--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
> Cato Annae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> "shut up about it"...
>
> And this is indicative of the level to which you wish to take the conversation. Very nicely done.
>

Oh I'm sorry perhaps I should call you a political tramp of a christian and maybe you'll find that more appealing.

>
> I cannot think of a way to make this clearer.
>

Perhaps if you stopped misusing the word sacrosanct.

-Anna

This is my point exactly.  You cannot explain yourself so you fire back with something childish.  Quite mature from an old man... 
 
I can admit if I'm wrong, I have no ego about being remonstrated.  Explain though how contacting the attorney general of Maine and retaining a lawyer to compel members of Nova Roma that did not wish to comply with your demand to call a vote of its officers under the pain of litigation does not constitute a "threat to sue nova roma."
 
I still say that indirectly, assuming I cannot read of course, that I am correct.  Why else would your own organization so stridently oppose your election as censor and create all this recent fuss?  You must have done something that could have been interpreted along the lines of what I have said, or at least worried enough people with your conduct to not be elected censor.  Appparently you've already been rebuffed for something that you didn't do? 
 
I think I can read just fine.
 
 
 

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: catoinnyc@...
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:45:28 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Welcome to Nova Roma fpasquinus
>
> Cato Jesse Corradino sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> No, it's like arguing with someone who cannot read.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So what is this some kind of play on words? Why did you retain a lawyer and post that you had contacted the Maine Attorney General about the illegal conduct of Nova Roma? This is like arguing with a child.
> >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > From: catoinnyc@...
> > > Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:19:53 +0000
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Welcome to Nova Roma fpasquinus
> > >
> > > Cato Jesse Corradino sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > No, I did not threaten to sue Nova Roma, so yes you are wrong.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Demonstrably false? Maybe I am wrong, but I clearly recall you threatening to sue Nova Roma in the state of Maine for refusing to force a vote of its corporate officers. You said you had retained a lawyer and everything. One of the upper ranking members actually did retain a lawyer and showed that complaints weren't illegal after all, then the matter was dropped. In the meantime though many members were arguing over whether Nova Roman law or the corporate law of America should be what governs Nova Roma. Then the censor elections continued with Modianus added as a candidate presumably in reaction to you trying to sue Nova Roma. If I am completely insane and did not read many emails were you said you had retained a lawyer and spoken with the attorney general of Maine I could accept that.
> > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > From: mlcinnyc@
> > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:22:21 +0000
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Welcome to Nova Roma fpasquinus
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Jesse Corradino sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve.
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote (in part):
> > > > >
> > > > > "...I've witnessed you threaten to sue Nova Roma..."
> > > > >
> > > > > That you constantly repeat something which you know is not true is nudging you into the land occupied by Maior, who lies quite regularly if she thinks it will make her sound better.
> > > > >
> > > > > And because you keep repeating something which is demonstrably false, your opinion - which I have never once implied that you do not have a right to express - becomes less and less interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Bingâ„¢ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
> > > > http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bingâ„¢ now
> > http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:Nova-Roma-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

---

Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.

Salve et salvete,

I never accepted that I was late.An interested citizen was so kind to render their opinion on the timing of my veto.I respectfully thanked them and decided to wait for the consular opinion.As it turned out it was deemed to be on time and I accept that judgement.I hope this clears up the matter.That is all I have to say about that.

Vale et valete,
Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
Tribunis Plebus

--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

> From: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: My Statement of Opposition to the Intercessio!
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 7:12 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AKA: We don't care about the law, we'll do
> as we please, we always have, and we always will.
>
>
>
> Even Appius Galerius accepted that he was late. What proof
> do you have that he was on time?
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com, M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@ ...>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Here is the Consular response.
>
> >
>
> > Tribunus Appius Gaslerius Aurelianus showed his
> disagreement with the
>
> > intercessio on time. Tribunus Appius Galerius
> Aurelianus congratuled the
>
> > Censor elected Fabius Buteo Modianus.
>
> >
>
> > This message is only the confirmation of a previous
> act to avoid
>
> > misunderstandings.
>
> >
>
> > 2 Tribunes agree with the intercessio and 2 Tribunes
> disagree.
>
> >
>
> > End of the question
>
> >
>
> > Vale et valete
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTEN SIS
>
> > CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
>
> > CONSVL HISPANIAE
>
> >
>
> > NOVA ROMA
>
> >
>
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----
>
> >
>
> > ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2009/6/21 Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@
> ...>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.
>
> > >
>
> > > Well, the intercessio survives. I await with
> interest the consular
>
> > > response.
>
> > >
>
> > > Optime valete
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoog roups.com> ,
> "Gnaeus
>
> > > Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@ >
> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Cn Iulius Caesar Ap. Galerio Aureliano SPD
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Yes I think so. The deadine was 8.29 pm
> Mountain Time or 4.29 am CET.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Optime vale
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Cato,

*laughs* I am tired, been up since 4am - sorry for the mix-up - but I cannot help you with the wiki;) I looked at the wiki history but there doesn't seem to be any recent changes in that respect and I did not want to fool with it.

Aha! I thought so regarding your early religious orientation! Bet you had fun growing up;)

Have a good evening Cato,

Vale,
Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Iuliae Aquilae sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> Atually, it's the opening statement on our wiki page that concerns me, found here:
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
>
> The opening remarks are jarringly ungrammatical.
>
> As to the other, I was raised a mix of Roman Catholic and Sicilian Superstitious with a side of Anglicanism :)
>
> In my mid-thirties, after several years of agnosticism, I started back in the Anglican Church but eventually converted to Orthodoxy.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L Julia Aquila" <dis_pensible@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> > I just looked at the first post in this thread and it was:
> > "Re: Protecting Our Votes and Future Elections" (with the RE:) started by Poplicola. It was later changed to "Re: nova roma is syncretic."
> > The original title of the thread will still show when you open to read a post even thought the subject line is changed - I had to create a new "Poetry [...] etc." thread because it still read for "[...]Dies Nefastus" when a post was opened to read even though I changed it in the subject line.
> > Hope that helps and that is what you are referring to;)
> >
> > Btw, although it makes no difference to me either way, I am also wondering if you were raised a Roman Catholic also.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > In terms of internet alteration, it should be detectable (especially, Wiki).. Why you ask me I have no idea.
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: nova roma is syncretic
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 9:43 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Sempronio Regulo sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > I believe the Jews were thrown out of at least the City of Rome several times as well.
> > >
> > > Also, here in the Respblica we contain within our own time frame everything up to the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate, I believe, which post-dates Constantine the Great by about a century.
> > >
> > > Curiously, our opening remarks on the wiki site have been changed, so thatthey now read (in incredibly ungrammatical fashion):
> > >
> > > "From its founding to 330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial authority, Rome laid the foundation for our modern Western civilization. "
> > >
> > > Thank goodness our Constitution has not been so vandalized, and it reads:
> > >
> > > "...defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE..."
> > >
> > > I do not know who changed the wording of our opening statement or why, but would be interested in knowing. Can we find out when and who and why this was altered to read this way?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >  
> > > > I wouldn't say in ancient Rome all religions were equal. First, foreign deities and cults did not have templum augurially aligned to the heavens for their cella. They just an a surveyed piece of land or fanum. Second, cults that did not recognize the state cult or public cult were not tolerated. Third, cults that appeared to threaten the state were suppressed. The philosophers were thrown out of Rome at one point and Bacchus-Dionysos had issues with the Senate. Basically, cults that did not challenge the public cult of the state were tolerated.
> > > >  
> > > > Vale,
> > > > A. Sempronius Regulus
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Maior <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Maior <rory12001@ ..>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: nova roma is syncretic
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 7:41 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Salvete;
> > > > I was speaking of all culti,Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Isis worshippers, Pythagoreans.
> > > >
> > > > the Romans during the Republic did not have the concept of religious heretics. During the Empire up to Constantine, which the religio here in Nova Roma follows, there wasn't such a concept. There are no heresies and no heretics in Nova Roma.
> > >
> >
>

Ave Aurelianus;

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't the Tribunes supposed to be
independent of the Consuls, the People's last bastion against Consular
"enthusiasm?"

If this is so, should not you and your colleagues make the decision
about the timing of your actions, rather than the Consuls?

Having started as a Plebian citizen, I have affection and concern for
my former "Classmates," including the Tribunes and their ability to
act in the best interests of the People and Constitution, on their
own.

Vale - Venator, a restive, rester ,-)

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.

My colleague, C. Pompeius Marcellus, has not properly framed his disagreement according to the laws governing such a disagreement.  He should withdraw his improper disagreement, re-state it according to the proper laws, and publish it again.  Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing in regard to the current intercessio issued by Agrippa and with which I have agreed. 

Valete.


-----Original Message-----
From: M.C.C. <complutensis@gmail.com>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations]

As a New Yorker I'm curious what two historical villages we have in central NY?  Do you mean in Sterling, NY?
 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: fororom@...
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:19:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Colonia Nova Roma

  A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Majori quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

  

M. Hortensia A.Tullia spd;
 actually Quadratus has some land and says he has the know-how to put up earth bulidings and pour Roman concrete. So it's not a pipe dream at all.

    ATS:  Of course it isn’t.


If we can organize. We'd have a permanent base for our Conventus as well.

    ATS:  Great!  However, there is a matter of Location, Location, and Location.  Where is this land?  Are there any historic villages or the like nearby, such as Colonial Williamsburg?  We have two of them in central NYS; we are more likely to draw history buffs and other tourists if we locate within striking distance of these (or others elsewhere)...and, Quadrate, I think we have lots of limestone around here.  Remember, we really must have multiple coloniae, and more than one in the US as this country is so large.  If it’s far enough north, too, we can get Canadians, who mostly populate the southern reaches of their vast country.  Moreover, the more skills we bring to this, especially practical ones such as construction, surveying, plumbing, etc., the better off we will be.  I have done a bit of gardening, but that’s as far as it goes; yours truly can contribute to planning, but may come in later, when Latin instruction is desired.  

    I think Nashville is a fine site for a Conventus...but not in the summer.  

 bene vale
 Maior

Vale, et valete.


> >   
> >
> > Salvete;
> >  I know we have a colonia list, for those interested in founding a NR colony.
> > But we should talk about it here on the ML. Andy his critique said this was
> > impossible. And I disagree. If we have the will and the citizens we can do it.
> >
> >     ATS:  And I also disagree.
> >
> > Quadratus wrote the post below. We've been talking on the NRcolonia list, I
> > and Livia and I daresay Scholastica would agree; see our colonia
> > self-supporting by giving spoken Latin sessions, like summer school in a Roman
> > environment.
> >
> >     ATS:  That would be part of the package, along with sales of crafts and
> > produce, tours, etc.
> >
> > Quadratus, where are you talking about? the U.S. I presume. Is the land near
> > anything? A town, nightlife...Being off the grid and making our own
> > electricity and having our own well is excellent.
> >
> >     ATS:  Utilities and some other factors were considerations in our earlier
> > investigations.   A lot of us don’t need nightlife of that sort, but the
> > proximity of supermarkets and something resembling pharmacies and clothing
> > stores, to say nothing of medical facilities, is of considerable importance.
> > So, too, is that of related sites to draw tourists.  Unfortunately, most of us
> > are busy, some of us live in areas where travel is inadvisable in winter, and
> > none of us appears to be wealthy, so we have not been able to do much more
> > than discuss qualities desirable in a prospective piece of land.  We would
> > have to have multiple colonies, not just one, but at least one in Europe and
> > one in the Americas.  One has to consider the language issue as well as
> > everything else, especially in Europe; on this side of the pond, there are
> > essentially four official languages (English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese,
> > two of which are more or less geographically restricted), whereas there are
> > many in Europe, and several are little-known outside of their immediate
> > vicinity, whereas three of the four languages in the Americas are well known.
> > It is daunting enough to travel in lands where one does not know the language;
> > living there is another, and far more challenging, situation, especially when
> > one has to start from scratch rather than stay in an existing dwelling.  I
> > don’t think that the European Union has gotten around to adopting our language
> > as universal just yet, and do not expect that shopkeepers or real estate
> > agents in, say, Bulgaria, speak Latin.  Maybe Finland; there are lots of fine
> > Latinists there...
> >
> >
> > I'm learning right now to grow vegetables for home consumption, (the gourmet
> > kind).
> >
> >     ATS:  Good!  The ordinary ones are useful, too...even more so.
> >
> >
> > So this is my skill. And I'm studying latin and just finished Sermo II.
> >
> >
> >     ATS:  Not just yet, young lady:  Avitus just returned and has given us a
> > number of posts to answer, and one of these days will provide the information
> > I need to correct the Sermo II finals, which will then be sent to him for
> > review.  Assuming you pass, then, and only then, will you be liberated
> > fully...and in the mean time I have to nag the Sermo I and Grammatica II
> > students to return their exams as well as correct the GL II exams as they come
> > in.  
> >
> >  bene vale
> >  M. Horensia Maior
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > My main idea is that Nova Roma start forming some serious physical wealth. I
> > don't want to see it crash. As for land, well raw land was what I had in mind.
> > I have access to auctions that would allow us to purchase land at around 300
> > or
> > less for around an acre or more as the down payment. Monthly fees of 50 to 200
> > dollars would be required to pay off the land entirely. Since Nova Roma would
> > be buying the land it would be tax exempt and Nova Roma would not need to pay
> > land tax. Since it is raw land, Nova Roma can issue the building of a Roman
> > city from the ground up. Also should Nova Roma decide to hire some workers,
> > the
> > work paid would also be tax exempt and refunded at the end of the Fiscal year.
> > So Nova Roma would not be taking any major expenses out of their budget. If I
> > have to pay for this myself then so be it. I can afford the down payment and
> > subsequent payments there after. I would just need to transition my business
> > from physically based to internet based I suppose.
> >
> > I have some friends who use to work for Micron still have their factory to
> > make
> > solar cells. Using wind turbines and the solar cells I can get for dirt cheap,
> > the main office of Nova Roma could be state of the art, or all the houses
> > could
> > be powered independantly and Nova Roma would not have to worry about
> > electrical
> > costs. On top of that, if we choose the right land to buy we can build a well
> > and put a septic tank in the land. Doing so would allow Nova Roma to have its
> > own water and thus avoid water bills. So if Nova Roma wants to get serious,
> > I'll get serious and we can find a way so that Nova Roma will not have to pay
> > land tax, electric bill, or a water bill and only have to focus on getting
> > customers and paying off the land. I'm ready when they are. Well that's not
> > true, I would need to transition my work over to be able to support me without
> > being physical. So in a couple of months I'm ready...in theory.
> >
> >   
> >
>

  
    

---

Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bingâ„¢ now

Cato Jesse Corradino sal.

Salve.

Explain to me exactly how you have decided that I retained a lawyer for my dealings with Nova Roma? I do happen to have a lawyer but she has been my lawyer for quite some time, long before any of this happened. So from whom are you getting this information?

The howls of "traitor" and such quite drowned out the fact that we are guaranteed the right to pursue redress to perceived wrongs *by any means available to us* as citizens of the Respublica and citizens of our respective macronational countries.

But for the last time, Mr. Corradino, I did *not* threaten to sue Nova Roma. Even Cornelius Sulla has posted to correct you. Give it a rest.

Vale,

Cato

-Salve Jesse;
I was thinking of Pawling.
Colorado sounds nice for a Colonia, in the summer especially.
Maior

>
>
> As a New Yorker I'm curious what two historical villages we have in central NY? Do you mean in Sterling, NY?
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: fororom@...
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:19:32 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Colonia Nova Roma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Majori quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> M. Hortensia A.Tullia spd;
> actually Quadratus has some land and says he has the know-how to put up earth bulidings and pour Roman concrete. So it's not a pipe dream at all.
>
> ATS: Of course it isn't.
>
>
> If we can organize. We'd have a permanent base for our Conventus as well.
>
> ATS: Great! However, there is a matter of Location, Location, and Location. Where is this land? Are there any historic villages or the like nearby, such as Colonial Williamsburg? We have two of them in central NYS; we are more likely to draw history buffs and other tourists if we locate within striking distance of these (or others elsewhere)...and, Quadrate, I think we have lots of limestone around here. Remember, we really must have multiple coloniae, and more than one in the US as this country is so large. If it's far enough north, too, we can get Canadians, who mostly populate the southern reaches of their vast country. Moreover, the more skills we bring to this, especially practical ones such as construction, surveying, plumbing, etc., the better off we will be. I have done a bit of gardening, but that's as far as it goes; yours truly can contribute to planning, but may come in later, when Latin instruction is desired.
>
> I think Nashville is a fine site for a Conventus...but not in the summer.
>
> bene vale
> Maior
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete;
> > > I know we have a colonia list, for those interested in founding a NR colony.
> > > But we should talk about it here on the ML. Andy his critique said this was
> > > impossible. And I disagree. If we have the will and the citizens we can do it.
> > >
> > > ATS: And I also disagree.
> > >
> > > Quadratus wrote the post below. We've been talking on the NRcolonia list, I
> > > and Livia and I daresay Scholastica would agree; see our colonia
> > > self-supporting by giving spoken Latin sessions, like summer school in a Roman
> > > environment.
> > >
> > > ATS: That would be part of the package, along with sales of crafts and
> > > produce, tours, etc.
> > >
> > > Quadratus, where are you talking about? the U.S. I presume. Is the land near
> > > anything? A town, nightlife...Being off the grid and making our own
> > > electricity and having our own well is excellent.
> > >
> > > ATS: Utilities and some other factors were considerations in our earlier
> > > investigations. A lot of us don't need nightlife of that sort, but the
> > > proximity of supermarkets and something resembling pharmacies and clothing
> > > stores, to say nothing of medical facilities, is of considerable importance.
> > > So, too, is that of related sites to draw tourists. Unfortunately, most of us
> > > are busy, some of us live in areas where travel is inadvisable in winter, and
> > > none of us appears to be wealthy, so we have not been able to do much more
> > > than discuss qualities desirable in a prospective piece of land. We would
> > > have to have multiple colonies, not just one, but at least one in Europe and
> > > one in the Americas. One has to consider the language issue as well as
> > > everything else, especially in Europe; on this side of the pond, there are
> > > essentially four official languages (English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese,
> > > two of which are more or less geographically restricted), whereas there are
> > > many in Europe, and several are little-known outside of their immediate
> > > vicinity, whereas three of the four languages in the Americas are well known.
> > > It is daunting enough to travel in lands where one does not know the language;
> > > living there is another, and far more challenging, situation, especially when
> > > one has to start from scratch rather than stay in an existing dwelling. I
> > > don't think that the European Union has gotten around to adopting our language
> > > as universal just yet, and do not expect that shopkeepers or real estate
> > > agents in, say, Bulgaria, speak Latin. Maybe Finland; there are lots of fine
> > > Latinists there...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm learning right now to grow vegetables for home consumption, (the gourmet
> > > kind).
> > >
> > > ATS: Good! The ordinary ones are useful, too...even more so.
> > >
> > >
> > > So this is my skill. And I'm studying latin and just finished Sermo II.
> > >
> > >
> > > ATS: Not just yet, young lady: Avitus just returned and has given us a
> > > number of posts to answer, and one of these days will provide the information
> > > I need to correct the Sermo II finals, which will then be sent to him for
> > > review. Assuming you pass, then, and only then, will you be liberated
> > > fully...and in the mean time I have to nag the Sermo I and Grammatica II
> > > students to return their exams as well as correct the GL II exams as they come
> > > in.
> > >
> > > bene vale
> > > M. Horensia Maior
> > >
> > > Vale, et valete.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My main idea is that Nova Roma start forming some serious physical wealth. I
> > > don't want to see it crash. As for land, well raw land was what I had in mind.
> > > I have access to auctions that would allow us to purchase land at around 300
> > > or
> > > less for around an acre or more as the down payment. Monthly fees of 50 to 200
> > > dollars would be required to pay off the land entirely. Since Nova Roma would
> > > be buying the land it would be tax exempt and Nova Roma would not need to pay
> > > land tax. Since it is raw land, Nova Roma can issue the building of a Roman
> > > city from the ground up. Also should Nova Roma decide to hire some workers,
> > > the
> > > work paid would also be tax exempt and refunded at the end of the Fiscal year.
> > > So Nova Roma would not be taking any major expenses out of their budget. If I
> > > have to pay for this myself then so be it. I can afford the down payment and
> > > subsequent payments there after. I would just need to transition my business
> > > from physically based to internet based I suppose.
> > >
> > > I have some friends who use to work for Micron still have their factory to
> > > make
> > > solar cells. Using wind turbines and the solar cells I can get for dirt cheap,
> > > the main office of Nova Roma could be state of the art, or all the houses
> > > could
> > > be powered independantly and Nova Roma would not have to worry about
> > > electrical
> > > costs. On top of that, if we choose the right land to buy we can build a well
> > > and put a septic tank in the land. Doing so would allow Nova Roma to have its
> > > own water and thus avoid water bills. So if Nova Roma wants to get serious,
> > > I'll get serious and we can find a way so that Nova Roma will not have to pay
> > > land tax, electric bill, or a water bill and only have to focus on getting
> > > customers and paying off the land. I'm ready when they are. Well that's not
> > > true, I would need to transition my work over to be able to support me without
> > > being physical. So in a couple of months I'm ready...in theory.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now
> http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1
>

Cato Iuliae Aquilae sal.

Salve!

First, GO TO BED.

Second, I assume that one of our web experts will take care of it, although I wonder who has the authority to decide what is written there...

Third, oh yeah. I have stories growing up, most of them ending with me getting a smackonnahead :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L Julia Aquila" <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> *laughs* I am tired, been up since 4am - sorry for the mix-up - but I cannot help you with the wiki;) I looked at the wiki history but there doesn't seem to be any recent changes in that respect and I did not want to fool with it.
>
> Aha! I thought so regarding your early religious orientation! Bet you had fun growing up;)
>
> Have a good evening Cato,
>
> Vale,
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Iuliae Aquilae sal.
> >
> > Salve!
> >
> > Atually, it's the opening statement on our wiki page that concerns me, found here:
> >
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> >
> > The opening remarks are jarringly ungrammatical.
> >
> > As to the other, I was raised a mix of Roman Catholic and Sicilian Superstitious with a side of Anglicanism :)
> >
> > In my mid-thirties, after several years of agnosticism, I started back in the Anglican Church but eventually converted to Orthodoxy.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L Julia Aquila" <dis_pensible@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Cato,
> > >
> > > I just looked at the first post in this thread and it was:
> > > "Re: Protecting Our Votes and Future Elections" (with the RE:) started by Poplicola. It was later changed to "Re: nova roma is syncretic."
> > > The original title of the thread will still show when you open to read a post even thought the subject line is changed - I had to create a new "Poetry [...] etc." thread because it still read for "[...]Dies Nefastus" when a post was opened to read even though I changed it in the subject line.
> > > Hope that helps and that is what you are referring to;)
> > >
> > > Btw, although it makes no difference to me either way, I am also wondering if you were raised a Roman Catholic also.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Julia
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > > In terms of internet alteration, it should be detectable (especially, Wiki).. Why you ask me I have no idea.
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: nova roma is syncretic
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 9:43 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato Sempronio Regulo sal.
> > > >
> > > > Salve.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the Jews were thrown out of at least the City of Rome several times as well.
> > > >
> > > > Also, here in the Respblica we contain within our own time frame everything up to the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate, I believe, which post-dates Constantine the Great by about a century.
> > > >
> > > > Curiously, our opening remarks on the wiki site have been changed, so thatthey now read (in incredibly ungrammatical fashion):
> > > >
> > > > "From its founding to 330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial authority, Rome laid the foundation for our modern Western civilization. "
> > > >
> > > > Thank goodness our Constitution has not been so vandalized, and it reads:
> > > >
> > > > "...defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE..."
> > > >
> > > > I do not know who changed the wording of our opening statement or why, but would be interested in knowing. Can we find out when and who and why this was altered to read this way?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@ ..> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve,
> > > > >  
> > > > > I wouldn't say in ancient Rome all religions were equal. First, foreign deities and cults did not have templum augurially aligned to the heavens for their cella. They just an a surveyed piece of land or fanum. Second, cults that did not recognize the state cult or public cult were not tolerated. Third, cults that appeared to threaten the state were suppressed. The philosophers were thrown out of Rome at one point and Bacchus-Dionysos had issues with the Senate. Basically, cults that did not challenge the public cult of the state were tolerated.
> > > > >  
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > > A. Sempronius Regulus
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Maior <rory12001@ ..> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Maior <rory12001@ ..>
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: nova roma is syncretic
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 7:41 PM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Salvete;
> > > > > I was speaking of all culti,Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Isis worshippers, Pythagoreans.
> > > > >
> > > > > the Romans during the Republic did not have the concept of religious heretics. During the Empire up to Constantine, which the religio here in Nova Roma follows, there wasn't such a concept. There are no heresies and no heretics in Nova Roma.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Aurelianus Poplicola sal.

This is a nonsensical statement, flamen.  To be King of the Sacrifices would require that a citizen also be married and that his wife would be the Queen of the Sacrifices but it would also effectively end the Rex et Regina Sacrorum's collective political careers.  This sacred office fulfills the ancient duties of that the Kings of Rome practiced on behalf of the People.  Had Modianus remained married and his wife was willing to serve with him, I would have welcomed his service because he would likely have been the best possible candidate.  I am very sorry that he has ended his long marriage and I genuinely liked his wife on the occasions we met.  I regret that he will not be able to fill this very important office that is essential for the restoration of the Sacra Publica et Religio Romana.

I believe that you should consider withdrawing the post below because it is not political office that he desired when he wanted to become the Rex Sacrorum but a life of service to the Religio on behalf of the Senate and People of Nova Roma.

Vale.


-----Original Message-----
From: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 8:19 am
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Protecting Our Votes and Future Elections

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.

My colleague, C. Pompeius Marcellus, has not properly framed his disagreement according to the laws governing such a disagreement.  He should withdraw his improper disagreement, re-state it according to the proper laws, and publish it again.  Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing in regard to the current intercessio issued by Agrippa and with which I have agreed. 

Valete.

I would say that you threatened to sue Nova Roma in the state of Maine in your pursuit of redress then, rather than characterize your actions as a free exercise of Nova Roman policy.  In any case, I don't want to argue about this anymore either.  I suppose I over-reacted to you correcting that one poster and somehow that, in conjunction with my perception of you as a trouble maker, compelled me to post against.  I apologize if I've been overzealous in that regard.  For the most part I find your posts interesting and consider carrying on like this fruitless.
 
Vale
 

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: catoinnyc@...
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:43:29 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Welcome to Nova Roma fpasquinus
>
> Cato Jesse Corradino sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Explain to me exactly how you have decided that I retained a lawyer for my dealings with Nova Roma? I do happen to have a lawyer but she has been my lawyer for quite some time, long before any of this happened. So from whom are you getting this information?
>
> The howls of "traitor" and such quite drowned out the fact that we are guaranteed the right to pursue redress to perceived wrongs *by any means available to us* as citizens of the Respublica and citizens of our respective macronational countries.
>
> But for the last time, Mr. Corradino, I did *not* threaten to sue Nova Roma. Even Cornelius Sulla has posted to correct you. Give it a rest.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:Nova-Roma-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

---

Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.

Cato Jesse Corradino sal.

Salve.

Good enough.

The end.

Vale,

Cato

  
A. Tullia Scholastica Jesse quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  

As a New Yorker I'm curious what two historical villages we have in central NY?  Do you mean in Sterling, NY?

    ATS: That’s one of them, but there is also Mumford, and I think both are more or less in striking distance of the Corning Glass Museum, all of which should be attractive to history buffs, et al.  Nearby legions and nearby historical villages, etc., are things to consider when contemplating Roman colonization.  

Vale, et valete.  
 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: fororom@...
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:19:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Colonia Nova Roma

  A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Majori quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

  

M. Hortensia A.Tullia spd;
 actually Quadratus has some land and says he has the know-how to put up earth bulidings and pour Roman concrete. So it's not a pipe dream at all.

    ATS:  Of course it isn’t.


If we can organize. We'd have a permanent base for our Conventus as well.

    ATS:  Great!  However, there is a matter of Location, Location, and Location.  Where is this land?  Are there any historic villages or the like nearby, such as Colonial Williamsburg?  We have two of them in central NYS; we are more likely to draw history buffs and other tourists if we locate within striking distance of these (or others elsewhere)...and, Quadrate, I think we have lots of limestone around here.  Remember, we really must have multiple coloniae, and more than one in the US as this country is so large.  If it’s far enough north, too, we can get Canadians, who mostly populate the southern reaches of their vast country.  Moreover, the more skills we bring to this, especially practical ones such as construction, surveying, plumbing, etc., the better off we will be.  I have done a bit of gardening, but that’s as far as it goes; yours truly can contribute to planning, but may come in later, when Latin instruction is desired.  

    I think Nashville is a fine site for a Conventus...but not in the summer.  

 bene vale
 Maior

Vale, et valete.


> >   
> >
> > Salvete;
> >  I know we have a colonia list, for those interested in founding a NR colony.
> > But we should talk about it here on the ML. Andy his critique said this was
> > impossible. And I disagree. If we have the will and the citizens we can do it.
> >
> >     ATS:  And I also disagree.
> >
> > Quadratus wrote the post below. We've been talking on the NRcolonia list, I
> > and Livia and I daresay Scholastica would agree; see our colonia
> > self-supporting by giving spoken Latin sessions, like summer school in a Roman
> > environment.
> >
> >     ATS:  That would be part of the package, along with sales of crafts and
> > produce, tours, etc.
> >
> > Quadratus, where are you talking about? the U.S. I presume. Is the land near
> > anything? A town, nightlife...Being off the grid and making our own
> > electricity and having our own well is excellent.
> >
> >     ATS:  Utilities and some other factors were considerations in our earlier
> > investigations.   A lot of us don’t need nightlife of that sort, but the
> > proximity of supermarkets and something resembling pharmacies and clothing
> > stores, to say nothing of medical facilities, is of considerable importance.
> > So, too, is that of related sites to draw tourists.  Unfortunately, most of us
> > are busy, some of us live in areas where travel is inadvisable in winter, and
> > none of us appears to be wealthy, so we have not been able to do much more
> > than discuss qualities desirable in a prospective piece of land.  We would
> > have to have multiple colonies, not just one, but at least one in Europe and
> > one in the Americas.  One has to consider the language issue as well as
> > everything else, especially in Europe; on this side of the pond, there are
> > essentially four official languages (English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese,
> > two of which are more or less geographically restricted), whereas there are
> > many in Europe, and several are little-known outside of their immediate
> > vicinity, whereas three of the four languages in the Americas are well known.
> > It is daunting enough to travel in lands where one does not know the language;
> > living there is another, and far more challenging, situation, especially when
> > one has to start from scratch rather than stay in an existing dwelling.  I
> > don’t think that the European Union has gotten around to adopting our language
> > as universal just yet, and do not expect that shopkeepers or real estate
> > agents in, say, Bulgaria, speak Latin.  Maybe Finland; there are lots of fine
> > Latinists there...
> >
> >
> > I'm learning right now to grow vegetables for home consumption, (the gourmet
> > kind).
> >
> >     ATS:  Good!  The ordinary ones are useful, too...even more so.
> >
> >
> > So this is my skill. And I'm studying latin and just finished Sermo II.
> >
> >
> >     ATS:  Not just yet, young lady:  Avitus just returned and has given us a
> > number of posts to answer, and one of these days will provide the information
> > I need to correct the Sermo II finals, which will then be sent to him for
> > review.  Assuming you pass, then, and only then, will you be liberated
> > fully...and in the mean time I have to nag the Sermo I and Grammatica II
> > students to return their exams as well as correct the GL II exams as they come
> > in.  
> >
> >  bene vale
> >  M. Horensia Maior
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > My main idea is that Nova Roma start forming some serious physical wealth. I
> > don't want to see it crash. As for land, well raw land was what I had in mind.
> > I have access to auctions that would allow us to purchase land at around 300
> > or
> > less for around an acre or more as the down payment. Monthly fees of 50 to 200
> > dollars would be required to pay off the land entirely. Since Nova Roma would
> > be buying the land it would be tax exempt and Nova Roma would not need to pay
> > land tax. Since it is raw land, Nova Roma can issue the building of a Roman
> > city from the ground up. Also should Nova Roma decide to hire some workers,
> > the
> > work paid would also be tax exempt and refunded at the end of the Fiscal year.
> > So Nova Roma would not be taking any major expenses out of their budget. If I
> > have to pay for this myself then so be it. I can afford the down payment and
> > subsequent payments there after. I would just need to transition my business
> > from physically based to internet based I suppose.
> >
> > I have some friends who use to work for Micron still have their factory to
> > make
> > solar cells. Using wind turbines and the solar cells I can get for dirt cheap,
> > the main office of Nova Roma could be state of the art, or all the houses
> > could
> > be powered independantly and Nova Roma would not have to worry about
> > electrical
> > costs. On top of that, if we choose the right land to buy we can build a well
> > and put a septic tank in the land. Doing so would allow Nova Roma to have its
> > own water and thus avoid water bills. So if Nova Roma wants to get serious,
> > I'll get serious and we can find a way so that Nova Roma will not have to pay
> > land tax, electric bill, or a water bill and only have to focus on getting
> > customers and paying off the land. I'm ready when they are. Well that's not
> > true, I would need to transition my work over to be able to support me without
> > being physical. So in a couple of months I'm ready...in theory.
> >
> >   
> >
>

  
    

I have recently posted several messages to the main list including statements concerning the tardiness of Ap. Galerius Aurelianus' disagreement with the intercession; the illegality of forwarding a supposed disagreement from a Tribune by Complutensis Consu; and a statement in which I stated that the intercessio of Agrippa is allowed to stand. These messages have not been posted appropriately.

I do hope that this has been a mistake of some sort and that my messages are not be deliberately deleted by someone in authority such as one of the Praetores or Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. If this has occurred, I will be most put out.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
Tribunus Plebis

Salve Maior,

The example of the flaminica, which you term as "sensitive updating", I see as simply cherry-picking imperial-era Roman religion. In and of itself I don't think that is necessarily problematic as long as we don't refer to the effort as reconstructing the Republican religio. I think a more honest description would be that we have the imperial religio sine imperial cult.

I think if most people have not expressed a problem with our time frame it is because they haven't put much thought into it. The fact that apparently only two people (me and Cato) noticed the contradiction between the wiki page time frame and the constitution, a conflict that has been on the website for 2 years, suggests to me no one is really thinking about it. This is different from no problem actually existing. At the very least, the wiki needs to be fixed and the preamble needs to be rewritten.

As for Christians, most Christians certainly are not syncretic, and by including them, NR is neither polytheistic nor unified, but rather a recon org that merely has a majority of polytheists in it (or does it? the census should answer that).

Christians aside, I wonder why we should want any sort of "unified" polytheistic culture anyway? The sort of syncretism you seem to espouse would speak against any sort of unity. Perhaps you should elaborate on exactly what you mean by it.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtere;
> 1. most polytheists here don't have a problem with the time frame, as our focus is on polytheist institutions, cults, we dont talk among ourselves about Christianity at all. I think that's more a issue for a scholar than a practitioner.
>
> Christian members joined Nova Roma knowing it is a polytheistic org. It's on our main page. They can live here quite happily. I celebrate Saturnalia while everyone else is celebrating Christmas with no problem. But I am used to being a minority. I do think it is a cultural suprise for Christians not to control the culture and discourse, but the citizens here are thoughtful and sophisticated.
>
> 2. There is no 'pretending'. Politically and in our institutions we do try to imitate the republic, while sensitively updating.
>
> Let me give you an example to show the conflict that troubles you isn't one for us in practice. I applied to the Collegium Pontificum to be flaminica. Now there are [so far] no examples of single flaminica in the republic, there were married couples of flamen-flaminica and single flamens.
>
> I looked to the early Imperial period where Agrippina was flaminica to Divus Claudius and later on there are many examples of single flaminicae to cities and the Imperial family. I made a good case, backed by scholarship and was admitted. For our reconstruction the Imperial period is very helpful.
>
> Its perfectly easy for Christians to live with pagans in NR in a unified pagan culture. It may be impossible for non-syncretic Christians but that is an internal problem for the individual. I live and mix easily in the dominant Christian culture I live in, as a Jewish person, as a polytheist.
>
> As for Cato; I'm sure he read on our front page: Nova Roma'Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion, culture and virtues' Nova Roma says nothing about perserving his identity based on making absolute judgements.
> He certainly has a problem here, but the rest don't. Cato has many cultural institutions to support his identity. Roman reconstructionists only have Nova Roma. Our needs take precendence.
>
> As for the Constitution, aagh a document. Considering the brouhahah recently, sometimes I think documents are a bad thing;-) I'm tending towards the organic British idea. Nova Roma's religio is developing organically. If you go to the religio list, you will 0 unpleasantness or problems.
> Gualtere, I've found there is a big divide between the scholar of religion and the practitioner. I remember my professor discussing all the theories concerning the 'meaning' of an esoteric ritual; performance, political, etc...... I told him; "I asked the 30 yr old priest what he intended in the goma ceremony, he answered' I bring down the deity Fudo-Myo and ask him for a benefit which he grants.'"
>
> My naive professor was shocked by such an answer, that a young man would believe in Fudo-myo and the power of the 'magical' ceremony. He studied Japanese Buddhism for years but really knew nothing about the reality of practice and what went on.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
>
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> > I see the "schizophrenia" along two axes:
> >
> > 1) A desire at "polytheistic" self-definition by some while also embracing a time frame in which the polytheistic character of Rome was destroyed. A sub-issue is Christian membership: to what extent should we try at "polytheistic" or "pagan" self-definition while this obviously conflicts with the self-identity of Christian NR members?
> >
> > 2) A desire to adopt the syncretism of the religio during Imperial times while also pretending to be a reconstruction of the Republic. I personally agree that the religious environment of the Empire is more conducive to a modern reconstruction, however, this has nothing to do with the Republic. Our political framework and religious system move along completely different tracks. The combination of the two is a fantasy construction.
> >
> > I can think of two recent examples that highlight these issues. One was a call for a unified polytheistic culture, a call which is manifestly impossible with Christian members and the timeline being as it is in the preamble. Indeed, Christians aside, there was no type of religious unity in Imperial Rome. The second was chastising Cato for expressing an opinion in internal Christian terms (heresy vs orthodoxy). While this may have been distasteful to some, striking at him for expressing his opinions in this way strikes at Christian identity--at least orthodox (small 'o') Christian identity--since this identity depends on making certain absolute judgments about correct and incorrect faith.
> >
> > So, what do we do? I think an attempt to rewrite the preamble will create a good opportunity to raise these and other issues about NR identity, allowing us to grapple with the contradictions and, perhaps, resolve them. I will throw out two possible revisions of the preamble, both intentionally worded in a way that I think (hope) will get some more conversation going. :)
> >
> >
> > (1)
> > "We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of Republican Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the granting of the title of Augustus to Octavian in 27 BCE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
> >
> > As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as its modern restoration."
> >
> > (2)
> > "We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for not only the Religio Romana but all religions that fall within the scope of our allotted timeline, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study of Roman civilization encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete Agricola Gualtereque;
> > > this topic is of deep interest to me; language and culture.Though not as articulate as Agricola, let me give you some examples drawn from life;
> > > The Old Testament
> > > Now what does that term conjure up? Something outdated, unecessary, superseded. Jewish people for hundreds of years had to put up with that term,
> > > until recently when scholars turned to the more neutral term
> > > Hebrew Scriptures.
> > > It may not be perfect but at least there aren't majoritarian imposed notions of obsolescence.
> > >
> > > Now for another term:
> > > rigid orthopraxy
> > > following the 'letter of the law' with the additional idea of that such behavior is devoid of interior belief or content.
> > >
> > > Try: ritual master
> > >
> > > I assisted as an initiate Tendai priestess in goma (homa) rituals. These are complex esoteric rituals, that involve, hand gestures (mudras), words(mantras) and complex visualizations. The goma ritual is over 1,000 old and the priest who performs it has a little book in front of him with the appropriate mudras, mantras, altar gestures, [picking up several items, like incense burners, or dorjes, and gesturing with them in specific ways).
> > >
> > > Never, did I hear anyone use the term 'orthopractic' nor did I ever read or hear such a term in my graduate seminar on buddhism at Duke. But ritual is very important and Tendai Ajari are termed in English 'ritual masters.'
> > >
> > > Religious minorities live perfectly easily as subcultures in majority cultures. Jews and Chinese polytheists have their own holidays, calendars, religious names, ritual foods, magazines etc...and not only surivive but also excell. There is no 'schizophrenia' involved. I've grown up this way and so have my Chinese friends. I don't think people who grow up in a dominant culture, have any idea how easy it is to ignore.
> > >
> > > It takes some effort to choose a word, but letting Nova Roma define itself as an open Roman polytheistic culture can be done, without importing loaded terminology. Additionally we don't have to take on viewpoints that are foreign to us. It doesn't matter if they are 'dominant' or 'mainstream'.
> > >
> > >
> > > We can define ourselves and we should.
> > > bene valete in pacem deorum
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Salve Agricola,
> > > >
> > > > While I can sympathize with the desire that "we have opposition to the notion that the Christian rhetoric, or any specific rhetoric, is the only correct view", the problem lies in the notion of orthodox self-definition. For orthodox (small 'o') Christian identity, having the claim to the correct view is essential. To force them to express themselves otherwise does violence to their own religious identity. Moreover, to chastise them for this (as I have seen some do) in an organization that embraces the first four centuries of Christian history is inconsistent at best and speaks to the deep structural issues that we have.
> > > >
> > > > As for orthodoxy/orthopraxy, I agree that it may not always be the best way of understanding, but virtually everything we say about ancient Rome is through some type of modern construct. So long as we use them judiciously and also offer some flexibility in understanding when others employ them, I think orthopraxy/orthodoxy can be a useful pair of abstractions. I think one way in doing this is if someone disagrees with their employment in a particular context, the responder can employ a rewording reflecting what the original post may have intended, adding to it what are seen as the proper nuances. In other words, one should move the discussion to what is seen as the proper level of abstraction instead of jumping off the boat when someone enters a discussion at a different level than what someone else may have desired or expected. I think this sort of conciliatory approach is especially important when terms/constructs are employed that are still current in scholarship.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola" <marcus.lucretius@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agricola Graeco sal,
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this is an old topic, however, its ghost still haunts us left and right as seen in the various comments about the Republic, syncretism, opposition to Christian rhetoric while also pretending to being inclusive and it demands some deep structural adjustments within NR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gualterus
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just a moment to dip in...
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think we have "opposition to Christian rhetoric" as much as we have opposition to the notion that the Christian rhetoric, or any specific rhetoric, is the only correct view. We should welcome not only polytheism, but multiculturalism and a variety of viewpoints, and a more sophisticated methodology.
> > > > >
> > > > > To take the specific example at hand, the "praxy/doxy" axis is one way of understanding, but not the only one and it may not be the best one for all parties. Any axis of this sort is a mental construction, and as such it may encode certain biases. It is perfectly acceptable, I think, for members of specific community to claim that such axes do not capture the realities that they see and experience. Just because from one viewpoint a set of behaviors can be made to fit within a construct does not mean that the construct is either real or has exclusive validity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not to put too fine a point on it, this means that we have to distinguish between people expressing an opinion on terms and people insisting that every else agree to use those terms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I am in complete agreement with your assessment regarding the use of the polar pairs, that in reality the extremes are seldom if ever populated. The use of the ends of an axis as exclusive polar opposites is one of the problems with framing discussion in these terms. As a methodology these axes have some use as a starting point, but in the end they may be more limiting than useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, I think that this sort of discussion is essential to your point about "deep structural adjustments". In my view we have to move not to a different position, but to a more sophisticated view of the positions we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for an interesting discussion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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

The most recent intercessio pronounce by Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa was posted to the Nova Roma mainlist on Wednesday, June 17, at 9:29 p.m.

According to the leges allowing for diagreement by other Tribunes, the end of the 72 hour period for disagreement ended on Saturday, June 20, at 9:28 p.m.

Any agreement or disagreement with the Intercessio would have to occur within this period otherwise it would be invalid.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> I support the intercession of my brother, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa.  I encourage all of the Tribunes to support this intercessio to demonstrate that the potestas and sancrosanctas of the Tribunes cannot be ignored by any citizen or magistrate.  I also note that the names of the consuls are spelled correctly.
>
> Fiat, fiat, fiat lux.  Ita est.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canadaoccidentalis@...
> To: Nova Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>; novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 9:29 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD
>
> I Gaius Vipsanius Agrppa pronounce intercessio on the request of Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix against Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, Consul of Nova Roma and against Marcus Iulius Severus, Consul of Nova Roma on the grounds that their instructions in respect of the recent election for Censor suffectus, held in the comitia centuriata, to “invalidate the tiebreak and order that the sortes are thrown again and with base in the following result, the diribitores should count the votes again” as contained in Message 66963 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/66963, violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
>
> “While it shall be called to order by either a consul or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally.”
>
> The consuls actions ha
> ve created a rule by which the processes of the comitia centuriata will be altered in a manner which is not supported in any law passed for that purpose within the comitia centuriata. The consuls and/or Pontifex Maximus cannot create a rule by which the comitia centuriata shall function in relation to tie breaking, otherwise known as the “lot”. The change in process will effectively bind future consuls to follow this practice and as such usurps the function of law, and thus violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution. The consuls imperium does not extend to overturning the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal processes.
>
> The specific supporting reasons and/or background information and explanation for this intercessio are.
>
>    1. The intercessio is against both consuls for in the above message Consul Marcus Curiatius Complutensis states “The consuls we have studied the situation derived from the recent extraordinary elections and have asked for advice to the Pontifex Maximus, have both agreed to this most recent action” and also “For this motive we have decided to”. Even though message 66963 is only signed by Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, the reference to this being a collegiate decision requires intercessio be issued against both consuls.
>
>    2. Section III.B of the Constitution makes no reference to the manner of breaking ties and the only reference to tie breaking in the Lex Fabia de ratione co
> mitiorum centuriatorum describes the process for doing so as by “lot”.
>
>    3. The dictionary definition, of “lot” in the absence of any definition provided under the Constitution or any lex is “an object used as a counter in determining a question by chance2 a: the use of lots as a means of deciding something b: the resulting choice” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lot%5b1] The Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum requires no more than this as a definition of the process of tie breaking or the “lot” therefore.
>
>    4. Therefore by invalidating the tiebreak the consuls have created a rule that exists outside of the Constitution and the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, and by doing so have violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, as quoted above, by usurping the power and/or function of law and the rights of the comitia centuriata.
>
>    5. The consuls have thus illegally and unconstitutionally arrogated the right to create two  rules for the operation of an election in the Comitia Centuriata, contarary to Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
>          1. That tie breaks once decided can be invalidated and the tie break repeated.
>          2. That the process of the “lot” shall be by dice of a metal or bone construction.
>
>    6. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not specific to this election, and therefore canno
> t have limited effect. The action of the consuls will therefore create a rule that will have to be followed in subsequent elections as it is supposedly based on a religious objection to using plastic dice in the process of tie-breaking or “lot”. This action will therefore lead to subsequent consuls also having to bind themselves to this illegal and unconstitutional rule, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy of violating Section III.B of of the Constitution, or risk claims of religious impropriety in the tie breaking or “lot”.
>
>    7. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not the policy of the Collegium Pontificum, nor the Collegium Augurum. Further the advice of the Pontifex Maximus ignores the method of public sortition used Ancient Rome, and does not even create an approximation of the religious elements of that sortititon. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus has failed completely to address:
>
>          1. What ancient Roman model of sortition to use in Nova Roma for tie breaking in the electoral process, be the methodology used in the comitia or the one for provincial allocation, or another.
>          2. Which deity would be the counterintuitive agent.
>          3. How, when magistrates live in different parts of the world the same implements of sortition would be used by the custodes and the effect on the length of elections that would have.
>          4. What the design
> of the implements of sortition would be, whether it would be a cista or a hydria for the container and what material the lots would be constructed from.
>          5. Where the implements would be stored, as traditionally they were housed in the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.
>          6. What rituals would accompany the sortition process.
>          7. How Nova Roma would accommodate the requirement for an augural presence in public sortition.
>          8. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that errors in the sortition were detected.
>          9. What training would be provided to mark out the templum necessary for the performance of public sortition.
>
>    8. The Pontifex Maximus has claimed that Plastic is alleged to be unnatural due to the molecular alteration of its material, and thus cannot have a natural numen, which leads to its inability to receive the numina through which the Gods could influence the outcome. A metal such as bronze, favored by the Pontifex Maximus as an alternative, is an alloy. An alloy “is a partial or complete solid solution of one or more elements in a metallic matrix.” (Wikipedia). A solid solution is a solid-state solution of one or more solutes in a solvent.
>
> When the issue with the use of a polymer in the construction of the die is based on the molecular alteration of the material, consider that a disruption occurs=2
> 0also in solid solutions.
>
> “The solute may incorporate into the solvent crystal lattice substitutionally, by replacing a solvent particle in the lattice, or interstitially, by fitting into the space between solvent particles. Both of these types of solid solution affect the properties of the material by distorting the crystal lattice and disrupting the physical and electrical homogeneity of the solvent material’ (Wikipedia).
>
> Plastic as the Pontifex Maximus has stated is a polymer is usually a polymer, which is a large molecule of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds.
>
> A covalent bond is “characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, or between atoms and other covalent bonds.” (Wikipedia). Covalent bonding can occur naturally, for example Hydrogen cyanide, a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen, which is present in fruits that have pits, such as cherries. It also has been detected in the interstellar medium. Covalent chemical bonding is not therefore an unatural and artificial process.
>
> While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a “large class of natural and synthetic materials with a variety of properties.” (Wikipedia). Polymers can be either natural or synthetic. Natural polymers would be for example rubber. “Plastic” as a term is therefore too wide a description to be of much use in determining the issue. What was the material used in the construction of the die i
> n question? Was the die acyrilic? Was it resin? Was it polymethyl methacrylate? Was it a cellulose based plastic, either cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?
>
> The reason for this level of inquiry concerning the material used is that some materials have as their base a naturally occurring substance. For example cellulose nitrate uses cotton as its cellulose base, while cellulose acetate uses cotton or tree pulp. Resins can be naturally occurring or synthetic.
>
> Therefore polymers, which are all based on naturally occurring substances, be they organic materials or chemical elements, share a level of disruption at a molecular level with a solid solution found in alloys, of which bronze is one. Creating an alloy such as bronze involves a chemical process. Additionally when applying chromium, iron, cobalt and copper to a bronze surface, molecular changes take place in the bronze. So if molecular changes take place in bronze, asserted to be a more “natural” substance than a polymer, does this affect its ability to accommodate a numen?  There is no evidence of any detailed research into this matter, therefore the issue of molecular changes somehow interfering with the ability of an object to host a numen maybe a substantiated claim or a specious one. There is simply a lack of evidence and research either way.
>
> Consequently the argument that a polymer cannot have a natural numen could be contradictory, given the natural base of the compounds and the fact that bronze, which is assumed to be more “nat
> ural” and is a solid solution, has a level of disruption. The chemical processes maybe artificially stimulated but as per covalent bonding, this isn’t a man made process, as it occurs in the natural world.
>
>    9. Therefore the Pontifex Maximus has advanced a claim regarding the inability of plastic to host a numen which is unsubstantiated by any detailed research and discussion by the Collegium Pontificum or the Collegium Augurum, and furthermore advances a recommendation for a change in the process of tie breaking or “lot” which would not only be illegal and unconstitutional, but also which is not a historic recreation, nor even an approximation, of the Ancient Roman method of public sortition. There would continue to be a complete lack of religious ritual accompanying the tie breaking thus rendering false or unreliable the claim that the recommended change in the tie breaking process enhances the reliability of the tie breaking or “lot” and in some way represents the will of the Gods or some unspecified God.
>
>   10. Finally the “Law of Contagion” which the Pontifex Maximus has referenced as somehow connected to the Religio Romana was first articulated as a “law” as far as can be determined by Sir James George Frazer in his "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion". No evidence can be found that the Collegium Pontificum has ever researched this matter and determined its role in public sortition rituals in Ancient Rome
>
> Therefor
> e the Consuls have not only clearly violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, by usurping the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal rules, which is grounds alone for the intercessio, but they have done so based on spurious and/or false and/or poorly researched claims by the Pontifex Maximus concerning the nature of public sortition in Ancient Rome and/or unproven claims regarding the corruption of the current process, and by claiming falsely an enhanced religious component to the tie breaking or “lot” which will effectively bind further consuls to have to decide between also violating this section of the Constitution or risking false claims of religious impropriety in tie breaking.
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribunus Plebis
>

I posted my agreement with the intercession on Thursday, June 18, at 10:40 a.m.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus,
Tribunus Plebis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> I support the intercession of my brother, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa.  I encourage all of the Tribunes to support this intercessio to demonstrate that the potestas and sancrosanctas of the Tribunes cannot be ignored by any citizen or magistrate.  I also note that the names of the consuls are spelled correctly.
>
> Fiat, fiat, fiat lux.  Ita est.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canadaoccidentalis@...
> To: Nova Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>; novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 9:29 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD
>
> I Gaius Vipsanius Agrppa pronounce intercessio on the request of Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix against Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, Consul of Nova Roma and against Marcus Iulius Severus, Consul of Nova Roma on the grounds that their instructions in respect of the recent election for Censor suffectus, held in the comitia centuriata, to “invalidate the tiebreak and order that the sortes are thrown again and with base in the following result, the diribitores should count the votes again” as contained in Message 66963 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/66963, violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
>
> “While it shall be called to order by either a consul or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally.”
>
> The consuls actions ha
> ve created a rule by which the processes of the comitia centuriata will be altered in a manner which is not supported in any law passed for that purpose within the comitia centuriata. The consuls and/or Pontifex Maximus cannot create a rule by which the comitia centuriata shall function in relation to tie breaking, otherwise known as the “lot”. The change in process will effectively bind future consuls to follow this practice and as such usurps the function of law, and thus violates the letter and /or spirit of Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution. The consuls imperium does not extend to overturning the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal processes.
>
> The specific supporting reasons and/or background information and explanation for this intercessio are.
>
>    1. The intercessio is against both consuls for in the above message Consul Marcus Curiatius Complutensis states “The consuls we have studied the situation derived from the recent extraordinary elections and have asked for advice to the Pontifex Maximus, have both agreed to this most recent action” and also “For this motive we have decided to”. Even though message 66963 is only signed by Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, the reference to this being a collegiate decision requires intercessio be issued against both consuls.
>
>    2. Section III.B of the Constitution makes no reference to the manner of breaking ties and the only reference to tie breaking in the Lex Fabia de ratione co
> mitiorum centuriatorum describes the process for doing so as by “lot”.
>
>    3. The dictionary definition, of “lot” in the absence of any definition provided under the Constitution or any lex is “an object used as a counter in determining a question by chance2 a: the use of lots as a means of deciding something b: the resulting choice” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lot%5b1] The Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum requires no more than this as a definition of the process of tie breaking or the “lot” therefore.
>
>    4. Therefore by invalidating the tiebreak the consuls have created a rule that exists outside of the Constitution and the Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, and by doing so have violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, as quoted above, by usurping the power and/or function of law and the rights of the comitia centuriata.
>
>    5. The consuls have thus illegally and unconstitutionally arrogated the right to create two  rules for the operation of an election in the Comitia Centuriata, contarary to Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, namely:
>          1. That tie breaks once decided can be invalidated and the tie break repeated.
>          2. That the process of the “lot” shall be by dice of a metal or bone construction.
>
>    6. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not specific to this election, and therefore canno
> t have limited effect. The action of the consuls will therefore create a rule that will have to be followed in subsequent elections as it is supposedly based on a religious objection to using plastic dice in the process of tie-breaking or “lot”. This action will therefore lead to subsequent consuls also having to bind themselves to this illegal and unconstitutional rule, and thereby place themselves in jeopardy of violating Section III.B of of the Constitution, or risk claims of religious impropriety in the tie breaking or “lot”.
>
>    7. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus is not the policy of the Collegium Pontificum, nor the Collegium Augurum. Further the advice of the Pontifex Maximus ignores the method of public sortition used Ancient Rome, and does not even create an approximation of the religious elements of that sortititon. The advice of the Pontifex Maximus has failed completely to address:
>
>          1. What ancient Roman model of sortition to use in Nova Roma for tie breaking in the electoral process, be the methodology used in the comitia or the one for provincial allocation, or another.
>          2. Which deity would be the counterintuitive agent.
>          3. How, when magistrates live in different parts of the world the same implements of sortition would be used by the custodes and the effect on the length of elections that would have.
>          4. What the design
> of the implements of sortition would be, whether it would be a cista or a hydria for the container and what material the lots would be constructed from.
>          5. Where the implements would be stored, as traditionally they were housed in the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.
>          6. What rituals would accompany the sortition process.
>          7. How Nova Roma would accommodate the requirement for an augural presence in public sortition.
>          8. What safeguards would be in place to ensure that errors in the sortition were detected.
>          9. What training would be provided to mark out the templum necessary for the performance of public sortition.
>
>    8. The Pontifex Maximus has claimed that Plastic is alleged to be unnatural due to the molecular alteration of its material, and thus cannot have a natural numen, which leads to its inability to receive the numina through which the Gods could influence the outcome. A metal such as bronze, favored by the Pontifex Maximus as an alternative, is an alloy. An alloy “is a partial or complete solid solution of one or more elements in a metallic matrix.” (Wikipedia). A solid solution is a solid-state solution of one or more solutes in a solvent.
>
> When the issue with the use of a polymer in the construction of the die is based on the molecular alteration of the material, consider that a disruption occurs=2
> 0also in solid solutions.
>
> “The solute may incorporate into the solvent crystal lattice substitutionally, by replacing a solvent particle in the lattice, or interstitially, by fitting into the space between solvent particles. Both of these types of solid solution affect the properties of the material by distorting the crystal lattice and disrupting the physical and electrical homogeneity of the solvent material’ (Wikipedia).
>
> Plastic as the Pontifex Maximus has stated is a polymer is usually a polymer, which is a large molecule of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds.
>
> A covalent bond is “characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, or between atoms and other covalent bonds.” (Wikipedia). Covalent bonding can occur naturally, for example Hydrogen cyanide, a linear molecule, with a triple bond between carbon and nitrogen, which is present in fruits that have pits, such as cherries. It also has been detected in the interstellar medium. Covalent chemical bonding is not therefore an unatural and artificial process.
>
> While polymer in popular usage suggests plastic, the term actually refers to a “large class of natural and synthetic materials with a variety of properties.” (Wikipedia). Polymers can be either natural or synthetic. Natural polymers would be for example rubber. “Plastic” as a term is therefore too wide a description to be of much use in determining the issue. What was the material used in the construction of the die i
> n question? Was the die acyrilic? Was it resin? Was it polymethyl methacrylate? Was it a cellulose based plastic, either cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?
>
> The reason for this level of inquiry concerning the material used is that some materials have as their base a naturally occurring substance. For example cellulose nitrate uses cotton as its cellulose base, while cellulose acetate uses cotton or tree pulp. Resins can be naturally occurring or synthetic.
>
> Therefore polymers, which are all based on naturally occurring substances, be they organic materials or chemical elements, share a level of disruption at a molecular level with a solid solution found in alloys, of which bronze is one. Creating an alloy such as bronze involves a chemical process. Additionally when applying chromium, iron, cobalt and copper to a bronze surface, molecular changes take place in the bronze. So if molecular changes take place in bronze, asserted to be a more “natural” substance than a polymer, does this affect its ability to accommodate a numen?  There is no evidence of any detailed research into this matter, therefore the issue of molecular changes somehow interfering with the ability of an object to host a numen maybe a substantiated claim or a specious one. There is simply a lack of evidence and research either way.
>
> Consequently the argument that a polymer cannot have a natural numen could be contradictory, given the natural base of the compounds and the fact that bronze, which is assumed to be more “nat
> ural” and is a solid solution, has a level of disruption. The chemical processes maybe artificially stimulated but as per covalent bonding, this isn’t a man made process, as it occurs in the natural world.
>
>    9. Therefore the Pontifex Maximus has advanced a claim regarding the inability of plastic to host a numen which is unsubstantiated by any detailed research and discussion by the Collegium Pontificum or the Collegium Augurum, and furthermore advances a recommendation for a change in the process of tie breaking or “lot” which would not only be illegal and unconstitutional, but also which is not a historic recreation, nor even an approximation, of the Ancient Roman method of public sortition. There would continue to be a complete lack of religious ritual accompanying the tie breaking thus rendering false or unreliable the claim that the recommended change in the tie breaking process enhances the reliability of the tie breaking or “lot” and in some way represents the will of the Gods or some unspecified God.
>
>   10. Finally the “Law of Contagion” which the Pontifex Maximus has referenced as somehow connected to the Religio Romana was first articulated as a “law” as far as can be determined by Sir James George Frazer in his "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion". No evidence can be found that the Collegium Pontificum has ever researched this matter and determined its role in public sortition rituals in Ancient Rome
>
> Therefor
> e the Consuls have not only clearly violated Section III.B of the Nova Roman Constitution, by usurping the right of the comitia centuriata to determine its own internal rules, which is grounds alone for the intercessio, but they have done so based on spurious and/or false and/or poorly researched claims by the Pontifex Maximus concerning the nature of public sortition in Ancient Rome and/or unproven claims regarding the corruption of the current process, and by claiming falsely an enhanced religious component to the tie breaking or “lot” which will effectively bind further consuls to have to decide between also violating this section of the Constitution or risking false claims of religious impropriety in tie breaking.
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribunus Plebis
>

N. Apollonius Quadratus Caeso Fabio Buteo Modiano salutem plurimam dicit.

Sir, that kind of pillow talk is not appreciated here. Next thing you're going to tell me is you plan on going a round or two on boggle. That's just wrong. What's next pictionary? You morally depraved monster! Think of the children!

Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus N. Apollonio Quadrato salutem dicit
>
> Thank you. I do consider myself a nice fellow, and while I do enjoy a nice
> game of scrabble I don't think you have anything to worry about. I played a
> few games last night, and will likely play again this morning. Fun times.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM, n_apollonius_quadratus <
> n_apollonius_quadratus@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > N. Apollonius Quadratus Q. Poplicola salutem plurimam dicit.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble finding it. The ML does kind of get
> > washed with posts rather fast. I'm still trying to find it, unless you
> > already have it. I would appreciate a link, but I don't want to bother you.
> > Thanks again for replying to that post, and when I find it, I will look
> > forward to reading it.
> >
> > On a side note, I just want to say I am truly neutral on the matter of
> > Modianus candidacy. If the law was written differently, I would clearly have
> > said his candidacy is wrong. I like Modianus, and he seems like a nice guy,
> > though I wouldn't play scrabble with him. Apart from that, I do believe this
> > certain election was extremely iffy and very legally uncomfortable. I
> > recommend the powers that be rework that law so this doesn't happen again.
> > Though, I would like to see what Cn. Caesar said, and your reply as well, Q.
> > Poplicola. Thanks again for helping me get a better perspective of the
> > affairs in Nova Roma.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Aurelianus Complutensis sal.

Tribunus Appius Galerius Aurelianus' statement of congratulation doesn't constitute official disagreement with the intercessio issued by Agrippa & with which I agreed.  Ap. Galerius Aurelianus issued his official disagreement after the 72 hour period for agreement and disagreement had elapsed.  This the intercessio stands . . . unless you are going to ignore the leges and ignore this intercessio also.

If you are going to do that, just let me know now so I will not waste my time by arguing further. 

Vale.


-----Original Message-----
From: M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 21, 2009 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: My Statement of Opposition to the Intercessio!

Cato Ggualtero Graeco sal.

Salve.

Of the two suggestions, I highly prefer the first:

"We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as a spiritual Nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common society. As a nation, Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of Republican Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the granting of the title of Augustus to Octavian in 27 BCE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.

As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic, Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as its modern restoration."

For a couple of reasons, the least not being that it cuts a politicized Christianity out of the realm of a possible antagonism to the religio, a fear that - although completely absurd and utterly unfounded - has been voiced here in the Forum before. I would even go so far as to retract the time frame to c. 509-138 BC.

Vale,

Cato

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

I am willing to accept this disagreement with Agrippa's intercessio from Tribunus Plebis C. Pompeius Marcellus as valid IF he will write to me privately and confirm that all that is written here under is name is the truth. I trust the words and actions of my colleagues to be honorable and free of guile.

For obvious reasons, I do not accept the word of M. Cur. Complutensis Consul.

However, since I agreed with the intercessio and Ap. Galerius Aurelianus' disagreement came too late to be valid. The intercessio stands as legal and valid. Two tribunes in agreement trumps one disagreement and two abstentions.

Valete.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete
>
> I am forwarding this message from Tribunus Plebis C. Pompeius Marcellus
> with his permission.
>
> Valete
>
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
> Consul
>
> -------- Mensaje original --------
> Asunto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations
> Fecha: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:51:32 -0600
> De: James Hooper <warrior44_us@...>
> Para: M.C.C. <complutensis@...>
> Referencias: <h1ehke+os9h@...>
> <814c56690906191432l760cd762j747af5b050c9bb9c@...>
> <web-24378709@...> <4A3C07E2.7000500@...>
>
>
>
> Salve Consul,
> Please do sir.
> Vale,
> C. Pompeius Marcellus
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:49:22 +0200
> "M.C.C." <complutensis@...> wrote:
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul C. Pompeio Marcello Tribuno Plebis S.P.D.
> >
> > Thanks for your reply, can I post this message in the ML?
> >
> > Cura ut valeas
> >
> > M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> > CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
> > CONSVL HISPANIAE
> >
> > NOVA ROMA
> >
> > James Hooper escribió:
> >> Salve Consul Complutensis,
> >> In my opinion the people have spoken and these
> >> citizens should be seated. No I do not agree with the intersessio as I
> >> understand it.
> >> Vale,
> >> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus tribunis Plebis SPD
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:32:55 +0200
> >> M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...> wrote:
> >>> M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul C. Pompeio Marcello Tribuno Plebis
> >>> S.P.D.
> >>>
> >>> Can I understand with this your message to congratulate all the
> >>> candidates
> >>> of the recent election that you think that the elections are valid and
> >>> therefore you are against the intercessio issued by your collegae?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance for your quickly reply
> >>>
> >>> Cura ut valeas
> >>>
> >>> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> >>> CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
> >>> CONSVL HISPANIAE
> >>>
> >>> NOVA ROMA
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2009/6/19 gaius_pompeius_marcellus <warrior44_us@...>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Salve,
> >>>> May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the candiddates who
> >>>> stood
> >>>> for election and won. To those who did not win, do not give up. you
> >>>> may get
> >>>> your chance to serve our beloved republic before you know it.
> >>>> Vale,
> >>>> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> BB,
> >> Warrior
> >>
> >
> > --
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis
> >
> > COMMENTARIOLA HISPANIAE
> ><http://feeds2.feedburner.com/%7Er/CommentariolaHispaniae/%7E6/1>
> >
> > ? Grab this Headline Animator
> ><http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=h2caom68v18dju1ktk0gkre39o&w=1>
> >
>
> BB,
> Warrior
>
>
>
> --
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
>
> COMMENTARIOLA HISPANIAE
> <http://feeds2.feedburner.com/%7Er/CommentariolaHispaniae/%7E6/1>
>
> ? Grab this Headline Animator
> <http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=h2caom68v18dju1ktk0gkre39o&w=1>
>

Scrabble, Pictionary, Boggle! Aaagh the horror! I'm calling the praetor to moderate you both.

hmmph! [anyone fancy mah johngg?]
Maior

> N. Apollonius Quadratus Caeso Fabio Buteo Modiano salutem plurimam dicit.
>
> Sir, that kind of pillow talk is not appreciated here. Next thing you're going to tell me is you plan on going a round or two on boggle. That's just wrong. What's next pictionary? You morally depraved monster! Think of the children!
>
> Vale.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus N. Apollonio Quadrato salutem dicit
> >
> > Thank you. I do consider myself a nice fellow, and while I do enjoy a nice
> > game of scrabble I don't think you have anything to worry about. I played a
> > few games last night, and will likely play again this morning. Fun times.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:37 AM, n_apollonius_quadratus <
> > n_apollonius_quadratus@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > N. Apollonius Quadratus Q. Poplicola salutem plurimam dicit.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I'm having some trouble finding it. The ML does kind of get
> > > washed with posts rather fast. I'm still trying to find it, unless you
> > > already have it. I would appreciate a link, but I don't want to bother you.
> > > Thanks again for replying to that post, and when I find it, I will look
> > > forward to reading it.
> > >
> > > On a side note, I just want to say I am truly neutral on the matter of
> > > Modianus candidacy. If the law was written differently, I would clearly have
> > > said his candidacy is wrong. I like Modianus, and he seems like a nice guy,
> > > though I wouldn't play scrabble with him. Apart from that, I do believe this
> > > certain election was extremely iffy and very legally uncomfortable. I
> > > recommend the powers that be rework that law so this doesn't happen again.
> > > Though, I would like to see what Cn. Caesar said, and your reply as well, Q.
> > > Poplicola. Thanks again for helping me get a better perspective of the
> > > affairs in Nova Roma.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Cn. Iulio Caesar sal.

I have attempted to answer your four questions by posting several notes on the list. However, to be clear, I will reiterate here.

1. I respect the honor and dignity of all of my colleagues. If. C. Pompeius Marcellus writes me either publicly or privately stating that he did write all that C. Cur. Complutensis forwarded to the ML, then I will accept his disagreement as valid. However, unless he does so, I will consider the messages posted to the ML by Complutensis Consul and the disagreement contained therein to be invalid. I trust my colleagues but I no longer trust anything Complutensis Consul writes in his own name or that of another citizen.

2. & 3. A note of congratulations does not constitute an official agreement or disagreement with an intercessio. Ap. Galerius Aurelianus made his position clear when he issued his statement of disagreement but since it came too late (after Saturday, June 20, at 9:28 p.m.) it is invalid. From Appius Galerius Aurelianus' own hand, it is clear that he did not consider his note of congratulation to be an official disagreement.

4. I see the results as two Tribunes agreeing, one in disagreement
*(IF Marcellus validates what Complutensis posted to the mainlist), and two in abstention.

*There may have been perfectly good reasons why Marcellus could not post his disagreement to the mainlist and I am not willing to damn his disagreement just because Complutensis Consul practices double standards.

I hope that this answers all of your questions.

Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar Fl. Galerio Aurelanio Tribuno Plebis SPD
>
> May I ask your opinion on four questions?
>
> First, even should your colleague C. Pompeius Marcellus re-state it, in your opinion would it have any legal effect as the required 72 hours have passed?
>
> Secondly, concerning the Consul's statement that the late intercessio of your colleague Tribune Appius Galerius Aurelianus was just a confirmation of an earlier objection in the form of a congratulatory note?
>
> Thirdly, does the earlier congratulatory note of Appius Galerius Aurelianus meet the test of an official disagreement with the intercessio? Aurelianus himself seemed in his late intercessio to confirm that he had to voice opposition officially and the form of that late intercessio was worded accordingly to meet those requirements.
>
> Fourthly, is not the net effect of an improper disagreement and a late intercessio (almost an hour after the deadline) that the intercessio stands, being 2 Tribunes in favor and none opposing?
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...
> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:22 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations
>
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> My colleague, C. Pompeius Marcellus, has not properly framed his disagreement according to the laws governing such a disagreement. He should withdraw his improper disagreement, re-state it according to the proper laws, and publish it again. Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing in regard to the current intercessio issued by Agrippa and with which I have agreed.
>
> Valete.
>

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d

My esteemed colleague and honorable cousin, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, posted his disagreement with the intercessio on Saturday, June 20, at 10:23 p.m. This was almost one hour past the time that his disagreement would have been legally acceptable. I am sure that the worthy Praetor Albucius would agree with me 100% because he used the difference of less than one hour to invalidate a previous intercessio.

The intercessio of Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa will be allowed to stand unless the Consuls are prepared to ignore this one, too. Oh well, at least their names were spelled correctly.

Valete.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> As a Tribunis Plebus has three options in their decision making process. I am before you now, to render my stance,on the intercessio filed by my fellow Tribunis Plebus Agrippa.
>
> Of the three choices there is agreement,opposition and abstention.
>
> I am in complete opposition to this intercessio!
>
> I do not think I can make it any clearer than that.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> Tribunis Plebus
>

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Cn. Iulio Caesar sal.

I have attempted to answer your four questions by posting several notes on the list.  However, to be clear, I will reiterate here.

For several days now, I have been receiving some messages that come days after they were sent. A few other Yahoo users have told me that they, too, are experiencing the same thing. I think this is a Yahoo problem, but I could be wrong.   Maxima Valeria Messallina   --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Patrick D. Owen <brotherpaganus@...> wrote: From: Patrick D. Owen <brotherpaganus@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Certain messages are not posting To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 7:57 PM I have recently posted several messages to the main list including statements concerning the tardiness of Ap. Galerius Aurelianus' disagreement with the intercession; the illegality of forwarding a supposed disagreement from a Tribune by Complutensis Consu; and a statement in which I stated that the intercessio of Agrippa is allowed to stand. These messages have not been posted appropriately. I do hope that this has been a mistake of some sort and that my messages are not be deliberately deleted by someone in authority such as one of the Praetores or Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. If this has occurred, I will be most put out. Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus s.p.d.

I believe that it is important to try to be as civil as possible on the lists although I should publicly apologize for some of my recent remarks posted on Friday.  I lost my composure and wrote several posts that I regret writing and no amount of provocation can excuse it.

It is proper that those posting on the ML should use the proper forms and use of NR titles and names.  Even though I will not address a post to Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus as censor since I believe he is not entitled to hold that office, I should still address him by his NR name and might add Senator, Pontifex, or Augur.  I could even address him as Caeso Fabius Buteo or even Modianus(-o or -e) but I would only address him as David in private communication.

Let us all try to maintain our composure and civility during these trying times.

Valete.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 11:48 am
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Protecting Our Votes and Future Elections

Poplicola Aureliano sal.

If you say that indeed he desires this office not out of any greed, I'll believe you, and withdraw my statement, mi amice Pontifex.

Cura ut ualeas.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Aurelianus Poplicola sal.
>
> This is a nonsensical statement, flamen.? To be King of the Sacrifices would require that a citizen also be married and that his wife would be the Queen of the Sacrifices but it would also effectively end the Rex et Regina Sacrorum's collective political careers.? This sacred office fulfills the ancient duties of that the Kings of Rome practiced on behalf of the People.? Had Modianus remained married and his wife was willing to serve with him, I would have welcomed his service because he would likely have been the best possible candidate.? I am very sorry that he has ended his long marriage and I genuinely liked his wife on the occasions we met.? I regret that he will not be able to fill this very important office that is essential for the restoration of the Sacra Publica et Religio Romana.
>
> I believe that you should consider withdrawing the post below because it is not political office that he desired when he wanted to become the Rex Sacrorum but a life of service to the Religio on behalf of the Senate and People of Nova Roma.
>
> Vale.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 8:19 am
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Protecting Our Votes and Future Elections
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You love playing ignorant, don't you? You've stated recently on the
> Collegium Pontificum list that you wanted to be King of the Sacred Rites. Do
> I need to forward your message on here? In fact, you've stated this for
> years, as it was on your blog.. It's not enough that you be Pontifex and
> augur, but you want to be king! It is on account of ignoble intentions that
> you desire these things, and desire them all at once, and that marks you as
> one who supports not the Republic, but a title-grabber, one who would rather
> be Princeps Imperii then Nova Roma's humble servant.
>
> It's simple, you show a consistent pattern of desiring power and removing
> those who block you. Thus falls Cincinnatus, Cassius, Sulla, and I suspect
> soon others, since I highly doubt that you or the consuls have the courage
> to do the right and legal thing and either appoint a dictator to suspend the
> constitution or call for new elections.
>
> Poplicola
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Q. Valerio Poplicolae salutem dicit
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that you were an educated youth. You do know
> > > that censor is a non-imperium bearing magistrate that deals mostly with
> > > administrative duties right? The closest magistrates we have in Nova
> > > Roma
> > > to kings would be the consules (have you read Livy?). Are you
> > > insinuating
> > > that it is my goal to tyrannically approve citizenship appointments? Or
> > > how
> > > about appoint senators without a colleague (oh, wait that was done
> > > already)?
> > >
> > > Young Flamen, you do your cause no service by participating in these
> > > discussions -- perhaps you should stick to the Back Alley and give the
> > > more
> > > mature amongst you the opportunity to evade and deflect.
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Modianus
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <
> > > q.valerius.poplicola@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma won't be able to move on until the consuls obey the
> > > > sacrosanct
> > > > tribunes and call new elections.
> > > >
> > > > OR a dictator is appointed, and the tyrannical Modianus who desires to
> > > > be
> > > > King will be complete.
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus N. Apollonio Quadrato salutem dicit

Wait wait!  I at least spelled all my words correctly!  Now pictionary... that would be fun times.  No children in sight, no worries, at least I hope not!

Vale;

Modianus

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:07 PM, n_apollonius_quadratus <n_apollonius_quadratus@...> wrote:

N. Apollonius Quadratus Caeso Fabio Buteo Modiano salutem plurimam dicit.

Sir, that kind of pillow talk is not appreciated here. Next thing you're going to tell me is you plan on going a round or two on boggle. That's just wrong. What's next pictionary? You morally depraved monster! Think of the children!

Vale.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

I will be ignoring it.  You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum.  It should have been done during the contio.

Vale;

Modianus

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Patrick D. Owen <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:

The intercessio of Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa will be allowed to stand unless the Consuls are prepared to ignore this one, too. Oh well, at least their names were spelled correctly.

Valete. 

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

I am not a moderator of the main list, and never have been.  Thanks for accusing me.

Vale;

Modianus

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Patrick D. Owen <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:

I have recently posted several messages to the main list including statements concerning the tardiness of Ap. Galerius Aurelianus' disagreement with the intercession; the illegality of forwarding a supposed disagreement from a Tribune by Complutensis Consu; and a statement in which I stated that the intercessio of Agrippa is allowed to stand. These messages have not been posted appropriately.

I do hope that this has been a mistake of some sort and that my messages are not be deliberately deleted by someone in authority such as one of the Praetores or Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. If this has occurred, I will be most put out.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
Tribunus Plebis

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

I will be ignoring it.  You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum.  It should have been done during the contio.

Vale;

Modianus

Wrong intercessio.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit
>
> I will be ignoring it. You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex
> de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum. It should have been done during the
> contio.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Patrick D. Owen
> <brotherpaganus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > The intercessio of Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa will be allowed to stand unless
> > the Consuls are prepared to ignore this one, too. Oh well, at least their
> > names were spelled correctly.
> >
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul Fl. Falerio Aureliano et omnibus SPD

Tribuno you are wrong, the official time used in Nova Roma is the Roma Time, therefore the veto was issued in June 18

	67135	Intercessio Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD I Gaius Vipsanius Agrppa pronounce intercessio on the request of Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix against...	canadaoccidentalis@ya... gaiusagrippa	Jun 18, 2009 4:29 am

In June 18 Tribunus Appius Galerius Aurelianus wrote his support to the election of  K. Fabius Buteo Modianus

67231

Congradulations! Salve Modianus, Congradulations to your recent victory.You have my full support.I certainly hope that we can all here in Nova Roma move on and begin the work,...

Robert Levee galerius_of_...

Jun 18, 2009 4:34 pm

In June 18 you supported the intercessio of Tribunus Vipsanius Agrippa :

67246

Re: Intercessio - Agreement of Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Pleb Flavius Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d. I support the intercession of my brother, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa.  I encourage all of the Tribunes to...

PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com

Jun 18, 2009 5:42 pm

In June 18 Tribunus C. Pompeius Marcellus acepted the results of the election and the election of K.Fabius Buteo Modianus as Censor Suffectus:

67369

Congratulations Salve, May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the candiddates who stood for election and won. To those who did not win, do not give up. you may get...

gaius_pompeius_marcel... gaius_pompei...

Jun 19, 2009 1:12 am

Now you prefer to ignore reality and decide to accuse me of falsifying a message forwarded to this list. Your accusations are very serious and I hope that you are able to demonstrate them (with evidences).

Tribunus C. Pompeius Marcellus authorized me to forward here his message of disagreement:

67513

[Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations] Salvete I am forwarding this message from Tribunus Plebis C. Pompeius Marcellus with his permission. Valete M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul ... Asunto: Re:...

M.C.C. complutensis

Jun 19, 2009 11:57 pm

remember that Tribunus Ap. Galerius Aurelianus congratules K. Fabius Buteo Modianus for his election as Censor Suffectus. This congratulation cannot be interpreted otherwise than a rejection of the veto issued by his colleagues.


It is shameful that a person elected to defend the legality of Nova Roma act like you're doing, first you have stated that you as Tribunus can veto anything  on the term you want (trying to veto the candidates after the announcement of the results), second fining all the those citizens that have disagree publicly with your statements and now ignoring the messages of disagreement of your colleagues.

You accused me of use of double standards because you have declared yourself the highest authority in Nova Roma when you know that Agrippa and you are acting illegally.

The results of this discussion are clear to all the citizens of Nova Roma except to you and a few of people: this is an attempt to boycott the normal work of Nova Roma.

Your loftiness prevents you from seeing beyond your nose.

You contradict yourself: first you affirm that a tribune can issue his statement/intercessio anytime indipendently of the timeframe of 72 hours, and now you do not accept a confirmation message of your colleagues.

The much vaunted double standards are applied only by you.

Vale

It is all inter-related.  These rounds of intercessio were attempts at blocking me as censor, that is the sole intention.  You cannot veto comitia results, plain and simple.  I don't acknowledge either round of intercessio.  It should have been done during the contio.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:

Wrong intercessio.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit
>
> I will be ignoring it. You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex
> de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum. It should have been done during the
> contio.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus

M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul Fl. Falerio Aureliano et omnibus SPD

Cn Iulius Caesar Consuli SPD

Correction: Tribune Ap. Galerius Aurelianus issued his official statement on 9.24 pm 20th June or 5.24 am Roma Time 21st June.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar Consuli SPD
>
> Consul, the intercessio was issued at 8.29 pm MT on 17th June, or 4.29 am Roma Time 18th June. The deadline would therefore have been 72 hours later, or 8.29 pm 20th June or 4.29 am Roma Time 21st June.

L. Coruncanius Cato C. Mariae Caecae SPD In the Law Review Comitee I asked the same question. As it is has been very well proven, this law IS poorly written and must be clarified. And no, work on this poor written law has not begun yet. But it is easy to fix that. Just changing "consecutive terms" for something as "no person can run for the office in two consecutive years" after the 'five years' period' paragraph. Di vos incolumem custodiant. -- L. Coruncanius Cato Aedilis Curulis Scriba Consulis Hispaniae --- El dom, 21/6/09, C. Maria Caeca <shoshanahathaway@...> escribió: De: C. Maria Caeca <shoshanahathaway@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] question for the Magistrates and Senate Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: domingo, 21 junio, 2009 6:17 Salvete, I wish to set recent history aside, for the moment, if I may, because I have another issue, which deals with the future. One of the few things on which most people whose posts I have read (and I've read them all) agree is that the Lex Cornelia Iunia should be significantly revised, to clarify the language and specify whether "consecutive" refers to the term or the person serving in that term. My question is this: Has work begun on this revision or revamping? If not, I urge that it begin, now, while the controversy and its ramifications are fresh in our minds. Most respectfully, C. Maria Caeca

Caesar Modiano SPD

The 2nd intercessio was issued because the Consul flouted the constitution by creating a rule by ordering a second tie break, and only the comitia centuriata through passage of a law can create such a rule. So says the Constitution, clearly.

The consul's opinion was that the vote was corrupted. His method of solving that supposed corruption was unconstitutional and illegal, clearly. You just have to read the relevant section of the constitution. Therefore the valid intercessio means that the vote remains corrupted and your illegal (twice over) claim to be suffectus censor must therefore likewise be corrupted.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> It is all inter-related. These rounds of intercessio were attempts at
> blocking me as censor, that is the sole intention. You cannot veto comitia
> results, plain and simple. I don't acknowledge either round of
>

In Nova Roma there is only one person inmune from "follow the law" and this man is Mr. LANAVINUS aka Sulla aka Prophet of Nova Roma aka Aleck aka.......

Oh, magnificus et transparentissimus Sullae, you suppose that I am a puppet, but I know you're a sockpuppet: and your puppeteer is your egocentrism.

Vir clarissimus Sullae, you know it all, please answer a question: When you close your big mouth?

You said that a new election is needed and I support your idea: we need a new election to elect you as Big Charlatan of Nova Roma.

Follow the law, follow the law......


Why you haven't follow the law when you impose your wish to become senator of Nova Roma?

Because you are inmune from the law of Nova Roma..........

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

You wrote:

"You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum."



Even if the lex you reference did do what you say it does - and as has been amply demonstrated it does *not* do it:

"This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma...[s]hould a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." - from Const. N.R., I.B

"Five tribunes of the plebs shall ... have the following honors, powers, and obligations: To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" - op.cit., VI.A.7.a

They most certainly *can* veto *any* act of *any* magistrate as described.


You also wrote:

"These rounds of intercessio were attempts at blocking me as censor, that is the sole intention. You cannot veto comitia results, plain and simple. I don't acknowledge either round of intercessio."

You and your supporters keep trying to pretend that the comitia results themselves are being vetoed in order to stir up the People by not only pretending that their "will" is being violated but also that we are a democracy; you know full well that they are not, as it is impossible to veto an act committed by anyone who is not a magistrate, the law *is* the stated will of the People, and we are a Roman republic, not an ancient Greek democracy.

You do not as a private citizen do not, and would not as a magistrate of the Respublica, have the authority or right to decide whether or not you will "acknowledge" the tribunes acting in accordance with the law. You are bound by the law as a citizen of the Respublica to obey it. This is the Respublica, not some petty private fiefdom in which you - or anyone else - may act according to their own wishes.

Vale,

Cato

Cato Mariae Caecae sal.

Salve.

I have suggested an alternate wording in the Consular Committee on Law Review, as follows:

"One of the easiest ways is simply to say that anyone who serves as a magistrate must wait 12 calendar months before assuming another elected office. It's an ancient Roman idea, and it would work. Add a rider that the Senate may waive this on a case-by-case, individual basis by a vote of 75%, just in case, sort of like the age thing but stricter." - posted Fri May 29, 2009 12:15 pm

Whether or not it will go anywhere from there is anyone's guess at this point.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato C. Mariae Caecae SPD
>
> In the Law Review Comitee I asked the same question. As it is has been very well proven, this law IS poorly written and must be clarified. And no, work on this poor written law has not begun yet. But it is easy to fix that. Just changing "consecutive terms" for something as "no person can run for the office in two consecutive years" after the 'five years' period' paragraph.
>
> Di vos incolumem custodiant.
>
> --
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Aedilis Curulis
>
> Scriba Consulis Hispaniae
>
> --- El dom, 21/6/09, C. Maria Caeca <shoshanahathaway@...> escribió:
>
> De: C. Maria Caeca <shoshanahathaway@...>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] question for the Magistrates and Senate
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: domingo, 21 junio, 2009 6:17
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
>
>
> I wish to set recent history aside, for the moment, if I may, because I have
>
> another issue, which deals with the future. One of the few things on which
>
> most people whose posts I have read (and I've read them all) agree is that
>
> the Lex Cornelia Iunia should be significantly revised, to clarify the
>
> language and specify whether "consecutive" refers to the term or the person
>
> serving in that term. My question is this: Has work begun on this revision
>
> or revamping? If not, I urge that it begin, now, while the controversy and
>
> its ramifications are fresh in our minds.
>
>
>
> Most respectfully,
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos servavissent semper.

Hodie est ante diem X Kalendas Quinctilias; haec dies comitialis est:

AUC 536 / 217 BCE: Battle of Raphia

On the day following Rome's defeat at Lake Transimene perhaps the largest battle in ancient history was fought at Raphia. Our main
source on the battle is Polybius (5.63-65; 5.79-86). This was the deciding battle of the Fourth Syrian War between the Seleucids under
Anthiocus III and an Egyptian army under Ptolemy IV. Anthiochus had been marching through the Levant seizing one Ptolemaic stronghold after another. Ptolemy bided his time for nearly two years as he raised an army to meet the Seleucids. Polybius places the Ptolemaic army at 50,000 infantry composed of 8,000 Greek mercenaries, 25,000 phalangites, 6,000 Gauls and Thracians, 3,000 Cretans, 3,000 Libyan pikemen, 3,000 royal guards, and some 2,000 lightly armed peltists. Another 20,000 Egyptians had been trained by Sosibius in the heavy infantry tactics of the Greek hoplites. Ptolemy also brought 5,000 cavalry and 73 elephants. Antiochus III had an army of 62,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 102 Indian elephants. His infantry included 20,000 regular phalangites and 10,000 argyraspides armed with the longer, two-handed pike (sarissa). In addition there were 5,000 Greek mercenaries, 2,500 Cretans, 1,000 Thracians, and 23,500 Asiatics of different composition and readiness.

As Ptolemy began to move his army out of Egypt, Antiochus rushed towards Gaza. Bound by the desert to his left, and by coastal sand
dunes on his right, Anthiochus was channelled through a broad flat plane 5.6 km wide. The armies then met one another just south of
Raphia, and then they camped for five days within 900 meters of each other before forming battle lines. The battle began with each army advancing their cavalry on their respective right wings. Anthiochus led his cavalry in a charge that swept Ptolemy's left wing from the battlefield. Then in his eagerness, Antiochus continued in pursuit while the real battle had not yet begun. On the Egyptian right Ptolemy likewise led a cavalry charge that initially had some success. But when checked, Ptolemy extracted his cavalry in order to cover his flanks. The main engagement came with the phalanxes at the center. Ptolemy's phalanxes outnumbered those of the Syrian
phalanxes, and apparently they were better trained as well. The Syrian phalangites bolted after the first charge, and they were soon
followed by what were suppose to be Antiochus' elite infantry. These were the Silver Shields that had evolved from Philip of Macedonia's guard infantry (hypsaspists). With Antiochus away from the center of fighting, and his phalanxes defeated at the center, his army collapsed. In the engagements on the flanks Ptolemy lost 700 cavalry to Antiochus' loss of only 300. But in the center Antiochus lost 14,000 infantry, killed, wounded, or captured. Ptolemy's infantry suffered only 1,500 men lost. Antiochus returned to his capital and a truce was agreed upon. In the war Antiochus regained Antioch on the Orontes, which had been lost to the Ptolemies during the Third Syrian War. Ptolemy IV regained Coele-Syria or what is today Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon.


AUC 585 / 168 CE: L. Aemilius Paulus brings the Third Macedonian War to an end with his defeat of Perseus at the Battle of Pydna,

"Against the intention of both commanders Fortune, who overrides the plans of men, brought about a conflict. There was a river, not a
large one, near the enemy's camp from which both the Romans and the Macedonians drew their water, protected by detachments stationed on either bank. On the Roman side were two cohorts, Marrucinians and Paelignians, and two squadrons of Samnite horse under the command of M. Sergius Silus. Another body was stationed in front of the camp under C. Cluvius; these consisted of Firman, Vestinian and Cremensian troops, and two squadrons of cavalry from Placentia and Aeserna. Whilst all was quiet at the river, neither side offering any provocation, a mule broke loose about three o'clock in the afternoon from the men in charge and escaped to the opposite bank. Three soldiers went after it through the water, which was up to their knees. Two Thracians were dragging the beast out of the river back to their own bank, when they were followed by some Romans, who killed one of them, recaptured the mule, and went back to their posts. There were 800 Thracians guarding the enemy's bank. A few of these, enraged at seeing a comrade killed before their eyes, ran across the river in pursuit of those who slew him; then more joined in and at last the whole force, and fought with the Roman guards on the bank . . . [Perseus then brought forward his entire phalanx formation, according to Plutarch, and Aemilius brought the Roman battle line to meet the Macedonians.]

"The Consul led the first legion into battle. His men were deeply impressed by reverence for his authority, the reputation he had
acquired, and, above all, his age, for though more than sixty years old, he took upon himself to a large extent the duties and dangers
which are usually the lot of younger men. The interval between the "caetrati" and the divisions of the phalanx was filled up by the
legion, and thus the enemy's line was interrupted. The "caetrati" were in their rear; the legion were fronting the shieldmen of the
phalanx, who were known as the "chalcaspides." L. Albinus, an ex-consul, was ordered to lead the second legion against the phalanx
of "leucaspides"; these formed the centre of the enemy's line. On the Roman right, where the battle had begun, close to the river, he
brought up the elephants and the cohorts of allied troops. It was here that the Macedonians first gave ground. For just as most new
devices amongst men seem valuable as far as words go, but when they are put to a practical test and have to be acted upon they fail to
produce results, so it was with the elephants; those of the Macedonians were of no use whatever. The contingents of the Latin allies followed up the charge of the elephants and repulsed the left wing. The second legion which had been sent against the centre broke
up the phalanx. The most probable explanation of the victory is that several separate engagements were going on all over the field, which first shook the phalanx out of its formation and then broke it up. As long as it was compact, its front bristling with levelled spears, its strength was irresistible. If by attacking them at various points you compel them to bring round their spears, which owing to their length and weight are cumbersome and unwieldy, they become a confused and involved mass, but if any sudden and tumultuous attack is made on their flank or rear, they go to pieces like a falling house. In this way they were forced to meet the repeated charges of small bodies of Roman troops with their front dislocated in many places, and wherever there were gaps the Romans worked their way amongst their ranks. If the whole line had made a general charge against the phalanx while still unbroken, as the Paeligni did at the beginning of the action against the "caetrati," they would have spitted themselves upon their spears and have been powerless against their massed attack.

"The infantry were being slaughtered all over the field; only those who threw away their arms were able to make good their escape. The cavalry, on the other hand, quitted the field with hardly any loss, the king himself being the first to flee. He was already on his way to Pella with his "sacred" cavalry, and Cotys and the Odrysaeans were following at his heels. The rest of the Macedonian horse also got away with their ranks unbroken, because the infantry were between them and the enemy, and the latter were so fully occupied in massacring the infantry that they forgot to pursue the cavalry. For a long time the slaughter of the phalanx went on in front, flank and rear. At last those who had escaped out of the hands of the enemy threw away their arms and fled to the shore; some even went into the water and, stretching out their hands in supplication to the men in the fleet, implored them to save their lives. When they saw boats from all the ships rowing to the place where they were they thought that they were coming to take them up as prisoners rather than slay them, and they waded further into the water, some even swimming. But when they found that they were being killed by the men in the boats, those who could swim back to land met with a more wretched fate, for the elephants, forced by their drivers to the water's edge, trampled on them and crushed them to death as they came out. It is universally admitted that never had so many Macedonians been killed by the Romans in a single battle. As many as 20,000 men perished; 6000 who had fled to Pydna fell into the enemy's hands, and 5000 were made prisoners in their flight. Of the victors not more than 100 fell, and of these the majority were Paelignians; the wounded were much more numerous. If the battle had begun earlier and there had been sufficient daylight for the victors to continue the pursuit, the whole force would have been wiped out. As it was, the approach of night shielded the fugitives and made the Romans wary of following them over unknown country." ~ Titus Livius 44.40-42


AUC 862/ 109 CE: Opening of the Baths of Trajan.

The Thermae Traiani was built by architect Apollodorus for Emperor Traianus and were initially used exclusively by women. It was located immediately to the northeast of the Thermae Titi. The entrance was from the north façade, where the entrance for the Thermae Titi, for men, was on its south side. In order, from north to south, were arranged the frigidarium, central hall, tepidarium, and caldarium in the central portion of the building. On the east, south, and western sides reading rooms and a gymnasium were held within the peribolus, and exedra were placed at the corners.


Our thought for today is from Sextus 53:

"Treat all men in such a way, as if, after God, you are the common curator of all things."

Salvete Nova Romans
 
Modianus has stated in part
 
"The Comitia Centuriata and the Consules proclaimed me censor"
 
But its not about  Modianus,  its about the LAW.
 
Even the people do not trump the law and the constitution unless they FORMALLY
amend it.  

In support of the intercessio of two of the Tribunes:

I will not make Modianus a co-owner of any of the lists under the care of the Censors as he is NOT a legal Censor.

I have removed Modianus pass codes for the Censors tools as he is NOT a legal Censor.
I have also removed them for his illegally appointed scriba.

I have also removed his Censor listing in the Album Civium as he is NOT a legal Censor.
 
I have removed his so called appointments of scriba from the Album Civium as well.
 
Valete
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus 
Censor

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

I am not interested in discussing this with you, and did not actually read your e-mail.

Vale;

Modianus

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

You wrote:

"You cannot veto comitia centuriata results per Lex de ratione comitiorum centuriaorum."

Even if the lex you reference did do what you say it does - and as has been amply demonstrated it does *not* do it:

"This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma...[s]hould a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." - from Const. N.R., I.B

"Five tribunes of the plebs shall ... have the following honors, powers, and obligations: To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" - op.cit., VI.A.7.a

They most certainly *can* veto *any* act of *any* magistrate as described.

You also wrote:

"These rounds of intercessio were attempts at blocking me as censor, that is the sole intention. You cannot veto comitia results, plain and simple. I don't acknowledge either round of intercessio."

You and your supporters keep trying to pretend that the comitia results themselves are being vetoed in order to stir up the People by not only pretending that their "will" is being violated but also that we are a democracy; you know full well that they are not, as it is impossible to veto an act committed by anyone who is not a magistrate, the law *is* the stated will of the People, and we are a Roman republic, not an ancient Greek democracy.

You do not as a private citizen do not, and would not as a magistrate of the Respublica, have the authority or right to decide whether or not you will "acknowledge" the tribunes acting in accordance with the law. You are bound by the law as a citizen of the Respublica to obey it. This is the Respublica, not some petty private fiefdom in which you - or anyone else - may act according to their own wishes.

Vale,

Cato

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Ap. Galerio Aureliano sal.

Cousin, once again your post only marks your personal opinion of the intercessio issued by Agrippa and with which I agreed.  To make it a valid disagreement, you have to frame it according to the laws that govern an official disagreement.  Please take care of this before the time limit runs out to be valid.

Vale.


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 10:23 pm
Subject: [Nova-Roma] My Statement of Opposition to the Intercessio!

Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius M. Cornelio et C. Catoni sal. Salvete, Gualtere et Cato! >>> The fact that apparently only two people (me and Cato) noticed the contradiction between the wiki page time frame and the constitution, a conflict that has been on the website for 2 years, suggests to me no one is really thinking about it. <<< Well, this is a complete mess. 1) First, the person who checked the wiki page history, was not careful enough. The text in this very same form is not there for 2 years, but since the founding of Nova Roma. I was written by one of our founders. What M. Lucretius changed in February 25th 2007, it was only putting the text from an internal page to the website: http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=11102&oldid=11093 You can simply check the history of the introductory text here: http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Nova_Roma&action=history It is unchanged since 2005 when it was transferred from the old website. And it was the same on the old website for 11 years now. So, it is on our website exactly in this form, with these dates for 11 years, since our existence. It is not the first time that without careful examination people make statements about the content and changed on our website, and it's very upsetting when it could be easily checked by a little more research. 2) Secondly, there is no contradiction between the wiki page time frame and the Constitution. There is entirely no contradiction. The Constitution states that: "The primary function of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE..." So briefly, the Constitution states that Nova Roma promotes "pagan Roman civilization", and defines "pagan Roman civilization" as the period between 753 BCE and 394 CE. The 11 years old Nova Roma intro text states that "From its founding to 330 CE, when it ceased to be the center of Imperial authority, Rome laid the foundation for our modern Western civilization." So briefly, the introduction text states that the city of Rome was the center of the Imperial authority from its founding to 330 CE, and in this period Rome laid the foundation of the Western civilization. This is not about Nova Roma, but it's about the importance of the city of Rome. The Constitution speaks about the definition of what pagan Roman civilization is, the intro text speaks about the role of the city of Rome, when it was the Imperial Capital, and this entirely does not define time frames for Nova Roma. This introductory text is a historical document of Nova Roma, it's been there since our founding, and it needs a very careful analysis before changed. VALETE! CN. LENTULUS Magister Aranearius

Yes, Appius Galerius Aurelianus and C. Pompeius Marcellus congratulated  Fabius Buteo Modianus on his victory  in a game of chees. Nothing to do with their acceptance of election results.

Q. Valerius Poplicola escribió:

AKA: We don't care about the law, we'll do as we please, we always have, and we always will.

Even Appius Galerius accepted that he was late. What proof do you have that he was on time?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@ ...> wrote:
>
> Here is the Consular response.
>
> Tribunus Appius Gaslerius Aurelianus showed his disagreement with the
> intercessio on time. Tribunus Appius Galerius Aurelianus congratuled the
> Censor elected Fabius Buteo Modianus.
>
> This message is only the confirmation of a previous act to avoid
> misunderstandings.
>
> 2 Tribunes agree with the intercessio and 2 Tribunes disagree.
>
> End of the question
>
> Vale et valete
>
>
> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTEN SIS
> CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
> CONSVL HISPANIAE
>
> NOVA ROMA
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----
>
> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>
>
> 2009/6/21 Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ ...>
>
> >
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.
> >
> > Well, the intercessio survives. I await with interest the consular
> > response.
> >
> > Optime valete
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoog roups.com> , "Gnaeus
> > Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn Iulius Caesar Ap. Galerio Aureliano SPD
> > >
> > > Yes I think so. The deadine was 8.29 pm Mountain Time or 4.29 am CET.
> > >
> > > Optime vale
> >
> >
> >
>

Constitution of Nova Roma IV.7.a: ".........once a pronouncement of intercessio has been made, the other Tribunes may, at their discretion, state either their support for or their disagreement with that intercessio."

In accordance with the Constitution he is not obbliged to frame his disagreement according the laws. He only must state his disagreement.



PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@aol.com escribió:

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.

My colleague, C. Pompeius Marcellus, has not properly framed his disagreement according to the laws governing such a disagreement.  He should withdraw his improper disagreement, re-state it according to the proper laws, and publish it again.  Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing in regard to the current intercessio issued by Agrippa and with which I have agreed. 

Valete.


-----Original Message-----
From: M.C.C. <complutensis@gmail.com>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations]

Salvete

I am forwarding this message from Tribunus Plebis C. Pompeius Marcellus with his permission.

Valete

M. Curiatius Complutensis
Consul

-------- Mensaje original --------

Asunto:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Congratulations
Fecha:	Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:51:32 -0600
De:	James Hooper <warrior44_us@bresnan.net>
Para:	M.C.C. <complutensis@gmail.com>
Referencias:	<h1ehke+os9h@eGroups.com> <814c56690906191432l760cd762j747af5b050c9bb9c@mail.gmail.com> <web-24378709@be-1.cluster1.bresnan.net> <4A3C07E2.7000500@gmail.com>

Salve Consul,
           Please do sir.
Vale,
 C. Pompeius Marcellus


On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:49:22 +0200
 "M.C.C." <complutensis@gmail.com> wrote:
> M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul C. Pompeio Marcello Tribuno Plebis S.P.D.
> 
> Thanks for your reply, can I post this message in the ML?
> 
> Cura ut valeas
> 
> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
> CONSVL HISPANIAE
> 
> NOVA ROMA
> 
> James Hooper escribió:
>> Salve Consul Complutensis,
>>                         In my opinion the people have spoken and these 
>> citizens should be seated. No I do not agree with the intersessio as I 
>> understand it.
>> Vale,
>> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus tribunis Plebis SPD
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:32:55 +0200
>>  M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul C. Pompeio Marcello Tribuno Plebis 
>>> S.P.D.
>>>
>>> Can I understand with this your message to congratulate all the 
>>> candidates
>>> of the recent election that you think that the elections are valid and
>>> therefore you are against the intercessio issued by your collegae?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your quickly reply
>>>
>>> Cura ut valeas
>>>
>>> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
>>> CONSVL NOVAE ROMAE
>>> CONSVL HISPANIAE
>>>
>>> NOVA ROMA
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/6/19 gaius_pompeius_marcellus <warrior44_us@bresnan.net>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Salve,
>>>> May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the candiddates who 
>>>> stood
>>>> for election and won. To those who did not win, do not give up. you 
>>>> may get
>>>> your chance to serve our beloved republic before you know it.
>>>> Vale,
>>>> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>
>> BB,
>> Warrior
>>
> 
> -- 
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
> 
> COMMENTARIOLA HISPANIAE 
><http://feeds2.feedburner.com/%7Er/CommentariolaHispaniae/%7E6/1>
> 
> ? Grab this Headline Animator 
><http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=h2caom68v18dju1ktk0gkre39o&w=1>
> 

BB,
Warrior

  

--
M. Curiatius Complutensis

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

---

An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

Aurelianus Modiano sal.

Then so be it.  It has been a pleasure being in Nova Roma with you & I will regret having to say good-bye.  I will not remain part of an organization in which there are so many who are willing to bend and break rules.  I will ask the Pontifex Maximus to release me from my oaths and depart as quickly as possible.

Vale.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 2:04 am
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: My Statement of Opposition to the Intercessio!

Cato omnibus in foro sal.

Salvete.

Quirites, here is a man who would be a magistrate again. Following in the current magistrates' footsteps, he knowingly and willingly decides that the law - *our* law - does not apply to him because he does not like it.

It does not matter to him what the Constitution says; it does not matter to him what the law says; he wants to be censor and so, by the Gods, he WILL be. By simply ignoring anything that may stand between him and that office, he and our consuls and praetors think that they can simply push him into it. The checks and balances which upheld the ancient Roman (unwritten) Constitution, which we have attempted to recreate so some degree, are being thrown aside so that one citizen may gain an office.

This one office is, to him, worth the dissolution of the fundamental rights of the People in the persons of the tribunes. Putting him in this office is, to our consuls and praetors, worth more than showing respect to all the law combined. Our current government, swinging from desperate act to desperate act, having run a sword through the Constitution and the law, holds their tattered remnants aloft and declares them to be theirs to do with as they wish. It must not be so.

I do not care if he never reads another speech I make. What I *do* care about is that, if we are to regain any sense of equilibrium in our Respublica again, the law must be obeyed.

What possible action can we take that can cut through the Gordian knot with which we are presented?

"In times of emergency, the Senate may appoint a dictator to serve a term not to exceed six months. At the time of such appointment, the Senate may prescribe a given task or boundaries within which the dictator is obliged to remain. The edicts of the dictator are absolute within his sphere of influence, and subject to neither intercessio or provocatio. The dictator shall hold Imperium and have the honor of being preceded by twenty-four lictors. At the end of his term the actions of the dictator shall be subject to final confirmation by the Senate." - Const. N.R., IV.B.1

I think the Senate should appoint a dictator to sweep clean the magistracies and clean up the tabularium. And I think that dictator should be Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator. He has kept a level, coherent head on his shoulders while many around him have not done so. His voice is a voice of reason and calm amidst a storm of anger. He would undoubtedly have a score of citizens standing with him, willing to help him from every possible angle, as we would be given a chance to do some desperately-needed deep cleaning, a chance to if not begin anew at least be given a firmer more rational foundation. Without this kind of opportunity I simply do not see an end to the political fighting.

He does NOT know that I think this, so this speech will be the first he has heard of it; I ask his forgiveness for not warning him, but I wanted it to be clear that there is not even the shadow of a doubt that he is unattached to any faction of any kind; cries of "conspiracy" can be stuffed back into their boxes before being unleashed in the Forum.

Valete,

Cato

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

So be it.  You can think whatever you wish.  If tribunes are going to veto a candidate then they need to learn to do it during the contio, instead of creating the fiasco that they have.  You ignore the centuries, so good-bye!  Should I give you the same lecture you gave Octavius and Diana? 

Vale;

Modianus

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:18 AM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

Aurelianus Modiano sal.

Then so be it.  It has been a pleasure being in Nova Roma with you & I will regret having to say good-bye.  I will not remain part of an organization in which there are so many who are willing to bend and break rules.  I will ask the Pontifex Maximus to release me from my oaths and depart as quickly as possible.

Vale.

Salve Tribune Flavius Galerius Aurelianus
 
Please do not leave or resign. The lawbreakers only win if we stop defending the law and the constitution. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
 
Please stay no matter how hard it is to do so.
 
Vale
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:18:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: My Statement of Opposition to the Intercessio!

C. Equitius Cato Fl. Galerio Aureliano pontifice tribuno plebisque sal.

Salve, tribune.

Please do not leave. The losses of Octavius and Aventina and Laenas are sore grievance enough. You and I have rarely agreed on anything but you are an exceptional part of the Respublica.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Tribune Flavius Galerius Aurelianus
>
>
>
> Please do not leave or resign. The lawbreakers only win if we stop defending the law and the constitution. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
>
>
>
> Please stay no matter how hard it is to do so.
>
>
>
> Vale
>
>
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

So that support is only for the two tribunes that opposed me and not the two tribunes that did.  Interesting.  And now you are accusing your fellow magistrates of evil?  What about the centuries that elected me, are they evil too?

Vale;

Modianus

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

Salve Tribune Flavius Galerius Aurelianus
 
Please do not leave or resign. The lawbreakers only win if we stop defending the law and the constitution. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
 
Please stay no matter how hard it is to do so.
 
Vale
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

QED

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Aquila omnibus sal.
>
> There is no need for a dictator. Of course some citizens whould like to see that a dictator would be set in place.
> If you can not win an election, let's have a dictator. 
>  
> The elections are over , the Magistrates keep on working as elected.
>
> Business case closed.
>
> Valete optime
> Titus Flavius Aquila