--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Iuliae Aquilae sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> And thanks for the links. I bookmarked the earlier series on your recommendation and have been watching regularly. Very Good Stuff!
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvéte, amícae et amící!
> >
> > The BBC has gifted us with yet another wonderful series (which I may or may not have already posted). These could not have come at a better time for me as I begin preparations for a Saturnalia feast in December and the clothing is wonderful and giving me many ideas. The last brought tears. If you have cable or dish it's on the Military Channel.
> >
> > The Battle of Rome - Julius Caesar
> > 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk_noLVEBNY
> > 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKoJPcEhXVo&feature=related
> > 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9RfxETPeUc&feature=related
> > 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kYV7AXsYlk
> > 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUn3sG6iXSw
> >
> > The Battle of Rome - Augustus
> > 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUcX7i958IU&feature=related
> > 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkevnMqRZsY&feature=related
> > 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbLmStqS5QI&feature=related
> > 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mAtK8dLpo0&feature=related
> > 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHuucJg17OI&feature=related
> >
> > Ancient Rome The Rise And Fall Of An Empire
> > 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFB56tpPHa4&feature=related
> > 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D38eqaWvHuw&feature=related
> > 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XQn0I5n8iU&feature=related
> > 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlQCk7aOR4&feature=related
> > 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO94LTJPJsY&feature=related
> > 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xn8IX9gDFQ&feature=related
> > 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArjAAqHPgVQ&feature=related
> > 8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBrEbQLFM1s&feature=related
> >
> > Valéte et habéte fortúnam bonam!
> >
> > Julia
> >
>

> I don't know what it is with Regulus but he's talking himself into calumniae.
>
> I hope that the ever-vigilant and totally impartial praetors are
> making note of the stated implication that violence against
> Christians - the reference to "lions" and me being a Christian are
> impossible not to bring together logically in a forum designed to
> discuss ancient Rome - is not only acceptable but laudable.

>
> Salve,
> Hate crimes?
> While it is true that some comments were posted that aren't exactly pretty calling them hate crimes is a bit much, Even further blaming NR as a whole for what was said is horrible. Cato, did they actualy throw lions at you? Are you in the colosseum right now?
> Gods these little quarrels remind me of the ones the cliques used to get into in high school, only instead of the skaters and the jocks we have the Pagan and the christians.
> Perhaps we could turn our attention into making Rome something we can be proud of, not tearing at her like rabid dogs over some petty diffrences?
> Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
> Roma Invicta
> RGIN
>
> GAIVS IVNIVS NERO
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> >
> >
> > This is embarassing in the extreme that Scholastica, who seemed to conduct herself with some dignity, would sully herself by penning a love letter unworthy of a highschooler to some demented old fool's self-produced panegyric. I had no idea how my Romanitas could be so enriched by knowing that Regulus does not require viagara to achieve an erection and that, moreover, Scholastica approves. Needless to say, she must have been mightily impressed by his mental and, apparently, physical prowess to join so lightly in the advocation of violence against Christians. Besides being inept, it seems Nova Roma, with the help of Regulus' stiff cock, is making a foray into hate crimes? Bravo.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> >
> >
> > Gaius Claudius Caecus
> >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > From: catoinnyc@
> > > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:40:41 +0000
> > > Subject: Alembic and Herbalism Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Turin Exhibit -- Ancient Roman Perfume
> > >
> > > Cato Lucillae Merullae sal.
> > >
> > > Salve!
> > >
> > > I don't know what it is with Regulus but he's talking himself into calumniae.
> > >
> > > I hope that the ever-vigilant and totally impartial praetors are making note of the stated implication that violence against Christians - the reference to "lions" and me being a Christian are impossible not to bring together logically in a forum designed to discuss ancient Rome - is not only acceptable but laudable. At least one of the praetorial staff (Tullia Scholastica) thinks it's amusing, apparently.
> > >
> > > Is this view acceptable to our current government, that Nova Roma needs lions to deal with her Christians? I guess we'll see.
> > >
> > > Vale!
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:37 AM, A. Sempronius Regulus <
> > > > asempronius.regulus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor unlike our poster child for why Nova Roma needs lions, Cato, I do not
> > > > > need viagra to be aroused with others or to be able to look myself in the
> > > > > mirror in the morning (maybe Cato is Christian because such things with him
> > > > > are a "divine miracle".). But then again, maybe Cato found himself when he
> > > > > came out of the closet to become Sulla's "homey"; an ex-Baptist and a Jersey
> > > > > boy that likes doing it Greek -- hmmm, -- a magico-erotic recipe for a
> > > > > double-dipping couple?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What is it with you and Cato? I find your excessive need to drag him into
> > > > any and every conversation tiring in the extreme. Your obsessive need to
> > > > denigrate him is not only lacking in dignitas but downright weird. Why do
> > > > you fear him so?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know Cato, I've never met him nor conversed with him. Obviously I
> > > > know he's a Christian and his religion is very important to him. I can
> > > > respect that, after all I follow the Roman gods and my religion is very
> > > > important to me. I have seen Cato ask questions about the religio but I have
> > > > never once seen him accord it anything but respect. He has never made fun of
> > > > either it or it's followers for their beliefs. Yet, here, the world and it's
> > > > wife seem to feel it's perfectly acceptable to poke fun at him and his
> > > > religion and insult him ad nauseum. Why are you all so totally lacking in
> > > > dignitas? Frankly I'm beginning to be ashamed to be part of Nova Roma. It's
> > > > certainly no longer the organisation I joined.
> > > >
> > > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
> > http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
> >
>

> 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? The question arises out of a sense of wonder and awe. Another way to ask the very same question is in a yes-no form -

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:42 PM, william horan wrote:
>
> Salve Brother,
>
> Thank you for this most touching poem. I misunderstood the situation
> completely and apologize for any offense I may have given. Thank you for
> sharing your relationship and attitude regarding Mars. I welcome any
> discussion in this regard. I too have survived a few battlefields in Iraq
> and the Balkans. If we meet, I look forward to toasting our good fortune at
> surviving and we can give a libation to the great one.
>
> Quintus Marius Silvanus
>

This is why I have tried to cultivate the habit of waiting to respond
(especially recently). I try and look at what the other person in the
conversation is writing, and to address their ideas.

In this manner, one of my mentors is Marcus Aurelius. So I do not
look for offense where I should see none. I saw none in your words,
only the strongly held ideas of a man I recognized as caring deeply
for his position.

I took a peek at your Yahoo profile; my wife and I were at
Wright-Patterson; mid-81 to late-82 (she attended AFIT, gaining a
Master's in Electro-Optics) and from late 91 - late summer 94, when
she was separated and we ended up in northern Illinois after a couple
of years. The 1st time we lived in Fairborn, the 2nd in Huber
Heights.

We have many happy memories of the Air Force Museum (I worked there
and at the Page Manor Youth Center, besides my other duties) and of
the area's home brew club.

Thank you for the apology, it is gracious and un-needed for my peace
of mind, but, Thank You, very kindly.

As the air is cleared between us...think on how we can build a better
future for Romanitas, and an awareness of the proper Martial Spirit.

In amicitia - P Ullerius Stephanus Venator (who made Staff Sergeant)

--- On Wed, 8/26/09, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Philosophy's Two Attitudes and Five Questions
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 11:07 PM

Salve,

> 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? The question arises out of a sense of wonder and awe. Another way to ask the very same question is in a yes-no form -

In my opinion that question is a nonsense. It is something. We can know it by our five senses. We know that it is something.
------------------------------
ASR: This is the classic starting-point for philosophy, ancient or modern.
Even modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, find the question intelligible. I can offer quotes. But lets not worry about that now. Did you ever have a moment in your life amazed you existed? The same question applies to us all. Why wouldn't that be a "why" question? Why is asking "why" nonsense in this case?
----------------------------------------------

So put the question why? is a nonsense. As to beg the question why I am a man and not a woman.

--------------------------
ASR: Begging the question is assuming something is proved when it is not. It can't apply to questions; it applies only to "answers". Could you explain why the question "why" is begging the question and nonsense? Could you explain why it is not appropriate to ask why I live now (rather than in the past or future), why I am male or female, why I'm rich or poor, German, Rusian, French, Italian, or American? Can you explain how the "why" questions are nonsense?

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

It is a nonsense to think that it would be nothing because it is something. I do not understand why this nonsense could be philosophical.

-----------------------
ASR: To re-phrase, does it make sense to wonder where the something came from?
----------------------

Is it nothing around us? No, it is not.
Is it something around us? Yes it is. It is manifeste.
-------------------
ASR: Acknowledged but don't you think that calls for an explanation?
------------

Your why? is a false qustion. If you say why? perhaps do you want give this something a reason, a cause?
----------------
ASR: Yes, we seek for an answer, a reason, a cause.
---------------
But the right question is not why? but how?
--------------------------
ASR: Can you explain that further? What is the difference between "why" and "how" in your opinion? I'll allow that scientists ask why but engineers ask how. The difference is trying to understand the world vs how to make a part of it do what we want (technology). I will grant that modern science blurs the distinction. But how do you see and explain the difference you made between "why" and "how"?
--------------------------------------
The epicurians have an answer, a very materialist answer, but it is in my opinion a good answer. How? with atoms and energies into void.
----------------------------------------
ASR: And so the status of the gods are? And the status of your soul at death is? And are the laws of physics themselves physical? Are the truths of mathematics nothing but the arrangement of physical atoms? If so, what physical force lines them up in the same answer-pattern every time?
------------------------------------

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

-------------
Vale optime,
A. Sempronius Regulus

>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:22 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Additionally Cato's post in the BA that he'll run for consul and pack the
> > Collegium Pontificum with his BA friends, does't make the hard-working
> > cultores here in NR happy.
> >
>
> Maior I am sick to the back teeth of you and your lies. You lied before
> about what Cato was supposed to have said and I asked you 4 times publicly
> on this list to show me where he said it. You never once replied but then
> you couldn't because you'd have had to admit that you were wrong and a liar.
>
> I ask you this time where he said he would "pack the Collegium Pontificum
> with his BA friends" and again you won't be able to show me BECAUSE HE NEVER
> SAID THAT.
>
> You bring absolutely no credit whatsoever to the Religio when you bleat
> about upholding it in one breath and lie your head off in the next!
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>

>>> As a spiritual experience, the debate, if sincere, is awakening because it is about possibilities and alternatives. So, in comradeship with you, I disagree and ask a few questions....[intersperced below]

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: catoinnyc@...
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:40:41 +0000
> Subject: Alembic and Herbalism Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Turin Exhibit -- Ancient Roman Perfume
>
> Cato Lucillae Merullae sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> I don't know what it is with Regulus but he's talking himself into calumniae.
>
> I hope that the ever-vigilant and totally impartial praetors are making note of the stated implication that violence against Christians - the reference to "lions" and me being a Christian are impossible not to bring together logically in a forum designed to discuss ancient Rome - is not only acceptable but laudable. At least one of the praetorial staff (Tullia Scholastica) thinks it's amusing, apparently.
>
> Is this view acceptable to our current government, that Nova Roma needs lions to deal with her Christians? I guess we'll see.
>
> Vale!
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:37 AM, A. Sempronius Regulus <
> > asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nor unlike our poster child for why Nova Roma needs lions, Cato, I do not
> > > need viagra to be aroused with others or to be able to look myself in the
> > > mirror in the morning (maybe Cato is Christian because such things with him
> > > are a "divine miracle".). But then again, maybe Cato found himself when he
> > > came out of the closet to become Sulla's "homey"; an ex-Baptist and a Jersey
> > > boy that likes doing it Greek -- hmmm, -- a magico-erotic recipe for a
> > > double-dipping couple?
> > >
> > >
> > > What is it with you and Cato? I find your excessive need to drag him into
> > any and every conversation tiring in the extreme. Your obsessive need to
> > denigrate him is not only lacking in dignitas but downright weird. Why do
> > you fear him so?
> >
> > I don't know Cato, I've never met him nor conversed with him. Obviously I
> > know he's a Christian and his religion is very important to him. I can
> > respect that, after all I follow the Roman gods and my religion is very
> > important to me. I have seen Cato ask questions about the religio but I have
> > never once seen him accord it anything but respect. He has never made fun of
> > either it or it's followers for their beliefs. Yet, here, the world and it's
> > wife seem to feel it's perfectly acceptable to poke fun at him and his
> > religion and insult him ad nauseum. Why are you all so totally lacking in
> > dignitas? Frankly I'm beginning to be ashamed to be part of Nova Roma. It's
> > certainly no longer the organisation I joined.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >

 A. Tullia Scholastica Ti. Apolloniae Artifici omnibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

    Yahoo has refused to deliver my posts unless they are sent from the website interface, so perhaps I shall have to resort to that for this one as well.  
 

Salve A. Tullia Scholastica,
Please sign me up for Latina Grammatica I.  That is what I have decided to enroll in.  Thanks much.

    ATS:  Students must enroll themselves, using information I provide.  In your case, I really do think that Sermo might be the better choice as it seems more adapted to your learning style.  The text is available via emule; it has been out of print for at least a couple of years.

Vale,
Ti. Apollonia Artifex


Vale, et valete.  

--- On Sat, 8/22/09, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...> wrote:

From: A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Sermo Latinus/Grammatica Latina class registration
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 11:59 PM



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

    Registration in the Sermo Latinus II course is now open.  We expect to open registration in the introductory spoken-Latin course in a few days.  Registration is continuing in both Grammatica Latina courses.

    Students wishing to enroll in any of our Latin courses must have the textbook in hand (and prove that to my satisfaction) before being allowed to register.   Those wishing to take an intermediate course must fulfill the prerequisite:  successful completion of the introductory course in that series.  In the case of Grammatica, either introductory course (Grammatica I, Sermo I, or the first half of combined Sermo) will fulfill this requirement, as will a college course similar in content to Grammatica I.  

    The textbook for the Grammatica courses is Wheelock’s Latin, by Frederic Wheelock, sixth edition, revised by LaFleur, which is commonly available in English-speaking countries, and not terribly costly. The text for the Assimil-based Sermo Latinus courses is Le Latin Sans Peine, by Clement Desessard, and is also available in Italian.  The text has been translated into English and Spanish on the course site for the benefit of the students.  It is expensive, and hard to find, but apparently the French version (out of print for a couple of years) can be obtained via emule.  

    Both of the separate Sermo courses are slated to begin on September 21st; Grammatica II will begin on August 31st, and Grammatica I on September 7th.  At this point, we have not set a date for the combined Sermo class, and inasmuch as Avitus has just left for another adventure, a cruise with the Latinists, and the materials are not onsite, I do not anticipate that we will be able to offer that course until next year.  

Valete.  

 
    

A. Tullia Scholastica A. Sempronio Regulo C. Petronio Dextro quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 
    I shall do some more interleaving, hoping that Yahoo will allow this to be delivered.  Two attempts at answering Caecus via e-mail failed.  

Salve,
You raise good objections. Please note that in philosophy, some of my dearest friends are the one's I most disagree with and passionately argue with. One was a friend for 40 years. He is still living but suffering from the early stages of dementia. We argued philosophy through the city of San Francisco from noon until the next morning, in Paris from espresso in the morning until the next day, and in Boston, roughly the same hours and stretch. As a spiritual experience, the debate, if sincere, is awakening because it is about possibilities and alternatives. So, in comradeship with you, I disagree and ask a few questions....[intersperced below]

--- On Wed, 8/26/09, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... <mailto:jfarnoud94%40yahoo.fr> > wrote:

From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... <mailto:jfarnoud94%40yahoo.fr> >
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Philosophy's Two Attitudes and Five Questions
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 11:07 PM

Salve,

> 1. Why is there something rather than nothing? The question arises out of a sense of wonder and awe. Another way to ask the very same question is in a yes-no form -

In my opinion that question is a nonsense. It is something. We can know it by our five senses. We know that it is something.
------------------------------
ASR: This is the classic starting-point for philosophy, ancient or modern.

    ATS:  Exactly.  

Even modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, find the question intelligible. I can offer quotes. But lets not worry about that now. Did you ever have a moment in your life amazed you existed? The same question applies to us all. Why wouldn't that be a "why" question? Why is asking "why" nonsense in this case?

    ATS:  To me, it isn’t, though my interests lie in other domains of philosophy.  

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

So put the question why? is a nonsense. As to beg the question why I am a man and not a woman.

--------------------------
ASR: Begging the question is assuming something is proved when it is not. It can't apply to questions; it applies only to "answers". Could you explain why the question "why" is begging the question and nonsense? Could you explain why it is not appropriate to ask why I live now (rather than in the past or future), why I am male or female, why I'm rich or poor, German, Rusian, French, Italian, or American? Can you explain how the "why" questions are nonsense?

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

It is a nonsense to think that it would be nothing because it is something. I do not understand why this nonsense could be philosophical.

-----------------------
ASR: To re-phrase, does it make sense to wonder where the something came from?

    ATS:  To me, it doesn’t.  

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

Is it nothing around us? No, it is not.
Is it something around us? Yes it is. It is manifeste.

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

ASR: Acknowledged but don't you think that calls for an explanation?

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

Your why? is a false qustion. If you say why? perhaps do you want give this something a reason, a cause?

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

ASR: Yes, we seek for an answer, a reason, a cause.

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

But the right question is not why? but how?

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

ASR: Can you explain that further? What is the difference between "why" and "how" in your opinion? I'll allow that scientists ask why but engineers ask how. The difference is trying to understand the world vs how to make a part of it do what we want (technology). I will grant that modern science blurs the distinction. But how do you see and explain the difference you made between "why" and "how"?

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

The epicurians have an answer, a very materialist answer, but it is in my opinion a good answer. How? with atoms and energies into void.

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

ASR: And so the status of the gods are? And the status of your soul at death is? And are the laws of physics themselves physical? Are the truths of mathematics nothing but the arrangement of physical atoms? If so, what physical force lines them up in the same answer-pattern every time?

    ATS:  And here we see philosophy.  Physics may be involved (I leave that to those more knowledgeable about such things), but perhaps there is more to it than that.  It is among the best parts of our humanity to speculate on such matters.  


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

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

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

Vale optime,
A. Sempronius Regulus

Valete, amici.



  
    

A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 
 

Cato Lucillae Merullae sal.

Salve!

I don't know what it is with Regulus but he's talking himself into calumniae.

I hope that the ever-vigilant and totally impartial praetors are making note of the stated implication that violence against Christians - the reference to "lions" and me being a Christian are impossible not to bring together logically in a forum designed to discuss ancient Rome - is not only acceptable but laudable.  At least one of the praetorial staff (Tullia Scholastica) thinks it's amusing, apparently.

    ATS:  I don’t know where you got this idea, Cato, but you are wrong.  I was commenting on the use of potions for everything, and bodily mutilation in the supposed name of beauty.  Did you miss seeing those remarks?  Or simply misunderstand them as you wanted to see them?  Did you miss the parts about appearance versus reality?  Did you and Jesse miss the assessment that Regulus’ brain (and that of anyone else) is his/her/their most important, and often most attractive, part?  Take that, spammers!  I think some of the spam I receive is amusing, though, Cato, especially those items telling me I need a python in my pants...I don’t theenk so; they tend to wring the breath out of anything they wrap themselves around.  

    Please tell your new-found buddies on the adolescent boys’ list that Regulus is not a pervert, I am not craz-ee, though I think that those who write in Latin deserve an answer in that language, and am all too aware that some in this world hate Latin.  Tell them that I do not look like a grandmother (not that there is anything wrong with that), but am often taken for someone much younger, and that the philistines over there and elsewhere need a stiff dose of philosophy, whether from Regulus or someone else.  He is as good as any to administer it.  Time to learn inter alia that appearance is not reality, beauty/attractiveness does not reside in physical attributes, especially not when devoid of more important ones; that the letter of the law is worthless unless it coincides with the moral law, and that adults do not concede to their limbic systems unless they have been decorticated.  That tends to be rather rare.  

    Oh, yes...many societies equate age with wisdom.  Your BA pals would do well to follow suit.  Kids such as some of them there don’t know enough about anything; they merely THINK they do.  When they grow up, they tend to get smarter...and do things they thought too little of in their callow youth.  They start thinking about philosophy, and gain some wisdom.   Maybe the nitpicking and the power trips and the nonsense on other topics, such as those Jesse raised, go out the window then.  

    Fortunately not all who are young are such brainless idiots, but too many are.  There are fine young people right here in NR, but they tend not to be the ones who make the most noise.  They know better.  


Is this view acceptable to our current government, that Nova Roma needs lions to deal with her Christians?

    ATS:  When did I become a cultrix?  Must have missed that one.  Was M. Audens attacked?  Your pal Sulla?  Any other Christian/Jew, etc.?  This was a bit of hyperbole, and perhaps fueled by overindulgence, but really, now...you supposedly pride yourself on your logic, which seems to be on vacation at present.  

 I guess we'll see.


    ATS:  One needs to see things for what they are, not what they appear to be.  Philosophia biou kybernhths...like it or not.  

Vale!

Cato


Valete.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:25 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...> wrote:

    Please tell your new-found buddies on the adolescent boys’ list

I take it we can all assume this is a reference to the Back Alley?  I am tired of this constant carping and sniping. I am neither an adolescent nor a boy. I am a grown woman, not a grandmother but certainly old enough to be one. I joined Nova Roma over 7 years ago. I had already, in my private life, been dedicated to Vesta for about 8 years. I joined the BA at the same time.

Not everything on the BA appeals to me but I have a delete button and believe me it's probably used even more on the ML these days. However on the BA I have also found really interesting discussions, a willingness to answer questions, many of the people I really admired when I joined NR and a consistent politeness to those who are polite in the first place.

i used to recommend NR to friends who were interested in the Religio or republican Rome in general, now I d be ashamed to recommend it to anyone, instead I'd tell them to join the BA, there's far more respect and openness and far less paranoia there.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:19 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

So in the 3rd paragraph, he goes on that if elected he'll start the course of action; since he wants a Senate Consultum to fill the CP - all the posts, and considering that he loves Sulla and loathes all the current magistrates, the fair assumption is that his friends will fill those seats in the CP.
                      

No Maior, that's your assumption. To say it's a fair one you would have to have EVIDENCE that would lead to that conclusion, for instance he had done something like that before. Now as far as I'm aware that's not the case. To be honest this, to me, seems to reek of projection and say a lot more about you than Cato.

The trouble with you is you project your views onto everyone else but you state them as facts not opinions. THAT'S what leads to getting called a liar. I could state that "in my opinion if Maior was Consul she'd try to fill the CP with her cronies" and there's nothing wrong with that statement whether it's true or false. But, if I was to come here screaming and trying to panic people saying "Maior IS going to fill the CP with her cronies" that becomes a lie because you would obviously ask for evidence and all I could do is mutter well I think she will.

I am honestly surprised that with the education you claim to have, you seem incapable of seeing the difference.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Salve Nero;
> nice news, Regulus is very interested in the mysteries, and I wrote to Gitana from Hellenion who put on Eleusinaian mysteries in Pennsylvania.
> I think a project to put on mysteries for NR, maybe the next Conventus would be wonderful. Are you interested at all in the mysteries of Magna Mater? as they have to do with Dionysus and Dionysys is Regulus' interest.
> optissime vale
> Maior
> >
> > Salve,
> > Hate crimes?
> > While it is true that some comments were posted that aren't exactly pretty calling them hate crimes is a bit much, Even further blaming NR as a whole for what was said is horrible. Cato, did they actualy throw lions at you? Are you in the colosseum right now?
> > Gods these little quarrels remind me of the ones the cliques used to get into in high school, only instead of the skaters and the jocks we have the Pagan and the christians.
> > Perhaps we could turn our attention into making Rome something we can be proud of, not tearing at her like rabid dogs over some petty diffrences?
> > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
> > Roma Invicta
> > RGIN
> >
> > GAIVS IVNIVS NERO
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Cato,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is embarassing in the extreme that Scholastica, who seemed to conduct herself with some dignity, would sully herself by penning a love letter unworthy of a highschooler to some demented old fool's self-produced panegyric. I had no idea how my Romanitas could be so enriched by knowing that Regulus does not require viagara to achieve an erection and that, moreover, Scholastica approves. Needless to say, she must have been mightily impressed by his mental and, apparently, physical prowess to join so lightly in the advocation of violence against Christians. Besides being inept, it seems Nova Roma, with the help of Regulus' stiff cock, is making a foray into hate crimes? Bravo.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gaius Claudius Caecus
> > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > From: catoinnyc@
> > > > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:40:41 +0000
> > > > Subject: Alembic and Herbalism Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Turin Exhibit -- Ancient Roman Perfume
> > > >
> > > > Cato Lucillae Merullae sal.
> > > >
> > > > Salve!
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what it is with Regulus but he's talking himself into calumniae.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that the ever-vigilant and totally impartial praetors are making note of the stated implication that violence against Christians - the reference to "lions" and me being a Christian are impossible not to bring together logically in a forum designed to discuss ancient Rome - is not only acceptable but laudable. At least one of the praetorial staff (Tullia Scholastica) thinks it's amusing, apparently.
> > > >
> > > > Is this view acceptable to our current government, that Nova Roma needs lions to deal with her Christians? I guess we'll see.
> > > >
> > > > Vale!
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:37 AM, A. Sempronius Regulus <
> > > > > asempronius.regulus@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nor unlike our poster child for why Nova Roma needs lions, Cato, I do not
> > > > > > need viagra to be aroused with others or to be able to look myself in the
> > > > > > mirror in the morning (maybe Cato is Christian because such things with him
> > > > > > are a "divine miracle".). But then again, maybe Cato found himself when he
> > > > > > came out of the closet to become Sulla's "homey"; an ex-Baptist and a Jersey
> > > > > > boy that likes doing it Greek -- hmmm, -- a magico-erotic recipe for a
> > > > > > double-dipping couple?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is it with you and Cato? I find your excessive need to drag him into
> > > > > any and every conversation tiring in the extreme. Your obsessive need to
> > > > > denigrate him is not only lacking in dignitas but downright weird. Why do
> > > > > you fear him so?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know Cato, I've never met him nor conversed with him. Obviously I
> > > > > know he's a Christian and his religion is very important to him. I can
> > > > > respect that, after all I follow the Roman gods and my religion is very
> > > > > important to me. I have seen Cato ask questions about the religio but I have
> > > > > never once seen him accord it anything but respect. He has never made fun of
> > > > > either it or it's followers for their beliefs. Yet, here, the world and it's
> > > > > wife seem to feel it's perfectly acceptable to poke fun at him and his
> > > > > religion and insult him ad nauseum. Why are you all so totally lacking in
> > > > > dignitas? Frankly I'm beginning to be ashamed to be part of Nova Roma. It's
> > > > > certainly no longer the organisation I joined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
> > > http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex, sacerdos Concordiae etc. praetoribus et omnibus sal.
>
>
> This what in 75% is going here is not Nova Roma, not about Nova Roma and is not for the sake of Nova Roma.
>
> I speak for my Goddess Concordia, I speak for the sake of the entire Roman Pantheon as an official Pontifex, I speak for my citizens under my imperium as Governor of Pannonia, I speak as a responsible citizen for my fellow citizens.
>
> Please don't abuse this forum for meaningless and cyclic arguing on those things that do not interest the citizenry, and only what they are useful for is damaging Nova Roma's good name and reputation.
>
> No one is interested in the personal conflicts and the endless debate between the consuls' factio and the Sulla-factio. It is boring to the extreme, it is tiresome to the infinity.
>
> Stop, stop, stop. I applaud Cato for starting to do something really productive and started to edit articles in our website. May be they are not yet perfect, sure they will be after more practicing.
>
> This is what Nova Roma is all about, do Roman things, live Roman life, improve your Romanity, and help others to improve theirs.
>
> Go to the NOVA ROMA WIKI, write articles, make comments, suggestions. Stop criticizing, start doing.
>
> WHAT MOST PEOPLE IN NOVA ROMA do not understand, is this:
>
> it's not the government that will create a Roman life to you: it's not the government that will live your Roman life.
>
> The consuls will administer the law, the praetors moderate our public communications, the censors register the new citizens etc.
>
> IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO CREATE THE NOVA ROMA YOU WANT.
>
> It is you, citizen, who ARE Nova Roma.
>
> I created the Nova Roman "Xenia" Project. It seems as if almost nobody is interested. It was a thing, I proposed something.
>
> It totally and in 100% depends on you, citizens. What you want, what you really want, that will be Nova Roma.
>
> You can go all you want and create a brand you republic or Roman corporation: within yours you will face the same problem. Pleople are much more interested in disagreeing and criticizing than in participating productively and adding to the community.
>
> Nova Roma is not its government.
>
> Nova Roma is you, what you add to it.
>
> Keep it in your mind, and use this forum according to this principle. Be sure that I personally read every single message in this forum but I speak only if I feel I really have something to add or to share. Try it you too.
>
> Nova Roma is not its government.
>
> Nova Roma is how you behave as a Nova Roman.
>
> And I sollemnly ask our praetors to help this Forum to become its true self, that serves Nova Roma's real interests, that promotes Nova Roma, that makes glory to our young Republic!
>
>
>
> Curate, uti valeatis!
>
> Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> Pontifex, Sacerdos Concordiae
> Magister Aranearius etc.
>
>
>
>
>  
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rikudemyx" <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> I would like to apologize if Cato or anyone else mistook my post as hate speech or as a sign that I am against christians, it was not my intention. May Blessed Mother Concord watch over you and all in Nova Roma.
> Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant.
> TBTWO
> GAIVS IVNIVS NERO

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>  
> This is particularly excellent! Thank you.
>
> --- On Wed, 8/26/09, luciaiuliaaquila <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <dis_pensible@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 4:29 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> A Stoic quote with a touch of humor:
>
> "If you hear that someone is speaking ill of you, instead of trying to defend yourself you should say: "He obviously does not know me very well, since there are so many other faults he could have mentioned""
> Epictetis
>
> Valete,
> Julia
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
> We have tons of peppers still so we've had to get a bit creative with them.
> Now the ancient Romans, of course, did not have peppers or tomatoes, but many of us tend to eat Mediterranean most of the time. So, an interesting experiment that turned out well is this. When you make Tabouli salad, try adding a bit of cilantro and a very finely diced fresh jalapeno. Yum!
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> I see you have a history. I'm curious whether you were 7th Infantry. A friend of mine was with them in Granada; he later met up with me in tactical exercises in Berlin's underground. To cut a long story short, he crawled right into my drawn pistol in the trenches down there. But more seriously,
> �
> Keeping the peace can be as bloody and nasty as combat. I've been in a few firefights. They were incidental to my job. I've killed 3 up close and personal (knife). So, I have no glorification of war, or killing, or "martial spirit" (unless it is professionally doing the job to protect and serve). But I was intel. I started out reading articles. Then I was field analyst.
> After that, I helped play dirty tricks on the East Germans. Grneztruppen der DDR and STASI were our target, basically, to protect an NVA Officer core conspiracy set up since the days of Gehlen. Later, I taught. But keeping the peace, its dirty tricks, compromises, destroyed lives, is just as nasty as combat. That means there is a constant, undocumented, and unnoticed use of dirty tricks and violence behind "the peace" civilians enjoy. War is a the regretable constant within peace and war: wars are the Furies under the Areopagus let loose -- but they are always there, listening.
> �
> Vale,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
> --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: A memorial poem...of sorts
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 10:43 PM
>
>
> �
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post information from the Back Alley on to the ML. 

I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:26 PM, <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote:

 

This was why the back alley was invented.  The Forum was to discuss Romanoi and things Roman, the BA, it was originally called the crossroads, for anything else.

 

Yes, that was my understanding when I joined but I do feel it's changed recently. While I can still find myself, as currently, in a discussion about cats, I also feel there's much more discussion of things Roman on the BA than there ever used to be.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

>
> Actually, I suggested that the CURRENT consuls should work on a senatus consultum so that THEY could fill the vacancies in the College of Pontiffs as soon as possible. And you know this because it's there on the Senate List.
>
> Once again this is not a case of misunderstanding what I meant. This is a case of you simply lying. Again.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Maior Catoni sd;
> why do want the consuls and senate to do this?
> The Collegium Pontificum accepts the applications and accepts suitable people to be religious officials.
> Vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> > Actually, I suggested that the CURRENT consuls should work on a senatus consultum so that THEY could fill the vacancies in the College of Pontiffs as soon as possible. And you know this because it's there on the Senate List.
> >
> > Once again this is not a case of misunderstanding what I meant. This is a case of you simply lying. Again.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

 

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete.

The reason this needs to be done is that the language of the Constitution - as our Pontifex Maximus himself pointed out in the Senate - requires the College of Pontiffs to have certain offices filled before it can become legitimate. This is why I specifically asked that the passage in Item III in our last Senate session be amended in order to free us from this Constitutional requirement. I was ignored.

So no, the pontiffs we have currently cannot appoint anyone to anything, legally, because the College of Pontiffs does not, legally, exist yet.

The consuls can, under a senatus consultum, be given the authority to appoint people to the vacant offices that are required for the College of Pontiffs to function, subject to review by the Senate.

That we have not obeyed the Constitutional language until now is of no matter; this does not make the actions of the "College of Pontiffs" up until now illegitimate, but now that we know this Constitutional language exists we *must* obey it.

Valete,

Cato

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:

 

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post information from the Back Alley on to the ML. 

I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit
>
> You are one senator who thinks this.
>
> The Collegium Pontifucum selects who is in the Collegium Pontificum. Not
> the senate, and certainly not you.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > The reason this needs to be done is that the language of the Constitution -
> > as our Pontifex Maximus himself pointed out in the Senate - requires the
> > College of Pontiffs to have certain offices filled before it can become
> > legitimate. This is why I specifically asked that the passage in Item III in
> > our last Senate session be amended in order to free us from this
> > Constitutional requirement. I was ignored.
> >
> > So no, the pontiffs we have currently cannot appoint anyone to anything,
> > legally, because the College of Pontiffs does not, legally, exist yet.
> >
> > The consuls can, under a senatus consultum, be given the authority to
> > appoint people to the vacant offices that are required for the College of
> > Pontiffs to function, subject to review by the Senate.
> >
> > That we have not obeyed the Constitutional language until now is of no
> > matter; this does not make the actions of the "College of Pontiffs" up until
> > now illegitimate, but now that we know this Constitutional language exists
> > we *must* obey it.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Salvete,
>
> Flavia, couldn't agree with you more. Very well said, question is would
> this decree go for all Lists? Say for example if there was an excellent
> post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the
> MainList? Would that be considered forbidden? How far would this really
> go? If such steps are actually going to be taken?
>
>
> Valete Bene,
> Aeternia
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <
> kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post
> >> information from the Back Alley on to the ML.
> >>
> >
> > I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think
> > it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they
> > were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid
> > it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from
> > the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >
> >
> >
>

b. To have ritual responsibilities within the Religio Romana; and general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the public Religio Romana;

c. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum).

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

 

Cato Modiano omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

It does not matter if one senator or a thousand think it, Modianus, since it is true. The Constitution says:

"[the collegium pontificum] shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina Sacrorum. (Const. NR VI.B.1)

"Shall". Not "may".

Do we currently have a Pontifex Maximus, fourteen pontifices, twelve flamines, six sacerdotes Vestales, and a Rex and Regina Sacrorum? If not, we do not have a collegium pontificum.

The Senate can give the consuls the authority (by senatus consultum) to make appointments so that the requirements laid out by the Constitution are fulfilled and we *can* have a legitimate collegium pontificum.

I am continually amazed that people will fight tooth and nail against something that is in the simple best interests of the Respublica. If we have a law, WE MUST OBEY IT.

Valete,

Cato

>
> Salvete.
>
> It does not matter if one senator or a thousand think it, Modianus, since it is true. The Constitution says:
>
> "[the collegium pontificum] shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina Sacrorum. (Const. NR VI.B.1)
>
> "Shall". Not "may".
>
> Do we currently have a Pontifex Maximus, fourteen pontifices, twelve flamines, six sacerdotes Vestales, and a Rex and Regina Sacrorum? If not, we do not have a collegium pontificum.
>
> The Senate can give the consuls the authority (by senatus consultum) to make appointments so that the requirements laid out by the Constitution are fulfilled and we *can* have a legitimate collegium pontificum.
>
> I am continually amazed that people will fight tooth and nail against something that is in the simple best interests of the Respublica. If we have a law, WE MUST OBEY IT.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit
> >
> > You are one senator who thinks this.
> >
> > The Collegium Pontifucum selects who is in the Collegium Pontificum. Not
> > the senate, and certainly not you.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete.
> > >
> > > The reason this needs to be done is that the language of the Constitution -
> > > as our Pontifex Maximus himself pointed out in the Senate - requires the
> > > College of Pontiffs to have certain offices filled before it can become
> > > legitimate. This is why I specifically asked that the passage in Item III in
> > > our last Senate session be amended in order to free us from this
> > > Constitutional requirement. I was ignored.
> > >
> > > So no, the pontiffs we have currently cannot appoint anyone to anything,
> > > legally, because the College of Pontiffs does not, legally, exist yet.
> > >
> > > The consuls can, under a senatus consultum, be given the authority to
> > > appoint people to the vacant offices that are required for the College of
> > > Pontiffs to function, subject to review by the Senate.
> > >
> > > That we have not obeyed the Constitutional language until now is of no
> > > matter; this does not make the actions of the "College of Pontiffs" up until
> > > now illegitimate, but now that we know this Constitutional language exists
> > > we *must* obey it.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Modiano spd;
> No wonder he is the only Senator who believes such a thing...ridiculous. After all these years he has no understanding or respect for Roman mos and tradition.
>
> Why doesn't he just go to law school and quibble all day. This isn't Roman at all.
> Maior
>
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > It does not matter if one senator or a thousand think it, Modianus, since it is true. The Constitution says:
> >
> > "[the collegium pontificum] shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina Sacrorum. (Const. NR VI.B.1)
> >
> > "Shall". Not "may".
> >
> > Do we currently have a Pontifex Maximus, fourteen pontifices, twelve flamines, six sacerdotes Vestales, and a Rex and Regina Sacrorum? If not, we do not have a collegium pontificum.
> >
> > The Senate can give the consuls the authority (by senatus consultum) to make appointments so that the requirements laid out by the Constitution are fulfilled and we *can* have a legitimate collegium pontificum.
> >
> > I am continually amazed that people will fight tooth and nail against something that is in the simple best interests of the Respublica. If we have a law, WE MUST OBEY IT.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit
> > >
> > > You are one senator who thinks this.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontifucum selects who is in the Collegium Pontificum. Not
> > > the senate, and certainly not you.
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Modianus
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> > > >
> > > > Salvete.
> > > >
> > > > The reason this needs to be done is that the language of the Constitution -
> > > > as our Pontifex Maximus himself pointed out in the Senate - requires the
> > > > College of Pontiffs to have certain offices filled before it can become
> > > > legitimate. This is why I specifically asked that the passage in Item III in
> > > > our last Senate session be amended in order to free us from this
> > > > Constitutional requirement. I was ignored.
> > > >
> > > > So no, the pontiffs we have currently cannot appoint anyone to anything,
> > > > legally, because the College of Pontiffs does not, legally, exist yet.
> > > >
> > > > The consuls can, under a senatus consultum, be given the authority to
> > > > appoint people to the vacant offices that are required for the College of
> > > > Pontiffs to function, subject to review by the Senate.
> > > >
> > > > That we have not obeyed the Constitutional language until now is of no
> > > > matter; this does not make the actions of the "College of Pontiffs" up until
> > > > now illegitimate, but now that we know this Constitutional language exists
> > > > we *must* obey it.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:24 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

 

-Maior Quritibus spd;
well that's entirely unRoman and unRepublican. Free speech is a part of Roman tradition. Secret societies, and that's what you are talking about, were anathema to Rome.
Of course the greatest example is the Bacchanalia Affair of 186 B.C.E. Where a society that met in secret was considered a threat to the Roman state. And such secret societies were forbidden.
optime vale
Maior

>
> Salvete,
>
> Flavia, couldn't agree with you more. Very well said, question is would
> this decree go for all Lists? Say for example if there was an excellent
> post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the
> MainList? Would that be considered forbidden? How far would this really
> go? If such steps are actually going to be taken?
>
>
> Valete Bene,
> Aeternia
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <

> kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post
> >> information from the Back Alley on to the ML.
> >>
> >
> > I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think
> > it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they
> > were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid
> > it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from
> > the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Salvete,
>
> Just viewed two photos of the conventus - of the Magistra and Semproni cutting up while toga-clad and having a joyous time.
> Thank you, that was a treat i truly enjoyed - now how about posting some on the website so others can enjoy them;) (this said from someone who rarely allows a photo of myself to be taken - that nikasama vow:))
>
> Valete,
> Julia
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Harris <cyannerose@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> Flavia, couldn't agree with you more. Very well said, question is would
> this decree go for all Lists? Say for example if there was an excellent
> post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the
> MainList? Would that be considered forbidden? How far would this really
> go? If such steps are actually going to be taken?
>
>
> Valete Bene,
> Aeternia
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <
> kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post
> >> information from the Back Alley on to the ML.
> >>
> >
> > I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think
> > it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they
> > were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid
> > it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from
> > the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Salvete.
>
> I don't think that would count since the "official" Lists are all public, or should be. The owner of a non-official List has to decide for themselves whether or not those subscribed should be allowed to cross-post.
>
> If the owners of the Back Alley decide that no-one should be allowed to cross-post from it, they simply say so, and if someone violates their decision they kick the violator out of the Back Alley immediately.
>
> A rather simple and elegant solution.
>
> With the Senate List, it's different because the Senate itself has to vote on whether or not to make the so-called "seal" official, since that's an internal procedure and the Constitution reserves the right of making these to the whole Senate, not whoever are the current "owners" of that List - and the Senate has recently refused to do so.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Harris <cyannerose@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Flavia, couldn't agree with you more. Very well said, question is would
> > this decree go for all Lists? Say for example if there was an excellent
> > post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the
> > MainList? Would that be considered forbidden? How far would this really
> > go? If such steps are actually going to be taken?
> >
> >
> > Valete Bene,
> > Aeternia
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <
> > kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post
> > >> information from the Back Alley on to the ML.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think
> > > it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they
> > > were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid
> > > it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from
> > > the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.
> > >
> > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

 

--Salvete;
that would make 'unofficial'' lists definitely secret societies. If citizens go there, discuss Nova Roma politics, make political plans and refuse to permit cross-posts.

Off course in the Back Alley there are many posts from the Senate, the Main List....
optime vale
Maior

>
> Salvete.
>
> I don't think that would count since the "official" Lists are all public, or should be. The owner of a non-official List has to decide for themselves whether or not those subscribed should be allowed to cross-post.
>
> If the owners of the Back Alley decide that no-one should be allowed to cross-post from it, they simply say so, and if someone violates their decision they kick the violator out of the Back Alley immediately.
>
> A rather simple and elegant solution.
>
> With the Senate List, it's different because the Senate itself has to vote on whether or not to make the so-called "seal" official, since that's an internal procedure and the Constitution reserves the right of making these to the whole Senate, not whoever are the current "owners" of that List - and the Senate has recently refused to do so.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Harris <cyannerose@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Flavia, couldn't agree with you more. Very well said, question is would
> > this decree go for all Lists? Say for example if there was an excellent
> > post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the
> > MainList? Would that be considered forbidden? How far would this really
> > go? If such steps are actually going to be taken?
> >
> >
> > Valete Bene,
> > Aeternia
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kirsteen Wright <
> > kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:38 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If I were the praetores, I would issue a general warning not to post
> > >> information from the Back Alley on to the ML.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I would wholeheartedly agree with this. Apart from anything else, I think
> > > it's in very bad taste to copy posts from list to a set of recipients they
> > > were never intended for. In fact some Yahoo groups I'm on expressly forbid
> > > it and if anyone is found copying a post elsewhere, they are removed from
> > > the list. Let's keep the posts for the recipients they were intended for.
> > >
> > > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

> You fail to quote the whole thing: "The *collegium pontificum* shall
> appoint its own members."
>
> You also seem to have neglected this:
>
> b. To have ritual responsibilities within the *Religio Romana*; and general
> authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the
> public Religio *Romana*; *c*. To issue *decreta* (decrees) on matters
> relevant to the *Religio Romana* and its own internal procedures (such *
> decreta* may not be overruled by laws passed in the *comitia* or *Senatus
> consultum*). The Collegium Pontificum is responsible for the priesthood.
> When we have qualified applicants that apply we vote and bring them into the
> Collegium. We also have the right and responsibility (ie., general
> authority) to articulate how the priestshoods are the function. Anyone on
> the Collegium Pontificum list knows this is being discussed.
>
> You can keep placing your nose into the Collegium business, and you will
> still be advised that you are wrong. You are absolutely wrong, and it
> doesn't matter if you and your fellow Back Alley friends think this. The
> Collegium Pontificum manages itself, and the ONLY way the senate can get
> involved is either through a dictator or via a senatus consultum ultimum.
>
> You can continue to argue this further, for whatever purpose you conclude;
> however, doing such is a waste of time and my time.
>
> Is this your effort to undermine the Collegium Pontificum and the Religio
> Romana? It seems that way.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > It does not matter if one senator or a thousand think it, Modianus, since
> > it is true. The Constitution says:
> >
> > "[the collegium pontificum] shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen
> > Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina
> > Sacrorum. (Const. NR VI.B.1)
> >
> > "Shall". Not "may".
> >
> > Do we currently have a Pontifex Maximus, fourteen pontifices, twelve
> > flamines, six sacerdotes Vestales, and a Rex and Regina Sacrorum? If not, we
> > do not have a collegium pontificum.
> >
> > The Senate can give the consuls the authority (by senatus consultum) to
> > make appointments so that the requirements laid out by the Constitution are
> > fulfilled and we *can* have a legitimate collegium pontificum.
> >
> > I am continually amazed that people will fight tooth and nail against
> > something that is in the simple best interests of the Respublica. If we have
> > a law, WE MUST OBEY IT.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

 A. Tullia Scholastica L. Juliae Aquilae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

Salvete,

Just viewed two photos of the conventus - of the Magistra and Semproni cutting up while toga-clad and having a joyous time.

    ATS:  We were not wearing togae.  Regulus does not have one, and I do not wear one.  He was in a young man’s short khiton with chlamys, and I was in a long khiton with a himation.  We were enjoying ourselves, but not what I would call cutting up.  We had an impromptu fashion show, using Regulus’ wardrobe of tailored-tradition outfits and my supply of draped-tradition ones, and had a great time.  

Thank you, that was a treat i truly enjoyed - now how about posting some on the website so others can enjoy them;)

    ATS:  We hope that the ritual video will eventually make it to some website, though probably not a Yahoo list as I think it is too long.  Some of the other costume shots might be appropriate, but given the filth from the guttersnipes of the back alley of late regarding our philosopher and me, anything in which he and I appear in the same frame would lead them to believe that we were doing something improper, whereas that is very far from the truth.  Their minds are permanently in the gutter, and they cannot envision a relationship which does not involve sex, notably of the more inappropriate variations thereof.  

    They are so hung up about nonsense such as the number of posts to their list vs. that to the ML, so wrought up about the number who came to the hastily-arranged US conventus on short notice vs. those heading for Las Vegas with adequate warning on (appropriately enough) Walpurgisnacht or whatever, that they cannot rejoice that a few citizens were able to enjoy one another’s company with little notice.  They crow that their buddies out west have frequent meetings while others do not, and snigger that our conventus was so small.  Well, they live closer, and perhaps can drop everything on short notice, whereas we had several back out at the last minute because they could not stand being with a philosopher, a classicist, a flaminica, and a couple of pontifices.  Too, we are less likely to be able to travel hundreds of miles on short notice as others apparently can.  In the future, perhaps we shall have more convention-goers, with more advance notice.  I disavow any role in planning the conventus, but was delighted that others undertook this, and made it possible to meet our fellow citizens.  Special note to the relevant parties on the BA (not all there are guilty; there are decent people there, but they run the risk of being tainted by the trash):  there was nothing inappropriate going on at conventus, or any other time.  Wash your mouths, eyes, minds, keyboards, and hands with disinfectant soap.  

(this said from someone who rarely allows a photo of myself to be taken - that nikasama vow:))

Valete,
Julia

  Valete.
    

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Modiano quiritibusque spd;
> if you look at Cato's current behavior; he declares he will run for consul, he posts a flurry of articles on the religio at the NRwiki, which he has never done before and suddenly he is going to get a lararium and asking about making a templum.
>
> It's insulting, in every way. That he thinks he can use the cultus deorum, to the cultores and their devotion to the di immortales. The religio for Cato is just some political tool to get votes and access to the religious colleges.
>
> Especially as he wrote this below about you and me just a few days ago in the BA, trying to degrade the great freedom of our beliefs, all the virtues of the Religio Romana.
>
> BackAlley@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
>
> Claudius, the problem is not so much "zealotry" as the fact that there is nothing of substance as a foundation beneath it.
>
> Hortensia and Modianus are alike in that they will gladly swing whichever way seems most convenient to (read: will get more brownie points from) whomever they are currently trying to please.
>
> Their private beliefs are a matter only between them and their God(s), and faith should not - perhaps even cannot - be criticized for its existence alone. But they are so ungrounded and unfocused that they can neither step forward confidently and self-assuredly within their own faiths - whatever they may be at the moment - nor can they bear the idea of anyone having a faith that itself is unshakeable.
>
> They judge all others' faiths only within the understanding of the weakness of their own, assuming that everyone has their own inability to find solace and comfort and strength within a sincere system of belief. They believe that a word, a phrase, a paragraph, a chapter, a book, will make faith disappear or change because someone says it should; they believe that all faith must be frail because theirs is.
>
> It is the vanity of grasping at a thousand different flowers and insisting that the scent of each one in succession is the "best" before dropping it and crushing it underfoot, always pulling, always clutching, always frantic, compared to holding and peacefully breathing in the bright perfume of a single lily and being happy.
>
> What I care about is my life with the Eternal One, my antiphonal life in Him through His Church. You see, Christ is *my* salvation, *my* God, and He made the Church for *me*. That I find Him most glorious in Orthodoxy is my own choice; a conscious submission of my will to His.
>
> That submission is abhorrent to someone like Hortensia, because it involves relying on a bedrock of faith which she cannot understand, that perhaps she has never felt and therefore cannot accept.
>
> When will I be absolutely sure? When I am standing before His Throne worshiping at the end of time and beyond the end of time. Until then, I rejoice in the mind of man, in the curious intellect He has given us, in the ability to be wise and foolish simultaneously, in the freedom to dance with and through the wonders and marvels of human history, because He is always there at the end.
>
>
>
> > You fail to quote the whole thing: "The *collegium pontificum* shall
> > appoint its own members."
> >
> > You also seem to have neglected this:
> >
> > b. To have ritual responsibilities within the *Religio Romana*; and general
> > authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the
> > public Religio *Romana*; *c*. To issue *decreta* (decrees) on matters
> > relevant to the *Religio Romana* and its own internal procedures (such *
> > decreta* may not be overruled by laws passed in the *comitia* or *Senatus
> > consultum*). The Collegium Pontificum is responsible for the priesthood.
> > When we have qualified applicants that apply we vote and bring them into the
> > Collegium. We also have the right and responsibility (ie., general
> > authority) to articulate how the priestshoods are the function. Anyone on
> > the Collegium Pontificum list knows this is being discussed.
> >
> > You can keep placing your nose into the Collegium business, and you will
> > still be advised that you are wrong. You are absolutely wrong, and it
> > doesn't matter if you and your fellow Back Alley friends think this. The
> > Collegium Pontificum manages itself, and the ONLY way the senate can get
> > involved is either through a dictator or via a senatus consultum ultimum.
> >
> > You can continue to argue this further, for whatever purpose you conclude;
> > however, doing such is a waste of time and my time.
> >
> > Is this your effort to undermine the Collegium Pontificum and the Religio
> > Romana? It seems that way.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Modiano omnibusque in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete.
> > >
> > > It does not matter if one senator or a thousand think it, Modianus, since
> > > it is true. The Constitution says:
> > >
> > > "[the collegium pontificum] shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen
> > > Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina
> > > Sacrorum. (Const. NR VI.B.1)
> > >
> > > "Shall". Not "may".
> > >
> > > Do we currently have a Pontifex Maximus, fourteen pontifices, twelve
> > > flamines, six sacerdotes Vestales, and a Rex and Regina Sacrorum? If not, we
> > > do not have a collegium pontificum.
> > >
> > > The Senate can give the consuls the authority (by senatus consultum) to
> > > make appointments so that the requirements laid out by the Constitution are
> > > fulfilled and we *can* have a legitimate collegium pontificum.
> > >
> > > I am continually amazed that people will fight tooth and nail against
> > > something that is in the simple best interests of the Respublica. If we have
> > > a law, WE MUST OBEY IT.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

>>> I've been waiting as we're migrating to the new webserver. We need to ask Lentulus if it's all right. <<<

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Jennifer Harris <cyannerose@...> wrote:

Salvete,

 

Flavia, couldn't agree with you more.  Very well said, question is would this decree go for all Lists?  Say for example if there was an excellent post on the Latinitas list and someone wanted to cross-post it to the MainList?  Would that be considered forbidden?  How far would this really go?  If such steps are actually going to be taken?

 

 

Most groups I'm on, if you want to cross post, you ask the original poster's permission as it was held that they morally had the copyright.It was then up to them where it was posted.

One group I was on had some excellent posts on polytheism in Britain. If you asked to pass them on to other pagan groups, sometimes you'd be told yes, no prble. However other tomes you'd be told no, I haven't finished my research, I just wanted folks ideas on it, or no, it's part of my thesis and I don't want it published elsewhere, or just no I'm not comfortable with that.

If someone did repost without permission they were just quietly removed from the group for having broken the trust placed in memebers. It worked very well.

Merula

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:24 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

-Maior Quritibus spd;
              well that's entirely unRoman and unRepublican. Free speech is a part of Roman tradition. Secret societies, and that's what you are talking about, were anathema to Rome.
            

Oh Maior, stop the histrionics, it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. How on earth can a list which is open to all to join, where even the most annoying people are never removed or moderated, be likened to a 'secret society'.  What on earth is secret when anyone who wants to know what was said, can join and trawl the archives to see for themselves.

This is totally rich coming from the one who consistently takes people out of context or downright lies about what they've said. What's the matter, worried that everyone will see you for what you are?

Merula

>Stop, stop, stop.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:46 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

;
    if you look at Cato's current behavior; he declares he will run for consul, he posts a flurry of articles on the religio at the NRwiki, which he has never done before and  suddenly he is going to get a lararium and asking about making a templum.

I

Ye gods Maior, can you not read or is there simply no end to your lies. Cato specifically said he did not have a lararium nor did he think he'd be getting one. I no longer bekieve a word you utter.

Flavia Lucilla Merula