Salve, Hmmm,not I.

Vale,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

--- On Sat, 11/15/08, Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...> wrote:

> From: Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nazis And Paganism
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 11:33 AM
> Salve,
>
> Uh....ok. So what brought this up?
>
> Vale
> - Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> http://minucia.ciarin.com
>
>
>
> Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Here is an interesting summary of the Nazis and
> paganism. It was just
> > a small number in the party involved and apparently
> Himmler had his
> > Disneyland sort of castle to facilitate events.
> >
> > A lot of the fundies in the states say Hitler was not
> Christian but
> > Roman Catholic (lol) since we worship Mary, the saints
> and are more
> > like pagan Rome. Hitler was born Roman Catholic but
> left the church
> > and sacraments at a very early age. Ultimately he
> wanted to see
> > Christianity gone but had to tolerate it as Germany
> was 2/3
> > Protestant, 1/3 Catholic in his time. Martin Bormann
> and a few others
> > wanted it destroyed doen the road. True, in his rants
> he'd talk
> > about "positive" Chritianity in one speech,
> then contradict himself
> > in the next saying it was incompatible with National
> Socialism.
> > Apparently he looked the other way with regards to
> revived paganism
> > and thought the other party members partaking in it
> were a little off
> > their rockers in that aspect.
> >
> > http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/himmler.htm
> >
> <http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/himmler.htm>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > QSP
> >
> >

---Po Minucia Strabo Senatrix Consularis Marco Moravio Piscino
Horatiano Consul Maior Quiritibus Novae Romae S.P.D.


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:

>
> [...]
>
> Over the past few weeks I have been indisposed and unavailable. As
> some are aware, certain periods of the year can be most difficult on my
> condition, and October/November is one of the worse. Even now it is
> very difficult for me to sit up and type. But I should be remissed if
> I did not address some of the criticizisms that have been raised and
> allow our Citizens to vote against the proposed leges based only on
> those criticisms.

Pompeia: Better late than never I suppose. Most of us who have known
you over the years are aware of your unfortunate challenges and
empathize with these for sure; and I can believe that you can easily
predict your bad times...October/November I guess being one.

Tell, me though, given your ability to anticipate this as a bad time
of year, why, might I ask, did you choose this time to promulgate such
an extensive quantity of legislation, when you know your ability to be
part of the contio were slim? Could some of this not have been done
at an earlier time of the year?
Sadly, you apparently had other priorities during your administration
(and I'm not referring to your visit to Dacia, which was probably very
meaningful).

For that matter, Sabinus Consul could have presided over this comitia
call. It is tradition that the Senior Consul holds the general
elections, but it's not unlawful for the Junior Consul to so.

I know that I haven't been the most available to render advice,
assuming you needed or wanted any, but you had quite a panel of
accensi, and despite that, this program of proposals looks thrown
together, and in some areas is alread starting to cry out for
corruption down the road.


[...]

>
> It was said that the proposed leges on the magistrates are too
> ambiguous. I say instead that they offer us more flexibility.

Pompeia: The flexibility afforded with the unnamed number of
Praetores could prove costly, and could be easily abused. Flexibility
for whom?

[...]


Secondly, I have seen some "what if's" posed against the proposed Leges

> Moraviae Iuliae. The authors of these proposals prefer to reduce the
> over all number of magistrates. But rather than make our own
> recommendations on what is needed now, we moved to leave open what the
> number should be so that in the future we can adjust to our changing
> needs. What we would like to see is a reduction in the number of
> Quaestores from eight to four, and a reduction of the number of Tribuni
> from five to three.

Pompeia: The number of Quaestores I can see. They do not have
automatic Senate votes assigned to their service. And many of the
Quaestors don't end up doing much, but they can run for higher offices
in ensuing years.

>
> There was never any intention to see the number of praetores reduced to
> one. Nor would we suggest that their number be increased. Our stated
> goal is to reduce the number of magistrates, not increase their number.

Pompeia: That said, why didn't you keep the Praetoral number at 2 ? :>))


[...]

> The "what if" on how increasing the number of
> praetores would effect the choices available for sublection to the
> Senate is a non-argument. The situation is based on a current lex, not
> the Constitution itself, and it would lead to just one of the needed
> adjustments to our organizational structures.

Pompeia: This, I fear, is nonsense. The Lex Popillia Senatoria is the
prevailing law on Senatorial sublection.... It's not a lex about the
number of magistrates. Comitia law or not, I am not holding my breath
that it will change any time soon.

The constitution in other clauses defaults to the above lex by its
own words. This is not a *non-argument*. All it takes is a future
Consul to decide we need 6 Praetores, call the Comitia Centuriata, get
a lex passed to this effect, and the balance of power in the Senate is
altered, by virtue of every blasted Praetor being granted automatic
admission to the Senate *AND* to vote. The most naive imagination and
slimmest knowledge of the legislation and politics of Nova Roma, or
any other voluntary group, suggests that this begs for abuse and
corruption.
This you call a *non argument*? When you yourself said above that you
didn't see any practical reason to change their numbers, you will
provide 'flexibility', regardless of implications. Well, I guess it
isn't your problem any more, is it Consul?

I don't relish the proposals on the Censura :>), and others take issue
with it also. I understand some of your religious reasoning though,
and thus the need for collegial censors. We could still do this, and
still have them in office always, electing them every 1-2 years. We
could have a yearly Lustrum: one at the end of our usual q two yearly
Census, and in the off years, one at the end of the time the Censors
take to realign the tribes and centuries, taking into account new
civites and assidui/capite censi changes...the latter could be
considered a census also.

Oh wait..

which brings me to think of this: The Censors usually line the tribes
and centuries yearly....I guess this is only to be done every two
years if your proposal passes? It's a Censors job, no?

[...]

Too bad. If we had a contio earlier in the year about all this, one
with time on our side, and more attendence of the presiding
magistrate, some solutions could have been brainstormed to make these
proposal more practical, while maintaining key religious and
historical elements.

valete

>
>

---P. Minucia Strabo Gn Iulio Caesaroni:

I just finished writing a long post with pretty much the same
thoughts!....I think yours is a bit more colourful than mine though :>).

Themes:
*If you don't want to change the number of Praetors...when why do it?
*This was all done hastily, should have been done earlier in the year,
plus other assorted thoughts.

Get your copy today!






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

>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano sal.
>
> I note you say:
>
> "There was never any intention to see the number of praetores reduced
> to one. Nor would we suggest that their number be increased. Our
> stated goal is to reduce the number of magistrates, not increase
> their number. And we have also stated that our interest is in seeing
> our magistrates better tailored to our needs, so we certainly would
> not advocate having only one Praetor. The "what if" on how increasing
> the number of praetores would effect the choices available for
> adlection to the Senate is a non-argument. The situation is based on
> a current lex, not the Constitution itself, and it would lead to just
> one of the needed adjustments to our organizational structures."
>
> Perhaps you need to read your own proposed lex again. You allow for
> the number of Praetors to be changed by law, yet here you say you
> don't want to increase the number or decrease it. Well Consul, if you
> don't see a need to change the number of Praetors, why change the
> Constitution? Why introduce the mechanism where others, less benign
> than you, will do precisely that? Something doesn't seem to add up
> here.
>
> Also I note you state that stuffing the Senate is a non-argument.
> Really? Yes - it is based on a law - the Lex Popillia senatoria> what
> is this "needed adjustments to our organizational structures"? I
> assume you now also want to repeal or alter the Lex Popillia
> senatoria. That can be the only way to prevent the Senate being
> stuffed with a gaggle of ex-praetors under your proposals.
>
> Exactly what are you changing the rules on Senatorial adelection to?
> I assume that to make logical sense of your previous comment on the
> necessary changes and there in essence being no danger of Senate
> stuffing, that you want to restrict membership of the Senate? When
> will this occur? After the first stuffing of the Senatorial turkey?
>
> Exactly how long have you been planning these "needed adjustments to
> our organizational structures" and with who? As your term of office
> is about to end, your dismissal of Senate stuffing as a danger and
> indicating that you will change the adelection process, clearly tells
> me that a group of Magistrates are behind this and some who will be
> Magistrates next year. Are the two Consular candidates for next year
> the ones who will change the Lex Popillia senatoria?
>
> Don't you think that these, supposed, needed adjustments should have
> been the subject of considerable debate and consultation, in an open
> and transparent manner? Without that degree of openess these
> proposals look more like a receipe for consolidating a grip on the
> Senate and limiting choice. You open yourself, in my estimation, to
> the charge that you have set out on a well planned course to
> radically alter the balance of the Senate, one way or another, and
> manipulate the number of magisterial positions available.
>
> No Consul, either these are poorly planned changes badly thought out,
> or, they are the product of a well planned and coordinated effort to
> alter the balance of influence and Senatorial numbers in Nova Roma.
> You cannot have your cake and eat it. I may add if they were that
> well planned, then why didn't you expend the same degree of effort in
> openly debating this throughout Nova Roma.
>
> Didn't you used to be one of the most vocal of speakers in favour of
> inclusiveness and consultation? I see none of that in these proposals.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@>
> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Consul et Pontifex Maximus: Senatui
> > Populoque Novo Romano, T. Iulio Sabino Consuli collegae Quiritibus,
> et
> >
>

Consuli Moravio s.d.

I was going to vote in the CT Pop., but finally renounced, for our
current cista at:
http://www.novaroma.org/cgi-bin/voting/c_pop/cista

let me a bit perplex.

I let aside the fact that there is a mistake in "curulus", which
should be "curulis".

My interrogation is about the presence of a clicking box "ABSTINEO -
I abstain".

Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum populi tributorum (02 Dec 56),
applicable here, says :

"C. For each candidate in the case in the case (sic!) of a
magisterial election, each voter shall have the option to mark the
candidate 'yes (uti rogas)' or to leave the candidate unmarked; each
ballot shall carry the following direction: 'you may vote for as many
candidates as you wish, but you are advised to vote only for those
candidates you strongly support' (...) In the case of a magisterial
election, (..) For each tribe, the candidates shall be ordered by the
number of 'yes' votes they receive from voters in that tribe, the
candidate who receives most 'yes' votes (ties being decided by lot)
being numbered 1, and so on in descending order."

So, in our current law, we are supposed :
- either to vote *for*, ticking the relevant candidate's name box
- or to vote *not for*, not ticking this box.

Note here that we cannot know if the voter has wished voting against
or abstain. But after all, this is what provides our current law.
Well.

But, in this case, what is the role of the "ABSTINEO - I abstain" box
and line ?

If Lex Fabia well - as I understand it - put in the same bag the
votes against and the abstentions, this line has nothing to do in the
cista.

If on the contrary it intends (but where in the text ?) allowing the
voter to abstain, this line should be in the page. But here, a second
problem would occur : how to understand *one* abstention box, and not
as many boxes as we have candidates.

In every case (though I think that lex Fabia asks us to get rid of
the abstention line), we have a problem with the cista, which could
make all our votes void.


Vale bene Consul,


P. Memmius Albucius





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...>
wrote:

>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Consul: Senatui Populoque Novo Romano, T.

Iulio

> Sabino Consuli collegae Quiritibus, et omnibus: salutem plurimam

dicit:

>
>
> Tribus XXII Maecia having been chosen as Praesidium, the Comitia

Populi

> Tributa is called to vote. Voting in the Comitia shall continue

until

> 17:00 hours CET Roma on 24 November A. U. C. 2761.
>

A. Tullia Scholastica T. Iulio Sabino consuli quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

SALVETE!

I want to point out some aspects about the candidates I know better
and I was in connection during the time:

I have trust that M. Curiatius Complutensis and M. Iulius Severus
will continue in good way the work started this year. More than that,
they will add theirs personal contribution covering those areas which
need more improvement.
Both have experience, were very active and acted in collegial
relation and I'm sure we will see positive contributions.
They have my support for the office of consulship.

With Equitius Marinus and Memmius Albucius praetura is in good hands.
Equitius Marinus come with the huge reputation of the well done job
in each position and Memmius Albucius with good juridical knowledge.
I salute their candidacy and I support them with all my heart.

Reading the Cn. Iulius Caesar statement I'm sure that he will act
exactly in the way presented there. Caesar is a person I respect,
with honor and common sense. I consider him a model of dignitas to
follow. With the necessary initiative and all abilities he
demonstrated for many times I'm sure we will have an important
aedilician year. I can't abstain to say that what you enjoy now on
Google Earth as the ancient Rome 3D model, Caesar had as idea two
years ago, exactly in the same way, as a reconstruction of the
Constantine period when Rome was at its greatest level of
architectural development. It was nice as this project developed now
by Google to be associated with Nova Roma but it seems we have to
learn where to focus our energy.

I wish success to all candidates for quaestura. They have what to
learn at this first step in Cursus Honorum and fortunately a Quaestor
Handbook was developed a few years ago by Saturninus and available
now not only in this group file section but on wiki, too.
I see there Reccanellus as candidate for the second time in this
office. As time we were colleagues in the Pompeia consular cohors, I
know what wonderful job he done managing all in connection with NR
taxes.
I have confidence in two of my very good friends, tribuna Livia and
tribune Aquila. They already demonstrated this year their deeply
interest in NR. A special support to them!
Then, with Valerius Poplicola, Petronius Dexter and Valerius Potitus
energy and excellent knowledge quaestura will have only to benefit.
Near them, Cornelius Scipio and Gratius Nerva complete what I
consider as good candidates for the next year and I support all of
them.

Tullia Scolastica's contributions are unquestionable. I had the honor
to work near her in many cohors. She has a deeply sense of duty and
one can count totally on her word. She has a special place in my
heart and I fully support her.

    ATS: Thank you very much for your kind words and your endorsement.  I enjoyed working with you, and hope that you and the other Romanians, Hungarians, etc., will be able to come to this country for Roman Days in 2010.  We may also hope that the weather will cooperate even more than it did this year, when we had intermittent light rain.  The new site is pleasant enough, if not so well adapted to the use of missiles as was the original one.  We look forward to meeting you and the others; many citizens live within easy range of this area, and as you know, many come from much farther away to participate and attend this event.  I at least hope you can drag Lentulus along; there would then be three Latinists instead of two, as well as a pontifex.  

With Tullius Valerianus and Arminius Genialis I didn't have an
occasion to collaborate but, taking in consideration their messages I
had read, I'm sure they are dedicated citizens and they can fulfill
the position anytime.

I support the candidates for diribitor. There are Octavius Corvus,
the governor of Sarmatia, a good friend and neighbor, Valerius
Traianus, Nova Roma citizen since 2000,  senatrix Annia Minucia, a
fine person I respect and excellent governor and Terentius Varro,
citizen since 2001. After Aurelius Severus resigned, he announced me,
that the best message, in the spirit of Concordia and common sense,
he received in connection with his resignation, was received from
Terentius Varrus. That demonstrated me that Varrus has really
diplomatic qualities and common sense.

I don't have enough words to describe what wonderful person is Marcus
Lucretius. I will say only that I was honored to meet him in Rome and
I hope to meet him again with other occasions. I'm honored by his
friendship and if NR wiki is what is now, is his contribution.
I support the Salix Cicero's candidacy, too. He is one of this year
consular accensus.

I can't vote in Comitia Plebis Tributa. But I see there as candidates
our best citizens and I wish success to them.
I'm glad to see there the former aedilis curulis Artoria Marcella, a
person I collaborated in the best way two consecutive years. Marcella
is a person of justice and as tribuna she will add a great
contribution to tribunate.
Agrippa participated at Conventus this summer. I was honored to meet
a wonderful person and I regret we had only a few days to stay
together. I use this opportunity to send to you Arria Carina's
support in your candidacy, Agrippa.

Success to all candidates!

VALETE,
IVL SABINVS

Vale, et valete.  

 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/46933

A. Tullia Scholastic C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

C. Petronius Dexter omnibus Quiritibus s.p.d.,
 
I am a new citizen. I applied for my citizenship on Nov. 27 2007, I successfully passed my citizen test on Feb. 09 2008 and I received my full citizenship letter on Feb. 27. 2008. So with a such few time of citizenship, I know that the weight of my opinions and my influence are very little, unless void. But, I like the frank and straight language with which we post on this list. And me too, I wish to publicly share my choices, my endorsements and votes.
 
First my endorsements:
 
CENSOR: We have three candidates, only one open position. In my opinion, the position of Censor is the crowning achievement of a long public carreer. P. Constantinus Placidus, in my frank opinion, can not jump from the bottom to the top. He must serve more the republic in most  positions of the carreer to pretend being a Censor. Now I have to chose between two great candidates, T. Iulius Sabinus and C. Popillius Laenas. Which of them I will chose? The patrician T. Iulius, the current consul, or the plebeian C. Popillius, who was consul on 2758 with Franciscus Apulus Caesar? And now just lictor and accensus?
 
My decision will not attach to their each and opposite orders, patrician against plebeian, I do not claim the order war. My choice will give
importance over one thing. I think that we must clean up the practices. As a magistrate in function is not subject to lawsuit, I think after his year of magistracy the former magistrate must have the year following off. In order to be judgeg if he did faults. So, imho, a break is desirable between magistracies with "imperium". Above all after a consulship.
 
In following my opinion, thence I will support and will vote G. Popillius Laenas. Even if it seems that I have offended him with my message about his name Popillius, Popilius. I apologize to him, because he was right, his name can be written Popillius. ;o)
 
CONSVL: We have two candidates for two positions. The both candidates have my endorsement and I will vote them. M. Julius Severus was my first contact in Nova Roma and did the honourable effort to write to me in French to announce me that I was approved as a temporary Nova
Roman citizen untill I succesfully passed my test and 90 days probation. A very kind man. I do not know M. Curiatius Complutensis. We corresponded with courtesy about a mistake I did on the NRWiki pages.
 
PRAETOR: We also have two candidates for two positions. I will not hesitate over my votes and I will vote for both. I like the depth of the
messages of Gn. Equitius Marinus and, of  course, I also like the courtesy and the diplomacy of my fellow countryman P. Memmius Albucius
which did not hesitate to defend the citizen Varro... where the absence of the tribunes of the plebs shone. I also appreciated the games given by him as aedilis curulis. I am sure that Nova Roma will have a good college of Praetors for the next year.
 
CVRVLIS AEDILIS: I will vote Gn. Julius Caesar. I did not know him very much, but he has very interesting advices and positions.
 
QVAESTOR: 8 candidates whose me for 8 open positions. In my case, I am sure that I will do for the best than I will can. So I will vote me as quaestor with complete confidence. No problem. I will vote the 8. The candidates I know more, except me,  are L. Livia Plauta, T. Flavius
Aquila, Q. Valerius Poplicola. I remember the sport challenge with C. Arminius Reccanellus, but unfortunately during the last Ludi Romani my
chariot did not confront his. ;o)
 
ROGATOR: Three candidates for two positions. As latinist, I will vote A. Tullia Scholastica and G. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus. With both Tullii we are sure that the classical Latin will be respected.

    ATS:  Je vous aussi remercie!  Thank you very much for your endorsement.  We do try to respect Latin (and when possible, classical Latin) in the face of some opposition.  
 
DIRIBITOR: Four candidates, four open positions. The choice is easy. I presume that the diribitores must be sure, fair and honest because they have the results of the votes in their hands. I trust in all them and I will vote the 4.
 
CVSTOS: Two candidates, two open positions. I will vote the 2.
 
AEDILIS PLEBIS: One candidate, two positions. However we have according to the non official census of C. Fulvius Severus 228 plebeian
assidui which could be candidates! Nevertheless I cheerfully will vote Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus.
 
TRIBVNI PLEBIS: Six candidates, five positions! How will I vote? First, I will vote App. Galerius Valerianus whose I liked the interventions and his support to T. Flavius Aquila. I share with him the same positions about our order and I have appreciated his pagan bond with App. Claudius Varro. I have not decided yet which I will not can vote among the 5 other candidates.
 
Now to the 10 Moravia Julia rogationes.
 
I will vote yes :
 
Rogatio de institutis publicis religiosis.
Rogatio de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum.
Rogatio de curatore aerarii.
 
I will vote no the others.
 
Valete.
 
C. Petronius Dexter

Vale, et valete.  
 
 
 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/59171

A. Tullia Scholastica Caesoni Fabio Buteoni Quintiliano quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

Salvete Qurites!

The following citizens have my support  in the bid for each magistracy:

AEDILIS CURULIS (2 openings)

Cn. Iulius Caesar

----------

QUAESTOR (8 openings)

Gaius Arminius Reccanellus
Tiberius Cornelius Scipio
Quintus Valerius Poplicola
Titus Flavius Aquila
Marcus Valerius Potitus
Gaius Petronius Dexter
Lucia Livia Plauta
Lucius Gratius Nerva
-------------

ROGATOR (2 openings)

Aula Tullia Scholastica

    ATS:  Thank you for your support.  It is much appreciated.  


Titus Arminius Genialis
---------------

DIRIBITOR (4 openings)

M. Octavius Corvus
Marcus Valerius Traianus
Gaius Terentius Varro
Annia Minucia Marcella

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

CUSTOS (2 openings)

Lucius Salix Cicero
Marcus Lucretius Agricola

*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae

Vale, et valete.  

 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/58887

----- Original Message -----

From: Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 9:29 AM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nazis And Paganism

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting summary of the Nazis and paganism. It was just
a small number in the party involved and apparently Himmler had his
Disneyland sort of castle to facilitate events.

A lot of the fundies in the states say Hitler was not Christian but
Roman Catholic (lol) since we worship Mary, the saints and are more
like pagan Rome. Hitler was born Roman Catholic but left the church
and sacraments at a very early age. Ultimately he wanted to see
Christianity gone but had to tolerate it as Germany was 2/3
Protestant, 1/3 Catholic in his time. Martin Bormann and a few others
wanted it destroyed doen the road. True, in his rants he'd talk
about "positive" Chritianity in one speech, then contradict himself
in the next saying it was incompatible with National Socialism.
Apparently he looked the other way with regards to revived paganism
and thought the other party members partaking in it were a little off
their rockers in that aspect.

http://www.whitedra gon.org.uk/ articles/ himmler.htm

Cheers,

QSP

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: Maior

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 2:22 PM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Christians and their problems with Nova Roma

M. Hortensia Cn. Caelio Cn. Cornelio spd;
I am totally fine with inclusivists. But last year my Saturnalia
and New Year's was ruined by having to fight a lawsuit, claiming I
incited hatred to Christianity brought by and then almost adjudjed by
two non-inclusivist praetors: Cato and Scholastica. And Marinus who
brought the suit.

I had sent my post to both A. Apollonius Cordus and C. Curius
Saturninus and they both said it wasn't offensive -just to be sure.

Our current censor Ti. Galerius Paulinus, candidates: Popillius
Laenas- censor , Gn Iulius Caesar-censor, Gn. Equitius Marinus-
praetor. Are all Christians, are they inclusivist? I hope so.

I really think we need to make sure our officials personally take
the oath to the gods, take their own auspices etc Then this would
become a non-question.

Finally there was this old idea in Nova Roma of 'orthopraxy' that
you didn't have to believe in the gods to take auspices etc; this is
a completely incorrect Christian interpretation of the cultus deorum.

Christians think in terms of catechisms, binding written professions
of faith. This is typical of their cultus only. Jews don't do this at
all. We would ask is someone 'observant' meaning -do they perform
prayers and ceremonies, to see how religious they are. It is
orthopractic similar to the cultus deorum.
Modianus, who has a Rabbi as a professor helped me to realize this.

Romans saw themselves this way and the best example is in Livy XXVII,
8, 4-10; that of Valerius Flaccus, a dissipated Roman of bad
reputation who was made Flamen Dialis against his will. The result:
he became an exemplary Flamen Dialis.

So by taking auspices, holding games, honoring the gods, in Roman
eyes you will become a devout cultor, worshipper of the gods.
M. Hortensia Maior
sacerdos Mentis

>

> >
> >I most respectfully disagree
> with this. You, as well many here forget the fact
> >that there are not
> only exclusivist but also inclusivist Christians. I myself
> >am most
> devoted to the Roman religion but also have a belief in Christ, and
> >I
> have a similar inclusivist attitude towards many religions. My
> philosophy
> >and religion is Harmonism, as I call it.
>
>
> You yourself acknowledge my point exactly: you are not a
Christian but
> a "Harmonist". The Christian faith itself is inherently
exclusivist, as are
> Judaism and Islam; it is a basic tenet of their beliefs. Now, one
can
> definitely believe in Jesus and his teachings (I do, mostly) yet
not be a
> Christian. I do not wish to "kick out all the Christians", but I do
wish to
> have Nova Roma do amazing things as an organization and I do not
wish
> to see people hinder it as Mr. Fraser has done. I see this in a
similar way
> to the idea that a Satanist would not be hired to work at a
Christian
> church; their beliefs and activities would be contradictory to one
another.
> This is where my comments can be misunderstood. I do not mind
> having magistrates who include Jesus as one of the gods amongst all
the
> Roman gods and who would willingly perform rituals to the gods as a
part
> of their duty to the state. But Christians who follow their faith--
what you term
> "exclusivist Christians"- -would be unable to do that, and may even
> disagree with Nova Roma overall (as we have seen with Mr. Fraser and
> his departure). These people should not be allowed to serve as
magistrates
> due to the fact that they refuse to recognize the gods (according
to section VI,
> subsection A, of the constitution; one must obviously recognize
their existence
> before offering respect) and refuse to take part in rituals.
> So, I guess for me it comes down to this: no matter your faith,
you can
> help Nova Roma grow and do amazing things. Yet, if your faith
prevents
> you from doing this, or if it suggests that you actively prevent
such
> activity, I would suggest that you find another organization which
matches
> your beliefs more closely. I know Nova Roma has a history with
this, and
> it's obvious that it is still an issue. I hope we, as an
organization, can work
> together to make Nova Roma great. And, as always, I am willing to
> change my mind and position as new arguments come to light.
> (As an aside, I self-identify as an "Indo-European polytheist".
I am
> very close to some strands of Hinduism, and I have started to
worship
> the Roman gods and goddesses this year. My faiths--both Hinduism and
> Religio Romana--have no problem with Shiva, Durga, Krishna, Iupiter,
> Diana, and Sol being on my altar together.)
>
> Deos deamque Romae amo! I love the gods and goddesses of Rome!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Aedilis Oppidi, Oppidum Fluminis Gilae, America Austroccidentalis
> Accensus, cos. M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus et T. Iulius Sabinus
> http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1759 - Release Date: 10/31/2008 4:10 PM

pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> writes:

> which brings me to think of this: The Censors usually line the tribes
> and centuries yearly....I guess this is only to be done every two
> years if your proposal passes? It's a Censors job, no?

No, it is not. The tool that aligns the tribes and centuries was
originally written by M. Octavius Gracchus when he was censor, but
it's run by the webmaster shortly before each general election.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Caelio Ahenobarbo S.P.D.
 

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus A. Tulliae Scholasticae s.p.d.

>ATS:  And I see you are making good progress in it.   

    Conor. :-)
    I am trying. :-)

    ATS2:  Conandum’st.  One must try.  

>ATS:  Wonderful!  A fine example to our citizens!
 
    Adsentio.
    I agree.

>ATS:  Also wonderful!  Remember, though, the Nuntii Latini use a bit of an odd pronunciation

    Yep; caught that already. It's not so bad, even if it's not "classical pronunciation".

    ATS2:  It is pretty much classical pronunciation, minus the m-caduca, but substitutes v for w (possibly their language does not have this sound) and (American English) long a for I/eye in the diphthong ae.

>ATS:  Send him/her to us...While it lasts (maybe one more year, if we are lucky) we do have Sermo Latinus...

    I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have time to take Sermo as well. He's attending community college, working a full-time+ minimum-wage job, etc. But he does seem interested in Nova Roma; I'm going to talk to him about it soon.

    ATS2:  Yes, please do.  We are having problems with student access to the site, including a new entrant who cannot access the site, but most of the time things work well.  Learning Latin is a feather in anyone’s cap, and one more so here in Nova Roma.

>ATS: And [learning Latin] is not difficult, either, though one must put one’s mind to it.

    That's the catch: it takes effort. Sure, one can learn a language via exposure and osmosis, but that's difficult to do with Latin, so we learn it in classes and from books. And when people see conjugation matrices and the fact that there are declensions, etc., they run away screaming. Yet, if they just chewed one bite at a time, they'd find it really isn't that difficult.

    ATS2:  Indeed.  Latin is moreover quite regular, and while it has many tails on its words, it merely takes a little effort to understand their use.  This year I have seen a marked improvement in the work of some students, moving rapidly from loss at sea to being in sight of the shore, almost ready to wade onto the beach.  

>Anyone who can learn such useless nonsense as the batting averages of major league
>ballplayers and rushing yardage of football players can surely learn Latin.  

    Sounds like something I would say. :-)

    ATS2:  LOL!  

>ATS:  It’s supposed to be baggy, and looks fine in that respect.  It is, however, too long,
>for it should be above the knees when finished.

    That's what I thought, too, but then there was that other comment which said it should be a bit longer, maybe just below the knees. Comments?

    ATS2:  Later in history, the tunica was longer, but earlier on, it was considered effeminate to have the hem below the knees when girt or the sleeves below the elbows.  Draped tradition clothing was almost always baggy to the eyes of some of us; one exception was the archaic peplos, which is close to being a sheath dress.  

>You have also girt it in a rather Hellenic fashion

    That was the first time I had put it on. ;-) It wasn't even finished; the entire right side was still open, but held together by 3 or 4 single stitches evenly-spaced below the arm to the bottom. Suggests for a "Roman fashion" of girting? Isn't the way in the picture just a function of its hanging naturally?

    ATS:  LOL!  It’s a wonder it didn’t fall apart!  The Greek garments, particularly those of women, were first belted, then the material pulled up over each hip, then over the center, forming an inverted U.  This is how you have girt your tunica.  Roman fashion, and Greek male fashion, would simply pull the fabric up evenly all around rather than higher around the hips.   Greeks also could use a second belt, which was not done in Rome.  

>It would be easier, and more authentic, to cut the fabric in half vertically and seam
>it across the shoulders, leaving an aperture for the head than to attempt to make a
>proper slit with a facing.

    I'll probably do that next time. Hmm. I guess I could do it this time, too... Maybe.

>ATS: I leave the olives to you, but I am glad that you are doing these other things...
>and providing an example to our citizens in particular regarding our language.  

    You don't like olives? That's un-Roman! ;-)

    ATS2:  I wouldn’t want to try to preserve ANYTHING in the way of food.  My grandmother knew how to do those things, but I don’t recall that my mom did much in that way.  

    I hope that my simple examples are inspiring to others, as well.

    ATS2:  So do I.

Optime vale!

Et tu, et vos omnes bonae voluntatis!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Aedilis Oppidi, Oppidum Fluminis Gilae, America Austroccidentalis
Accensus, cos. M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus et T. Iulius Sabinus
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com


 
 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/58857

Avete Omnes;

As many know, I am a poet, writing mainly within inspiration gained
from my Faith (Asatru alias Germanic Paganism).

If anyone would like to hear what I sound like, I now have a podcast
audio blog: http://piparskeggrskald.podbean.com/

The first song I posted is one I wrote in the Fall of 2000 CE to honor
Uller, the namesake of Gens Ulleria. The quality of the recording
leaves something to be desired, but things will get better as I learn
this new medium.

=========================================
In amicitia quod fides -
Stephanus Ullerius Venator Piperbarbus

Religio Septentrionalis - Poetus

Salve Albuci, et salvete omnes,

Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> writes:

> My interrogation is about the presence of a clicking box "ABSTINEO -
> I abstain".

Somebody (I would guess one of the webmasters) used the wrong
template. That cista template with the abstention is from an earlier
time. This is not the first time we've had this problem.

What I recommend to our consuls is that they instruct our custodes and
diribitores to treat abstentions as non-votes, and to proceed with the
election. If they don't want to do that, they will have to close the
cista, declare all votes received to be void, and then restart the
voting with revised starting and ending times after the correct
template gets put up.

What MUST NOT happen is for the webmasters to say "oops!" and just
change the template on the fly now that the election has begun.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an
adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent
against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference
or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only
asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely
because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate,
Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons
should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their
impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred
specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now
applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists,
message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and
wiki talk pages.

---Po Minucia Gn Equitio Marino S.P.D.

Ahh, as a matter of fact, yes it is.
I am aware of the electronic tool of Octavius Gracchus, a former
Censor, Consul, and Webmaster, but the job of oversight and approving
any allowable changes is still assigned to the Censors, the details
as per this prevailing lex:


Lex Octavia altera de comitiis centuriatis circa MMDCCLV

Vale







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

>
> pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> writes:
>
> > which brings me to think of this: The Censors usually line the

tribes

> > and centuries yearly....I guess this is only to be done every two
> > years if your proposal passes? It's a Censors job, no?
>
> No, it is not. The tool that aligns the tribes and centuries was
> originally written by M. Octavius Gracchus when he was censor, but
> it's run by the webmaster shortly before each general election.
>
> Vale,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>

A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Iulio Caesari quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

    Raptim, let me just say that I agree with you in the main, and with C. Fulvius Severus, who prefers setting a range for the magistrate numbers to the open-ended proposals before us.  Quadrans meus:  we could do with a reduction in the number of quaestores, and of tribuni; this is one of the few years when we had enough candidates for both offices, and even had minimal contestation in the tribunate, but the other offices should be left alone.  Two praetores are fine, and the staggered censura seems fine to me.  The censors’ office is one where much must be learnt rapidly, and I think it is best to have one censor more experienced than the other.  As for the quaestores, I think we could have 5 to 6 of them, sharing those between each pair of aediles and possibly between the praetores, but this proposal has other flaws.  What we need is a more specific proposal, and one which insists that the magistrates to whom the quaestores are assigned allow them to perform their duties, given that the quaestores are reliable (some are not).  I would also like to see legislation requiring a year off between higher magistracies when ascending from one to another, as from the praetura to the consulatus or censura.   As others have noted, these open-ended proposals could lead to many evils, not least of which is packing the Senate, but there are other matters to be considered as well.  

Vale, et valete.  

Cn. Iulius Caesar M. Moravio Piscino Horatiano sal.

I note you say:

"There was never any intention to see the number of praetores reduced
to one. Nor would we suggest that their number be increased. Our
stated goal is to reduce the number of magistrates, not increase
their number. And we have also stated that our interest is in seeing
our magistrates better tailored to our needs, so we certainly would
not advocate having only one Praetor. The "what if" on how increasing
the number of praetores would effect the choices available for
adlection to the Senate is a non-argument. The situation is based on
a current lex, not the Constitution itself, and it would lead to just
one of the needed adjustments to our organizational structures."

Perhaps you need to read your own proposed lex again. You allow for
the number of Praetors to be changed by law, yet here you say you
don't want to increase the number or decrease it. Well Consul, if you
don't see a need to change the number of Praetors, why change the
Constitution? Why introduce the mechanism where others, less benign
than you, will do precisely that? Something doesn't seem to add up
here.

Also I note you state that stuffing the Senate is a non-argument.
Really? Yes - it is based on a law - the Lex Popillia senatoria> what
is this "needed adjustments to our organizational structures"? I
assume you now also want to repeal or alter the Lex Popillia
senatoria. That can be the only way to prevent the Senate being
stuffed with a gaggle of ex-praetors under your proposals.

Exactly what are you changing the rules on Senatorial adelection to?
I assume that to make logical sense of your previous comment on the
necessary changes and there in essence being no danger of Senate
stuffing, that you want to restrict membership of the Senate? When
will this occur? After the first stuffing of the Senatorial turkey?

Exactly how long have you been planning these "needed adjustments to
our organizational structures" and with who? As your term of office
is about to end, your dismissal of Senate stuffing as a danger and
indicating that you will change the adelection process, clearly tells
me that a group of Magistrates are behind this and some who will be
Magistrates next year. Are the two Consular candidates for next year
the ones who will change the Lex Popillia senatoria?

Don't you think that these, supposed, needed adjustments should have
been the subject of considerable debate and consultation, in an open
and transparent manner? Without that degree of openess these
proposals look more like a receipe for consolidating a grip on the
Senate and limiting choice. You open yourself, in my estimation, to
the charge that you have set out on a well planned course to
radically alter the balance of the Senate, one way or another, and
manipulate the number of magisterial positions available.

No Consul, either these are poorly planned changes badly thought out,
or, they are the product of a well planned and coordinated effort to
alter the balance of influence and Senatorial numbers in Nova Roma.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. I may add if they were that
well planned, then why didn't you expend the same degree of effort in
openly debating this throughout Nova Roma.

Didn't you used to be one of the most vocal of speakers in favour of
inclusiveness and consultation? I see none of that in these proposals.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...>
wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Consul et Pontifex Maximus: Senatui
> Populoque Novo Romano, T. Iulio Sabino Consuli collegae Quiritibus,
et
>

 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/59175

Salve Tiberia Consularis,

OK, stop the presses, because every censor since at least Quintilianus
has been unable to align the centuries or the tribes. This is yet
another instance of the way that M. Octavius used his ownership of the
website to arrogate powers to himself that he didn't have in law, but
like it or not that's the way things are.

As a censor, I could not realign the centuries or tribes. Only the
webmaster has the account privileges to do it. I'll guarantee you
neither of the current censors can do it either.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> writes:

> ---Po Minucia Gn Equitio Marino S.P.D.
>
> Ahh, as a matter of fact, yes it is.
> I am aware of the electronic tool of Octavius Gracchus, a former
> Censor, Consul, and Webmaster, but the job of oversight and approving
> any allowable changes is still assigned to the Censors, the details
> as per this prevailing lex:
>
>
> Lex Octavia altera de comitiis centuriatis circa MMDCCLV
>
> Vale

Salvete,
If there are mistakes with the balloting or cista,I believe that the election should be started over with the correct information.I for one would not indicate any suspicious acts taking place, but I do believe that we should not give up accuracy, for the expedient path.My Opinion.

Velete,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

--- On Sat, 11/15/08, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:

> From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] *URGENT* - Comitia Populi Tributa : cista problem ?
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008, 5:44 PM
> Salve Albuci, et salvete omnes,
>
> Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
> writes:
>
> > My interrogation is about the presence of a clicking
> box "ABSTINEO -
> > I abstain".
>
> Somebody (I would guess one of the webmasters) used the
> wrong
> template. That cista template with the abstention is from
> an earlier
> time. This is not the first time we've had this
> problem.
>
> What I recommend to our consuls is that they instruct our
> custodes and
> diribitores to treat abstentions as non-votes, and to
> proceed with the
> election. If they don't want to do that, they will
> have to close the
> cista, declare all votes received to be void, and then
> restart the
> voting with revised starting and ending times after the
> correct
> template gets put up.
>
> What MUST NOT happen is for the webmasters to say
> "oops!" and just
> change the template on the fly now that the election has
> begun.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Po Minucia Gn Equitio Populoque sal

You know, you don't have to get worked up.

I was originally talking 'law' and said as a 'by the way' (about
religning the tribes and centuries) 'It's the Censors job,yes?' And
you responded with a correction that, no, it isn't.

Regardless of who mechanically does hands-on work, and I'm sure in
this case it is the webmaster, the job is still by law the
jurisdiction of the Censors.

And given that Octavius was Censor twice, and webmaster during
various Consulships, I didn't find it unusual that he was aligning
the tribes and centuries electronically. I don't think *everyone*
should have a password to amend the process, but I'll give you that
makes sense that the Censors should,to implement any changes in the
absence of the webmaster...having only one person accessing this
stuff is as bad as having one hundred.

Anyway,

I've never been Censor (or webmaster), but it seems a fairly easy
mathematical exercise for the Censores to ascertain the accuracy of
the electronic alignment if they know the number of assidui (and I'm
sure they do), and what percentages of assidui are assigned to what
class of centuries, and other variations cited in the lex. Have
these percentages changed from the below, given our population
adjustment since this lex was passed? The Censors are actually the
only ones empowered by law to make/authorize these adjustments...so I
don't know...I haven't read any edicts to this effect...don't think I
ever have.

Here is the method by prevailing lex:

Which is:This Lex is hereby enacted to set the number of centuries as
required by Paragraph II.E.2 of the Constitution of Nova Roma, as
amended by the Lex Octavia de comitiis centuriatis. In the event that
the amendment does not pass, this lex shall be ineffective.

I. The number of centuries shall be determined by dividing the number
of Assidui citizens by eight, rounding down. This calculation shall
take place every time that a reallocation of centuries is performed
by the Censores. If this calculation results in a number greater than
193, then there shall be only 193 centuries. If this calculation
results in a number less than 51, there shall be exactly 51
centuries.

II. The Censores may determine the number of centuries in each class
by edict, as previously established by the Lex Iunia centuriata. If
the Censores choose not to do so, then the same proportions already
in effect from the previous allocation shall be adhered to as closely
as possible, in order to preserve the relative sizes of the classes.
For purposes of this calculation, the century containing the Capite
Censi shall be considered outside of any class.

III. The relative sizes of each class shall be initially set as
follows:

Class I: Twenty-Nine percent of the Assidui centuries.
Class II: Twenty-Four percent of the Assidui centuries.
Class III: Twenty percent of the Assidui centuries.
Class IV: Sixteen percent of the Assidui centuries.
Class V: Eleven percent of the Assidui centuries, plus one century
reserved for the Capite Censi only

Valete











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

>
> Salve Tiberia Consularis,
>
> OK, stop the presses, because every censor since at least

Quintilianus

> has been unable to align the centuries or the tribes. This is yet
> another instance of the way that M. Octavius used his ownership of

the

> website to arrogate powers to himself that he didn't have in law,

but

> like it or not that's the way things are.
>
> As a censor, I could not realign the centuries or tribes. Only

the

> webmaster has the account privileges to do it. I'll guarantee you
> neither of the current censors can do it either.
>
> Vale,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
> pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> writes:
>
> > ---Po Minucia Gn Equitio Marino S.P.D.
> >
> > Ahh, as a matter of fact, yes it is.
> > I am aware of the electronic tool of Octavius Gracchus, a former
> > Censor, Consul, and Webmaster, but the job of oversight and

approving

> > any allowable changes is still assigned to the Censors, the

details

> > as per this prevailing lex:
> >
> >
> > Lex Octavia altera de comitiis centuriatis circa MMDCCLV
> >
> > Vale
>

Salvete Omnes:

There seem to be less centuries with even numbered membership this
year, which is encouraging.

Last year the amount of centuries whose decisions were tied, and
therefore decided by lot, was absolutely ridiculous. First class really
got nailed.

So, if the Censors and webmasters have made the allowable adjustments
to resolve the situation for a fairer vote for the citizens, kudos.

Valete
Pompeia

Hello,

My apologies for the confusion. We were having a discussion in the back
alley covering this topic and I had the ML open as well. Clicked the
wrong button - it was supposed to go there.

That's what happens without a coffee first thing. I have no problem if
the moderator wants to delete this post!

Vale bene,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (not the first or the last to screw up)

Sen. Suetoni s.d.

I think that the Praetors' team will see no problem: everybody may
make mistake, and it happened to us all to click on the wrong button!

Your msg was just off-topic here, and this is not a drama. :-)

Vale bene Suetoni,


P. Memmius Albucius
ex off. mod. praet.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Suetonius Paulinus
(Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> My apologies for the confusion. We were having a discussion in the

back

> alley covering this topic and I had the ML open as well. Clicked

the

> wrong button - it was supposed to go there.
>
> That's what happens without a coffee first thing. I have no problem

if

> the moderator wants to delete this post!
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (not the first or the last to screw up)
>

Q Caecilius Metellus Q Suetonio Paulino salutem.

Even if your posting was sent to the wrong place, the article does make for a
good read. And the things that go on in the greater religious world, be they in
the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, or other World, certainly have
effects on us all, both within the confines of our organisation and without it.
My thanks to you for the reference, intended here or not.

Vale Optime.

Salvete Publius Memmi Albuci et Q.Caecili Metelle,

Thanks for ypur understanding but I glad you liked the article.

Valete bene,

QSP











--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@...> wrote:

>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Q Suetonio Paulino salutem.
>
> Even if your posting was sent to the wrong place, the article does

make for a

> good read. And the things that go on in the greater religious

world, be they in

> the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, or other World,

certainly have

> effects on us all, both within the confines of our organisation and

without it.

> My thanks to you for the reference, intended here or not.
>
> Vale Optime.
>

pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> writes:

> Have these percentages changed from the below, given our population
> adjustment since this lex was passed?

No, they have not.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

 A. Tullia Scholastica T. Artoriae Marcellae quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

Salvete omnes,
 
I thank my friend, Consul Piscinus, for his endorsement.  I know our Consul from our days as scriba to Iulius Sabinus during his term as Curule Aedile, and I have the greatest admiration for his scholarship and his devotion to Nova Roma and her Gods.  
 
I also very much thank A. Tullia Scholastica for her support, as there were times during my term as Curule Aedile that would have been far less effective save for her sage advice and participation.  She has my vote for Rogator.  

    ATS:  Thank you very much for your support and your kind words.  I enjoyed working with you, and the many citizens with whom I have worked over the years as a magisterial assistant and magistrate in Nova Roma.  
 
Should I be elected as a Tribune, I vow to put the concerns of the Republic ahead of my own and to be an active and attentive servant of Nova Roma.  

    ATS:  I am sure that you will.  I regret that I cannot vote for you, but then there are some things that patricians are not allowed to do, and that is one of them.  As you (and many others) may be aware, I do not openly endorse anyone, for the burnt child fears the fire.  One episode of that for endorsing a fine candidate was more than enough for me.  
 
Vale optime,
T. Artoria Marcella

Vale, et valete, optime.
 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/59199

A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

M. Moravius Piscinus Consul maior et Pontifex Maximus: Senatui
Populoque Novo Romano, Quiritibus: salutem plurimam dicunt: Deos ego
omnis ut fortunas sint precor  

I regret that I have been unable to participate in the contio.  I
would, however, like to add my last minute recommendations.

For Censor: While I can find reasons to recommend any of the three
candidates, I shall support and vote for my colleague Titus Iulius
Sabinus.  He is dedicated and hard working for the Respublica Libera.

For Consules: Both candidates are excellent choices.  We shall be
fortunate to have Marcus Curiatius Complutensis and Marcus Iulius
Severus serve as colleagues once more next year.

For Praetores:  Again we have two fine candidates and I support both
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus and Publius Memmius Albucius.

For Tribuni Plebis: I highly recommend Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa.  We
served together as Tribuni Plebis.  We finally met in provincia Dacia
this year. He has also served in the important position of Custos.  
We need someone of his experience to serve among the Tribuni Plebis.  
Secondly, I recommend Flavius Galerius Aurelianus. He, too, is a
former Tribunus Plebis.  He has always been most dedicated to the
interests of the Plebeians, serving at the same time as Flamen
Cerealis, and for most of this year as Pontifex Maximus.  Third then,
I recommend my friend Tita Artoria Marcella.  She too has prior
experience, having served as Aedilis Curulis. Of the remaining three
candidates I am familiar with Appius Galerius Aurelianus, a cultor
Deorum, and with Tiberius Horatius Barbatus.  

For Aedilis Curulis: Unfortunately we have only one candidate when
two are needed.  This has become one of the most difficult offices to
fill.  The Aediles Curules manage the Magna Mater Project, they
manage the macellum, and they are also responsible for offering the
many ludi produced each year.  Gnaeus Iulius shall have a difficult
time following the example of past Aediles.  He cannot work alone,
and so his first task shall be to put together a strong team.  Gnaeus
Iulius has often been the voice of opposition to whoever served in
office.  So it shall be interesting to see how he shall do himself.  
But I am confident that he is up to the task and I shall give him my
support in the coming year.

For Aedilis Plebis: Again it is unfortunate to see only one candidate
when the responsibilities are better served by colleagues. Pontifex
Quintus Metellus Caecilius Pius has a wide range of experience,
having served as scriba to various magistrates. In the Collegium
Pontificum I have found him to be well organized.  

For Quaestores: There are eight candidates for eight offices.  My
first preference is Tribuna Lucia Livia Plauta of Italia.  As Consul
I have worked with Tribuna Livia often and I was quite happy to meet
her in provincia Dacia this past summer.  Second is Gaius Arminius
Reccanellus of Brasilia.  A former Quaestor, a former Tribunus
Plebis, Propraetor of provincia Brasilia, I have had occasion to deal
with Reccanellus many times in recent years.  I have also worked on
occasion with Tribunus Titus Flavius Aquila, as a Tribunus Plebis and
as a cultor Deorum as well.  Flamen Quintus Valerius Poplicola and I
first began working together in SVR and has served as my accensus and
Latin translator this year. I regret not having worked with Tiberius
Cornelius Scipio, our lone Assiduus from Costa Rica.  It has only
been this year that I've met Flamen Gaius Petronius Dexter and Marcus
Valerius Potitus.  I don't know Lucius Gratius Nerva.  It is good to
see some of our newer citizens begin their honorum cursus.

For Rogatores:  We have three candidates to fill two offices.  The
position of Rogator is important to the future of Nova Roma as they
are the magistrates who first deal with applicants.  Their
responsiveness and friendliness often determines whether an applicant
becomes a new Citizen.  A Rogator must also have some skill in
Latin.  Most important though is that the Rogatores head a
specialized team that has been built up over the past few years.  I
shall therefore recommend Quaestor Titus Arminius Genialis.  He has
often served as scriba and in other positions where he has been an
efficiant and effective team member.  I am sure he shall do well now
in leading the team that handles over a thousand new applicants each
year.  Second, I shall recommend Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus.
A Rogator must be well acquainted with Latin in that he assists
others in choosing a proper Roman name.  Gaius Valerianus has been a
Latin teacher in parochial schools.  The third candidate, Aula Tullia
Scholastica is the most knowledgable of the three candidates when it
comes to Latin and the position of Rogator.  She has served in other
magistracies, the highest being Praetor.  She has long served on the
team that the Rogatores shall lead.  Although highly skilled and
experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find essential to
this position and that is an ability to work cordially with others.  

    ATS:  To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not served in any cohors together, which would tend to indicate that any information you have on this topic is second or third hand at best.  I get along quite well with most people, and have a good sense of humor, as my students may note from some of the material in my lessons.  Funny that neither my students nor anyone else has made such comments.  In fact, several have come to just the opposite conclusion.  

Her strong sense of morality and her personal virtues are most praise-
worthy, but too often these have inhibiting factors inside various
teams on which she has served.

    ATS:  I wasn’t aware that I had worked on the BA moderators’ team, if such there be.  Morality and virtues, especially Roman ones, should be welcome most everywhere else.  The office of rogator, like many others in Nova Roma, depends on matters entirely separate from morality.  However, a sense of propriety, of correctness, is essential there.  Names must be correct, and correctly spelled.  Minors must be found out, and made to wait; fake identities must be discovered and their providers removed.  I am the only candidate who both knows Latin and is familiar with the workings of the censors’ office; one knows about the censors’ office, and one knows Latin.   All of us are qualified, but frankly, I am the most qualified.  I could work with either, and already have worked with Genialis.  

    

 Her skills skills and character, I
feel, would serve better elsewhere.

    One would think that the praetors’ office and the censors’ office were the two places in Nova Roma where a sense of morality and propriety are most needed, though I have heard of certain activities on the part of some occupants of the latter at least which are anything but appropriate, or even dignified.  Yes, I know that there are those who hate anyone who knows the difference between right and wrong, for whom this is not some sort of relative judgment, whether it be right and wrong spelling or anything else.  I know that there are those who prefer airheaded, subservient, doormat women, of whom I am not one.  I would have expected such comments from some others here and elsewhere, but am rather surprised at seeing them from your hand.  I also hope that your views regarding me did not affect your actions (or lack thereof) regarding the matter of which I informed both consules in private, that of the diribitor who cheated on his homework in my class; I would not like to see anyone who would copy Latin homework in a voluntary, free course which moreover carries no transferable credit allowed to count votes in an election, whether or not conducted online.  

  
For Custodes:  I cannot lend enough praise to Senator Marcus
Lucretius Agricola.  Our Citizens are not well informed on all that
goes on in Nova Roma.  Marcus Agricola has been essential in many
areas, including in his duties as Magister Aranearius.  As for Lucius
Salix Cicero, he is my personal friend of many years.  There are many
things I could say about my friend, having follwed his adventures
across the globe.  English by birth, having spent a good portion of
his life in Spain, living in Costa Rica, then Peru, and now off to
Moscow to teach English, my friend Salix is an international Citizen
in an international organization.  Mild mannered, thoughtful, and
with the appearance of a Greek God, he is much that I am not.  He is
well suited to serve in this office.

For Diribitores: Four candidates to fill four offices. I regret that
I am not very familiar with the candidates.  I have observed Annia
Minucia Marcella for some years.  Recently I recommended that the
Collegium Pontificum appoint her as a Lictor.  Propraetor et Sacerdos
Marcus Octavius Corvus has recently come to Nova Roma and has become
very active, building up provincia Sarmatia for us and working with
the Collegium Pontificum as well. Gaius Terrentius Varro and Marcus
Valerius Traianus are both from my home provincia of Magni Lacus.
Both have been Citizens for roughly eight years now. These are the
sort of Citizens that Nova Roma depends on.  So I am glad to see them
now taking an active role.

On the Rogationes, I shall vote in favor of all the proposed Leges
Moraviae Iuliae.  

Vos quod fexitis, Deos omnes fortunare velim.

Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus

Consul Maior Senatus Poppulique Novae Romae
Pontifex Maximus
Augur et Magister Collegii
Flamen Carmentalis
Procurator Lacus Magni
Sacerdos Lacus Magni

Vale, et valete.  

 
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/59174

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
<fororom@...> wrote:

>
> > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus bonae

voluntatis

> > S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > Although highly skilled and
> > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find essential to
> > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with others.
> >
> > ATS: To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not served

in any cohors

> > together, which would tend to indicate that any information you

have on this

> > topic is second or third hand at best.

Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.

Since it is called for, some first hand information.

Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with. She
and her team were disruptive and uncooperative. They would not listen
to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot her
password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List with her
complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict, rather
than listen to anyone.

This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a moderator,
she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there. Not
taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
dismissive attitude to the moderators. She was banned from posting.
Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on moderation.
The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.

All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.

So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".


optime valete

P Minucia Strabo Consularis Quiritibus S.P.D.



I would be remiss if I did not call to your attention the excellent
work Arminius Reccanellus has done as Quaestor in the past. He was my
Quaestor when I was Consul in 2006, and, as the Quaestor Consul Minor,
he had the dubious *privilege* :>0 of tracking citizen tax payments
and reporting them accordingly. So very well done. I can easily say
this, as the Consuls received the financial transaction records also,
and his efficiency was quickly recognized, and appreciated. It was
easy for myself and Modianus to prepare a statement of income to the
Senate at the end of our term, thanks in great part, to his efficiency.
I am sure that I may safely speak in my former colleague Modianus
Censor's place, in that we felt very fortunate to have chosen such an
efficient, reliable Quaestor for custodian of tax income. Reccanellus
detailed what provincial taxes were incomed through the governor,and
which were remitted individually by citizens, those payments reported
by Patricia Cassia through snailmail...he quickly wrote when he could
not find an NR name to match a remittence of taxes , and crosscopied
the Censors to this effect,for appropriate direction.

I believe that his attention to detail in some areas, helped to 'tweak'
an awareness that we needed to revisit our financial record keeping.

His details are linked below, and again, I cannot say enough about his
excellent past performance. Your approval of this man at this cista
could not be more appropriate.

Valete Omnes



Gaius Arminius Reccanellus
http://www.novaroma .org/civitas/ album?id= 7658

 A. Tullia Scholastica M. Lucretio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A. Tullia Scholastica"
<fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >  A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus bonae
voluntatis
> > S.P.D.
> >  
> >
> > Although highly skilled and
> > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find essential to
> > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with others.
> >
> >     ATS:  To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not served
in any cohors
> > together, which would tend to indicate that any information you
have on this
> > topic is second or third hand at best.  

Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.

Since it is called for, some first hand information.

Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with.

    ATS:  Please get your facts straight.  I am quaestrix now.  I was not quaestrix then, nor do quaestores have teams under their direction.  Supposedly they head the cohortes under a magistrate’s direction.   

 She
and her team were disruptive and uncooperative.

    ATS:  If you are referring to my praetorian team, which seems to be the case, the disruption is in your mind.  You seem to feel that the Tabularium is your sandbox, and no one but cybernauts is allowed to play there.  The praetores have historically dealt with the Tabularium; we were trying to upload corrected versions of the laws and those which a cybernaut had removed at the direction of someone else some years earlier, and got some nonsensical excuse that you wanted to work on the organization of the laws, something best done when all were in place.  We feel that the Tabularium should include all laws, not just those still in force, that the texts should be accurate, and that the Latin titles, etc., should also be accurate.  Very disruptive.  

They would not listen
to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot her
password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List with her
complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict, rather
than listen to anyone.

    ATS:  My entire praetorian team was blocked from access to the Tabularium.  The edict was to deal with that.  I was not involved in the uploading, etc., but merely read the messages on the discussion page, and occasionally replied.  You blocked every attempt for us to get the law texts correct and in place.  Former webmaster Calvus was so different, and so was Scaevola.  Pity the former left altogether, and the latter seems to have disappeared.  

This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a moderator,
she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there.

    ATS:  Guess what those disruptive messages were, Quirites?  Why, they were in untranslated LATIN, replying to other messages IN UNTRANSLATED LATIN, from new citizens unaware that the rules onsite said one thing, but were interpreted to mean just the opposite.  The rules say that languages other than English do not have to be translated into English, but some of the moderators interpret this to mean that Latin and all other languages must be translated into English.  Now, it happens that some members do not know enough English to do this, even if they can read English, and some of those can write quite well in Latin, as happened with a Hungarian new citizen some time ago.  I replied to her introductory message in Latin, using that language, to let her know that people here did understand her, and could reply in Latin.  She was informed that she could not write untranslated Latin, and has not peeped since, nor has another newbie from California who wrote school Latin.  May the Roman deities forgive anyone on the NewRoman list for daring to write in Latin!  Disruptive messages, my foot!  The only thing disruptive is that some object to seeing people actually communicating in Latin.  We now have enough citizens here who are competent Latinists that we can write in Latin in public, but we are shot down if we do, and dare not do so in the presence of the new citizens.  I don’t understand Russian or Portuguese or even Italian, but I don’t gripe because someone uses those languages and does not provide an annotated translation therewith.  

Not
taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
dismissive attitude to the moderators.

    ATS: In other words, native English speakers interpret the rules to mean that translations are not required, merely recommended.  That’s what the words say.  Moreover, at least some of us know that the excuse used for this translation bit, namely, that it helps with learning, is a large crock of bovine excrement.  Translations are a crutch for those who cannot or will not learn a language as well as for those who do not know a given language; they actually help only very advanced students when they get into a jam on one phrase or another.   Now, no one should be expected to know all languages, even all represented here in NR; many are not taught in schools outside of their own area, and many have a comparatively limited number of speakers.  We respect the speakers of other languages, but should not expect that everyone knows Finnish or Romanian or Hungarian or Kwakiutl.  Translations might help there.  There is, however, no such excuse with regard to Latin; it is the common language of many, and the language of the Roman heritage.  This is one of the very last places one would expect Latin to be restricted, but Latin is forbidden on NewRoman.  So, too, is everything but English.  The rules merely SAY that that is not the case.  If the moderators interpret the rules in a manner no English speaker would, then, yes, this English speaker is going to mention that, and state that she did not violate the rules as written by committing the heinous crime of writing in untranslated Latin in the presence of the new citizens.  Funny that list is so quiet; I guess they dare not peep.  It used to be pretty lively.


She was banned from posting.
Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on moderation.

    ATS:  For high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit:  Writing in Latin on a mailing list of a Roman-oriented group.  Banned from posting as if I had used some BA vocabulary or insulted the members or the moderators the way Avitus and I were by a certain magistrate in our class.  Moderated like some newbie.   God(s) forbid that Latin should be used in public here!  Why, the poor new citizens will be terrified that they might have to learn a few words of it here and there to function!


The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.

    ATS:  And a couple of them hate me, as do you.  The pontifex is too young and conciliatory to protest nonsense, at least one senator does not appear to be moderating the list actively, and others are beholden to...the webmaster.  That would be you, holder of the most powerful office in NR.  


All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.

So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".

    ATS:  I am not a cherry-blossom obedient doormat woman.  Perhaps you prefer that type.  I am also not the dumb blonde some guys prefer; they like to feel smarter than their arm candy.   I am made of sterner stuff.  I would not be much of a classicist if I did not stand up for Latin (or Greek, etc.).  I deplore the interpretation of the policy on NewRoman; the policy as written is reasonably fair, unless they have changed it since I last checked.  No one should be compelled to translate Latin there, or anywhere in NR; the more common Western modern languages are sufficiently well-known that a translation is not necessary.  A recommendation is quite sufficient.  The present praetores allow other languages on the ML without requiring translations; it might be a good idea to follow suit on NewRoman.  Pray tell, too, how may posting to a list be interpreted as working with others?   Bending and twisting the English language to suit one’s views is not the best way to communicate, or the best way to welcome new citizens.   

    I get along quite well with most people...but there are exceptions.   

optime valete

 Valete.
      
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/59174

---Po Minucia Strabo Marco Lucretio Agricolae S.P.D.

My response to your post below:

First off, your 'first hand information' is erroneous: She was not
Quaestor last year, she was Praetrix.

For better or for worse, Scholastica will give you her honest
opinion. How refreshing.....

As for the Senior Consul who so proactively does not recommend her
for Rogatrix: It pains me to say it, but he morphed from a Jekyll to
a Hyde the second he seized imperium, along with several of those on
the current election ballot, whom I cannot in conscience vote
for.....and for those who 'advise' them.
Circumventing the law, 'reinventing' the law, citing bizarre
interpretation of the law, inevitably promoting not mentorship but
rote clientalia...with the end product of ejecting a longstanding
Augur, Censor, Pontifex, Assidus, Senator from his positions, because
it was somehow I opine,deemed 'necessary'. And in the process,
deceiving the Senate, I feel, regarding the *real* agenda. This,
after a pre-election 'peaceful solution' platform. I didn't
personally like the guy they gunned either. I don't think he has much
use for me either :>) Is this an excuse to deny him his legal due? Is
this acceptable behaviour, in the most liberal of perspectives?


Not to me.

Nor I think to Flavia, who seems to attend to legal and religious
matters more 'religiously' than those who claim to do so. I think the
word I'm looking for here is empathy. She readily empathizes with the
religious needs of people...not that she 100% agrees, but rather..she
understands how important spirituality is to people.

And the difference between Scholastica and this year's inexcusable
administration is that Scholastica will give it to you straight
up...she will not *pretend*, only to pull a major fast one on you
down the road.

And, the archives tell me that she was not willing to buy into this
year's ruthless agenda...I am hardly surprised. And so the rebuttals
against her candidacy might be understandable.

Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last year...one
Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively and
as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy wording
of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.

Can show me what you would have done differnently?

I am not going to look on the New Roman List, Agricola...I'll take
your word for it....she was on a roll....ok....Was she on a roll due
to her propensity to the 'prim and proper'? I'll lay money unseen
that she was. I'll handle that, and justify it as *personality plus*
before I justify the antics of those who have done far worse this
year, yet decry her.

I'll take an honest and periodic 'goodie two shoes' who is straight
with me, and at the end of the day has my best interests at heart,
over and above someone more 'way cool'... who turns on you when it's
politically convenient.

She has served well as Rogator in the past...she avails herself to
teach Latin in Academia Thules, when she could start an online
Latin/Classics class for her own benefit..or just high-tail it out of
her and go someplace where she is more appreciated. Yet she stays.
She has my support at the cista as Rogatrix.

Be mindful of pots that call kettles 'black'

Valete







In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
<marcus.lucretius@...> wrote:

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
> <fororom@> wrote:
> >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus

bonae

> voluntatis
> > > S.P.D.
> > >
> > >
> > > Although highly skilled and
> > > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find

essential to

> > > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with

others.

> > >
> > > ATS: To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not served
> in any cohors
> > > together, which would tend to indicate that any information you
> have on this
> > > topic is second or third hand at best.
>
>
> Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Since it is called for, some first hand information.
>
> Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
> then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with. She
> and her team were disruptive and uncooperative. They would not

listen

> to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot her
> password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List with

her

> complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict,

rather

> than listen to anyone.
>
> This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a moderator,
> she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there. Not
> taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
> dismissive attitude to the moderators. She was banned from posting.
> Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on moderation.
> The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.
>
> All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.
>
> So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
> shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".
>
>
> optime valete
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
<fororom@...> wrote:

> > ATS: Guess what those disruptive messages were, Quirites?

Why, they were

> > in untranslated LATIN, replying to other messages IN UNTRANSLATED

LATIN, from

> > new citizens unaware that the rules onsite said one thing, but were
> > interpreted to mean just the opposite.

The opposite of "strongly recommend" isn't "Request".



The rules say that languages other

> > than English do not have to be translated into English, but some

of the

> > moderators interpret this to mean that Latin and all other

languages must be

> > translated into English.

No.

The rules say that the list is open to any language, but the mods
strongly recommend that all messages be translated in to english
either by the poster or by the moderator.


Now, it happens that some members do not know enough

> > English to do this, even if they can read English, and some of

those can write

> > quite well in Latin,

Then the moderator would translate, like the rules indicate.



as happened with a Hungarian new citizen some time ago.

> > I replied to her introductory message in Latin, using that

language, to let

> > her know that people here did understand her, and could reply in

Latin. She

> > was informed that she could not write untranslated Latin, and has

not peeped

> > since, nor has another newbie from California who wrote school Latin.

She may write in latin, and it may also be translated.


May the

> > Roman deities forgive anyone on the NewRoman list for daring to

write in

> > Latin!

From what I've seen, numerous people write in latin on the New Roman
list. You're being overly dramatic.


Disruptive messages, my foot! The only thing disruptive is that some

> > object to seeing people actually communicating in Latin.

Actually most of the objections seem to come from you the moment
anyone translates the latin messages in to enlgish for the benefit on
non-latin speakers.


We now have enough

> > citizens here who are competent Latinists that we can write in

Latin in

> > public, but we are shot down if we do, and dare not do so in the

presence of

> > the new citizens.

False. Completely false and overly dramatic. No one is shot down for
writing in latin. You are the only one to shoot people down for merely
translating latin in to english.


I don¹t understand Russian or Portuguese or even Italian,

> > but I don¹t gripe because someone uses those languages and does

not provide an

> > annotated translation therewith.
> >

If that person wants me to read it, he would provide a translation, if
not then so be it. But common courtesy in these cases should be to
provide an english translation if possible.

> > Not
> > taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
> > dismissive attitude to the moderators.
> >
> > ATS: In other words, native English speakers interpret the

rules to mean

> > that translations are not required, merely recommended. That¹s

what the words

> > say.

Incorrect again. "merely recommended" is not what is said. It is
actually "strongly recommended".


Moreover, at least some of us know that the excuse used for this

> > translation bit, namely, that it helps with learning, is a large

crock of

> > bovine excrement.

Nice, because using a euphemism for "bullshit" makes it less coarse
and so you can get away with it.

Translations are a crutch for those who cannot or will not

> > learn a language as well as for those who do not know a given

language;

A crutch? Doubtful. More likely a translation provides better
communication between people of different languages. Or would you
prefer miscommunication or very little communication?


they

> > actually help only very advanced students when they get into a jam

on one

> > phrase or another. Now, no one should be expected to know all

languages,

> > even all represented here in NR; many are not taught in schools

outside of

> > their own area, and many have a comparatively limited number of

speakers. We

> > respect the speakers of other languages, but should not expect

that everyone

> > knows Finnish or Romanian or Hungarian or Kwakiutl. Translations

might help

> > there.

Might?

>> There is, however, no such excuse with regard to Latin;

Here's my excuse. I'm learning Arabic. Arabic is a Category IV
language, which means it's a bit tough to learn(way more tough than
Latin which is Category II). Not only must I learn Modern Standard
Arabic, but I must also learn the dialects. So forgive if I'm not able
to cram yet another language in my head at this time.

it is the

> > common language of many, and the language of the Roman heritage.

English and Mandarin are more common.


This is one

> > of the very last places one would expect Latin to be restricted,

but Latin is

> > forbidden on NewRoman.

Again with the falseness. Nowhere on the NewRoman list, nor anywhere
in Nova Roma has Latin been restricted or forbidden or anything else
you'd like to make up. You'll have a hard time making people believe
otherwise since I can see latin everywhere on the wiki, and the latin
courses and lists are posted as reminders every month on the very list
you claim it's FORBIDDEN.

>>So, too, is everything but English.

Then I wonder how it is that I've seen spanish and portuguese posts,
and other languages as well.


The rules merely

> > SAY that that is not the case. If the moderators interpret the

rules in a

> > manner no English speaker would,

I'm an English speaker. I interpret the rule just as the moderators do.


then, yes, this English speaker is going to

> > mention that, and state that she did not violate the rules as

written by

> > committing the heinous crime of writing in untranslated Latin in

the presence

> > of the new citizens.

It is strongly recommended that you provide a translation, and you
know this. The fact that you refuse to do this is pretty much a good
reason to moderate you. Civility is what you violated. From the
Mailing List: "Civility is our guide-word. Those who post messages
that violate this principle may find themselves placed on moderation."
Do you have a problem with being courteous in the NewRoman forum, one
that has specifically identified itself as being strictly moderated?
Perhaps you should make a NewRoman Latin Only list where you can chide
anyone who tries to translate Latin into English.



Funny that list is so quiet; I guess they dare not peep.

> > It used to be pretty lively.
> >

Riling it up with disruptive posts isn't the way to get it to be "lively".

> >
> > She was banned from posting.
> > Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on moderation.
> >
> > ATS: For high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit: Writing in

Latin on a

> > mailing list of a Roman-oriented group.

No. Others have written in Latin and have not been banned, so you are
wrong yet again.


Banned from posting as if I had used

> > some BA vocabulary or insulted the members or the moderators the

way Avitus

> > and I were by a certain magistrate in our class. Moderated like

some newbie.

Newbies tend to be more courteous and follow the rules. Perhaps you
need to be taught humility.

> > God(s) forbid that Latin should be used in public here! Why, the

poor new

> > citizens will be terrified that they might have to learn a few

words of it

> > here and there to function!

Latin is used in public here. Unless you think all those offices and
rogationes that we're supposed to vote on are written in English?

> >
> >
> > The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.
> >
> > ATS: And a couple of them hate me, as do you. The pontifex

is too young

> > and conciliatory to protest nonsense, at least one senator does

not appear to

> > be moderating the list actively, and others are beholden to...the

webmaster.

> > That would be you, holder of the most powerful office in NR.
> >

The most powerful office is the webmaster. Um...Seriously?

> >
> > All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.
> >
> > So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
> > shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".
> >
> > ATS: I am not a cherry-blossom obedient doormat woman.

AKA I'm not courteous or nice to people.

Perhaps you

> > prefer that type. I am also not the dumb blonde some guys prefer;

AKA I think I'm smarter than everyone here.

they like

> > to feel smarter than their arm candy. I am made of sterner stuff.

I could think of some stern stuff but you wouldn't like it.

I would

> > not be much of a classicist if I did not stand up for Latin (or

Greek, etc.).

Except you do not stand up for Latin. You harp on it. You nag anyone
who tries to use an English translation of Latin. Latin doesn't need
you to stand up for it. Latin has managed to stick around for these
thousands of years without you being it's defender.

> > I deplore the interpretation of the policy on NewRoman; the policy

as written

> > is reasonably fair, unless they have changed it since I last

checked. No one

> > should be compelled to translate Latin there, or anywhere in NR;

It is a courtesy. Do you understand courtesy? Most of us don't know
Latin, it's nice to be able to read and understand what been sent to
my mailbox. And is it so bad for a moderator to provide a translation
if the poster is unable? Seriously, is it the end of the world as we know?

the more

> > common Western modern languages are sufficiently well-known that a

translation

> > is not necessary. A recommendation is quite sufficient. The present
> > praetores allow other languages on the ML without requiring

translations; it

> > might be a good idea to follow suit on NewRoman.

NewRoman is for New Romans, that is why they have that policy. Not
everyone who joins Nova Roma is going to feel comfortable joining a
list where they can't understand half or most of what's being said.

Pray tell, too, how may

> > posting to a list be interpreted as working with others? Bending and
> > twisting the English language to suit one¹s views is not the best

way to

> > communicate, or the best way to welcome new citizens.
> >

Irony...

> > I get along quite well with most people...but there are

exceptions.

> >

More exceptions than the English language I'd reckon...

-Annia Minucia Marcella
Who knows hardly any Latin, but can swear at you in 4 languages.

Maior Straboni spd;
Pompeia, I haven't mentioned this before but I will now.
Scholastica last summer sent a very nasty letter about me to another
civis who was kind enough to foward it to me. When Scholastica
refused
to recuse herself as Praetrix at my trial; you can believe I sent
this
letter to Cordus, my advocatus and those involved.

Go read the New Roman list yourself: don't assume. Scholastica was
being downright unpleasant, bullying those and embarrassing others.
There is no excuse for this behavior on a list for new citizens.


Both consuls Piscinus and Sabinus have been wonderful, meeting
together
in Dacia and holding rituals in real life. This year has been one of
growth in Nova Roma. The CP is active; and we have a functioning
College of Augurs. Cincinnatus and the late unlamented PM Cassius
had the religio ground to a halt.

bene valete in pacem deorum!
M. Hortensia Maior
Senatrix
Flaminica Carmentalis
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Carmentalia
producer 'Vox Romana' podcast
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Vox_Romana_podcast


Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied

> someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last year...one
> Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively

and

> as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy

wording

> of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.

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

>
> ---Po Minucia Strabo Marco Lucretio Agricolae S.P.D.
>
> My response to your post below:
>
> First off, your 'first hand information' is erroneous: She was

not

> Quaestor last year, she was Praetrix.
>
> For better or for worse, Scholastica will give you her honest
> opinion. How refreshing.....
>
> As for the Senior Consul who so proactively does not recommend her
> for Rogatrix: It pains me to say it, but he morphed from a Jekyll

to

> a Hyde the second he seized imperium, along with several of those

on

> the current election ballot, whom I cannot in conscience vote
> for.....and for those who 'advise' them.
> Circumventing the law, 'reinventing' the law, citing bizarre
> interpretation of the law, inevitably promoting not mentorship but
> rote clientalia...with the end product of ejecting a longstanding
> Augur, Censor, Pontifex, Assidus, Senator from his positions,

because

> it was somehow I opine,deemed 'necessary'. And in the process,
> deceiving the Senate, I feel, regarding the *real* agenda. This,
> after a pre-election 'peaceful solution' platform. I didn't
> personally like the guy they gunned either. I don't think he has

much

> use for me either :>) Is this an excuse to deny him his legal due?

Is

> this acceptable behaviour, in the most liberal of perspectives?
>
>
> Not to me.
>
> Nor I think to Flavia, who seems to attend to legal and religious
> matters more 'religiously' than those who claim to do so. I think

the

> word I'm looking for here is empathy. She readily empathizes with

the

> religious needs of people...not that she 100% agrees, but

rather..she

> understands how important spirituality is to people.
>
> And the difference between Scholastica and this year's

inexcusable

> administration is that Scholastica will give it to you straight
> up...she will not *pretend*, only to pull a major fast one on you
> down the road.
>
> And, the archives tell me that she was not willing to buy into

this

> year's ruthless agenda...I am hardly surprised. And so the

rebuttals

> against her candidacy might be understandable.
>
> Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
> someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last

year...one

> Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively

and

> as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy

wording

> of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.
>
> Can show me what you would have done differnently?
>
> I am not going to look on the New Roman List, Agricola...I'll take
> your word for it....she was on a roll....ok....Was she on a roll

due

> to her propensity to the 'prim and proper'? I'll lay money unseen
> that she was. I'll handle that, and justify it as *personality

plus*

> before I justify the antics of those who have done far worse this
> year, yet decry her.
>
> I'll take an honest and periodic 'goodie two shoes' who is

straight

> with me, and at the end of the day has my best interests at heart,
> over and above someone more 'way cool'... who turns on you when

it's

> politically convenient.
>
> She has served well as Rogator in the past...she avails herself to
> teach Latin in Academia Thules, when she could start an online
> Latin/Classics class for her own benefit..or just high-tail it out

of

> her and go someplace where she is more appreciated. Yet she

stays.

> She has my support at the cista as Rogatrix.
>
> Be mindful of pots that call kettles 'black'
>
> Valete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
> <marcus.lucretius@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
> > <fororom@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus
> bonae
> > voluntatis
> > > > S.P.D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Although highly skilled and
> > > > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find
> essential to
> > > > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with
> others.
> > > >
> > > > ATS: To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not

served

> > in any cohors
> > > > together, which would tend to indicate that any information

you

> > have on this
> > > > topic is second or third hand at best.
> >
> >
> > Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> > Since it is called for, some first hand information.
> >
> > Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
> > then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with.

She

> > and her team were disruptive and uncooperative. They would not
> listen
> > to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot

her

> > password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List

with

> her
> > complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict,
> rather
> > than listen to anyone.
> >
> > This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a

moderator,

> > she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there. Not
> > taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
> > dismissive attitude to the moderators. She was banned from

posting.

> > Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on

moderation.

> > The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.
> >
> > All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.
> >
> > So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
> > shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".
> >
> >
> > optime valete
> >
>

L. Livia Maiori Strabonique sal.

Though I have never had direct experience, I have reason to believe
people who say that Scholastica is hard to work with.

But as to what happened on the newroman list, I'm sorry but she is
right in her assessment.
I was there and followed the debate.
The whole thing started because senator Audens didn't want to tolerate
anyone posting in Latin.
This lead to new moderation guidelines being set, which allow a number
of languages to be used, while asking (not requiring) to add an
English translation.

Scholastica was "guilty" of posting in Latin without translation,
taking advantage of the ambiguity of the guidelines.
I agree that providing a translation is a courtesy, but even if her
not-so-covert intention in not doing so had been to make people who
don't understand Latin feel ashamed, in my opinion she would be
totally justified.

Excuse me if I'm not going to be "nice" either: I'm known for voicing
my opinions without restraint.
This here is Nova Roma: the language of Rome is Latin, and anyone who
doesn't have at least a passive knowledge of it should at least feel
ashamed.

There are a number of acceptable excuses for not knowing Latin, but
those involved should just aknowledge their handicap and not try to
impose it on everyone else. If I'm lame and want to participate in the
NY marathon I'm not going to expect everybody else to slow down for me.

So I defend everyone's right to post here and on any other NR list in
Latin without a translation. People who do so obviously won't expect
those who don't know Latin to undestand them, and it's their business
who they want to address.
There's always at least one moderator who knows Latin, so it can't be
used to conceal breakage of moderation rules.

So, whatever Scholastica has or has not done in other venues, in
Newroman she doesn't deserve to be on moderation.
In fact, the policy of "asking for" translations has driven away from
the list a number of new citizens whose first language isn't English
and who can't be bothered to translate from Latin everything they write.

Optime valete,
Livia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Straboni spd;
> Pompeia, I haven't mentioned this before but I will now.
> Scholastica last summer sent a very nasty letter about me to another
> civis who was kind enough to foward it to me. When Scholastica
> refused
> to recuse herself as Praetrix at my trial; you can believe I sent
> this
> letter to Cordus, my advocatus and those involved.
>
> Go read the New Roman list yourself: don't assume. Scholastica was
> being downright unpleasant, bullying those and embarrassing others.
> There is no excuse for this behavior on a list for new citizens.
>
>
> Both consuls Piscinus and Sabinus have been wonderful, meeting
> together
> in Dacia and holding rituals in real life. This year has been one of
> growth in Nova Roma. The CP is active; and we have a functioning
> College of Augurs. Cincinnatus and the late unlamented PM Cassius
> had the religio ground to a halt.
>
> bene valete in pacem deorum!
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Senatrix
> Flaminica Carmentalis
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Carmentalia
> producer 'Vox Romana' podcast
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Vox_Romana_podcast
>
>
> Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
> > someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last year...one
> > Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> > handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively
> and
> > as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy
> wording
> > of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@> wrote:
> >
> > ---Po Minucia Strabo Marco Lucretio Agricolae S.P.D.
> >
> > My response to your post below:
> >
> > First off, your 'first hand information' is erroneous: She was
> not
> > Quaestor last year, she was Praetrix.
> >
> > For better or for worse, Scholastica will give you her honest
> > opinion. How refreshing.....
> >
> > As for the Senior Consul who so proactively does not recommend her
> > for Rogatrix: It pains me to say it, but he morphed from a Jekyll
> to
> > a Hyde the second he seized imperium, along with several of those
> on
> > the current election ballot, whom I cannot in conscience vote
> > for.....and for those who 'advise' them.
> > Circumventing the law, 'reinventing' the law, citing bizarre
> > interpretation of the law, inevitably promoting not mentorship but
> > rote clientalia...with the end product of ejecting a longstanding
> > Augur, Censor, Pontifex, Assidus, Senator from his positions,
> because
> > it was somehow I opine,deemed 'necessary'. And in the process,
> > deceiving the Senate, I feel, regarding the *real* agenda. This,
> > after a pre-election 'peaceful solution' platform. I didn't
> > personally like the guy they gunned either. I don't think he has
> much
> > use for me either :>) Is this an excuse to deny him his legal due?
> Is
> > this acceptable behaviour, in the most liberal of perspectives?
> >
> >
> > Not to me.
> >
> > Nor I think to Flavia, who seems to attend to legal and religious
> > matters more 'religiously' than those who claim to do so. I think
> the
> > word I'm looking for here is empathy. She readily empathizes with
> the
> > religious needs of people...not that she 100% agrees, but
> rather..she
> > understands how important spirituality is to people.
> >
> > And the difference between Scholastica and this year's
> inexcusable
> > administration is that Scholastica will give it to you straight
> > up...she will not *pretend*, only to pull a major fast one on you
> > down the road.
> >
> > And, the archives tell me that she was not willing to buy into
> this
> > year's ruthless agenda...I am hardly surprised. And so the
> rebuttals
> > against her candidacy might be understandable.
> >
> > Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
> > someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last
> year...one
> > Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> > handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively
> and
> > as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy
> wording
> > of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.
> >
> > Can show me what you would have done differnently?
> >
> > I am not going to look on the New Roman List, Agricola...I'll take
> > your word for it....she was on a roll....ok....Was she on a roll
> due
> > to her propensity to the 'prim and proper'? I'll lay money unseen
> > that she was. I'll handle that, and justify it as *personality
> plus*
> > before I justify the antics of those who have done far worse this
> > year, yet decry her.
> >
> > I'll take an honest and periodic 'goodie two shoes' who is
> straight
> > with me, and at the end of the day has my best interests at heart,
> > over and above someone more 'way cool'... who turns on you when
> it's
> > politically convenient.
> >
> > She has served well as Rogator in the past...she avails herself to
> > teach Latin in Academia Thules, when she could start an online
> > Latin/Classics class for her own benefit..or just high-tail it out
> of
> > her and go someplace where she is more appreciated. Yet she
> stays.
> > She has my support at the cista as Rogatrix.
> >
> > Be mindful of pots that call kettles 'black'
> >
> > Valete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
> > <marcus.lucretius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
> > > <fororom@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus
> > bonae
> > > voluntatis
> > > > > S.P.D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Although highly skilled and
> > > > > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find
> > essential to
> > > > > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with
> > others.
> > > > >
> > > > > ATS: To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not
> served
> > > in any cohors
> > > > > together, which would tend to indicate that any information
> you
> > > have on this
> > > > > topic is second or third hand at best.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Since it is called for, some first hand information.
> > >
> > > Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
> > > then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with.
> She
> > > and her team were disruptive and uncooperative. They would not
> > listen
> > > to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot
> her
> > > password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List
> with
> > her
> > > complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict,
> > rather
> > > than listen to anyone.
> > >
> > > This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a
> moderator,
> > > she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there. Not
> > > taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
> > > dismissive attitude to the moderators. She was banned from
> posting.
> > > Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on
> moderation.
> > > The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.
> > >
> > > All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.
> > >
> > > So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
> > > shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".
> > >
> > >
> > > optime valete
> > >
> >
>

Salve Maior

And the lies continue.

"As for Cincinnatus: he was an augur who prevented the Augural College
from meeting."

Really? The current Yahoo mailing list of the NRCollegiumAugurum was
created
in 2006. In all of that time a total of 9 messages have been posted.

In 2006 one message was posted, in 2007 zero messages were posted and this
year, 2008
a total of 8 messages were posted. That�s an average of three messages a
year.

Maior you said that the �Augural College is of absolute necessity to Nova
Roma
and it's functions.� Of this I have no doubt but for three years the CA
yahoo list was available
and they have not made use of it. As a member of the CA list you know this.

If someone has prevented the CA from functioning it was not, is not
Cincinnatus.

Cincinnatus was forced out of Nova Roma for the alleged crime of removing
someone
from a Yahoo list the he owns. He owned it because Yahoo said he did. But we
shouldn�t let
the facts get in the way of keeping the lies going.

Vale


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Salve,

Trying to make people feel ashamed that they don't know Latin is a very poor way to motivate them to learn Latin. Latin was the language of Ancient Rome, but I don't live in Ancient Rome do I? It is very much encouraged for everyone to learn Latin, but let's not beat them over the head it, shall we?

The fact is Scholastica has a hissy fit on the newroman list anytime the mods translate someone's Latin message in to English. She probably wouldn't have been banned or moderated if she hadn't acted in such a manner.

Vale
- Annia Minucia Marcella

http://minucia.ciarin.com

Lucia Livia Plauta wrote:

L. Livia Maiori Strabonique sal.

Though I have never had direct experience, I have reason to believe
people who say that Scholastica is hard to work with.

But as to what happened on the newroman list, I'm sorry but she is
right in her assessment.
I was there and followed the debate.
The whole thing started because senator Audens didn't want to tolerate
anyone posting in Latin.
This lead to new moderation guidelines being set, which allow a number
of languages to be used, while asking (not requiring) to add an
English translation.

Scholastica was "guilty" of posting in Latin without translation,
taking advantage of the ambiguity of the guidelines.
I agree that providing a translation is a courtesy, but even if her
not-so-covert intention in not doing so had been to make people who
don't understand Latin feel ashamed, in my opinion she would be
totally justified.

Excuse me if I'm not going to be "nice" either: I'm known for voicing
my opinions without restraint.
This here is Nova Roma: the language of Rome is Latin, and anyone who
doesn't have at least a passive knowledge of it should at least feel
ashamed.

There are a number of acceptable excuses for not knowing Latin, but
those involved should just aknowledge their handicap and not try to
impose it on everyone else. If I'm lame and want to participate in the
NY marathon I'm not going to expect everybody else to slow down for me.

So I defend everyone's right to post here and on any other NR list in
Latin without a translation. People who do so obviously won't expect
those who don't know Latin to undestand them, and it's their business
who they want to address.
There's always at least one moderator who knows Latin, so it can't be
used to conceal breakage of moderation rules.

So, whatever Scholastica has or has not done in other venues, in
Newroman she doesn't deserve to be on moderation.
In fact, the policy of "asking for" translations has driven away from
the list a number of new citizens whose first language isn't English
and who can't be bothered to translate from Latin everything they write.

Optime valete,
Livia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Maior" <rory12001@. ..> wrote:
>
> Maior Straboni spd;
> Pompeia, I haven't mentioned this before but I will now.
> Scholastica last summer sent a very nasty letter about me to another
> civis who was kind enough to foward it to me. When Scholastica
> refused
> to recuse herself as Praetrix at my trial; you can believe I sent
> this
> letter to Cordus, my advocatus and those involved.
>
> Go read the New Roman list yourself: don't assume. Scholastica was
> being downright unpleasant, bullying those and embarrassing others.
> There is no excuse for this behavior on a list for new citizens.
>
>
> Both consuls Piscinus and Sabinus have been wonderful, meeting
> together
> in Dacia and holding rituals in real life. This year has been one of
> growth in Nova Roma. The CP is active; and we have a functioning
> College of Augurs. Cincinnatus and the late unlamented PM Cassius
> had the religio ground to a halt.
>
> bene valete in pacem deorum!
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Senatrix
> Flaminica Carmentalis
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Carmenta lia
> producer 'Vox Romana' podcast
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Vox_ Romana_podcast
>
>
> Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
> > someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last year...one
> > Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> > handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively
> and
> > as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy
> wording
> > of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "pompeia_minucia_ tiberia"
> <pompeia_minucia_ tiberia@> wrote:
> >
> > ---Po Minucia Strabo Marco Lucretio Agricolae S.P.D.
> >
> > My response to your post below:
> >
> > First off, your 'first hand information' is erroneous: She was
> not
> > Quaestor last year, she was Praetrix.
> >
> > For better or for worse, Scholastica will give you her honest
> > opinion. How refreshing.. ...
> >
> > As for the Senior Consul who so proactively does not recommend her
> > for Rogatrix: It pains me to say it, but he morphed from a Jekyll
> to
> > a Hyde the second he seized imperium, along with several of those
> on
> > the current election ballot, whom I cannot in conscience vote
> > for.....and for those who 'advise' them.
> > Circumventing the law, 'reinventing' the law, citing bizarre
> > interpretation of the law, inevitably promoting not mentorship but
> > rote clientalia.. .with the end product of ejecting a longstanding
> > Augur, Censor, Pontifex, Assidus, Senator from his positions,
> because
> > it was somehow I opine,deemed 'necessary'. And in the process,
> > deceiving the Senate, I feel, regarding the *real* agenda. This,
> > after a pre-election 'peaceful solution' platform. I didn't
> > personally like the guy they gunned either. I don't think he has
> much
> > use for me either :>) Is this an excuse to deny him his legal due?
> Is
> > this acceptable behaviour, in the most liberal of perspectives?
> >
> >
> > Not to me.
> >
> > Nor I think to Flavia, who seems to attend to legal and religious
> > matters more 'religiously' than those who claim to do so. I think
> the
> > word I'm looking for here is empathy. She readily empathizes with
> the
> > religious needs of people...not that she 100% agrees, but
> rather..she
> > understands how important spirituality is to people.
> >
> > And the difference between Scholastica and this year's
> inexcusable
> > administration is that Scholastica will give it to you straight
> > up...she will not *pretend*, only to pull a major fast one on you
> > down the road.
> >
> > And, the archives tell me that she was not willing to buy into
> this
> > year's ruthless agenda...I am hardly surprised. And so the
> rebuttals
> > against her candidacy might be understandable.
> >
> > Can you show me where she abused the law as Praetrix..and denied
> > someone justice? Even in the case of Hortenia Maior last
> year...one
> > Praetor reclused himself due to conflict of interest. And Flavia
> > handled the matter in the capacity of Praetor IMO as objectively
> and
> > as well as anyone could, plowing through the muck and lengthy
> wording
> > of the Leges Saliciae trial procedures.
> >
> > Can show me what you would have done differnently?
> >
> > I am not going to look on the New Roman List, Agricola...I' ll take
> > your word for it....she was on a roll....ok.. ..Was she on a roll
> due
> > to her propensity to the 'prim and proper'? I'll lay money unseen
> > that she was. I'll handle that, and justify it as *personality
> plus*
> > before I justify the antics of those who have done far worse this
> > year, yet decry her.
> >
> > I'll take an honest and periodic 'goodie two shoes' who is
> straight
> > with me, and at the end of the day has my best interests at heart,
> > over and above someone more 'way cool'... who turns on you when
> it's
> > politically convenient.
> >
> > She has served well as Rogator in the past...she avails herself to
> > teach Latin in Academia Thules, when she could start an online
> > Latin/Classics class for her own benefit..or just high-tail it out
> of
> > her and go someplace where she is more appreciated. Yet she
> stays.
> > She has my support at the cista as Rogatrix.
> >
> > Be mindful of pots that call kettles 'black'
> >
> > Valete
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola"
> > <marcus.lucretius@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica"
> > > <fororom@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A. Tullia Scholastica M. Moravio Piscino consuli quiritibus
> > bonae
> > > voluntatis
> > > > > S.P.D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Although highly skilled and
> > > > > experienced, Scholastica lacks the one skill that I find
> > essential to
> > > > > this position and that is an ability to work cordially with
> > others.
> > > > >
> > > > > ATS: To the best of my knowledge, you and I have not
> served
> > > in any cohors
> > > > > together, which would tend to indicate that any information
> you
> > > have on this
> > > > > topic is second or third hand at best.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agricola Omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Since it is called for, some first hand information.
> > >
> > > Last year, while I was serving as scriba to our webmaster,
> > > then-Quaestor A. Tullia Scholastica was impossible to work with.
> She
> > > and her team were disruptive and uncooperative. They would not
> > listen
> > > to advice or follow basic rules. When Scholastica either forgot
> her
> > > password or forgot how to log in, she disrupted the Main List
> with
> > her
> > > complaints and accusations, and even issued a pointless edict,
> > rather
> > > than listen to anyone.
> > >
> > > This year, in the New Roman mailing list on which I am a
> moderator,
> > > she was put on moderation for her disruptive messages there. Not
> > > taking the warning, she continued to be disruptive and to show a
> > > dismissive attitude to the moderators. She was banned from
> posting.
> > > Although the ban has since been lifted, she is still on
> moderation.
> > > The moderators in that group are senators and a pontifex.
> > >
> > > All of this is public record, open to examination by anyone.
> > >
> > > So in spite of whatever skills she may have, I agree that she has
> > > shown the lack of "an ability to work cordially with others".
> > >
> > >
> > > optime valete
> > >
> >
>

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:

>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus A. Minuciae Marcellae omnibusque s.p.d.
>
> >I'm learning Arabic. Arabic is a Category IV
> >language, which means it's a bit tough to learn(way more tough than
> >Latin which is Category II).
>
> I would bet that Latin is probably Category III. Is it even in

the DLI list at all, being that it is not a "modern language"? From
the Defense Language Institute entry on Wikipedia:

>

Considering it's the basis for the romantic languages, which are Cat
II, I am assuming it would be categorized as such. But even if it's
Cat III, Arabic is still more difficult.

> "The languages are broken into tiers, based on their difficulty

level for a native English speaker, as determined by the Defense
Language Institute."

>
> And, yes, Arabic is more difficult for an English speaker. It's

linguistically more distant from English than Dutch, Latin, Russian,
almost any European tongues with the exceptions of Hungarian, Finnish,
Basque, etc. But I don't think that the DLI rating is not an "absolute
difficulty level" as your comment is stated above; it is relative to
English.

>

Of course it's relative to english. If I were Iranian, I'm pretty sure
Arabic would be Cat I or II. I'm American, and the DLI is an American
Military language school, naturally the categories would be based off
English.

> >So forgive if I'm not able to cram yet another language in my head

at this time.

>
> Many people learn multiple languages at once.

And Many don't.

>

In some places in the world, people grow up trilingual (some places

>in India are a good example of this).

Holland as well, and they smoke hash.

>This, in no way, diminishes your wonderful accomplishment. I'm just

sensitive to the attitude of most English speakers that "learning
another language is excessively difficult, requires intolerable
amounts of very hard work, and takes up all my energy", and your
sentence, whether or not it actually contains this attitude, triggered
my reaction. I spent about 5 hours yesterday in a voluntary Latin
study group that I coordinate with other students; the five hours blew
past effortlessly and enjoyably, and I could have spent another 5
hours there.

>

Good for you. My post was in reaction to the implication that we are
too lazy or apathetic to learn another language and we have NO EXCUSE
to not learn Latin.

> >>ATS: [Latin] is the common language of many, and the language of

the Roman heritage.

> >
> >English and Mandarin are more common.
>
>
> Are we "dedicated to the study and restoration of ancient

English culture" or "dedicated to the study and restoration of

>ancient Han Chinese culture"? No.

Then the argument for Latin being "the common language of many" has no
bearing. We don't learn Latin because it's the common language of
many, because we're not here to learn a common language. If we were
here to learn a common language, english and mandarin supercede.

> And, to be honest, almost every language in the world has more

fluent speakers than Latin; we're talking a few hundred people
worldwide, probably (and a few of them right here in Nova Roma!). This
isn't a numbers game. This is about Rome, and Rome spoke Latin.

That was my point. I dare say that Latin isn't really the common
language of many relative to the other languages.

> Ancient Romans spoke Latin (and some Greek). We are studying and

restoring ancient Roman culture. That culture was inextricably
intertwined with Latin. Therefore, there should never be any argument
against Latin by anyone in this organization as it is a pillar of the
study and restoration of ancient Roman culture. It's a given and is
indisputable.

>

And no one is arguing we shouldn't learn Latin. But I would argue that
no one should be made to feel ashamed or lazy or stupid because they
haven't learned it. Nor should they be excluded from conversations on
the NewRoman list for not having learned it yet. There is absolutely
nothng wrong with translating Latin messages in to English for the
benefit of the majority of us who don't read Latin.

> >Latin is used in public here. Unless you think all those offices and
> >rogationes that we're supposed to vote on are written in English?
>
> They are written in English. For an example, see the following

rogatio on the wiki. I do not see a language bar at the top, nor does
that page have text in Latin or another language on it.

>
>

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Election_MMDCCLXI_(Nova_Roma)/Rogatio_Moravia_Iulia_de_institutis_publicis_religiosis

>

Oh I had no idea Rogatio was an English word, I must have missed that
in high school.

> A few words here and there do not constitute "use". It is,

however, a good start.

>

It does constitute use, imo. But can we both agree it does not
constitute Latin being "forbidden"?

> >NewRoman is for New Romans, that is why they have that policy. Not
> >everyone who joins Nova Roma is going to feel comfortable joining a
> >list where they can't understand half or most of what's being said.
>
> My guess is that there are people on NewRoman who do not speak

English. The assumption that everyone understands English is false.
So, if someone posts in a language, they should be responded to in
that language.

>

And if I were to join a european or middle eastern international
organization where the primary language wasn't english, I probably
would've already prepared myself to not understand much unless I had a
working knowledge of their primary language. I'm curious to know if
you think non-english speakers coming to Nova Roma would do the same?

And as to the situation cited by Scholastica, the hungarian who spoke
Latin and not English was told about 2 Latin lists that she might
like, and a hungarian list for her Province. I see nothing wrong with
that. She would be able to speak her native language and Latin with
others who understand her without needing a translation. Do you think
it was wrong of them to recommend those lists? Scholastica sure did.

Vale
- Annia Minucia Marcella

http://minucia.ciarin.com

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

As an augur I can attest that Cincinnatus DID prevent progress in the Collegium Augurum.  All of the sacred colleges work COLLEGIALLY.  Cincinnatus did not acknowledge this fact, and as a result worked as an individual and not collegially.  Maior, knows far more about this situation than does Paulinus.

Additionally, I creaded the NRCollegiumAugurum list that TGP mentions, and Cincinnatus refused to join this list.  It has only been fairly recently that we have had more than one Augur on that list.

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

Salve Maior

And the lies continue.

"As for Cincinnatus: he was an augur who prevented the Augural College
from meeting."

Really?  The current Yahoo mailing list of the NRCollegiumAugurum was
created
in 2006. In all of that time a total of 9 messages have been posted.

In 2006 one message was posted, in 2007 zero messages were posted and this
year, 2008
a total of 8 messages were posted. That's an average of three messages a
year.

Maior you said that the  "Augural College is of absolute necessity to Nova
Roma
and it's functions." Of this I have no doubt but for three years the CA
yahoo list was available
and they have not made use of it. As a member of the CA list you know this.

If someone has prevented  the CA from functioning it was not, is not
Cincinnatus.

Cincinnatus was forced out of Nova Roma for the alleged crime of removing
someone
from a Yahoo list the he owns. He owned it because Yahoo said he did. But we
shouldn't let
the facts get in the way of keeping the lies going.

Vale


Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Are we really going over this again? Seriously? Come on people.

- Annia Minucia Marcella

http://minucia.ciarin.com

Aedilis Plebis P. Con. Placidus SPD.

This is just a quick reminder about the sunscription of chariots in the
chariot race. Currently (as of November 16) I have 14 chariot
subscriptions, so only two more places are free. However, among the
entries I have, none is from the Factio Praesina (Greens). I won't be
able to run the race if I don't get at least two chariots from each
team. So come on, Greens - the two free places await you!

Optime valete,
Publius Constantinus Placidus

Maior Ahenobarbo Marcellae spd:
Merhaba or 'Uzzah ul kabira! The goddess al 'Uzza ia great.
it's the multilinguists here;-) Arabic is tough as it's written
without vowels, and there are lots of gutturals and the fun glottal
stop.
I never really learned it, I was keener on Persian, which is much
easier and unrelated except for Arabic loan words, which my
Zoroastrian Persian friends would like to get rid of. I can call
someone sag neh makhtun[there's a whole lot of
arabic in that phrase]
optime vale
Maior




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
<cn.caelius@...> wrote:

>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus A. Minuciae Marcellae s.p.d.
>
> >Considering it's the basis for the romantic languages, which are

Cat

> >II, I am assuming [Latin] would be categorized as such.
>
> The Romance languages are much simpler than Latin. All of them

(with the exception of Romanian) have lost their cases, for example.
Latin is closer to Russian in complexity, even though English uses
the Roman alphabet. Latin, grammatically, is probably Cat III.

>
> >But even if it's Cat III, Arabic is still more difficult.
>
>
> Then why learn Arabic? Job? Personal interest? Religious

interest? Why are more people learning Arabic than Latin if it is
just a matter of difficulty?

>
> >If I were Iranian, I'm pretty sure Arabic would be Cat I or II.
>
> Maybe, if vocabulary is the main focus. Of course, Farsi

(Persian) is an Indo-European language, related to English, Latin,
Russian, etc., whereas Arabic is Semitic, related to Hebrew,
Ethiopian, etc. I don't know anything about Semitic languages nor
about Farsi, so can't offer even a vague opinion here.

>
> >Of course it's relative to english...I'm American, and the DLI is

an American

> >Military language school, naturally the categories would be based

off

> >English.
>
> I guess I see this in a different light. Some languages are

more difficult than others, even though all are complicated. The DLI
probably isn't a good reference for this conversation due to the
fact that its purpose is to train people who speak one specific
language to speak to people in another language as quickly as
possible. As you said, since it is American, and almost all
Americans speak English, it is logical that the DLI, due to its
mission, would work from that origin.

> In Nova Roma, we have people with different language origins.

Nova Roma started in the U.S., but it is truly an international
organization. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the general attitudes
of the American Novi Romani have caught up with the reality yet. We
have magistrates from Romania, Mexico, Germany, as well as the
United States. We can't assume that people are working "from
English". It's just not a valid assumption any more, even though it
may have been in Nova Roma's earlier days.

>
>
> >Good for you. My post was in reaction to the implication that we

are

> >too lazy or apathetic to learn another language and we have NO

EXCUSE

> >to not learn Latin.
>
> Oh, sure, people can have valid reasons to not learn Latin.

And, yes, many people are lazy and/or apathetic. I think
Scholastica's main gripe here is that some people argue against
Latin because they can't or won't learn it. They think something
like, "since I won't/can't learn it, no one else can use it".
Instead, a policy of "here are the official languages and here are
the policies", followed to the letter, would be better.

>
> >> Are we "dedicated to the study and restoration of ancient
> >>English culture" or "dedicated to the study and restoration of
> >>ancient Han Chinese culture"? No.
> >
> >Then the argument for Latin being "the common language of many"

has no

> >bearing. We don't learn Latin because it's the common language of
> >many, because we're not here to learn a common language.
>
> If that is the case, then Nova Roma has a serious problem.

Language is a part--a HUGE part, possibly the largest part--of any
culture. And we are here to study and restore Roman culture. That
brings Latin into the picture by default. Maybe everyone won't learn
Latin; fine. But if "Roman culture" is the standard, then "Latin" is
the standard. Not "should be the standard", but "*is* the standard".
Again, this really is indisputable.

>
> >If we were here to learn a common language, english and mandarin

supercede.

>
> Actually, since I am a speaker of Esperanto, I would argue

this point. Vere, cxar mi estas parolanto de Esperanto, mi disputus
tiun kun vi.

>
> >>And, to be honest, almost every language in the world has more
> >>fluent speakers than Latin; we're talking a few hundred people
> >>worldwide, probably (and a few of them right here in Nova

Roma!). This

> >>isn't a numbers game. This is about Rome, and Rome spoke Latin.
> >
> >That was my point. I dare say that Latin isn't really the common
> >language of many relative to the other languages.
>
> Again, not a numbers issue. This isn't about "but more people

speak English"; this is about Roman culture. And Roman culture spoke
Latin (with some Greek), as I said below. Latin isn't a common
language of many now just like Hebrew wasn't a common language of
many a century ago. Now look at Hebrew; it is a vibrant, living
language. You could say it was resuscitated. We should try to do the
same thing with Latin. And no group in the world is better
positioned to spearhead this effort than Nova Roma.

>
> >And no one is arguing we shouldn't learn Latin. But I would argue

that

> >no one should be made to feel ashamed or lazy or stupid because

they

> >haven't learned it.
>
> I disagree with this. Peer pressure is one way (not the best,

but one) to encourage people to acculturate to the norms of Nova
Roma.

>
> >Nor should they be excluded from conversations on
> >the NewRoman list for not having learned it yet. There is

absolutely

> >nothng wrong with translating Latin messages in to English for the
> >benefit of the majority of us who don't read Latin.
>
> This is one of the assumptions that bother me the most.

Speaking another language is not exclusionary unless those who are
excluded are actively prohibited from learning that language. On the
contrary, there are so many Latin tutorials, classes, and teachers
out there that anyone who puts forth a bit of effort can learn
Latin, even if it takes them decades to do so. Please do not play
a "victim card" here, thinking that people are actively being
excluded. They are excluded by their own simple lack of knowledge,
not by someone standing guard with a dictionary and disallowing
their passage.

>
> >>Oh I had no idea Rogatio was an English word, I must have missed

that

> >>in high school.
>
> A crude and childish comment such as this lowers my opinion of

you. Please do better in the future.

>
> >> A few words here and there do not constitute "use". It is,

however, a good start.

> >
> >It does constitute use, imo. But can we both agree it does not
> >constitute Latin being "forbidden"?
>
> Just because a title is translated into Latin (I'll almost

guarantee that it was translated INTO Latin, and that the original
title was written in English) does not mean Latin is being "used",
except in a semantic way. Going to the gym and lifting a 2kg weight
one time with only your right arm does not mean you've "worked out"
except in the same way as "used" means "five words, only in a title,
so that we appear 'Roman'". Latin may not be forbidden in Nova Roma,
but in many corners of our republic, its use is very spotty.

>
> >And if I were to join a european or middle eastern international
> >organization where the primary language wasn't english, I probably
> >would've already prepared myself to not understand much unless I

had a

> >working knowledge of their primary language. I'm curious to know

if

> >you think non-english speakers coming to Nova Roma would do the

same?

>
> Whether or not they would, I think they should. I would never

join an Arab cultural organization whose primary language was
Arabic, then gripe that I couldn't speak Arabic so everyone needs to
translate their messages for me.

>
> >And as to the situation cited by Scholastica, the hungarian who

spoke

> >Latin and not English was told about 2 Latin lists that she might
> >like, and a hungarian list for her Province. I see nothing wrong

with

> >that. She would be able to speak her native language and Latin

with

> >others who understand her without needing a translation. Do you

think

> >it was wrong of them to recommend those lists? Scholastica sure

did.

> If you see nothing wrong with that, then do you see anything

wrong with other sorts of ghettos? Confining Latin to "2 Latin
lists" in an organization that presents itself as "[promoting] the
study and

> practice of pagan
> Roman civilization...encompassing such fields as...language"

(Constitution of Nova Roma, Preamble)

> is inexcusable.
> Ancient Rome spoke Latin. We are restoring ancient Roman

culture. Therefore, we should speak Latin. This is a pretty good
logical argument, I think. It's not any sort of "crime against
humanity" like slavery would be, so please don't use anything like
a "so we should own slaves, then, right?" argument; it would be
specious. Without language, culture is nothing. This is why cultures
worldwide fight for their linguistic rights. And it is why I will
fight, if necessary, to make Nova Roma promote Latin amongst its
citizens. It is logical, it is cultural, and it is Roman.

>
> Optime vale!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Aedilis Oppidi, Oppidum Fluminis Gilae, America Austroccidentalis
> Accensus, cos. M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus et T. Iulius Sabinus
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus Novis Romanis omnibusque s.p.d.

It is Market Day. I'm sitting at home relaxing, and I'm on Skype (cn.caelius.ahenobarbus , or just search for my name). Feel free to chat with me or call me, if you would like. We also have a Nova Roma ongoing typed chat at:

skype:?chat&blob=9YRPBgTeuBMEy_p3_DO6Gl2SDklJTkUDXTb0jbkLz0sFu11ObQAboWwRXkU7s94Mfi_1ThR6cKhWWZI3jJDgFXOhJZXu_z1Jq-SG2bXD59hQ

Optime valete!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Aedilis Oppidi, Oppidum Fluminis Gilae, America Austroccidentalis
Accensus, cos. M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus et T. Iulius Sabinus
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com

> OK, stop the presses, because every censor since at least Quintilianus
> has been unable to align the centuries or the tribes. This is yet
> another instance of the way that M. Octavius used his ownership of the
> website to arrogate powers to himself that he didn't have in law, but
> like it or not that's the way things are.

You're lying, Marinus.

(Surprised? While I don't normally read this list, I still have a few
friends here, who forward messages of interest.)

The citizen editor, used by every censor and their assistants, has
fields labeled "tribe" and "century". Into these fields you can type
any arbitrary number you want.

At any time in the last seven years, the censores could have asked the
webmaster (me, or Scaevola, or Callidus) to refrain from running the
realignment tool. (As this is a command line utility, and not
particularly convenient for someone who's not logged in all the time, I
suspect that my colleagues would have been glad to give up that
responsibility).

You could have copied each citizen's data into a spreadsheet (or asked
the database admin for a dump of it, something that I provided on
several occasions), run whatever formula you wished on it - or chosen
centuries by whim, with dice, whatever - and then copied each of those
numbers back into the "tribe" and "century" fields on the admin form.

You knew those fields were there - you probably looked at that page
every day while you were censor.

Absolutely nothing prevented you from doing so - except the fact that my
automated script accomplished the task in a hundredth the time.

Yet now you attack me for that. By giving you an automated tool -
WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY LEAVING THE OLD WAY OF DOING IT INTACT - I've
somehow "arrogated powers".

Everything I did was done with the full authorization of the censores.

NOTHING prevented you from modifying century and tribe assignments
manually.

> As a censor, I could not realign the centuries or tribes. Only the
> webmaster has the account privileges to do it. I'll guarantee you
> neither of the current censors can do it either.

"Guarantee", eh? Did you even bother to LOOK?

Oh, and to those complaining about an unwanted "Abstineo" on the voting
form: everything in the voting program was fully in compliance with the
"laws" as of the time the voting program was written. If NR's "laws"
changed in the years that followed, you can't expect the voting program
to automatically rewrite itself, any more than an ancient castle will
suddenly acquire elevators and air conditioning if some bureaucratic
busybody decrees them necessary. If you want to be able to change the
way elections work every few years, you're going to have to either hire
a programmer or go to paper ballots.