A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae omnibusque sal.

In my previous message I continued our discussion of
the detailed provisions of your proposals, and the
problems they create. You responded quite amply to my
points concerning those issues. In the end, of course,
you dismissed most of these by saying "well this is
only a technicality, it won't be a problem in
practice, you are nit-picking, if this is all you can
find to worry about then I don't see the problem", and
similar things.

You seem to have missed the rest of my message. I went
on to say, "I think that... illustrates most of the
practical problems with these proposals. But the
problems are deeper than that." And I then devoted
some fifteen or sixteen paragraphs to exploring those
deeper problems. That may be a tediously large
quantity of prose for you to read, and I can
sympathise with that, but I certainly don't think it
leaves you any room to argue that all my objections
are concerned with trifling technicalities. No, the
technical problems of these proposals, numerous though
they are, took up on the first part of my argument.
The rest - the most important part - you have very
little to say about. I hope that by dealing with these
fundamental issues in a separate e-mail I can draw to
them the attention you did not give previously.

I argued that you are perpetuating the policy of
making the legal definition of a valid resignation
drastically different from the common-sense
understanding of what a resignation is. This policy, I
suggested, is in fact the fundamental cause of all the
problems we have had with resignations over the last
three or four years, and yet your proposals do not
eradicate it but perpetuate and indeed extend it. This
is perhaps one of the two most fundamental elements of
my opposition to your proposals. You have said not one
single word in reply. I presume, therefore, that you
cannot think of any flaw in my reasoning and that you
are hoping that if you say nothing about it people
won't notice.

You do manage to summon up a few words on the subject
of historical accuracy. Your words are to the effect
that we cannot adopt a historical Roman policy on
resignations because in ancient Rome resignations were
rare. First, this is a non sequitur. In Rome
resignations were rare, you say. So what? Why does
that mean we should not deal with them, when they do
occur, in exactly the same way that the Romans did? I
think perhaps there is a hidden step in your
reasoning: you are assuming that one of the basic
purposes of our law on resignations should be to try
to stop people resigning. This is the only way I can
make sense of your argument. You are therefore saying,
if I've guessed correctly, that the ancient practice
would not be appropriate to our situation because in
antiquity people did not often try to resign, and
therefore they did not have a system which was
effective at stopping them resigning; we need to stop
people resigning, therefore the Roman system is not
adequate for our needs.

If this is indeed your reasoning, then it does not
help your cause much, because the simple fact is that
these proposals, like the Roman system, will not stop
people resigning. I can say this with considerable
confidence because there is nothing at all in these
proposals which could conceivably stop people
resigning except ideas which have already been tried
in the lex Cornelia Maria. In essence the policy is
"stop people resigning by making a legally valid
resignation more difficult to do". The lex Cornelia
Maria has demonstrably failed to stop people
resigning, and there is no reason whatsoever why we
should believe that your proposals will have any
better success. They are based on the same flawed
principle which has been tested and found inadequate.

There is, in fact, almost nothing we can do by mere
legislation to stop people leaving Nova Roma or
resigning from office. It is simply not a problem
which can be solved by legislation. What we *can* do
with legislation, however, is put an end to these
absurd legal wrangles about what is and is not a
technically valid resignation. Your solution to this
is to put in place more and more technical legal
requirements for a valid resignation. This is patently
not going to work. Every technical legal requirement
you create will simply create more borderline cases
which are hard to fit within the scheme of the law.
The only sensible solution is to *remove* the
technical requirements and to allow magistrates and
others to use their common sense to decide what is and
is not a resignation. This is, of course, what the
Romans did.

Ah, the Romans again. Forgot about them, didn't you?
Evidently you did, because they're not much in
evidence in your proposals (in spite of your attempt
to stick the Latin label "postliminium" on something
which is in fact nothing to do with postliminium at
all). But let's go back to your assertion that
resignation didn't happen in the ancient republic.
Actually this is at best half-wrong. It is true that
people did not stand up in the forum and say "I resign
my citizenship of this republic". If that is what you
class as a resignation, then no, it did not happen.
But the issue which your proposals address is wider:
it concerns voluntary loss of citizenship. This
occured in the ancient republic very often indeed. It
happened, in fact, every time a Roman citizen
emigrated. The mere act of going to live somewhere
else, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
was taken as a sign that the person concerned had
decided to abandon his citizenship.

So if you are arguing that the Roman system did not
stop people giving up their citizenship, then you're
right. But if you're arguing that it didn't do this
because people didn't try to give up their
citizenship, you are dead wrong. People *did* do it,
they did it often, and Roman law did not try to stop
them because it would have been futile. If a Roman
citizen told his friends that he was going to live in
Mongolia, and he packed up his things and left, Roman
law did not insist that until he sent a written notice
in compliance with certain rules to a certain
magistrate he had not really left at all. It simply
accepted the plain facts: he had gone to live
somewhere else; he was no longer a citizen. But, just
as it was easy to leave, so it was easy to return. If
this fellow found that Mongolia was not his cup of
tea, and came back, he did not have to "apply" for
citizenship again, let alone change his name or give
his reasons for leaving to some official who couldn't
care less. He just came back. And the law said, "okay,
he has come back: we will treat him as the same person
he was before, and he is now a Roman citizen again,
just as he was before".

If your concern is that a system like this will not
stop people leaving, then I think you must ask
yourself: why should we try to stop people leaving? Do
we really benefit from a high citizen-count if many of
those citizens are only still here because we have
introduced complex legislation making it hard for them
to leave? Of course not. The only reason there has
been in the past for trying to stop people leaving is
that once a person has left it has been very tedious
for him to get back in because he has had to "apply"
for citizenship all over again. This would obviously
be solved at a single stroke by introducing the Roman
practice, because it would make it not only very easy
to leave but also very easy to come back. Problem
solved.

You express concern for people who resign their
citizenship in the heat of the moment and then regret
it. We are all concerned with these people. Yet you
don't seem to have grasped the fact that under the
ancient Roman system this problem disappears. "So you
resigned your citizenship in the heat of the moment
and then regretted it? No problem," says the ancient
practice, "just come straight back, no hassle, no
paperwork". How much easier could it be? No nine-day
period of grace, but an *infinite* period of grace! If
you're concerned for people who resign and then regret
it, the Roman practice is infinitely superior than
your proposals.

But come now, you may say, this doesn't apply to
resignations of office: Romans never resigned their
offices. On the contrary. I have said this before, but
you don't seem to have heard, so let me say it again.
**Just about every Roman magistrate who did not die in
office resigned**. It was standard practice. When you
came to the last day of your term, you got up on the
rostra, made a speech, swore you had obeyed the laws,
and then ceremonially resigned. You did not have to
send a message to some particular magistrate; you did
not have to twiddle your thumbs waiting for your
resignation to be "accepted" or "acknowledged". The
resignation simply took effect as soon as you declared
it.

I simply cannot understand what could be problematic
about this very simple, very untechnical, very Roman
way of doing things. Your responses so far have not
enlightened me; all they have done is to make me more
and more convinced that when you decided not to adopt
ancient Roman practice it was simply because you had
not adequately understood, or bothered to find out,
what ancient Roman practice actually involved.

We are not going to stop people leaving Nova Roma by
making them jump through hoops to do it: all we are
going to achieve is to decrease the number of people
who validly resign and increase the number of people
who have left but who we cannot take off the list
because their resignations did not meet the complex
legal requirements for validity. The same is true of
resignation from office. Legislation cannot stop
people doing these things. It is questionable whether
we should even be bothering to *try* to stop people
doing these things. There is no good reason at all, as
far as I can see, for failing to adopt the ancient
Roman way of doing things. If you leave, you lose your
citizenship; but if you come back afterwards, you get
it back with no hassle. If you announce your
resignation from office, you lose that office; if you
want it back, you can run for re-election. What could
be simpler? What could be more sensible? What could be
more Roman? Nothing that I can think of; and certainly
not the leges Moraviae Minuciae.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

It seems that the two linked messages I just sent have
appeared in reverse order. Never mind; I trust that
readers will be able to work out how it was supposed
to go.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollonius M. Moravio omnibusque sal.

Thank you for your replies.

> What Tiberius Galerius posted was largely written by
> yourself,
> Corde. Perhaps you didn't see the discussion
> between the
> magistrates?

I didn't, because I'm not on the "magistrates" list.

> ... Your radical policy change was
> considered and
> discussed, and rejected as impractical and
> unsuitable for Nova Roma.

I must insist that the lex Galeria is not "my" policy.
The policy is that of the magistrate with his name on
the bill. It is his responsibility and his credit. Ti.
Galerius is not an automaton: if he proposed
something, it is his proposal. Who wrote the text is
irrelevant.

> What you proposed through Galerius imposes
> citizenship on people
> even when they no longer want it. You would mandate
> that people
> have to write a special request in order to have
> their file expunged
> from Nova Roma records. Sorry, but it just does not
> work that way.

No, it doesn't work that way, and the fact is that you
have misunderstood the nature of the proposal. I
feared that this might have happened, and this is one
of the reasons I asked the question.

Under the Roman system, and under the lex Galeria, a
citizen whose citizenship goes into "suspension", as
we might call it, is not a citizen. Therefore the
proposal would not "impose[] citizenship on people
even when they no longer want it", because being in
"suspension" is not citizenship. It merely means that
if the person concerned wishes at some later date to
resume citizenship he may do so with minimal fuss and
without having to re-apply.

Much of the rest of your response deals with the
technicalities of citizenship-records in the database.
Perhaps in your mind this is the problem which these
proposals set out to deal with, but your
co-promulgator doesn't seem to share that view (though
quite what she thinks these proposals *are* for is not
clear to me). The lex Galeria says nothing about
records in databases. What to do with records in
databases is a matter of implementation, not of
legislation. It is perfectly possible to implement a
historically accurate body of law concerning loss and
resumption of citizenship in a way which would address
all your concerns. Indeed I believe the praetor was
discussing how this could be done with you at one
point.

Since the "suspended" persons under the lex Galeria
are not in any sense citizens, their personal details
would not need to be kept in the database. At most,
all that would be needed is to keep a record of their
Roman names and non-Roman names, plus any details of
their position within Nova Roma (tribe, past offices,
and so on) so that on their return they could be
identified and restored to their former position.
There would be no need to keep their contact details
or anything like that. It would be essentially the
same as maintaining a list of former members. I know
of nothing in the law of any country in the world
which prevents an organization keeping a list of its
former members' names.

You seem to think that your proposal, by using the
term "suspended citizenship", somehow incoporates some
important element of the lex Galeria. It does nothing
of the kind. Your "suspended citizens" are a
completely different creature from those which
appeared in the lex Galeria, and they are not made the
same by the fact that you give them the same name,
just as your clause entitled "postliminium" is not
made any more relevant to historical postliminium by
the use of that word.

All the objections you raise to the lex Galeria and
the historical system which it represents demonstrate
nothing except the fact that you have not understood
them. They do not involve imposing citizenship on
people who don't want it: on the contrary they make it
far easier than it is now for people to give up their
citizenship. They do not involve keeping person
records. They do not place more administrative work on
the censores because the people who were called
"suspended" citizens in the lex Galeria would not be
contacted at the census or under any other
circumstances whatsoever; indeed that proposal would
have significantly reduced the administrative burden
on magistrates, whereas your proposals increase it by
requiring more paperwork for every resignation.

As for your point that the mos majorum is
evolutionary, this is of course true. But it was also
conservative. The Romans sought to do things as they
had always done them wherever this was practical.
Where it was not practical, they made changes, but
always small and incremental changes and always in
line with the basic principles of traditional
thinking. You regard the strict historical approach as
impractical in this case. I think your conclusion is
wrong and based on a failure to understand the
historical approach. But even if you are right, that
does not give you a licence to throw away Roman
principles and propose whatever comes into your head.
You must ask, "how would the Romans have solved these
practical problems?" And one thing is absolutely
certain: they would not have solved them by insisting
on absurd distinctions between what appears to be a
resignation and what the law regards as a resignation;
they would not have solved them by creating more and
more legal hoops for people to jump through; they
would not have solved them by making everything into a
mess of formal rules. In short, even if you regard the
lex Galeria as impractical, that does not justify your
proposals.

You have jumped the gun, amice, and rejected the
historical approach before you have properly
understood what it involves. You rejection is based on
a misunderstanding, for all the features of the
historical approach which you regard as problematic
are in fact, as I have tried to explain, not features
of the historical approach at all. None of your
criticisms of the lex Galeria is accurate. It is not
too late for you to sit down and give further serious
thought and discussion to the possibility of doing
what should always be our first preference in Nova
Roma, namely doing what the Romans did. I encourage
you to withdraw your proposals before voting starts
and renew serious consideration of a historical solution.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Salve Domitie,
I completely agree with you. We must remember that ancient Romans never picked on other people because of their different religions. From Britania to Egypt and Lusitania to Syria, everyone could venerate the gods he/she wanted to. This situation was, the most of the times, imposible in territories with monoteist cults. Nowadays we can see the same in muslims countries with christians churches and, unfortunately too, between Israel and Palestine. But, how many races shared the same life inside of the Roman World? Celts, germans, iberians, aegyptians, syrians, greeks, ... And how many inside of the Star Trek World? Mr Spock for example was half vulcanian half human. Two brilliant examples about get along well together.
Valete,
Quintus Livius Drusus

Gaius Domitius Cato <dcwnewyork2002@...> escribió:
Salve Druse,

Whilst I like many of Gene Rodenbery's works, this episode was
shallow and pandering to christians. Before the christians throw
stones at the Romans, they should remember their own bloody history:
The murder of Hypatia by the bishop of Alexandria, the crusades, the
annilation of the pagan Prussians by the Teutonic Knights, the
Spanish Inquisition, the killing of their follow christians in the
endless religous wars between the Protestants and Catholics after
the reformation, modern Northern Ireland, I could go on and on...

So who is the blood thirsty monsters?

C. Domitius Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Sebastian José Molina Palacios
<sebastian_andaluz@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Diana and all nova romans.
> Yes, that´s right. I agree it´s a disaster what was done with

romans in that Star Trek chapter. But I think that it´s no worst
than the historical movies in the 50´s and 60´s (Ben Hur, King of
Kings, ....). In the most of them, we only can watch the christians
point of view and Romans only appear like monsters thirsty of blood.
And we all know how many great things Rome brought to the world. If
Rome was not the best civilization, it was, in my opinion, the less
bad.

> So, in this chapter of Star Trek we could see the worst face of

Rome and who knows if one day another Gene Rodemberry will show us a
better face of Rome into space. Or a historical film where Romans
are not monsters at all (remember Seneca, Adrian, Antoninus Pius,
for example).

> Valete,
> Quintus Livius Drusus
>
> dicconf <dicconf@...> escribió:
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, David Santo Orcero wrote:
>
> >
> > Salvete Omnes!
> >
> >> A very curious thing this about romans in sci-fi. By the

way, does

> >> anybody know anything about the Star Trek series (captain Kirk,

Mr.

> > Spock and company)? In these original series there is chapter

titled

> >> "panem et circenses"
> > (...)
> >> years ago in the days of the Roman Republic. The capital city

of this

> >> planet is named Magna Roma and, apparently, the evolution of

this

> >> magna-roman civilization is identical than terrestrial romans,

including

> >> the rising of christianism for example.
> >
> > I have follow this series, and I disagree. The image of Roma

that they

> > give is a fascist military regime were have blood spectacles

that they

> > give at TV. The only relationship with Roma is the name, some

logos, and

> > part of the spectacle of gladiators. It looks more that Musolini

fascist

> > regime with strange clothes and with gladiators. :-(
>
> Or perhaps the other way around. Mussolini consciously aped Roman

manners

> and titles, just as the Nazi regime in Germanhy aped Guido von

List's

> fantastic notions of the manners of the ancient Teutons.
>
> -- Publius Livius Triarius
>

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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.


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




__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

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

Salve A. Apolloni Corde, salvete omnes,

<snip>
"What could
be simpler? What could be more sensible? What could be
more Roman? Nothing that I can think of; and certainly
not the leges Moraviae Minuciae."

Bravo! Well spoken!!

L.Flavia Lectrix



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



Yahoo! Groups Links








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

> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "P. Dominus Antonius"
> > <marsvigilia@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kirk was progressive. Didn't he always get the green girl?
>
> I thought that was because experienced women wouldn't have

anything to do

> with him.
>
> -- Publius Livius Triarius
>

Salve Livius Triarius,

Can not say... Lets ask Uhura if she would want to go out with
him? Off duty hours of course... She is not bad looking and was
not born yesterday... Those serving girl types we see around the
ship would probably be too impressed by his authority to give a
useful response.

C. Domitius Cato

Salvete Consule et al

I was not attacking you personally, Consul, I was merely pointing out that
everybody, not just you and your cohors, have problem articulating leges. This
latest example is proof of this phenomenon in black & white.

The fact that "you" understand it bears little comfort, because we had the
last lex writer of a post facto phrase explain exactly what he had in mind, yet
the Tribunes rejected his argument citing the language used and NOT intent.


This is why language is so important. And this is why you cannot dash a law
out after spending several days writing it. Write the first draft, look at it
in a month, then change the portions that are contradictory, eliminate those
portions that are rhetorical, and put it away for another month. Then look at
it again. Rewrite it again. Each time it will be better, tighter and to the
point.
I still believe this circus could be avoided if you let let the Senate do its
job: that is to advise you.

Citizens of New Rome I urge you to vote NO on this mess. Give the Consuls
more time to fix it. Once its in play, it will be harder to fix it, than now.

Valete

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

F. Galerius Aurelianus A. Apollonio Cordo. Salve.

The ludi are attendant to the Cerealia not an original part of the celebration of the public rites to Ceres. Also, if we go by the strictest interpretation of Roman calendar, the ludi Cerealia would be celebrated at the end of the modern April Gregorian according to the Julian calendar. However, my reasons for doing the combination are two fold. First, as the flamen Cerialis I believe that the Goddess in the Grain should be offered games in the real world rather than in a mostly electronic format (sorry about the lack of horse & chariot races) along with celebratory rites. Second, I will still conduct the Cerealia rite on the proper Gregorian date of April 19. In regards to the aediles, I am sure that you are aware that the Plebeian Aediles traditionally derive their powers and functions from the aedes (temple) of Ceres so I am merely paying for the games out of my own sacred funds rather than burdening the Republic with the expense.
I am quite sure that the Goddess in the Grain and the Goddess in the Flower will be understanding as this will be the first time in approximately 1600 years that mortals have offered celebratory games to them. Further I intend to offer a piaculum to both Ceres Mater and Flora to insure the success of the rites.
Thanks for your concern. Be well.


-----Original Message-----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus <a_apollonius_cordus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:25:43 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Ludi Cerialia et Ludi Floralia


A. Apollonius Flavio Galerio omnibusque sal.

This sounds like a great event, and I wish you the
best of luck with it. I'm a little confused, though,
when you say:

> I announce that the Ludi Cerialia (April 12-19) will
> be combined
> with the Ludi Floralia (April 27-30) and will be
> held at the Pagan
> Unity Festival in Burns, Tennessee on Friday, April
> 29, and
> Saturday, April 30, 2006.

This could give people the impression that you are
unilaterally changing the official religious calendar
of Nova Roma and taking over the organization of these
two sets of official ludi. I'm sure that can't be what
you're saying, because of course the flamen Cerealis
has no power to change the calendar (the pontifices do
that) or to organize public ludi (the aediles do
that). I guess what you're really saying is something
like:

"I will be holding some unofficial private ludi to
celebrate the Cerealia and the Floralia at this time
and place, but of course the official ludi of Nova
Roma will take place at the usual times and will be
organized by their respective aediles."

Is that about right?


P.S. Thanks for your kind praise of my recent lengthy
message. :)



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry



Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Salvete Quirites omnes

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

>
> <snipped> the
> constitution states, for those who have missed the last ten thousand
> times I have quoted it
>
> "An office becomes vacant if the magistrate resigns or dies."
>
> Simple and clear except for those who will not or can not see it.
>
> >

Not exactly the case, Praetor Galerius. Would you care to elaborate
on when exactly a resignation of office comes into effect? Any answer
you care to offer would be merely an attempt to define the
constitutional phrasing, only whatever your answer, it would not be
part of Nova Roma law. The issue has been raised in past legislation
whether to allow a tendered resignation to be rescinded within a so-
called "grace period." Under the Constitution, a rescinded
resignation is not a resignation at all, and thus your quoting the
Constitution here does not clarify anything. What the porposed lex
does is try to clarify when and how a resignation comes into effect so
that the wording of the Constitution can be applied without confusion.

For some years now Nova Roma has been tossing around different
proposals to deal with this prolem of defining exactly when a
resignation of office comes into effect. Not all of those proposals
were passed, and ones that were sometimes raised new problems. The
magistrates, yourself included, Praetor, did discuss some of the
issues involved and how we might formulate legislation that concerned
the resignation of offices. Not all of the ideas we discussed were
incorporated into the leges Minucia Moravia. However, when the consul
came to me with her proposal, I suggested some rewording that did
incorporate those ideas that we discussed earlier. So this has been
more of a collective effort than some may realize.

Consul Pompeia Minucia has introduced a new idea, one that is worth
considering and adopting. The basic principle that she assumes is
that each magistrate is responsible to the comitia that elected him or
her to office. Resignations will now have to be addressed to a
presiding officer of the respective comitia that elected a magistrate
when he or she decides to resign from office. One change that is
introduced is that the resignation comes into effect when the
presiding magistrates acknowledges the resignation in writing. The
basic idea here is quite sound, that the presiding officers of
respective comitia now take a role in determining when a resignation
has occurred. There is a practical reason for doing this, to which I
will return below.

A tendered resignation from office may be posted to an official Nova
Roma list. There are certain lists that are "official," in the words
of the Constitution, since they are supported by Nova Roma. These are
what are called the Main List, the Nova Roma Announcement Board, the
Senate list, the Comitia Plebis list and a few other special lists.
The list for magistrates created by Consul Modianus is not
an "official" Nova Roma list, but could act under the proposed lex
Minucia Moravia as a place where "three witnesses" would see a
tendered resignation. Resignations may also be sent privately to the
respective presiding officer. This is just a consideration allowed
for when the reason for resignation may concern private and personal
matters. The provision for "three witnesses" is a precautionary
measure to cover unusual and extrordinary circumstances. What
possibility we need to avoid is where one individual might claim
another person had either resigned or died and there would be no way
to verify the claim. The provisions of the lex Minucia Moravia cover
most situations, with an idea of providing a verifiable record of a
person resigning from office. A simple idea, not something mentioned
in the Constitution, but what has become practice in Nova Roma for
such situations.

The innovation is that the respective presiding officers must
acknowledge a resignation in order for it to go into effect. This is
a practical solution to ending some confusion that can arise under
current law. For example, with the resignation of citizenship, by
having a censor acknowledge a resignation, it will in effect mean that
the censores also acknowledge their responsibility to properly record
the resignation. In regard to resignations from offices, the
presiding officers of the respective comitia have a responsibility for
holding elections to replace any resigning magistrate. They must do
so within a certain allotted number of days. By mandating that they
acknowledge a resignation in writing, it firmly sets that moment,
referred to in the Constitution, when a resignation comes into effect,
and thus also clearly sets the time when new elections must be held.
Some time limits on how soon the magistrates must acknowledge a
resignation were placed in the proposed lex in order to avoid a
situation where a presiding officer might delay and thus hold open a
vacant office indefinitely. I guess that some could object that the
proposal in some way reverses roles. There is really very little that
the proposal changes in regard to what a resigning magistrate must
do. What has been done is clarify what other magistrates must do when
they become aware of a tendered resignation, and thus the proposed
legislation focuses more on this aspect of the consequences of a
resignation from office. Who is to properly receive a resignation,
when does the resignation actually come into effect, and what then
must be done? Those are the questions that the proposed lex clarifies.

The consul and I discussed allowing a delay of so many days before the
presiding magistrate would have to acknowledge a tendered
resignation. We both prefer that a grace period be incorporated into
the law. There is a practical reason to allow such, based on past
experience. However in discussing these measures with the other
magistrates, and in past discussions held in the Senate, it seemed to
us that the majority opinion opposed allowing any grace period for a
magistrate to rescind a tendered resignation. We have therefore
deferred to the majority opinion, allowing only so much time as is
practicable. In our discussions with other magistrates a compromise
was reached between those who wish to include a "grace period" and
those who flat out reject any "grace period". That compromise was
that resigning magistrates woule be eligible to run in the election
held to fill the vacancy that he or she had created. Obviously if a
resigning magistrate would turn around and run in the ensuing
election, he or she would have some explaining to do before the
electorate. But we felt that it was the comitia which should decide
whether or not to accept a resigning magistrate back into office. It
is possible, as we know from experience, that a person may tender a
resignation in reaction to one thing or another, but on sober
reflection decide not to resign. The idea that a person must be held
to a spur of the moment decision, and then barred from running for
election, is not a very prudent attitude. It would exclude some very
capable people from holding an office, when we currently have a
shortage of people who are willing to hold offices. As things are
now, Nova Roma has few contested electoral races, and sometimes not
enough candidates to fill certain offices. So we are not going to bar
people from running from office. Let the People decide.

I did not see objections raised to the one outstanding feature of the
proposed lex - the feature that makes it somewhat lengthy. This is
that the respective comitia, through their preciding officers, would
now be notified when a magistrate that they elected would resign. One
person raised an objection that simply does not exist under the
proposed legislation. A misunderstanding, no doubt, from not reading
the proposal in full. A plebeian consul cannot resign office by
notifying the Trbuni Plebis. Nor can an aedilis resign by notifying a
quaestor or any other magistratus minor. It is a presiding officer
that has to be notified, and it has to be the presiding office of the
particular comitia that elected the resigning magistrate. Here once
again is a practical provision that follows what is implicit in the
Constitution and with consideration of past Nova Roma practices.

If you want to ask how such issues were dealt with in the mos maiorum,
then there is a great deal of augural law to consider. I suggested a
book to Consul Pompeia Minucia that others may find of interest as
well. "Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure & Political
Practice," by Roberta Stewart, 1998. The highest authority in Roma
antiqua was the People assembled into comitia. Their authority was
extended to them from the Gods, and thus very rigid procedures had to
be followed when conducting a comitia in order to ensure that
the "will of the People" was in fact "the will of the Gods." Nova Roma
does not really follow the ius augurium when conducting a comitia, and
what is provided is often times being ignored. But this proposed lex
does take us closer to a basic principle that authority in Nova Roma
is retained by the People when assembled in comitia. This is
something that I find very compelling in the Consul's proposal, one
that does move us closer to the mos maiorum, and thus in keeping with
the guiding principles of Nova Roma.

I have only seen a few individuals raise any objections to the
proposed leges Minucia Moravia. I haven't yet had a chance to go
through all of them. What I have seen so far, however, are a number
of hypothetical situations proposed that simply would not arise under
the leges Minucia Moravia. Smoke and mirrors, but no real basis to
opposing the legislation. Different issues were raised by a number of
magistrates, and by some Senatores as well, while we were discussing
this proposal. The proposed legislation took into consideration a
variety of those opinions and much practical experience in trying to
develop a solution to some continuing problems Nova Roma has faced.
Consul Pompeia Minucia and I approached the issues from two different
directions in an attempt to bring comprehension proposals before the
comitia. They should be considered on the merits of what they include
and not on a lot of hypotheticals that never occurred in the past and
that cannot occur under the proposed legislation.

I urge you all to approve the proposed leges Minucia Moravia

Valete optime
M Moravius Piscinus
Tribunus Plebis

C. Equitius Cato M. Moravio quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Moravius Piscinus, every single one of your troubles would be solved
by this:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I. The leges Cornelia et Maria De Civitate Eiuranda and Equitia de
Civitate Eiuranda are repealed.

II. A message posted to the "Forum" (or "Main List") shall constitute
a "public statement before three or more witnesses" for the purpose of
resigning citizenship and/or magistracies.

III. If citizenship is resigned, any and all public offices held by
the citizen at that time become vacated immediately, and elections
held to fill any resultant vacancies as defined by existing law. No
public offices, elected or appointed, shall carry over into a new
citizenship if a resigning citizen should later seek to reacquire
citizenship.

IV. If citizenship is reacquired, after ninety (90) days the
returning citizen

A. may apply to the Collegium Pontificum for reappointment to any
religious offices that he or she may have previously held. Only the
Collegium Pontificum is authorized to reappoint a returning citizen to
a religious office.

B. may be granted any titles, honors and/or effects of past public
administrative office (including century points) they held upon their
resignation.

V. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the Censors
collegially.

VI. If a citizen resigns more than once in a single calendar year,
and they reacquire citizenship a third time, they shall be barred from
running for any elected public office for one (1) year following
re-admission, with no exceptions under any circumstances whatsoever.

VI. The Censors will note the dates of resignations in the censorial
album civium.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The more issues a single lex tries to specifically address, the more
complex and unwieldy it becomes. With the above, you're either a
citizen or you're not.

We already have laws that say that if you pay your taxes, you get to
vote and run for office and if you don't, you don't; while I
understand (and appreciate) the enormous amount of work that the
censors' office went through to find citizens during the last census,
I'm not sure why it became so burdensome. If you don't answer a
census, you're removed from the rolls, files gone. If you want to
come back, you just say so, and it's the responsibility of the
returning citizen to provide us with the information necessary.

We need to begin from a standpoint of personal responsibility on the
part of the citizens; if we make these things clear, there is no
reason why it should become the nightmare job that the censors' staffs
underwent recently. The citizens are eminently reasonable people, and
if the basic guidelines are clear, we shouldn't have a problem. We
should not the kind of State that should be spending its time and
energy looking over its citizens' shoulders and holding their hands.

Make the law simple and unambiguous, and the easiest way to do that is
to make it clear.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve Corde

So now you are saying that we would have all these "suspended
citizens" with no record kept as to who they might be. Why even
create such a category? With all your lengthy explanation, why not
simply make it a matter of whether a person is a citizen or else
not. There is no practical reason to have "suspended citizens"
under your proposal, and introducing such language into our laws
just confuses matters. A lot of words with no significance.

Your proposal has absolutely no effect on the vast majority of
people who simple leave without telling anyone. The gist of your
proposal was to make it unnecessary for people to formally resign.
As it is now, people do not have to formally resign. Your proposal
would not eliminate those rare occaisions when people do take the
opportunity to make their resignation into some statement. People
would still do that. So including such a policy effects exactly
what?

OTOH the proposed leges Minucia Moravia deal with the current
situation we have in Nova Roma and with diverse concerns people have
based in past experience. There are two conflicting interests.
Some wish to retain records on former cives as they see a potential
to recruit these people back into Nova Roma. The other side, the
one I addressed earlier, is concerned with the costs of retaining
such records on non-citizens. What the proposed lex Minucia Moravia
does is offer a compromise. It defines when citizenship
becomes "suspended", for how long, and what is to be done afterward
as a way to alleviate some continuing problems.

Vale
Piscinus







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

>
> A. Apollonius M. Moravio omnibusque sal.
>
> Thank you for your replies.
>
> > What Tiberius Galerius posted was largely written by
> > yourself,
> > Corde. Perhaps you didn't see the discussion
> > between the
> > magistrates?
>
> I didn't, because I'm not on the "magistrates" list.
>
> > ... Your radical policy change was
> > considered and
> > discussed, and rejected as impractical and
> > unsuitable for Nova Roma.
>
> I must insist that the lex Galeria is not "my" policy.
> The policy is that of the magistrate with his name on
> the bill. It is his responsibility and his credit. Ti.
> Galerius is not an automaton: if he proposed
> something, it is his proposal. Who wrote the text is
> irrelevant.
>
> > What you proposed through Galerius imposes
> > citizenship on people
> > even when they no longer want it. You would mandate
> > that people
> > have to write a special request in order to have
> > their file expunged
> > from Nova Roma records. Sorry, but it just does not
> > work that way.
>
> No, it doesn't work that way, and the fact is that you
> have misunderstood the nature of the proposal. I
> feared that this might have happened, and this is one
> of the reasons I asked the question.
>
> Under the Roman system, and under the lex Galeria, a
> citizen whose citizenship goes into "suspension", as
> we might call it, is not a citizen. Therefore the
> proposal would not "impose[] citizenship on people
> even when they no longer want it", because being in
> "suspension" is not citizenship. It merely means that
> if the person concerned wishes at some later date to
> resume citizenship he may do so with minimal fuss and
> without having to re-apply.
>
> Much of the rest of your response deals with the
> technicalities of citizenship-records in the database.
> Perhaps in your mind this is the problem which these
> proposals set out to deal with, but your
> co-promulgator doesn't seem to share that view (though
> quite what she thinks these proposals *are* for is not
> clear to me). The lex Galeria says nothing about
> records in databases. What to do with records in
> databases is a matter of implementation, not of
> legislation. It is perfectly possible to implement a
> historically accurate body of law concerning loss and
> resumption of citizenship in a way which would address
> all your concerns. Indeed I believe the praetor was
> discussing how this could be done with you at one
> point.
>
> Since the "suspended" persons under the lex Galeria
> are not in any sense citizens, their personal details
> would not need to be kept in the database. At most,
> all that would be needed is to keep a record of their
> Roman names and non-Roman names, plus any details of
> their position within Nova Roma (tribe, past offices,
> and so on) so that on their return they could be
> identified and restored to their former position.
> There would be no need to keep their contact details
> or anything like that. It would be essentially the
> same as maintaining a list of former members. I know
> of nothing in the law of any country in the world
> which prevents an organization keeping a list of its
> former members' names.
>
> You seem to think that your proposal, by using the
> term "suspended citizenship", somehow incoporates some
> important element of the lex Galeria. It does nothing
> of the kind. Your "suspended citizens" are a
> completely different creature from those which
> appeared in the lex Galeria, and they are not made the
> same by the fact that you give them the same name,
> just as your clause entitled "postliminium" is not
> made any more relevant to historical postliminium by
> the use of that word.
>
> All the objections you raise to the lex Galeria and
> the historical system which it represents demonstrate
> nothing except the fact that you have not understood
> them. They do not involve imposing citizenship on
> people who don't want it: on the contrary they make it
> far easier than it is now for people to give up their
> citizenship. They do not involve keeping person
> records. They do not place more administrative work on
> the censores because the people who were called
> "suspended" citizens in the lex Galeria would not be
> contacted at the census or under any other
> circumstances whatsoever; indeed that proposal would
> have significantly reduced the administrative burden
> on magistrates, whereas your proposals increase it by
> requiring more paperwork for every resignation.
>
> As for your point that the mos majorum is
> evolutionary, this is of course true. But it was also
> conservative. The Romans sought to do things as they
> had always done them wherever this was practical.
> Where it was not practical, they made changes, but
> always small and incremental changes and always in
> line with the basic principles of traditional
> thinking. You regard the strict historical approach as
> impractical in this case. I think your conclusion is
> wrong and based on a failure to understand the
> historical approach. But even if you are right, that
> does not give you a licence to throw away Roman
> principles and propose whatever comes into your head.
> You must ask, "how would the Romans have solved these
> practical problems?" And one thing is absolutely
> certain: they would not have solved them by insisting
> on absurd distinctions between what appears to be a
> resignation and what the law regards as a resignation;
> they would not have solved them by creating more and
> more legal hoops for people to jump through; they
> would not have solved them by making everything into a
> mess of formal rules. In short, even if you regard the
> lex Galeria as impractical, that does not justify your
> proposals.
>
> You have jumped the gun, amice, and rejected the
> historical approach before you have properly
> understood what it involves. You rejection is based on
> a misunderstanding, for all the features of the
> historical approach which you regard as problematic
> are in fact, as I have tried to explain, not features
> of the historical approach at all. None of your
> criticisms of the lex Galeria is accurate. It is not
> too late for you to sit down and give further serious
> thought and discussion to the possibility of doing
> what should always be our first preference in Nova
> Roma, namely doing what the Romans did. I encourage
> you to withdraw your proposals before voting starts
> and renew serious consideration of a historical solution.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all

new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

>

I know that this subject has been discussed in this forum a few months ago, but anyway, I would like to ask something. If Nova Roma becomes a State (or Microstate) in the real world, how would it be? Our population is about 2500 inhabitants, so I suppose we might be a small nation (Vatican City, islands in the Pacific Ocean, Rome in times of its foundation by Romulus, ...). Then, what will happen with all propretors, consules and provinces governors of Nova Roma?
Vale bene,
Quintus Livius Drusus.

Gaius Domitius Cato <dcwnewyork2002@...> escribió:
I particularly find fascinating the prospect of Nova Roma becoming a
terra firma state.

I submit to the citizens the following examples of States:

Vatican: Microstate created in 1920's by treaty in settlement of the
dispute between the Papal States (including Roma and a swath of
Central Italy) and the Republic of Italy then headed by Prime
Minister Benito Mussolini. The treaty was concluded after the
entire territory of the Papal States were seized and intergrated by
the Republic of Italy and resulted in the recognition of the Holy
See and a revived 'power' with nation-state status and independent
of Italy. Most modern nation-states recognise the Holy See as an
independent nation-state with Vactican City making up its
borders... Today the Holy See plays an important role in as a
diplomatic neutral state in the international stage. It mints its
own coins, issues postage, issues passports, has repressentation on
many international bodies, the ITU recognises its broadcast
licences. Population about 1,000 (Vatican City residents)

Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta: The second,
lesser known, microstate in Roma, consisting of a collection of
buildings. Is recognised by about a number of modern nation-
states. It mostly carries out humanitarian work today and up until
recently claimed the now Republic of Malta as its soveriegn
territory. Issues coins and postage and passports, ITU recognises
its broadcast licences. Population 4 (living in Compound, tens of
thousands of members worldwide)

Sealand: Principality located on an abandoned sea fortress off the
coast of the United Kingdom, created by an excentric former british
navy officer in the 1960's (Prince Roy). Defacto independent from
the UK, it is not recognised by any modern nation-state, though a
british court ruled that Sealand is not UK territory. Fought
a 'war' with some british patrol boats for independence, the UK
decided not to press claims. Later had a 'civil war' when one
faction (loyal to Prince Michael) exiled the other faction to
continental Europe by force of arms. Issues coins and postage, no
international bodies recognise it. Population 5 to 10 (living on
Roughs Tower, few hundered citizens carring Sealand Passports,
thousands of phoney Sealand Passports in cirulation)

Conch Republic: Created on manmade atolls in international waters
in the South Pacific in the 1970's. Was claimed and militarily
defeated by the neighbouring Kingdom of Tonga two years after its
creation and cleared of all population. Currently uninhabited.

Sarawak: Now independent within Malaysian Federation, formally
ruled by the Brooke dynasty and was internationally recognised as an
independent nation-state till 1947. Conquered much of the
neighbouring Sultanate of Brunei, Brunei only survives today because
of a British Protectorate (till 1982).

Republic of Singapore: Bought by a British merchant in the 1820's
and a universally recognised nation-state since 1965. Now mostly
inhabited and controlled by ethnic Chinese imported by colonial
administrators. Increased its land area substantially by
landfilling.







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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.


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




__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

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

Salvete,

I will sooner be pronounced Emperor of the world than Nova Roma will be pronouncing itself a terra firma state. This is a pipe dream not worth wasting any more sentences on. Why can't we just enjoy the community that we do share here (and as many re-enactment festivals and conventuses as possible)?

Vires et Honos,
Marcus Cassius Philippus

----- Original Message -----
From: Sebastian José Molina Palacios
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma as Nation State


I know that this subject has been discussed in this forum a few months ago, but anyway, I would like to ask something. If Nova Roma becomes a State (or Microstate) in the real world, how would it be? Our population is about 2500 inhabitants, so I suppose we might be a small nation (Vatican City, islands in the Pacific Ocean, Rome in times of its foundation by Romulus, ...). Then, what will happen with all propretors, consules and provinces governors of Nova Roma?
Vale bene,
Quintus Livius Drusus.

Gaius Domitius Cato <dcwnewyork2002@...> escribió:
I particularly find fascinating the prospect of Nova Roma becoming a
terra firma state.

I submit to the citizens the following examples of States:

Vatican: Microstate created in 1920's by treaty in settlement of the
dispute between the Papal States (including Roma and a swath of
Central Italy) and the Republic of Italy then headed by Prime
Minister Benito Mussolini. The treaty was concluded after the
entire territory of the Papal States were seized and intergrated by
the Republic of Italy and resulted in the recognition of the Holy
See and a revived 'power' with nation-state status and independent
of Italy. Most modern nation-states recognise the Holy See as an
independent nation-state with Vactican City making up its
borders... Today the Holy See plays an important role in as a
diplomatic neutral state in the international stage. It mints its
own coins, issues postage, issues passports, has repressentation on
many international bodies, the ITU recognises its broadcast
licences. Population about 1,000 (Vatican City residents)

Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta: The second,
lesser known, microstate in Roma, consisting of a collection of
buildings. Is recognised by about a number of modern nation-
states. It mostly carries out humanitarian work today and up until
recently claimed the now Republic of Malta as its soveriegn
territory. Issues coins and postage and passports, ITU recognises
its broadcast licences. Population 4 (living in Compound, tens of
thousands of members worldwide)

Sealand: Principality located on an abandoned sea fortress off the
coast of the United Kingdom, created by an excentric former british
navy officer in the 1960's (Prince Roy). Defacto independent from
the UK, it is not recognised by any modern nation-state, though a
british court ruled that Sealand is not UK territory. Fought
a 'war' with some british patrol boats for independence, the UK
decided not to press claims. Later had a 'civil war' when one
faction (loyal to Prince Michael) exiled the other faction to
continental Europe by force of arms. Issues coins and postage, no
international bodies recognise it. Population 5 to 10 (living on
Roughs Tower, few hundered citizens carring Sealand Passports,
thousands of phoney Sealand Passports in cirulation)

Conch Republic: Created on manmade atolls in international waters
in the South Pacific in the 1970's. Was claimed and militarily
defeated by the neighbouring Kingdom of Tonga two years after its
creation and cleared of all population. Currently uninhabited.

Sarawak: Now independent within Malaysian Federation, formally
ruled by the Brooke dynasty and was internationally recognised as an
independent nation-state till 1947. Conquered much of the
neighbouring Sultanate of Brunei, Brunei only survives today because
of a British Protectorate (till 1982).

Republic of Singapore: Bought by a British merchant in the 1820's
and a universally recognised nation-state since 1965. Now mostly
inhabited and controlled by ethnic Chinese imported by colonial
administrators. Increased its land area substantially by
landfilling.







---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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.


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




__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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



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

Salve bene Cato

This looks very similar to what we worked out earlier on the
magistrates list. Yes, I still think that this is a simpler and
better way to address those issues that we discussed earlier. The
Consul thought to propose more comprehensive measures. When she
brought her proposal to me I put forward the wording that the you,
I, and some others had discussed. If you look at the proposed lex
de Eiuranda it is essentially what we discussed earlier with some
additions that the Consul proposed.

There are several conflicting interests involved here. One is that
we have too many laws. Some amend only parts of another, and it all
leads to a lot of confusion. So that is one reason for introducing
a more comprehensive measure.

The proposed lex does place greater burden on citizens to maintain
their citizenship. We have already been moving in that direction
with the leges that you refer to that created the categories of
assidui, capiti censsi, and socii. The Consul's proposal does not
use the term "socius," refering instead to "suspended citizenship."
What she then included was, "A citizen under suspended citizenship
may be given a designation other than citizen, as prevailing law
provides." This provides flexibility without really changing
anything under current law. The proposed lex brings together in one
measure various things that do currently exist, and repeals earlier
leges de iurundana, in order to end some confusion and bring earlier
leges into alignment with some more recent changes.

Consul Pompeia Minucia included some additional language concerning
Impuberes, something that you and I did not discuss, but under
existing law should be included in such a measure.

Another thing the the proposed lex includes is what I addressed in
an earlier post. This is the matter of defining when citizenship
goes into suspension and for how long. That came out of discussions
in last year's cohors censoris, and it addresses an issue related to
resignations of citizenship. It is not as you think that files are
automatically purged whenever someone doesn't register with the
census. It is actually just the opposite. We do not now have any
provisions that allow the censores to delete files. They must
retain them, unless they can receive permission to purge the files.
This creates an administrative problem. There are conflicting views
on how to deal with the issue of non-citizen files. The lex Minucia
Moravia de Civitate Eiuranda offers a workable compromise.
Essentially though it will come down to what you suggest, that we
will have citizens and non-citizens. Some non-citizen files will be
temporarily retained. However, for no longer than five years, and
experience tells us that it is within five years that those few who
return after resigning do decide to rejoin.

I hope that you can see that we did take into consideration a lot of
different concerns, the opinions of several people, as well as past
experience and existing law, in trying to formulate this proposal
for a lex de Civitate Eiuranda. Parts of it may need some
clarification in wording, and that is the whole point of holding a
contio. That is exactly what I did earlier in producing the
plebiscitum Moravia, discussing and refining it in the contio held
before the Comtia Plebis Tributa before the final version was
submitted to a vote. The wording here may have been strained by
offering a more comprehensive proposal from what we discussed
earlier, by its inclusion of additional wording, but perhaps you can
see why that decision was made.

Vale optime



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@...>
wrote:

>
> C. Equitius Cato M. Moravio quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve et salvete.
>
> Moravius Piscinus, every single one of your troubles would be

solved

> by this:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I. The leges Cornelia et Maria De Civitate Eiuranda and Equitia de
> Civitate Eiuranda are repealed.
>
> II. A message posted to the "Forum" (or "Main List") shall

constitute

> a "public statement before three or more witnesses" for the

purpose of

> resigning citizenship and/or magistracies.
>
> III. If citizenship is resigned, any and all public offices held

by

> the citizen at that time become vacated immediately, and elections
> held to fill any resultant vacancies as defined by existing law.

No

> public offices, elected or appointed, shall carry over into a new
> citizenship if a resigning citizen should later seek to reacquire
> citizenship.
>
> IV. If citizenship is reacquired, after ninety (90) days the
> returning citizen
>
> A. may apply to the Collegium Pontificum for reappointment to any
> religious offices that he or she may have previously held. Only

the

> Collegium Pontificum is authorized to reappoint a returning

citizen to

> a religious office.
>
> B. may be granted any titles, honors and/or effects of past public
> administrative office (including century points) they held upon

their

> resignation.
>
> V. Senatorial status may be resumed at the discretion of the

Censors

> collegially.
>
> VI. If a citizen resigns more than once in a single calendar year,
> and they reacquire citizenship a third time, they shall be barred

from

> running for any elected public office for one (1) year following
> re-admission, with no exceptions under any circumstances

whatsoever.

>
> VI. The Censors will note the dates of resignations in the

censorial

> album civium.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The more issues a single lex tries to specifically address, the

more

> complex and unwieldy it becomes. With the above, you're either a
> citizen or you're not.
>
> We already have laws that say that if you pay your taxes, you get

to

> vote and run for office and if you don't, you don't; while I
> understand (and appreciate) the enormous amount of work that the
> censors' office went through to find citizens during the last

census,

> I'm not sure why it became so burdensome. If you don't answer a
> census, you're removed from the rolls, files gone. If you want to
> come back, you just say so, and it's the responsibility of the
> returning citizen to provide us with the information necessary.
>
> We need to begin from a standpoint of personal responsibility on

the

> part of the citizens; if we make these things clear, there is no
> reason why it should become the nightmare job that the censors'

staffs

> underwent recently. The citizens are eminently reasonable people,

and

> if the basic guidelines are clear, we shouldn't have a problem. We
> should not the kind of State that should be spending its time and
> energy looking over its citizens' shoulders and holding their

hands.

>
> Make the law simple and unambiguous, and the easiest way to do

that is

> to make it clear.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato
>

Salve Aula Tullia Scholastica,
what just popped up in my mind is the following: does your server perhaps
block sites with sexual contexts? The shop offers for example a Priapus
necklace, too.... ;-) Plus oillamps with erotic art on it and a lovely
statue of Venus....
I´m not sure, but could this be a reason for your not being able to see the
site??
Vale!
Flavia

-------Originalmeldung-------

Von: A. Tullia Scholastica
Datum: 03/30/06 22:46:36
An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 2399

> Salue, L. Flauia Lectrix, et saluete, omnes!
>
> Salve Aula Tullia Scholastica!
> You might try it under http://www.roemer-mosaik-kelten-shop.de/ Perhaps

the

> direct link was too long for your browser to accept... I am quite sure

that

> you can find your way through this website from there on! I like it very
> much, but my bank account most of all the times keeps me from shopping
> instead of just gazing. ;-)
>
> ATS: I seem to have a similar problem with that...I doubt I¹m alone.
>
> Vielen Dank! One of our diligent cybernauts suggested the same thing to

me

> privately, but it¹s always helpful to have that sort of information posted

for

> the benefit of others. I won¹t say that the English translation is

terribly

> complete, but I can read enough Deutsch that I could understand most of it

if

> not the wonders of the Euro, whose value I don¹t know.
>
> Vale!
> Flavia
>
> Vale, et ualete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>
> -------Originalmeldung-------
>
> Von: A. Tullia Scholastica
> Datum: 03/30/06 10:56:16
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 2399
>
>> > Salue, Saturnine, et saluete, omnes!
>> >
>> > Salvete Marce et Lucia et omnes,
>> >
>> > Thank you so much for these links! I think I will order them from the
>> > German shop as it is so much closer to where I live, but also
>> > Venetian Cat had very nice documentation about their wares.
>> >
>> > ATS: Julia from Venetian Cat is a wonderful person, and a fine and
>> > accommodating potter. The problems of dealing with transatlantic

commerce

> for
>> > fragile objects and the obnoxious details of the financial arrangements
> may
>> > make a European provider a better choice for you, but I recommend her
> heartily
>> > to those who can overcome those obstacles.
>> >
>> > I wasn¹t able to access the site for the European potter...I got a

404

>> > error. Might be interesting to see...
>> >
>> > Valete,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 29.3.2006, at 23:36, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>> >
>>>> >> > Message: 4
>>>> >> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:12:04 -0500
>>>> >> > From: "Phil Perez" <senseiphil@...>
>>>> >> > Subject: Re: roman wine set or similar, help requested
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Salve Saturnine,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > http://venetiancat.com/ is where you want to go to for your Roman
>>>> >> > ceramic needs.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Vires et honos,
>>>> >> > Marcus Cassius Philippus
>>>> >> >

______________________________________________________________________

>>>> >> > __
>>>> >> >

______________________________________________________________________

>>>> >> > __
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Message: 18
>>>> >> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:24:40 +0200 (Westeuropäische

Normalzeit)

>>>> >> > From: "Stefanie Beer" <sbeer@...>
>>>> >> > Subject: Betreff: roman wine set or similar, help requested
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Salve Saturnine!
>>>> >> > Try this link! I bought my set from there and it is terrific!
>>>> >> > http://www.roemer-mosaik-kelten-shop.de/oxid
>>>> >> > php/sid/5b46860525671af8569da15909269ed2/cl/alist/cnid/
>>>> >> > bfc4099eb1f917476
>>>> >> > 23060175
>>>> >> > Vale!
>>>> >> > L.Flavia Lectrix
>> >
>> > Caius Curius Saturninus
>> >
>> > Propraetor Provinciae Thules
>> > Rector Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
>> >
>> > e-mail: c.curius@...
>> > www.academiathules.org
>> > gsm: +358-50-3315279
>> > fax: +358-9-8754751
>> >
>> >
>> > Vale, et ualete,
>> >
>> > A. Tullia Scholastica
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>

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




Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Salve, Marine

I´m very convinced that animal sacrifice was grounded on very pragmatic reasons: meal in the case of domestic animals. As for the dogs, maybe "cleaning" the cities of too much of them; in fact groups of organized dogs in a wolf-like fashion can be very dangerous. Sadistic tendencies might sometimes play a role. Human sacrifice in other cultures might have expressed murdering instincts, but roman gladiatorial games could also be thought as a proxy of human sacrifices.

Vale

Appius Iulius Priscus

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
Salve Appi Iuli,

Appius Iulius Priscus wrote:

[asking about Roman sacrifices of dogs]

> I) Anyway, wasn't it an exception?

In what sense? It's true that most of the animals Romans sacrificed
were food animals, but that's because they sacrificed domesticated
animals, and most of those are food animals.

> II) Did they eat them?

No. Not officially anyway.

Vale,

-- Marinus


SPONSORED LINKS
Roman empire Ancient history Citizenship test The roman empire

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Nova-Roma" on the web.

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

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


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





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

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

C. Equitius Cato M. Moravio Piscino sal.

Salve Moravius Piscinus.

I truly understand the desire to close every loophole, shut evety
door, anticipate every possible twist and turn in human behaviour;
it's simply not possible. Once you accept the fact that it's not, a
lex regarding citizenship, magistracies and resignations becomes much
easier to imagine:

If a citizen resigns, they...resign. Done. Off the rolls, buh-bye.
If they want to come back, they...come back. Give us the info we
need, and after a certain amount of time, they are given back the
rewards of any service(s) rendered to the Republic. The religious
stuff we leave to the College of Pontiffs - that's their job.

If a citizen doesn't answer the census, they're considered gone.
Done. Off the rolls. See above.

If a citizen doesn't want to pay their taxes, they...don't pay - and
they don't vote or run for office. Done.

If a magistrate resigns, they...resign. Done. Out of the job. If
they want their old job back, they can try to get it the old way - by
running for election. Done.

Anything more complex is useless.

The primary responsibility of the Republic is *not* to spend its time
trying to force people to stay; it is to make perfectly clear exactly
what citizenship is and how to maintain it once they're *here*.

Vale bene,

Cato

Salve Prisce,

Appius Iulius Priscus <ap.priscus@...> writes:

> Salve, Marine
>
> I´m very convinced that animal sacrifice was grounded on very pragmatic
> reasons:

From what I've read I've concluded that Roman sacrifices were intended to
satisfy a legalistic agreement with the Gods. In a private matter, a Roman
often offered a God something along the lines of, "If you do X for me then I
will do Y for you." In public matters people had observed that some promise
had obtained good results, such as the sacrifice of a white ox to Iuppiter,
and then kept up with that practice because it worked. In general sacrifices
were made on a quid pro quo basis. The sacrifice was a payment to the Dii
Immortales for some favor or benefit.

> meal in the case of domestic animals.

No doubt. I have a half-whimsical view of ancient polytheism being somewhat
like competing BBQ joints today.

> As for the dogs, maybe "cleaning" the cities of too much of them;

That's entirely possible. The annual crucifiction of dogs began after the
attack of the Gauls, when the guard dogs didn't give the alarm. Fortunately
for Roma, the sacred geese in the temple of Juno did raise a huge squawk, so
there was some warning and the Romans were able to repell the Gauls. After
the battle the Romans crucified all the dogs in town. Some time after that,
it became an annual ritual to carry the geese in a procession on purple
pillows while another bunch of dogs were rounded up and crucified.

There was also a ritual involving the sacrifice of a puppy at a crossroad.
I'd have to look that up for the details.

> Sadistic tendencies might sometimes play a role.

I suspect they did.

> Human sacrifice in other cultures might have
> expressed murdering instincts, but roman gladiatorial games could also be
> thought as a proxy of human sacrifices.

No proxy about it. The gladiatorial contests were fought to provide blood for
the spirits of the departed.

Vale,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

SALVETE NOVI ROMANI !

Is 24.00 Rome time. The subscriptions for Munera Gladiatoria and
Venationes end.
Our participants described their gladiators and animals.
Now you all can VOTE for their popularity. Let's see who is the star of
Circus Maximus.

VOTE for the gladiators from Munera Gladiatoria :
http://www.crystalwebvision.com/aedil/ludi/vote_gladiatoria.php

VOTE for the animals from Venationes :
http://www.crystalwebvision.com/aedil/ludi/vote_venationes.php

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS
Curule Aedile

SALVETE !

I want to remind that yours works are still accepted until 03
April,24.00 Rome time.

1. The Cultural Award of Ludi Megalenses 2759 a.U.c, is a competition
open to any interested person, citizen, probationary citizen,
peregrin etc.

2. This year the Cultural Award has as a subject not just a simple
description of historical facts or military strategies of the Punic
Wars, but its goal is, besides encouraging everyone to participate,
to allow the participants to express their innermost believes and
expectations. Both poetry and short stories (no longer than 500
words) are welcomed no matter the style and fictional approach. The
subject in itself is rather vast and there are so many possible
perspectives as different individuals have different passions. Works
which talk about the setting of the roman camp or about the personal
thoughts of a simple soldier before the battle will be regarded by
the honorable jury with the same attention as for example the poems
which describe the road either back home or the road to the realm of
the heroes.
The challenge consists not only in proving one's literary talent but
it aims at one's both general and personal view of roman life.

3. We will accept works ( short stories or poetry ) in any
international language or in latin.

4. Each text must contain the following informations about the
participant : Nova Roman name, real name, Nova Roma Province and e-
mail adress.

5. A honourable member of the appointed jury will carefully read the
poetry or short stories in its native language. It will be chosen
the best poetry or short stories in any language, after the voting
inside the jury. The winner will have to translate his work into
english or latin for the benefit of all Nova Romani.

6. The jury is composed by the following honourable citizens :
- Gn. Equitius Marinus.
- P. Memmius Albucius.
- M. Iulius Severus.
- L. Iulius Sulla.
- A. Tullia Scholastica
- T. Iulius Sabinus.

7. The deadline to send the works is April 3th 2006 ( 2759 a.U.c. )
at 24.00 roman time; all works have to be sent only to the following
e-mail adress : iulia.cytheris.aege@... with the subject "
Cultural Award ".

8. The results will be published on April 7th 2006 ( 2759 a.U.c. ) at
the Aediles Website and on the Main Mailing List of Nova Roma.

9. The texts will be archived by the Ludi organization. The
participants give the copyrights of their text to Nova Roma accepting
this regulation.This regulation is accepted by taking part to
the "Ludi Megalenses - Cultural Award "

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

> Salue, L. Flauia Lectrix, et saluete, omnes!
>
> Salve Aula Tullia Scholastica,
> what just popped up in my mind is the following: does your server perhaps
> block sites with sexual contexts? The shop offers for example a Priapus
> necklace, too.... ;-) Plus oillamps with erotic art on it and a lovely
> statue of Venus....
> I´m not sure, but could this be a reason for your not being able to see the
> site??
>
> ATS: I seriously doubt that, as I had no difficulty accessing the site
> minus the long string of numbers, etc. at the end. Moreover, I, unlike some
> of the members of the ML, am adult...no kids in household, etc. I even took a
> peek at some items under that heading, not that I¹m particularly interested in
> same. I don¹t know any guys who need any help in this direction...
>
> Vale!
> Flavia
>
> Vale, et ualete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>
> -------Originalmeldung-------
>
> Von: A. Tullia Scholastica
> Datum: 03/30/06 22:46:36
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 2399
>
>> > Salue, L. Flauia Lectrix, et saluete, omnes!
>> >
>> > Salve Aula Tullia Scholastica!
>> > You might try it under http://www.roemer-mosaik-kelten-shop.de/ Perhaps
> the
>> > direct link was too long for your browser to accept... I am quite sure
> that
>> > you can find your way through this website from there on! I like it very
>> > much, but my bank account most of all the times keeps me from shopping
>> > instead of just gazing. ;-)
>> >
>> > ATS: I seem to have a similar problem with that...I doubt I¹m alone.
>> >
>> > Vielen Dank! One of our diligent cybernauts suggested the same thing to
> me
>> > privately, but it¹s always helpful to have that sort of information posted
> for
>> > the benefit of others. I won¹t say that the English translation is
> terribly
>> > complete, but I can read enough Deutsch that I could understand most of it
> if
>> > not the wonders of the Euro, whose value I don¹t know.
>> >
>> > Vale!
>> > Flavia
>> >
>> > Vale, et ualete,
>> >
>> > A. Tullia Scholastica
>> >
>> > -------Originalmeldung-------
>> >
>> > Von: A. Tullia Scholastica
>> > Datum: 03/30/06 10:56:16
>> > An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>> > Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 2399
>> >
>>>> >> > Salue, Saturnine, et saluete, omnes!
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Salvete Marce et Lucia et omnes,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Thank you so much for these links! I think I will order them from the
>>>> >> > German shop as it is so much closer to where I live, but also
>>>> >> > Venetian Cat had very nice documentation about their wares.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ATS: Julia from Venetian Cat is a wonderful person, and a fine and
>>>> >> > accommodating potter. The problems of dealing with transatlantic
> commerce
>> > for
>>>> >> > fragile objects and the obnoxious details of the financial
>>>> arrangements
>> > may
>>>> >> > make a European provider a better choice for you, but I recommend her
>> > heartily
>>>> >> > to those who can overcome those obstacles.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I wasn¹t able to access the site for the European potter...I got a
> 404
>>>> >> > error. Might be interesting to see...
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Valete,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On 29.3.2006, at 23:36, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Message: 4
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:12:04 -0500
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > From: "Phil Perez" <senseiphil@...>
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Subject: Re: roman wine set or similar, help requested
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Salve Saturnine,
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > http://venetiancat.com/ is where you want to go to for your

Roman

>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > ceramic needs.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Vires et honos,
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Marcus Cassius Philippus
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > __
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > __
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Message: 18
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:24:40 +0200 (Westeuropäische
> Normalzeit)
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > From: "Stefanie Beer" <sbeer@...>
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Subject: Betreff: roman wine set or similar, help requested
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Salve Saturnine!
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Try this link! I bought my set from there and it is terrific!
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > http://www.roemer-mosaik-kelten-shop.de/oxid
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > php/sid/5b46860525671af8569da15909269ed2/cl/alist/cnid/
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > bfc4099eb1f917476
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > 23060175
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > Vale!
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> > L.Flavia Lectrix
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Caius Curius Saturninus
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Propraetor Provinciae Thules
>>>> >> > Rector Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > e-mail: c.curius@...
>>>> >> > www.academiathules.org
>>>> >> > gsm: +358-50-3315279
>>>> >> > fax: +358-9-8754751
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Vale, et ualete,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > A. Tullia Scholastica
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>

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

---Salvete Quiritibus Novae Romae:


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

>
> A. Apollonius Pompejae Minuciae omnibusque sal.
>
> As you note, this started long and is getting longer,
> so I'll reply selectively and at some points summarize
> rather than quote. For the benefit of other readers, I
> note that the message that I'm replying to can be
> found in full at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/43003

(snippage)

>
> (Your argument that there is
> plenty of time for discussion *during* voting is
> misplaced, because once a person has voted he cannot
> change his mind regardless of what he hears in debate
> afterwards. All debate after the beginning of voting
> is directed at persuading an increasingly small number
> of people who haven't voted yet.)

PMS: I know how ardently you want to defeat these proposals.
However, I made no such argument as you present above. Please read
the posts you respond to more thoroughly, so you don't
misrepresent/misquote the positions of others in your haste to make
a point.

(snippage)

Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and

used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

>

C. Equitius Cato P. Minuciae Straboni sal.

Salve consul.

I've just realized that I've been referring to you as P. TIBERIA
Strabo, forgetting which cognomen you had dropped. I apologize.

Vale bene,

Cato

M. Hortensia G. Equitio Catoni spd;
I never made any such claim. I claimed that all Observant
Jews ate vegetarian dairy meals, but not tha all meals were
vegetarian. You simply made incorrect assumptions due to your
ignorance of Judaism.

The traditional meal for Passover is lamb. Has been for thousands of
years. That you an active Christian don't even know this is pretty
surprising.

M. Hortensia Maior

>
>
> The point of the story was that there were Jewish butchers plying
> their trade well before your date of 1780, during a period you

claimed

> was exclusively vegetarian.
>
> But I think we've run this into the ground.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>

C. Equitius Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori sal.

Marca Hortensia, when you say:

"all Observant Jews ate vegetarian dairy meals",

I assume that you mean that "all" observant Jews ate vegetarian dairy
meals. This means that of observant Jews, "all" of them ate
vegetarian dairy meals; "all" of their meals, being observant Jews,
were vegetarian and dairy. Which is incorrect. If you mean that
"all" observant Jews ate "some" vegetarian dairy meals, you should
have said so. But you did not.

As for the Passover lamb remark; I don't even know where to begin with
that one, but my answer would be most intemperate I'm afraid. I'll
stick with, "Physician, heal thyself."

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia G. Equitio Catoni spd;
> I never made any such claim. I claimed that all Observant
> Jews ate vegetarian dairy meals, but not tha all meals were
> vegetarian. You simply made incorrect assumptions due to your
> ignorance of Judaism.
>
> The traditional meal for Passover is lamb. Has been for thousands of
> years. That you an active Christian don't even know this is pretty
> surprising.
>
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> >
> >
> > The point of the story was that there were Jewish butchers plying
> > their trade well before your date of 1780, during a period you
> claimed
> > was exclusively vegetarian.
> >
> > But I think we've run this into the ground.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Salve, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar; salvete, omnes.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 03:41:15AM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
> Salve Consul.
>
> One of the wonders of this modern age is the statistics that sites
> like this accumulate.
>
> >From those stats I am well aware that you, the Senior Consul and
> many others in your respective Cohors have been dipping in and out
> of my blog on a very regular basis for a long time.

I have little interest in the topic of the current discussion, but this
last item is worthy of note: unless you've single-handedly managed to
change how the Internet works, what you're claiming is not possible. In
the interest of sticking to fact rather than fancy, I'll clarify what I
mean:

1) Site stats indicate how many retrieval requests your site received,
and the IP addresses that those requests came from. They do not tell you
who the person behind the IP is - much less whether they're a part of
someone's cohort or not.

2) There's no way for you to tell whether someone has been "dipping in
and out on a regular basis" since most people's connection to the Net is
made via dynamic IP assignment (i.e., their IP is different every time
they connect.) Thus, even if you _could_ somehow trace, in one instance,
who it was that connected from that address, you would have no idea
which IP represented that person in the future.

3) To top it all off, if I recall correctly, your blog address says that
you're using one of the blogging services (rather than running your own
server); this means that you don't have access to any significant level
of data analysis. I.e., you can't do anything with that hit data beyond
looking at a couple of pretty pictures with bars (or pie charts) on them.

I would appreciate it if you would stop spreading misinformation
(generally known as 'FUD', i.e. "fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in your
attempts to make whatever your point was. By trying to pass this type of
false coin, you cast strong doubt on the accuracy of any other issues
you may be addressing.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nosce te ipsum.
Know thyself
-- Inscription at the temple of Apollo in Delphi.

Salve Scaevola.

There is an add-on service for Blogger you can install that takes it
past the pretty picture stage. It isn't bad - for an add on.

As for the IP issue, simply looking at the "source" info of a number
of the posts here and on other Yahoo sites and matching them to the
IP from the Blog revealed a match. It isn't 100% - but then I never
claimed it was.

I doubt somewhat that I precipitated an attack of FUD on anyone's
part <g>, but if I did I am sure you will reassure them.

Vale
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Benjamin A. Okopnik" <ben@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar; salvete, omnes.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 03:41:15AM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

wrote:

> > Salve Consul.
>