M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus cultoribus Deorum, Quiritibus et
omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Io Saturnalia! Io Triumphe!

Hodie est ante diem XII Kalendas Ianuarias; haec dies nefastus est:
Divalia Angeronae.

Felices natalis P. Constantine Placide!


"Saturn is thought to have come first into Italy; so also the
Virgilian muse testifies in these verses:

First from the Olympian aether came Saturn,
Fleeing the weapons of Jupiter, etc.

"So much simplicity of the men of old had been handed down to that
time, that when foreigners came to them, who indeed they were able
with their counsel and wisdom to instruct them in how to live and
form their customs, these not knowing their parents and origin, they
not only believed them born from Sky and Earth, indeed also they so
informed their descendants concerning this Saturn, whom they said was
the son of Sky and Earth." ~ Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Origines
genti Romanae 1.1-2


Divalia:

"The Angeronalia, from Angerona, to whom a sacrifice is made in the
Curia Acculeia and for whom this day is a public festival." ~ M.
Terrentius Varro, Lingua Latinae 6.23

"A festival for the Goddesses Angeronae to whom the pontifices make
sacrifice in the Temple of Volupa; from which, according to Verrius
Flaccus, it receives the name Angeronia, in propitiation for
expelling anguish and anxiety." ~ Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.10

"Last and greater than all, Rome herself, whose other name the
hallowed mysteries of the sacred rites forbid us to mention without
being guilty of the greatest impiety. After it had been long kept
buried in secrecy with the strictest fidelity and in respectful and
salutary silence, Valerius Soranus dared to divulge it, but soon did
he pay the penalty of his rashness.

"It will not perhaps be altogether foreign to the purpose, if I here
make mention of one peculiar institution of our forefathers which
bears especial reference to the inculcation of silence on religious
matters. The Goddess Angerona, to whom sacrifice is offered on the
twelfth day before the calends of January [21st December], is
represented in Her statue as having Her mouth bound with a sealed
fillet." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 3.9.65-67

Angerona was thought by some to be a Goddess who both brought on and
relieved anguish and fear. She was associated with Bona Dea Angitia,
who had lived along the shores of Lake Fucinus among the Marrubians
and the Marsi. Her sacred grove in the Silva Angitia lay towards Alba
(Orelli, nos. 115; 116; 1846). Myth identified Angitia with Medea,
coming from Colchis to Italy with Jason, where she taught on how to
heal with herbs (Silius Italicus, Punica 8.498, etc.). But She was
also identified with Muta or Tacita, the Goddess whose name must
never be revealed.

"Verrius Flaccus cites authors whom he deems worthy of credit, to
show that on the occasion of a siege, it was the usage, the first
thing of all, for the Roman priests to summon forth the tutelary
divinity of that particular town, and to promise him the same rites,
or even a more extended worship, at Rome; and at the present day
even, this ritual still forms part of the discipline of our pontiffs.
Hence it is, no doubt, that the name of the tutelary deity of Rome
has been so strictly kept concealed, lest any of our enemies should
act in a similar manner." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis
28.4

Many have speculated on what Her true name may have been. Some of
these have thought Angerona to be Favra or Fona, Acca, Flora, or
Valesia, Valentia, Sorana, or Hirpa, any of which could also be
identified with Feronia or Vibia.


AUC 822 / 69 CE: The Senate officially recognized Vespasianus as
emperor.


Our thought for today is from Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 34:

"We do not so much need the assistance of our friends as we do the
confidence of their assistance in need."

Salve et salvete,
This is a translation of the previous post into English.

Solar L. Livia Plauta Rooster Alexandro S, P.D. Alexander beloved,
looks at that you do not attend the Italian list very of NR
(Pomerium), if you take to me for American. Spectata Livia Plauta,
com'è funny the world! Mah, the list of NR Italy "leggiucchio", but,
you will pardon to me, I had not never noticed you. I must say that
to write in English, my very bad English, to an Italian "roman
patriot", reproaching them its "americanità" is truly esilarante:
worthy of a piece of Totò and Peppino, immortali artists. Still
excuses in order averti not noticed before. Unfortunately I know of
what I speak, in fact as soon as I have told to relatives to friends
to me to be joined to Nova Rome, before the question of all have
been: " but they are not fascist? " However I would think anch'io to
know of what I speak. We see a little therefore. Bè, your relatives
can be calm. Some time makes (and it looks at that you have not
noticed to me), you have dared to defend the good faith of the
Fascists (those true ones, those of the Ventennio, insomma) in their
love for Rome and ........... apriti sky! You had offeso the mothers
of the readers, dilungandomi on their sins of youth, would be
themselves offenses a lot, but moooooolto less. To Nr Italy, of
Fascists, us he is not any. Perhaps you are much young person, or you
attend people lacking in conscience historical, all reasons for which
you could not esserti shrewed that in mind of much Rome people and
the fascism is still indissolubilmente legacies. Ehi, Plauta! Slowly
with flatteries! Piaaaaaano. Much young person: sweet words, languori
cakies. Not, unfortunately not. But that sweet to feel to say it.
However, it will be those that will be, but I of persons who connect
Rome and the Fascism, of it know to the maximum a pair: both over 80.
Perhaps those of the MTR, instead, reconnect not Rome to the Fascism,
indeed credimi, it makes them this sorridere. They even reconnect the
Fascism to Rome: it is not goat wool, the difference is abysmal.
Regarding l' " americanizzazion e" of the museums I understand yours
worries, and these things give annoyance also me, are but one small
price to pay if then there are also virtual reconstructions,
esplicativi panels in several languages, etc Mah, de gustibus .....
to me piacciono the museums of the 800, with the smallest nameplates,
or, better still rare and paradisiaci, without nameplates quite.
Places where if you have not studied a beautiful one po', before, are
nearly better not to go, removed the aesthetic aspect. Regarding the
MTR, if you do not want to call them neofascisti, them I will call
criptofascisti. Now he is much fashionable ones to also repropose the
fascist ideologies denying of being fascist. I but, as they know
those which know to me, are one that calls the things with their
name, therefore I call them to those Fascists, Fascists, Fascists.
Livia Plauta, NEW, KRYPTON, or FASCISTS tout court: as the poet
says "Addò fine spaghettis or grain, or grain succeeds. It succeeds
or nun it succeeds, always it is grain, that one ch'esce". Those of
the Mtr ripongono fascist ideologies, you say. Mah. Invocano the
italianità of Zara? They want to perhaps reconquer Mortar? Or
splendid and irredenta the Corsica? They would want to even replace
the Chamber of deputies with that of the Corporations? To replace the
medagliette to the dogs? 4 March celebrates the Albertino Charter?
They want to vanquish the tuberculosis? That the Fascists have not
already vanquished it. That I know some, they have with some other
disease to us? Perhaps it waits for, are. They would want to clear
the swamps pontine. Eh, not, those have already cleared them. It
waits for, waits for. Here there are. They would want that the trains
arrived in timetable. Anch'io but! Anch'io, anch'io! Here, there are:
and then they would want that Italy gained the World-wide one of
Soccer, like when was He! (And I, that I always hold for the Germany,
instead? I will not be at all ..... not, I do not have the courage
not to write it ..... orroreeeee! Give a psicanalista to me, but give
it Bravo to me). I have had occasion to see several of they the 21
you open them slid to Rome, during a visit of the holes from they
organized. Ehi, once us I have gone also! I have seen them in make I
have felt, them to speak, and I assure to you that I know them to the
Fascists to recognize. Plauta friend you will know, them also to
recognize, but certainly you do not know them to describe. But you
want to say to me from you have recognized them to what? Not to
mention their way to make l' osculatio, than it ends in fascist
saluteÂ… Ah, this is funny. Also I, have learned than it from one of
they I make, it thus. He is mistaken? How it makes yourself instead?
Concluding: I would want own to understand what agrees for Fascism in
2008, I say in 2008! Those of the Mtr, some of they I mean, I know
them of person. I have seen them in face as you say. While you
describe to us, and are much onlooker, a fascist face (oh, nobody
were bare, nothing jaws strong-willed people), will have also to
understand what you mean for Fascism. It will not be a synonym
of: "some thing that to me it does not appeal to"? Or even synonymous
than "one to which it does not appeal to the liberalismo American"? A
little joking and a little provoking, but always for joke! , I do not
succeed to understand the sense of your critic. Less than you avoid
than to listen to the Radius, or she does not have the cellular one,
because Guglielmo Marconi was most fascist. Certainly, some aspects
of the Fascism are not criticized from the Mtr, as an example and for
the note, the love for Rome. What we make, we criticize the Fascism
because loved Rome? Or better still we dislike Rome because appealed
to the Fascists? Chiedigli what thinks instead of the Agreed one! I
attend lumi! Ah, since you are of Bononia, greets Marullinus to me,
that I have had occasion to meet very less than you hoped. I do not
see it from many years, this is even the good occasion. Marullinus,
there are? You strike a blow! Reverenter Alexander

Salvete Omnes!!:
Wishing you all a wondeful Winter Solstice.
Valete.
G. Iulia Agrippa.
Decimus Cassius Lupus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nabarz" <nabarz@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Merry Solstice


> Salve,
>
> Wishing you all a great Dies Natalis Solis Invicti / Winter Solstice/
> Shabe Yalda/ Yule.
>
>
> Yule
> The sun is setting low on the western horizon.
> Sky serpent swallowing him once more
> Yule night has arrived; sun's longest slumber.
>
> We eat and drink all that is red
> Wine, pomegranate and watermelon,
> The colour of dawn, a reminder of what we eagerly wait for.
>
> Shamash, Marduk, Sekhmet,
> Descending immortals, you'll rise again
> Apollo, Ra salutations to you.
>
> Good night Osiris, weak and tired lying in your coffin,
> Enclosed by darkness, tricked by Seth again!
> An infant sun is born, Horus soaring up onto the sky.
>
> Mithras born of a rock and out from the cave,
> Becoming sol invictus and turning the wheel
> Darkness, now a fading memory.
>
> Oak king sings outside, as the Holly king lays slain
> Dawn has arrived, Yule has ended.
> Drink up your wine
>
> -by Nabarz.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: 19/12/08
10:09 a.m.
>
>

from: Appius Galerius Aurelianus
to:Nova Roma
re:Intercessio against Magisterial Edictum
Ex-Officio Tribunis Plebis Appius Galerius Aurelianus SPD
I hereby pronounce intercessio against Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-
Iulio de Iurisdictione Praetori issued by Praetor M.Curiatius
Complutensis and

M. Iulius Severus

regarding Edictum
In respect of this edict, Section VI. Iudicium contains elements that
are unconstitutional. section 3.c creates an offence of contempt for
the Reus. That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.

Sections VI.3.a-c of the edict run contrary to the provisions of the
Lex Salicia iudiciaria. It is this lex that creates the judicial
process in Nova Roma, and it states in its PREFATIO "The intent of
this law is to establish a judicial system in Nova Roma, setting the
legal procedures that must be followed to present a case to a court
and to constitute that court." An edict can never overrule a lex -
vis a vis Section 1.B of the Constitution, for it is a lesser
authority. The PREFATIO above clearly lays out that what is contained
in the Lex Salicia iudiciaria is the model to be followed, not the
model with bits added on by two praetors. The law is the law is the
law. They cannot alter the framework for trials for to do so strikes
at the heart of the chain of legal authority stated in the
Constitution (Section 1.B). If changes in the trial process are
required, it should be put to the people in comitia in the form of a
lex.

Section VI.4.3 of the edict removes the right to litigate for ever -
which this edict cannot do as that conflicts with Section 3.1.1.3 of
the Lex Salicia poenalis which states that a citizen has "The rights
to bring actions under leges poenales and to give evidence therein.
The right to bring actions under leges poenales may not be impaired
or abrogated by conviction except by exactio for life." Nothing can
restrict a citizen from mounting an action at law, unless it is over
the time limitation of 5 years as stipulated in that lex. Nothing
else can affect that right at law, least of all the lesser authority
of an edict.

Section VI.4.C of the edict also contains an element that conflicts
with the Lex Salicia iudiciaria and the Lex Salicia poenalis. It does
so in respect of the former for the reasons above - the edict
assaults the authority of the people in comitia to include a
provision that fundamentally changes the nature of trials in Nova
Roma. Now the Reus (defendant) will be required to defend himself,
rather than just the Actor (accuser) prove his or her case.
Essentially the right to silence has been removed from a defendant.
This is utterly outrageous. It conflicts with Section 3.1.1.4 of the
Lex Salicia poenalis because this enshrines "The right to fair trial
by law for offence". Clearly the removal of the right to silence and
forcing someone to offer a defense rather than sit and wait for the
Actor to prove the case is a total assault on this right.

There other a few other points regarding this edict, but suffice it
to say it gives magistrates excessive power over citizens, is
unconstitutional and conflicts with the higher authority of leges.

It is a pernicious document that can be put to great ill use by
persons so minded.

As to your comments, of course the prateors can use this right of
iurisprudentia to create offences out of thin air, and punishments to
boot. They already have done so during the show trials. Additionally
I haven't misread anything, least of all the law. I am aware, fully,
that the description of iurisprudentia is a straight copy from the
lex. That isn't the issue.

What is the issue to my mind is that this section, by placing the
quote on iurisprudentia clearly in the section of the edict on crimes
and penalties indicates to me that the intention is to use
iurisprudentia to fill in the gaps in our legislation, and not by way
of simply slightly extending existing laws to cover highly unusual
circumstances, but by way of plucking out of thin air new crimes and
punishments (as was already done this year), instead of promulgating
law in the normal way in the comitia.

This no doubt is all in aid of efficiency, and compelling the
citizens to obediance as you noted in a post I think on the Back
Alley. This is still a volunteer organization despite all the
delusions to the contrary, this edict assists in taking us further
from a place of volunteers to a place of compulsion and one where
citizens find themselves "compelled" to do "x", "y" or "z". That in a
volunteeer group usually ends one way, people leave. But then since
they don't share the "vision" I am sure that adherents of this shift
in mentality in Nova Roma wouldn't shed any tears over their passing.

This edict serves only to demonstrate that some of you have a total
disconnect from reality and a complete lack of understanding about
how to run volunteer based groups. That we have sunk to the level of
breaking our own constitution with impunity simply because it
isn't "Roman" enough - despite it being our highest legal authority,
igmoring rights granted by the people/members in laws (here in thsi
edict and in the trials), and now bolstering up the lurch
to "compulsion" rather than debate, and acceptance of disagreement,
in this edict - this is a telling sign where some of you want to take
Nova Roma.

Valete,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
Tribunis Plebis

Salve Tribune

13 minutes late.

The proposed legislation was published more than 72 hours ago. Under
section II of the Lex Labiena de intercessione you only have 72
hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" - in
other words from when it is made public.

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS


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

>
> from: Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> to:Nova Roma
> re:Intercessio against Magisterial Edictum
> Ex-Officio Tribunis Plebis Appius Galerius Aurelianus SPD
> I hereby pronounce intercessio against Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-
> Iulio de Iurisdictione Praetori issued by Praetor M.Curiatius
> Complutensis and
>
> M. Iulius Severus
>
> regarding Edictum
> In respect of this edict, Section VI. Iudicium contains elements that
> are unconstitutional. section 3.c creates an offence of contempt for
> the Reus. That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
> magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
> laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
> whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
> the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
> power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
> comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.
>
> Sections VI.3.a-c of the edict run contrary to the provisions of the
> Lex Salicia iudiciaria. It is this lex that creates the judicial
> process in Nova Roma, and it states in its PREFATIO "The intent of
> this law is to establish a judicial system in Nova Roma, setting the
> legal procedures that must be followed to present a case to a court
> and to constitute that court." An edict can never overrule a lex -
> vis a vis Section 1.B of the Constitution, for it is a lesser
> authority. The PREFATIO above clearly lays out that what is contained
> in the Lex Salicia iudiciaria is the model to be followed, not the
> model with bits added on by two praetors. The law is the law is the
> law. They cannot alter the framework for trials for to do so strikes
> at the heart of the chain of legal authority stated in the
> Constitution (Section 1.B). If changes in the trial process are
> required, it should be put to the people in comitia in the form of a
> lex.
>
> Section VI.4.3 of the edict removes the right to litigate for ever -
> which this edict cannot do as that conflicts with Section 3.1.1.3 of
> the Lex Salicia poenalis which states that a citizen has "The rights
> to bring actions under leges poenales and to give evidence therein.
> The right to bring actions under leges poenales may not be impaired
> or abrogated by conviction except by exactio for life." Nothing can
> restrict a citizen from mounting an action at law, unless it is over
> the time limitation of 5 years as stipulated in that lex. Nothing
> else can affect that right at law, least of all the lesser authority
> of an edict.
>
> Section VI.4.C of the edict also contains an element that conflicts
> with the Lex Salicia iudiciaria and the Lex Salicia poenalis. It does
> so in respect of the former for the reasons above - the edict
> assaults the authority of the people in comitia to include a
> provision that fundamentally changes the nature of trials in Nova
> Roma. Now the Reus (defendant) will be required to defend himself,
> rather than just the Actor (accuser) prove his or her case.
> Essentially the right to silence has been removed from a defendant.
> This is utterly outrageous. It conflicts with Section 3.1.1.4 of the
> Lex Salicia poenalis because this enshrines "The right to fair trial
> by law for offence". Clearly the removal of the right to silence and
> forcing someone to offer a defense rather than sit and wait for the
> Actor to prove the case is a total assault on this right.
>
> There other a few other points regarding this edict, but suffice it
> to say it gives magistrates excessive power over citizens, is
> unconstitutional and conflicts with the higher authority of leges.
>
> It is a pernicious document that can be put to great ill use by
> persons so minded.
>
> As to your comments, of course the prateors can use this right of
> iurisprudentia to create offences out of thin air, and punishments to
> boot. They already have done so during the show trials. Additionally
> I haven't misread anything, least of all the law. I am aware, fully,
> that the description of iurisprudentia is a straight copy from the
> lex. That isn't the issue.
>
> What is the issue to my mind is that this section, by placing the
> quote on iurisprudentia clearly in the section of the edict on crimes
> and penalties indicates to me that the intention is to use
> iurisprudentia to fill in the gaps in our legislation, and not by way
> of simply slightly extending existing laws to cover highly unusual
> circumstances, but by way of plucking out of thin air new crimes and
> punishments (as was already done this year), instead of promulgating
> law in the normal way in the comitia.
>
> This no doubt is all in aid of efficiency, and compelling the
> citizens to obediance as you noted in a post I think on the Back
> Alley. This is still a volunteer organization despite all the
> delusions to the contrary, this edict assists in taking us further
> from a place of volunteers to a place of compulsion and one where
> citizens find themselves "compelled" to do "x", "y" or "z". That in a
> volunteeer group usually ends one way, people leave. But then since
> they don't share the "vision" I am sure that adherents of this shift
> in mentality in Nova Roma wouldn't shed any tears over their passing.
>
> This edict serves only to demonstrate that some of you have a total
> disconnect from reality and a complete lack of understanding about
> how to run volunteer based groups. That we have sunk to the level of
> breaking our own constitution with impunity simply because it
> isn't "Roman" enough - despite it being our highest legal authority,
> igmoring rights granted by the people/members in laws (here in thsi
> edict and in the trials), and now bolstering up the lurch
> to "compulsion" rather than debate, and acceptance of disagreement,
> in this edict - this is a telling sign where some of you want to take
> Nova Roma.
>
> Valete,
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> Tribunis Plebis
>

Salve Tribune

my apoligizes, I am mistaken in my math.

Vale

COMPLVTENSIS

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. CVRIATIVS COMPLVTENSIS"
<complutensis@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Tribune
>
> 13 minutes late.
>
> The proposed legislation was published more than 72 hours ago. Under
> section II of the Lex Labiena de intercessione you only have 72
> hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" - in
> other words from when it is made public.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "galerius_of_rome"
> <galerius_of_rome@> wrote:
> >
> > from: Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> > to:Nova Roma
> > re:Intercessio against Magisterial Edictum
> > Ex-Officio Tribunis Plebis Appius Galerius Aurelianus SPD
> > I hereby pronounce intercessio against Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-
> > Iulio de Iurisdictione Praetori issued by Praetor M.Curiatius
> > Complutensis and
> >
> > M. Iulius Severus
> >
> > regarding Edictum
> > In respect of this edict, Section VI. Iudicium contains elements that
> > are unconstitutional. section 3.c creates an offence of contempt for
> > the Reus. That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
> > magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
> > laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
> > whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
> > the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
> > power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
> > comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Sections VI.3.a-c of the edict run contrary to the provisions of the
> > Lex Salicia iudiciaria. It is this lex that creates the judicial
> > process in Nova Roma, and it states in its PREFATIO "The intent of
> > this law is to establish a judicial system in Nova Roma, setting the
> > legal procedures that must be followed to present a case to a court
> > and to constitute that court." An edict can never overrule a lex -
> > vis a vis Section 1.B of the Constitution, for it is a lesser
> > authority. The PREFATIO above clearly lays out that what is contained
> > in the Lex Salicia iudiciaria is the model to be followed, not the
> > model with bits added on by two praetors. The law is the law is the
> > law. They cannot alter the framework for trials for to do so strikes
> > at the heart of the chain of legal authority stated in the
> > Constitution (Section 1.B). If changes in the trial process are
> > required, it should be put to the people in comitia in the form of a
> > lex.
> >
> > Section VI.4.3 of the edict removes the right to litigate for ever -
> > which this edict cannot do as that conflicts with Section 3.1.1.3 of
> > the Lex Salicia poenalis which states that a citizen has "The rights
> > to bring actions under leges poenales and to give evidence therein.
> > The right to bring actions under leges poenales may not be impaired
> > or abrogated by conviction except by exactio for life." Nothing can
> > restrict a citizen from mounting an action at law, unless it is over
> > the time limitation of 5 years as stipulated in that lex. Nothing
> > else can affect that right at law, least of all the lesser authority
> > of an edict.
> >
> > Section VI.4.C of the edict also contains an element that conflicts
> > with the Lex Salicia iudiciaria and the Lex Salicia poenalis. It does
> > so in respect of the former for the reasons above - the edict
> > assaults the authority of the people in comitia to include a
> > provision that fundamentally changes the nature of trials in Nova
> > Roma. Now the Reus (defendant) will be required to defend himself,
> > rather than just the Actor (accuser) prove his or her case.
> > Essentially the right to silence has been removed from a defendant.
> > This is utterly outrageous. It conflicts with Section 3.1.1.4 of the
> > Lex Salicia poenalis because this enshrines "The right to fair trial
> > by law for offence". Clearly the removal of the right to silence and
> > forcing someone to offer a defense rather than sit and wait for the
> > Actor to prove the case is a total assault on this right.
> >
> > There other a few other points regarding this edict, but suffice it
> > to say it gives magistrates excessive power over citizens, is
> > unconstitutional and conflicts with the higher authority of leges.
> >
> > It is a pernicious document that can be put to great ill use by
> > persons so minded.
> >
> > As to your comments, of course the prateors can use this right of
> > iurisprudentia to create offences out of thin air, and punishments to
> > boot. They already have done so during the show trials. Additionally
> > I haven't misread anything, least of all the law. I am aware, fully,
> > that the description of iurisprudentia is a straight copy from the
> > lex. That isn't the issue.
> >
> > What is the issue to my mind is that this section, by placing the
> > quote on iurisprudentia clearly in the section of the edict on crimes
> > and penalties indicates to me that the intention is to use
> > iurisprudentia to fill in the gaps in our legislation, and not by way
> > of simply slightly extending existing laws to cover highly unusual
> > circumstances, but by way of plucking out of thin air new crimes and
> > punishments (as was already done this year), instead of promulgating
> > law in the normal way in the comitia.
> >
> > This no doubt is all in aid of efficiency, and compelling the
> > citizens to obediance as you noted in a post I think on the Back
> > Alley. This is still a volunteer organization despite all the
> > delusions to the contrary, this edict assists in taking us further
> > from a place of volunteers to a place of compulsion and one where
> > citizens find themselves "compelled" to do "x", "y" or "z". That in a
> > volunteeer group usually ends one way, people leave. But then since
> > they don't share the "vision" I am sure that adherents of this shift
> > in mentality in Nova Roma wouldn't shed any tears over their passing.
> >
> > This edict serves only to demonstrate that some of you have a total
> > disconnect from reality and a complete lack of understanding about
> > how to run volunteer based groups. That we have sunk to the level of
> > breaking our own constitution with impunity simply because it
> > isn't "Roman" enough - despite it being our highest legal authority,
> > igmoring rights granted by the people/members in laws (here in thsi
> > edict and in the trials), and now bolstering up the lurch
> > to "compulsion" rather than debate, and acceptance of disagreement,
> > in this edict - this is a telling sign where some of you want to take
> > Nova Roma.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > Tribunis Plebis
> >
>

Intercession by Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis S.P.D.

I join my hand to that of my colleague, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, in
pronouncing intercessio against the Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-Iulio
de Iursdictione Praetori for the same reasons he has stated but also
include that the Preamble of the Consitution makes it plain that no
system of jurisprudence was to be encompassed in the primary and
secondary functions of Nova Roma nor is a system of jurisprudence one
of the powers of the praetores to be issue an edictum that advances
the mission and function of Nova Roma nor does this edictum administer
the established laws by creating penalties not specifically mentioned
in the Lex Salicia Poenalis (which I am required to support by my
office despite my personal objection to it) that was amended by Pars
Altera: De Criminibus Penisque in regard to several of the multa
pecuniaria of several sections where such multa pecuniaria was not
specifically stated by law. Such power to impose financial penalities
by amending the leges of Nova Roma rest solely with the Senate by
consultum or the People by plebiscite.

Valete

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

from: Appius Galerius Aurelianus
to:Nova Roma
re:Intercessio against Magisterial Edictum
Ex-Officio Tribunis Plebis Appius Galerius Aurelianus SPD
I hereby pronounce intercessio against Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-
Iulio de Iurisdictione Praetori issued by Praetor M.Curiatius
Complutensis and M. Iulius Severus regarding Edictum:

In respect of this edict, Section VI. Iudicium contains elements that
are unconstitutional. section 3.c creates an offence of contempt for
the Reus. That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.

Sections VI.3.a-c of the edict run contrary to the provisions of the
Lex Salicia iudiciaria. It is this lex that creates the judicial
process in Nova Roma, and it states in its PREFATIO "The intent of
this law is to establish a judicial system in Nova Roma, setting the
legal procedures that must be followed to present a case to a court
and to constitute that court." An edict can never overrule a lex -
vis a vis Section 1.B of the Constitution, for it is a lesser
authority. The PREFATIO above clearly lays out that what is contained
in the Lex Salicia iudiciaria is the model to be followed, not the
model with bits added on by two praetors. The law is the law is the
law. They cannot alter the framework for trials for to do so strikes
at the heart of the chain of legal authority stated in the
Constitution (Section 1.B). If changes in the trial process are
required, it should be put to the people in comitia in the form of a
lex.

Section VI.4.3 of the edict removes the right to litigate for ever -
which this edict cannot do as that conflicts with Section 3.1.1.3 of
the Lex Salicia poenalis which states that a citizen has "The rights
to bring actions under leges poenales and to give evidence therein.
The right to bring actions under leges poenales may not be impaired
or abrogated by conviction except by exactio for life." Nothing can
restrict a citizen from mounting an action at law, unless it is over
the time limitation of 5 years as stipulated in that lex. Nothing
else can affect that right at law, least of all the lesser authority
of an edict.

Section VI.4.C of the edict also contains an element that conflicts
with the Lex Salicia iudiciaria and the Lex Salicia poenalis. It does
so in respect of the former for the reasons above - the edict
assaults the authority of the people in comitia to include a
provision that fundamentally changes the nature of trials in Nova
Roma. Now the Reus (defendant) will be required to defend himself,
rather than just the Actor (accuser) prove his or her case.
Essentially the right to silence has been removed from a defendant.
This is utterly outrageous. It conflicts with Section 3.1.1.4 of the
Lex Salicia poenalis because this enshrines "The right to fair trial
by law for offence". Clearly the removal of the right to silence and
forcing someone to offer a defense rather than sit and wait for the
Actor to prove the case is a total assault on this right.

There other a few other points regarding this edict, but suffice it
to say it gives magistrates excessive power over citizens, is
unconstitutional and conflicts with the higher authority of leges.

It is a pernicious document that can be put to great ill use by
persons so minded.

As to your comments, of course the prateors can use this right of
iurisprudentia to create offences out of thin air, and punishments to
boot. They already have done so during the show trials. Additionally
I haven't misread anything, least of all the law. I am aware, fully,
that the description of iurisprudentia is a straight copy from the
lex. That isn't the issue.

What is the issue to my mind is that this section, by placing the
quote on iurisprudentia clearly in the section of the edict on crimes
and penalties indicates to me that the intention is to use
iurisprudentia to fill in the gaps in our legislation, and not by way
of simply slightly extending existing laws to cover highly unusual
circumstances, but by way of plucking out of thin air new crimes and
punishments (as was already done this year), instead of promulgating
law in the normal way in the comitia.

This no doubt is all in aid of efficiency, and compelling the
citizens to obedience as you noted in a post I think on the Back
Alley. This is still a volunteer organization despite all the
delusions to the contrary, this edict assists in taking us further
from a place of volunteers to a place of compulsion and one where
citizens find themselves "compelled" to do "x", "y" or "z". That in a
volunteeer group usually ends one way, people leave. But then since
they don't share the "vision" I am sure that adherents of this shift
in mentality in Nova Roma wouldn't shed any tears over their passing.

This edict serves only to demonstrate that some of you have a total
disconnect from reality and a complete lack of understanding about
how to run volunteer based groups. That we have sunk to the level of
breaking our own constitution with impunity simply because it
isn't "Roman" enough - despite it being our highest legal authority,
ignoring rights granted by the people/members in laws (here in thsi
edict and in the trials), and now bolstering up the lurch
to "compulsion" rather than debate, and acceptance of disagreement,
in this edict - this is a telling sign where some of you want to take
Nova Roma.

Valete,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
Tribunis Plebis

If you value true justice, then you will accept the intercessio of the
two tribunes. I personally encouraged you both publicly and privately
on Friday to encourage you to withdraw the edictum or face intercessio.

It has not been 72 hours since I first read the edictum less than 72
hours ago then, in my opinion, my intercessio is still within the 72
hours of it being announced to me. Friday to Saturday=24 hours;
Saturday to Sunday=24 hours; Sunday to Monday=24 hours.

My intercessio stands; ignore it at your peril. If you make enemies
of the Tribunes now, you are looking at a very long year to come,
Praetores.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. CVRIATIVS COMPLVTENSIS"
<complutensis@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Tribune
>
> 13 minutes late.
>
> The proposed legislation was published more than 72 hours ago. Under
> section II of the Lex Labiena de intercessione you only have 72
> hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" - in
> other words from when it is made public.
>
> Vale
>
> COMPLVTENSIS
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "galerius_of_rome"
> <galerius_of_rome@> wrote:
> >
> > from: Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> > to:Nova Roma
> > re:Intercessio against Magisterial Edictum
> > Ex-Officio Tribunis Plebis Appius Galerius Aurelianus SPD
> > I hereby pronounce intercessio against Edictum Praetorium Curiatio-
> > Iulio de Iurisdictione Praetori issued by Praetor M.Curiatius
> > Complutensis and
> >
> > M. Iulius Severus
> >
> > regarding Edictum
> > In respect of this edict, Section VI. Iudicium contains elements that
> > are unconstitutional. section 3.c creates an offence of contempt for
> > the Reus. That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
> > magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
> > laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
> > whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
> > the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
> > power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
> > comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.
> >
> > Sections VI.3.a-c of the edict run contrary to the provisions of the
> > Lex Salicia iudiciaria. It is this lex that creates the judicial
> > process in Nova Roma, and it states in its PREFATIO "The intent of
> > this law is to establish a judicial system in Nova Roma, setting the
> > legal procedures that must be followed to present a case to a court
> > and to constitute that court." An edict can never overrule a lex -
> > vis a vis Section 1.B of the Constitution, for it is a lesser
> > authority. The PREFATIO above clearly lays out that what is contained
> > in the Lex Salicia iudiciaria is the model to be followed, not the
> > model with bits added on by two praetors. The law is the law is the
> > law. They cannot alter the framework for trials for to do so strikes
> > at the heart of the chain of legal authority stated in the
> > Constitution (Section 1.B). If changes in the trial process are
> > required, it should be put to the people in comitia in the form of a
> > lex.
> >
> > Section VI.4.3 of the edict removes the right to litigate for ever -
> > which this edict cannot do as that conflicts with Section 3.1.1.3 of
> > the Lex Salicia poenalis which states that a citizen has "The rights
> > to bring actions under leges poenales and to give evidence therein.
> > The right to bring actions under leges poenales may not be impaired
> > or abrogated by conviction except by exactio for life." Nothing can
> > restrict a citizen from mounting an action at law, unless it is over
> > the time limitation of 5 years as stipulated in that lex. Nothing
> > else can affect that right at law, least of all the lesser authority
> > of an edict.
> >
> > Section VI.4.C of the edict also contains an element that conflicts
> > with the Lex Salicia iudiciaria and the Lex Salicia poenalis. It does
> > so in respect of the former for the reasons above - the edict
> > assaults the authority of the people in comitia to include a
> > provision that fundamentally changes the nature of trials in Nova
> > Roma. Now the Reus (defendant) will be required to defend himself,
> > rather than just the Actor (accuser) prove his or her case.
> > Essentially the right to silence has been removed from a defendant.
> > This is utterly outrageous. It conflicts with Section 3.1.1.4 of the
> > Lex Salicia poenalis because this enshrines "The right to fair trial
> > by law for offence". Clearly the removal of the right to silence and
> > forcing someone to offer a defense rather than sit and wait for the
> > Actor to prove the case is a total assault on this right.
> >
> > There other a few other points regarding this edict, but suffice it
> > to say it gives magistrates excessive power over citizens, is
> > unconstitutional and conflicts with the higher authority of leges.
> >
> > It is a pernicious document that can be put to great ill use by
> > persons so minded.
> >
> > As to your comments, of course the prateors can use this right of
> > iurisprudentia to create offences out of thin air, and punishments to
> > boot. They already have done so during the show trials. Additionally
> > I haven't misread anything, least of all the law. I am aware, fully,
> > that the description of iurisprudentia is a straight copy from the
> > lex. That isn't the issue.
> >
> > What is the issue to my mind is that this section, by placing the
> > quote on iurisprudentia clearly in the section of the edict on crimes
> > and penalties indicates to me that the intention is to use
> > iurisprudentia to fill in the gaps in our legislation, and not by way
> > of simply slightly extending existing laws to cover highly unusual
> > circumstances, but by way of plucking out of thin air new crimes and
> > punishments (as was already done this year), instead of promulgating
> > law in the normal way in the comitia.
> >
> > This no doubt is all in aid of efficiency, and compelling the
> > citizens to obediance as you noted in a post I think on the Back
> > Alley. This is still a volunteer organization despite all the
> > delusions to the contrary, this edict assists in taking us further
> > from a place of volunteers to a place of compulsion and one where
> > citizens find themselves "compelled" to do "x", "y" or "z". That in a
> > volunteeer group usually ends one way, people leave. But then since
> > they don't share the "vision" I am sure that adherents of this shift
> > in mentality in Nova Roma wouldn't shed any tears over their passing.
> >
> > This edict serves only to demonstrate that some of you have a total
> > disconnect from reality and a complete lack of understanding about
> > how to run volunteer based groups. That we have sunk to the level of
> > breaking our own constitution with impunity simply because it
> > isn't "Roman" enough - despite it being our highest legal authority,
> > igmoring rights granted by the people/members in laws (here in thsi
> > edict and in the trials), and now bolstering up the lurch
> > to "compulsion" rather than debate, and acceptance of disagreement,
> > in this edict - this is a telling sign where some of you want to take
> > Nova Roma.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > Tribunis Plebis
> >
>

Q. Valerius Poplicola flamen Falacer Quiritibus omnibus s.p.d.

I applaud the tribuni for striking down the unconstitutional edict. May this be a fruitful and legal year.

bene ualete!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Complutensis" <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Tribune> That is the perogative of the comitia to do so, not a
> magistrate in an edict. Clearly this usurps the chain of authority
> laid out in Section 1.B of the Constitution. This edict creates law,
> whereas the right of iurisprudentia should be limited to filling in
> the blanks on what already exists. Section VI.3 contains again a
> power to fine, which is a gross assault again of the right of the
> comitia to create law. Again this is unconstitutional.
>
>
>
>
>
> MCC> This Edict only create Edict. Can you be more specific? I can not find
> the text where it says that this is the prerrogative of the Comitia. Please
> cite the complete text .
>
>
>
> But it is not the case. You support your intercessio in the usurpation of
> the prerrogatives od the Comitia but you do not have present two points: the
> end of this Edict would have been December 31 and that at the end of the
> Edictum becomes clear that it will be submitted for approval before the
> Comitia.
>
>
>
> Sad is the time in which the Tribuni Plebis veto the actions of a Magistrate
> ignoring the welfare of the Plebs and the Res Publica benefiting only those
> who believe above the law and the rules and is considered
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=6288039/grpspId=1705313712/msgId
> =60065/stime=1229887309/nc1=3848621/nc2=4025338/nc3=5170417> themselves the
> elite of Nova Roma (check the Ordo of those that more are protesting)
>
>
>
> Cura ut valeas
>
>
>
> M.Curiatius Complutensis
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Libero" <sa-mann@...> wrote:

>
> Salve et salvete,

Yes amici, you are correct, it was just my opinion.I certainly would
not expect you to stop speaking Italian, because Il Duce did.I happen
to think that Italiano is one of the world's most beautiful
languages.It is a joy to the ear to hear.As regards the saltatio you
are correct, that it does predate the use of it by the Facists and
when taken in that context I truly see no harm in it.I apologise for
offending anyone or trying to accuse anyone of being Facist, because
of it.As I stated earlier I admit to being a bit faciophobic.I can
see you understand the problems we face, with the problems of racism
in the USA. Even though we have elected a black president, I can
assure you racism is still a reality in this country, the USA.I hope
you will understand this when I have ventured my suspicions in this
area of politics.I am sorry for any rashness on my part.

Io Saturnalia
Apius Galerius Aurelianus

>
>
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> So then in your opinion this is just a throwback to a normal Roman

custom,

> to use that salute.Perhaps I am a little faciophobic.After the

events of

> WWII, I seem to have a hard time understanding how certain segments

of

> cerrent era group,s would care to be associated with such a symbol

of modern

> day tyrany and genocide,
>
> Spectate amice,
>
> When you speak of "Tyrany" and "Genocide", it is simply your point

of view,

> not the one of every human being.
>
> I am pretty sure that Fascists, I mean nowadays fascists, do NOT

consider

> Fascism as a tyranny. There has been no genocide in Italy, but it

is well

> known that German Fascists (and American too) deny the existence of

a

> genocide.
>
> So it is not a problem for Fascists looking back both to Rome

and "Fascism".

>
> But it is clear that Rome came before Fascism. So if somebody is not
> Fascist, but likes to salute "the Roman way", ha can do it without

problems

> with his conscience.
>
> Or do you think that we Italians should give up our language because
> Mussolini spoke Italian?
>
>
>
> Gallus Alexander
>
> Bononiae
>
> irregardless of the fact it was a practice of Roma Antigua.Slavery

was also

> an acceptable practice then, but I would hardly think that the

majority of

> reasonable people today would accept that practice, or vomitarianism
> either.I'm sure we could even debate the pros and cons of those,

but it is

> not what I intended when this conversation began.I only stated my

opinion on

> such matters and did not intend to insult the sensibilities, of

anyone

> facist or not.Bear in mind once again it is only an opinion of mine,
> erroneous or not.
>
> Io Saturnalia
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
>

Salve Magistra!

Good morning, and Thank you, absolutely beautiful. Here in Nashville
a wealthy Mason recreated an impressive Porch of the Karyatids. A
beautiful place for peaceful contemplation while being entertained by
a stellar ballet accompanied by an orchestra of night birds, wild
creatures and tiny insects, especially in the dead of night to
twilight!

Vale,
Julia Aquila


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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae

voluntatis

> S.P.D.
>
> Today¹s Astronomy Picture of the Day shows the analemma over the
> Karyatid Porch of the Erekhtheion in Athens. It¹s quite pretty.
>
> <http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html>
>
> Valete.
>

Salve et salvete,
Excuse me? Now that a lowly servent of the Plebs decides it is in our
best interests,to represent what he or she considers a stance in it's
defence of the Plebs,and in the best interests of justice, it is a sad
day and we stand accused of being elitists.In all due respect, I feel
you have it a bit turned around here.And why, if such a short term
remains,It only makes me wonder why you feel it needful, to ram this
edictum through, after you have witnessed, that you have had many to
disagree with you on this.This attitude just appears to me to be an
attempt,to stifle dissent within Nova Roma.

Vale et valete,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

The patrician/plebeian distinction within Nova Roma is senseless. I really wish that people would stop thinking that there is any Conflict of the Orders like that here in Nova Roma; there isn't. Sure, there are disagreements, especially between those who have been here longer and those who are newcomers, but that's not the same thing. I could have chosen a Patrician name a year ago. Could I then oppress plebeians?
We are NOVA Roma. This is not the fifth century BCE. If there's a conflict of the orders, it is between old guard and newcomers. The Tribunes should protect EVERYONE from overbearing magistrates, not just the plebeians.

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

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

>Salve Honorable sir.I agree with you that we should have the

interests of all Nova Romans at heart in the pursuit of justice.I do
however feel that it is my first duty to my constituents from whose
ranks I was elected.I feel this is normal for any representative
oldtimer or newcomer.

Vale et valete
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> The patrician/plebeian distinction within Nova Roma is

senseless. I really wish that people would stop thinking that there
is any Conflict of the Orders like that here in Nova Roma; there
isn't. Sure, there are disagreements, especially between those who
have been here longer and those who are newcomers, but that's not the
same thing. I could have chosen a Patrician name a year ago. Could I
then oppress plebeians?

> We are NOVA Roma. This is not the fifth century BCE. If there's

a conflict of the orders, it is between old guard and newcomers. The
Tribunes should protect EVERYONE from overbearing magistrates, not
just the plebeians.

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

Attachments :

M. Curiatius Complutensis omnes civibus SPD

I have decided not to accept the veto of the Tribuni.

The Edictum was published more than 72 hours ago. Under section II of the
Lex Labiena de intercessione the Tribuni only have 72
hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" - in other
words from when it is made public.

The Edictum was posted in Dec 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm and the deadline for
the veto occurred in Dec 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm.. The veto was issued after
the deadline.

Valete


M*CVR*COMPLVTENSIS
Praetor Novae Romae

Senator
Praetor Hispaniae
Scriba Censoris K*F*B*M

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

>
> M. Curiatius Complutensis omnes civibus SPD
>
> I have decided not to accept the veto of the Tribuni.
>
> The Edictum was published more than 72 hours ago. Under section II

of the

> Lex Labiena de intercessione the Tribuni only have 72
> hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" - in

other

> words from when it is made public.
>
> The Edictum was posted in Dec 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm and the

deadline for

> the veto occurred in Dec 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm.. The veto was

issued after

> the deadline.
>
> Valete
>
>
> M*CVR*COMPLVTENSIS
> Praetor Novae Romae
>
> Senator
> Praetor Hispaniae
> Scriba Censoris K*F*B*M
>

Salve your Honor,

With all due respect sir,I disagree with you and as they say here in
Georgia, you can look forward to,a hard row to hoe,in the coming year.

Vale
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

I did not read the announcement until late in the morning of Friday,
December 19. I give my oath to Dii Immortales on this statement. I
also communicated to the ML and to Complutensis that the edictum
should be withdrawn or it would be vetoed by the Tribunes. I was
under no obligation to do this but did so in the interests of
moderation and compromise. I offered him future assistance in
rewording it to insure that it would meet with the approval of the
Tribunes if he and his colleague were to withdraw it.

If he wishes to ignore the intercessio of the Tribunes, that is
between him and his Gods. However, I would not wish to continue to
work within Nova Roma if a magistrate puts the strict "letter of the
law" rather than the spirit of the law and goodwill.

If this edictum stands, I will consider resigning from all of my
offices, secular and sacred, and retire to the country while such
disregard for the sacrosanctity of the Tribunes office continues to
stand or for the original intent of the Constitution to be ignored.

Valete.

--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Complutensis <complutensis@...> wrote:


From: Complutensis <complutensis@...>
Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] INTERCESSIO OF THE TRIBUNI
To: ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com,
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 2:57 PM

M. Curiatius Complutensis omnes civibus SPD

I have decided not to accept the veto of the Tribuni.

The Edictum was published more than 72 hours ago. Under section II
of the
Lex Labiena de intercessione the Tribuni only have 72
hours "of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed" -
in other
words from when it is made public.

The Edictum was posted in Dec 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm and the
deadline for
the veto occurred in Dec 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm.. The veto was
issued after
the deadline.

Valete

M*CVR*COMPLVTENSIS
Praetor Novae Romae

Senator
Praetor Hispaniae
Scriba Censoris K*F*B*M

Irregardless isn't a word.


-Annia Minucia Marcella
who is totally nitpicking



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> So then in your opinion this is just a throwback to a normal Roman

custom, to use that salute.Perhaps I am a little faciophobic.After the
events of WWII, I seem to have a hard time understanding how certain
segments of cerrent era group,s would care to be associated with such
a symbol of modern day tyrany and genocide, irregardless of the fact
it was a practice of Roma Antigua.Slavery was also an acceptable
practice then, but I would hardly think that the majority of
reasonable people today would accept that practice, or vomitarianism
either.I'm sure we could even debate the pros and cons of those, but
it is not what I intended when this conversation began.I only stated
my opinion on such matters and did not intend to insult the
sensibilities, of anyone facist or not.Bear in mind once again it is
only an opinion of mine, erroneous or not.

>
> Io Saturnalia
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 12/21/08, Q. Valerius Poplicola <catullus.poeta@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Q. Valerius Poplicola <catullus.poeta@...>
> > Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revival of gladiatorial tuornaments in

Rome

> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 2:50 AM
> > Even the British HBO series "Rome" uses the salute
> > as a normal Roman
> > salute. Using the salute in no way makes it
> > "fascist".
> >
> > QVP
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee
> > <galerius_of_rome@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus L.Livia Plauta S.P.D.
> > >
> > > I must agree with you.If it walks like a duck and
> > looks like a duck.....
> > > Besides the facist salute is a dead giveaway.
> > >
> > > Io Saturnalia
> > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Lucia Livia Plauta
> > <cases@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Lucia Livia Plauta <cases@>
> > > > Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revival of
> > gladiatorial tuornaments in
> > Rome
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 7:13 PM
> > > > L. Livia Plauta Gallo Solari Alexandro S,P.D.
> > > >
> > > > (English translation follows)
> > > > Caro Alexander, si vede che non frequenti molto
> > la lista
> > > > italiana di
> > > > NR (Pomerium), se mi prendi per americana.
> > > > Purtroppo so di quello che parlo, infatti appena
> > ho
> > > > raccontato a
> > > > parenti a amici di essermi unita a Nova Roma, la
> > prima
> > > > domanda di
> > > > tutti è stata: "ma non sono fascisti?"
> > > >
> > > > Forse sei molto giovane, oppure frequenti gente
> > priva di
> > > > coscienza
> > > > storica, tutte ragioni per cui potresti non
> > esserti accorto
> > > > che nella
> > > > mente di molta gente Roma e il fascismo sono
> > ancora
> > > > indissolubilmente
> > > > legati.
> > > >
> > > > Per quanto riguarda
> > l'"americanizzazione" dei
> > > > musei capisco le tue
> > > > preoccupazioni, e queste cose danno fastidio
> > anche a me,
> > > > sono però un
> > > > piccolo prezzo da pagare se poi ci sono anche
> > ricostruzioni
> > > > virtuali,
> > > > pannelli esplicativi in varie lingue, ecc.
> > > >
> > > > Per quanto riguarda il MTR, se non vuoi chiamarli
> > > > neofascisti, li
> > > > chiamerò criptofascisti.
> > > > Adesso è molto di moda riproporre le ideologie
> > fasciste
> > > > pur negando
> > > > di essere fascisti. Io però, come sanno quelli
> > che mi
> > > > conoscono, sono
> > > > una che chiama le cose con il loro nome, quindi
> > quelli li
> > > > chiamo
> > > > fascisti, fascisti, fascisti.
> > > >
> > > > Ho avuto occasione di vedere parecchi di loro il
> > 21 aprile
> > > > scorso a
> > > > Roma, durante una visita dei fori da loro
> > organizzata. Li
> > > > ho visti in
> > > > faccia, li ho sentiti parlare, e ti assicuro che
> > io i
> > > > fascisti li so
> > > > riconoscere. Per non parlare del loro modo di
> > fare
> > > > l'osculatio, che
> > > > finisce in saluto fascista ...
> > > >
> > > > Ah, visto che sei di Bononia, salutami
> > Marullinus, che ho
> > > > avuto
> > > > occasione di incontrare molto meno di quanto
> > sperassi.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Alexander, it shows that you are not very
> > present on
> > > > the italian
> > > > NR list (Pomerium), if you think I'm
> > american.
> > > > Unfortunately I know what I'm talking about.
> > In fact,
> > > > when I told
> > > > relatives and friends that I joined Nova Roma,
> > their first
> > > > question
> > > > was invariably: "but aren't they
> > fascists?"
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you are very young, or you only have
> > friends without
> > > >
> > > > historical conscience, so you might not have
> > realized that
> > > > in the
> > > > minds of many people ancient Rome is still
> > stronlgy linked
> > > > with
> > > > fascism.
> > > >
> > > > I understand your worries about the
> > > > "americanization" of museums, and
> > > > these things disturb me as well, but they are a
> > small price
> > > > to pay,
> > > > if there are also virtual reconstructions,
> > multilingual
> > > > panels, etc.
> > > >
> > > > As to MTR, if you don't want to call them
> > neofascists,
> > > > I'll call them
> > > > cryptofascists.
> > > > Nowadays it's very fashionable to repropose
> > fascist
> > > > ideologies, even
> > > > while negating being fascist. But, as the people
> > who know
> > > > me know, I
> > > > call things with their name, so I call those
> > people
> > > > fascists,
> > > > fascists, fascists.
> > > >
> > > > I have had the chance to meet a lot of them last
> > April 21
> > > > in Rome,
> > > > during a visit of the Imperial fora they
> > organized. I saw
> > > > their
> > > > faces, I heard them talk, and I assure you that I
> > can
> > > > recognize
> > > > fascists. Not to talk about their way of doing
> > osculatio,
> > > > ending with
> > > > a fascist salute ...
> > > >
> > > > Ah, and since you are from Bononia, please say
> > hello for me
> > > > to
> > > > Marullinus, whom I had the chance to meet less
> > times than I
> > > > wished.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale,
> > > > Livia
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Spectata Livia Plauta,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope you won't mind letting me give a
> > few
> > > > information "first
> > > > hand", given
> > > > > that I am Italian.
> > > > >
> > > > > _____
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been a shift in the way italian
> > public
> > > > opinion considers
> > > > > ancient Rome, because it seems that finally
> > enough
> > > > time has passed
> > > > > for it to lose its psychological association
> > with
> > > > fascism.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody in Italy have seen Rome
> > psychologically
> > > > associated with
> > > > Fascism for
> > > > > the last 40 years, at least.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, if not nobody, just very very few
> > associated
> > > > Rome and Fascism
> > > > after
> > > > > World War II. The vast majority thought that
> > the love
> > > > for Rome
> > > > fascists had,
> > > > > was abusive. No shifts, then.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Initiatives like this fit into
> > Berlusconi's policy
> > > > of making
> > > > museums
> > > > > more spectacular and more
> > "american", a
> > > > policy which should be
> > > > > welcome, if it will mean "easier to
> > read"
> > > > museums, with
> > > > multilingual
> > > > > information boards, and maybe even that
> > museums will
> > > > be open in the
> > > > > afternoon!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have never been in America, so I do not
> > know how an
> > > > American
> > > > museum looks
> > > > > like.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is widely claimed in Italy that yes,
> > Italian
> > > > museums are getting
> > > > more
> > > > > American.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I know is that our museums are getting
> > worse.
> > > > Childish
> > > > explanation,
> > > > > comics, large useless boards filled with
> > sillynesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Slyppery surface", "mind the
> > > > gap", "mind your head" boars every
> >
> > > > where;
> > > > > shops selling useless ugly toys: that's
> > what we in
> > > > more American
> > > > museum.
> > > > >
> > > > > At the same time, less objects on display.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But this does not mean that the attitude to
> > Cultus
> > > > Deorum has
> > > > changed
> > > > > in any way.
> > > > > What the majority of Italians would think of
> > it if
> > > > they had ever
> > > > > heard about it, is that its followers must
> > be
> > > > satanists or mental
> > > > > patients.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously few Italians ever heard about
> > Cultus
> > > > Deorum.
> > > > >
> > > > > But no, that idea is not linked with
> > Satanism, and it
> > > > wouldn't.
> > > > Rome, in
> > > > > Italy, is at the same time our history
> > > > and..."ourselves".
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the Church is...Roman!
> > > > >
> > > > > Mental patients, yeah...maybe..more probably
> > simply
> > > > dreamers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The biggest organization that tries to
> > revive religio
> > > >
> > > > > Romana in Italy (and the only one in Rome)
> > is still
> > > > the MTR
> > > > > (Movimento Tradizionale Romano), a barely
> > disguised
> > > > neofascist
> > > > > organization.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I perfectly know MTR, I regularly read their
> > papers, I
> > > > know first
> > > > hand many
> > > > > members and, to give an example, two hours
> > ago I
> > > > received an sms
> > > > about Dies
> > > > > Natalis Solis by one of the chairmans. I
> > sometimes
> > > > participate in
> > > > their
> > > > > activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > BARELY DISGUISED NEOFASCIST ORGANIZATION.
> > > > >
> > > > > My Englisg is poor, but I understand that
> > you are
> > > > stating that MTR
> > > > is made
> > > > > by fascists that try to disguise, to cover ,
> > the fact
> > > > that they are
> > > > > fascists. Moreover, the word
> > "barely" gives
> > > > the idea that they
> > > > would like to
> > > > > hide better than they can do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, Plauta. MTR is not a fascist or
> > neofascist
> > > > organizations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea if people in America is able
> > or apt to
> > > > understand
> > > > what
> > > > > Fascism was: I think it is impossible for
> > you, but it
> > > > is only an
> > > > opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, we have to choose one: either you
> > don't know
> > > > what Fascism
> > > > really is;
> > > > > or you do not know what MTR is. Tertium non
> > datur.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, "neofascist" is surely
> > derogatory
> > > > in Italian, I suppose
> > > > it be
> > > > > derogatory in English too. Let's avoid
> > derogatory
> > > > words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I understand you would call fascists
> > some of
> > > > them. I can even
> > > > admit
> > > > > that some of them would not dislike some
> > specific
> > > > aspects of
> > > > Fascism. So
> > > > > what?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not enough for calling an
> > organization
> > > > FASCIST. Most of all
> > > > if the
> > > > > intention is to offend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, you know, I don't want to be
> > impolite
> > > > towards people in the
> > > > Usa, but
> > > > > if criticism of Italian history and Italian
> > culture
> > > > comes from the
> > > > > USA..well...we find it a bit difficult to
> > accept
> > > > lessons.
> > > > >
> > > > > We might discuss what Fascism did for the
> > renaissasnce
> > > > of Roman
> > > > culture and
> > > > > civilization in Italy. And I am speaking of
> > diggings,
> > > > opening of
> > > > museum
> > > > > (without multilingual boards), money spent
> > in creating
> > > > universities
> > > > and so
> > > > > on. And they did something of paramount
> > importance.
> > > > Unrivalled
> > > > until today,
> > > > > like it or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it would be best to avoid
> > > > "philosophical" discussion. I
> > > > don't mind,
> > > > > though..
> > > > >
> > > > > Or you could give us some hints stating what
> > aspects
> > > > of MTR are
> > > > fascist.
> > > > > That would be to me of great interest.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Reverenter
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gallus Solaris Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > Bononiae
> > > > >
> > > > > ITALIA!
> > > > >
> > >
>

Salve,

Yes, I am prone to often times be wrong.I don't see it as nit picking at all.In fact let me point out something.Did you happen to notice the word tuornaments in the subject header.Silly me,I always thought it was spelled
tournaments.Can we say I invented a new word in the English language irregardless of the fact,lol.?

Io Saturnalia
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus

--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...> wrote:

> From: Annia Minucia Marcella <annia@...>
> Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revival of gladiatorial tuornaments in Rome
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 4:25 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Irregardless isn't a word.
>
>
>
> -Annia Minucia Marcella
>
> who is totally nitpicking
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@...>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Salve et salvete,
>
> >
>
> > So then in your opinion this is just a throwback to a
> normal Roman
>
> custom, to use that salute.Perhaps I am a little
> faciophobic. After the
>
> events of WWII, I seem to have a hard time understanding
> how certain
>
> segments of cerrent era group,s would care to be associated
> with such
>
> a symbol of modern day tyrany and genocide, irregardless of
> the fact
>
> it was a practice of Roma Antigua.Slavery was also an
> acceptable
>
> practice then, but I would hardly think that the majority
> of
>
> reasonable people today would accept that practice, or
> vomitarianism
>
> either.I'm sure we could even debate the pros and cons
> of those, but
>
> it is not what I intended when this conversation began.I
> only stated
>
> my opinion on such matters and did not intend to insult
> the
>
> sensibilities, of anyone facist or not.Bear in mind once
> again it is
>
> only an opinion of mine, erroneous or not.
>
> >
>
> > Io Saturnalia
>
> > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- On Sun, 12/21/08, Q. Valerius Poplicola
> <catullus.poeta@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > From: Q. Valerius Poplicola <catullus.poeta@
> ...>
>
> > > Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revival of
> gladiatorial tuornaments in
>
> Rome
>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com
>
> > > Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 2:50 AM
>
> > > Even the British HBO series "Rome" uses
> the salute
>
> > > as a normal Roman
>
> > > salute. Using the salute in no way makes it
>
> > > "fascist".
>
> > >
>
> > > QVP
>
> > >
>
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com, Robert Levee
>
> > > <galerius_of_ rome@>
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus L.Livia Plauta
> S.P.D.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I must agree with you.If it walks like a
> duck and
>
> > > looks like a duck.....
>
> > > > Besides the facist salute is a dead
> giveaway.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Io Saturnalia
>
> > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Lucia Livia Plauta
>
> > > <cases@> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > From: Lucia Livia Plauta
> <cases@>
>
> > > > > Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Revival of
>
> > > gladiatorial tuornaments in
>
> > > Rome
>
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com
>
> > > > > Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 7:13
> PM
>
> > > > > L. Livia Plauta Gallo Solari Alexandro
> S,P.D.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > (English translation follows)
>
> > > > > Caro Alexander, si vede che non
> frequenti molto
>
> > > la lista
>
> > > > > italiana di
>
> > > > > NR (Pomerium), se mi prendi per
> americana.
>
> > > > > Purtroppo so di quello che parlo,
> infatti appena
>
> > > ho
>
> > > > > raccontato a
>
> > > > > parenti a amici di essermi unita a Nova
> Roma, la
>
> > > prima
>
> > > > > domanda di
>
> > > > > tutti è stata: "ma non sono
> fascisti?"
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Forse sei molto giovane, oppure
> frequenti gente
>
> > > priva di
>
> > > > > coscienza
>
> > > > > storica, tutte ragioni per cui potresti
> non
>
> > > esserti accorto
>
> > > > > che nella
>
> > > > > mente di molta gente Roma e il fascismo
> sono
>
> > > ancora
>
> > > > > indissolubilmente
>
> > > > > legati.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Per quanto riguarda
>
> > > l'"americanizzazion e" dei
>
> > > > > musei capisco le tue
>
> > > > > preoccupazioni, e queste cose danno
> fastidio
>
> > > anche a me,
>
> > > > > sono però un
>
> > > > > piccolo prezzo da pagare se poi ci sono
> anche
>
> > > ricostruzioni
>
> > > > > virtuali,
>
> > > > > pannelli esplicativi in varie lingue,
> ecc.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Per quanto riguarda il MTR, se non vuoi
> chiamarli
>
> > > > > neofascisti, li
>
> > > > > chiamerò criptofascisti.
>
> > > > > Adesso è molto di moda riproporre le
> ideologie
>
> > > fasciste
>
> > > > > pur negando
>
> > > > > di essere fascisti. Io però, come
> sanno quelli
>
> > > che mi
>
> > > > > conoscono, sono
>
> > > > > una che chiama le cose con il loro
> nome, quindi
>
> > > quelli li
>
> > > > > chiamo
>
> > > > > fascisti, fascisti, fascisti.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Ho avuto occasione di vedere parecchi
> di loro il
>
> > > 21 aprile
>
> > > > > scorso a
>
> > > > > Roma, durante una visita dei fori da
> loro
>
> > > organizzata. Li
>
> > > > > ho visti in
>
> > > > > faccia, li ho sentiti parlare, e ti
> assicuro che
>
> > > io i
>
> > > > > fascisti li so
>
> > > > > riconoscere. Per non parlare del loro
> modo di
>
> > > fare
>
> > > > > l'osculatio, che
>
> > > > > finisce in saluto fascista ...
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Ah, visto che sei di Bononia, salutami
>
> > > Marullinus, che ho
>
> > > > > avuto
>
> > > > > occasione di incontrare molto meno di
> quanto
>
> > > sperassi.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Dear Alexander, it shows that you are
> not very
>
> > > present on
>
> > > > > the italian
>
> > > > > NR list (Pomerium), if you think
> I'm
>
> > > american.
>
> > > > > Unfortunately I know what I'm
> talking about.
>
> > > In fact,
>
> > > > > when I told
>
> > > > > relatives and friends that I joined
> Nova Roma,
>
> > > their first
>
> > > > > question
>
> > > > > was invariably: "but aren't
> they
>
> > > fascists?"
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Maybe you are very young, or you only
> have
>
> > > friends without
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > historical conscience, so you might not
> have
>
> > > realized that
>
> > > > > in the
>
> > > > > minds of many people ancient Rome is
> still
>
> > > stronlgy linked
>
> > > > > with
>
> > > > > fascism.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > I understand your worries about the
>
> > > > > "americanization" of museums,
> and
>
> > > > > these things disturb me as well, but
> they are a
>
> > > small price
>
> > > > > to pay,
>
> > > > > if there are also virtual
> reconstructions,
>
> > > multilingual
>
> > > > > panels, etc.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > As to MTR, if you don't want to
> call them
>
> > > neofascists,
>
> > > > > I'll call them
>
> > > > > cryptofascists.
>
> > > > > Nowadays it's very fashionable to
> repropose
>
> > > fascist
>
> > > > > ideologies, even
>
> > > > > while negating being fascist. But, as
> the people
>
> > > who know
>
> > > > > me know, I
>
> > > > > call things with their name, so I call
> those
>
> > > people
>
> > > > > fascists,
>
> > > > > fascists, fascists.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > I have had the chance to meet a lot of
> them last
>
> > > April 21
>
> > > > > in Rome,
>
> > > > > during a visit of the Imperial fora
> they
>
> > > organized. I saw
>
> > > > > their
>
> > > > > faces, I heard them talk, and I assure
> you that I
>
> > > can
>
> > > > > recognize
>
> > > > > fascists. Not to talk about their way
> of doing
>
> > > osculatio,
>
> > > > > ending with
>
> > > > > a fascist salute ...
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Ah, and since you are from Bononia,
> please say
>
> > > hello for me
>
> > > > > to
>
> > > > > Marullinus, whom I had the chance to
> meet less
>
> > > times than I
>
> > > > > wished.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Optime vale,
>
> > > > > Livia
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Spectata Livia Plauta,
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I hope you won't mind letting
> me give a
>
> > > few
>
> > > > > information "first
>
> > > > > hand", given
>
> > > > > > that I am Italian.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > _____
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > There has been a shift in the way
> italian
>
> > > public
>
> > > > > opinion considers
>
> > > > > > ancient Rome, because it seems
> that finally
>
> > > enough
>
> > > > > time has passed
>
> > > > > > for it to lose its psychological
> association
>
> > > with
>
> > > > > fascism.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Nobody in Italy have seen Rome
>
> > > psychologically
>
> > > > > associated with
>
> > > > > Fascism for
>
> > > > > > the last 40 years, at least.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Well, if not nobody, just very
> very few
>
> > > associated
>
> > > > > Rome and Fascism
>
> > > > > after
>
> > > > > > World War II. The vast majority
> thought that
>
> > > the love
>
> > > > > for Rome
>
> > > > > fascists had,
>
> > > > > > was abusive. No shifts, then.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Initiatives like this fit into
>
> > > Berlusconi's policy
>
> > > > > of making
>
> > > > > museums
>
> > > > > > more spectacular and more
>
> > > "american", a
>
> > > > > policy which should be
>
> > > > > > welcome, if it will mean
> "easier to
>
> > > read"
>
> > > > > museums, with
>
> > > > > multilingual
>
> > > > > > information boards, and maybe even
> that
>
> > > museums will
>
> > > > > be open in the
>
> > > > > > afternoon!
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I have never been in America, so I
> do not
>
> > > know how an
>
> > > > > American
>
> > > > > museum looks
>
> > > > > > like.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > It is widely claimed in Italy that
> yes,
>
> > > Italian
>
> > > > > museums are getting
>
> > > > > more
>
> > > > > > American.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > What I know is that our museums
> are getting
>
> > > worse.
>
> > > > > Childish
>
> > > > > explanation,
>
> > > > > > comics, large useless boards
> filled with
>
> > > sillynesses.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > "Slyppery surface",
> "mind the
>
> > > > > gap", "mind your head"
> boars every
>
> > >
>
> > > > > where;
>
> > > > > > shops selling useless ugly toys:
> that's
>
> > > what we in
>
> > > > > more American
>
> > > > > museum.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > At the same time, less objects on
> display.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > But this does not mean that the
> attitude to
>
> > > Cultus
>
> > > > > Deorum has
>
> > > > > changed
>
> > > > > > in any way.
>
> > > > > > What the majority of Italians
> would think of
>
> > > it if
>
> > > > > they had ever
>
> > > > > > heard about it, is that its
> followers must
>
> > > be
>
> > > > > satanists or mental
>
> > > > > > patients.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Obviously few Italians ever heard
> about
>
> > > Cultus
>
> > > > > Deorum.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > But no, that idea is not linked
> with
>
> > > Satanism, and it
>
> > > > > wouldn't.
>
> > > > > Rome, in
>
> > > > > > Italy, is at the same time our
> history
>
> > > > > and..."ourselves" .
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Even the Church is...Roman!
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Mental patients, yeah...maybe.
> .more probably
>
> > > simply
>
> > > > > dreamers.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > The biggest organization that
> tries to
>
> > > revive religio
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Romana in Italy (and the only one
> in Rome)
>
> > > is still
>
> > > > > the MTR
>
> > > > > > (Movimento Tradizionale Romano), a
> barely
>
> > > disguised
>
> > > > > neofascist
>
> > > > > > organization.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I perfectly know MTR, I regularly
> read their
>
> > > papers, I
>
> > > > > know first
>
> > > > > hand many
>
> > > > > > members and, to give an example,
> two hours
>
> > > ago I
>
> > > > > received an sms
>
> > > > > about Dies
>
> > > > > > Natalis Solis by one of the
> chairmans. I
>
> > > sometimes
>
> > > > > participate in
>
> > > > > their
>
> > > > > > activities.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > BARELY DISGUISED NEOFASCIST
> ORGANIZATION.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > My Englisg is poor, but I
> understand that
>
> > > you are
>
> > > > > stating that MTR
>
> > > > > is made
>
> > > > > > by fascists that try to disguise,
> to cover ,
>
> > > the fact
>
> > > > > that they are
>
> > > > > > fascists. Moreover, the word
>
> > > "barely" gives
>
> > > > > the idea that they
>
> > > > > would like to
>
> > > > > > hide better than they can do.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Sorry, Plauta. MTR is not a
> fascist or
>
> > > neofascist
>
> > > > > organizations.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I have no idea if people in
> America is able
>
> > > or apt to
>
> > > > > understand
>
> > > > > what
>
> > > > > > Fascism was: I think it is
> impossible for
>
> > > you, but it
>
> > > > > is only an
>
> > > > > opinion.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Well, we have to choose one:
> either you
>
> > > don't know
>
> > > > > what Fascism
>
> > > > > really is;
>
> > > > > > or you do not know what MTR is.
> Tertium non
>
> > > datur.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Moreover, "neofascist"
> is surely
>
> > > derogatory
>
> > > > > in Italian, I suppose
>
> > > > > it be
>
> > > > > > derogatory in English too.
> Let's avoid
>
> > > derogatory
>
> > > > > words.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Yes, I understand you would call
> fascists
>
> > > some of
>
> > > > > them. I can even
>
> > > > > admit
>
> > > > > > that some of them would not
> dislike some
>
> > > specific
>
> > > > > aspects of
>
> > > > > Fascism. So
>
> > > > > > what?
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > This is not enough for calling an
>
> > > organization
>
> > > > > FASCIST. Most of all
>
> > > > > if the
>
> > > > > > intention is to offend.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Anyway, you know, I don't want
> to be
>
> > > impolite
>
> > > > > towards people in the
>
> > > > > Usa, but
>
> > > > > > if criticism of Italian history
> and Italian
>
> > > culture
>
> > > > > comes from the
>
> > > > > > USA..well... we find it a bit
> difficult to
>
> > > accept
>
> > > > > lessons.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > We might discuss what Fascism did
> for the
>
> > > renaissasnce
>
> > > > > of Roman
>
> > > > > culture and
>
> > > > > > civilization in Italy. And I am
> speaking of
>
> > > diggings,
>
> > > > > opening of
>
> > > > > museum
>
> > > > > > (without multilingual boards),
> money spent
>
> > > in creating
>
> > > > > universities
>
> > > > > and so
>
> > > > > > on. And they did something of
> paramount
>
> > > importance.
>
> > > > > Unrivalled
>
> > > > > until today,
>
> > > > > > like it or not.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I think it would be best to avoid
>
> > > > > "philosophical" discussion. I
>
>
> > > > > don't mind,
>
> > > > > > though..
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Or you could give us some hints
> stating what
>
> > > aspects
>
> > > > > of MTR are
>
> > > > > fascist.
>
> > > > > > That would be to me of great
> interest.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Reverenter
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Gallus Solaris Alexander
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > Bononiae
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > ITALIA!
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

salvete,

I think being a few minutes off is forgivable, especially since emails
are sometimes delayed(not everyone reads the posts from the yahoo
groups website). Further more replies to the list are also sometimes
delayed.

He could've very well received the announcement of the edict less than
72 hours ago and replied with an intercessio in the allotted amount of
time.


I think a little leeway should be granted in light of the problems
with yahoo. Besides, you knew very well their intentions to pronounce
intercessio.

Valete,

Annia Minucia Marcella

Q. Valerius Ap. Galerio sal.

Mi amice, I assure you that you did not offend me in the slightest, and I hope I did not offend you. As for Italian, I prefer Latin, so I can read it, but I never bothered to learn to speak it (although that is changing now).

Like I said, I don't know enough about MTR to say whether they are fascist, but one thing I do know is American politics, having been a citizen living in Provincia Austrorientalis under your cousin Aurelianus. Here more than anywhere else racism is truly rampant, and only here, it seems, can a black man with a clean record lose to a corrupt white politician with legal cases pending against him (I speak of Harold Ford, Jr. and Bob Corker) and simultaneously the people one of its largest city elect one of the most crooked mayors of the same party, who severely screwed over our city, again and again until finally we had to impose term limits (Slick Willy Harrington of Memphis).

I understand well the idiocy of racism. But Rome wasn't racist; nationalist? One could argue well for it, but most certainly not racist. It didn't matter what color of skin you had, if you loved the gods and saluted the emperor, you were OK.

bene uale!

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:21 PM, galerius_of_rome <galerius_of_rome@...> wrote:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Libero" <sa-mann@...> wrote:
>
> Salve et salvete,
Yes amici, you are correct, it was just my opinion.I certainly would
not expect you to stop speaking Italian, because Il Duce did.I happen
to think that Italiano is one of the world's most beautiful
languages.It is a joy to the ear to hear.As regards the saltatio you
are correct, that it does predate the use of it by the Facists and
when taken in that context I truly see no harm in it.I apologise for
offending anyone or trying to accuse anyone of being Facist, because
of it.As I stated earlier I admit to being a bit faciophobic.I can
see you understand the problems we face, with the problems of racism
in the USA. Even though we have elected a black president, I can
assure you racism is still a reality in this country, the USA.I hope
you will understand this when I have ventured my suspicions in this
area of politics.I am sorry for any rashness on my part.

Io Saturnalia
Apius Galerius Aurelianus

__._,_

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,
>
> Yes, I am prone to often times be wrong.I don't see it as nit

picking at all.

It is quite commonplace to use "irregardless". Many people have no
idea that it's not a real word.



In fact let me point out something.Did you happen to notice the word
tuornaments in the subject header.Silly me,I always thought it was spelled

> tournaments.Can we say I invented a new word in the English language

irregardless of the fact,lol.?

Not really. It's just a typo, specifically transposition. It tends to
happen if one of your fingers is faster than the other.

I don't bother with correcting typos. Mainly just misspellings,
non-words, and grammatical errors. I tend to not worry about
correcting obvious non-native speakers.

BTW, if you use the Firefox browser, it'll point out your spelling
mistakes as you type.

-Annia Minucia Marcella