A. Apollónius Cordus Ti. Galerió Paulínó omnibusque
sal.

I quite agree, and have indicated my reasons to
tribúna Májor. Regrettably, however, the majority of
the tribúní have determined otherwise. Where do we go
from here?

Only a tribúnus plébis can hold an election for the
tribúnátus. Presumably the tribúní who believe there
is no vacancy will not hold an election. If tribúna
Májor wishes, she may hold an election, but we may
wonder whether her colleagues would veto any attempt
to do so. So the ball is currently in the court of the
tribúna; after that it will be in her colleagues'.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Decime Iuli,

Welcome to Nova Roma!

You asked:

> One question though, can anyone point me to any source concerning
> Roman marriage and the customs involved? Thanks in advance.

I can provide several. Why don't you start with this:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Matrimonium.html

That should acquaint you with most of the things you're wondering about. Drop
me a note after you've read it and let me know if you have more questions.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Corde et Paulineque;
Saturninus was immediately admitted back once 3 had agreed so he has
effectively been co-opted. I also am quite sure that any action of
mine in re a tribunian election would have been vetoed as well.
bene valet
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollónius Cordus Ti. Galerió Paulínó omnibusque
> sal.
>
> I quite agree, and have indicated my reasons to
> tribúna Májor. Regrettably, however, the majority of
> the tribúní have determined otherwise. Where do we go
> from here?
>
> Only a tribúnus plébis can hold an election for the
> tribúnátus. Presumably the tribúní who believe there
> is no vacancy will not hold an election. If tribúna
> Májor wishes, she may hold an election, but we may
> wonder whether her colleagues would veto any attempt
> to do so. So the ball is currently in the court of the
> tribúna; after that it will be in her colleagues'.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Mistress (gesture of respect if you were not aware (Grin!!!) Maior;

Please do not let Pontiff S-----'s vulgarities upset you. Everyone with
the slightest bit of intellelcet is fully aware that relying upon such
childish devices as name-calling simply reflects upon the caller and
and the medium, not the named.

When I read his message I assumed something of the sort and again as
Pontiff Athanasios has indicated names cannot hurt a person who knows
the names are lies. The only hurt established is to the Pontiff and to
the Religio that he professes to hold so dear. Those Pontiffs who truly
hold thier belifs seriously know this, and sooner or later enough of
them will come to realize the damage the little boy is doing and muzzle
him. Personally any guidance I need regarding the Religio, I usually
get from either the Pontifex Maximus or other Pontiffs that I trust, and
so what he has to say is of little consequence either to me or to those
who like myself want to be an active part of Nova Roma without being
forced into a belief system that is not part of our determinations.

My thanks for your kind words and your continuing support.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I was i formed that the Main List had calmed down quitea bit since I
last visited it for any length of time, but apparently the list is no
longer monitored for unacceptable language. I have never been attacked
previously and personnally by Pontiff S---------, and I really had some
doubts about what was said in regard to his postings. My doubts have
been taken away, and so I believe that I shall withdraw once again until
the "freedom of speech" here is not quite so free.

You have my apologies for withdrawing, but I do not myself use that kind
of language before women and younger people and I do not wish to stay
where it is freely used.

I am sure that my friends will notify me if anything of any impotance is
said that needs my attention.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

Salve Tribune M. Arminia Maior

Thank you for your posting and you dedication to the rule of law in Nova Roma. I am afraid your fellow Tribunes have made a mistake. I hope a solution to it can be found in Roman or Nova Roman law.

And yes I was pleasantly surprised that you were the dissenting vote.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
"An election for Tribune must be held"

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Vacancy in the Tribuneship



Salve Tiberi Galeri;
I am the dissenting tribune which might surprise many. But Iusticia
must be blind. I agree with you entirely. There are a couple of
legal arguments but I found as well as Cordus, who pointed me to
history against the co-option of the Tribunes by Trebonius &
Duellius Livy Book 3,64.
Here is my legal opinion

1. I the law is silent as to the resignation of a magistracy.

2. when the law is silent we look to the example and practice of
republican rome.

3. the example of Trebonius & Duellius. During the first 45 years of
the tribunate, tribunes could be co-opted but after 448 B.C. and for
the rest of the entire tribunate there was no co-option. Tribunes had
to be elected. This is a very powerful historical example.

4. Now you and Cordus make the fine argument that Saturninus
resigned his magistracy separately so that the citizenship law does
not apply, and I agree.
That means permitting Saturninus back is co-option.

5. now citizenship is a grant of the state, so Saturninus & applying
this citizenship law is fine, but the power and position of the
tribunate derives from a grant by the people, I regard it as a
violation and against democratic practice to let a resigning tribune
come back without letting the plebs decide.

so these are some of my thoughts, I regard it as a serious issue
and bad practice, the example of Scaurus and Laenas as precedent are
bad ones. I definitely disagree with the idea to enact a law
permitting resigning magistrates to return in 9 days.
bene vale
M. Arminia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ



I do not how the Tribunes or anyone could have come to this
conclusion when in fact if you read his resignation letter he
resigned his OFFICES first and then his citizenship. I frankly do
not think it matters which order one resigns the effect is the same
but at least in this manner he was a former Tribune when he resigned
his citizenship.
>
> Post # 32025
>
> ...."I will unsubscribe from all the mailing lists so there is no
point of making any public non-sense about this. I resign from all
my posts and my citizenship.
>
> Valete,
> Caius Curius Saturninus...
>
> We had this debate last year when a member of the Nova Roma Senate
resigned his citizenship and his offices including a life appointment
to the Senate. He could cancel his citizenship resignation but had to
be put back in the Senate by the Censors.
>
> A resignation from office takes effect immediately , one from
citizenship has a grace period.
>
> Nova Roman law only allows a reconsideration of the resignation of
citizenship but it does not have a grace period for a magistracy or
any political office.
>
> The law States
>
> Lex Cornelia et Maria de civitate eiuranda
>
> Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in paragraph
II.A.4. of the constitution of Nova Roma, is effected by notification
to the censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses.
Messages posted to e-mail lists or to electronic message boards, or
statements of intent to resign citizenship made "live" meet the
requirement for three witnesses to a resignation if and only if three
witnesses to the resignation notify the Censors thereof within 72
hours of the initial proclamation. Individuals wishing to resign
their citizenship may contact the censors directly and obviate the
need for witnesses.
>
>
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of the censors being
notified, counting inclusively of the date of the notification. If,
during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty, except as defined in the next paragraph. The citizen
can withdraw the resignation by notifying the censores of his/her
desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
he/she used to submit the resignation. For example, if a citizen
submits a message to the e-mail address of the censores, currently
censors@n...<mailto:censors@n...>, stating that he/she resigns, then
the citizen must e-mail the Censores by the same address to withdraw
the resignation.....
>
>
> One is entitled to come back as a citizens within the nine day
grace period but not as a Tribune or any other office.
>
> Romans we need to do better than this. If the people want to return
Caius Curius Saturninus to office they can vote to do so but an
election must be held.
>
> Caius Curius Saturninus is a good Roman but this issue is about the
rule of law and not about the individual.
>
> And lastly if the Lex already allows for a nine day grace period
for magistrates, which it does not, why have a number of senior
magistrates suggested today to "fix" it so it does.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-
Roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)"
<mjk@d<mailto:mjk@d>...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > Well no surprises here. That nine day cooling off period has been
a
> > good mechanism for NR in my opinion. Tribune Saturninus is
certainly
> > not the first of our valued citizens to say he resigned and
quickly
> > reconsider, nor shall he be the last. It is said that important
> > decisions from family to business should never be taken on any
type
> > of emotional highs or lows as well as any other types of stress
or
> > frustrations without such time frames to enable one to reconsider
> > and weigh his options. My compliments to the writers of our laws
> > that obviously took this into consideration.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-
Roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Domitus Constantinus Fuscus"
> > <dom.con.fus@e<mailto:dom.con.fus@e>...> wrote:
> > > Salve citizens of Nova Roma
> > >
> > > In the past 3 days, as you can imagine, the Tribunes have
> > discussed about
> > > Caius Curius Saturninus's position in the Tribunate following
his
> > > citizenship's resignation and its subsquent withdrawal.
> > >
> > > Having looked at the relevant Nova Roman legislation and the
> > precedents
> > > regarding the case, having in the process contacted the
Censores
> > in order
> > > to gain some relevant informations needed to reach their
> > conclusions, the
> > > four Tribunes found themselves of the opinion, with one
dissenting
> > voice,
> > > that Caius Curius Saturninus has to be considered as having
never
> > resigned
> > > his office.
> > >
> > > We have thus proceeded to enrol him on the tribunician mailing
> > list and he
> > > has taken his place among us with full capacity, powers and
> > potestas.
> > >
> > > We Tribunes invite everyone wishing to have more informations
on
> > this
> > > position to contact us either using the
tribunes@n<mailto:tribunes@n>... address or
> > > by addressing directly any of the tribunes, who will then
report
> > the
> > > questions or comments to his colleagues.
> > >
> > > On behalf of the Tribunes,
> > >
> > > Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
> > > PF Constantinia
> > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > Aedilis Urbis
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Salve,

Just to let you know I did get your email about the missing edict
and I replied but your email bounced. I must have missed the edict
in all the turn over rush. It is now posted. I haven't posted the
latest one yet. I will be doing that and some other things this
weekend.

Vale,

Calvus

Bet it would help even more if I wrote to whom this was addressed.
<GRIN>

-- Calvus

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

>
> Salve,
>
> Just to let you know I did get your email about the missing edict
> and I replied but your email bounced. I must have missed the

edict

> in all the turn over rush. It is now posted. I haven't posted

the

> latest one yet. I will be doing that and some other things this
> weekend.
>
> Vale,
>
> Calvus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

>> It will be hard, not to say impossible, to find anyone as well
> qualified as he is.
>
> With this I am happy to fully endorse the election of Q. Cassius
> Calvus as Magister Aranearius for the year 2758 A.U.C.
>

Salve,

Nah, I can think of a few people off the top of my head that are
more qualified than I, but they don't seem to be interested in the
job so your stuck with me. I hope Nova Romans don't get into the
habit of thinking, "Oh Calvus will run again if no one comes forward
in the fall, don't worry," because someday I just might decide to
run for something else.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Pro lege Iunia 19 october 2752 a.u.c. de iusiurando,

Pro Constitutione Novae Romae maxime capitibus IV.A.7.h ac IV.A.9,

Pro edicto Tribuni Plebis P. Minii Albucii a.d. V Id. Ian. 2758 a.u.c. de creatione accenso,

Ego, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, hac re ipsa decus Novae Romae me defensurum, et semper pro populo senatuque Novae Romae acturum esse sollemniter iuro.

Ego, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, officio Viatoris tribunicii Novae Romae accepto, deos deasque Romae in omnibus meae vitae publicae temporibus culturum, et virtutes Romanas publica privataque vita me persecuturum esse iuro.

Ego, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, Religioni Romanae me fauturum et eam defensurum, et numquam contra eius statum publicum me acturum esse, ne quid detrimenti capiat iuro.

Ego, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, officiis muneris Viatoris tribunicii me quam optime functurum esse praeterea iuro.

Meo civis Novae Romae honore, coram deis deabusque populi Romani, et voluntate favoreque eorum, ego munus Viatoris tribunicii una cum iuribus, privilegiis, muneribus et officiis comitantibus accipio.

Datum Edmonton, a.d. Id. Ian. anno MMDCCLVIII a.u.c.

Fr. Apulo Caesari et Ga. Popillio Laenati consulibus



OATH

Whereas this oath is issued for purposes according to the rules and purposes of :

- Oath Iunia act 19 october 2752 a.u.c.,

- Constitution of Nova Roma, particularly its articles IV.A.7.h and IV.A.9,

- Appointment of a Assistant Tribune Edict issued by Tribune of the Plebs P. Minius

Albucius, Jan 9, 2005,

I, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a Assistant Tribune (viator) of Nova Roma, I, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, further swear to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Assistant Tribune (viator) to the best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the position of Assistant Tribune (viator) and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

Issued in Edmonton, Canada,

the thirteenth of January, 2005 C.E. (Jan 2005, 13th),

during the consulship of Fr. Apulus Caesar and Ga. Popillius Laenas




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Salve! cityzen. I am new at this group and I want to
join you. how do i become a citizen of SPQR
--- Chris <jojobean20@...> wrote:

>
>
> I would like to take this oppurtunity as officially
> a new citizen of
> Nova Roma and thank those who have taken the time to
> talk to me and
> help my application for citizenship be approved
> despite a recent law
> concerning new citizenship applications. I would've
> posted
> yesertday, but had some problems with the board it
> has been
> resolved, though....obviously. Apparently, I had to
> reactivate my
> account. No clue why. I will try my best to be as
> active as
> possible, but due to macroworld issues, like all of
> us, there will
> be times of absence. No worries, I will give notice
> of any long
> term absence. I have an AOL IM account : Decimus
> Iulius79 and I can
> sometimes be reached on MSN Messenger:
> jojobean20@... Feel
> free to email me, message me or whatever.
>
> One question though, can anyone point me to any
> source concerning
> Roman marriage and the customs involved? Thanks in
> advance.
>
> Valete,
> Decimus Iulius Caesar
>
> p.s. Forgive my Latin, I'm still getting used to it.
> I hope to
> learn much more soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Please have a look at the attached file.


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

Salve Tribune Maior,

I do believe that your intercessio is way too late.

The Senate discussions took place between January 4
and January 7, so your intercession is 6 days too
late, since it appeared 3 days after the voting was
completed.

For an edict, the time limit is 72 hours from
issuance, for an election or a proposed law, the
intercession must take place during the contio, howver
long that may be.

Your intercession should have taken place during the
Senate discussions (which is a Senate Contio!) and not
6 days after the discussions were completed & 3 days
after the voting was completed & a day or two after
the results were posted to the main list by your
colleague.

So I think that the discussion of whether or not you
had the right to intercede is a moot point because you
are too late to intercede.

Vale,
Diana



--- Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete Metelle, Pompeia et omnes;
> first, Cordus caught this and wrote to me, the
> Senate was already
> voting and I'd just returned Sunday night & had to
> deal with the
> legal ramifications of the Saturninus affair ( I was
> the dissenting
> vote.)
> So though I'd much prefer to have talked amicably
> with our good
> Consules & told them so privately, it was too late.
>
> Here are the legal reasons offered by Cordus and
> with which I
> entirely agree after research;
>
> 1. why is the Senate approving a lex when it does
> not have the power
> or the right to approve, make or repeal leges.
>
> 2. Now if this is passed unchallenged, there is a
> precedent, that in
> the future the 'lex de imperio' to be valid must be
> approved by the
> Senate.
>
> 3. The precedent gives the Senate power to reject
> curule magistrates
> elected by the Comitia
>
> So you see how a harmless 'oh it's just patrem
> auctoritas' can be a
> dangerous precedent.
> I hope I've been clear why this is a really
> serious matter and an
> infringement of the powers fo the Plebs,
> optime valete
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP
> Propraetrix Hiberniae
> caput Officina Iuriis
> et Investigatio CFQ
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Salve Consules,

> Consul Apulus has decided to accept the intercessio
> because he
> considers these concerns to be valid and to
> overshadow the original
> reasons for placing the item on the Senate agenda.
> I am in full
> agreement with him.

The point remains that this intercessio is nearly a
week too late and so is not valid.

Vale,
Diana

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Salve Audens,

> Diana;
>
> The term "Mistress" was meant as a term of respect.
> It was not meant as
> an indication of any particular favors. Since you
> do not recognize it
> as such I shall not use it were it is inappropriate.

Thank you! I appreciate it. 'Diana' is just fine.
'Mistress' means something else in Europe...

Vale,
Diana



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

---LOL!

It is just 0525 am and I'm not quite awake...and I was scratching my
head thinking....ok, it didn't even register who he was talking
about, Until I read this message, and now I feel better.

Good to know that I'm still tired, but nonetheless functional, given
the work I'm supposed to do today!

Po


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

>
> Bet it would help even more if I wrote to whom this was addressed.
> <GRIN>
>
> -- Calvus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
> <richmal@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Just to let you know I did get your email about the missing

edict

> > and I replied but your email bounced. I must have missed the
> edict
> > in all the turn over rush. It is now posted. I haven't posted
> the
> > latest one yet. I will be doing that and some other things this
> > weekend.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Calvus

Salvete quirites,

Could be another argument to invalidate the intercessio the fact that yesterday was a nesfastus publicus day, and for that reason It cannot legislate in this date?

Vale bene,

A. Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus.


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



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

OSD G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Today is ante diem XIX Kalendas Februarias; the day is Endotercisus,
and a dies ater.

"...His [Quintus Fulvius Nobilior's] defeat on August 23 was so
disastrous that the day on which it occurred was declared a dies
ater, a "black day" and subsequently considered unlucky. Indeed,
Appian relates that no Roman general would willingly initiate a
battle on that day." Dio Cassius, Roman History XXXV.4

"When the third sun looks back on the past Ides,
The rites of Carmenta, the Parrhasian goddess, are repeated.
Formerly the Ausonian mothers drove in carriages
(These I think were named after Evander's mother).
The honour was later taken from them, so every woman
Vowed not to renew their ungrateful husband's line,
And to avoid giving birth, unwisely, she expelled
Her womb's growing burden, using unpredictable force.
They say the senate reproved the wives for their coldness,
But restored the right which had been taken from them:
And they ordered two like festivals for the Tegean mother,
To promote the birth of both boys and girls.
It is not lawful to take leather into her shrine,
Lest the pure hearths are defiled by sacrifice.
If you love ancient ritual, listen to the prayers,
And you'll hear names you've never heard before.
They placate Porrima and Postverta, whether sisters,
Maenalian goddess, or companions in your exile
The one thought to sing of what happened long ago,
The other of what is to happen hereafter ." Ovid, Fasti

"In a short time the Aborigines and Trojans became involved in war
with Turnus, the king of the Rutulians. Lavinia had been betrothed
to him before the arrival of Aeneas, and, furious at finding a
stranger preferred to him, he declared war against both Latinus and
Aeneas. Neither side could congratulate themselves on the result of
the battle; the Rutulians were defeated, but the victorious
Aborigines and Trojans lost their leader Latinus. Feeling their need
of allies, Turnus and the Rutulians had recourse to the celebrated
power of the Etruscans and Mezentius, their king, who was reigning
at Caere, a wealthy city in those days. From the first he had felt
anything but pleasure at the rise of the new city, and now he
regarded the growth of the Trojan state as much too rapid to be safe
to its neighbours, so he welcomed the proposal to join forces with
the Rutulians. To keep the Aborigines from abandoning him in the
face of this strong coalition and to secure their being not only
under the same laws, but also the same designation, Aeneas called
both nations by the common name of Latins. From that time the
Aborigines were not behind the Trojans in their loyal devotion to
Aeneas. So great was the power of Etruria that the renown of her
people had filled not only the inland parts of Italy but also the
coastal districts along the whole length of the land from the Alps
to the Straits of Messina. Aeneas, however, trusting to the loyalty
of the two nations who were day by day growing into one, led his
forces into the field, instead of awaiting the enemy behind his
walls. The battle resulted in favour of the Latins, but it was the
last mortal act of Aeneas. His tomb - whatever it is lawful and
right to call him - is situated on the bank of the Numicius. He is
addressed as 'Jupiter Indiges'." - Livy, History or Rome 1.2

Valete bene!

Cato

Last weekend was the American Institute of Archaeology yearly meeting.
I'd been asked to Present, but didn't think, under the circumstances,
that I could. However, Fionna Mac Nichol managed to plug all the holes
in the Roman Food Demo, and much thanks to her!

We came, They saw, They call us 'Colleagues,", and I'm 'Dr Shaver
,Avocational Reenactor"

Ha!

Salvete Quirites;
yes that was a concern of mine but right now the calendar does not
hold legal force in Nova Roma, meaning actions are not invalidated on
Dies Nefasti. I do try and observe the calendar and one of my
collegeagues is asking the PM about this.
On the note that the intercessio is too late, well I was away in
New York City, and was told this was the cut-off date.
If it is I really have no problem with its invalidity but I do
apologize to the Consules and Senate. It was the issue involved, that
of establishing a precedent, and the subsequent discussion that is of
value.
bene valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pompeianus <iordannes@y...> wrote:

> Salvete quirites,
>
> Could be another argument to invalidate the intercessio the fact

that yesterday was a nesfastus publicus day, and for that reason It
cannot legislate in this date?

>
> Vale bene,
>
> A. Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete iterum
________________________________________________________________________

> From: "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1749
>
>
> G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Lucius Cincinnatus
> snip <
> "L Equitius: Thanks, but something tells me you truly don't respect
> me... noticed that Gens Equitia is devoted to the Relgio and also
> that I was a priest as well, nonne?"
>
> It is entirely possible to respect an individual without agreeing
> with what they say. This idea is lost among many of our citizens,
> so you are not alone in that.

L Equitius: Maybe, but then there are repeated contradiction to a position I
hold. Near total opposition, in fact.

> "[H]onest with" you on my application? Because I didn't say that I
> was against the blasphemy decretum (which I didn't know existed) or
> because I am against religious intolerance?

L Equitius: Neither, but rather this, "You had to have noticed that Gens
Equitia is devoted to the Relgio and also that I was a priest as well,
nonne?"
I certainly would have referred you to a different gens had I known you were
Orthodox Christian, bent on disrupting our work to revive the Religio
Romana.
You are defending a position that would effectively reduce posting of
information about the Relgio Romana. I'm not convinced you are against
religious intolerance, you argue against everything brought up about the
relgio.

> While Senator Audens may have made statements with which I did not
> agree (did you see my comments regarding articles concerning the
> religio to be included in the "Aquila"), the *root* of the problem
> is that certain pontiffs decided to haul out the blasphemy decretum
> with which to threaten him, instead of talking it out (however
> tedious that might have been) in the public forum. That once again
> raised the spectre of the decretum.

L Equitius: There was no threat. Audens was made aware that he was in clear
violation of the Deretum. He changed his position and decided to appoint a
scribe to assist him in those matters that don't interest him (the Relgio
Romana).

Just to be clear, I was the one who brought up the subject of the decretum
to the college in which I was responding to a post by C Modius. I then went
on to ask the Consul to gently remind Audens of this privately, so he
could make necessary changes in his position.
Ah, but Audens could not do that, he had to take the opportunity to make a
*public* spectacle, and make attacks on nameless members of the College,
accusing nameless Pontificies of threats.
I didn't threaten Auden. I asked the Consul to make him aware that his
policy violated the Decretum so he could reconsider it.

________________________________________________________________________

>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:56:14 -0500
> From: MarcusAudens@...
> Subject: An Apology
>
> Senator and Pontiff Cincinnatus;
>
> I am sorry that you feel that I have failed you and the Religio / Nova
> Roma in some way. My actions were done in defense of what I thought to
> be possible recriminations. Despite your bitter comments those
> recriminations in fact came to pass as threats agiainst me, whether you
> wish to credit them or not.

L Equitius: Again you mischaracterize what has transpired. A cursory reading
of my post, which you have conveniently deleted, will surely show that I
responded to your inaccurate presentation.

> We were, I thought, good friends at one time, but it is obvious that I
> was mistaken, and for that I apologize. It was an honest mistake,
> easily made, but a mistake never the less.

L Equitius: Really, you must have known that your propensity to twist facts
and grandstand has become annoying to me and others. I've said so just as
plainly in the Senate many times, just as I've told you to save your
insincere apologies there too.
If you were truly sorry you wouldn't keep doing those things. No, it's all
for show, which is why it is sent to the public forum rather than privately.

> In respect to the remainder of your attempt to destroy my comments, I
> can only say that you certainly have the right to your opinion, as I do
> mine. I do not agree with you, that is obvious, however, I do not
> choose to accuse you or berate you. Your value to Nova Roma is too
> great to allow such.

L Equitius: I simply set the matter in simple terms. You made a statement of
policy that is counter to established rules. I pointed it out. You have no
reason to accuse me, so there is no nobility in refraining from such.

> I am saddened that you have chosen to be an enemy, but if that is your
> wish, as a former friend I will certainly accomodate you.

L Equitius: Now who is making threats? Isn't this interesting?
I hadn't used the term enemy, ever.

> In closing, I have never had the opportuniy to refuse an article in
> either "Eagle" or "Aquila" even closely resembling a "religious
> article" since to my knowledge no-one has seen fit to send me one to
> review. I am not sure what you are speaking about, but whatever it is,
> I did not recieve it, see it, nor do I know anything about it.

L Equitius: Ah, the old my dog ate my homework, my computer it, my wife she,
my kids they excuses.... Oh, I forgot your webtv only stores so many
messages and then deletes them without prejudice. How convenient for you.

> In regard to "personal" messages, as I have said you have your opinion
> and I have mine . Again I simply disagree.
>
> Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

L Equitius: I did more than express opinion. Of course since you deleted my
post in entirety I've not a clue as to what you are referencing. Perhaps
you're confused as to whom you are addressing.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/32319

Or could you mean *private* postings?
Right, as in "let's take this discussion off list."

Valete

Some of us gave sometimes ago advice, and a link, for a desktop architecht theme based on ancient Rome.

Would he be so kind to post the address again?

Thanking him in advance

Gallus Soalris Alexander



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: 3 mesi gratis e navighi a 1.2 Mega. E poi hai l'Adsl senza limiti a meno di 1 euro al giorno.
Abbonati subito senza costi di attivazione su http://www.libero.it

Salve Romans

Would it be to much to ask that the proposed or changes made to the website be placed before the citizens of the Republic for an up or down vote. This is our window on the world and what we had previously ,even with some of its problems was much better than what is now proposed.

The new setup simplify lacks the grace and good looks of what came before. Its boring !

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
" An election for Tribune must be held"

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

Salvete Quirites;
I would like to reply to Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus's charge that
G.Equitius Cato is against the Religio.

As a firm follower and upholder of the Religio, former priestess and
active member at the ADF, I have spoken many times with Cato and have
met him recently at a special dinner that he organized for NR in New
York City,

May I say that the first thing he did at the dinner was to offer a
libation to Apollo.
Cato also posts the religious calendar on our mainpage to the
gratitude of all Religio followers.

I heartily agree with Cato that the use of such things as the
ahistorical blasphemy decree must be abolished.

Religo follwers are being chased away & the entire Religo silenced
for fear of doing something 'wrong' and being accused of blasphemy.

We cannot even have are prayers translated to Latin for fear of the
translators that they will be accused of 'imprudens malo dolo'

So who is the one impeding the growth and dissemination of the
Religio? Quirites is it Cato or Cincinnatus? I leave it to you to
decide.
bene valet
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

I certainly would have referred you to a different gens had I known
you were

> Orthodox Christian, bent on disrupting our work to revive the

Religio

> Romana.
> You are defending a position that would effectively reduce posting

of

> information about the Relgio Romana. I'm not convinced you are

against

> religious intolerance, you argue against everything brought up

about the

> relgio.
>
>

Salve Gali Solari, et salvete quirites,

"sa-mann\@libero\.it" <sa-mann@...> writes:

> Some of us gave sometimes ago advice, and a link, for a desktop architecht
> theme based on ancient Rome.
>
> Would he be so kind to post the address again?

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but we have a Roman Empire themed
Windows desktop available in the files section. If you'll go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/files/ and then scroll down the page
you'll see ROMANEMPIRE.ZIP. If that's what you want you can just download it
to your own computer and try it.

Vale,

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve pontiff, et salvete omnes.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil96@c...>
wrote:

"I certainly would have referred you to a different gens had I known
you were Orthodox Christian, bent on disrupting our work to revive
the Religio Romana...You are defending a position that would
effectively reduce posting of information about the Relgio Romana.
I'm not convinced you are against religious intolerance, you argue
against everything brought up about the relgio."

CATO: This is a very interesting claim, Lucius Cincinnatus. Who is
posting, every single day, the calendar of festivals? Who is
reminding the res publica daily of our religious inheritance? Who is
providing source quotations, references, history regarding the
practices of our forebears? The College of Pontiffs, whose DUTY it
is to do so? No. Our pontiffs are doing nothing, saying nothing
about the religious calendar, with the one exception in which the
Pontifex Maximus announced the Compitalia and two other feriae. And
yet the calendar is appearing every day.

But if the College of Pontiffs has neglected to announce the
calendar, then who is posting it, even if "unofficially"? Who is
attempting to keep our res publica aware of the religious and
historical significance of each day?

I am. An Orthodox Christian who is working to "reduce posting" about
the religio and who "argue[s] against everything brought up about the
religio."

If this is what you mean by "contradicting" you at every turn, Lucius
Cincinnatus, then I most certainly am.

Vale,

Cato

[posted to main NR list with cc to original poster]


Hello Jean,

Welcome to Nova Roma.

JEAN COLLINS <jeancollin23@...> writes:

> Salve! cityzen. I am new at this group and I want to
> join you. how do i become a citizen of SPQR

Go to this website:

http://novaroma.org/citizenshippost112005.htm

From there you can complete the citizenship application process.


Gn. Equitius Marinus
Censor

Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus; salvete, omnes.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:47:38AM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> Would it be to much to ask that the proposed or changes made to the website
> be placed before the citizens of the Republic for an up or down vote. This is
> our window on the world and what we had previously ,even with some of its
> problems was much better than what is now proposed.
>
> The new setup simplify lacks the grace and good looks of what came before. Its
> boring !

Would it be too much to ask that you respect the work that has been put
in by our hard-working webmaster by stating your discontent in less
insulting terms? He's a volunteer who has given his time, despite his
originally-stated desire to be relieved of the post due to macroworld
concerns, but has carried on with the work when no one else came
forward; I believe that his effort deserves respect. You may dislike the
look of the site and call for it to be changed back, but please respect
the man and his effort.

Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nil desperandum!
Never despair!
-- Horace, "Carmina"

Salve Decimus Iulius Caesar,
welcome in Nova Roma, I inserted your e-mail address in my MSN
Messanger, I hope to chat with you asap.
About your membership here, what are your favourite aspects of Roma
Antiqua? And what you would receive from NR?

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Consul

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <jojobean20@h...> wrote:
>
>
> I would like to take this oppurtunity as officially a new citizen
of
> Nova Roma and thank those who have taken the time to talk to me
and
> help my application for citizenship be approved despite a recent
law
> concerning new citizenship applications. I would've posted
> yesertday, but had some problems with the board it has been
> resolved, though....obviously. Apparently, I had to reactivate my
> account. No clue why. I will try my best to be as active as
> possible, but due to macroworld issues, like all of us, there will
> be times of absence. No worries, I will give notice of any long
> term absence. I have an AOL IM account : Decimus Iulius79 and I
can
> sometimes be reached on MSN Messenger: jojobean20@h... Feel
> free to email me, message me or whatever.
>
> One question though, can anyone point me to any source concerning
> Roman marriage and the customs involved? Thanks in advance.
>
> Valete,
> Decimus Iulius Caesar
>
> p.s. Forgive my Latin, I'm still getting used to it. I hope to
> learn much more soon.

Salvete Omnes!

While we are observing heated discussion regarding Religio materials
to the Publication "The Aquila", I would like to respectfully remind
our citizens that there is a distinct yahoo group "aquilaheliaca"
devoted to honoring and conserving the Roman Imperial Eagle.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aquilaheliaca/?yguid=164345709

The group is open to both NR citizens, and non-NR antiquarians,
historians, conservationists, artists and others who admire the noble
raptors which so inspired the Ancients.

We would be most pleased to recieve postings referring to the role of
the Imperial Eagle aquila heliaca, and other raptors, in the Religio.

Without help and public awareness, the living species of the Roman
Imperial Eagle may well go extinct within our lifetimes.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

G. Equitius Cato L. Equitio Cincinnato quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Lucius Equitius et salvete omnes.

Just to make one thing absolutely clear: Lucius Equitius is no
longer my paterfamilias; I am paterfamilias of my own familia, the
Equitia Catoni, having emancipated myself some months ago.

Anyone interested in becoming an Equitius Catonianus is certainly
welcome; I make no judgements about an individual's private religious
beliefs even if they are not the same as my own. I have learned at
least that much.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve Luci Equiti, et salvete quirites,

Lucius Equitius <vergil96@...> writes:

[to Cato]

> I certainly would have referred you to a different gens had I known you
> were Orthodox Christian, bent on disrupting our work to revive the
> Religio Romana.

While Cato is an Orthodox Christian, I'm hard pressed to see where he's bent
on disrupting anybody's efforts to revive the Religio Romana. In my
experience he's been very respectful of the Religio, and has made quite an
effort to study it carefully. No, he's not going to leave his Orthodox
church any time soon, but I've never seen him say or do anything that would
disrupt the revival of the Religio here.

> You are defending a position that would effectively reduce posting of
> information about the Relgio Romana.

Again, I just don't see it. Perhaps you've seen something I haven't?

> I'm not convinced you are against
> religious intolerance, you argue against everything brought up about the
> relgio.

He argues many points of interpretation, but that's not opposition to the
Religio. That's scholarly discussion and debate, which is something we're
all supposed to be here for.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

Salve Tribunus Maoir Fabiana,
I would only say that there are a couple of little errors in the
following Intercessio. First of all, the intercessio is not against
me, it's against a rule issued by the Senatus. I only inserted the
item in the Agenda, the responsability is in the hands of our
Illustri Senatores. So, as said by Fabiana, I didn't issued any
edictum.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Consul

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Avete Quirites;
> Forgive the reposting, but at one point I use the term 'edict'
when
> Senatus Consulta is meant.
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > INTERCESSIO EDICT
> > Edictum de Intercessione
> >
> > EX OFFICIO TRIBUNI PLEBIS M. ARMINIAE MAIORI
> >
> > In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specifically Article
> > VII.a related to intercessio;
> >
> > In view of the Constitution of Nova Roma, specifically Article
V
> > related to the Senate and Article III related to the Comitia,
> >
> > Whereas paragraph III of the Constitution defines the powers
of
> the
> > Comitia, especially in law-making;
> >
> > Whereas the Constitution of Nova Roma does not provide the
power,
> > either in paragraph III or any other part, for the Senate to
make,
> > approve or repeal laws.
> >
> > Considering that the Senatus Consulta of Consul Fr. Apulus
Caesar
> on
> > Jan. 10 at 6:55 p.m. registers the approval by the Senate of
> the "Lex
> > Curiata de Imperio" passed by the Comitia Curiata at the end of
> > December 2757 a.u.c.;
> >
> > Considering that the Senate has approved a law duly passed and
> > proclaimed by a comitia evoked in paragraph III of the
> Constitution;
> >
> > Whereas paragraph V of the Constitution, concerning the Senate,
> does
> > not give this assembly the power to make, approve or repeal
laws
> > (called in Latin lex/leges);
> >
> > Considering that this infringement may provide a precedent
> whereby
> > the Senate in the future may have the power to reject curule
> > magistrates properly elected by Comitia;
> >
> > I, M. Arminia Maior Fabiana, Tribune of the Plebs in office
> > according to the Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma:
> >
> > Article 1: Opposes, by the present edict, my veto to this
Senatus
> Consulta
> > proclaimed by Consul Fr. Apulus Caesar on Jan. 10th at 6:55 p.m.
> > registering the approval by the Senate of the "Lex Curiata de
> Imperio"
> > passed by the Comitia Curiata at the end of December 2757 a.u.c.
> >
> > Article 2: this veto is an intercession according to the
> > Constitution and the laws of Nova Roma.
> >
> > Issued this day, the 13th, January in the first year of the
> > Consulate of Fr. Apulus Caesar and G. Popillius Laenas

Salvete Omnes,
my colleague Consul Laenas is correct, this was the reason because I
inserted the item in the senatorial Agenda.

Maybe I should correct my words saying that I wouldn't "accept" the
intercessio, I would mean that I don't oppose myself to the
intercessio by Fabiana. It's a reasonable action and in my opinion
only a theorical matter.

In any way, as said by Consul Laenas, I thank very much the Illustri
Tribunes for their good job. Only I would invite they all to contact
me privatly during the discussions about the laws and not after
their publication. A close and friendly collaboration is more useful
and permise to loose no time. I'll be ever available and happy yo
talk eith the Tribunes and discuss our reasons. At the end I'm a
plebeian and a former Tribunus... :-)

Thank you again.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Consul


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas"
<ksterne@b...> wrote:

>
> Gaius Popillius Laenas Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit,
>
> Conusl Fr. Apulus Caesar and I have discussed this matter between

our

> selves and with the Tribunes via M. Arminia Maior Fabiana.
>
> Consul Apulus originally introduced the agenda item as an exercise

of

> the 'patrem auctoritas', the ancient prerogative of the Senate to
> review proposed legislation for proper spelling and appropriate

legal

> references. There is some historical precedent for this.
>
> However, once the Senate agenda was made public, the concerns Marca
> Arminia outlines below were raised. The primary concern being the
> setting of a precedent whereby the Senate might be seen as having

the

> power to approve or reject a lex, which has been duly passed by

comitia.

>
> These concerns were made know to both Consuls informally by cives

as

> well as formally, and vert respectfully, by the Tribunes via M.
> Arminia Maior Fabiana.
>
> Consul Apulus has decided to accept the intercessio because he
> considers these concerns to be valid and to overshadow the original
> reasons for placing the item on the Senate agenda. I am in full
> agreement with him.
>
> I am sure he will share with me in thanking the Tribunes for their
> diligence, professionalism, and respect in the way they have

handled

> the matter.
>
> Valete,
>
> G. Popillius Laenas
> Consul
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Metelle, Pompeia et omnes;
> > first, Cordus caught this and wrote to me, the Senate was

already

> > voting and I'd just returned Sunday night & had to deal with the
> > legal ramifications of the Saturninus affair ( I was the

dissenting

> > vote.)
> > So though I'd much prefer to have talked amicably with our

good

> > Consules & told them so privately, it was too late.
> >
> > Here are the legal reasons offered by Cordus and with which I
> > entirely agree after research;
> >
> > 1. why is the Senate approving a lex when it does not have the

power

> > or the right to approve, make or repeal leges.
> >
> > 2. Now if this is passed unchallenged, there is a precedent,

that in

> > the future the 'lex de imperio' to be valid must be approved by

the

> > Senate.
> >
> > 3. The precedent gives the Senate power to reject curule

magistrates

> > elected by the Comitia
> >
> > So you see how a harmless 'oh it's just patrem auctoritas' can

be a

> > dangerous precedent.
> > I hope I've been clear why this is a really serious matter

and an

> > infringement of the powers fo the Plebs,
> > optime valete
> > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP
> > Propraetrix Hiberniae
> > caput Officina Iuriis
> > et Investigatio CFQ

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I have recieved several messages in the wake of the wave of insults
direted at me from the Honored Pontiffs of the Religio.

These messages hve asked me to reconsider my leaving the Main List. I
must apologize for my wording. My education or lack of it ofen leads me
into a situation where my poor wording is misunderstood. I have
withdrawn from the Main List Digest only. I beleve as a Senator, to
withdraw completely from the Main Lst would be a violation of my trust
with those Citizens who are my constituents.

However, I believe that I have the right to some control over what comes
into my home, and to endure such insults thee is intolerable to me. I
have been notified that the Main List is indeed monitored and I am
pleased to hear that, unfortunately in my case, it did little good to
prevent what happened -- however I correct my assertion of the moment
when I previously said the ML was not monitored. I am now informed that
it is.

To the Praetors and my friends who have contacted me off List, my thanks
for your trouble and your words. They rest easy on my ear after the
last encounter here.

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens

Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
dicipline.

Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

Salvete Omnes,

What Apollonius Cordus has written is, indeed, somewhat long but
it demonstrates, in detail, what is wrong with the decree. Perhaps
not all of us mentally parse out the sentences to that extent, but
even a focused read of the decree leaves me, for one, feeling as if
I face a veritable chasm made of loopholes I could easily be caught
in for the most well-meant statements. I agree with Apollonius
Cordus that this decree should be corrected, if it is even deemed
necessary, to be less full of loopholes and handy prosecution
opportunities for the enterprising.
I'm somewhat surprised I haven't seem more responses to his
explanation. Personally, I would really like to read other opinions
on this excellent analysis.

Valete,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> A. Apollónius Cordus omnibus sal.
>
> Somebody asked people to give their impressions of the
> blasphemy decree; so to the delight of the few who
> have been waiting for it, and to the dismay of the
> many who would prefer not to know it, here's my view.
>
> The idea that the réligió is the most important or
> fundamental purpose of Nova Róma is not as simple and
> straightforward a proposition as it seems. The
> reconstruction of the réligió pública necessitates the
> existence of a rés pública, and moreover requires that
> that rés pública be recognizably Roman in character.
> Thus to achieve an accurate reconstruction of the
> réligió, with such accommodations to modernity as may
> be needed, one must achieve an accurate reconstruction
> of the rés pública, with such accommodations to
> modernity as may be needed. So far, quite simple.
>
> But the historical rés pública did not exist
> exclusively or even primarily for the benefit of the
> réligió pública. Rather, it was the other way round:
> the réligió pública was an essential and extremely
> important part, but only a part, of the rés pública.
> It was necessary to the survival of the rés pública
> because it ensured that the gods remained friendly
> toward the rés pública. But other things were also
> necessary to the survival of the rés pública. One may
> argue about which was the most important or necessary,
> but all Romans would have agreed that ideally one
> would seek to have all the things necessary.
>
> So we have a contradiction. If restoring the réligió
> is the fundamental goal, then we must restore the rés
> pública. To restore the rés pública, we must accept
> that the réligió pública is not the fundamental goal
> but merely one of the most - perhaps the single most -
> important means to the truly fundamental goal, which
> is the survival of the rés pública itself.
>
> Or, to look at it another way: the purpose of the
> réligió pública is to protect and sustain the rés
> pública. Without this purpose, the réligió pública is
> meaningless. There is simply no point in having a
> réligió pública without a rés pública. But if it is
> acknowledged that the purpose of the réligió pública
> is to protect and sustain the rés pública, then that
> implies that the réligió pública cannot itself be the
> fundamental purpose of the rés pública. If A exists
> for the benefit of B, how can B exist for the benefit
> of A, and vice versa?
>
> This is simply a paradox we have to learn to live
> with. The people who come here for the religion must
> accept that the state is part of that religion, and
> the people who come here for the state must accept
> that the religion is part of the state. Neither can
> exist without the other. Anyone who tries to get rid
> of either will be harming both; anyone who denigrates
> the importance of one is denigrating both. It's time
> to stop talking about which is more fundamental,
> because that leads nowhere. Those who wish to support
> the réligió pública must recognize that the only
> reason for a réligió pública to exist is for the
> benefit of a rés pública, and therefore to claim that
> the réligió pública is more important than the rés
> pública is nonsensical. Similarly, those who wish to
> support the rés pública must recognize that the
> réligió pública is necessary to the wellbeing of the
> rés pública and that support for one involves support
> for the other.
>
> From this it ought to be clear that any attempt to
> radically reshape the state in order to further the
> cause of the réligió is ultimately self-defeating,
> because the form of the state dictates the form of the
> cult which exists for its benefit. Thus such a serious
> departure from historical practice as the blasphemy
> clause and decree (and I don't think anyone doubts
> that they do represent a serious departure) is to be
> avoided if possible. Is it possible? First we have to
> be clear what exactly is meant by protecting the
> réligió.
>
> Firstly, we may say that it is the réligió pública
> which the state is concerned with protecting. Private
> cults are no concern of the state so long as they pose
> no threat to public order or cultural tradition.
> Secondly, it seems reasonable to suggest that
> protecting the state cult involves ensuring that it
> can perform its functions adequately and without
> interference. So what are its functions?
>
> Its primary function is, essentially, to maintain
> harmonious relations between the state and the divine
> world, so that the state remains pleasing to the gods
> and the gods bestow favours on the state accordingly.
> In order to achieve this, the public cult employs
> officers who have religious knowledge and
> understanding. This knowledge and understanding allows
> them both to plase the gods in the most effective ways
> possible and also to advise the other officers of the
> state how to avoid incurring divine displeasure. These
> officers carry out various rites which have proven
> effective in the past, and, if necessary, supervise
> the introduction of new ones.
>
> It is said by various people that the blasphemy clause
> and the blasphemy decree are necessary to protect the
> state cult. Let's look at the clause first, and then
> the decree, since that's the order in which they were
> created. The clause reads:
>
> "Magistrates, Senators, and citizens need not be
> practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not
> engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes
> or defames the Gods, the Religio Romana, or its
> practitioners."
>
> There are some problems in interpreting this sentence.
> First, we have "any activity that intentionally
> blasphemes or defames". How, one may ask, can an
> activity intentionally do anything, since an activity
> is non-sentient and cannot intend anything? Let me
> remind those who regard this as nit-picking that we
> are dealing with legal documents here, and the Roman
> practice was always to interpret legal documents very
> literally. And to those who think that the intended
> meaning is obvious, let me ask: does it mean "may not
> intentionally engage in any activity that blasphemes
> or defames", or does it mean "may not engage in any
> activity with intent to blaspheme or defame"?
>
> Let me illustrate the difference. Let us imagine that
> yawning is an "activity that blasphemes or defames".
> If the meaning is "may not intentionally engage in any
> activity that blasphemes or defames", then a citizen
> may yawn as long as he doesn't mean to, but if he
> intentionally yawns then he has broken the law,
> regardless of whether he meant to blaspheme or not.
> But if it means "may not engage in any activity with
> intent to blaspheme or defame", then a citizen may
> yawn so long as he does not intend to blaspheme or
> defame by doing so.
>
> Then, of course, we want to know what is meant by
> "activity that blasphemes or defames the Gods, the
> Religio Romana, or its practitioners". This is
> difficult for several reasons. For one, "blaspheme" is
> not a transitive verb - it impossible in English to
> blaspheme a thing. This is not a serious problem: it
> just means we must read it as "activity that
> blasphemes, or activity that defames the Gods, the
> Religio Romana, or its practitioners". But what is an
> "activity that blasphemes"? And what, indeed,
> constitutes defamation in this context? It's not hard
> to define what counts as defamation of a human being
> ("its practitioners"), but what counts as defamation
> of an institution ("the Religio Romana") or of a deity
> ("the Gods")? Is it defamation to recount the story
> from Homer of how Ares was caught in flagrante with
> Aphrodite? Is it defamation to say that Vulcan walks
> with a limp or that Mars seduces young girls under
> false pretences? These are all part of the main-stream
> religious and mythological traditions of Graeco-Roman
> culture, but they are not very flattering, to be sure.
>
> So the collégium enacted the blasphemy decree in order
> to clarify and limit the clause. A very laudable
> intention, to be sure, but was it successful? Let's
> look at the decree:
>
> "The College of Pontiffs declare the intent of the
> above constitutional phrase to mean the following:
>
> I. The Religio Romana will not come under attack with
> intent to remove or replace the Religio Romana as the
> State religion of Nova Roma; and that the Religio
> Romana shall not be deliberately slandered, defamed,
> or mocked with intent to undermine its position as the
> State Religion of Nova Roma.
>
> II. No elected official shall use their elected powers
> or political status as a means of working to
> undermine, remove, or replace the Religio Romana as
> the State Religion of Nova Roma.
>
> III. No Citizen or Magistrate shall actively encourage
> public disrespect for the Gods of Rome, or actively
> advocate the non-practice of the Religio Romana no
> matter what their personal beliefs
>
> IV. The above declaration does not indicate individual
> censorship. Comments, questions about the Religio and
> its involvement with the State, or the members of its
> priesthood are encouraged as long as these do not
> escalate into a general public disturbance."
>
> That's part one. Let's go through it more carefully
> now.
>
> "The College of Pontiffs declare the intent of the
> above constitutional phrase to mean the following".
> This is nonsense: an intent cannot have a meaning.
> This sentence must mean either "the College of
> Pontiffs declares the intent of the above
> constitutional phrase to be the following" or "the
> College of Pontiffs declares the above constitutional
> phrase to mean the following". The result is roughly
> the same either way.
>
> "The Religio Romana will not come under attack with
> intent to remove or replace the Religio Romana as the
> State religion of Nova Roma". This seems to mean that
> it is okay to attack the Religio Romana (whatever that
> is - it is not defined) as long as you don't attack it
> with intent to remove or replace it as the state
> religion. Thus we are to understand that blasphemy
> requires two ingredients: first, an attack on the
> Religio Romana; second, intent to remove or replace it
> as the state religion. In the absence of either
> ingredient, we assume, no offence has taken place.
>
> "and that the Religio Romana shall not be deliberately
> slandered, defamed, or mocked with intent to undermine
> its position as the State Religion of Nova Roma".
> Well, let's ignore the "and that", which is
> grammatically illogical and has no clear meaning.
> Again, we have a statement that it is an offence to
> deliberately slander, defame, or mock the Religio
> Romana (still not defined) with intent to undermine
> its position as the state religion. So it is
> acceptable to slander, mock, or defame it, so long as
> you don't do so deliberately; and indeed it is okay to
> deliberately slander, mock, or defame it, so long as
> you don't do so with intent to undermine its position.
>
> "No elected official shall use their elected powers or
> political status as a means of working to undermine,
> remove, or replace the Religio Romana as the State
> Religion of Nova Roma." What are "elected powers"?
> Powers which have received a majority of votes in an
> election? But putting that on one side, this again is
> fairly clear: if you are an elected official, you are
> comitting an offence if you use your official powers
> (presumably that's what it means) or the prestige
> which accompanies your office (presumably the meaning
> of "political status") to undermine the Religio Romana
> or remove it from its position as the state religion
> or replace it as the state religion.
>
> "No Citizen or Magistrate shall actively encourage
> public disrespect for the Gods of Rome, or actively
> advocate the non-practice of the Religio Romana no
> matter what their personal beliefs". There are some
> more problematic phrases here. "Actively encourage" -
> does this mean it's okay to passively encourage?
> "Public disrespect" - does this mean disrespect which
> is exhibited in public (as opposed to disrespect which
> is exhibited in private), or does it mean disrespect
> which is exhibited by the public (as opposed to
> disrespect which is exhibited by specific
> individuals)? The former seems to make more sense. And
> again we have a problem caused by the absence of any
> definition of "Religio Romana". So it seems that what
> we are forbidden to do here is to encourage people to
> show disrespect in public toward the gods, or to say
> that people ought not to practice the Religio Romana.
>
> "The above declaration does not indicate individual
> censorship." This sentence is simply a statement of
> opinion, and is made no more or less true by being
> part of a legal document than the sky would become
> green if we were to pass a léx saying "the sky is
> green". Either the "above declaration" does "indicate
> individual censorship" (whatever that means) or it
> doesn't, regardless of this sentence.
>
> "Comments, questions about the Religio and its
> involvement with the State, or the members of its
> priesthood are encouraged as long as these do not
> escalate into a general public disturbance." The
> punctuation makes this a very odd statement. When read
> grammatically, it says this: "comments are encouraged,
> or questions about the Religio and its involvement
> with the State are encouraged, or members of its
> priesthood are encouraged". Presumably what it means
> is this: "comments about the Religio and its
> involvement with the state are encouraged; questions
> about the Religio and its involvement with the state
> are encouraged; comments about members of the
> priesthood are encourages; questions about members of
> the priesthood are encouraged". Then we have the
> qualification: "as long as these do not escalate into
> a general public disturbance". Again we have the
> ambiguous word "public" (does it mean "in view of
> everyone" or "belonging to the people"?); also we are
> left to guess how exactly a comment or question can
> change into a disturbance (we must assume that
> "escalate into" means "cause" or "give rise to"). So,
> if these various adjustments are made, we find that we
> are encouraged to make comments or questions as long
> as these comments or questions don't cause a
> disturbance.
>
> So let's recap what we are not allowed to do:
>
> 1. Attack the Religio Romana + intend to remove or
> replace it as the state religion.
>
> 2. Deliberately slander, defame, or mock the Religio
> Romana + intend to undermine its position as the state
> religion.
>
> 3. Use our powers or status as elected officials to
> work to undermine, remove, or replace the Religio
> Romana as the state religion.
>
> 4. Encourage people to show disrespect for the gods.
>
> 5. Say that people ought not to practice the Religio
> Romana.
>
> 6. Make comments or ask questions which cause public
> disturbance.
>
> Now, I can live with the first three, because proving
> intent in a court is pretty difficult. But 4, 5, and 6
> are worrying. For instance, if I say "Mars seduces
> girls under false pretences", what is to stop someone
> accusing me of number 4? "Clearly," my accuser could
> argue, "seducing girls under false pretences is not
> something worthy of respect, and surely by making this
> statement you are encouraging other people to show
> disrespect for Mars?" Then again, if I say "the
> blasphemy clause ought to be scrapped" and this causes
> a great hoo-hah on this list, what's to stop someone
> hauling me up on charge number 6? After all, it
> doesn't say "as long as these are not intended to
> cause a general public disturbance", does it? It says
> "as long as these do not escalate into a general
> public disturbance" - and how am I supposed to know
> whether my comments or questions are going to cause a
> public disturbance? And anyone wanting to catch a
> Christian or a Muslim committing 5 would simply have
> to ask, "do you believe in the Roman gods?" "No." "And
> do you believe that people ought to worship them?"
> "No." There you have it - a number 5 has been
> committed.
>
> But let's look at a more important question: do the
> clause and the decree, taken together, do what needs
> to be done - do they protect the réligió pública and
> ensure that it remains able to do its job properly?
>
> Items 1 to 3 in my summary seem to be concerned with
> preserving the status of the réligió as the official
> public cult, which is fair enough; but it must be said
> that there are easier ways of doing this than
> criminalizing those who try to undermine that status.
> Anyone who does actually want to disestablish the
> réligió pública is not likely to be scared by this
> decree, because in order to secure a conviction on
> items 1, 2, or 3 the collégium would have to prove
> intent, and that would be virtually impossible so long
> as the defendant had been moderately careful.
>
> Item 4 is presumably justified by the argument that if
> people show disrespect for the gods then the gods will
> be angry. But if a private individual shows disrespect
> for the gods, surely the gods have enough good sense
> to blame that individual and not the whole state? And
> if someone encourages other people to show disrespect,
> then again surely the gods will not hold the state
> responsible? It is very hard to see why individuals
> should not be allowed to invite the gods' anger on
> themselves without interference from the collégium.
>
> 5 is pretty baffling because of the undefined nature
> of "Religio Romana". Does this mean the réligió
> pública, or the whole gamut of Roman public and
> private religious practices? And either way, what's
> wrong with people encouraging one another not to take
> part in it? What harm does it do to anyone? The public
> cult can operate perfectly well regardless of how many
> people practice the réligió either privately or
> publicly. Again, the gods can deal with people who
> neglect their worship; all the collégium ought to be
> worrying about is making sure the state as a whole
> avoids the anger of the gods, and to that all it has
> to do is its job.
>
> And 6 quite plainly has nothing at all to do with
> religion. It's simply a matter of public order. Are
> the gods offended by public disturbances? They don't
> seem to have had much concern about the public
> disturbances of the late republic, during which they
> bestowed on Rome a string of foreign victories. There
> is no reason, as far as I can see, for the collégium
> to be involving itself in the maintenance of public
> order, particularly not by such a bizarre means as
> punishing people who unintentionally provoke the
> disturbance but not the people who take part in the
> disturbance itself.
>
> So this leaves us with items 1 to 3, which in various
> ways forbid people from attempting to disestablish the
> réligió pública. But is this the most effective way to
> achieve this? There are many other ways. I have
> suggested several in the past, none of which anyone
> has found any flaw in, and all of which would be
> simpler, clearer, more effective, and fairer than the
> blasphemy clause and accompanying decree. Other people
> have suggested others. None of these constructive
> suggestions has been met with any interest by any
> member of the collégium, which leaves one with the
> strong impression that they are more interested in how
> to protect the blasphemy decree than how to protect
> the réligió itself. I hope this is not the case; any
> pontiff wishing to demonstrate that it is not the case
> need do nothing more than engage in constructive
> discussion about what could be done instead of the
> blasphemy decree.
>
> There is much more to be said, but I've already
> written a great deal, so let me come to a conclusion.
> The argument that the blasphemy decree is necessary
> because it is better than the blasphemy clause on its
> own is nullified by the simple observation that it
> would be perfectly possible to get rid of *both* and
> replace them with better measures to achieve the same
> result. The argument that the blasphemy decree is fair
> and reasonable because it gives three warnings is as
> daft as the argument that a law forbidding the wearing
> of socks is fair and reasonable because it gives the
> sock-wearer three opportunities to take his socks off
> before being shot. The argument that the blasphemy
> decree is clear and unequivocal and that those who are
> afraid of it have only to read it to be reassured is
> thoroughly disproved by my sentence-by-sentence
> analysis above. The argument that those who want to
> get rid of the blasphemy clause and decree are
> secretly intent on destroying the réligió is disproved
> by the very fact that no one who is currently
> advocating the abolition of these two texts has yet
> been prosecuted for doing so.
>
> It would be very easy to draw up and set in motion a
> plan which would abolish the clause and the decree
> entirely and replace them with more effective and more
> coherent mechanisms for achieving the same goal. If
> anyone can produce a good reason not to do so, let him
> produce it now.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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

> Salve Romans
>
> Would it be to much to ask that the proposed or changes made to

the website be placed before the citizens of the Republic for an up
or down vote. This is our window on the world and what we had
previously ,even with some of its problems was much better than what
is now proposed.

>
> The new setup simplify lacks the grace and good looks of what came

before. Its boring !

Speaking as a professional web designer (regrettably one with no time
this year to play any great role in the maintenance of our Nova Roma
web site) I would be extremely reluctant to design or re-design a web
site, particularly one as large as ours subject to the vote of the
populus.

When I was scriba to the then Magister Araneum Marcus Octavius
Germanicus, I offered up some samples of a site redesign, as did our
now senior Consul F. Apulus Caesar. Even within the limited confines
of the Nova Roma website discussion group, we did not reach a
concensus on a redesign; pleasing hundreds of users with thousands of
hardware and browser configurations would be impossible!

valete,

--
Julilla Sempronia Magna

Salve, Annia Octavia Indagatrix; salvete, omnes.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 06:39:06PM -0000, aoctaviaindagatrix wrote:
>
> What Apollonius Cordus has written is, indeed, somewhat long but
> it demonstrates, in detail, what is wrong with the decree. Perhaps
> not all of us mentally parse out the sentences to that extent, but
> even a focused read of the decree leaves me, for one, feeling as if
> I face a veritable chasm made of loopholes I could easily be caught
> in for the most well-meant statements. I agree with Apollonius
> Cordus that this decree should be corrected, if it is even deemed
> necessary, to be less full of loopholes and handy prosecution
> opportunities for the enterprising.
> I'm somewhat surprised I haven't seem more responses to his
> explanation. Personally, I would really like to read other opinions
> on this excellent analysis.

I suspect that most us - I am, certainly - are reeling just a bit from
such a complete and precise analysis. :) There's nothing left to say -
and vigorous nodding does not show up well on the ML, since we have not
yet implemented the video protocol here.

I've studied the decree previously, and have quite good reading
comprehension, but I must admit that I did not get quite _all_ the juice
out of it that Apollonius Cordus has (I'm proud to say that I would
still have scored in the 90th percentile if he had written a test. :)
What stopped me from replying - and, again, many others as well in my
opinion - is that "AOL mode" (posts that say nothing more than "Me
too!") are a waste of bandwidth and are typically discouraged on the
Net.

All that is left is to get the system rolling to abolish this dangerous,
arbitrary, pointless, and extremely damaging decree and its parallel in
the Constitution, and to draw up a sensible, clearly-worded replacement
that will protect the Religio _and_ the quirites of Nova Roma.
Apollonius Cordus has mentioned drawing up and setting in motion a plan
to do so, and I applaud and fully support his efforts.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet.
A timid dog barks more violently than it bites.
-- Curtius Rufus

Salvius wrote:

> > As for the invigration...
>
> If that really is a new word I want any royalties
> for having coined
> it.

Hmmm... I'll let you know when they start doing
royalty payments for words, then :)

Livia






___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

>
> Hmmm... I'll let you know when they start doing
> royalty payments for words, then :)

That's happend before. I'm sure I read it somewhere, but I can't
find the book because....err...it fell.....into a volcano.

vale

Salvius

Salve Salvius!

Oh my God! My blueprints for the water-fueled combustion engine fell
into a volcano too! Once again, are we faced with co-incidence ---
or CONSPIRACY?

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "t_octavius_salvius" <fin37@h...>
wrote:

>
>
> >
> > Hmmm... I'll let you know when they start doing
> > royalty payments for words, then :)
>
> That's happend before. I'm sure I read it somewhere, but I can't
> find the book because....err...it fell.....into a volcano.
>
> vale
>
> Salvius

Honored Citizens of Nova Roma;

Once again I am pleased to satnd before you in the white toga of a
Candidae for the above subject office. I am pleased to report again to
those who may have missed it, that the Honored Pontifex Maximus Marcus
Cssius Julianus has been pleased to approve my selection of an "Aquila"
Asst. Editor for the Religio.

This means, of course, that now there are no restrictions to any Religio
articles save for those applied by my new Asst. Edior. I am pleased
that we collectively have been ale to reach this agreement in spite of a
few bumps along the way.

The Religio is an Honored belief system, in my view, and I am pleased to
be able to give it the same respect that I give to any major religous
belief system and to those who are believers as they are able to contain
themselves. This necessity of appointing an Asst. Editor for the
Religio was necessary, in my view, relating to some of our present laws
and the way in which they may be applied.

However, now past that concern, and supported by the Senior Consul in
the effort to bring to you the "Aquila" again this year, I am most
pleased to offer my services again to you the citizens of Nova Roma for
this effort.

I now have most of the material written and editied for the four
different items that I am attempting this yea as the "Aquila" Editor
(Brevis) and I hope that some of you will consider contributing to one
or more of these offerings. You will realize, of course, that the
greater variety of material that is offered, the greater and more widely
pread will be the enjoyment.

I will close now as I have no intention of boring my listeners further,
but I believe that this informaton should get to all Citizens as they
certainly have the right to be aware of the opportunities offered.

This brings to a conclusion this session of my Candidacy talks with you.
My thanks for your very kind attention to this message, and I ask that
you would consider favorably my candidacy for Efitor Commentariorum with
as much gravity as I have sought to invest in it.

Very Respespectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
Candidate for the Magistry of ;

Editor Commentariorum -- "Aquila"


Wishing you all the best, with Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Salve Julilla Sempronia Magna

What I simply meant is the changes that have been posted. A yes or no on these two the new or the old website, as I believe one is better than the other. One of the magistrates could simply put a yahoo poll together that would guide the webmasters between these two choices.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
" An election for Tribune must be held"

----- Original Message -----
From: Julilla Sempronia Magna<mailto:curatrix@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The website



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>, "Timothy P. Gallagher"
<spqr753@m<mailto:spqr753@m>...> wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> Would it be to much to ask that the proposed or changes made to
the website be placed before the citizens of the Republic for an up
or down vote. This is our window on the world and what we had
previously ,even with some of its problems was much better than what
is now proposed.
>
> The new setup simplify lacks the grace and good looks of what came
before. Its boring !

Speaking as a professional web designer (regrettably one with no time
this year to play any great role in the maintenance of our Nova Roma
web site) I would be extremely reluctant to design or re-design a web
site, particularly one as large as ours subject to the vote of the
populus.

When I was scriba to the then Magister Araneum Marcus Octavius
Germanicus, I offered up some samples of a site redesign, as did our
now senior Consul F. Apulus Caesar. Even within the limited confines
of the Nova Roma website discussion group, we did not reach a
concensus on a redesign; pleasing hundreds of users with thousands of
hardware and browser configurations would be impossible!

valete,

--
Julilla Sempronia Magna





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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

T. Octavius Salvius G. Equito Catoni S.P.D.

> Oh my God! My blueprints for the water-fueled combustion engine

fell

> into a volcano too! Once again, are we faced with co-incidence ---

> or CONSPIRACY?

I'd like to believe you, but it just seems too far fetched.

My bet is that it's a Weather Balloon.

Where is this topic going? ;-)

vale

Salvius

Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola


I already did that yesterday and I said not only did I respect the effort I COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
"An election for Tribune must be held"

----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola<mailto:ben@...>
To: Nova-Roma<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The website


Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus; salvete, omnes.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:47:38AM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
> Salve Romans
>
> Would it be to much to ask that the proposed or changes made to the website
> be placed before the citizens of the Republic for an up or down vote. This is
> our window on the world and what we had previously ,even with some of its
> problems was much better than what is now proposed.
>
> The new setup simplify lacks the grace and good looks of what came before. Its
> boring !

Would it be too much to ask that you respect the work that has been put
in by our hard-working webmaster by stating your discontent in less
insulting terms? He's a volunteer who has given his time, despite his
originally-stated desire to be relieved of the post due to macroworld
concerns, but has carried on with the work when no one else came
forward; I believe that his effort deserves respect. You may dislike the
look of the site and call for it to be changed back, but please respect
the man and his effort.

Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nil desperandum!
Never despair!
-- Horace, "Carmina"


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

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

Salve Tiberi Galeri, et salvete quirites,

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus writes:

> What I simply meant is the changes that have been posted. A yes or no on
> these two the new or the old website, as I believe one is better than the
> other. One of the magistrates could simply put a yahoo poll together that
> would guide the webmasters between these two choices.

The webmaster is a magistrate, and I suspect he'd probably not welcome the
'helpful suggestions' of another magistrate who took it upon himself to post
such a poll.

As for the entire idea of asking the people to vote in their tribes or
centuries on the action of a magistrate engaged in the performance of routine
magesterial duty, I have to oppose it. We don't hold a referendum every time
a magistrate publishes an edictum, nor should we. As long as the magistrate
is performing his duty (in this case maintaining the website) then it's
pretty much a matter of asking politely, or seeking Tribunician intercessio,
or finding a candidate who favors the other design to run against the current
webmaster. If we start to second-guess every magisterial decision we become
more like Greeks engaged in Direct Democracy than Romans.

Valete quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve Q. Cassius Calvus

I did not mean to insult you or the work you do or have done for the
Republic. If I have you have my sincere apologies.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus









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

> Salve Tiberi Galeri, et salvete quirites,
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus writes:
>
> > What I simply meant is the changes that have been posted. A yes

or no on

> > these two the new or the old website, as I believe one is better

than the

> > other. One of the magistrates could simply put a yahoo poll

together that

> > would guide the webmasters between these two choices.
>
> The webmaster is a magistrate, and I suspect he'd probably not

welcome the

> 'helpful suggestions' of another magistrate who took it upon

himself to post

> such a poll.
>
> As for the entire idea of asking the people to vote in their

tribes or

> centuries on the action of a magistrate engaged in the performance

of routine

> magesterial duty, I have to oppose it. We don't hold a referendum

every time

> a magistrate publishes an edictum, nor should we. As long as the

magistrate

> is performing his duty (in this case maintaining the website) then

it's

> pretty much a matter of asking politely, or seeking Tribunician

intercessio,

> or finding a candidate who favors the other design to run against

the current

> webmaster. If we start to second-guess every magisterial decision

we become

> more like Greeks engaged in Direct Democracy than Romans.
>
> Valete quirites,
>
> -- Marinus

Well I for one would like to say to the webmaster that I like the new layout. Caught me off guard when I first saw it. I think its pretty cool. Of course I have my opinions on what I'd wish was done differently or things I'd like to see. But the web design is beyond me at this time so who am I to criticize....beggars can't be choosers....

Cornelianus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!

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

> So who is the one impeding the growth and dissemination of
> the Religio? Quirites is it Cato or Cincinnatus? I leave it
> to you to decide.

Just because I think what you're insinuating is complete and total bovine
excrement, let me just say that Cincinnatus is not impeding the growth of
the Religio. In fact, I don't think it's either of the two citizens you
present. Give the Quirites a clean slate, and let them make their own
decisions, Tribune.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus

Salve,

I may be on tonight, I have no clue though. I have some things to
attend to after work tonight, but I'm usually a night owl anyways.
The aspects of Roma Antiqua I tend to study is mainly the culture
and it's religion. Military comes in second. I hope to gain more
of an understanding of what my ancestors experienced under the Roman
Empire. Schools can only teach us so much, but things like this
need a more hands on experience to understand fully. To me it's
kind of like just reading a book on computer, but not actually doing
the programming itself in order to understand, if that makes any
sense. If not, my apologies. The caffine has yet to sink in. :)

And thank you, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus for the link, I finally have
a weekend without band practice, so I have something to read now.

Have a great day everyone.

Vale,
Decimus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
wrote:

>
> Salve Decimus Iulius Caesar,
> welcome in Nova Roma, I inserted your e-mail address in my MSN
> Messanger, I hope to chat with you asap.
> About your membership here, what are your favourite aspects of

Roma

> Antiqua? And what you would receive from NR?
>
> Vale
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
> Consul
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <jojobean20@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would like to take this oppurtunity as officially a new

citizen

> of
> > Nova Roma and thank those who have taken the time to talk to me
> and
> > help my application for citizenship be approved despite a recent
> law
> > concerning new citizenship applications. I would've posted
> > yesertday, but had some problems with the board it has been
> > resolved, though....obviously. Apparently, I had to reactivate

my

> > account. No clue why. I will try my best to be as active as
> > possible, but due to macroworld issues, like all of us, there

will

> > be times of absence. No worries, I will give notice of any long
> > term absence. I have an AOL IM account : Decimus Iulius79 and I
> can
> > sometimes be reached on MSN Messenger: jojobean20@h... Feel
> > free to email me, message me or whatever.
> >
> > One question though, can anyone point me to any source

concerning

> > Roman marriage and the customs involved? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Decimus Iulius Caesar
> >
> > p.s. Forgive my Latin, I'm still getting used to it. I hope to
> > learn much more soon.

Salve Annea Octavia, et salvete quirites,

aoctaviaindagatrix <christyacb@...> writes:

> What Apollonius Cordus has written is, indeed, somewhat long but
> it demonstrates, in detail, what is wrong with the decree.

It does indeed.

> I'm somewhat surprised I haven't seem more responses to his
> explanation.

Oh, I imagine certain pontifices are even now trying to figure out how to
charge him under the Blasphemy Decretum for pointing out the problems with
the Blasphemy Decretum. I hope I'm wrong about this.

> Personally, I would really like to read other opinions on this excellent
> analysis.

I agree that it is an excellent analysis, and that it provides a clear
explanation of the many problems to be found in both the Blasphemy Decretum
itself and the unfortunate ahistorical Blasphemy clause in the current
Constitution. The fact we've had to live with that clause for so many years,
and the associated fact that general Constitutional reform (rather than
specific reforms of certain paragraphs) is so hard is a consequence of the
overly rigid Constitution we currently have. But change does take time, and
when contemplating an overhaul of something as influential as the
Constitution it's wise to make sure that the changes don't make problems
worse.

We have in our Nova Roman laws, both the portion of the Constitution
establishing religious institutions and the Leges Salicia, comprehensive
protections for the Religio Romana as the state religion and provisions for
dealing with those who would do it harm. The Blasphemy clause and the well
intended decretum which was supposed to define it are thus both unnecessary
and result in the fostering of an atmosphere of religious suppression that
casts a chill over any effort at discussion of the Religio Romana.

Vale, et valete,

-- Marinus

Salve,

> Just because I think what you're insinuating is complete and total

bovine

> excrement, let me just say that Cincinnatus is not impeding the

growth of

> the Religio. In fact, I don't think it's either of the two

citizens you

> present. Give the Quirites a clean slate, and let them make their

own

> decisions

I must take issue with what has been written here.

The Tribune isn't insinuating anything (well, not by the dictionary
definition of the word).

Also I doubt very much that the tribune is trying to force the
general populous to convict either of these citizens of impeding the
growth of the Religio, as you are insinuating in your last sentence.

vale

T. Octavius Salvius

QFabiusMaxmi@... wrote:

When we were teaching "Impact" self defense techniques, we had a blind woman enroll.

Because of her heightened perciption she overcame the aural displacement that usually effects beginners. If you spoke within her striking distance she could target your throat fairly well.
You don't expect a blind woman to do a sword strike to the throat, so she won a far amount of her fights with our "muggers"

Speaking of woman warriors, I saw Electra today. Garner is in the best shape of her life, and her technique has really improved. She actually now looks like a Karate-Ka and her moves reflect that.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Salve

My, that is very impressive about the blind woman.

Someone told me that Garner took up the martial arts to perfect her moves for her movies. Anyone know if that is true?

Vale

Maxima Valeria Messallina

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

A. Apollónius Cordus A. Minució Jórdannes M. Arminia
Májórí omnibusque sal.

The relationship between vetoes and diés is an
interesting one. It's true that it is forbidden to
legislate on a diés nefástus públicus, but a veto is
not the same as legislation.

I honestly don't know whether issuing a veto on a diés
nefástus públicus was acceptable or not. I suspect it
was rare simply because it would have been unusual for
a magistrate to do anything on a diés N.P. which
anyone would have wanted to veto. But it would have
been very odd if tribunes had been absolutely
forbidden from issuing vetoes on those days, because
in that case any magistrate could have avoided a veto
just by acting on those days!

It's impossible to say for certain without studying
whether vetoes ever occurred on diés N.P., and
regrettably I haven't the time to do that just now.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve

I must agree with both of you, gentlemen. The old page had a certain elegant and quaint look to it. Granted, it may not have been perfect, but this new page is NO improvement at all. Quite the reverse.
With apologies to whoever had this idea, I have to be honest - it's really sucks! It's far too busy, comes off as cold and uninviting, and it puts off anyone trying to read it. Everything just seems to be running into everything else. It's like one big print mess.
Makes one think of the old adage: "If ain't broken, don't fix it."
And why is the Religio Romana section so far down on the page? Very odd indeed.

Vale

Maxima Valeria Messallina


AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

I tend to agree. I liked the way the old website was set-up. I really
don't like the new design. Perhaps because the Religio Romana section has been
removed from the center to a lower station, and it appears as if it has a
subordinate role in Nova Roma. I don't like that.

I also liked the gray background of the old site. I believe the old format
could be modified a little, but I still liked it better.

Just my thoughts...

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 1/13/2005 2:58:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
spqr753@... writes:

Salve Romans

Again at the risk of being unpopular and allowing that I could not
have fixed the main site at all and am in awe of those with these
web skills, I have to say that our old site looked better. This is
not an improvement in any way that I can see. I think is should be
returned to it former appearance.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

A. Apollónius Cordus Dianae Octáviae Aventínae
omnibusque sal.

> The Senate discussions took place between January 4
> and January 7, so your intercession is 6 days too
> late, since it appeared 3 days after the voting was
> completed.
>
> For an edict, the time limit is 72 hours from
> issuance, for an election or a proposed law, the
> intercession must take place during the contio,
> howver
> long that may be.
>
> Your intercession should have taken place during the
> Senate discussions (which is a Senate Contio!) and
> not
> 6 days after the discussions were completed & 3 days
> after the voting was completed & a day or two after
> the results were posted to the main list by your
> colleague.

The léx Labiena dé intercessióne says that a veto must
occur "within 72 hours of the announcement of the item
or action", not from the time the action actually took
place.

So in this case the veto was within the time-limit,
since it was issued less than 72 hours after the
senátús cónsultum was announced.

A meeting of the senate is not a contió: the word
contió means a meeting of the people convened by a
magistrate for the purpose of debate and at which no
voting takes place.





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete Corde et Jordannes;
yes, that where my reasoning led me to. A veto isn't legislation
but it is legal work.
So finally I weighed my duty to the plebs versus my duty to obey
the calendar and felt my greater duty was to the plebs. Now is that a
Roman or a more modern legal way of thinking about one's obligations?
That's what I am unsure of.
As to the below, very clever! I hadn't thought of that. So unless
we look further, and really I don't know where I would say that one
would veto on a dies nefasti if necessary.
bene valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP

>.

But it would have

> been very odd if tribunes had been absolutely
> forbidden from issuing vetoes on those days, because
> in that case any magistrate could have avoided a veto
> just by acting on those days!
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Calvó omnibusque sal.

The version of the main page that I'm looking at now
(ten minutes to midnight GMT on Friday) is, I think,
an improvement on your previous drafts. In some ways I
like it better than the old version, in some ways
less. It is clearer and easier to use, but on the
other hand it is not so elegant or of such balanced
composition - the old trade-off between form and
function.

I think the real problem, though, is that there's
simply too much information on it, just as there was
too much information on the old version. And too many
different types of information, too. There's
information for casual visitors, information for
people interested in joining, information for citizens
who are looking for information, information for
citizens who are not looking for information,
information for people who want to donate money, and
information that no one would ever want. It was
confusing before, and it remains confusing now, simply
because the page itself doesn't have any clear idea of
its purpose in life. What is it actually for?

If it's primarily for us, the citizens, to use as a
first stop on the way to getting the information that
we want, then the important qualities are things like
ease of use (which you've improved) and simplicity of
layout (which is now different but not much better or
worse than before). If it's as a showcase to the world
and an enticement for potential citizens, then it
needs to be nicer-looking and less useful (less
information, fewer links, less text, &c.). At the
moment it's trying to do both, and it's a bit of a
nightmare, as it has always been.

I'm afraid I haven't anything very constructive to say
except that we need to work out, somehow, what the
main purpose of the page is before having another go
at a more fundamental redesign which should include
moving information onto other pages. It's a big
question, and perhaps one best left until after the
election: what information do we want on this page,
and what should we do with the stuff that has to go
elsewhere? Is it, indeed, time to redesign the whole
site in order to create parts specially made for
potential applicants and other parts for citizens?
Perhaps a good topic for a mini-manifesto...





___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

The Religio isn't all the way down the page. When I bring up the main page, it's first thing listed under "Pantheon" right across the top of the page. Everything is laid out for you right there. I don't see the problem. All the text from the bottom is laid out in the "Via Romana" section plus the opening paragraph is located at the top of the page as well. Where's the problem?

Cornelianus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

A veto isn't legislation but it is legal work.

--one could argue just as plainly that legislation is "legal work". No doubtedly this could be made a more complex argument but plainly speaking both involve legal actions of a certain nature.

"is that a Roman or a more modern legal way of thinking about one's obligations?"
--No the modern way is hmm, where can I get the most money to fund my next campaign to re-elect my greedy, self absorbed, corrupt butt. (uh don't take that as a jab at you)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Salva Maxima et salvete omnes -

You must be referring to the version of a couple days ago. It seems to
have morphed since then.
Now the Religio is at the top, second column - in other words Front and
Centre, where it belongs! ;-)
I notice some graphics have been added, too (nice!), and the annoying
gap is gone (thanks!) - much improved.
Likewise "Important Notices" will no longer be mistaken for a Link.
Flag & graphics, Intro, Links to items of interest, write-up.
Excellent layout!
Everything's there and easy to find.

Vale et valete
- Troianus

On Jan 14, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Maxima wrote:

>
> Salve
>
> I must agree with both of you, gentlemen. The old page had a certain
> elegant and quaint look to it. Granted, it may not have been perfect,
> but this new page is NO improvement at all. Quite the reverse.
> With apologies to whoever had this idea, I have to be honest - it's
> really sucks! It's far too busy, comes off as cold and uninviting, and
> it puts off anyone trying to read it. Everything just seems to be
> running into everything else. It's like one big print mess.
> Makes one think of the old adage: "If ain't broken, don't fix it."
> And why is the Religio Romana section so far down on the page? Very
> odd indeed.
>
> Vale
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>
>
> AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.
>
> I tend to agree. I liked the way the old website was set-up. I
> really
> don't like the new design. Perhaps because the Religio Romana
> section has been
> removed from the center to a lower station, and it appears as if it
> has a
> subordinate role in Nova Roma. I don't like that.
>
> I also liked the gray background of the old site. I believe the old
> format
> could be modified a little, but I still liked it better.
>
> Just my thoughts...
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 1/13/2005 2:58:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> spqr753@... writes:
>
> Salve Romans
>
> Again at the risk of being unpopular and allowing that I could not
> have fixed the main site at all and am in awe of those with these
> web skills, I have to say that our old site looked better. This is
> not an improvement in any way that I can see. I think is should be
> returned to it former appearance.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cordus, you've gone and done it again! Making people *think*.
I was looking at the new website layout just as a revision of the old
website layout - and find it favourable, by comparison.
You go and have to raise the question: What do we want it to *do*?
Which is a whole different matter than revising what we had.
Okay: First and foremost is Links. We want Visitors to check us out,
which should probably be labeled "Visitors" and have Links to NewRoman,
The Forum (Main List), and the Religio List, with the Link to Applying
for Citizenship at the bottom and maybe a Link to more Introductory
material could be added at some point. Yes, it's adding another
category but it's for a good purpose.
For Citizens it's fine as is - Links for current events have been
included in the Important Notices section (nice touch, that), and the
reference material is all laid out in categories and should be easy for
any current Citizen to find.
Though this has opened up a whole new area for thought which will bear
some thinking on....

Vale
- Troianus

On Jan 14, 2005, at 7:05 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

>
> A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Calvó omnibusque sal.
>
> The version of the main page that I'm looking at now
> (ten minutes to midnight GMT on Friday) is, I think,
> an improvement on your previous drafts. In some ways I
> like it better than the old version, in some ways
> less. It is clearer and easier to use, but on the
> other hand it is not so elegant or of such balanced
> composition - the old trade-off between form and
> function.
>
> I think the real problem, though, is that there's
> simply too much information on it, just as there was
> too much information on the old version. And too many
> different types of information, too. There's
> information for casual visitors, information for
> people interested in joining, information for citizens
> who are looking for information, information for
> citizens who are not looking for information,
> information for people who want to donate money, and
> information that no one would ever want. It was
> confusing before, and it remains confusing now, simply
> because the page itself doesn't have any clear idea of
> its purpose in life. What is it actually for?
>
> If it's primarily for us, the citizens, to use as a
> first stop on the way to getting the information that
> we want, then the important qualities are things like
> ease of use (which you've improved) and simplicity of
> layout (which is now different but not much better or
> worse than before). If it's as a showcase to the world
> and an enticement for potential citizens, then it
> needs to be nicer-looking and less useful (less
> information, fewer links, less text, &c.). At the
> moment it's trying to do both, and it's a bit of a
> nightmare, as it has always been.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't anything very constructive to say
> except that we need to work out, somehow, what the
> main purpose of the page is before having another go
> at a more fundamental redesign which should include
> moving information onto other pages. It's a big
> question, and perhaps one best left until after the
> election: what information do we want on this page,
> and what should we do with the stuff that has to go
> elsewhere? Is it, indeed, time to redesign the whole
> site in order to create parts specially made for
> potential applicants and other parts for citizens?
> Perhaps a good topic for a mini-manifesto...
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve,

Remember that the very FIRST (not shouting just for emphasis in
print) thing a potential Nova Roman sees is the "splash page." That
really needs to be redone as an intro page for the visitor. That is
something that needs to be well thought out eye catching and brings
the visitor to other pages (that have yet to be invented) to get an
idea about what Nova Roma is and of course a link for citizens just
to hop right to the main menu page.

Those visitor pages would be more splashy and graphicly oriented
with pictures of re-enactors, home Lariums (consult with the CP on
anything to do with the Religio), perhaps a few pictures of some of
our more photogenic citizens (that rules me out!), pictures from get
togethers, and so on. Getting the permission to use the pictures
will be a bear though. Ha! thought I was going to use that
other "b" word didn't you! I suppose the best way would be to put
out a call for those pictures when the time comes.

However one must always keep in mind that the most eye pleasing and
exciting web site with all the latest bells and whistles is
completely useless unless someone has a browser capable of handling
all those bells and whistles. A balancing act that is easier said
than done.

I see the main page as a "menu" for Nova Roma's citizens to be able
to find what they need without scrolling half way down the page to
get to the link they need and for those like myself who's eyesight
is not exactly what it used to be to not get a headache trying to
read black text on a marble background.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus


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

> Cordus, you've gone and done it again! Making people *think*.
> I was looking at the new website layout just as a revision of the

old

> website layout - and find it favourable, by comparison.
> You go and have to raise the question: What do we want it to

*do*?

> Which is a whole different matter than revising what we had.
> Okay: First and foremost is Links. We want Visitors to check us

out,

> which should probably be labeled "Visitors" and have Links to

NewRoman,

> The Forum (Main List), and the Religio List, with the Link to

Applying

> for Citizenship at the bottom and maybe a Link to more

Introductory

> material could be added at some point. Yes, it's adding another
> category but it's for a good purpose.
> For Citizens it's fine as is - Links for current events have been
> included in the Important Notices section (nice touch, that), and

the

> reference material is all laid out in categories and should be

easy for

> any current Citizen to find.
> Though this has opened up a whole new area for thought which will

bear

> some thinking on....
>
> Vale
> - Troianus
>
> On Jan 14, 2005, at 7:05 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> >
> > A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Calvó omnibusque sal.
> >
> > The version of the main page that I'm looking at now
> > (ten minutes to midnight GMT on Friday) is, I think,
> > an improvement on your previous drafts. In some ways I
> > like it better than the old version, in some ways
> > less. It is clearer and easier to use, but on the
> > other hand it is not so elegant or of such balanced
> > composition - the old trade-off between form and
> > function.
> >
> > I think the real problem, though, is that there's
> > simply too much information on it, just as there was
> > too much information on the old version. And too many
> > different types of information, too. There's
> > information for casual visitors, information for
> > people interested in joining, information for citizens
> > who are looking for information, information for
> > citizens who are not looking for information,
> > information for people who want to donate money, and
> > information that no one would ever want. It was
> > confusing before, and it remains confusing now, simply
> > because the page itself doesn't have any clear idea of
> > its purpose in life. What is it actually for?
> >
> > If it's primarily for us, the citizens, to use as a
> > first stop on the way to getting the information that
> > we want, then the important qualities are things like
> > ease of use (which you've improved) and simplicity of
> > layout (which is now different but not much better or
> > worse than before). If it's as a showcase to the world
> > and an enticement for potential citizens, then it
> > needs to be nicer-looking and less useful (less
> > information, fewer links, less text, &c.). At the
> > moment it's trying to do both, and it's a bit of a
> > nightmare, as it has always been.
> >
> > I'm afraid I haven't anything very constructive to say
> > except that we need to work out, somehow, what the
> > main purpose of the page is before having another go
> > at a more fundamental redesign which should include
> > moving information onto other pages. It's a big
> > question, and perhaps one best left until after the
> > election: what information do we want on this page,
> > and what should we do with the stuff that has to go
> > elsewhere? Is it, indeed, time to redesign the whole
> > site in order to create parts specially made for
> > potential applicants and other parts for citizens?
> > Perhaps a good topic for a mini-manifesto...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Salve Maior et salvete omnes -

On Jan 14, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Maior wrote:

> So finally I weighed my duty to the plebs versus my duty to obey
> the calendar and felt my greater duty was to the plebs.

That was unfortunate, but with the clock running out I can see why it
was a necessity.
Which brings us back to the idea of extending the time allowed for
issuing a Veto.

> Now is that a Roman or a more modern legal way of thinking about
> one's obligations?
> That's what I am unsure of.
>
Both, really. Ancient Romans certainly became exasperated with the
various constraints at times, but violating The Way Things Are Done was
always met with strong disapproval. As it should be. However, being
practical people they were certainly willing to change procedure when
it became necessary to do so.

So: It shouldn't have been done this way, but likewise the Law *should*
read "three legal working days" - the crafters of the Law clearly
failed to consider Calendar restrictions. The Law needs to be changed.
It should either take the Calendar into account, or grant a longer
period in which a Veto can be issued.

Vale et valete
- Troianus

Salve Q. Cassius Calvus -

Wow!
I see you've already given this a lot of thought, and agree with
everything you've said here.
As a page for our current Citizens, the new layout is excellent.
So: What sort of splashy, thrilling Introduction for Visitors do you
have in mind? :-)

Vale bene
- Troianus

On Jan 14, 2005, at 8:49 PM, quintuscassiuscalvus wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
>
> Remember that the very FIRST (not shouting just for emphasis in
> print) thing a potential Nova Roman sees is the "splash page." That
> really needs to be redone as an intro page for the visitor. That is
> something that needs to be well thought out eye catching and brings
> the visitor to other pages (that have yet to be invented) to get an
> idea about what Nova Roma is and of course a link for citizens just
> to hop right to the main menu page.
>
> Those visitor pages would be more splashy and graphicly oriented
> with pictures of re-enactors, home Lariums (consult with the CP on
> anything to do with the Religio), perhaps a few pictures of some of
> our more photogenic citizens (that rules me out!), pictures from get
> togethers, and so on. Getting the permission to use the pictures
> will be a bear though. Ha! thought I was going to use that
> other "b" word didn't you! I suppose the best way would be to put
> out a call for those pictures when the time comes.
>
> However one must always keep in mind that the most eye pleasing and
> exciting web site with all the latest bells and whistles is
> completely useless unless someone has a browser capable of handling
> all those bells and whistles. A balancing act that is easier said
> than done.
>
> I see the main page as a "menu" for Nova Roma's citizens to be able
> to find what they need without scrolling half way down the page to
> get to the link they need and for those like myself who's eyesight
> is not exactly what it used to be to not get a headache trying to
> read black text on a marble background.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius
> Troianus <hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:
>> Cordus, you've gone and done it again! Making people *think*.
>> I was looking at the new website layout just as a revision of the
> old
>> website layout - and find it favourable, by comparison.
>> You go and have to raise the question: What do we want it to
> *do*?
>> Which is a whole different matter than revising what we had.
>> Okay: First and foremost is Links. We want Visitors to check us
> out,
>> which should probably be labeled "Visitors" and have Links to
> NewRoman,
>> The Forum (Main List), and the Religio List, with the Link to
> Applying
>> for Citizenship at the bottom and maybe a Link to more
> Introductory
>> material could be added at some point. Yes, it's adding another
>> category but it's for a good purpose.
>> For Citizens it's fine as is - Links for current events have been
>> included in the Important Notices section (nice touch, that), and
> the
>> reference material is all laid out in categories and should be
> easy for
>> any current Citizen to find.
>> Though this has opened up a whole new area for thought which will
> bear
>> some thinking on....
>>
>> Vale
>> - Troianus
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2005, at 7:05 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Cassió Calvó omnibusque sal.
>>>
>>> The version of the main page that I'm looking at now
>>> (ten minutes to midnight GMT on Friday) is, I think,
>>> an improvement on your previous drafts. In some ways I
>>> like it better than the old version, in some ways
>>> less. It is clearer and easier to use, but on the
>>> other hand it is not so elegant or of such balanced
>>> composition - the old trade-off between form and
>>> function.
>>>
>>> I think the real problem, though, is that there's
>>> simply too much information on it, just as there was
>>> too much information on the old version. And too many
>>> different types of information, too. There's
>>> information for casual visitors, information for
>>> people interested in joining, information for citizens
>>> who are looking for information, information for
>>> citizens who are not looking for information,
>>> information for people who want to donate money, and
>>> information that no one would ever want. It was
>>> confusing before, and it remains confusing now, simply
>>> because the page itself doesn't have any clear idea of
>>> its purpose in life. What is it actually for?
>>>
>>> If it's primarily for us, the citizens, to use as a
>>> first stop on the way to getting the information that
>>> we want, then the important qualities are things like
>>> ease of use (which you've improved) and simplicity of
>>> layout (which is now different but not much better or
>>> worse than before). If it's as a showcase to the world
>>> and an enticement for potential citizens, then it
>>> needs to be nicer-looking and less useful (less
>>> information, fewer links, less text, &c.). At the
>>> moment it's trying to do both, and it's a bit of a
>>> nightmare, as it has always been.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I haven't anything very constructive to say
>>> except that we need to work out, somehow, what the
>>> main purpose of the page is before having another go
>>> at a more fundamental redesign which should include
>>> moving information onto other pages. It's a big
>>> question, and perhaps one best left until after the
>>> election: what information do we want on this page,
>>> and what should we do with the stuff that has to go
>>> elsewhere? Is it, indeed, time to redesign the whole
>>> site in order to create parts specially made for
>>> potential applicants and other parts for citizens?
>>> Perhaps a good topic for a mini-manifesto...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>>> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salvete omnes et Troiane;
gladiators! or maybe Clodius in the Forum whipping the Quirites
up. Roman politics were exciting, still are;-
bene valete
M. Arminia Maior TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigato CFQ

Lucius Apollonius Clement Omnibus S.P.D.

Salvete Omnes,

There is something I would like to ask, which for some reasons I never
though about before, and now tortures my mind. We now live in a
"connected" world where people can talk and vehiculate information
through a diversity of protocols (TV, Radio, Printed Press, Telephone,
Internet protocols, etc..). Shall something occur anywhere, anybody
would have the ability to get information about it.

How was, and how effectively was, information shared by the Romans. If
something happened in a Provincia, would the people of Rome know about
it ? How fast would it be to reach Rome ? How was it transported and who
took care of it ? Who the information was intented to reach, was it
ordered by a few people or were there public "news" services which kept
"everybody" in the loop (for instance a printed press). Also, was the
information network centered on Rome or did information fly effectively
from a province to another ?

Basically, as a roman citizen, how much did you know about what was
happening in Rome, in the various provinces, and how were you informed ?

I'm also interested in knowing what type of information was transported.
Was it only political.. event related, or was there coverage on cultural
and social aspects ? People in Rome probably were informed about what
happened in Pompei, but would they know about a newly built aqueduct in
Gallia ? How much information did they get exactly ?

In the middle age, merchants, menestrels and troubadours were bringing
the news of remote areas. They were probably a lot of people doing the
same in the Roman Era, but was there actually organisations, offical or
not, that were dedicated to bring information to everyone ?

Valete,

Lucius Apollonius Clement.

Lucius Apollonius Clement Omnibus S.P.D.

Salvete Omnes,

I sat last night in front of my TV for a personal Roman movie night. I
had everything ready for spending a nice time... two movies rented from
the video place down here in Galway, a nice turf and coal fire in the
fireplace, my confortable sofa and a good meal to be digested while
appreciating a glass of my favorite French red wine :)

I spent the whole night watching a movie called "Augustus, The First
Emperor", and the Stanley Kubrik's "Spartacus". Though the first one
looked like what I use to call a "Telefilm" it was nice spending time in
front of it. The second one presented great pictures and nice acting and
I loved watching it.

It's always nice to sit down and relax in front of movies about the
classic era, especially when the time is taken to dedicate the night to
it. With a bit of reading on my Pierre Grimal "L'Empire Romain" book
later on at night, I felt like I was travelling through time and it was
a great experience :)

A great Roman night which pleasure I hope you will appreciate as much as
I did. It only takes a DVD player after all :)

If you know of some websites which analyze the content of these movies
and confront them to real history I would be happy to visit them. Also
please suggest any movie about Rome that you appreciated, as it is with
pleasure that I'll run and rent them to be watched on an eventual second
"personal Roman movie night" :)

Valete,

Lucius Apollonius Clement.

Salve Clement;
it seemed you lacked one thing, fellow Nova Romans:) Do write back
to me as Provincia Hibernia is trying to arrange a get-together &
Galway in the spring sounds nice! (I live in Westmeath)
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Apollonius Clement
<lucius.apollonius@y...> wrote:

> Lucius Apollonius Clement Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I sat last night in front of my TV for a personal Roman movie

night. I

> had everything ready for spending a nice time... two movies rented

from

> the video place down here in Galway, a nice turf and coal fire in

the

> fireplace, my confortable sofa and a good meal to be digested while
> appreciating a glass of my favorite French red wine :)
>
> I spent the whole night watching a movie called "Augustus, The

First

> Emperor", and the Stanley Kubrik's "Spartacus". Though the first

one

> looked like what I use to call a "Telefilm" it was nice spending

time in

> front of it. The second one presented great pictures and nice

acting and

> I loved watching it.
>
> It's always nice to sit down and relax in front of movies about the
> classic era, especially when the time is taken to dedicate the

night to

> it. With a bit of reading on my Pierre Grimal "L'Empire Romain"

book

> later on at night, I felt like I was travelling through time and it

was

> a great experience :)
>
> A great Roman night which pleasure I hope you will appreciate as

much as

> I did. It only takes a DVD player after all :)
>
> If you know of some websites which analyze the content of these

movies

> and confront them to real history I would be happy to visit them.

Also

> please suggest any movie about Rome that you appreciated, as it is

with

> pleasure that I'll run and rent them to be watched on an eventual

second

> "personal Roman movie night" :)
>
> Valete,
>
> Lucius Apollonius Clement.

You torture me...I miss the smell of turf when I visited Ireland...Sure beats the smell of wood.
Cornelianus

Lucius Apollonius Clement <lucius.apollonius@...> wrote:
Lucius Apollonius Clement Omnibus S.P.D.

Salvete Omnes,

I sat last night in front of my TV for a personal Roman movie night. I
had everything ready for spending a nice time... two movies rented from
the video place down here in Galway, a nice turf and coal fire in the
fireplace, my confortable sofa and a good meal to be digested while
appreciating a glass of my favorite French red wine :)

I spent the whole night watching a movie called "Augustus, The First
Emperor", and the Stanley Kubrik's "Spartacus". Though the first one
looked like what I use to call a "Telefilm" it was nice spending time in
front of it. The second one presented great pictures and nice acting and
I loved watching it.

It's always nice to sit down and relax in front of movies about the
classic era, especially when the time is taken to dedicate the night to
it. With a bit of reading on my Pierre Grimal "L'Empire Romain" book
later on at night, I felt like I was travelling through time and it was
a great experience :)

A great Roman night which pleasure I hope you will appreciate as much as
I did. It only takes a DVD player after all :)

If you know of some websites which analyze the content of these movies
and confront them to real history I would be happy to visit them. Also
please suggest any movie about Rome that you appreciated, as it is with
pleasure that I'll run and rent them to be watched on an eventual second
"personal Roman movie night" :)

Valete,

Lucius Apollonius Clement.



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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!

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

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete iterum

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:19:48 -0000
From: "Maior" <rory12001@...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1752


Salvete Quirites;
I would like to reply to Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus's charge that
G.Equitius Cato is against the Religio.

As a firm follower and upholder of the Religio, former priestess and
active member at the ADF,

L Equitius: What is the "ADF"?

May I say that the first thing he did at the dinner was to offer a
libation to Apollo.

L Equitius: I wasn't there. What I know about him are other things.

Cato also posts the religious calendar on our mainpage to the
gratitude of all Religio followers.

I heartily agree with Cato that the use of such things as the
ahistorical blasphemy decree must be abolished.

L Equitius: For all the Whining about the Decretum, and it's almost two
years old (February 25th, 2003), it's never been used.
It has done it's job though. Audens makes a proclamation that he would use
his office to deny the posting of religious information in an official Nova
Roma journal and he's reminded that would be against the Decretum.
He found a way to change his mind. The thing worked!
If we didn't have the Decretum people could and would whittle away at the
religio,
just like Audens tried to do.

Religo follwers are being chased away & the entire Religo silenced
for fear of doing something 'wrong' and being accused of blasphemy.

L Equitius: This is Garbage.

We cannot even have are prayers translated to Latin for fear of the
translators that they will be accused of 'imprudens malo dolo'

L Equitius: More Garbage. As has been stated before by others, "read the
thing". There is no way it works as you suggest.

So who is the one impeding the growth and dissemination of the
Religio? Quirites is it Cato or Cincinnatus? I leave it to you to
decide.

L Equitius: I invite you to read the archives from years ago. I was doing
those things YEARS before you were here. Should I have to continue forever
to do the "PM"s job? Ask him why he doesn't do his job as spokesmen for the
college and make those announcements.
Oh, that's right he did do it just a few days ago for the first time. Make
sure that is trumpeted loud and clear just as you forget, or never knew, the
work of others.

bene valet
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana TRP
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


Bonam Noctem