None of
> these three requests is anti-constitutionalist, and
> none of them is to my mind remotely unreasonable.
>

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I quite agree that our constitution needs to
> > be written down. [...]
>
> > My requests are three. One is that it be written down
> > well, without internal contradictions. The next is
> > that it be made far more historical than it is at the
> > moment, if perhaps not entirely so. And the last is
> > that it not be hedged around with utterly unhistorical
> > protections which make it very difficult to change
>
> I've been working for some time on a revision of the text of the

> Constitution to fix the typos, spelling errors, and errors of
> continuity. But as I've done so I continue to see many places

> Republic would be served by a substantial rewrite of the entire
> document. This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large

> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
>
> Who's interested?
>
> Valete,
>
> -- Marinus

> Ave Omnes
>
> Writes QFabiusMaxmi@a...:
> > In a message dated 6/22/04 10:01:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > lafaustus@y... writes:
> > > > From my mind, I can remember the case of Marcus Minucius (I

> > > remeber the agnomen), magister equitum of dictator Fabius

> > > during the Second Punic War.
> > >
> >
> > I believe you mean "you can recall."
>
>
> Fabius Fabius, you have this very bad trait of zeroing on the ESLs

> two examples, with Apulus and Sulla at the last elections in

> Faustus) who make a mistake writing in english.
>
> Now, if it was a genuine effort to outline our mistakes in order to

> improving our english skills, that would be better done with

> that's not what it is, is it?
>
> Now, considering doing what you do is generally very rude,

> not exactly brilliant results when using another language and after

> yourself ridicolous in November trying to pretend you knew italian,

> be wiser to let this habit go?
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis

> This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
>

> Obviously, I would be interested.

----- Original Message -----
From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Constitutional Convention?


In a message dated 6/23/04 10:26:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gawne@... writes:

> This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
>

I don't think so.

If we change the Vedian Constitution which is 5 years old, every time we feel
like it, guess what? We don't have anything. A committee here is going to
accomplish nothing. We are going to arguing about everything. We will get
nothing done. And then we will be back to square one.
We go through this everytime we get new citizens. They seem to think they
know better then us Graybeards. As Iulius Scaraus said in plain English, if
people here cannot care enough to even read which Century is voting, it does not
bode well for NR.
Leave our constitution along for the time being. If Vedius wishes to revise
it, he will get to it in due time.

Q. Fabius Maximus




[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]

> Who's interested?

> Leave our constitution along for the time being. If Vedius wishes to revise
> it, he will get to it in due time.

>Your tone is, I regret to say, becoming distinctly
>unfriendly, which is a shame because I have taken
>great efforts to keep personalities and personal pride
>out of this discussion so far. Implying that my
>colleagues and I are fools to even try to address this
>problem is hardly likely to make us more amenable to
>listening to reasonable criticisms, is it?

>The polls are demonstrably open to all, for we are
>receiving votes from all. Furthermore, the relevant
>edict, issued by the presiding magistrate, declared
>simply that voting would begin on the 21st. It did not
>mention for whom it would begin. So both factually and
>legally the polls are open for all: the question is
>whose vote shall be counted, and how, and when.

>We would love to do this, but it is not in our power
>to do it. We do not control the cista, so we cannot
>rig it so that it only accepts valid votes. We cannot
>contact the voters, because we do not know their
>identities. We can do absolutely nothing to stop these
>irregular votes arriving in our inboxes. We just have
>to decide what to do with them, and we cannot ignore
>our responsibility to make that decision.

>We equally do not deny that we are almost the worst
>people to attempt to solve this problem, since we do
>not have adequate powers to solve it satisfactorily.
>But we are on the spot, and no one with adequate
>powers comes forward to solve the problem for us, so
>we are saddled with it. If you do not like our
>solution, then by all means appeal for a veto, and
>there will be no hard feelings. But please acknowledge
>that we at least have tried in good faith to do
>something, which is more than anyone else has.

> > People who can't figure out when they're supposed to
> > vote... the IDEA that
> > they'll be paying close attention to the results of
> > the tally of the 9th
> > Century and might consider going back to revise
> > their votes... I think
> > that's absurd. Risible.
>
>Well, I'm glad it affords you amusement, but I really
>don't know how you can come to that conclusion based
>on anything other than prejudice, for there is
>absolutely no evidence either way. The evidence will
>be available at the end of this election, but not
>before. You may be right, but at the moment you are
>doing nothing more than speculating.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Domitius Constantinus Fuscus" <dom.con.fus@...>


> Ok, there is a distinction here. By "murder by uncanny means" the roman
law
> ended up associating both the deaths provocated by poison and the ones
> allegedly provocated by curses or other similar practices.

Many thanks to you and the others who posted answers to my question. It's
been a great help and I really appreciate you all taking the time and
trouble.

thank you
Flavia Lucilla Merula

> This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
> involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
> during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
> amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
> Who's interested?

> Constantinus, Constantinus.
>
> I spend an hour talking about Fabius and Minucius' historical outcome and all
>
> you can notice is the only one English correction. You can correct my
> Italian, but I cannot correct your English? Man you are obsessed. You
> really have
> to get over yourself.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

> LEquitiusCincinnatusAugur ConsulisMarinoQuiritibusquesalutemdicit
>
> I believe that something of this nature ought to be first considered by the
> Senate (this of course includes present magistrates) and the College
> Pontificium.
>
> Of course any decision to change or amend would have to be ratified by the
> Centuries, so in effect every one has a say. I'm quite in agreement with
> Cordus that the Constitution has several flaws that need addressing.
>
> Valete

> Gee, what a surprise. An Italian writing rules of operation for an American
> Corporation. Yeah that makes sense. Doesn't the SVR need rules written?
> Q. Fabius Maximus

>This leads me to wonder how many people would wish to be
>involved in a Constitutional convention lasting for a month or so,
>during which time we would work out the text of a large constitutional
>amendment which would accomplish what Cordus requests above.
>
>Who's interested?
>
>Valete,
>
>-- Marinus

>

> -----Original Message-----

> *From:* Caeso Fabius Quintilianus [mailto:christer.edling@...]

> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:25 PM

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

> *Subject:* [Nova-Roma] Working with a future colleague and endorsement for Pompeia

>

> Salvete Quirites!

>

> Within eight days Nova Roma will have two Censors and I will have a

> new colleague.

>

> Two candidates are now standing for Censor and two questions might

> arise in the minds of the citizens of Nova Roma. The first one is,

> will I be able to work with any of them? The second question is, who

> do I prefer?

> Subject: Re: Fabius & Minucius

> From my mind, I can remember the case of Marcus Minucius (I cant
> remeber the agnomen), magister equitum of dictator Fabius Maximus
> during the Second Punic War.

> I mean absolutely no disrespect to the man who has borne upon his

>
> And the answer I came up with was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for the

>
> Now, we may, of course, honorably disagree on the answer to that

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Constitutional Convention?


Ave omnes

> Gee, what a surprise. An Italian writing rules of operation for an American
> Corporation. Yeah that makes sense. Doesn't the SVR need rules written?
> Q. Fabius Maximus

*LOL* Fabius! Of the dozen applications that we witnessed on thi slist, only my
humble one gets your attention? Who's obsessed with who now? :)

And about your argument... let's see... you mean that one who is not american
(because I guess that not even a, say, brazilian or an australian, even less a
french or a german, is entitled to write the rules for an american corporation,
following your logic) couldn't actually take part in the group?

Ah, joy of Noa Roman citizenship's rights depending by your RL nationality:
Every civis is equal, but americans are more equal than others?

Luckly, not many share this opinion, I hope *c*

Or maybe you meant that just italians aren't qualified? Or just itlians who
happen have a law degree? Illustrious ideal son of famous ancestor, explain us
your thoughts, so that the hundred or so of Italian cives and the hundreds of
non american cives will know if they can rightly expect to take part to the
legislation of an american corporation or give up such hope :)

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis


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]

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:30 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Working with a future colleague and endorsement for Pompeia


Salve, Flavius Vedius,

Do not be surprised, this is the sort of endorsement that got the
Censor elected. Our recently resigned Censor gave exactly the same
reason for his endorsement of Caeso Fabius. Allmost all of the Former
Censors signed a joint statement saying that the other Candidate was
the most qualified to hold the Job.

The Endorsements for our missing Praetor were of the same sort,
stating how nice he was when they met him at the Europen Rally as
their reason for endorsing him.

A Large segment of Nova Roma's population considers personality to be
more important than "minor" maters like Qualifications.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
<germanicus@g...> wrote:

> I mean absolutely no disrespect to the man who has borne upon his
shoulders the burdens of what I have already described as the most
onerous job in the Republic, but I confess neither of those questions
sprang to my mind. Indeed, the only question that did so was, "who
would be a better person for the job, and better serve the Republic as
Censor?"
>
> And the answer I came up with was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for the
reasons I stated earlier (and I will repeat the admonition that
accompanied that earlier analysis, that it is in no way a vote against
his opponent, but simply a belief that he is the better qualified of
the two for the position).
>
> Now, we may, of course, honorably disagree on the answer to that
question, as men of goodwill can and should. But I hope, on
reflection, you might agree that that is the question the voters
should ask themselves, rather than who you might personally prefer,
since you yourself say you could work equally collegially with either.
>
>
>
> Di vos incolumes custodiant,
>
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>
> Pater Patriae
>
>
>
> [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]

> LEquitiusCincinnatusAugur ConsulisMarinoQuiritibusquesalutemdicit
>
> I believe that something of this nature ought to be first considered by

> Senate (this of course includes present magistrates) and the College
> Pontificium.
>
> Of course any decision to change or amend would have to be ratified by the
> Centuries, so in effect every one has a say. I'm quite in agreement with
> Cordus that the Constitution has several flaws that need addressing.
>
> Valete

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pat <p-mclaughlin@c...> wrote:
> M Umbrius Ursus to A Apollonius Cordus and to all others, greetings,
>
> >Your tone is, I regret to say, becoming distinctly
> >unfriendly, which is a shame because I have taken
> >great efforts to keep personalities and personal pride
> >out of this discussion so far. Implying that my
> >colleagues and I are fools to even try to address this
> >problem is hardly likely to make us more amenable to
> >listening to reasonable criticisms, is it?
>
> I assure you that my tone is nothing of the sort. I assure you
that you
> have mistaken -- courtesy of this charming medium -- my ironic and
> bantering tone for a hostile one.
>
> I long made my living as an editor. Nuances and ambiguities (and
errors)
> of wording are something that I've honed my awareness of, and am
plagued by
> (I can't read the morning paper without spotting any number of
flaws,
> problems and defects). Thus my observation on the edict. It
wasn't
> intended to mock you or the edict.
>
> My apologies for the affront you feel you suffered.
>
> As I said from the beginning, I appreciate and laud the goal of
seeing that
> votes are cast properly and counted, and that people are not
unjustly
> denied the vote.
>
> However, I feel it more important that votes are lawful than that
they are
> counted. I suppose someone who couldn't master the cista as we
have it
> now--someone profoundly baffled by computers, perhaps--might send
an email
> to the rogatores directly, stating their votes and their
intentions. Would
> you then count it? I suppose it's a question of where emphasis it
put. If
> someone fills a ballot and leaves the station without turning it
in, and
> someone finds it later... what should be done?
>
> Rights imply duties and obligations. The right to vote is
sacrosanct, but
> the obligation is, I think, to vote in accordance with the laws and
the mos
> maiorum. There are reasons for not having everyone voting when the
cista
> is opened, and regrettably, the edict diminishes those objectives.
>
> >The polls are demonstrably open to all, for we are
> >receiving votes from all. Furthermore, the relevant
> >edict, issued by the presiding magistrate, declared
> >simply that voting would begin on the 21st. It did not
> >mention for whom it would begin. So both factually and
> >legally the polls are open for all: the question is
> >whose vote shall be counted, and how, and when.
>
> Indeed. I certainly would not suggest that things were perfect
before your
> edict. I recognize that your intentions were lofty, and that there
are
> problems that ought to be solved.
>
> A lex obliging the magistrate calling an election to include, as a
matter
> of proper and legal form, the information about when the cista is
open and
> for whom... and how to determine whether you are part of one of the
classes
> of voters who may vote early... would seem reasonable and
appropriate. And
> yes, there's no way to graft that onto the current election; I'm
not trying
> to correct this election's problems in mid flight at this point.
>
> >We would love to do this, but it is not in our power
> >to do it. We do not control the cista, so we cannot
> >rig it so that it only accepts valid votes. We cannot
> >contact the voters, because we do not know their
> >identities. We can do absolutely nothing to stop these
> >irregular votes arriving in our inboxes. We just have
> >to decide what to do with them, and we cannot ignore
> >our responsibility to make that decision.
>
> I understand that you are not omnipotent or omniscient in these
matters,
> and never imagined that you were. You're in a limited position,
trying to
> do your best.
>
> It may boil down to a difference of perspective. I wish to see all
who can
> vote voting, and having their votes counted. But only insofar as
those
> votes are proper and lawful. Otherwise you--rogatores--are in the
awkward
> position of having to decide if that is a hanging chad or not. I
would
> rather not put that burden on you more than is absolutely
necessary. My
> own perception is that a vote is only valid if the voter votes at a
lawful
> time. For those who are not of the classes permitted to vote
early, I feel
> that the votes ought to be held -- with profound regret --
> illegitimate. They are truly no different than those cast before
the cista
> is opened for votes, something which you agreed should not be
counted.
>
> But I understand that someone might hold a ballot in higher esteem
and feel
> that the lawful boundaries set in time for its casting ought to be
stretched.
>
> >We equally do not deny that we are almost the worst
> >people to attempt to solve this problem, since we do
> >not have adequate powers to solve it satisfactorily.
> >But we are on the spot, and no one with adequate
> >powers comes forward to solve the problem for us, so
> >we are saddled with it. If you do not like our
> >solution, then by all means appeal for a veto, and
> >there will be no hard feelings. But please acknowledge
> >that we at least have tried in good faith to do
> >something, which is more than anyone else has.
>
> I grant all those. I do not feel that you have acted with malice
or
> corrupt intentions; I acknowledge that you have been acting in good
> faith. I have at least raised the question of a veto, and it
appears that
> the problems are not considered serious and pressing enough to
justify a
> veto. And that's fine too.
>
> > > People who can't figure out when they're supposed to
> > > vote... the IDEA that
> > > they'll be paying close attention to the results of
> > > the tally of the 9th
> > > Century and might consider going back to revise
> > > their votes... I think
> > > that's absurd. Risible.
> >
> >Well, I'm glad it affords you amusement, but I really
> >don't know how you can come to that conclusion based
> >on anything other than prejudice, for there is
> >absolutely no evidence either way. The evidence will
> >be available at the end of this election, but not
> >before. You may be right, but at the moment you are
> >doing nothing more than speculating.
>
> I think that it is only marginally plausible that people who cannot
be
> bothered to pay enough attention to notice that only SOME people
are
> supposed to be voting, or to check that they are actually in the
class of
> people who should be voting, will nevertheless have saved their
voter
> number (whatever the proper term is for it) and will notice that it
is
> listed as having voted improperly (early). I find it implausible
that
> those who cannot be bothered to pay attention to the forms and
details of
> when they should vote will pay attention to the notice from the
rogatores
> that some have voted improperly... and decide to revote after
paying
> attention to the results of those who properly voted before them.
>
> Prejudice? Perhaps, but hardly in the maleficent sense that you
appear to
> imput. When faced with a class of persons who are clearly,
provably, not
> paying enough attention, the idea that they will be paying close
attention
> in the same general context soon thereafter seems... a reasonable
> assumption. To assume otherwise seems entirely hopeful, but bereft
of any
> tangible basis for that hope.
>
> Indeed, the evidence from this election will provide some proof. I
simply
> believe that lacking that evidence, my assumption is based on more
> substantial -- though far from conclusive -- evidence. I think
that there
> is evidence--whereas you seem to feel there is none.
>
> In closing, I have no intention to defame you, injure your
reputation or
> otherwise harm you. My remarks were more in the vein of a certain
ironic
> detachment. I foresee no results arising from this election likely
to
> seriously injure the res publica in any manner which would not be
easily
> and swiftly correctable, and am content that it continue.
>
> Pax, I hope.
>
> Vale,
> M Umbrius Ursus

>
> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section

> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of which

> College is supreme.
> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I said, "As you

> suggest".
> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't understand

> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to

> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question anyone else's
> motives...
>
> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris

On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 01:25 AM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato Augur S.D.
>
> salve, Equitius Cincinnatus.
>
> With all due respect, and as a member of your own gens, I must
> disagree. Once again, there seems to be a sense of soft-shoe-ing it
> around the religio. The College of Pontiffs has no greater say than
> any other group of Nova Romans in how or why the Constitution should
> or should not be amended. They are counted as citizens, and no more,
> as it should be. Perhaps this reluctance to let the people choose
> for themselves without hindrance or fear is a by-product of the
> practitioners of the religio's fear that some unexpected wave of anti-
> religio-ness will sweep the religio out of its position of favor. I
> can only say that I, as a faithful macronational member of that
> Church which itself strove with all its might, victoriously, to
> destroy the religio, suppress its followers and eradicate its places
> of worship, acknowledge and support the place of the religio as a
> fundamental *part* of the existence of Nova Roma. In all honesty, I
> do not believe that there is a Nova Roman who is more completely
> diametrically opposed to the religio in private practice than I am,
> but I have sworn several times, on this List, to uphold and defend it
> in public for the benefit of the State.
>
> For some of our citizens it may be the case that if it were not for
> the religio, Nova Roma would mean nothing. For others, myself
> included, the ideals behind the existence of the State are much more
> varied and, in my opinion, interesting. But because I recognize that
> Nova Roma is a safe harbor and fertile ground for those who practice
> the religio in the face of an hostile and often bitterly adversarial
> world, I stand beside them in support of their journey on the path
> that leads them to the Divine, because they are my fellow-citizens,
> or (as Cordus puts it so neatly) "fellow peregrines".
>
> The Constitution, however, is an impersonal document, recognizing no
> difference between citizens by virtue of their own power, but only
> the powers that they are granted, through it, by the citizens of Nova
> Roma. Gnaeus Equitius Marinus' imperium does not exist because he is
> in and of himself an extraordinary human being (although he may in
> fact very well be); his imperium is granted by virtue of his office
> as designated by the Constitution. The members of the College of
> Pontiffs have no sacerdotal authority above any other citizen --- I
> myself happen to be a macronationally-ordained member of the
> priesthood --- outside of that authority granted them by the
> Constitution. As you yourself pointed out, there is a whole section
> of the Constitution devoted to the religio --- and from this section,
> the religio derives its authority in the State.
>
> For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) the religio derives
> its authority from the Constitution, NOT the other way around.
>
> vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>>
>> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section
> of said
>> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of which
> the
>> College is supreme.
>> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I said, "As you
> seem to
>> suggest".
>> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't understand
> what your
>> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to
> question the
>> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question anyone else's
>> motives...
>>
>> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
>> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
>> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
>> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 09:30 PM, Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> Salve, Flavius Vedius,
>
> Do not be surprised, this is the sort of endorsement that got the
> Censor elected. Our recently resigned Censor gave exactly the same
> reason for his endorsement of Caeso Fabius. Allmost all of the Former
> Censors signed a joint statement saying that the other Candidate was
> the most qualified to hold the Job.
>
> The Endorsements for our missing Praetor were of the same sort,
> stating how nice he was when they met him at the Europen Rally as
> their reason for endorsing him.
>
> A Large segment of Nova Roma's population considers personality to be
> more important than "minor" maters like Qualifications.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
> <germanicus@g...> wrote:
>
>> I mean absolutely no disrespect to the man who has borne upon his
> shoulders the burdens of what I have already described as the most
> onerous job in the Republic, but I confess neither of those questions
> sprang to my mind. Indeed, the only question that did so was, "who
> would be a better person for the job, and better serve the Republic as
> Censor?"
>>
>> And the answer I came up with was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for the
> reasons I stated earlier (and I will repeat the admonition that
> accompanied that earlier analysis, that it is in no way a vote against
> his opponent, but simply a belief that he is the better qualified of
> the two for the position).
>>
>> Now, we may, of course, honorably disagree on the answer to that
> question, as men of goodwill can and should. But I hope, on
> reflection, you might agree that that is the question the voters
> should ask themselves, rather than who you might personally prefer,
> since you yourself say you could work equally collegially with either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Di vos incolumes custodiant,
>>
>>
>>
>> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>>
>> Pater Patriae
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> Salve Cato ~
>
> While it's true that Religio practitioners are no different than

> other Citizen, do I really need to point out that the College of
> Pontiffs are in a leadership position and therefore should

> have participation in any Constitutional discussions? The

> may be an "impersonal document", but it is far from being a purely
> secular document.
>
> Furthermore, there are traditional aspects to the various

> that are directly Religio-related: If we are to strive for a more
> Historically correct Nova Roma then we NEED the input from the CP

> make sure we are as accurate as we can be: While some aspects of
> Republican Rome may be arbitrary in origin, most of the Traditions

> into being for a good reason, and many of those reasons were

> in nature.
>
> Once you acknowledge that some things are Religious in nature,

> you can see that we need Religious Authorities to tell us which

> can NOT be changed (being Religious in origin & given the

> the Religio), and which things CAN be changed.
>
> Almost everyone agrees that the current Constitution is flawed and
> needs some changes. Well, the only way that any changes are going

> actually pass is for them to satisfy as many Citizens as possible;
> Which means the changes can NOT be offensive to the Religio

> The only way to assure THAT, is to get some serious Religio input
> throughout the process.
>
> I could go on and on, stating other reasons, but these really

> sufficient. For reasons Religious, Historical, and Pragmatic, the

> must be included in any Constitutional process. So please

> your stance.
>
> Vale
> ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
>
> On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 01:25 AM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
>
> > G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato Augur S.D.
> >
> > salve, Equitius Cincinnatus.
> >
> > With all due respect, and as a member of your own gens, I must
> > disagree. Once again, there seems to be a sense of soft-shoe-ing

> > around the religio. The College of Pontiffs has no greater say

> > any other group of Nova Romans in how or why the Constitution

> > or should not be amended. They are counted as citizens, and no

> > as it should be. Perhaps this reluctance to let the people choose
> > for themselves without hindrance or fear is a by-product of the
> > practitioners of the religio's fear that some unexpected wave of

> > religio-ness will sweep the religio out of its position of

> > can only say that I, as a faithful macronational member of that
> > Church which itself strove with all its might, victoriously, to
> > destroy the religio, suppress its followers and eradicate its

> > of worship, acknowledge and support the place of the religio as a
> > fundamental *part* of the existence of Nova Roma. In all

> > do not believe that there is a Nova Roman who is more completely
> > diametrically opposed to the religio in private practice than I

> > but I have sworn several times, on this List, to uphold and

> > in public for the benefit of the State.
> >
> > For some of our citizens it may be the case that if it were not

> > the religio, Nova Roma would mean nothing. For others, myself
> > included, the ideals behind the existence of the State are much

> > varied and, in my opinion, interesting. But because I recognize

> > Nova Roma is a safe harbor and fertile ground for those who

> > the religio in the face of an hostile and often bitterly

> > world, I stand beside them in support of their journey on the path
> > that leads them to the Divine, because they are my fellow-

> > or (as Cordus puts it so neatly) "fellow peregrines".
> >
> > The Constitution, however, is an impersonal document, recognizing

> > difference between citizens by virtue of their own power, but only
> > the powers that they are granted, through it, by the citizens of

> > Roma. Gnaeus Equitius Marinus' imperium does not exist because

> > in and of himself an extraordinary human being (although he may in
> > fact very well be); his imperium is granted by virtue of his

> > as designated by the Constitution. The members of the College of
> > Pontiffs have no sacerdotal authority above any other citizen ---

> > myself happen to be a macronationally-ordained member of the
> > priesthood --- outside of that authority granted them by the
> > Constitution. As you yourself pointed out, there is a whole

> > of the Constitution devoted to the religio --- and from this

> > the religio derives its authority in the State.
> >
> > For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) the religio

> > its authority from the Constitution, NOT the other way around.
> >
> > vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section
> > of said
> >> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of

> > the
> >> College is supreme.
> >> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I said, "As

> > seem to
> >> suggest".
> >> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't

> > what your
> >> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to
> > question the
> >> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question anyone

> >> motives...
> >>
> >> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> >> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
> >> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
> >> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> G. Equitius Cato S. Equitio Mercurio Troianus S.D.
>
> salve, Mercurius Troianus.
>
> I did not mean to imply that the CP should have no input

> I only meant that their input, while valued and indeed sought, must
> needs not have any greater impact by *necessity* than the input of
> any number of other citizens. While I absolutely recognize the
> interconnectedness of the State and the religio, in point of fact
> when dealing with the Constitution there is no inherently more
> correct view; it is a matter for the citizens to decide.
>
> I mean no disrespect towards the religio or its practitioners under
> any circumstances; but there *must* be a line drawn between the
> authority of the CP and the right of a citizen (practitioner or

> to excercize his or her Constitutionally-guaranteed privileges.

> Constitution is religiously blind: it must treat any and all

> who approach it on exactly the same terms.
>
> vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius

> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> > Salve Cato ~
> >
> > While it's true that Religio practitioners are no different than
> any
> > other Citizen, do I really need to point out that the College of
> > Pontiffs are in a leadership position and therefore should
> CERTAINLY
> > have participation in any Constitutional discussions? The
> Constitution
> > may be an "impersonal document", but it is far from being a

> > secular document.
> >
> > Furthermore, there are traditional aspects to the various
> Magistracies
> > that are directly Religio-related: If we are to strive for a more
> > Historically correct Nova Roma then we NEED the input from the CP
> to
> > make sure we are as accurate as we can be: While some aspects of
> > Republican Rome may be arbitrary in origin, most of the

> came
> > into being for a good reason, and many of those reasons were
> religious
> > in nature.
> >
> > Once you acknowledge that some things are Religious in nature,
> surely
> > you can see that we need Religious Authorities to tell us which
> things
> > can NOT be changed (being Religious in origin & given the
> prominence of
> > the Religio), and which things CAN be changed.
> >
> > Almost everyone agrees that the current Constitution is flawed

> > needs some changes. Well, the only way that any changes are

> to
> > actually pass is for them to satisfy as many Citizens as

> > Which means the changes can NOT be offensive to the Religio
> Voters.
> > The only way to assure THAT, is to get some serious Religio input
> > throughout the process.
> >
> > I could go on and on, stating other reasons, but these really
> should be
> > sufficient. For reasons Religious, Historical, and Pragmatic,

> CP
> > must be included in any Constitutional process. So please
> reconsider
> > your stance.
> >
> > Vale
> > ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> >
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 01:25 AM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
> >
> > > G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato Augur S.D.
> > >
> > > salve, Equitius Cincinnatus.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, and as a member of your own gens, I must
> > > disagree. Once again, there seems to be a sense of soft-shoe-

> it
> > > around the religio. The College of Pontiffs has no greater say
> than
> > > any other group of Nova Romans in how or why the Constitution
> should
> > > or should not be amended. They are counted as citizens, and no
> more,
> > > as it should be. Perhaps this reluctance to let the people

> > > for themselves without hindrance or fear is a by-product of the
> > > practitioners of the religio's fear that some unexpected wave

> anti-
> > > religio-ness will sweep the religio out of its position of
> favor. I
> > > can only say that I, as a faithful macronational member of that
> > > Church which itself strove with all its might, victoriously, to
> > > destroy the religio, suppress its followers and eradicate its
> places
> > > of worship, acknowledge and support the place of the religio as

> > > fundamental *part* of the existence of Nova Roma. In all
> honesty, I
> > > do not believe that there is a Nova Roman who is more completely
> > > diametrically opposed to the religio in private practice than I
> am,
> > > but I have sworn several times, on this List, to uphold and
> defend it
> > > in public for the benefit of the State.
> > >
> > > For some of our citizens it may be the case that if it were not
> for
> > > the religio, Nova Roma would mean nothing. For others, myself
> > > included, the ideals behind the existence of the State are much
> more
> > > varied and, in my opinion, interesting. But because I

> that
> > > Nova Roma is a safe harbor and fertile ground for those who
> practice
> > > the religio in the face of an hostile and often bitterly
> adversarial
> > > world, I stand beside them in support of their journey on the

> > > that leads them to the Divine, because they are my fellow-
> citizens,
> > > or (as Cordus puts it so neatly) "fellow peregrines".
> > >
> > > The Constitution, however, is an impersonal document,

> no
> > > difference between citizens by virtue of their own power, but

> > > the powers that they are granted, through it, by the citizens

> Nova
> > > Roma. Gnaeus Equitius Marinus' imperium does not exist because
> he is
> > > in and of himself an extraordinary human being (although he may

> > > fact very well be); his imperium is granted by virtue of his
> office
> > > as designated by the Constitution. The members of the College

> > > Pontiffs have no sacerdotal authority above any other citizen --

> I
> > > myself happen to be a macronationally-ordained member of the
> > > priesthood --- outside of that authority granted them by the
> > > Constitution. As you yourself pointed out, there is a whole
> section
> > > of the Constitution devoted to the religio --- and from this
> section,
> > > the religio derives its authority in the State.
> > >
> > > For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) the religio
> derives
> > > its authority from the Constitution, NOT the other way around.
> > >
> > > vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire

> > > of said
> > >> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of
> which
> > > the
> > >> College is supreme.
> > >> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I said, "As
> you
> > > seem to
> > >> suggest".
> > >> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't
> understand
> > > what your
> > >> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to
> > > question the
> > >> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question anyone
> else's
> > >> motives...
> > >>
> > >> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > >> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
> > >> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
> > >> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

----- Original Message -----
From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"

I mean absolutely no disrespect to the man who has borne upon his shoulders
the burdens of what I have already described as the most onerous job in the
Republic, but I confess neither of those questions sprang to my mind.
Indeed, the only question that did so was, "who would be a better person for
the job, and better serve the Republic as Censor?"


I'm not generally in favour of 'me too' posts but I have to say I absolutely
agree with this. In every election I've ever voted in, whether in nova Roma
or my local polling station I've always voted for the candidate I thought
most suited for the job. I've never once dreamed of asking who would those
in power prefer to work with. I mean no disrespect but that notion sits just
a tad uncomfortably with me. a sort of 'now you've voted me in, get my pals
too and we'll form a cosy little club'

And again I totally agree, from everything I've read and seen discussed,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla seems by far the best qualified for the post. I also
firmly believe, following Gaius Iulius Scaurus's arguments that, under the
current circumstances, he would be the preferable candidate in accordance
with the mos maiorum and be the more acceptable to the Di Immortales.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The CP in Constitutional Discussions


G. Equitius Cato S. Equitio Mercurio Troianus S.D.

salve, Mercurius Troianus.

I did not mean to imply that the CP should have no input whatsoever.
I only meant that their input, while valued and indeed sought, must
needs not have any greater impact by *necessity* than the input of
any number of other citizens. While I absolutely recognize the
interconnectedness of the State and the religio, in point of fact
when dealing with the Constitution there is no inherently more
correct view; it is a matter for the citizens to decide.

I mean no disrespect towards the religio or its practitioners under
any circumstances; but there *must* be a line drawn between the
authority of the CP and the right of a citizen (practitioner or not)
to excercize his or her Constitutionally-guaranteed privileges. The
Constitution is religiously blind: it must treat any and all citizens
who approach it on exactly the same terms.

vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> Salve Cato ~
>
> While it's true that Religio practitioners are no different than
any
> other Citizen, do I really need to point out that the College of
> Pontiffs are in a leadership position and therefore should
CERTAINLY
> have participation in any Constitutional discussions? The
Constitution
> may be an "impersonal document", but it is far from being a purely
> secular document.
>
> Furthermore, there are traditional aspects to the various
Magistracies
> that are directly Religio-related: If we are to strive for a more
> Historically correct Nova Roma then we NEED the input from the CP
to
> make sure we are as accurate as we can be: While some aspects of
> Republican Rome may be arbitrary in origin, most of the Traditions
came
> into being for a good reason, and many of those reasons were
religious
> in nature.
>
> Once you acknowledge that some things are Religious in nature,
surely
> you can see that we need Religious Authorities to tell us which
things
> can NOT be changed (being Religious in origin & given the
prominence of
> the Religio), and which things CAN be changed.
>
> Almost everyone agrees that the current Constitution is flawed and
> needs some changes. Well, the only way that any changes are going
to
> actually pass is for them to satisfy as many Citizens as possible;
> Which means the changes can NOT be offensive to the Religio
Voters.
> The only way to assure THAT, is to get some serious Religio input
> throughout the process.
>
> I could go on and on, stating other reasons, but these really
should be
> sufficient. For reasons Religious, Historical, and Pragmatic, the
CP
> must be included in any Constitutional process. So please
reconsider
> your stance.
>
> Vale
> ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
>
> On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 01:25 AM, gaiusequitiuscato wrote:
>
> > G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato Augur S.D.
> >
> > salve, Equitius Cincinnatus.
> >
> > With all due respect, and as a member of your own gens, I must
> > disagree. Once again, there seems to be a sense of soft-shoe-ing
it
> > around the religio. The College of Pontiffs has no greater say
than
> > any other group of Nova Romans in how or why the Constitution
should
> > or should not be amended. They are counted as citizens, and no
more,
> > as it should be. Perhaps this reluctance to let the people choose
> > for themselves without hindrance or fear is a by-product of the
> > practitioners of the religio's fear that some unexpected wave of
anti-
> > religio-ness will sweep the religio out of its position of
favor. I
> > can only say that I, as a faithful macronational member of that
> > Church which itself strove with all its might, victoriously, to
> > destroy the religio, suppress its followers and eradicate its
places
> > of worship, acknowledge and support the place of the religio as a
> > fundamental *part* of the existence of Nova Roma. In all
honesty, I
> > do not believe that there is a Nova Roman who is more completely
> > diametrically opposed to the religio in private practice than I
am,
> > but I have sworn several times, on this List, to uphold and
defend it
> > in public for the benefit of the State.
> >
> > For some of our citizens it may be the case that if it were not
for
> > the religio, Nova Roma would mean nothing. For others, myself
> > included, the ideals behind the existence of the State are much
more
> > varied and, in my opinion, interesting. But because I recognize
that
> > Nova Roma is a safe harbor and fertile ground for those who
practice
> > the religio in the face of an hostile and often bitterly
adversarial
> > world, I stand beside them in support of their journey on the path
> > that leads them to the Divine, because they are my fellow-
citizens,
> > or (as Cordus puts it so neatly) "fellow peregrines".
> >
> > The Constitution, however, is an impersonal document, recognizing
no
> > difference between citizens by virtue of their own power, but only
> > the powers that they are granted, through it, by the citizens of
Nova
> > Roma. Gnaeus Equitius Marinus' imperium does not exist because
he is
> > in and of himself an extraordinary human being (although he may in
> > fact very well be); his imperium is granted by virtue of his
office
> > as designated by the Constitution. The members of the College of
> > Pontiffs have no sacerdotal authority above any other citizen ---
I
> > myself happen to be a macronationally-ordained member of the
> > priesthood --- outside of that authority granted them by the
> > Constitution. As you yourself pointed out, there is a whole
section
> > of the Constitution devoted to the religio --- and from this
section,
> > the religio derives its authority in the State.
> >
> > For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) the religio
derives
> > its authority from the Constitution, NOT the other way around.
> >
> > vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section
> > of said
> >> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of
which
> > the
> >> College is supreme.
> >> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I said, "As
you
> > seem to
> >> suggest".
> >> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't
understand
> > what your
> >> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to
> > question the
> >> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question anyone
else's
> >> motives...
> >>
> >> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> >> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
> >> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
> >> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


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]

> L Equitius: Since you need to ask this it's obvious you don't really
> understand Roman thought, or it's system of governing, at all. We Romans
> don't distinguish between "spiritual matters" and the governing of the
> state. In fact they are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. The
> Religio is also the main reason for Nova Roma's incorporation as has been
> attested by the founders. We are here to reestablish the bond between Di
> Imortales and mankind.

>L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section of said
>Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of which the
>College is supreme.

>Honestly, I don't understand what your
>problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to question the
>College having a say?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> I believe that this is the second time on the mainlist that a certain
> individual has called me a hypocrite. I find this term insulting
and I am publicly
> calling on the Consuls (or whoever is acting for the Praetors) to do
something
> to rein in the behavior of the individual who cannot engage in any
form of
> intelligent debate or discourse without eventually lapsing into
insulting and
> crude language. Most individuals on this list can go for weeks
without dropping
> into the use of unpleasant, vulgar, or crude language and it is
usually a
> momentary lapse rather than a habit. Any person who continually
feels the need to
> continue to use such juvenile epitaphs should be warned and, if this
form of
> behavior continues, put on moderated status. It is of little
surprise that we
> have only slightly over 200 active members when a person holding
positions at
> the highest levels of Nova Roma can freely engage in such behavior
without
> something being done about it.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> First of all, Drusus, Quintilianus stated that BOTH Candidates are
> qualified ~ Are you saying that Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo isn't
> qualified?
>
> You claim that much of Nova Roma chooses personality over
> qualifications, yet Quintilianus didn't say anything about PMTS's
> personality. Still, you imply that this is the sort of endorsement
> that Quintilianus was making, and indeed that it was this sort of
> endorsement that got Quintilianus his job in the first place.
>
> In fact, Drusus, you imply a lot but state very little. Implications,
> innuendo, and misstatements with scarcely a straightforward declarative
> sentence in your whole Post. Contemptible, while your spelling errors
> are at times laughable ~ ' "minor" Maters' looks like you're referring
> to underaged Mothers!
>
> ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 09:30 PM, Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> > Salve, Flavius Vedius,
> >
> > Do not be surprised, this is the sort of endorsement that got the
> > Censor elected. Our recently resigned Censor gave exactly the same
> > reason for his endorsement of Caeso Fabius. Allmost all of the Former
> > Censors signed a joint statement saying that the other Candidate was
> > the most qualified to hold the Job.
> >
> > The Endorsements for our missing Praetor were of the same sort,
> > stating how nice he was when they met him at the Europen Rally as
> > their reason for endorsing him.
> >
> > A Large segment of Nova Roma's population considers personality to be
> > more important than "minor" maters like Qualifications.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus"
> > <germanicus@g...> wrote:
> >
> >> I mean absolutely no disrespect to the man who has borne upon his
> > shoulders the burdens of what I have already described as the most
> > onerous job in the Republic, but I confess neither of those questions
> > sprang to my mind. Indeed, the only question that did so was, "who
> > would be a better person for the job, and better serve the Republic as
> > Censor?"
> >>
> >> And the answer I came up with was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for the
> > reasons I stated earlier (and I will repeat the admonition that
> > accompanied that earlier analysis, that it is in no way a vote against
> > his opponent, but simply a belief that he is the better qualified of
> > the two for the position).
> >>
> >> Now, we may, of course, honorably disagree on the answer to that
> > question, as men of goodwill can and should. But I hope, on
> > reflection, you might agree that that is the question the voters
> > should ask themselves, rather than who you might personally prefer,
> > since you yourself say you could work equally collegially with either.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Di vos incolumes custodiant,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> >>
> >> Pater Patriae
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> Avete Omnes,
>
> I disagree, Nova Roma is a religious organization as much as it is

>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gaiusequitiuscato
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:26 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The CP in Constitutional Discussions
>
>
> G. Equitius Cato S. Equitio Mercurio Troianus S.D.
>
> salve, Mercurius Troianus.
>
> I did not mean to imply that the CP should have no input

> I only meant that their input, while valued and indeed sought,

> needs not have any greater impact by *necessity* than the input

> any number of other citizens. While I absolutely recognize the
> interconnectedness of the State and the religio, in point of fact
> when dealing with the Constitution there is no inherently more
> correct view; it is a matter for the citizens to decide.
>
> I mean no disrespect towards the religio or its practitioners

> any circumstances; but there *must* be a line drawn between the
> authority of the CP and the right of a citizen (practitioner or

> to excercize his or her Constitutionally-guaranteed privileges.

> Constitution is religiously blind: it must treat any and all

> who approach it on exactly the same terms.
>
> vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius

> <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
> > Salve Cato ~
> >
> > While it's true that Religio practitioners are no different

> any
> > other Citizen, do I really need to point out that the College

> > Pontiffs are in a leadership position and therefore should
> CERTAINLY
> > have participation in any Constitutional discussions? The
> Constitution
> > may be an "impersonal document", but it is far from being a

> > secular document.
> >
> > Furthermore, there are traditional aspects to the various
> Magistracies
> > that are directly Religio-related: If we are to strive for a

> > Historically correct Nova Roma then we NEED the input from the

> to
> > make sure we are as accurate as we can be: While some aspects

> > Republican Rome may be arbitrary in origin, most of the

> came
> > into being for a good reason, and many of those reasons were
> religious
> > in nature.
> >
> > Once you acknowledge that some things are Religious in nature,
> surely
> > you can see that we need Religious Authorities to tell us which
> things
> > can NOT be changed (being Religious in origin & given the
> prominence of
> > the Religio), and which things CAN be changed.
> >
> > Almost everyone agrees that the current Constitution is flawed

> > needs some changes. Well, the only way that any changes are

> to
> > actually pass is for them to satisfy as many Citizens as

> > Which means the changes can NOT be offensive to the Religio
> Voters.
> > The only way to assure THAT, is to get some serious Religio

> > throughout the process.
> >
> > I could go on and on, stating other reasons, but these really
> should be
> > sufficient. For reasons Religious, Historical, and Pragmatic,

> CP
> > must be included in any Constitutional process. So please
> reconsider
> > your stance.
> >
> > Vale
> > ~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
> >
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 01:25 AM, gaiusequitiuscato

> >
> > > G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato Augur S.D.
> > >
> > > salve, Equitius Cincinnatus.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, and as a member of your own gens, I must
> > > disagree. Once again, there seems to be a sense of soft-shoe-

> it
> > > around the religio. The College of Pontiffs has no greater

> than
> > > any other group of Nova Romans in how or why the Constitution
> should
> > > or should not be amended. They are counted as citizens, and

> more,
> > > as it should be. Perhaps this reluctance to let the people

> > > for themselves without hindrance or fear is a by-product of

> > > practitioners of the religio's fear that some unexpected wave

> anti-
> > > religio-ness will sweep the religio out of its position of
> favor. I
> > > can only say that I, as a faithful macronational member of

> > > Church which itself strove with all its might, victoriously,

> > > destroy the religio, suppress its followers and eradicate its
> places
> > > of worship, acknowledge and support the place of the religio

> > > fundamental *part* of the existence of Nova Roma. In all
> honesty, I
> > > do not believe that there is a Nova Roman who is more

> > > diametrically opposed to the religio in private practice than

> am,
> > > but I have sworn several times, on this List, to uphold and
> defend it
> > > in public for the benefit of the State.
> > >
> > > For some of our citizens it may be the case that if it were

> for
> > > the religio, Nova Roma would mean nothing. For others, myself
> > > included, the ideals behind the existence of the State are

> more
> > > varied and, in my opinion, interesting. But because I

> that
> > > Nova Roma is a safe harbor and fertile ground for those who
> practice
> > > the religio in the face of an hostile and often bitterly
> adversarial
> > > world, I stand beside them in support of their journey on the

> > > that leads them to the Divine, because they are my fellow-
> citizens,
> > > or (as Cordus puts it so neatly) "fellow peregrines".
> > >
> > > The Constitution, however, is an impersonal document,

> no
> > > difference between citizens by virtue of their own power, but

> > > the powers that they are granted, through it, by the citizens

> Nova
> > > Roma. Gnaeus Equitius Marinus' imperium does not exist

> he is
> > > in and of himself an extraordinary human being (although he

> > > fact very well be); his imperium is granted by virtue of his
> office
> > > as designated by the Constitution. The members of the

> > > Pontiffs have no sacerdotal authority above any other

> I
> > > myself happen to be a macronationally-ordained member of the
> > > priesthood --- outside of that authority granted them by the
> > > Constitution. As you yourself pointed out, there is a whole
> section
> > > of the Constitution devoted to the religio --- and from this
> section,
> > > the religio derives its authority in the State.
> > >
> > > For better or worse (depending on your viewpoint) the religio
> derives
> > > its authority from the Constitution, NOT the other way around.
> > >
> > > vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire

> > > of said
> > >> Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions,

> which
> > > the
> > >> College is supreme.
> > >> Really, you accuse me of something other than what I

> you
> > > seem to
> > >> suggest".
> > >> If I have something to say, I say it. Honestly, I don't
> understand
> > > what your
> > >> problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to
> > > question the
> > >> College having a say? You haven't seen fit to question

> else's
> > >> motives...
> > >>
> > >> Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> > >> Senator Consularis, Pontifex,
> > >> Paterfamilias Equitii, Lictor Curiata,
> > >> Censor emeritus, Scriba Censoris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> 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 Equitio Cato Augur
>
> > L Equitius: Since you need to ask this it's obvious you don't really
> > understand Roman thought, or it's system of governing, at all. We

> > don't distinguish between "spiritual matters" and the governing of the
> > state. In fact they are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. The
> > Religio is also the main reason for Nova Roma's incorporation as

> > attested by the founders. We are here to reestablish the bond

> > Imortales and mankind.
>
> I will ignore the first part of your unneedingly hostile and crude

> just posted another article in reply to Troianus where I explained

> in my own opinion of course, doesn't have the right of preminence in

> the matters that a Constitutional Convention would address, so I

> repeat myself.
>
> I will, indeed, concentrate on another part of your reply "We Romans

> distinguish between "spiritual matters" and the governing of the state."
>
> Now, I do and frankly I believe romans did as well, at least from a

> on, otherwise they would have neatly put the governing of the city

> the hands of the pontifices as they were eminently practical people

> have seen as a redundance having civil magistrates and the pontifices.
>
> But anyway, let's say for a moment that Romans really believed, as

> the absolute equivalency of religious and civil matters... I do not.

> means, under your view, that I'm not a Roman (and I mean it

> geographically). Very well. Now, this "you do not think as I do,

> not a roman" is one of the NR versions of the infamous "I'm holier

> argument which is generally nauseabund, but also somewhat

> not a Roman either, as Romans believed firmly in things (that I

> or I'm sure another "strawman! strawman!" argument would be born

> the waters muddy) in which, I hope, you do not believe.
>
> The sad truth, augur, is that we all are Nova Romans and that Nova

> Roman are not and will never be the same thing. The fact you believe

> firmly than me (and others) in a specific aspect that formed the Roman
> mentality doesn't make you more roman than me, as it is very well

> I believe more firmly than you in another aspect that composed the

> Roman mentality.
>
> Sure, you could engage in a "I'm more adherent to the Roman spirit

> contest if you please, but I'd decline that, firstly because we'd have a
> problem finding an arbiter who could claim to have an authority on

> and secondly, again, because I find the "I'm holier than you"

> whichever form it presents itself, a nauseating and generally

>
> Not only that, but also a harm to Nova Roma. Any time you, or

> such argument (other forms of this argument are the

> matter what, less an investment in Nova Roma, we practiioners, on

> hand..." or "non-practitioners will not, no matter what, achieve

> they lack a fundamental part of the Roman spirit, while we

> you create a prejudice that put the ones feeling like falling under the
> prejudice in a defensive attitude, and generally makes the climate

> worse.
>
> So, maybe I'm not a "Roman" (but picture myself with a smile as I

> augur) and you can keep engaging in that "we romans do this, you, on

> handÂ…" arguments, but consider the ridicule grounds of your position

> consequences of doing it.
>
> >L Equitius: If you haven't noticed yet there is an entire section

> >Constitution devoted to the Religio and it's institutions, of which the
> >College is supreme.
>
> I did notice, augur, you were the one not noticing that I said "I

> understand (actually, it's probably necessary) consulting the

> and if the part of the Constitution relatd to Religio was to be

> You actually even quoted it, so i have to assume you failed to read

> twice.
>
> >Honestly, I don't understand what your
> >problem is, I'd ask you what you think gives you any right to

> >College having a say?
>
> I've replied to that in the mail to Troianus, I shall not repeat it.
>
> Vale
>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis

> Seperation of "Church" and state was an alien concept to the Romans.
>
> To a large extent the Roman republic was a Theoracy ruled by the Gods
> with the elected magistrates acting as the representives of the
> Immortals, but subject to having their actions vetoed by Auspicies and
> Prodigies.
>
> Drusus