--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Publius Memmius Albucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
>
> I have taken knowledge this evening (Rome time) of the elements brought today by several of us on the electronic informations relative to "fpasquinus".
>
> These elements look clear enough to make me suspect that the member of this forum called "fpasquinus" has either used a false identity or has used IP addresses without legal authorization.
>
> In both cases, such behavior is not compatible with our Roman values.
>
> As "fpasquinus" is not registered in our Album civium and thus not a citizen of our Republic, his rights are the ones owned by every socius. As such, his rights are restricted, like every non-Novaroman member of this forum.
>
> Considering the suspicions on "fpasquinus", I have decided to take an exceptional measure and to *remove* him from our Forum.
>
> Naturally, "fpasquinus" can use, in order to contest this decision, every legal mean that has, in the frame of this Forum, every member.
>
> On the other elements relative to "fpasquinus", and especially his real identity, the praetors will let the magistrates, the senate and the People informed of their position as soon as possible.
>
> This letter holds for an edictum praetorianum.
>
> Issued in Condate Nerviorum, Gallia, a.d. VII Kal. Iunias 2762 auc.
>
>
> P. Memmius Albucius
> praetor
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> In accordance with the Constitution of the Respublica, which gives the tribunes the power "To call the Senate to order" (Const. N.R., IV.A.7.d.1), and whereas the tribunes also "may convene the Senate in order to ask the Senate's advice on any subject which is clearly within the scope of his or her constitutionally mandated powers and obligations" (Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus, II.C), and whereas it is a constitutionally mandated part of the obligations of the tribunes to "administer the law... [to] serve the interests of the Plebs and the citizens of Nova Roma" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.d.3, lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia, II.B), and whereas it is unquestionably in the interests of the citizens of Nova Roma to learn the truth regarding this matter, I hereby formally request that the tribune Flavius Galerius Aurelianus call the Senate to order (having the auspices taken in accordance with the law) to investigate and take action in the matter of the entity known as "fpasquinus".
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Aurelianus Sulla sal.
>
> Ease back there and be more polite, please.? That is my cousin and fellow Tribune at whom you are hurling your inflective inquiries.
>
> Vale.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 11:05 am
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the fpasquinus poster
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What did your investigation consist of? Where is your evidence? We disclosed our evidence for public scrutiny. Where is yours?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Consul Complutensis,
> >
> > Just another despicable action on the part of this digruntaled factio.
> > I have made my own investigation and have found the results inconclusive so far.I will support your name and honor against those who wish to bring false charges against you, in hopes of continuing to assault Nova Roma with further barrages,in their attempt to bring down the superstructure of Nova Roma.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/25/09, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@>
> > > Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the fpasquinus poster
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 8:25 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Consul
> > > Complutensis, amice
> > > ?
> > > thank you for your reaction on these despicable
> > > allegations.
> > > ?
> > > Unfortunately we have to spent our time on these
> > > campaign instead to use it for working on our res
> > > publica.
> > > ?
> > > I am sure that this whole campaign will come to an end
> > > very soon and that your honour will be respected.
> > > ?
> > > How can anybody call a Consul a liar ? This is
> > > disgusting .
> > > ?
> > > I have never understood why some citizens need to
> > > insult other citizens or put them down by using?rude
> > > language.
> > > ?
> > > Be assured that you have our support Consul.
> > > ?
> > > Vale optime
> > > Titus Flavius Aquila?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: M.C.C.
> > > <complutensis@ gmail.com>
> > > An:
> > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com; Senatus <SenatusRomanus@
> > > yahoogroups. com>
> > > Gesendet:
> > > Donnerstag, den 25. Juni 2009, 12:47:25 Uhr
> > > Betreff: Re:
> > > [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the fpasquinus poster
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete
> > >
> > > Many of you have many time to lose and to invent
> > > conspiracies.
> > > I thought Pasquinus
> > > was a friend, but now I think everything has been mounting
> > > to discredit me.
> > >
> > > Not long ago my PCs were hijacked.
> > > ?I work in a building with
> > > many companies and all companies use the same ADSL and I
> > > live in a community with WIFI ADSL shared between all the
> > > neighbours.?
> > >
> > > You can believe me or not but if you read the source of the
> > > cited messages there are differences: all my messages are
> > > identified by my private IPs: 192.168.10.13 and 192.168.2.2.
> > >
> > > I have received private messages from
> > > Pasquinus and now I have checked the IPs: X-Originating- IP:
> > > 66.163.168.154.
> > >
> > > I am too busy being Complutensis with continuous attacks
> > > from my opponents in NR. I am too busy with my macronational
> > > life, my family and my work. I have the habit of sleeping 8
> > > hours a day. I have no time to be Pasquinus.
> > > ? All this is
> > > beginning to bore.
> > >
> > > This is another campaign to discredit me. My
> > > congratulations to the organizer.
> > > ?
> > > Valete
> > >
> > > COMPLVTENSIS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the fpasquinus poster
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 8:59 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ave!
>
>
>
> My apologies. I will ease up as you have requested.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Sulla
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ ... wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Aurelianus Sulla sal.
>
> >
>
> > Ease back there and be more polite, please.? That is
> my cousin and fellow Tribune at whom you are hurling your
> inflective inquiries.
>
> >
>
> > Vale.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_ sulla@... >
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com
>
> > Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 11:05 am
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the
> fpasquinus poster
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > What did your investigation consist of? Where is your
> evidence? We disclosed our evidence for public scrutiny.
> Where is yours?
>
> >
>
> > Vale,
>
> >
>
> > Sulla
>
> >
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Salve Consul Complutensis,
>
> > >
>
> > > Just another despicable action on the part of
> this digruntaled factio.
>
> > > I have made my own investigation and have found
> the results inconclusive so far.I will support your name and
> honor against those who wish to bring false charges against
> you, in hopes of continuing to assault Nova Roma with
> further barrages,in their attempt to bring down the
> superstructure of Nova Roma.
>
> > >
>
> > > Vale,
>
> > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
>
> > >
>
> > > --- On Thu, 6/25/09, Titus Flavius Aquila
> <titus.aquila@ > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > From: Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@
> >
>
> > > > Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of
> the fpasquinus poster
>
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou
> ps.com
>
> > > > Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 8:25 AM
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Salve Consul
>
> > > > Complutensis, amice
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > thank you for your reaction on these
> despicable
>
> > > > allegations.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > Unfortunately we have to spent our time on
> these
>
> > > > campaign instead to use it for working on
> our res
>
> > > > publica.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > I am sure that this whole campaign will come
> to an end
>
> > > > very soon and that your honour will be
> respected.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > How can anybody call a Consul a liar ? This
> is
>
> > > > disgusting .
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > I have never understood why some citizens
> need to
>
> > > > insult other citizens or put them down by
> using?rude
>
> > > > language.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > Be assured that you have our support
> Consul.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > Vale optime
>
> > > > Titus Flavius Aquila?
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Von: M.C.C.
>
> > > > <complutensis@ gmail.com>
>
> > > > An:
>
> > > > Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com; Senatus
> <SenatusRomanus@
>
> > > > yahoogroups. com>
>
> > > > Gesendet:
>
> > > > Donnerstag, den 25. Juni 2009, 12:47:25 Uhr
>
> > > > Betreff: Re:
>
> > > > [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the
> fpasquinus poster
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Salvete
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Many of you have many time to lose and to
> invent
>
> > > > conspiracies.
>
> > > > I thought Pasquinus
>
> > > > was a friend, but now I think everything has
> been mounting
>
> > > > to discredit me.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Not long ago my PCs were hijacked.
>
> > > > ?I work in a building with
>
> > > > many companies and all companies use the
> same ADSL and I
>
> > > > live in a community with WIFI ADSL shared
> between all the
>
> > > > neighbours.?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > You can believe me or not but if you read
> the source of the
>
> > > > cited messages there are differences: all my
> messages are
>
> > > > identified by my private IPs: 192.168.10.13
> and 192.168.2.2.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I have received private messages from
>
> > > > Pasquinus and now I have checked the IPs:
> X-Originating- IP:
>
> > > > 66.163.168.154.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I am too busy being Complutensis with
> continuous attacks
>
> > > > from my opponents in NR. I am too busy with
> my macronational
>
> > > > life, my family and my work. I have the
> habit of sleeping 8
>
> > > > hours a day. I have no time to be
> Pasquinus.
>
> > > > ? All this is
>
> > > > beginning to bore.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > This is another campaign to discredit me.
> My
>
> > > > congratulations to the organizer.
>
> > > > ?
>
> > > > Valete
>
> > > >
>
> > > > COMPLVTENSIS
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>
> And what's the point with that?
> I'm curious about fpasquinus identity but calling the Senate to order one wants as the other to vote about that? To decide about the fpasquinus identity through vote? Or to investigate that during the Senate contio - three, four days of investigation - for something which the experts are not able to sustain a totally valid point of view?
> Thanks Gods the weekend is coming. Some really need it.
>
> VALE,
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > In accordance with the Constitution of the Respublica, which gives the tribunes the power "To call the Senate to order" (Const. N.R., IV.A.7.d.1), and whereas the tribunes also "may convene the Senate in order to ask the Senate's advice on any subject which is clearly within the scope of his or her constitutionally mandated powers and obligations" (Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus, II.C), and whereas it is a constitutionally mandated part of the obligations of the tribunes to "administer the law... [to] serve the interests of the Plebs and the citizens of Nova Roma" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.d.3, lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia, II.B), and whereas it is unquestionably in the interests of the citizens of Nova Roma to learn the truth regarding this matter, I hereby formally request that the tribune Flavius Galerius Aurelianus call the Senate to order (having the auspices taken in accordance with the law) to investigate and take action in the matter of the entity known as "fpasquinus".
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> Sabinus is right, calling the Senate to vote right now on fpasquinus' identity would do little good and could take on the appearance of a lynch mob as there seems to be a general consensus--with good reason--Complutensis is the perpetrator.
>
> List moderation and violations ARE the praetores' purview. Let them do their job. I don't think they will let anything slip by them, even if they find Complutensis is the culprit. Let them work.
>
> If the tribunes disagree with their decision, then let them call the Senate.
>
> Of course it the tribunes' right to call the Senate to consult on this but my advice is to wait.
>
> Valete,
>
> Palladius
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@> wrote:
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > And what's the point with that?
> > I'm curious about fpasquinus identity but calling the Senate to order one wants as the other to vote about that? To decide about the fpasquinus identity through vote? Or to investigate that during the Senate contio - three, four days of investigation - for something which the experts are not able to sustain a totally valid point of view?
> > Thanks Gods the weekend is coming. Some really need it.
> >
> > VALE,
> > T. Iulius Sabinus
> >

  
A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  

Salvete Omnes,
 
I have been thinking about this latest … occurrence … for several days, now, and I have some questions and concerns.  First of all, I will say up front that I don’t know enough about IT to speak to, or determine if, such things as IP addresses or the paths messages take from poster to end destination are irrefutable proof, although I have always heard that one can, if one knows what to look for, determine if a post was sent, whatever the name, from one specific computer.  If this is definitive proof, then those who *do* know can verify, definitively whether fpasquinus and Complitensus Consul are the same, or at least, posting from the same computer.

    ATS:  I recall one election in which several people posted from the same computer.  As virtually everyone is well aware,  I am no expert on matters concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines could distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you.  What tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather different, as in the cista.  I could do with an explanation of these IP addresses, and perhaps others could as well.  



 I am *sure* that we have several people who can do this, and whose results would be trustworthy.  I can think of 2 immediately, and I suspect there are several more.

    ATS:  I think we have several people who are fully capable of such things.  
 
While textual similarity is extremely indicative, it isn’t irrefutable.  Yes, the textual indications are that the same person wrote both sets of posts, but that similarity could come from other reasons, such as both using the same language as their first language, and English as their second.  

    ATS:  And this is reality, like it or not.  People who speak the same language, then learn another (the same other language) bring their speech and other habits with them, and impose them on the second (third, fourth....) language.  We English speakers find it very difficult to de-aspirate our mute stop consonants to accommodate Latin, Greek, Sanskrit...the latter two have these as aspirated and unaspirated, while Latin has only unaspirated in native words.  We also find it difficult to learn the noun grammar, which is missing in English, a problem which has even infected the pronouns, so that some now consider the phrase between he and I to be grammatically correct.  (sound of fingernails scraping on blackboard; magistra covers her ears).   This is nothing new, and far from definitive.


By itself, I don’t think it can be completely used to prove that the Consul is using a construct, which, if true is beyond reprehensible.
 
What does concern me, and deeply, is that, if a construct is being used, how long as that construct been in existence?  Did fpasquinus join the ML? when?  

    ATS:  Yes; I believe it was around the 16th.  Incidentally, the date of joining is reset by Yahoo when one gets a new address or has a change in status (member to moderator, moderator to owner, owner to moderator, moderator to member), or unsubscribes/resubscribes, so this is meaningless.   Anyone can join at any time, and that means any longtime citizen, knowledgeable in NR affairs, can reappear after years and yet be listed as having joined, say, today.  Sulla did...others do.  Thus for a new member to be very aware of NR is not unusual, or suspicious in and of itself.  


Was “he” moderated for the usual period of time?  If not, why not?  

    ATS:  Yes, but we must allow everything other than spam or vulgarities.  No one seems to have been concerned about the ToS violation by an unmoderated person who asked a question about sexual aids...but a minor citizen applicant joined the ML a couple of weeks ago, and we have them there as young as thirteen, if not younger.


Is fpasquinus being moderated now?  

    ATS:  As Albucius noted, he was removed.  


If so … why, for the love of all the Great Gods, are his posts being allowed to reach the list?  Each and every one of them has been beneath contempt, and others have been moderated for posting “information that might not be factual and might damage the reputation of a citizen”.  

    ATS:  They have been quite intense, as have others by other posters.  We let them through...
 
If fpasquinus *is* a construct (as, frankly, I suspect), it is possible that great care was taken, and that the Praetors and their cohors were deceived.

    ATS:  I am not aware that any of us knew, though I had begun to wonder if this was a real person.  

 However … if not, then there would be an indication of complicity between the Consul and the Praetors, *and* the Praetorian cohors.  This alarms me, because I know and esteem some of the people on that cohors, and there are a couple on that cohors that I consider friends … friends I know, trust and value.  I simply cannot conceive that *these* people would participate in such a dishonorable deception, nor can I accept that at least one of the Praetors would, again, because of prior contact, observation and high estimation.

    ATS:  I can pretty well guarantee that none of us would knowingly engage in such deception.  I may also point out that Complutensis asked to be removed as a moderator because he had deleted some posts in error, and did not participate in any recent moderation.  
 
I don’t know exactly what steps should be taken to resolve this situation one way or the other, but I urge, very strongly urge, that those steps *be* taken, and taken immediately.  Whoever is legally charged with the investigation of possible wrong doing in our Res Publica is, I hope and trust, already investigating and will be reporting very soon (or already has, and I haven’t read the post yet..)  Once we know what has been going on, if anything, then it will be the time to deal (I hope very firmly and summarily) with the offender, in as public a manner as possible, since the offense, if there has been one, has been extremely public.
 
The time for rhetoric, either in accusation or mindless support is *over*, and the time for swift and decisive action by those empowered (other than the concerned Consul) to act has come.  I expect certain things from the officers of any organization to which I belong, and I require certain things from the duly elected Government of my Res Publica, and I have emphatically not been seeing these things.
 
Respectfully, and with great sadness,

    ATS:  Yes, this is a very sad situation, very distasteful.  


C. Maria Caeca

Vale, et valete.
  
    

     
   Messages in this topic           <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/67997

> > ATS: I recall one election in which several people posted from the same
> > computer. As virtually everyone is well aware, I am no expert on matters
> > concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines could
> > distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you. What
> > tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather
> > different, as in the cista. I could do with an explanation of these IP
> > addresses, and perhaps others could as well.
> >

> >    

> > computer.  As virtually everyone is well aware,  I

> > concerning computers, but somehow doubt

> > distinguish one user from

> > tripped the

> > different,

> >

> >

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtere.
>
> So let me be clear here. There are combinations of IP numbers on the posts concerned. Is there any way that those numbers could be duplicated, or are they recycled, or are they unique? Are they constant to his computer? My understanding is that they are unique and cannot be faked, nor are they recycled.
>
> In other words a genuine Complutensis post contains an IP string. Is there anyway that someone could have seen that combination of IP numbers and duplicated them, assuming as I do they are unique to Complutensis' PCs?
>
> If they didn't hack into his computer could the IPs have been faked?
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
>
> From: gualterus_graecus
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 1:53 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Technical issues: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the fpasquinus poster
>
>
> Salve Scholastica,
>
> > > ATS: I recall one election in which several people posted from the same
> > > computer. As virtually everyone is well aware, I am no expert on matters
> > > concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines could
> > > distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you. What
> > > tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather
> > > different, as in the cista. I could do with an explanation of these IP
> > > addresses, and perhaps others could as well.
> > >
>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:35 AM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Senatoribus P. Memmio Albucio Praetor sal.

I fail to understand how an individual who joined the NR ML in 06/2009 could have been on unmoderated status.  One of the regional praefects for my province was on moderated status since 02/2009 which is longer than the normal moderation period.  You also moderated Lucius Cornelius Sulla for three months despite his long association with NR.  I really would like to know why fpasquinus was unmoderated since it is supposedly standard practice to moderate every new person that joins the ML even if it is a long time member who has identified himself as such.  You told me this yourself when I questioned the latter practice a couple of months ago and you told me that it was a standard practice for ALL new email addresses to be moderated regardless of the length of membership of the citizen.

Now we have these interesting revelations about the alleged identity of fpasquinus and the fact that you are pretty much the only active praetor, since Marinus is currently tied up with his job in the aerospace industry.  If this matter is brought before the Senate for investigation, I believe that it might be advisable to look into your involvement to determine in this to determine whether you were merely derelict in your duties or were you in league with this person and knew his actually identity; which would amount to gross malfeasance and an attempt to perpetuate a fraud upon the Senate and People of Nova Roma.

Vale.

> > ATS: Yes; I believe it was around the 16th. Incidentally, >the date of joining is reset by Yahoo when one gets a new address or has a change in status (member to moderator, moderator to owner, owner to moderator, moderator
> > to member), or unsubscribes/resubscribes, so this is meaningless.

> Anyone can
> > join at any time, and that means any longtime citizen, knowledgeable in NR
> > affairs, can reappear after years and yet be listed as having joined, say,
> > today. Sulla did...others do.

> > is not unusual, or suspicious in and of itself.
> >
> >
> > Was �he� moderated for the usual period of time? If not, why not?
> >
> > ATS: Yes, but we must allow everything other than spam or vulgarities.
> > No one seems to have been concerned about the ToS violation by an unmoderated
> > person who asked a question about sexual aids...but a minor citizen applicant
> > joined the ML a couple of weeks ago, and we have them there as young as
> > thirteen, if not younger.
> >
> >
> > Is fpasquinus being moderated now?
> >
> > ATS: As Albucius noted, he was removed.
> >
> >
> > If so � why, for the love of all the Great Gods, are his posts being allowed
> > to reach the list? Each and every one of them has been beneath contempt, and
> > others have been moderated for posting �information that might not be factual
> > and might damage the reputation of a citizen�.
> >
> > ATS: They have been quite intense, as have others by other posters. We
> > let them through...
> >
> > If fpasquinus *is* a construct (as, frankly, I suspect), it is possible that
> > great care was taken, and that the Praetors and their cohors were deceived.
> >
> > ATS: I am not aware that any of us knew, though I had begun to wonder if
> > this was a real person.
> >
> > However � if not, then there would be an indication of complicity between the
> > Consul and the Praetors, *and* the Praetorian cohors. This alarms me, because
> > I know and esteem some of the people on that cohors, and there are a couple on
> > that cohors that I consider friends � friends I know, trust and value. I
> > simply cannot conceive that *these* people would participate in such a
> > dishonorable deception, nor can I accept that at least one of the Praetors
> > would, again, because of prior contact, observation and high estimation.
> >
> > ATS: I can pretty well guarantee that none of us would knowingly engage
> > in such deception. I may also point out that Complutensis asked to be removed
> > as a moderator because he had deleted some posts in error, and did not
> > participate in any recent moderation.
> >
> > I don�t know exactly what steps should be taken to resolve this situation one
> > way or the other, but I urge, very strongly urge, that those steps *be* taken,
> > and taken immediately. Whoever is legally charged with the investigation of
> > possible wrong doing in our Res Publica is, I hope and trust, already
> > investigating and will be reporting very soon (or already has, and I haven�t
> > read the post yet..) Once we know what has been going on, if anything, then
> > it will be the time to deal (I hope very firmly and summarily) with the
> > offender, in as public a manner as possible, since the offense, if there has
> > been one, has been extremely public.
> >
> > The time for rhetoric, either in accusation or mindless support is *over*, and
> > the time for swift and decisive action by those empowered (other than the
> > concerned Consul) to act has come. I expect certain things from the officers
> > of any organization to which I belong, and I require certain things from the
> > duly elected Government of my Res Publica, and I have emphatically not been
> > seeing these things.
> >
> > Respectfully, and with great sadness,
> >
> > ATS: Yes, this is a very sad situation, very distasteful.
> >
> >
> > C. Maria Caeca
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Messages in this topic
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/67997
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> For all those concerned.T.Horatius Barbatus is the duty Tribune and Fl.Galerius Aurelianus is the stand-by duty Tribune.
>
> Vale et valete,
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> Tribunus Plebis
>

  
A. Tullia Scholastica Decio Junio Palladio quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  

Salve Scholastica,

> >     ATS:  Yes; I believe it was around the 16th.  Incidentally, >the date of joining is reset by Yahoo when one gets a new address or has a change in status (member to moderator, moderator to owner, owner to moderator, moderator
> > to member), or unsubscribes/resubscribes, so this is meaningless.

This isn't true at all. Your date of joining is not reset when your status as moderator changes, nor if you add a new address to your existing account.

    ATS:  Could you possibly explain why my joining date is in early January, 2009, when I have not unsubscribed since late 2003 (and then only in a misunderstanding)?  This is consistent with when I was added as a moderatrix, not when I joined the list.  The same happened with Latinitas.  

The date is when that Yahoo id was originally subscribed. If one unsubscribes and resubscribes, then your date changes.

    ATS:  Yes.

I'll use my own ID, deciusiunius, as an example. The date on it is March 13, 2002, the date this list was created. Since that time my moderator status has changed at least three or four times, having served as praetor and praetorian scribe; currently I am just an ordinary member. I've also made changes to the address used, changing back and forth at least once. No change in date of joining, still March 2002.

    ATS:  Perhaps your joining date is somehow protected, maybe because you probably migrated from the OneList or whatever which preceded the current ML.  This is the first time I have heard of anyone’s date not changing when status changes were made.  

>   Anyone can
> > join at any time, and that means any longtime citizen, knowledgeable in NR
> > affairs, can reappear after years and yet be listed as having joined, say,
> > today.  Sulla did...others do.

That's because he unsubscribed and resubscribed.

    ATS:  Indeed he did, and Poplicola has done so frequently of late.  A couple of years ago, there was one party who subscribed and unsubscribed every few hours...literally.  Lately, too, a number of people have appeared who have apparently been lurking on the ML for years, but did not post.  Joining date still is not definitive.  

Vale,

Palladius


Vale, et valete.


Thus for a new member to be very aware of NR
> > is not unusual, or suspicious in and of itself.
> >
> >
> > Was ï¿∏heï¿∏ moderated for the usual period of time?  If not, why not?
> >
> >     ATS:  Yes, but we must allow everything other than spam or vulgarities.
> > No one seems to have been concerned about the ToS violation by an unmoderated
> > person who asked a question about sexual aids...but a minor citizen applicant
> > joined the ML a couple of weeks ago, and we have them there as young as
> > thirteen, if not younger.
> >
> >
> > Is fpasquinus being moderated now?
> >
> >     ATS:  As Albucius noted, he was removed.
> >
> >
> > If so ï¿∏ why, for the love of all the Great Gods, are his posts being allowed
> > to reach the list?  Each and every one of them has been beneath contempt, and
> > others have been moderated for posting ï¿∏information that might not be factual
> > and might damage the reputation of a citizenï¿∏.
> >
> >     ATS:  They have been quite intense, as have others by other posters.  We
> > let them through...
> >  
> > If fpasquinus *is* a construct (as, frankly, I suspect), it is possible that
> > great care was taken, and that the Praetors and their cohors were deceived.
> >
> >     ATS:  I am not aware that any of us knew, though I had begun to wonder if
> > this was a real person.
> >
> >  However ï¿∏ if not, then there would be an indication of complicity between the
> > Consul and the Praetors, *and* the Praetorian cohors.  This alarms me, because
> > I know and esteem some of the people on that cohors, and there are a couple on
> > that cohors that I consider friends ï¿∏ friends I know, trust and value.  I
> > simply cannot conceive that *these* people would participate in such a
> > dishonorable deception, nor can I accept that at least one of the Praetors
> > would, again, because of prior contact, observation and high estimation.
> >
> >     ATS:  I can pretty well guarantee that none of us would knowingly engage
> > in such deception.  I may also point out that Complutensis asked to be removed
> > as a moderator because he had deleted some posts in error, and did not
> > participate in any recent moderation.
> >  
> > I donï¿∏t know exactly what steps should be taken to resolve this situation one
> > way or the other, but I urge, very strongly urge, that those steps *be* taken,
> > and taken immediately.  Whoever is legally charged with the investigation of
> > possible wrong doing in our Res Publica is, I hope and trust, already
> > investigating and will be reporting very soon (or already has, and I havenï¿∏t
> > read the post yet..)  Once we know what has been going on, if anything, then
> > it will be the time to deal (I hope very firmly and summarily) with the
> > offender, in as public a manner as possible, since the offense, if there has
> > been one, has been extremely public.
> >  
> > The time for rhetoric, either in accusation or mindless support is *over*, and
> > the time for swift and decisive action by those empowered (other than the
> > concerned Consul) to act has come.  I expect certain things from the officers
> > of any organization to which I belong, and I require certain things from the
> > duly elected Government of my Res Publica, and I have emphatically not been
> > seeing these things.
> >  
> > Respectfully, and with great sadness,
> >
> >     ATS:  Yes, this is a very sad situation, very distasteful.
> >
> >
> > C. Maria Caeca
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >   
> >     
> >
> >      
> >    Messages in this topic
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/67997
>

  
    

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

> > This isn't true at all. Your date of joining is not reset when your status as
> > moderator changes, nor if you add a new address to your existing account.
> >
> > ATS: Could you possibly explain why my joining date is in early January,
> > 2009, when I have not unsubscribed since late 2003 (and then only in a
> > misunderstanding)?

Your date joining this list is not January 2009, it's Feb. 3, 2005 (that must be when you accidently unsubbed). Your moderator status was changed in January 2009 but your list membership is much earlier. Click on the members tab and look at your name there for the correct date. Click on the moderators tab to see the date of when people became moderator.

Looking at other moderators, Marinus' moderator status was last changed in 2006 but the date he joined this list was May 28, 2002.


> > I'll use my own ID, deciusiunius, as an example. The date on it is March 13,
> > 2002, the date this list was created. Since that time my moderator status has
> > changed at least three or four times, having served as praetor and praetorian
> > scribe; currently I am just an ordinary member. I've also made changes to the
> > address used, changing back and forth at least once. No change in date of
> > joining, still March 2002.
> >
> > ATS: Perhaps your joining date is somehow protected, maybe because you
> > probably migrated from the OneList or whatever which preceded the current ML.
> > This is the first time I have heard of anyone�s date not changing when status
> > changes were made.


No, this is standard. You were just looking in the wrong place. Easy mistake to make.

FYI, this list never migrated from onelists, that was the old mainlist, novaroma, as opposed to the current nova-roma.

Vale,

Palladius






> >
> >> > Anyone can
> >>> > > join at any time, and that means any longtime citizen, knowledgeable in
> NR
> >>> > > affairs, can reappear after years and yet be listed as having joined,
> >>> say,
> >>> > > today. Sulla did...others do.
> >
> > That's because he unsubscribed and resubscribed.
> >
> > ATS: Indeed he did, and Poplicola has done so frequently of late. A
> > couple of years ago, there was one party who subscribed and unsubscribed every
> > few hours...literally. Lately, too, a number of people have appeared who have
> > apparently been lurking on the ML for years, but did not post. Joining date
> > still is not definitive.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> > Thus for a new member to be very aware of NR
> >>> > > is not unusual, or suspicious in and of itself.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Was �he� moderated for the usual period of time? If not, why not?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: Yes, but we must allow everything other than spam or
> >>> vulgarities.
> >>> > > No one seems to have been concerned about the ToS violation by an
> >>> unmoderated
> >>> > > person who asked a question about sexual aids...but a minor citizen
> >>> applicant
> >>> > > joined the ML a couple of weeks ago, and we have them there as young as
> >>> > > thirteen, if not younger.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Is fpasquinus being moderated now?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: As Albucius noted, he was removed.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If so � why, for the love of all the Great Gods, are his posts being
> >>> allowed
> >>> > > to reach the list? Each and every one of them has been beneath
> >>> contempt, and
> >>> > > others have been moderated for posting �information that might not be
> >>> factual
> >>> > > and might damage the reputation of a citizen�.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: They have been quite intense, as have others by other posters.
> We
> >>> > > let them through...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If fpasquinus *is* a construct (as, frankly, I suspect), it is possible
> >>> that
> >>> > > great care was taken, and that the Praetors and their cohors were
> >>> deceived.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: I am not aware that any of us knew, though I had begun to
> >>> wonder if
> >>> > > this was a real person.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > However � if not, then there would be an indication of complicity
> >>> between the
> >>> > > Consul and the Praetors, *and* the Praetorian cohors. This alarms me,
> >>> because
> >>> > > I know and esteem some of the people on that cohors, and there are a
> >>> couple on
> >>> > > that cohors that I consider friends � friends I know, trust and value.
> I
> >>> > > simply cannot conceive that *these* people would participate in such a
> >>> > > dishonorable deception, nor can I accept that at least one of the
> >>> Praetors
> >>> > > would, again, because of prior contact, observation and high estimation.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: I can pretty well guarantee that none of us would knowingly
> >>> engage
> >>> > > in such deception. I may also point out that Complutensis asked to be
> >>> removed
> >>> > > as a moderator because he had deleted some posts in error, and did not
> >>> > > participate in any recent moderation.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I don�t know exactly what steps should be taken to resolve this
> >>> situation one
> >>> > > way or the other, but I urge, very strongly urge, that those steps *be*
> >>> taken,
> >>> > > and taken immediately. Whoever is legally charged with the
> >>> investigation of
> >>> > > possible wrong doing in our Res Publica is, I hope and trust, already
> >>> > > investigating and will be reporting very soon (or already has, and I
> >>> haven�t
> >>> > > read the post yet..) Once we know what has been going on, if anything,
> >>> then
> >>> > > it will be the time to deal (I hope very firmly and summarily) with the
> >>> > > offender, in as public a manner as possible, since the offense, if there
> has
> >>> > > been one, has been extremely public.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The time for rhetoric, either in accusation or mindless support is
> >>> *over*, and
> >>> > > the time for swift and decisive action by those empowered (other than
> the
> >>> > > concerned Consul) to act has come. I expect certain things from the
> >>> officers
> >>> > > of any organization to which I belong, and I require certain things from
> the
> >>> > > duly elected Government of my Res Publica, and I have emphatically not
> >>> been
> >>> > > seeing these things.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Respectfully, and with great sadness,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: Yes, this is a very sad situation, very distasteful.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Maria Caeca
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale, et valete.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Messages in this topic
> >>> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/67997
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> Since T. Horatius Barbatus was the only Tribunus Plebis who abstained from both the first and second pronouncement of intercessio by Agrippa and has also not been involved with most of the arguments on the ML, he may be the perfect choice to call the Senate to order and raise the question of an investigation.
>
> However, since this matter does lie within the responsibilities and prerogatives of the Praetores, I believe that both Albucius and Marinus should be involved as well as Matt Hucke, our current service provider.? I would have far more faith in the investigation if there were three experts involved in place on only one or two.
>
> Valete.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...>
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, Jun 26, 2009 9:29 am
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Duty Tribunes!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> For all those concerned.T.Horatius Barbatus is the duty Tribune and Fl.Galerius Aurelianus is the stand-by duty Tribune.
>
> Vale et valete,
> Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> Tribunus Plebis
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus?Senatoribus P. Memmio Albucio Praetor sal.
>
> I fail to understand how an individual who joined the NR ML in 06/2009 could have been on unmoderated status.? One of the regional praefects for my province was on moderated status since 02/2009 which is longer than the normal moderation period.? You also moderated Lucius Cornelius Sulla for three months despite his long association with NR.? I really would like to know why fpasquinus was unmoderated since it is supposedly standard practice to moderate every new person that joins the ML even if it is a long time member who has identified himself as such.? You told me this yourself when I questioned the latter practice a couple of months ago and you told me that it was a standard practice for ALL new email addresses to be moderated?regardless of the length of membership of the citizen.
>
> Now we have these interesting revelations about the alleged identity of fpasquinus and the fact that you are pretty much the only active praetor, since Marinus is currently tied up with his job in the aerospace industry.? If this matter is brought before the Senate for investigation, I believe that it might be advisable to look into your involvement to determine in this to?determine whether you were merely derelict in your duties or were you in league with this person and knew his actually identity; which would amount to gross malfeasance and an attempt to perpetuate a fraud upon the Senate and People of Nova Roma.
>
> Vale.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 5:14 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] On fpasquinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
>
> I have taken knowledge this evening (Rome time) of the elements brought today by several of us on the electronic informations relative to "fpasquinus".
>
> These elements look clear enough to make me suspect that the member of this forum called "fpasquinus" has either used a false identity or has used IP addresses without legal authorization.
>
> In both cases, such behavior is not compatible with our Roman values.
>
> As "fpasquinus" is not registered in our Album civium and thus not a citizen of our Republic, his rights are the ones owned by every socius. As such, his rights are restricted, like every non-Novaroman member of this forum.
>
> Considering the suspicions on "fpasquinus", I have decided to take an exceptional measure and to *remove* him from our Forum.
>
> Naturally, "fpasquinus" can use, in order to contest this decision, every legal mean that has, in the frame of this Forum, every member.
>
> On the other elements relative to "fpasquinus", and especially his real identity, the praetors will let the magistrates, the senate and the People informed of their position as soon as possible.
>
> This letter holds for an edictum praetorianum.
>
> Issued in Condate Nerviorum, Gallia, a.d. VII Kal. Iunias 2762 auc.
>
> P. Memmius Albucius
> praetor
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: Technical issues: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the
fpasquinus poster


Salve Scholastica,

> > ATS: I recall one election in which several people posted from the
> > same
> > computer. As virtually everyone is well aware, I am no expert on
> > matters
> > concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines
> > could
> > distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you.
> > What
> > tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather
> > different, as in the cista. I could do with an explanation of these IP
> > addresses, and perhaps others could as well.
> >

As probably few here know, before I did my career change into Classics I
completed a bachelor's in Computer Science. The parallel you draw is not
applicable since in the Consul's case two different networks are at
stake--home and work. It is not the same thing as a family or friends coming
together on a single computer to vote. In this case we have two different
computers, on two different networks, protected behind routers (as is
typical of most broadband connexions these days... what everyone calls
"modems" now are actually DSL or cable routers).

If someone were to hack into both systems, one would have to hack the
routers first, since in most modern configurations the host (the PC) is
assigned a non-routable IP address which cannot be directly accessed from
the outside. What happens is that the router translates network activity
from one IP address to the other. Internet traffic coming from outside can
only direct itself to the IP address on the router, which in turn translates
it to the internal PC's IP. This, however, can only happen if the router
knows that this particular traffic is destined to a particular PC on the
internal network--it can only know this in two ways: either the internal PC
initiated the connexion or the router was programmed to make the translation
automatically. The latter is not standard and not common. The former makes
clear that an outside attacker can not *initiate* a direct connexion to the
PC.

The short and the long of this is that if Complutensis is not guilty it
would imply that people hacked not only his home router and then hacked his
home PC, but also broke through his workplace's network and then also hacked
his work PC. The improbability of this is extreme. When the other
circumstantial elements are added (the attacker flaming his enemies on a NR
list, making similar grammatical mistakes, etc) the probability of this not
being him becomes so tiny it is laughable.

While you are correct that there are typical grammatical errors when someone
works in a second language, what does this say about the current situation?
The hacker was a European? Who is this person? Some European NR member
managed the herculean task of breaking into both of the Consul's systems,
and to what end? His excuse piles improbability upon improbability. The most
efficient and reasonable conclusion is that Complutensis is guilty of this,
whether we like it or not. I, for one, do not like this.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> I wanted to explain very briefly why I think it is important to have the tribunes call the Senate and take charge of the investigation.
>
> First, a simple a clear matter of objectivity. The consuls and praetors are for all practical purposes a political block; they agree on policy and have the same frame of mind regarding people they collectively view as their "opponents". If they were judges in the United States, they would be obligated to recuse themselves from any part of this because of the impossibility of objectivity.
>
> Second, following that a little more personally, the praetors personally approved the overwhelming majority of the posts by the entity that called himself "fpasquinus" (actually every one that I checked); they approved the posts in which anyone who disagreed with the consuls were called "traitors"; they approved the post in which it was suggested that these "traitors" - like me, for instance - be kicked out of the Respublica; they approved the post that offered the advice that these "traitors" - like me - should be murdered.
>
> Should the people that approved this kind of attack be allowed to investigate whether or not one of their own actually is responsible?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Second, following that a little more personally, the praetors personally approved the overwhelming majority of the posts by the entity that called himself "fpasquinus" (actually every one that I checked); they approved the posts in which anyone who disagreed with the consuls were called "traitors"; they approved the post in which it was suggested that these "traitors" - like me, for instance - be kicked out of the Respublica; they approved the post that offered the advice that these "traitors" - like me - should be murdered.

Someone also approved one of his posts saying the tribunes should be expelled from Nova Roma or thrown from the Tarpeian rock!

Flavia Lucilla merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato
> <catoinnyc@...>wrote:
>
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > Second, following that a little more personally, the praetors personally
> > approved the overwhelming majority of the posts by the entity that called
> > himself "fpasquinus" (actually every one that I checked); they approved the
> > posts in which anyone who disagreed with the consuls were called "traitors";
> > they approved the post in which it was suggested that these "traitors" -
> > like me, for instance - be kicked out of the Respublica; they approved the
> > post that offered the advice that these "traitors" - like me - should be
> > murdered.
> >
> >
> Someone also approved one of his posts saying the tribunes should be
> expelled from Nova Roma or thrown from the Tarpeian rock!
>
> Flavia Lucilla merula
>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Patrick D. Owen <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:

Correction!  That post only recommended that Agrippa and I be expelled and thrown from the Tarpeian Rock.

Ok but, whereas I don't approve of threats to throw anyone from the Tarpeian Rock, this was secifically aimed at you as Tribunes. That I find despicable.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen" <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:
>
> Correction! That post only recommended that Agrippa and I be expelled and thrown from the Tarpeian Rock.
>
> Aureliane
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato
> > <catoinnyc@>wrote:
> >
> > > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Second, following that a little more personally, the praetors personally
> > > approved the overwhelming majority of the posts by the entity that called
> > > himself "fpasquinus" (actually every one that I checked); they approved the
> > > posts in which anyone who disagreed with the consuls were called "traitors";
> > > they approved the post in which it was suggested that these "traitors" -
> > > like me, for instance - be kicked out of the Respublica; they approved the
> > > post that offered the advice that these "traitors" - like me - should be
> > > murdered.
> > >
> > >
> > Someone also approved one of his posts saying the tribunes should be
> > expelled from Nova Roma or thrown from the Tarpeian rock!
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla merula
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick D. Owen" <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:
>
> Correction! That post only recommended that Agrippa and I be expelled and thrown from the Tarpeian Rock.
>
> Aureliane
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato
> > <catoinnyc@>wrote:
> >
> > > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Second, following that a little more personally, the praetors personally
> > > approved the overwhelming majority of the posts by the entity that called
> > > himself "fpasquinus" (actually every one that I checked); they approved the
> > > posts in which anyone who disagreed with the consuls were called "traitors";
> > > they approved the post in which it was suggested that these "traitors" -
> > > like me, for instance - be kicked out of the Respublica; they approved the
> > > post that offered the advice that these "traitors" - like me - should be
> > > murdered.
> > >
> > >
> > Someone also approved one of his posts saying the tribunes should be
> > expelled from Nova Roma or thrown from the Tarpeian rock!
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla merula
> >
>

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.

Salve.

I stand corrected.  It was only suggested that the two tribunes be thrown from the Tarpeian Rock; in other posts it was advised that all of us be expelled.

Ah but he also said "IN THE ANCIENT ROMA, SULLA, HIS FRIENDS AND HIS TRIBUNES PUPPETS WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN FROM THE TARPEIAN ROCK."

He also called you, Sulla and Ceaser liars which is pretty defamatory.

Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> It was Albucius who approved the post in which it was suggested that all of us "traitors" be murdered.
>
> The speech from Catiline - which equated Sulla with Catiline in one instance and in which Cicero is explaining how Catiline should be murdered - was
>
> X-eGroups-Approved-By: jfarnoud94 <jfarnoud94@> via web; 25 Jun 2009 04:29:21 -0000
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Aventina" <roman.babe@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
> I don't think that anyone has mentioned this fact: If fpasuinus hacked into
> both the Consul's home and work computers-- basically stalking the guy- it
> would mean he disliked Complutensis intensely.... So why does fpasquinus
> post only disliking the same people that the Consul dislikes? If fpasquinus
> hated the Consul so much as to hack both his computers and then to join NR,
> he would be writing emails against the Consul and the consul's friends
> instead of supporting them.
> Valete,
> Diana Aventina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:53 AM
> Subject: Technical issues: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The identity of the
> fpasquinus poster
>
>
> Salve Scholastica,
>
> > > ATS: I recall one election in which several people posted from the
> > > same
> > > computer. As virtually everyone is well aware, I am no expert on
> > > matters
> > > concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines
> > > could
> > > distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you.
> > > What
> > > tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather
> > > different, as in the cista. I could do with an explanation of these IP
> > > addresses, and perhaps others could as well.
> > >
>
> As probably few here know, before I did my career change into Classics I
> completed a bachelor's in Computer Science. The parallel you draw is not
> applicable since in the Consul's case two different networks are at
> stake--home and work. It is not the same thing as a family or friends coming
> together on a single computer to vote. In this case we have two different
> computers, on two different networks, protected behind routers (as is
> typical of most broadband connexions these days... what everyone calls
> "modems" now are actually DSL or cable routers).
>
> If someone were to hack into both systems, one would have to hack the
> routers first, since in most modern configurations the host (the PC) is
> assigned a non-routable IP address which cannot be directly accessed from
> the outside. What happens is that the router translates network activity
> from one IP address to the other. Internet traffic coming from outside can
> only direct itself to the IP address on the router, which in turn translates
> it to the internal PC's IP. This, however, can only happen if the router
> knows that this particular traffic is destined to a particular PC on the
> internal network--it can only know this in two ways: either the internal PC
> initiated the connexion or the router was programmed to make the translation
> automatically. The latter is not standard and not common. The former makes
> clear that an outside attacker can not *initiate* a direct connexion to the
> PC.
>
> The short and the long of this is that if Complutensis is not guilty it
> would imply that people hacked not only his home router and then hacked his
> home PC, but also broke through his workplace's network and then also hacked
> his work PC. The improbability of this is extreme. When the other
> circumstantial elements are added (the attacker flaming his enemies on a NR
> list, making similar grammatical mistakes, etc) the probability of this not
> being him becomes so tiny it is laughable.
>
> While you are correct that there are typical grammatical errors when someone
> works in a second language, what does this say about the current situation?
> The hacker was a European? Who is this person? Some European NR member
> managed the herculean task of breaking into both of the Consul's systems,
> and to what end? His excuse piles improbability upon improbability. The most
> efficient and reasonable conclusion is that Complutensis is guilty of this,
> whether we like it or not. I, for one, do not like this.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato
> <catoinnyc@...>wrote:
>
> > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > I stand corrected. It was only suggested that the two tribunes be thrown
> > from the Tarpeian Rock; in other posts it was advised that all of us be
> > expelled.
> >
> > Ah but he also said "IN THE ANCIENT ROMA, SULLA, HIS FRIENDS AND HIS
> TRIBUNES PUPPETS WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN FROM THE TARPEIAN ROCK."
>
> He also called you, Sulla and Ceaser liars which is pretty defamatory.
>
> Merula
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> What is more amusing is that a puppet called someone else a puppet.
>
> -Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato
> > <catoinnyc@>wrote:
> >
> > > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > I stand corrected. It was only suggested that the two tribunes be thrown
> > > from the Tarpeian Rock; in other posts it was advised that all of us be
> > > expelled.
> > >
> > > Ah but he also said "IN THE ANCIENT ROMA, SULLA, HIS FRIENDS AND HIS
> > TRIBUNES PUPPETS WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN FROM THE TARPEIAN ROCK."
> >
> > He also called you, Sulla and Ceaser liars which is pretty defamatory.
> >
> > Merula
> >
>

  
A. Tullia Scholastica Gualtero Graeco quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  

Salve Scholastica,

> >     ATS:  I recall one election in which several people posted from the same
> > computer.  As virtually everyone is well aware,  I am no expert on matters
> > concerning computers, but somehow doubt that the dear darling machines could
> > distinguish one user from another via IP addresses or what have you.  What
> > tripped the multiple voters up on this occasion was something rather
> > different, as in the cista.  I could do with an explanation of these IP
> > addresses, and perhaps others could as well.
> >

As probably few here know, before I did my career change into Classics I completed a bachelor's in Computer Science.

    ATS2:  Oh, my!  What made you see the light?  It can’t have been money, so it must have been love...

The parallel you draw is not applicable since in the Consul's case two different networks are at stake--home and work. It is not the same thing as a family or friends coming together on a single computer to vote.

    ATS2:  The votes in question were fraudulent, incidentally.  If there had been only those from adult citizens in the family, that would have been acceptable.  


In this case we have two different computers, on two different networks, protected behind routers (as is typical of most broadband connexions these days... what everyone calls "modems" now are actually DSL or cable routers).

    ATS2:  And if someone uses dial-up, is a router involved, too?  (assuming that there is only one computer per household)  Why, too, does a neighbor who uses Verizon get interference on their phone line from the net connection?  The router needs GPS?  ;-)

If someone were to hack into both systems, one would have to hack the routers first, since in most modern configurations the host (the PC) is assigned a non-routable IP address which cannot be directly accessed from the outside. What happens is that the router translates network activity from one IP address to the other. Internet traffic coming from outside can only direct itself to the IP address on the router, which in turn translates it to the internal PC's IP. This, however, can only happen if the router knows that this particular traffic is destined to a particular PC on the internal network--it can only know this in two ways: either the internal PC initiated the connexion or the router was programmed to make the translation automatically. The latter is not standard and not common. The former makes clear that an outside attacker can not *initiate* a direct connexion to the PC.


    ATS2: Hmmmm....glad you understand this.  

The short and the long of this is that if Complutensis is not guilty it would imply that people hacked not only his home router and then hacked his home PC, but also broke through his workplace's network and then also hacked his work PC. The improbability of this is extreme. When the other circumstantial elements are added (the attacker flaming his enemies on a NR list, making similar grammatical mistakes, etc) the probability of this not being him becomes so tiny it is laughable.

    ATS2:  I leave the cyber stuff to you and others who understand it, but some of us do have the same enemies, and some speak the same language and therefore make the same grammatical mistakes.  Avitus often notes those traps into which Spanish speakers fall when they take Latin, for (inter alia) the gerundive in Latin is apparently a plain-vanilla adjective in Spanish, and there are other little differences...you know, neuter gender, declensions, one verb for to be...  

While you are correct that there are typical grammatical errors when someone works in a second language, what does this say about the current situation? The hacker was a European?

    ATS2:  Probably not a native English speaker, whatever the origin.  To me, there is nothing that cries out that the writer is a Castilian speaker, or a Spanish speaker of any sort.  Avitus is a Castilian speaker, and I have worked with him for years without seeing these types of errors.  Other ones, yes.  

 Who is this person? Some European NR member managed the herculean task of breaking into both of the Consul's systems, and to what end? His excuse piles improbability upon improbability. The most efficient and reasonable conclusion is that Complutensis is guilty of this, whether we like it or not. I, for one, do not like this.

    ATS2:  I don’t like it, either, whether or not any magistrate indulged in this deception.  

    Thanks for the tutorial.  

Vale,

Gualterus

  
    Vale, et valete.

  
A. Tullia Scholastica Decio Junio Palladio Invicto quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
  

Salve Scholastica,

    Salve, Palladi.  

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
 
> > This isn't true at all. Your date of joining is not reset when your status as
> > moderator changes, nor if you add a new address to your existing account.
> >
> >     ATS:  Could you possibly explain why my joining date is in early January,
> > 2009, when I have not unsubscribed since late 2003 (and then only in a
> > misunderstanding)?  

Your date joining this list is not January 2009, it's Feb. 3, 2005 (that must be when you accidently unsubbed). Your moderator status was changed in January 2009 but your list membership is much earlier. Click on the members tab and look at your name there for the correct date. Click on the moderators tab to see the date of when people became moderator.

    ATS2:  When I check the joining date in the membership list, I see only January 7th, 2009, which is the same as under the moderators’ tab.  I don’t know where you got the date of February, 2005; I did not unsubscribe at that point, but in or around December of 2003, though I believe there may have been a praetorian error which unsubscribed me involuntarily around that time.  Could Yahoo display the dates differently for moderators, even on the membership list?  

Looking at other moderators, Marinus' moderator status was last changed in 2006 but the date he joined this list was May 28, 2002.

    ATS2:  Wondering where you found that...

> > I'll use my own ID, deciusiunius, as an example. The date on it is March 13,
> > 2002, the date this list was created. Since that time my moderator status has
> > changed at least three or four times, having served as praetor and praetorian
> > scribe; currently I am just an ordinary member. I've also made changes to the
> > address used, changing back and forth at least once. No change in date of
> > joining, still March 2002.
> >
> >     ATS:  Perhaps your joining date is somehow protected, maybe because you
> > probably migrated from the OneList or whatever which preceded the current ML.
> > This is the first time I have heard of anyoneï¿∏s date not changing when status
> > changes were made.

No, this is standard. You were just looking in the wrong place. Easy mistake to make.

    ATS2:  I looked in the members’ list, not the moderators’ one.  Is that where you were looking?  

FYI, this list never migrated from onelists, that was the old mainlist, novaroma, as opposed to the current nova-roma.

    ATS2:  Ah, so.  The RR list still seems to call itself OneList, and I believe I had heard the term in connection with the ML.  

Vale,

Palladius

Vale, et valete.  

> >
> >> >   Anyone can
> >>> > > join at any time, and that means any longtime citizen, knowledgeable in
> NR
> >>> > > affairs, can reappear after years and yet be listed as having joined,
> >>> say,
> >>> > > today.  Sulla did...others do.
> >
> > That's because he unsubscribed and resubscribed.
> >
> >     ATS:  Indeed he did, and Poplicola has done so frequently of late.  A
> > couple of years ago, there was one party who subscribed and unsubscribed every
> > few hours...literally.  Lately, too, a number of people have appeared who have
> > apparently been lurking on the ML for years, but did not post.  Joining date
> > still is not definitive.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> > Thus for a new member to be very aware of NR
> >>> > > is not unusual, or suspicious in and of itself.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Was ï¿∏heï¿∏ moderated for the usual period of time?  If not, why not?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  Yes, but we must allow everything other than spam or
> >>> vulgarities.
> >>> > > No one seems to have been concerned about the ToS violation by an
> >>> unmoderated
> >>> > > person who asked a question about sexual aids...but a minor citizen
> >>> applicant
> >>> > > joined the ML a couple of weeks ago, and we have them there as young as
> >>> > > thirteen, if not younger.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Is fpasquinus being moderated now?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  As Albucius noted, he was removed.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If so ï¿∏ why, for the love of all the Great Gods, are his posts being
> >>> allowed
> >>> > > to reach the list?  Each and every one of them has been beneath
> >>> contempt, and
> >>> > > others have been moderated for posting ï¿∏information that might not be
> >>> factual
> >>> > > and might damage the reputation of a citizenï¿∏.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  They have been quite intense, as have others by other posters.
> We
> >>> > > let them through...
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > If fpasquinus *is* a construct (as, frankly, I suspect), it is possible
> >>> that
> >>> > > great care was taken, and that the Praetors and their cohors were
> >>> deceived.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  I am not aware that any of us knew, though I had begun to
> >>> wonder if
> >>> > > this was a real person.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >  However ï¿∏ if not, then there would be an indication of complicity
> >>> between the
> >>> > > Consul and the Praetors, *and* the Praetorian cohors.  This alarms me,
> >>> because
> >>> > > I know and esteem some of the people on that cohors, and there are a
> >>> couple on
> >>> > > that cohors that I consider friends ï¿∏ friends I know, trust and value.
> I
> >>> > > simply cannot conceive that *these* people would participate in such a
> >>> > > dishonorable deception, nor can I accept that at least one of the
> >>> Praetors
> >>> > > would, again, because of prior contact, observation and high estimation.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  I can pretty well guarantee that none of us would knowingly
> >>> engage
> >>> > > in such deception.  I may also point out that Complutensis asked to be
> >>> removed
> >>> > > as a moderator because he had deleted some posts in error, and did not
> >>> > > participate in any recent moderation.
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > I donï¿∏t know exactly what steps should be taken to resolve this
> >>> situation one
> >>> > > way or the other, but I urge, very strongly urge, that those steps *be*
> >>> taken,
> >>> > > and taken immediately.  Whoever is legally charged with the
> >>> investigation of
> >>> > > possible wrong doing in our Res Publica is, I hope and trust, already
> >>> > > investigating and will be reporting very soon (or already has, and I
> >>> havenï¿∏t
> >>> > > read the post yet..)  Once we know what has been going on, if anything,
> >>> then
> >>> > > it will be the time to deal (I hope very firmly and summarily) with the
> >>> > > offender, in as public a manner as possible, since the offense, if there
> has
> >>> > > been one, has been extremely public.
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > The time for rhetoric, either in accusation or mindless support is
> >>> *over*, and
> >>> > > the time for swift and decisive action by those empowered (other than
> the
> >>> > > concerned Consul) to act has come.  I expect certain things from the
> >>> officers
> >>> > > of any organization to which I belong, and I require certain things from
> the
> >>> > > duly elected Government of my Res Publica, and I have emphatically not
> >>> been
> >>> > > seeing these things.
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > Respectfully, and with great sadness,
> >>> > >
> >>> > >     ATS:  Yes, this is a very sad situation, very distasteful.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > C. Maria Caeca
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale, et valete.
> >>> > >   
> >>> > >     
> >>> > >
> >>> > >      
> >>> > >    Messages in this topic
> >>> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/67997
> >> >
> >
> >   
> >
>

  
    

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> In accordance with the Constitution of the Respublica, which gives the tribunes
> the power "To call the Senate to order" (Const. N.R., IV.A.7.d.1), and whereas
> the tribunes also "may convene the Senate in order to ask the Senate's advice on
> any subject which is clearly within the scope of his or her constitutionally
> mandated powers and obligations" (Senatus Consultum de Ratione Senatus, II.C),
> and whereas it is a constitutionally mandated part of the obligations of the
> tribunes to "administer the law... [to] serve the interests of the Plebs and the
> citizens of Nova Roma" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.d.3, lex Didia Gemina de potestate
> tribunicia, II.B), and whereas it is unquestionably in the interests of the
> citizens of Nova Roma to learn the truth regarding this matter, I hereby
> formally request that the tribune T. Horatius Barbatus call the Senate to
> order (having the auspices taken in accordance with the law) to investigate and
> take action in the matter of the entity known as "fpasquinus" and act as presiding magistrate in accordance with the law.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

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

> > ATS2: When I check the joining date in the membership list, I see only
> > January 7th, 2009, which is the same as under the moderators¹ tab. I don¹t
> > know where you got the date of February, 2005; I did not unsubscribe at that
> > point, but in or around December of 2003, though I believe there may have been
> > a praetorian error which unsubscribed me involuntarily around that time.
> > Could Yahoo display the dates differently for moderators, even on >>the membership list?

Moderators are listed twice. Once as moderators, which shows the date they became moderator, and also as members.

On the yahoo site, click on "members" on the left side of the screen. That will take you to a page that says members. On that page there are three tabs: "members," "moderators" and "bouncing." The January 2009 date you are referring to when you look at your name is found under moderators and is the last change in your moderator status apparently. If you click on "members" and search for your name there you will see what I am referring to. It's easier to search for your name (or any other, such as Marinus, the other example I used) rather than wade on page after page.


> >
> > Looking at other moderators, Marinus' moderator status was last changed in
> > 2006 but the date he joined this list was May 28, 2002.
> >
> > ATS2: Wondering where you found that...
> >
> >>> > > I'll use my own ID, deciusiunius, as an example. The date on it is March
> 13,
> >>> > > 2002, the date this list was created. Since that time my moderator
> >>> status has
> >>> > > changed at least three or four times, having served as praetor and
> >>> praetorian
> >>> > > scribe; currently I am just an ordinary member. I've also made changes
> >>> to the
> >>> > > address used, changing back and forth at least once. No change in date
> of
> >>> > > joining, still March 2002.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ATS: Perhaps your joining date is somehow protected, maybe because
> you
> >>> > > probably migrated from the OneList or whatever which preceded the
> >>> current ML.
> >>> > > This is the first time I have heard of anyone�s date not changing when
> >>> status
> >>> > > changes were made.
> >
> > No, this is standard. You were just looking in the wrong place. Easy mistake
> > to make.
> >
> > ATS2: I looked in the members¹ list, not the moderators¹ one. Is that
> > where you were looking?

Yes indeed. At the top of members to find your name, enter it under "search members."

Vale,

Palladius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Gualtero Graeco quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > Salve Scholastica,

> > As probably few here know, before I did my career change into Classics I
> > completed a bachelor's in Computer Science.
> >
> > ATS2: Oh, my! What made you see the light? It can¹t have been money, so
> > it must have been love...

MCGG (my acronym makes me feel like some numismatic certification service): I had always been interested in ancient history and I hated my job, so I quit and had to redo the full load from BA on up... but it has been worth it.

> > In this case we have two different computers, on two different networks,
> > protected behind routers (as is typical of most broadband connexions these
> > days... what everyone calls "modems" now are actually DSL or cable routers).
> >
> > ATS2: And if someone uses dial-up, is a router involved, too? (assuming
> > that there is only one computer per household) Why, too, does a neighbor who
> > uses Verizon get interference on their phone line from the net connection?
> > The router needs GPS? ;-)

MCGG: No, there is not. Those old dialup modems were a different kind of creature. The name "modem" comes from MOdulator-DEModulator, and refers to a device that is able to encode digital traffic across an analog line (the phone line). Basically, they were like pasting two tubes together. Routers, on the other hand, get their own address and act like a hub for traffic--someone can "log into" a DSL, Cable, etc "modem".

Your neighbor is using DSL, which operates across phone lines too, although in a completely digital way. If phone lines are not properly shielded (or there was deterioration) then the signal can cause interference to other phone lines that are bundled with it.

> > ATS2: I leave the cyber stuff to you and others who understand it, but
> > some of us do have the same enemies, and some speak the same language and
> > therefore make the same grammatical mistakes. Avitus often notes those traps
> > into which Spanish speakers fall when they take Latin, for (inter alia) the
> > gerundive in Latin is apparently a plain-vanilla adjective in Spanish, and
> > there are other little differences...you know, neuter gender, declensions, one
> > verb for to be...

MCGG: Yes, there are typical errors, especially where grammar is concerned. However, Caesar's analysis also included spelling mistakes, capitalization habits and subject matter. In the end it is circumstantial, but it is strongly suggestive, and when combined with the IP evidence makes for an extremely strong case (since two different types of evidence converge to the same conclusion).

Vale,

Gualterus

> Cato - who approved the Cataline speech post?
> Vale,
> Sulla

> Interesting employees in the Praetors office. Interesting.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae,
>
> > Cato - who approved the Cataline speech post?
> > Vale,
> > Sulla
>
> I did. That was a witty wink with the culture. The speech of Cicero against Catilina is known by everybody who has some Latine culture. And, Sulla, you claim everywhere that you are a man who likes free speech. This Cicero's speech is a great moment and I had hope of a witty answer from you of the same level... but I had forgotten that you have no culture.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

>I am sure you can understand that current events have put people on edge and their responses might be conditioned by this.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Horatio Barbato sal.

Salve.

I would like a third, neutral party (you) to collect as much intelligent evidence as is available from those conversant with the intricacies of IT as possible. A presiding magistrate has the power to allow those who have competence in a particular field to present such matters before the Senate.

I would then like this evidence presented in a logical, methodical way to the Senate.

I would then like the Senate to be able to discuss the evidence and make a recommendation based on it as to who is responsible.

I would then like the People to be presented with a lex based on the tribunes' collective decision regarding the identity and fate of the person or persons involved and responsible.

The tribunes have the power to call the comitia populi tributa together to vote on law binding on the entire citizenry. If - and I say "if", although it should be quite clear that I believe he is in fact the person responsible - Curiatius Complutensis is found responsible, I would ask that the tribunes vote to have his imperium stripped from him, making him unable to call the Senate or set its agenda, unable to call the People together in comitia, unable to issue edicta, and unable to interpret or administer the law.

Taking back the gift of imperium by which the People have given authority to a magistrate is a Roman practice. According to Smith's Dictionary:

"The offences for which persons were summoned before the tribes were bad conduct of a magistrate in the performance of his duties, neglect of duty, ill management of a war, embezzlement of the public money, and a variety of offences of private individuals, such as disturbance of the public peace, usury, adultery, and the like."

Since the comitia populi tributa cannot remove a consul from office legally, stripping away his imperium would be the closest thing possible.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Horatio Barbato sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> I would like a third, neutral party (you) to collect as much intelligent
> evidence as is available from those conversant with the intricacies of IT as
> possible. A presiding magistrate has the power to allow those who have
> competence in a particular field to present such matters before the Senate.
>
> I would then like this evidence presented in a logical, methodical way to the
> Senate.
>
> I would then like the Senate to be able to discuss the evidence and make a
> recommendation based on it as to who is responsible.
>
> I would then like the People to be presented with a lex based on the tribunes'
> collective decision regarding the identity and fate of the person or persons
> involved and responsible.
>
> The tribunes have the power to call the comitia populi tributa together to vote
> on law binding on the entire citizenry. If - and I say "if", although it should
> be quite clear that I believe he is in fact the person responsible - Curiatius
> Complutensis is found responsible, I would ask that the tribunes call for a vote to have
> his imperium stripped from him, making him unable to call the Senate or set its
> agenda, unable to call the People together in comitia, unable to issue edicta,
> and unable to interpret or administer the law.
>
> Taking back the gift of imperium by which the People have given authority to a
> magistrate is a Roman practice. And the comitia populi tributa is the appropriate place to do so. According to Smith's Dictionary:
>
> "The offences for which persons were summoned before the tribes were bad conduct
> of a magistrate in the performance of his duties, neglect of duty, ill
> management of a war, embezzlement of the public money, and a variety of offences
> of private individuals, such as disturbance of the public peace, usury,
> adultery, and the like."
>
> Since the comitia populi tributa cannot remove a consul from office legally,
> stripping away his imperium would be the closest thing possible.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
It is a nonsense. I do not want to be involved in such stupid things.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter


Then don't say anything. No-one is forcing you to keep insulting anyone. You're doing that all on your own.

Vale,

Cato

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

Please read the whole thing before commenting. I did *not* suggest a senatus consultum.

Vale,

cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> The CPT cannot remove imperium from a consul either.
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Fabio Modiano sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Please read the whole thing before commenting. I did *not* suggest a
> > senatus consultum.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
>