Salve Regule;
lol, you are too funny.
I'm just about to go to my latin circle, was busy working on my book all afternoon, was the law discussion you and Cordus had the 'de iure' one? I really want to read the archives now.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> Cato's mistake is looking in religion sources instead of law sources. As usual, he is an idiot that assumes he is an expert. Cordus and I discussed this. It is in the archives..
> Vale,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Sigh -- Smile And Economics of late paganism/Xtianism
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 9:43 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Maior Regulo spd;
> I have no idea what he is referring to I just checked the Beard & North and it's a discussion of how pontiffs were magistrates, nothing to do with public vs private law.
> vale
> Maior
>
> >
> > Cato Regulo sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > This is demonstrably incorrect, from primary sources: see Beard, North & Price pp. 25-30; Ando pp. 59-92.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > Please refer back in the archives on Roman law: the public cults were only the traditional Roman cults on the Capitoline and Aventine mounts plus a few scattered around the city because the whole city was an altar.
> > >  
> > > All other cults were private (all Roman civil law that included religions was private law) even if an emperor endorsed it and used state funds to build a temple and coinage. The empire was legally a private and civil venture. There were two state banks: the Public, and the Imperial (which was the personal property of the emperors -- since Imperial Russia followed this legal tradition, the Russian bank was always public but the Russian Empire's bank was private property of the Czars -- which is why the newly found Soviet Union found itself bankrupt and why Marie Romanov returned to Russia under Yeltsin and Putin with a deal).
> > >  
> > > Vale,
> > > ASR
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 10/21/09, rory12001 <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Sigh -- Smile And Economics of late paganism/Xtianism
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 10:14 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > > thinking about it. It would seem money and power are the appeal in the Imperial choice. The state cultus deorum was decentralized, whereas I assume the Emperor controlled the christian cult, all the churches too so funds and power were centralized.
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > > Yes, that is part of the equation but the public (polis) cults had a state stipend. Mystery religions were supported by their initiates -- who would mention the expense.
> > > >
> > > > But some cults were paid out of private funds and reimbursed. But, the temples had treasuries. All the votive gifts were the "divine's" property.
> > > >  
> > > > Vale,
> > > > ASR
> > > > --- On Wed, 10/21/09, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@ ...>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Sigh -- Smile And Economics of late paganism/Xtianism
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 3:17 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Caeca Regulo sal,
> > > >  
> > > > I'm no expert, but somewhere I believe I read (no, can't reference it, sorry) that, at least in some cases, individuals or families sponsored (paid for) public ceremonies and major ...um ..events of a religious nature. I suspect this was more a feature of the Republic and early Imperial period, but I wonder how much of the costs involved in public ritual were born by private individuals or groups, and whether, as time passed, that practice abated to the point that it caused a financial problem for the State?
> > > >  
> > > > I'm also hoping that I'm not seeing my messages to the list as a result of new address moderation, and not because of my technical ineptitude.  If whoever is monitoring the list from the Praetorian (sp?) cohors is in a good mood, could you let me know if you, at least, are receiving them?  Not fussing, just ...unsure of my technical prowess. (well, I *am*, but you really *don't* want me to expound on *those* abilities, LOL!
> > > >  
> > > > C. Maria Caeca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > http://mail. yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

"A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> writes:

[Nothing I will dignify by quoting]

I have just placed Sempronius on moderation for the content of his post.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Salve Cato,
did you have a reason for reposting the story Iulia Aquila posted? Or did you want to add a comment and hit the "send" button too soon?

Vale,
Livia

>
> Salvete!
>
> In keeping with the ... cough ... "spirit" of the thread, a story from Pliny:
>
> "Erat Athenis spatiosa et magna domus, sed infamis et pestilens. Per silentium noctis sonus ferri et strepitus vinculorum procul, tum e proximo auditi sunt. Mox apparebat senex macie et squalore confectus, qui barbam magnam et capillos villosos habebat; pedibus et manibus catenas habebat.
>
> Inhabitantes domus(gen) noctes diras et non somnum habebant. Morbus et etiam mors ex timore veniebant. Deserta et damna casa in silentio remanebat. Titulum positum est, sed nemo casam desideravit. Venit Athenas philosophus Athenodorus. Legit titulum, et pretio audito, multa rogat. Omnia audit, sed tamen casam capit.
>
> In vespera, Athenodorus lumen, stilum, et pugillares in prima parte casae posuit; tum omnes servos dimittit. Animum, oculos, et manum cum pugillaribus occupat, quod vacua mens multos timores fingit.
>
> Primo silentium est. Tum vincula procul audiuntur. Philosophus oculos non movet; stilo scribit. Soni in casa, tum in camera sunt. Athenodorus spectat; figuram videt. Senex stat et digito vocat. Athenodorus stilum iterum capit. Vincula audiuntur super caput. Nunc philosophus lumen capit. Senex tarde ad ianuam ambulat, et Athenodorus etiam ambulat post senem. In area casae senex philosophum deserit. Desertus philosophus in loco herbas ponit.
>
> Postero die magistratum vocat et magistratus locum effodit. Ossa inserta in vinculis invenit, et, collecta, publice sepeliuntur. Numquam iterum senex videbatur."
>
> "There was a big house in Athens, with an unsavory and unhealthy reputation. The silence of the night was interrupted by the sound of weapons and chains. First they came from afar, but then they were heard nearby. Soon there appeared a filthy, emaciated old man with scraggly hair and beard. He had chains on his hands and feet.
>
> The residents didn't sleep very well. Some even died from fear. Eventually the house was empty.
>
> Finally, deserted, it remained quiet. When it was put up for sale no one was interested.
>
> Then one day Athenodorus, the philosopher, came to town. He saw the FOR SALE sign on the house, learned the asking price, and asked a great many other questions.
>
> No one held back on the horrific details, but still the philosopher decided to go ahead and buy the place.
>
> That very evening, his first in the house, Athenodorus took a torch, stylus, and writing tablet to the front of his house. He let the slaves off for the night. Then he determined to keep himself busy writing because, he thought, an idle mind is the devil's playground.
>
> At first, all was still. Then from afar came the rattling of chains. Stoically, Athenodorus didn't even bat an eye, but kept on writing. The sounds grew closer and closer.
>
> Soon they were in the cottage....
>
> Then they were in his very room....
>
> At this Athenodorus laid down his stylus and looked up. There was the ghost. It beckoned him with a finger, but Athenodorus just took up his stylus again. When the philosopher heard the chains rattling above his head, he picked up his torch.
>
> Slowly the ghost ambled to the door with Athenodorus close behind. As it reached an open area in the house, the ghost disappeared. Athenodorus grabbed a handy nearby clump of grass and placed it on the spot where the ghost had vanished.
>
> The next day, Athenodorus called the magistrate. In his official capacity, he dug up the spot that had been marked. There they found chains and inside the chains, the bones of a man.
>
> The magistrate gathered the bones for a proper burial. Never was the ghost heard from again." (trans. N.S. Gill)
>
>
> Valete!
>
> Cato
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete!

Roman law was codified several times, from the Law of the Twelve Tables (c.465 BC) all the way up to Justinian in the 5th century AD; the Corpus Iuris Civilis (also called the justinian Code), containing Institutiones (533), the Digesta or Pandecta (533), and the Codex Constitutionum (528-529; revised 534), together with the Novellae (534-565), is even now the basis for many European countries' legal systems.

Prior to the Twelve Tables, the law of Rome was religious in character and its interpretation rested with priests, who were members of the patrician class. Complaints and agitation by the plebeians led to the writing of the existing legal customs and the addition of new principles unknown in the customary law. The Law of the Twelve Tables thus drafted was submitted to and accepted by the popular assembly.

This code set forth simple rules suitable for an agricultural community; it established equal law for patricians and plebeians and was prized by the Romans as the source of all public and private law. The legal system established under this code, and the body of rules that developed around it, applied exclusively to Roman citizens and was known as the ius civile.

"Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not determined, as in common law, by judges."

Valete!

Cato

Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Salve!

whoops.

Vale!

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato,
> did you have a reason for reposting the story Iulia Aquila posted? Or did you want to add a comment and hit the "send" button too soon?
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> >
> > Salvete!
> >
> > In keeping with the ... cough ... "spirit" of the thread, a story from Pliny:
> >
> > "Erat Athenis spatiosa et magna domus, sed infamis et pestilens. Per silentium noctis sonus ferri et strepitus vinculorum procul, tum e proximo auditi sunt. Mox apparebat senex macie et squalore confectus, qui barbam magnam et capillos villosos habebat; pedibus et manibus catenas habebat.
> >
> > Inhabitantes domus(gen) noctes diras et non somnum habebant. Morbus et etiam mors ex timore veniebant. Deserta et damna casa in silentio remanebat. Titulum positum est, sed nemo casam desideravit. Venit Athenas philosophus Athenodorus. Legit titulum, et pretio audito, multa rogat. Omnia audit, sed tamen casam capit.
> >
> > In vespera, Athenodorus lumen, stilum, et pugillares in prima parte casae posuit; tum omnes servos dimittit. Animum, oculos, et manum cum pugillaribus occupat, quod vacua mens multos timores fingit.
> >
> > Primo silentium est. Tum vincula procul audiuntur. Philosophus oculos non movet; stilo scribit. Soni in casa, tum in camera sunt. Athenodorus spectat; figuram videt. Senex stat et digito vocat. Athenodorus stilum iterum capit. Vincula audiuntur super caput. Nunc philosophus lumen capit. Senex tarde ad ianuam ambulat, et Athenodorus etiam ambulat post senem. In area casae senex philosophum deserit. Desertus philosophus in loco herbas ponit.
> >
> > Postero die magistratum vocat et magistratus locum effodit. Ossa inserta in vinculis invenit, et, collecta, publice sepeliuntur. Numquam iterum senex videbatur."
> >
> > "There was a big house in Athens, with an unsavory and unhealthy reputation. The silence of the night was interrupted by the sound of weapons and chains. First they came from afar, but then they were heard nearby. Soon there appeared a filthy, emaciated old man with scraggly hair and beard. He had chains on his hands and feet.
> >
> > The residents didn't sleep very well. Some even died from fear. Eventually the house was empty.
> >
> > Finally, deserted, it remained quiet. When it was put up for sale no one was interested.
> >
> > Then one day Athenodorus, the philosopher, came to town. He saw the FOR SALE sign on the house, learned the asking price, and asked a great many other questions.
> >
> > No one held back on the horrific details, but still the philosopher decided to go ahead and buy the place.
> >
> > That very evening, his first in the house, Athenodorus took a torch, stylus, and writing tablet to the front of his house. He let the slaves off for the night. Then he determined to keep himself busy writing because, he thought, an idle mind is the devil's playground.
> >
> > At first, all was still. Then from afar came the rattling of chains. Stoically, Athenodorus didn't even bat an eye, but kept on writing. The sounds grew closer and closer.
> >
> > Soon they were in the cottage....
> >
> > Then they were in his very room....
> >
> > At this Athenodorus laid down his stylus and looked up. There was the ghost. It beckoned him with a finger, but Athenodorus just took up his stylus again. When the philosopher heard the chains rattling above his head, he picked up his torch.
> >
> > Slowly the ghost ambled to the door with Athenodorus close behind. As it reached an open area in the house, the ghost disappeared. Athenodorus grabbed a handy nearby clump of grass and placed it on the spot where the ghost had vanished.
> >
> > The next day, Athenodorus called the magistrate. In his official capacity, he dug up the spot that had been marked. There they found chains and inside the chains, the bones of a man.
> >
> > The magistrate gathered the bones for a proper burial. Never was the ghost heard from again." (trans. N.S. Gill)
> >
> >
> > Valete!
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Q Caecilius Metellus Nouae Romae plebi salutem dicit.

Saluete!

Although it has been, and continues to be, my policy that individuals
should put one year between the holding of offices, the happenings of
this year lead me exceedingly strongly to the belief that I cannot sit
idly by and watch the rule of law be eroded away until such time as its
very existence is much unknown. It is because I feel now, as I always
have, that I have a duty to the plebeian order of Nova Roma, and indeed
to all Romans, wherever they may be, that I present myself to you, and
announce my intention to stand for the office of Tribunus Plebis. As I
have always maintained, the law, however unpalatable it may be in a
given situation, must be respected and upheld, and I intend to do that
during a term as Tribunus Plebis. So I offer myself to your service,
should the Senate allow me, and should you accept me. I pray that,
together, we can mend the broken fences of this ending year.

Di nos Romanos incolumes custodiant!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus, Tribunus Plebis, omnes civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.

I acknowledge that an error was made in the initial Call for Plebeian Candidates that I issued. Per the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, no one may run for the office of Tribunus Plebis unless they will be 25 years of age on or before a.d. IV Idus Dec. (10 December 2009). Anyone under this age may run if they receive a dispensation from the proper magistrates and a Senatus Consultum of 2/3 of the Senate.
The call for Plebeian Magistrates is amended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A call for Candidates is hereby issued for the offices of Tribuni Plebis and Aediles Plebis. The elected candidates will have their terms of office begin AVC 2762 a.d. IV Idus Dec. (10 December 2009). Any and all Assidui Plebeian Citizens who wish to serve the Respublica and the People for the next year shall:

( I ) declare their candidacy to the current Tribuni Plebis

and

( II ) announce their intention to run for office before the Comitia Plebis Tributa (ComitiaPlebisTribut a@yahoogroups. com).

Announcements of candidacy for these offices that are made to any other official Nova Roma lists are allowed but will not meet the requirements needed to be recognized as a candidate. All who seek candidacy MUST post their announcement to the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

Eligibility Requirements:

Tribunus Plebis - (V positions available) Candidates must be Cives in good standing for at least six full months before taking office; members of the Plebeian Ordo, Assidui before declaring candidacy, and at least 25 years of age by AUC MMDCCLXII a.d. IV Idus Dec (10 Dec 2009).
NOTE: An exception to the age requirement can be found in the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate.

Aedilis Plebis - (II positions available) Candidates must be Cives in good standing for at least six full months before taking office; members of the Plebeian Ordo, Assidui before declaring their candidacy, and at least 21 years of age by AUC MMDCCLXII a.d. IV Idus Dec (10 Dec 2009). Candidates for Aedilis Plebis must also have served at least six months as a Tribunus Plebis, Quaestor, Magister Aranearius, Editor Commentariorum, or Provincial Gubenator; or that they have served as a scribe to one of the current Aediles Plebis for at least six months.

Time Limits for Declaring Candidacy:

Announcements of candidacy before the Comitia Plebis Tributa and declaration of candidacy to the Tribuni Plebis must be received no later than 23.59 CET 3 Nov (before midnight at Rome being 6:00 p.m. EDT or 3:00 p.m. PDT, AUC MMDCCLXII (2009 Gregorian).

NOTE: If less than the five lawfully qualified candidates for Tribunes or two lawfully qualified candidates for Plebeian Aediles have announced their candidacies before the dead-line, then the remaining vacancies can be filled under the terms of the Lex Grylla de Securandis Magistratus Plebis.

Datum sub manu mea ante diem XVI Kalendas Novembris M. Curiatio Complutensis M. Iulio Severo consulibus, in anno AUC MMDCCLXII.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus, Tribunus Plebis, omnes civibus Novae Romae s.p.d.

I acknowledge that an error was made in the initial Call for Plebeian Candidates that I issued. Per the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, no one may run for the office of Tribunus Plebis unless they will be 25 years of age on or before a.d. IV Idus Dec. (10 December 2009). Anyone under this age may run if they receive a dispensation from the proper magistrates and a Senatus Consultum of 2/3 of the Senate.
The call for Plebeian Magistrates is amended.

AS SUCH, the candidacy of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus
(who will not be 25 years of age by the a.d. IV Idus Dec.) for the office of Tribunus Plebis is not accepted by me. He may petition the Senate and proper magistrates to grant him an exception to the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate.

Valete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A call for Candidates is hereby issued for the offices of Tribuni Plebis and Aediles Plebis. The elected candidates will have their terms of office begin AVC 2762 a.d. IV Idus Dec. (10 December 2009). Any and all Assidui Plebeian Citizens who wish to serve the Respublica and the People for the next year shall:

( I ) declare their candidacy to the current Tribuni Plebis

and

( II ) announce their intention to run for office before the Comitia Plebis Tributa (ComitiaPlebisTribut a@yahoogroups. com).

Announcements of candidacy for these offices that are made to any other official Nova Roma lists are allowed but will not meet the requirements needed to be recognized as a candidate. All who seek candidacy MUST post their announcement to the Comitia Plebis Tributa.

Eligibility Requirements:

Tribunus Plebis - (V positions available) Candidates must be Cives in good standing for at least six full months before taking office; members of the Plebeian Ordo, Assidui before declaring candidacy, and at least 25 years of age by AUC MMDCCLXII a.d. IV Idus Dec (10 Dec 2009).
NOTE: An exception to the age requirement can be found in the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate.

Aedilis Plebis - (II positions available) Candidates must be Cives in good standing for at least six full months before taking office; members of the Plebeian Ordo, Assidui before declaring their candidacy, and at least 21 years of age by AUC MMDCCLXII a.d. IV Idus Dec (10 Dec 2009). Candidates for Aedilis Plebis must also have served at least six months as a Tribunus Plebis, Quaestor, Magister Aranearius, Editor Commentariorum, or Provincial Gubenator; or that they have served as a scribe to one of the current Aediles Plebis for at least six months.

Time Limits for Declaring Candidacy:

Announcements of candidacy before the Comitia Plebis Tributa and declaration of candidacy to the Tribuni Plebis must be received no later than 23.59 CET 3 Nov (before midnight at Rome being 6:00 p.m. EDT or 3:00 p.m. PDT, AUC MMDCCLXII (2009 Gregorian).

NOTE: If less than the five lawfully qualified candidates for Tribunes or two lawfully qualified candidates for Plebeian Aediles have announced their candidacies before the dead-line, then the remaining vacancies can be filled under the terms of the Lex Grylla de Securandis Magistratus Plebis.

Datum sub manu mea ante diem XVI Kalendas Novembris M. Curiatio Complutensis M. Iulio Severo consulibus, in anno AUC MMDCCLXII.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus" <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Nouae Romae plebi salutem dicit.
>
> Saluete!
>
> Although it has been, and continues to be, my policy that individuals
> should put one year between the holding of offices, the happenings of
> this year lead me exceedingly strongly to the belief that I cannot sit
> idly by and watch the rule of law be eroded away until such time as its
> very existence is much unknown. It is because I feel now, as I always
> have, that I have a duty to the plebeian order of Nova Roma, and indeed
> to all Romans, wherever they may be, that I present myself to you, and
> announce my intention to stand for the office of Tribunus Plebis. As I
> have always maintained, the law, however unpalatable it may be in a
> given situation, must be respected and upheld, and I intend to do that
> during a term as Tribunus Plebis. So I offer myself to your service,
> should the Senate allow me, and should you accept me. I pray that,
> together, we can mend the broken fences of this ending year.
>
> Di nos Romanos incolumes custodiant!
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus
>

Salve Marinus Praetor:

Thank you. I guess that is all you can do from that angle, short of a long, tedious trial which would only yield what I expect would be a rather plastic apology. (I suspect Regulus would be about as sorry as Caesar at the Battle of Pharsalas).

That said, Regulus' post remains published for all to see...it is really quite a multifaceted eyesore to say the least....Could it please be deleted? Although there are constitutional clauses protecting citizen freedom of speech here in NR, there are no laws which prohibit an inappropriate post on our public forum from being deleted that I'm aware of (are there?). It's been done before, for far weaker reasons. Please consider also Yahoo TOS, macronational libel/defammation of character laws.

Regulus has had his *fun*; but is there a need for a post of such a defamatory nature to remain on the list for all to see? The longer this rubbish remains published, the less and less meaningful his moderation truly is, IMO.


I Again, I respectfully request that you and your colleague use your imperium and delete it.

Vale
Pompeia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
>
> "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> writes:
>
> [Nothing I will dignify by quoting]
>
> I have just placed Sempronius on moderation for the content of his post.
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>

Salve Po;
we can't delete posts, it's the record of Nova Roma. Cato will survive, I've managed to survive Cato's nasty slurs, Sulla's and Metellus'.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Marinus Praetor:
>
> Thank you. I guess that is all you can do from that angle, short of a long, tedious trial which would only yield what I expect would be a rather plastic apology. (I suspect Regulus would be about as sorry as Caesar at the Battle of Pharsalas).
>
> That said, Regulus' post remains published for all to see...it is really quite a multifaceted eyesore to say the least....Could it please be deleted? Although there are constitutional clauses protecting citizen freedom of speech here in NR, there are no laws which prohibit an inappropriate post on our public forum from being deleted that I'm aware of (are there?). It's been done before, for far weaker reasons. Please consider also Yahoo TOS, macronational libel/defammation of character laws.
>
> Regulus has had his *fun*; but is there a need for a post of such a defamatory nature to remain on the list for all to see? The longer this rubbish remains published, the less and less meaningful his moderation truly is, IMO.
>
>
> I Again, I respectfully request that you and your colleague use your imperium and delete it.
>
> Vale
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@> wrote:
> >
> > "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@> writes:
> >
> > [Nothing I will dignify by quoting]
> >
> > I have just placed Sempronius on moderation for the content of his post.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
> >
>

There are two more codifications: Codex Gregorianus (the earliest imperial codification) and Codex Hermogenianus (325ã.)

Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.

Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.

The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.

I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.

Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.

Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,


P. Memmius Albucius
praetor

Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordiae praetori Cn. Marino sal. Thank you for your quick and correct action! This was what I meant by more rigorous moderation. And, in this same message, I ask again A. Sempronius in the name of the Nova Roman community, to refrain from this style in our public Forum. As I've said earlier, however it is true that C. Equitius Cato lost many Nova Romans' confidence by calling the Attorney General against Nova Roma, and by renouncing his citizenship earlier, he does not deserve this tone. And even if he deserved: there is no place for personal insults in this Forum. VALETE IN PACE CONCORDIAE! Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, pontifex sacerdos Concordiae --- Ven 23/10/09, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> ha scritto: Da: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Sigh -- Smile And Economics of late paganism/Xtianism A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Venerdì 23 ottobre 2009, 01:32   "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@yahoo. com> writes: [Nothing I will dignify by quoting] I have just placed Sempronius on moderation for the content of his post. Valete, CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Salve,

I suspect if the insults directed at Cato had been done in an eloquent and sophisticated manner it would not have been a problem, and Cato would have even congratulated the attempt (as he has done in the past in response to creative insults). It is not the insult itself that is necessarily egregious, but how it is delivered. Regulus went after him BA-style and that was the problem for this list.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Praetors,
>
> I hope and expect that the same stringent measurements are being taken if Cato or his friends are putting insults on Citizens, what they have done in the past,maybe in a more eloquent way like Cato, but nevertheless.
>
> valete bene
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Freitag, den 23. Oktober 2009, 10:10:46 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Thank you Praetors!
>
>  
> Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordiae praetori Cn. Marino sal.
>
>
> Thank you for your quick and correct action!
>
> This was what I meant by more rigorous moderation.
>
> And, in this same message, I ask again A. Sempronius in the name of the Nova Roman community, to refrain from this style in our public Forum. As I've said earlier, however it is true that C. Equitius Cato lost many Nova Romans' confidence by calling the Attorney General against Nova Roma, and by renouncing his citizenship earlier, he does not deserve this tone. And even if he deserved: there is no place for personal insults in this Forum.
>
>
> VALETE IN PACE CONCORDIAE!
>
>
> Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, pontifex
> sacerdos Concordiae
>
>
>
> --- Ven 23/10/09, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail. net> ha scritto:
>
>
> >Da: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@cesmail. net>
> >Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Sigh -- Smile And Economics of late paganism/Xtianism
> >A: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> >Data: Venerdì 23 ottobre 2009, 01:32
> >
> >
> > 
> >"A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius. regulus@yahoo. com> writes:
> >
> >[Nothing I will dignify by quoting]
> >
> >I have just placed Sempronius on moderation for the content of his post.
> >
> >Valete,
> >
> >CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
> >
>

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete omnes!

Hodiernus dies est ante diem X Kalendas Novembris; haec dies comitialis est.

"With this reply the Samnites were dismissed, quite uncertain as to
what the Romans were going to do. But its effect was to completely
estrange the Campanians, who now feared the worst, and it made the
Latins more determined than ever, since the Romans refused any further
concessions. Under the pretext of making preparations for a Samnite
war, they held frequent meetings of their national council, and in all
the consultations of their leaders they hatched plans in secret for
war with Rome. The Campanians also took part in this movement against
their preservers. But in spite of the careful secrecy with which
everything was being conducted-for they wanted the Samnites to be
dislodged from their rear before the Romans made any movement-some who
had friends and relatives in Rome sent hints about the league which
was being formed. The consuls were ordered to resign before the expiry
of their year of office in order that the new consuls might be elected
at an earlier date in view of such a formidable war. There were
religious difficulties in the way of the elections being held by those
whose tenure of office had been curtailed, and so an interregnum
commenced. There were two interreges, M. Valerius and M. Fabius. The
latter elected T. Manlius Torquatus (for the third time) and P. Decius
Mus as consuls. It was in this year [341 B.C.], it appears, that
Alexander, King of Epirus, landed in Italy, and there is no doubt that
had he been fairly successful at first that war would have extended to
Rome. This, too, was about the time of the achievements of Alexander
the Great, the son of this man's sister, who, after proving himself
invincible in another region of the globe, was cut off, whilst a young
man, by disease. Although there could be no doubt as to the revolt of
their allies-the Latin league-still, as though they were concerned for
the Samnites and not for themselves, the Romans invited the ten chiefs
of the league to Rome to give them instructions as to what they
wanted. Latium at that time had two praetors, L. Annius of Setia and
L. Numisius of Cerceii, both belonging to the Roman colonists. Through
these men not only had Signia and Velitrae, themselves Roman colonies,
but the Volsci also been instigated to take up arms. It was decided
that they should be particularly invited by name. No one had the
slightest doubt as to the reason for this invitation. A meeting of
their council was accordingly held prior to their departure; they
informed those present that they had been asked by the senate to go to
Rome, and they requested them to decide as to what reply they should
give with reference to the matters which they had reason to suppose
would be discussed." - Livy, History of Rome 8.3


"The night now being far spent, Brutus, as he was sitting, leaned his
head towards his servant Clitus and spoke to him; he answered him not,
but fell a weeping. After that, he drew aside his armor-bearer,
Dardanus, and had some discourse with him in private. At last,
speaking to Volumnius in Greek, he reminded him of their common
studies and former discipline, and begged that he would take hold of
his sword with him, and help him to thrust it through him. Volumnius
put away his request, and several others did the like; and someone
saying, that there was no staying there, but they needs must fly,
Brutus, rising up, said, 'Yes, indeed, we must fly, but not with our
feet, but with our hands.' Then giving each of them his right hand,
with a countenance full of pleasure, he said, that he found an
infinite satisfaction in this, that none of his friends had been false
to him; that as for fortune, he was angry with that only for his
country's sake; as for himself, he thought himself much more happy
than they who had overcome, not only as he had been a little time ago,
but even now in his present condition; since he was leaving behind him
such a reputation of his virtue as none of the conquerors with all
their arms and riches should ever be able to acquire, no more than
they could hinder posterity from believing and saying, that, being
unjust and wicked men, they had destroyed the just and the good, and
usurped a power to which they had no right. After this, having
exhorted and entreated all about him to provide for their own safety,
he withdrew from them with two or three only of his peculiar friends;
Strato was one of these, with whom he had contracted an acquaintance
when they studied rhetoric together. Him he placed next to himself,
and, taking hold of the hilt of his sword and directing it with both
his hands, he fell upon it, and killed himself. But others say, that
not he himself, but Strato, at the earnest entreaty of Brutus, turning
aside his head, held the sword, upon which he violently throwing
himself, it pierced his breast, and he immediately died. This same
Strato, Messala, a friend of Brutus, being, after reconciled to
Caesar, brought to him once at his leisure, and with tears in his eyes
said, 'This, O Caesar, is the man that did the last friendly office to
my beloved Brutus.' Upon which Caesar received him kindly; and had
good use of him in his labors and his battles at Actium, being one of
the Greeks that proved their bravery in his service. It is reported of
Messala himself, that, when Caesar once gave him this commendation,
that though he was his fiercest enemy at Philippi in the cause of
Brutus, yet he had shown himself his most entire friend in the fight
of Actium, he answered, 'You have always found me, Caesar, on the best
and justest side.' Brutus's dead body was found by Antony, who
commanded the richest purple mantle that he had to be thrown over it,
and afterwards the mantle being stolen, he found the thief, and had
him put to death." - Plutarch, Parallel Lives "Marcus Brutus"

" 'This was the noblest Roman of them all.
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He, only in general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, 'This was a man!' " - Marc Antony's elegy
for Brutus in William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"


On this day in 42 B.C., Brutus committed suicide, after losing the
battle with Octavian and Mark Antony. Brutus had betrayed and murdered
Julius Caesar, and plunged the Roman world into civil war that lasted
years and took countless lives. Cassius too died this day, stabbing
himself with the very dagger he used to murder Caesar.


"Tis true, a scorpion's oil is said
To cure the wounds the venom made.
And weapons dress'd with salves restore
And heal the hurts they gave before." - Samuel Butler, "Hudibras" III.
ii.1029

Today the Sun enters Scorpio, the 8th Sign of the Zodiac. According
to Greek mythology, it corresponds to the scorpion which was sent by
Gaia (or possibly the goddess Hera) to kill the hunter Orion, the
scorpion rising out of the ground at the goddess's command to attack.
We note that as Scorpius rises in the east, the constellation of Orion
seems to die in the west. When Orion rises again, it may be seen as
the deity's restoration. In the myth, this restoration to 'health' is
performed by Aesculapius, the god of the healing art. As Orion rises
in the east, he is 'crushed' by the constellation Ophiuchus, 'the
serpent holder'. There was no classical god named Ophiuchus (which
means 'toiling'), but the figure was thought to represent Aesculapius.

In many versions, however, Apollo sent the scorpion after Orion,
having grown jealous of Artemis's attentions to the man. Later, to
apologize for killing her friend, Apollo then helped Artemis hang
Orion's image in the night sky. However, the scorpion was also placed
up there, and every time it appears on the horizon, Orion starts to
sink into the other side of the sky, still running from the attacker.

Scorpius also appears in one version of the fable of Phaethon, a
foolish mortal who obtained permission to drive the Apollo's
sun-chariot for a day. The horses, already out of control in their sky
journey, became scared when they encountered the great celestial
scorpion with its sting raised to strike, and the inexperienced boy
lost control of the chariot, as the sun wildly went about the sky.
Finally, Iuppiter struck him down with a thunderbolt to stop the rampage.


A thought from Plutarch:

"Horses are the lightest and swiftest of foot, yet they run for man. The dog is pugnacious and spirited, yet it watches over man. Fish is most savoury, and the pig very fat, yet for man they are nourishing and appetizing food. What is bigger than an elephant or more terrible to behold? But even this creature has been made the plaything of man, and a spectacle at public gatherings, and it learns to posture and dance and kneel. Such presentations are not without their use; indeed, they serve a purpose Fin that we may learn to what heights man's intelligence raises him, above what it places him, and how he is master of all things, and in every way superior.

No, we are not invincible either in boxing or wrestling,
Nor are we swift in the race. [Homer, Odyssey VIII.246]

Indeed, in all these matters we are not so fortunate as the animals; yet we make use of experience, memory, wisdom, and skill, as Anaxagoras says, which are ours, and ours only, and we take their honey, and milk them, and carry and lead them at will, taking entire control over them. In all this, therefore, there is no element of chance at all, but solely and wholly sagacity and forethought." - "On Fortune" 3.19-22

Valete bene!

Cato

Cato Cornelio Lentulo omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

Cornelius Lentulus, you somewhat disingenuously continue to spread the false claim that I contacted the attorney General of the State of Maine's Office "against Nova Roma".

That is - as you very well know - absolutely untrue, and it would behoove someone who claims to be such a strong advocate of concordia and peace to stop pretending that it is true and giving force to the lie.

What I *did* do is contact the AG's office to ask how the law provided for a corporation to remove officers who were acting in direct contradiction to the By-Laws of the corporation and the governing act under which we are incorporated. And I would do it again, to protect the corporation and to encourage our magistrates to obey both our law and the law of the United States.

A magistracy is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, enabling the magistrate to act upon any whim he or she might have; even apart from US corporation law, we are all subject to the common law by which we have bound ourselves to each other in a Respublica, and ourselves to the gods.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordiae praetori Cn. Marino sal.
>
>
> Thank you for your quick and correct action!
>
> This was what I meant by more rigorous moderation.
>
> And, in this same message, I ask again A. Sempronius in the name of the Nova Roman community, to refrain from this style in our public Forum. As I've said earlier, however it is true that C. Equitius Cato lost many Nova Romans' confidence by calling the Attorney General against Nova Roma, and by renouncing his citizenship earlier, he does not deserve this tone. And even if he deserved: there is no place for personal insults in this Forum.
>
>
> VALETE IN PACE CONCORDIAE!
>
>
> Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, pontifex
> sacerdos Concordiae

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Cato Modiano sal.

Salve.

And this, too, is demonstrably untrue and can be dismissed simply by reading the archives. You are flailing wildly to find some sort of foundation for criticism, and you will, once again, fail.

I notice that Maior has just added Metellus' name to her proscription list now that he has announced his candidacy. Shameful.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> You were not trying to protect the corporation. You were self-serving your
> own ends and your own political agenda. You and Sulla were doing a tag-team
> game with the Attorney General at Nova Roma's expense.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Lentulo omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > Cornelius Lentulus, you somewhat disingenuously continue to spread the
> > false claim that I contacted the attorney General of the State of Maine's
> > Office "against Nova Roma".
> >
> > That is - as you very well know - absolutely untrue, and it would behoove
> > someone who claims to be such a strong advocate of concordia and peace to
> > stop pretending that it is true and giving force to the lie.
> >
> > What I *did* do is contact the AG's office to ask how the law provided for
> > a corporation to remove officers who were acting in direct contradiction to
> > the By-Laws of the corporation and the governing act under which we are
> > incorporated. And I would do it again, to protect the corporation and to
> > encourage our magistrates to obey both our law and the law of the United
> > States.
> >
> > A magistracy is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, enabling the magistrate to
> > act upon any whim he or she might have; even apart from US corporation law,
> > we are all subject to the common law by which we have bound ourselves to
> > each other in a Respublica, and ourselves to the gods.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
>

P. Corva Gaudialis Cn. Equiti Marine omnesque s.p.d.

Thank you! I agree, that post disagreeing with Cato contained absolutely unnecessary language. I was about to tell Regulus so when I saw Pompeia's message. Very glad you guys acted quickly.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Salve Albucius Praetor:

You're the one with imperium, but I don't think you're understanding the full ramifications here, and I'm afraid I'll have to do a cut and paste, but given that you will continue to leave Regulus' post published, I don't suppose my doing so will do any additional harm.

Looking at what Regulus posted:


***To give Cato the benefit of the doubt (so we won't call him a fraud and liar), he must be suffering from a form of dementia (an extreme inability or incapacity to remember -- whether due to neural conditions or sociological conditions that develop into neural conditions -- there is even "karma" in the nervous system)
Graciously, I will allow Cato to publically chose whether he is a liar and cheat -- in full control of his faculties -- or suffering from dementia -- and not in full control of his faculties. Either way, he should not be holding any offices. Its up to him what is the most "honorable" exit****

To sum Regulus' assertions, Cato 'might' be a fraud and a liar. Regulus is giving him the benefit of the doubt...he wouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt if there was no doubt in his mind that Cato is a fraud and a liar, so the implication that he MIGHT be is made, in black and white. (Proof?).
And.... if he is not the above he must be suffering from a known disease "Dementia" which he himself associates with diminished capacities (Dementia is a little more broad in nature than he describes, but it's well documented to be associated with varying degrees of compromised executive function.)

Regulus then lays his hand on the table make his implications more clear by actually writing that he is either a liar and a cheat (Proof?) OR he is suffering from dementia (Proof?)

Memmius Praetor, if you can't see the inappropriateness of the statements above (and I know lots on this list is inappropriate) but can you, more importantly, see where written assertions of this nature might conceivably be legally actionable? Does NR need to be saddled with this kind of worry?

Oh, I know there is an issue with Cato's running for office (obviously) and that he seems to have earned a huge helping of unpopularity, but I'm taking principle here.... about the legal aspects of this, Yahoo TOS, and stuff that is being ignored as though we were in fact some sovereign nation who is accountable to ourselves only...not yet I'm afraid, and carrying on like this, not ever I suspect. We have enough contentious nations on the planet.

NO citizen should have to be the center of these publications for any number of readers to see, now or in future. It's not about 'niceness', and 'naughtiness' or trying to be Cato's mother (Oh please :>))...it's about setting dangerous legal precedents and acting as though it doesn't matter.

I certainly hope that our Regulus doesn't bandy this kind of talk ad lib in other circles....he might be living in a tent somewhere someday...broke from paying punitive damages arising from law suits.

Vale
Pompeia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
>
> Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.
>
> The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.
>
> I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.
>
> Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.
>
> Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,
>
>
> P. Memmius Albucius
> praetor
>

 
Salvete,
Omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis - All things change, and we change with them
 
Valete,
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus

Salve Consularis Minucia!

I am not sure having well understood the meaning of your intervention.

You are assuming that I/we (praetor(s)) "will continue to leave Regulus' post published." (?!)

I do not want to underline how surprising sounds this kind of assertion, which may be reproached what we all try to avoid here: presuming the thoughts or acts of the other, instead of discussing on facts and objective arguments.

To avoid misunderstandings, I would just like to inform you that A. Sempronius Regulus has been placed under moderation by the praetura.

If you were not aware of it, this is simply because Pr. Marinus and I prefer informing privately, when possible and/or first, the concerned moderated civis or member of such measures.

The identity of this or that involved civis or member of the list is indifferent for the praetura, like her/his possible political "obedience". Similarly, assuming a public office or dignity does not protect in itself an officer.
Both praetors mind just having the rules relative to our Forum respected by everybody, for it is the interest of every one of us.

Then, some behaviors may exceed the scope of this Forum praetorian rules and of its most common sanction, the moderation. Such behaviors may enter the field of our leges on harassment, insult, calomny, etc.. At this time, every concerned civis or magistrate is allowed, addressing the praetura a claim (petitio actionis) so that the lived damages may be repaired. At this day, we praetors have received no such petitio since the beginning of our year term.

Vale cara Minucia,


Albucius pr.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Albucius Praetor:
>
> You're the one with imperium, but I don't think you're understanding the full ramifications here, and I'm afraid I'll have to do a cut and paste, but given that you will continue to leave Regulus' post published, I don't suppose my doing so will do any additional harm.
>
> Looking at what Regulus posted:
>
>
> ***To give Cato the benefit of the doubt (so we won't call him a fraud and liar), he must be suffering from a form of dementia (an extreme inability or incapacity to remember -- whether due to neural conditions or sociological conditions that develop into neural conditions -- there is even "karma" in the nervous system)
> Graciously, I will allow Cato to publically chose whether he is a liar and cheat -- in full control of his faculties -- or suffering from dementia -- and not in full control of his faculties. Either way, he should not be holding any offices. Its up to him what is the most "honorable" exit****
>
> To sum Regulus' assertions, Cato 'might' be a fraud and a liar. Regulus is giving him the benefit of the doubt...he wouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt if there was no doubt in his mind that Cato is a fraud and a liar, so the implication that he MIGHT be is made, in black and white. (Proof?).
> And.... if he is not the above he must be suffering from a known disease "Dementia" which he himself associates with diminished capacities (Dementia is a little more broad in nature than he describes, but it's well documented to be associated with varying degrees of compromised executive function.)
>
> Regulus then lays his hand on the table make his implications more clear by actually writing that he is either a liar and a cheat (Proof?) OR he is suffering from dementia (Proof?)
>
> Memmius Praetor, if you can't see the inappropriateness of the statements above (and I know lots on this list is inappropriate) but can you, more importantly, see where written assertions of this nature might conceivably be legally actionable? Does NR need to be saddled with this kind of worry?
>
> Oh, I know there is an issue with Cato's running for office (obviously) and that he seems to have earned a huge helping of unpopularity, but I'm taking principle here.... about the legal aspects of this, Yahoo TOS, and stuff that is being ignored as though we were in fact some sovereign nation who is accountable to ourselves only...not yet I'm afraid, and carrying on like this, not ever I suspect. We have enough contentious nations on the planet.
>
> NO citizen should have to be the center of these publications for any number of readers to see, now or in future. It's not about 'niceness', and 'naughtiness' or trying to be Cato's mother (Oh please :>))...it's about setting dangerous legal precedents and acting as though it doesn't matter.
>
> I certainly hope that our Regulus doesn't bandy this kind of talk ad lib in other circles....he might be living in a tent somewhere someday...broke from paying punitive damages arising from law suits.
>
> Vale
> Pompeia
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> >
> > Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
> >
> > Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.
> >
> > The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.
> >
> > I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.
> >
> > Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.
> >
> > Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,
> >
> >
> > P. Memmius Albucius
> > praetor
> >
>

Iulia Catoni Plautae omnibusque S.P.D.

A good story should always be repeated! After all it is that time of the year~
Besides I got a chuckle out of it which this ML sorely needs, in addition to posting non-confrontational subjects.
Of course I am invoking the - shade - of those who plea for such non-confrontational threads yet those threads often go by the wayside! Yes the shades of those who stir the winds of mischief make their presence known...and methinks demand the Coliseum to be resurrected!*laughs*

Cúráte ut valéatis

Julia

Salve Diana,

Glad you stopped by! Thank you! There is a naventry to the left where you can find out more. We have a regular meeting place we rent monthly, some boards you must be a member of the Temple to view, such as the ministry.
I do this in my spare time, or what i can spare of my spare time *laugh* which is getting "sparer" by the minute
We're just a small community of people with common interests and just recently opened the community to the public. We have two sister communities and network with others so many times our attendance is larger than noted on the rsvp page. For example last weekends event, a joint venture, the Halloween Bash, had 38 attending - big enough crowd for me.
Growth is welcome and I am grateful for any help towards this end.
Here is the main page:
http://www.meetup.com/Temple-Of-Venus/

Vale optime,

Julia

Salvete omnes,

Excerpts from De Vita XII Caesarum C. Suetonii Tranquilli, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by C. Suetonius Tranquillus
Tiberius:

28 Sed et adversus convicia malosque rumores et famosa de se ac signum carmina firmus ac patiens, subinde iactabat in civitate libera linguam mentemque liberas esse debere; et quondam senatu cognitionem de eius modi criminibus ac reis flagitante: "Non tantum," inquit, "otii habemus, ut implicare nos pluribus negotiis debeamus; si hanc fenestram aperueritis, nihil aliud agi sinetis; omnium inimicitiae hoc praetexto ad vos deferentur." Exstat p336et sermo eius in senatu percivilis: "Siquidem locutus aliter fuerit, dabo operam ut rationem factorum meorum dictorumque reddam; si perseveraverit, in vicem eum odero."

29 Atque haec eo notabiliora erant, quod ipse in appellandis venerandisque et singulis et universis prope excesserat humanitatis modum. Dissentiens in curia a Q. Haterio: "Ignoscas," inquit, "rogo, si quid adversus te liberius sicut senator dixero." Et deinde omnis adloquens: "Dixi et nunc et saepe alias, p. c., bonum et salutarem principem, quem vos tanta et tam libera potestate instruxistis, senatui servire debere et universis civibus saepe et plerumque etiam singulis; neque id dixisse me paenitet, et bono et aequos et faventes vos habui dominos et adhuc habeo."
28 More than that, he was self-contained and patient in the face of abuse and slander, and of lampoons on himself and his family, often asserting that in a free country there should be free speech and free thought. When the senate on one occasion demanded that cognizance be taken of such offences and those guilty of them, he said: "We have not enough spare time to warrant involving ourselves in more affairs; if you open this loophole you will find no time for any other business; it will be an excuse for laying everybody's quarrels before you." A most unassuming remark of his in the senate is also a matter of record: "If so and so criticizes me I shall take care to render an account of my acts and words; if he persists, our enmity will be mutual."

29 All this was the more noteworthy, because in addressing and in paying his respects to the senators individually and as a body he himself almost exceeded the requirements of courtesy. In a disagreement with Quintus Haterius in the house, he said: "I crave your pardon, if in my capacity as senator I use too free language in opposing you." Then addressing the whole body: "I say now and have often said before, Fathers of the Senate, that a well-disposed and helpful prince, to whom you have given such great and unrestrained power, ought to be the servant of the senate, often of the citizens as a whole, and sometimes even of individuals. I do not regret my words, but I have looked upon you as kind, just, and indulgent masters, and still so regard you."


59 Multa praeterea specie gravitatis ac morum corrigendorum, sed et magis naturae optemperans, ita saeve et atrociter factitavit, ut nonnulli versiculis quoque et praesentia exprobrarent et futura denuntiarent mala:

"Asper et inmitis, breviter vis omnia dicam?

Dispeream, si te mater amare potest.

Non es eques; quare? non sunt tibi milia centum;

Omnia si quaeras, et Rhodus exilium est.

Aurea mutasti Saturni saecula, Caesar;

Incolumi nam et ferrea semper erunt.

Fastidit vinum, quia iam sitit iste cruorem;

Tam bibit hunc avide, quam bibit ante merum.

Aspice felicem sibi, non tibi, Romule, Sullam

Et Marium, si vis, aspice, sed reducem,

Nec non Antoni civilia bella moventis

Non semel infectas aspice caede manus,

Et dic: Roma perit! regnavit sanguine multo,

Ad regnum quisquis venit ab exsilio."


Quae primo, quasi ab impatientibus remediorum48 ac non tam ex animi sententia quam bile et stomacho fingerentur, volebat accipi dicebatque identidem: "Oderint, dum probent." Dein vera plane certaque esse ipse fecit fidem.

59 He did so many other cruel and savage deeds under the guise of strictness and improvement of the public morals, but in reality rather to gratify his natural instincts, that some resorted to verses to express their detestation of the present ills and a warning against those to come:

"Cruel and merciless man, shall I briefly say all I would utter?

Hang me if even your dam for you affection can feel.
You are no knight. Why so? The hundred thousands are lacking;

If you ask the whole tale, you were an exile at Rhodes.
You, O Caesar, have altered the golden ages of Saturn;

For while you are alive, iron they ever will be.
Nothing for wine cares this fellow, since now 'tis for blood he is thirsting;

This he as greedily quaffs as before wine without water.
Look, son of Rome, upon Sulla, for himself not for you blest and happy.

Marius too, if you will, but after capturing Rome;

Hands of an Antony see, rousing the strife of the people,

Hands stained with blood not once, dripping again and again;

Then say: Rome is no more! He ever has reigned with great bloodshed,

Whoso made himself king, coming from banishment home."

These at first he wished to be taken as the work of those who were impatient of his reforms, voicing not so much their real feelings as their anger and vexation; and he used to say from time to time: "Let them hate me, provided they respect my conduct." Later he himself proved them only too true and unerring.

Valete optime,

Julia

Salve Albucius Praetor, Salvete Omnes:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Consularis Minucia!
>
> I am not sure having well understood the meaning of your intervention.
>
> You are assuming that I/we (praetor(s)) "will continue to leave Regulus' post published." (?!)

Pompeia: Yes, I'm afraid I was.
>
> I do not want to underline how surprising sounds this kind of assertion, which may be reproached what we all try to avoid here: presuming the thoughts or acts of the other, instead of discussing on facts and objective arguments.

Pompeia: With respect Praetor I was in fact discussing facts, not feelings. I'm not sure where you can find room to imagine that I was insulting your competence as a magistrate. I was making a request based on objective facts.

To explain further, and dealing strictly with facts, here is what you wrote ex officium in this forum in message 71262 this morning:

"The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author
placed under moderation by my colleague"

At the time of writing Praetor, the offending post in question was still present on the mainlist, such that I was able to cut and paste from it to reply to your comments of 71262 (I subscribed to read from the website). So, by the above words no, I was not confident at all that you had any plans to delete the offensive post in question, as per my humble request to your colleague last evening. So I asked you again today to reconsider. I think, with respect, that you are assuming I have motivation to insult you, when that is not the case.

I very much concur with the remainder of your words of 71262 this morning, calling each of us to be mindful of how we communicate in this forum.

With regard to utilizing the Leges Saliciae to remedy inappropriate communication on this list (you discuss below)...this has not proven helpful. Forcing someone to make a public apology when they are probably not sorry at all is hardly a remedy. That doesn't address the issue of why NR shouldn't be archiving posts on the ML of a legally actionable nature. I think this is an area you can remedy if need be with your imperium...no other law superceding a praetoral edict on the matter that I can see.

Vale
Pompeia

>
> To avoid misunderstandings, I would just like to inform you that A. Sempronius Regulus has been placed under moderation by the praetura.
>
> If you were not aware of it, this is simply because Pr. Marinus and I prefer informing privately, when possible and/or first, the concerned moderated civis or member of such measures.
>
> The identity of this or that involved civis or member of the list is indifferent for the praetura, like her/his possible political "obedience". Similarly, assuming a public office or dignity does not protect in itself an officer.
> Both praetors mind just having the rules relative to our Forum respected by everybody, for it is the interest of every one of us.
>
> Then, some behaviors may exceed the scope of this Forum praetorian rules and of its most common sanction, the moderation. Such behaviors may enter the field of our leges on harassment, insult, calomny, etc.. At this time, every concerned civis or magistrate is allowed, addressing the praetura a claim (petitio actionis) so that the lived damages may be repaired. At this day, we praetors have received no such petitio since the beginning of our year term.
>
> Vale cara Minucia,
>
>
> Albucius pr.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Albucius Praetor:
> >
> > You're the one with imperium, but I don't think you're understanding the full ramifications here, and I'm afraid I'll have to do a cut and paste, but given that you will continue to leave Regulus' post published, I don't suppose my doing so will do any additional harm.
> >
> > Looking at what Regulus posted:
> >
> >
> > ***To give Cato the benefit of the doubt (so we won't call him a fraud and liar), he must be suffering from a form of dementia (an extreme inability or incapacity to remember -- whether due to neural conditions or sociological conditions that develop into neural conditions -- there is even "karma" in the nervous system)
> > Graciously, I will allow Cato to publically chose whether he is a liar and cheat -- in full control of his faculties -- or suffering from dementia -- and not in full control of his faculties. Either way, he should not be holding any offices. Its up to him what is the most "honorable" exit****
> >
> > To sum Regulus' assertions, Cato 'might' be a fraud and a liar. Regulus is giving him the benefit of the doubt...he wouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt if there was no doubt in his mind that Cato is a fraud and a liar, so the implication that he MIGHT be is made, in black and white. (Proof?).
> > And.... if he is not the above he must be suffering from a known disease "Dementia" which he himself associates with diminished capacities (Dementia is a little more broad in nature than he describes, but it's well documented to be associated with varying degrees of compromised executive function.)
> >
> > Regulus then lays his hand on the table make his implications more clear by actually writing that he is either a liar and a cheat (Proof?) OR he is suffering from dementia (Proof?)
> >
> > Memmius Praetor, if you can't see the inappropriateness of the statements above (and I know lots on this list is inappropriate) but can you, more importantly, see where written assertions of this nature might conceivably be legally actionable? Does NR need to be saddled with this kind of worry?
> >
> > Oh, I know there is an issue with Cato's running for office (obviously) and that he seems to have earned a huge helping of unpopularity, but I'm taking principle here.... about the legal aspects of this, Yahoo TOS, and stuff that is being ignored as though we were in fact some sovereign nation who is accountable to ourselves only...not yet I'm afraid, and carrying on like this, not ever I suspect. We have enough contentious nations on the planet.
> >
> > NO citizen should have to be the center of these publications for any number of readers to see, now or in future. It's not about 'niceness', and 'naughtiness' or trying to be Cato's mother (Oh please :>))...it's about setting dangerous legal precedents and acting as though it doesn't matter.
> >
> > I certainly hope that our Regulus doesn't bandy this kind of talk ad lib in other circles....he might be living in a tent somewhere someday...broke from paying punitive damages arising from law suits.
> >
> > Vale
> > Pompeia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
> > >
> > > Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.
> > >
> > > The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.
> > >
> > > I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.
> > >
> > > Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,
> > >
> > >
> > > P. Memmius Albucius
> > > praetor
> > >
> >
>

Salve iterum Tiberia consularis,

>(..)I'm not sure where you can find room to imagine that I was >insulting your competence as a magistrate.

:-) Did I ? I did not presume such an idea from you, which would not have tallied with the experience that I have of your interventions.

> At the time of writing Praetor, the offending post in question was >still present on the mainlist, (..) So, by the above words no, I was >not confident at all that you had any plans to delete the offensive >post in question (..).

Ah, that's it. Sorry, I have not understood your request (deletion of the message).

The imperium is not at stake here, but just the potestas every magistrate has in the frame of her/his action. The imperium is just an additional tool who may give the concerned magistrate additional powers in enforcing her/his decision or setting the possible primacy conflicts between two magistrates.

On the matter, I will discuss of it with Praetor Marinus. For we have, all along this year, been reluctant deleting messages in this Forum considering that our praetorian powers do not authorize us bringing such major systematic restrictions on the right our cives and members have to express themselves in our public fora, and also in order that such messages, who might be used as evidences by a civis/member to defend her/his rights in a possible judicial action, be kept available. In this discussion, we will probably consider one of the possible consequences of such a iurisprudentia: if we were to delete every message whose tone is close to A. Sempronius' last one, such deletions might probably be counted by dozens...

>utilizing the Leges Saliciae (..) this has not proven helpful. (..) >That doesn't address the issue of why NR shouldn't be archiving >posts on the ML of a legally actionable nature.

I have tried, in my paragraph above, to bring, at least for a part of your preoccupation, an answer on the "legally actionable nature" of such messages: if they have such a nature, one may check it through a praetorian action in the frame of the regulation of this forum, or via a judicial claim addressed to the praetors by the concerned 'victim'.

According leges Salices, I think that we have not precedents enough to be able to say if they have been efficient or not regarding our matter. As long as our cives will not consider the judicial way as a normal tool to have their damages stated and repaired, we will have no certainty about such tools.

>Forcing someone to make a public apology when they are probably not >sorry at all is hardly a remedy.

You express here an individual opinion, which you can apply to every kind of sanction and every law. Probably all of us will have different opinions about it, and according the stated infraction.
I prefer, as praetor, considering the law as it is, at the current time, and apply it, in the frame defined by the text of current leges Salices.

Vale Tiberia,


Albucius pr.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Albucius Praetor, Salvete Omnes:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Consularis Minucia!
> >
> > I am not sure having well understood the meaning of your intervention.
> >
> > You are assuming that I/we (praetor(s)) "will continue to leave Regulus' post published." (?!)
>
> Pompeia: Yes, I'm afraid I was.
> >
> > I do not want to underline how surprising sounds this kind of assertion, which may be reproached what we all try to avoid here: presuming the thoughts or acts of the other, instead of discussing on facts and objective arguments.
>
> Pompeia: With respect Praetor I was in fact discussing facts, not feelings. I'm not sure where you can find room to imagine that I was insulting your competence as a magistrate. I was making a request based on objective facts.
>
> To explain further, and dealing strictly with facts, here is what you wrote ex officium in this forum in message 71262 this morning:
>
> "The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author
> placed under moderation by my colleague"
>
> At the time of writing Praetor, the offending post in question was still present on the mainlist, such that I was able to cut and paste from it to reply to your comments of 71262 (I subscribed to read from the website). So, by the above words no, I was not confident at all that you had any plans to delete the offensive post in question, as per my humble request to your colleague last evening. So I asked you again today to reconsider. I think, with respect, that you are assuming I have motivation to insult you, when that is not the case.
>
> I very much concur with the remainder of your words of 71262 this morning, calling each of us to be mindful of how we communicate in this forum.
>
> With regard to utilizing the Leges Saliciae to remedy inappropriate communication on this list (you discuss below)...this has not proven helpful. Forcing someone to make a public apology when they are probably not sorry at all is hardly a remedy. That doesn't address the issue of why NR shouldn't be archiving posts on the ML of a legally actionable nature. I think this is an area you can remedy if need be with your imperium...no other law superceding a praetoral edict on the matter that I can see.
>
> Vale
> Pompeia
>
> >
> > To avoid misunderstandings, I would just like to inform you that A. Sempronius Regulus has been placed under moderation by the praetura.
> >
> > If you were not aware of it, this is simply because Pr. Marinus and I prefer informing privately, when possible and/or first, the concerned moderated civis or member of such measures.
> >
> > The identity of this or that involved civis or member of the list is indifferent for the praetura, like her/his possible political "obedience". Similarly, assuming a public office or dignity does not protect in itself an officer.
> > Both praetors mind just having the rules relative to our Forum respected by everybody, for it is the interest of every one of us.
> >
> > Then, some behaviors may exceed the scope of this Forum praetorian rules and of its most common sanction, the moderation. Such behaviors may enter the field of our leges on harassment, insult, calomny, etc.. At this time, every concerned civis or magistrate is allowed, addressing the praetura a claim (petitio actionis) so that the lived damages may be repaired. At this day, we praetors have received no such petitio since the beginning of our year term.
> >
> > Vale cara Minucia,
> >
> >
> > Albucius pr.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Albucius Praetor:
> > >
> > > You're the one with imperium, but I don't think you're understanding the full ramifications here, and I'm afraid I'll have to do a cut and paste, but given that you will continue to leave Regulus' post published, I don't suppose my doing so will do any additional harm.
> > >
> > > Looking at what Regulus posted:
> > >
> > >
> > > ***To give Cato the benefit of the doubt (so we won't call him a fraud and liar), he must be suffering from a form of dementia (an extreme inability or incapacity to remember -- whether due to neural conditions or sociological conditions that develop into neural conditions -- there is even "karma" in the nervous system)
> > > Graciously, I will allow Cato to publically chose whether he is a liar and cheat -- in full control of his faculties -- or suffering from dementia -- and not in full control of his faculties. Either way, he should not be holding any offices. Its up to him what is the most "honorable" exit****
> > >
> > > To sum Regulus' assertions, Cato 'might' be a fraud and a liar. Regulus is giving him the benefit of the doubt...he wouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt if there was no doubt in his mind that Cato is a fraud and a liar, so the implication that he MIGHT be is made, in black and white. (Proof?).
> > > And.... if he is not the above he must be suffering from a known disease "Dementia" which he himself associates with diminished capacities (Dementia is a little more broad in nature than he describes, but it's well documented to be associated with varying degrees of compromised executive function.)
> > >
> > > Regulus then lays his hand on the table make his implications more clear by actually writing that he is either a liar and a cheat (Proof?) OR he is suffering from dementia (Proof?)
> > >
> > > Memmius Praetor, if you can't see the inappropriateness of the statements above (and I know lots on this list is inappropriate) but can you, more importantly, see where written assertions of this nature might conceivably be legally actionable? Does NR need to be saddled with this kind of worry?
> > >
> > > Oh, I know there is an issue with Cato's running for office (obviously) and that he seems to have earned a huge helping of unpopularity, but I'm taking principle here.... about the legal aspects of this, Yahoo TOS, and stuff that is being ignored as though we were in fact some sovereign nation who is accountable to ourselves only...not yet I'm afraid, and carrying on like this, not ever I suspect. We have enough contentious nations on the planet.
> > >
> > > NO citizen should have to be the center of these publications for any number of readers to see, now or in future. It's not about 'niceness', and 'naughtiness' or trying to be Cato's mother (Oh please :>))...it's about setting dangerous legal precedents and acting as though it doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > I certainly hope that our Regulus doesn't bandy this kind of talk ad lib in other circles....he might be living in a tent somewhere someday...broke from paying punitive damages arising from law suits.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Pompeia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
> > > >
> > > > Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.
> > > >
> > > > The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.
> > > >
> > > > I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.
> > > >
> > > > Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > P. Memmius Albucius
> > > > praetor
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve Modiane;

Cato, for all his pretense of knowing the law, violated it by going first to the Maine Attorney General, he'd have found that out if he'd actually consulted a corporation or non-profit attorney or even his 'friend' [imaginary I think] the judge.
vale
Maior
just so Cato and his BA cronies cannot rewrite history I've reposted Metellus' ML vituperative against me below, which I never replied tol


post 68967#- from Metellus, August 2009

Maior,

Here's the problem with your compilation: you're not even giving half the story.
You've taken just the parts to smear the people you want to smear, and taken no
regard for the rest of the story. And that, in the worst way, especially of
someone who has the balls to call herself a priestess, is nothing short of
despicable. And if you have any sense of honour, as a Roman should, and
particularly a Roman priestess, you should have just as much about yourself to
put the full truth in the open air. The problem is, you wouldn't do so to save
your soul, because you are nothing if not afraid of the truth which is that you
are nothing more than a manipulative, deceptive, idiotic, worthless pissant who
would be better serving as a mop for the floors of the brothels of Las Vegas
than in any official position within Nova Roma or any other organisation which
intends to hold repute.

--Quintus Caecilius Metellus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> Shameful? Have you forgotten his unsolicited attack of her not all that
> long ago?
>
> I am entertained by your attempt at obfuscation. Yes! I can read the
> archives of both the main list and the senate. I KNOW what you did, and I
> KNOW what you do. The votes opposed you the last time you ran for office,
> and I very much hope they will do the same again when you run for consul.
>
> The shame that I bear witness to is that of you and your back alley friends.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > And this, too, is demonstrably untrue and can be dismissed simply by
> > reading the archives. You are flailing wildly to find some sort of
> > foundation for criticism, and you will, once again, fail.
> >
> > I notice that Maior has just added Metellus' name to her proscription list
> > now that he has announced his candidacy. Shameful.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
>

Salve:

Salve Modiane;
I know you do. If I were still over at the BA, I'd repost what they are saying behind everyone's back. Pretending to care about NR and the gods on the ML, rubbishing everything privately.
Sulla and his friends, Cato, Paulinus, Graecus, Metellus, etc gave & give you a hard time, because you are the only one who had the guts to leave them and join doing positive things for Nova Roma.

I admired you then; I admire you now.We wouldn't have the active CP we have now, if it weren't for you.
vale
Maior
---

>
> Salve:
> Right. I'm aware of the failure of Cato's attempt to paint himself in a
> positive light, and I remember what Metellus wrote. Birds of a feather...
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Modiane;
> >
> > Cato, for all his pretense of knowing the law, violated it by going first
> > to the Maine Attorney General, he'd have found that out if he'd actually
> > consulted a corporation or non-profit attorney or even his 'friend'
> > [imaginary I think] the judge.
> > vale
> > Maior
> > just so Cato and his BA cronies cannot rewrite history I've reposted
> > Metellus' ML vituperative against me below, which I never replied tol
> >
> > post 68967#- from Metellus, August 2009
> >
> > Maior,
> >
> > Here's the problem with your compilation: you're not even giving half the
> > story.
> > You've taken just the parts to smear the people you want to smear, and
> > taken no
> > regard for the rest of the story. And that, in the worst way, especially of
> > someone who has the balls to call herself a priestess, is nothing short of
> > despicable. And if you have any sense of honour, as a Roman should, and
> > particularly a Roman priestess, you should have just as much about yourself
> > to
> > put the full truth in the open air. The problem is, you wouldn't do so to
> > save
> > your soul, because you are nothing if not afraid of the truth which is that
> > you
> > are nothing more than a manipulative, deceptive, idiotic, worthless pissant
> > who
> > would be better serving as a mop for the floors of the brothels of Las
> > Vegas
> > than in any official position within Nova Roma or any other organisation
> > which
> > intends to hold repute.
> >
> > --Quintus Caecilius Metellus
> >
> >
> >
>

Salve Maior,
 
Who said in part:
 
"If I were still over at the BA, I'd repost what they are saying behind everyone's back."
 
I see you have learned nothing from being banned for doing just this.
 
Anybody who is willing to abide by the rules of the BA may join and therefore would
have no need of your services as a spy.
 
..."rubbishing everything privately"
 
Maior as always you paint with a very broad brush. Could you please point out
where I have "rubbishing everything privately"
 
I am sure you have a large archive of BA postings to look through so I will give you some time.
 
Vale
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit

Salve:

Salve Lentulus,

Yesterday and today, for the first time in a long time, I read the ML. As
usual, I found a lot of nastiness. I have to say I can always count on you
to speak in the name of those who really are sick and tired of the name
calling. It really chases citizens away, just like it did with me and many
others. Nova Roma is really considered a joke in the outside world,
specifially and solely due to the infighting. Thanks for being a voice of
reason. Maybe someday, everyone will finally wise up and listen to you. And
then maybe some of the citizens who fled will return and we could finally
get some work done.

Vale,
Diana

In a message dated 10/23/2009 12:07:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rory12001@... writes:

I know you do. If I were still over at the BA, I'd repost what they are saying behind everyone's back. Pretending to care about NR and the gods on the ML, rubbishing everything privately.
Sulla and his friends, Cato, Paulinus, Graecus, Metellus, etc gave & give you a hard time, because you are the only one who had the guts to leave them and join doing positive things for Nova Roma.

 

 

Dateline Nova Roma  MMDCCLXII AUC

 

This is the "Tempus Fugit" reporting live from Nova Roma on the astonishing assertion from Senator Maior of the Nova Roma Senate that  Senator C. Fabius Buteo Modianus has done nothing but positive things for the city state of Nova Roma.

 

This reporter must at this point say: What?

 

What universe does Senator Maior inhabit?  Certainly not Nova Roma's.  If the Senator does have any information of any positive events in the life of Nova Roma, since Senator's Modianus' assumption as a power elite of Nova Roma, I'm sure our readers would like to know. 

 

As for him having "guts" to leave the historic reconstruction group he was a member, I seem to recall it differently.  He slinked off not telling.  In fact the group was sort surprised when he popped up on the other side.  Now, faction change is a matter of historic record when it comes to Rome.  Even Caesar and Marius changed factions.  But I recall the writers of those events pointing out that both made announcements to the effect about that they were leaving before crossing to the other side of the isle.            

 

After all it is the honorable thing to do. 

 

 

Reporting live from Nova Roma this is QFM.

Now back to the regular Forum.

 

 

I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent, how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate should only have a place for honest people.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Modiane;
> I know you do. If I were still over at the BA, I'd repost what they are saying behind everyone's back.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Quinto Fabio Maximo salutem dicit

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit

Salve Pauline;
Sometimes I think you are the worst of all; you are the enabler.

You brought Sulla back to Nova Roma.

Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tiberio Galerio Paulino salutem dicit
> You seem to think being banned from the Back Alley is a bad thing! It is,
> rather, a badge of honor. A contrast to the shame you should feel bringing
> Sulla back into the senate. Laenas at least tried to make an expiation for
> his actions by leaving Nova Roma -- unfortunately his (and your) mistake
> still remains.
>
> Your amicable behavior to those producing hate makes you culpable. You have
> chosen your friends, now you must live with them -- the smell must not
> bother you; however, I find it revolting.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <
> spqr753@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> > Who said in part:
> >
> > "If I were still over at the BA, I'd repost what they are saying behind
> > everyone's back."
> >
> > I see you have learned nothing from being banned for doing just this.
> >
> > Anybody who is willing to abide by the rules of the BA may join and
> > therefore would
> > have no need of your services as a spy.
> >
> > ..."rubbishing everything privately"
> >
> > Maior as always you paint with a very broad brush. Could you please point
> > out
> > where I have "rubbishing everything privately"
> >
> > I am sure you have a large archive of BA postings to look through so I will
> > give you some time.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
>

Salve Q. Fabi Maxime;

all right: Modianus has worked for years to remove Cassius as the PM and worked tirelessly for the reform of the CP. So we would have religious officials who are active and responsible.

Now the CP has senators who can observe what is happening, we are on the lists helping cultores. We are a transparant organization that is devoted to reviving in real life the cultus deorum.

Now the sacerdotes and pontiffs are required to submit activity reports.

I read Lentulus', Corvus', the PM Piscinus', Dexter's with admiration. I submitted mine.

I read yours; what was it 1 real life activity? How many cultores have you recruited this year: 0?


Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has worked tirelessly to make the religio romana the centerpiece of Nova Roma, he's recruited cultores, performed rituals in public, written articles. Helped everyone.
He and I, were at one time enemies, I am proud
to be his friend.
M. Hortensia Maior

And I think it's pathetic that you and Sulla & your friends can denigrate him over at the BA, calling him 'Anus' and the other religious officials: Piscinus 'Fishead', Quintilianus 'Squinty.

---

> This reporter must at this point say: What?
>
> What universe does Senator Maior inhabit? Certainly not Nova Roma's. If
> the Senator does have any information of any positive events in the life of
> Nova Roma, since Senator's Modianus' assumption as a power elite of Nova
> Roma, I'm sure our readers would like to know.
>
> As for him having "guts" to leave the historic reconstruction group he was
> a member, I seem to recall it differently. He slinked off not telling.
> In fact the group was sort surprised when he popped up on the other side.
> Now, faction change is a matter of historic record when it comes to Rome.
> Even Caesar and Marius changed factions. But I recall the writers of those
> events pointing out that both made announcements to the effect about that
> they were leaving before crossing to the other side of the isle.
>
> After all it is the honorable thing to do.
>
>
> Reporting live from Nova Roma this is QFM.
> Now back to the regular Forum.
>

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

Today, there are two individuals who have announced their candidacy for Tribuni Plebis. Three additional openings are available for Tribune and two openings are available for the Plebeian Aediles.

It is essential to the Plebeian Ordo and Nova Roma for there to be enough Plebeian magistrates. Under the Lex Grylla, if there are not enough candidates, the positions can be filled by asking current magistrates to have their term prorogued or for the Senate to appoint individuals to fill them.

Do the Plebeians of Nova Roma wish to have their offices filled by the vote of Patrician Senators?

Valete.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Fl. Galerio Aureliano salutem dicit

Salve,

What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about? Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to believe that her word is not trustworthy.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
> How is that dishonest? How does it put her a "very negative light?"
> Because she wants to point out what nasty things are being written about
> her friends? If anything that shows character, and puts the folks who
> participate in the Back Alley into perspective.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting
> > attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent,
> > how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate
> > should only have a place for honest people.
> >
> > -Gualterus
> >
>

Very good ideas! Another fun family activity is to build your own lararium. I cut out side, bottom and roof pieces out of cardboard and used hot glue to stick them together. I then decorated the box with contemporary fabrics and laces. I found some photos of the Lares on the 'net, printed them out on cardstock, cut them out and suspended them from the roof inside the lararium. Then I added photos of family members who had passed on and glued them inside the shrine. At my quite unsuccessful Saturnalia party, I had the lararium on a little table surrounded by candles, food offerings and pictures of our living family. I really liked the way it turned out. It was quite beautiful. I still have it and will bring it out this year when I actually have an appreciative audience. See, last year I cooked up an entire Roman feast, garum and all and the food was quite delicious despite my lack of cooking experience. I set up my computer to show continuous episodes of HBO's Rome, cleaned the entire house and served everyone, but my family was totally unappreciative and I remember crying about it as I cleaned up. Ironically, the next day I joined a Roman re-enacting group and now I have lots of Roman friends who actually want to participate in an even larger party...

Bene fortuna,

L. Junia Bruta
Lisa Klassen

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> This is a project from my Saturnalia plans. We've also decided to make the small clay figurines for the children who will then paint and decorate them. I also found several nicely made and well decorated 4 inch Roman soldiers which I will purchase for gifts (and I am also selling) - won't have time until next week to post them though.
>
> **********
> Saturnalia Project: How to Make a Bird Seed Wreath
> (From the Farmer's Almanac)
> Learn how to make a bird seed wreath with these simple instructions, and create something very special for the birds in your neighborhood!
>
> Gather some vines, dried sunflower heads, herbs, tall grasses, and flowers with seed heads.
>
> Start with a straw or vine wreath base, or make your own using grapevines, Virginia creeper, bittersweet (with or without the red berries), or branches from weeping willow.
>
> Attach medium-size sunflower heads all around the wreath, securing the flowers to the base with floral wire, if needed.
>
> Stick assorted flowers (coneflowers, zinnias, black-eyed Susans, or any others with a good supply of seeds) in between the sunflowers. Baby corn is another great addition.
>
> Finally, stick herbs and grasses all around, and you are ready to hang the wreath where the birds will find it and you'll enjoy watching them eat.
> ************
>
> Valete,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Quiritibus spd;
> >
> > I'm throwing a Saturnalia party this year for my friends, and I started this thread to toss around ideas and later save them to the NRwiki for everyone.
> >
> > Since it's a mixed group of Latin lovers, cultores, friends, etc...I was thinking of mixing up some Mulsum, making some kind of Roman food (who doesn't like Italian food), music - maybe contemporary: Amy Winehouse, and perhaps maybe some Roman games. I'm not sure. I want it to be fun.
> >
> > Any suggestions will be gratefully appreciated; my friends have expectations, so I'd really like it to be great.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
>

Salvete;

Of course it is fine for BA members to forward posts from the Senate and the Collegium Pontificum to the BA;-)

I was thrown out of the BA on Graecus' suspicion that I fowarded a post where Regulus was maligned by Graecus. Regulus all that time was kind to Graecus, acting as a mentor and giving him professional advice.

I call that kind of behavior two-faced and deceptive.

The BA only made that rule, prohibiting fowarding posts, after I exposed Cato's hypocracy, where he posed as a preserver of the Religio on the ML whilst making fun of Iuppiter OM and Iuno over at the BA.

Let the people judge who I am : I trust in them
vale
Maior

M.Hortensia Maior for tribune of the plebs

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about? Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to believe that her word is not trustworthy.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
> > How is that dishonest? How does it put her a "very negative light?"
> > Because she wants to point out what nasty things are being written about
> > her friends? If anything that shows character, and puts the folks who
> > participate in the Back Alley into perspective.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting
> > > attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent,
> > > how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate
> > > should only have a place for honest people.
> > >
> > > -Gualterus
> > >
> >
>

P. Corva Fl. Galeri Aureliane sal.

Actually, I'd be interested in running for this office, but as I'm a diribitrix, I can't do that, this year. Next year is a possibility, though.

Vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick O" <brotherpaganus@...> wrote:
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> Today, there are two individuals who have announced their candidacy for Tribuni Plebis. Three additional openings are available for Tribune and two openings are available for the Plebeian Aediles.
>
> It is essential to the Plebeian Ordo and Nova Roma for there to be enough Plebeian magistrates. Under the Lex Grylla, if there are not enough candidates, the positions can be filled by asking current magistrates to have their term prorogued or for the Senate to appoint individuals to fill them.
>
> Do the Plebeians of Nova Roma wish to have their offices filled by the vote of Patrician Senators?

Salve,

LOL, yes, he likes to act as "mentor" when he's completely unneeded. He has no professional expertise in anything I do and his "professional advice" isn't worth much since he himself never got into a tenured teaching position. So, that's quite alright, I don't need advice to end up where he did.

And what I said on the BA was in response to someone asking me whether Regulus was "legit"; I said yes, he has a PhD, but in Philosophy, not in Classics and he's certainly no NT scholar. Is that maligning? I don't think so. If I were pushing myself into philosophical debates and someone asked the very same thing about me and he responded with a "Bzzz, he's definitely no Philosopher" I wouldn't go on a lunatic tirade as he did. I won't venture into voicing my ideas for why he reacted so poorly, but I will say that since that episode things he has written have only reinforced my opinion (note the most recent example where he got the dating of P52 wrong by nearly a century).

Moreover, there was nothing deceptive since I wasn't pretending to be his friend. All I wanted was that he not descend into his usual habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with him on the ML, which is why I asked him that we engage in out debates in a civil manner. So, "two-faced"? "deceptive"? You're just projecting your own moral failings onto others.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
>
> Of course it is fine for BA members to forward posts from the Senate and the Collegium Pontificum to the BA;-)
>
> I was thrown out of the BA on Graecus' suspicion that I fowarded a post where Regulus was maligned by Graecus. Regulus all that time was kind to Graecus, acting as a mentor and giving him professional advice.
>
> I call that kind of behavior two-faced and deceptive.
>
> The BA only made that rule, prohibiting fowarding posts, after I exposed Cato's hypocracy, where he posed as a preserver of the Religio on the ML whilst making fun of Iuppiter OM and Iuno over at the BA.
>
> Let the people judge who I am : I trust in them
> vale
> Maior
>
> M.Hortensia Maior for tribune of the plebs
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about? Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to believe that her word is not trustworthy.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
> > > How is that dishonest? How does it put her a "very negative light?"
> > > Because she wants to point out what nasty things are being written about
> > > her friends? If anything that shows character, and puts the folks who
> > > participate in the Back Alley into perspective.
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Modianus
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting
> > > > attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent,
> > > > how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate
> > > > should only have a place for honest people.
> > > >
> > > > -Gualterus
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve Bruta;
I'm sorry your 1st party had such a sad end, but happy that you found lots of Roman friends who will appreciate you.
I just spent last evening with my Latin circle and one member is bringing his collection of Synaulia disks: ancient Roman Music, which I think will be great.

I'm also inviting non-Roman friends, as I think they can catch the Saturnalia spirit.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "fauxrari" <drivergirl@...> wrote:
>
> Very good ideas! Another fun family activity is to build your own lararium. I cut out side, bottom and roof pieces out of cardboard and used hot glue to stick them together. I then decorated the box with contemporary fabrics and laces. I found some photos of the Lares on the 'net, printed them out on cardstock, cut them out and suspended them from the roof inside the lararium. Then I added photos of family members who had passed on and glued them inside the shrine. At my quite unsuccessful Saturnalia party, I had the lararium on a little table surrounded by candles, food offerings and pictures of our living family. I really liked the way it turned out. It was quite beautiful. I still have it and will bring it out this year when I actually have an appreciative audience. See, last year I cooked up an entire Roman feast, garum and all and the food was quite delicious despite my lack of cooking experience. I set up my computer to show continuous episodes of HBO's Rome, cleaned the entire house and served everyone, but my family was totally unappreciative and I remember crying about it as I cleaned up. Ironically, the next day I joined a Roman re-enacting group and now I have lots of Roman friends who actually want to participate in an even larger party...
>
> Bene fortuna,
>
> L. Junia Bruta
> Lisa Klassen
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > This is a project from my Saturnalia plans. We've also decided to make the small clay figurines for the children who will then paint and decorate them. I also found several nicely made and well decorated 4 inch Roman soldiers which I will purchase for gifts (and I am also selling) - won't have time until next week to post them though.
> >
> > **********
> > Saturnalia Project: How to Make a Bird Seed Wreath
> > (From the Farmer's Almanac)
> > Learn how to make a bird seed wreath with these simple instructions, and create something very special for the birds in your neighborhood!
> >
> > Gather some vines, dried sunflower heads, herbs, tall grasses, and flowers with seed heads.
> >
> > Start with a straw or vine wreath base, or make your own using grapevines, Virginia creeper, bittersweet (with or without the red berries), or branches from weeping willow.
> >
> > Attach medium-size sunflower heads all around the wreath, securing the flowers to the base with floral wire, if needed.
> >
> > Stick assorted flowers (coneflowers, zinnias, black-eyed Susans, or any others with a good supply of seeds) in between the sunflowers. Baby corn is another great addition.
> >
> > Finally, stick herbs and grasses all around, and you are ready to hang the wreath where the birds will find it and you'll enjoy watching them eat.
> > ************
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Quiritibus spd;
> > >
> > > I'm throwing a Saturnalia party this year for my friends, and I started this thread to toss around ideas and later save them to the NRwiki for everyone.
> > >
> > > Since it's a mixed group of Latin lovers, cultores, friends, etc...I was thinking of mixing up some Mulsum, making some kind of Roman food (who doesn't like Italian food), music - maybe contemporary: Amy Winehouse, and perhaps maybe some Roman games. I'm not sure. I want it to be fun.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions will be gratefully appreciated; my friends have expectations, so I'd really like it to be great.
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> >
>

Pompeia Minucia Strabo Consularis Novae Romae Publio Albucio Memmico Pr Novae Romae S.P.D.

(I see you are getting formal so I thought I would too! :>) )



You wrote:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Salve iterum Tiberia consularis,
>
> >(..)I'm not sure where you can find room to imagine that I was >insulting your competence as a magistrate.
>
> :-) Did I ? I did not presume such an idea from you, which would not have tallied with the experience that I have of your interventions.

Pompeia: Did you? :>) Well, I will reprint what you wrote (from your post below), and if I drew inaccurate conclusions, I do apologize:

"I do not want to underline how surprising sounds this kind of assertion,
which may be reproached what we all try to avoid here: presuming the thoughts or
acts of the other, instead of discussing on facts and objective arguments."

Also Praetor, I appreciate what I read to be a generous appraisal of my past offerings as a past magistrate; you have admirable credentials also.

Now, I am too fatigued to get into a debate about the Leges Saliciae, but I've taken the liberty of reviewing it today, and I see a couple of clauses which might be a good topic of discussion in light of recent events. I will discuss these with you when I am more alert (and it will be a good theoretical discussion,for sure)

I wanted to call to your attention Praetor, that during my initial consternation with Regulus' post, I hastily 'replied' to him in message 71255. How silly of me...his offensive text is below mine in that post. I give you leave to delete that one also, in keeping with your joint Praetoral decision to delete Regulus' documentation, and I as a citizen thank you for that.

Vale Praetor

Pompeia
>




>
> > At the time of writing Praetor, the offending post in question was >still present on the mainlist, (..) So, by the above words no, I was >not confident at all that you had any plans to delete the offensive >post in question (..).
>
> Ah, that's it. Sorry, I have not understood your request (deletion of the message).
>
> The imperium is not at stake here, but just the potestas every magistrate has in the frame of her/his action. The imperium is just an additional tool who may give the concerned magistrate additional powers in enforcing her/his decision or setting the possible primacy conflicts between two magistrates.
>
> On the matter, I will discuss of it with Praetor Marinus. For we have, all along this year, been reluctant deleting messages in this Forum considering that our praetorian powers do not authorize us bringing such major systematic restrictions on the right our cives and members have to express themselves in our public fora, and also in order that such messages, who might be used as evidences by a civis/member to defend her/his rights in a possible judicial action, be kept available. In this discussion, we will probably consider one of the possible consequences of such a iurisprudentia: if we were to delete every message whose tone is close to A. Sempronius' last one, such deletions might probably be counted by dozens...
>
> >utilizing the Leges Saliciae (..) this has not proven helpful. (..) >That doesn't address the issue of why NR shouldn't be archiving >posts on the ML of a legally actionable nature.
>
> I have tried, in my paragraph above, to bring, at least for a part of your preoccupation, an answer on the "legally actionable nature" of such messages: if they have such a nature, one may check it through a praetorian action in the frame of the regulation of this forum, or via a judicial claim addressed to the praetors by the concerned 'victim'.
>
> According leges Salices, I think that we have not precedents enough to be able to say if they have been efficient or not regarding our matter. As long as our cives will not consider the judicial way as a normal tool to have their damages stated and repaired, we will have no certainty about such tools.
>
> >Forcing someone to make a public apology when they are probably not >sorry at all is hardly a remedy.
>
> You express here an individual opinion, which you can apply to every kind of sanction and every law. Probably all of us will have different opinions about it, and according the stated infraction.
> I prefer, as praetor, considering the law as it is, at the current time, and apply it, in the frame defined by the text of current leges Salices.
>
> Vale Tiberia,
>
>
> Albucius pr.
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Albucius Praetor, Salvete Omnes:
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Consularis Minucia!
> > >
> > > I am not sure having well understood the meaning of your intervention.
> > >
> > > You are assuming that I/we (praetor(s)) "will continue to leave Regulus' post published." (?!)
> >
> > Pompeia: Yes, I'm afraid I was.
> > >
> > > I do not want to underline how surprising sounds this kind of assertion, which may be reproached what we all try to avoid here: presuming the thoughts or acts of the other, instead of discussing on facts and objective arguments.
> >
> > Pompeia: With respect Praetor I was in fact discussing facts, not feelings. I'm not sure where you can find room to imagine that I was insulting your competence as a magistrate. I was making a request based on objective facts.
> >
> > To explain further, and dealing strictly with facts, here is what you wrote ex officium in this forum in message 71262 this morning:
> >
> > "The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author
> > placed under moderation by my colleague"
> >
> > At the time of writing Praetor, the offending post in question was still present on the mainlist, such that I was able to cut and paste from it to reply to your comments of 71262 (I subscribed to read from the website). So, by the above words no, I was not confident at all that you had any plans to delete the offensive post in question, as per my humble request to your colleague last evening. So I asked you again today to reconsider. I think, with respect, that you are assuming I have motivation to insult you, when that is not the case.
> >
> > I very much concur with the remainder of your words of 71262 this morning, calling each of us to be mindful of how we communicate in this forum.
> >
> > With regard to utilizing the Leges Saliciae to remedy inappropriate communication on this list (you discuss below)...this has not proven helpful. Forcing someone to make a public apology when they are probably not sorry at all is hardly a remedy. That doesn't address the issue of why NR shouldn't be archiving posts on the ML of a legally actionable nature. I think this is an area you can remedy if need be with your imperium...no other law superceding a praetoral edict on the matter that I can see.
> >
> > Vale
> > Pompeia
> >
> > >
> > > To avoid misunderstandings, I would just like to inform you that A. Sempronius Regulus has been placed under moderation by the praetura.
> > >
> > > If you were not aware of it, this is simply because Pr. Marinus and I prefer informing privately, when possible and/or first, the concerned moderated civis or member of such measures.
> > >
> > > The identity of this or that involved civis or member of the list is indifferent for the praetura, like her/his possible political "obedience". Similarly, assuming a public office or dignity does not protect in itself an officer.
> > > Both praetors mind just having the rules relative to our Forum respected by everybody, for it is the interest of every one of us.
> > >
> > > Then, some behaviors may exceed the scope of this Forum praetorian rules and of its most common sanction, the moderation. Such behaviors may enter the field of our leges on harassment, insult, calomny, etc.. At this time, every concerned civis or magistrate is allowed, addressing the praetura a claim (petitio actionis) so that the lived damages may be repaired. At this day, we praetors have received no such petitio since the beginning of our year term.
> > >
> > > Vale cara Minucia,
> > >
> > >
> > > Albucius pr.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_minucia_tiberia" <scriba_forum@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Albucius Praetor:
> > > >
> > > > You're the one with imperium, but I don't think you're understanding the full ramifications here, and I'm afraid I'll have to do a cut and paste, but given that you will continue to leave Regulus' post published, I don't suppose my doing so will do any additional harm.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at what Regulus posted:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ***To give Cato the benefit of the doubt (so we won't call him a fraud and liar), he must be suffering from a form of dementia (an extreme inability or incapacity to remember -- whether due to neural conditions or sociological conditions that develop into neural conditions -- there is even "karma" in the nervous system)
> > > > Graciously, I will allow Cato to publically chose whether he is a liar and cheat -- in full control of his faculties -- or suffering from dementia -- and not in full control of his faculties. Either way, he should not be holding any offices. Its up to him what is the most "honorable" exit****
> > > >
> > > > To sum Regulus' assertions, Cato 'might' be a fraud and a liar. Regulus is giving him the benefit of the doubt...he wouldn't be giving the benefit of the doubt if there was no doubt in his mind that Cato is a fraud and a liar, so the implication that he MIGHT be is made, in black and white. (Proof?).
> > > > And.... if he is not the above he must be suffering from a known disease "Dementia" which he himself associates with diminished capacities (Dementia is a little more broad in nature than he describes, but it's well documented to be associated with varying degrees of compromised executive function.)
> > > >
> > > > Regulus then lays his hand on the table make his implications more clear by actually writing that he is either a liar and a cheat (Proof?) OR he is suffering from dementia (Proof?)
> > > >
> > > > Memmius Praetor, if you can't see the inappropriateness of the statements above (and I know lots on this list is inappropriate) but can you, more importantly, see where written assertions of this nature might conceivably be legally actionable? Does NR need to be saddled with this kind of worry?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I know there is an issue with Cato's running for office (obviously) and that he seems to have earned a huge helping of unpopularity, but I'm taking principle here.... about the legal aspects of this, Yahoo TOS, and stuff that is being ignored as though we were in fact some sovereign nation who is accountable to ourselves only...not yet I'm afraid, and carrying on like this, not ever I suspect. We have enough contentious nations on the planet.
> > > >
> > > > NO citizen should have to be the center of these publications for any number of readers to see, now or in future. It's not about 'niceness', and 'naughtiness' or trying to be Cato's mother (Oh please :>))...it's about setting dangerous legal precedents and acting as though it doesn't matter.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly hope that our Regulus doesn't bandy this kind of talk ad lib in other circles....he might be living in a tent somewhere someday...broke from paying punitive damages arising from law suits.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > > Pompeia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Praetor Albucius omnibus s.d.
> > > > >
> > > > > Among last messages appear a topic titled "Roman Law and X the Ignorant", the "X" being named.
> > > > >
> > > > > The matter itself has been already treated by the praetura, and the author placed under moderation by my colleague.
> > > > >
> > > > > I ask here all, and in the same mind, to care observing the elementary respect that, by our presence here, in our public forum, we owe other cives or members, whatever their beliefs or positions. If necessary, re-read our currently in force edictum de sermone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please thus avoid, in the title of your topics or threads, attacking someone else as a whole, generalizing the bad opinion you may have on her/him. Such releases must be kept for private bilateral or groups discussions, at least the ones which accept them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your attention et valete omnes,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > P. Memmius Albucius
> > > > > praetor
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

BackAlley@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
........
Anyway, I want Maior permanently banned. Her only goal on here is to troll and collect dirt on people. When that is combined with folks who are half-insane and can barely string a coherent argument together without throwing out smug insults or mistaking pseudo-letters for authentic ones (har har har! this one's for you, Regulus) the result isn't pretty.

Ban the bitch.

Valete,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve,
>
> LOL, yes, he likes to act as "mentor" when he's completely unneeded. He has no professional expertise in anything I do and his "professional advice" isn't worth much since he himself never got into a tenured teaching position. So, that's quite alright, I don't need advice to end up where he did.
>
> And what I said on the BA was in response to someone asking me whether Regulus was "legit"; I said yes, he has a PhD, but in Philosophy, not in Classics and he's certainly no NT scholar. Is that maligning? I don't think so. If I were pushing myself into philosophical debates and someone asked the very same thing about me and he responded with a "Bzzz, he's definitely no Philosopher" I wouldn't go on a lunatic tirade as he did. I won't venture into voicing my ideas for why he reacted so poorly, but I will say that since that episode things he has written have only reinforced my opinion (note the most recent example where he got the dating of P52 wrong by nearly a century).
>
> Moreover, there was nothing deceptive since I wasn't pretending to be his friend. All I wanted was that he not descend into his usual habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with him on the ML, which is why I asked him that we engage in out debates in a civil manner. So, "two-faced"? "deceptive"? You're just projecting your own moral failings onto others.
>
> -Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> >
> > Of course it is fine for BA members to forward posts from the Senate and the Collegium Pontificum to the BA;-)
> >
> > I was thrown out of the BA on Graecus' suspicion that I fowarded a post where Regulus was maligned by Graecus. Regulus all that time was kind to Graecus, acting as a mentor and giving him professional advice.
> >
> > I call that kind of behavior two-faced and deceptive.
> >
> > The BA only made that rule, prohibiting fowarding posts, after I exposed Cato's hypocracy, where he posed as a preserver of the Religio on the ML whilst making fun of Iuppiter OM and Iuno over at the BA.
> >
> > Let the people judge who I am : I trust in them
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> > M.Hortensia Maior for tribune of the plebs
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about? Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to believe that her word is not trustworthy.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Gualterus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
> > > > How is that dishonest? How does it put her a "very negative light?"
> > > > Because she wants to point out what nasty things are being written about
> > > > her friends? If anything that shows character, and puts the folks who
> > > > participate in the Back Alley into perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Vale;
> > > >
> > > > Modianus
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting
> > > > > attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent,
> > > > > how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate
> > > > > should only have a place for honest people.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Gualterus
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yup, that was after he went insane on the ML, saying he would use his super spy skills to undermine my future career, lol. If you didn't know there was something unstable about him, it became manifestly clear after his reaction.

Anyway, once again you obfuscate the situation, because that wasn't the post to which he reacted with his insane attack on me. That is what I said *after* he lost his marbles, and I stand by it; it was my opinion at that time and it is my opinion still now; and it is also my opinion of you.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>
> BackAlley@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> ........
> Anyway, I want Maior permanently banned. Her only goal on here is to troll and collect dirt on people. When that is combined with folks who are half-insane and can barely string a coherent argument together without throwing out smug insults or mistaking pseudo-letters for authentic ones (har har har! this one's for you, Regulus) the result isn't pretty.
>
> Ban the bitch.
>
> Valete,
>
> Gualterus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > LOL, yes, he likes to act as "mentor" when he's completely unneeded. He has no professional expertise in anything I do and his "professional advice" isn't worth much since he himself never got into a tenured teaching position. So, that's quite alright, I don't need advice to end up where he did.
> >
> > And what I said on the BA was in response to someone asking me whether Regulus was "legit"; I said yes, he has a PhD, but in Philosophy, not in Classics and he's certainly no NT scholar. Is that maligning? I don't think so. If I were pushing myself into philosophical debates and someone asked the very same thing about me and he responded with a "Bzzz, he's definitely no Philosopher" I wouldn't go on a lunatic tirade as he did. I won't venture into voicing my ideas for why he reacted so poorly, but I will say that since that episode things he has written have only reinforced my opinion (note the most recent example where he got the dating of P52 wrong by nearly a century).
> >
> > Moreover, there was nothing deceptive since I wasn't pretending to be his friend. All I wanted was that he not descend into his usual habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with him on the ML, which is why I asked him that we engage in out debates in a civil manner. So, "two-faced"? "deceptive"? You're just projecting your own moral failings onto others.
> >
> > -Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete;
> > >
> > > Of course it is fine for BA members to forward posts from the Senate and the Collegium Pontificum to the BA;-)
> > >
> > > I was thrown out of the BA on Graecus' suspicion that I fowarded a post where Regulus was maligned by Graecus. Regulus all that time was kind to Graecus, acting as a mentor and giving him professional advice.
> > >
> > > I call that kind of behavior two-faced and deceptive.
> > >
> > > The BA only made that rule, prohibiting fowarding posts, after I exposed Cato's hypocracy, where he posed as a preserver of the Religio on the ML whilst making fun of Iuppiter OM and Iuno over at the BA.
> > >
> > > Let the people judge who I am : I trust in them
> > > vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > > M.Hortensia Maior for tribune of the plebs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about? Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to believe that her word is not trustworthy.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
> > > > > How is that dishonest? How does it put her a "very negative light?"
> > > > > Because she wants to point out what nasty things are being written about
> > > > > her friends? If anything that shows character, and puts the folks who
> > > > > participate in the Back Alley into perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale;
> > > > >
> > > > > Modianus
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad you've finally admitted to what you were doing, but your boasting
> > > > > > attitude only puts you in a very negative light. With such a dishonest bent,
> > > > > > how can people trust you as tribune? I don't think they can. The tribunate
> > > > > > should only have a place for honest people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Gualterus
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

C. Petronius C. Saturnino s.p.d.,

> I announce my candidacy for tribunus plebis.

Very well.

> I'm traditionalist

Very good.

> and if
> I'm elected I would seek to uphold traditions and to work towards
> following of mos maiorum where possible.

In Nova Roma this goal is more than possible it is everywhere necessary.

You have my entire endorsement.

Vale optime.
C. Petronius Dexter

C. Petronius Dianae Aventinae s.p.d.,

> Nova Roma is really considered a joke in the outside world,
> specifially and solely due to the infighting.

Really? In my opinion the joke is that this group is publicly announced as pagan, as the group of the cultores deorum, with a christian running for consul.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salvete,
 
I hereby announce my candidacy for Tribunus Plebis.
I am a citizen in good standing and have been a citizen since 21 January 2755 .
I am a member of the Plebeian Ordo, Assidui and I am 52 years of age.
 
Valete
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus

Salve,

What about the Christians already in the CP? What do you think about them? Cato's running is hardly ground-breaking.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Dianae Aventinae s.p.d.,
>
> > Nova Roma is really considered a joke in the outside world,
> > specifially and solely due to the infighting.
>
> Really? In my opinion the joke is that this group is publicly announced as pagan, as the group of the cultores deorum, with a christian running for consul.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

M.Octavius Corvus Plebis S.P.D.

hereby I declare my candidacy for tribune of the plebs in the upcoming
elections.
I am 37, currently serve as Sacerdos Iovis and Legatus ProPraetore Prov. Sarmatia. I stand for bringing Nova Roma into real life. I formed the Poltava oppidum in Sarmatia(Ukraine) and now am preparing to declare of creating the first oppidum in Russian part of Sarmatia. We also built the Altar of Iuppiter and bought the land for the Temple of Iuppiter. I am assidui and of plebeian order. I consider the People of Nova Roma as the most precious thing that NR has. And I believe the Tribunes must be standing for the interests of the People and not for political games.

Optime vaslete,

M. Octavius Corvus

M.Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;

I declare my candidacy for tribune of the plebs in the upcoming elections.
I will serve in true Roman fashion respecting the gods and the mos of our ancestors of the res publica.
May the gods be propitious to Nova Roma!
M. Hortensia Maior

Ave,

> What about the Christians already in the CP?

It is a question for them. I cannot answer in their place.

> What do you think about them?

What they think about the religio Romana? It is known by their bible.

> Cato's running is hardly ground-breaking.

Not at all, Cato is not Neptune?

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

C. Petronius M. Octavio s.p.d.,

> hereby I declare my candidacy for tribune of the plebs in the upcoming
> elections.

You have my entire endorsement.

Optime vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

C. Petronius M. Hortensiae s.p.d.,

> I declare my candidacy for tribune of the plebs in the upcoming elections.

You have my endorsement and my trust.

Optime vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve,

So, let me get this straight, you do not approve of the Christians in the CP? Do you know who they are?

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > What about the Christians already in the CP?
>
> It is a question for them. I cannot answer in their place.
>
> > What do you think about them?
>
> What they think about the religio Romana? It is known by their bible.
>
> > Cato's running is hardly ground-breaking.
>
> Not at all, Cato is not Neptune?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
>
> What about the Christians already in the CP? What do you think about them?

Althought I am amazed that christians can be in the Collegium Pontificum, we can notice that NR tolerates foxes in the hens. But if I can think something about christians in the CP, I cannot think anything about officially pagans in the Holly College of the Vatican. It is impossible, the christians tolerate nothing, just perhaps that the earth is round. Poor Galileo... and he was right.

May I suggest Cato to run for bishop instead of running for NR consul?

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Well, my point was just that since there are already Christians in much more important positions that Cato as possible consul isn't so shocking.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > What about the Christians already in the CP? What do you think about them?
>
> Althought I am amazed that christians can be in the Collegium Pontificum, we can notice that NR tolerates foxes in the hens. But if I can think something about christians in the CP, I cannot think anything about officially pagans in the Holly College of the Vatican. It is impossible, the christians tolerate nothing, just perhaps that the earth is round. Poor Galileo... and he was right.
>
> May I suggest Cato to run for bishop instead of running for NR consul?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Ave,

> So, let me get this straight, you do not approve of the Christians in the CP?

You take the wrong side of the problem. If christians are in the CP, it is their problem with their faith as said in their bible. They cannot worship other gods than their. It is not my problem.

> Do you know who they are?

They recognize themselves.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

If that is your perspective--and I agree that it is their own theological problem--then why does it matter if Cato is consul? It is his own personal problem with reconciling his position with his religion. It isn't our problem to worry about how he or others personally try to resolve the contradictions.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > So, let me get this straight, you do not approve of the Christians in the CP?
>
> You take the wrong side of the problem. If christians are in the CP, it is their problem with their faith as said in their bible. They cannot worship other gods than their. It is not my problem.
>
> > Do you know who they are?
>
> They recognize themselves.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Ave,

> Well, my point was just that since there are already Christians in much more important positions that Cato as possible consul isn't so shocking.

CP has no imperium. Consulship is political, CP is religious. There is no comparison. If a christian is in the CP he has to affront his own conscience, if a consul is not cultor deorum it is against the public patterns of Nova Roma. If we want that Nova Roma forges ahead, we have to prevent and stop the return of the sectarian superstitions.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

So you're telling me that a Christian as consul undermines NR more than a Christian in a *priesthood*? So, in other words, we need polytheists in the political positions, but Christians can be in the religious positions?

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > Well, my point was just that since there are already Christians in much more important positions that Cato as possible consul isn't so shocking.
>
> CP has no imperium. Consulship is political, CP is religious. There is no comparison. If a christian is in the CP he has to affront his own conscience, if a consul is not cultor deorum it is against the public patterns of Nova Roma. If we want that Nova Roma forges ahead, we have to prevent and stop the return of the sectarian superstitions.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit

Salve:

Ave,

> So you're telling me that a Christian as consul undermines NR more than a Christian in a *priesthood*?

Of course. As cultores deorum a christian in the CP can be a sort of flamine of Jesus. It is not a problem. Pagans as polytheists can tolerate Jesus as among gods. But the contrary is not real, as showed us the poor story of the mankind after that this sectarian superstition was set and laid down.

> So, in other words, we need polytheists in the political positions,

Yes. Because polytheists are not sectarian. In other hand, we know by History how christian politics made laws against the gods. Christians are intolerate and sectarian. It is not a good thing for Nova Roma, if Cato is wanting to run for a political position, he has his macronation to do that. There christianity is almost the norm.

> but Christians can be in the religious positions?

It is their problem with their faith and conscience.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve,

As I understand it, people can post *their own* posts from the Senate to anywhere they want. And anyway, there is no real rule that Senate posts can't be pasted; it's merely a convention observed by some.

Are you on the BA? Do you read everything and compare to what she says? She regularly distorts and misinforms. I understand it's not easy to confirm or disconfirm that for people who don't read the BA regularly, but her admission on here of being dishonest about her msg forwarding goes some way to bridging the gap and allowing people to see her true nature.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
>
> Posts have been sent from the senate to the back alley by both Sulla and
> Cato, along with ridicule and scorn. I don't see your point. Seems like a
> steaming mass of crap to me. You don't like Maior... I get it. Trying to
> make is sound as if she is untrustworthy is an unnecessary attempt at
> character assassination. So far I have not seen any distortion. The back
> alley is what it is, and those who use it are who they are.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > What puts her in a negative light is that she moaned and groaned about the
> > accusation of her violating the BA rules about forwarding posts while all
> > along she was guilty of exactly that. Moreover, now she boasts and glories
> > in having lied about forwarding posts and says she would deceive again. If
> > she is fine in lying about this, what else is she happy about lying about?
> > Indeed, I'd characterize most of what she has said about the BA as distorted
> > or outright untrue. Unfortunately, many people don't follow both lists to be
> > able to confirm or disconfirm what she says, but that she is happy to so
> > boldly gloat about deceiving and lying I think makes it much easier to
> > believe that her word is not trustworthy.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus.
> >
> >
> >
>

Salve,

Your response seems rather incoherent to me. Maybe you didn't articulate yourself properly. Why does it matter what macronation possibilities exist? He is part of NR. Can you explain exactly how he is doing more harm in a political position instead of a Christian in a religious position? It seems you have in mind the 4th century Empire... do we have an Imperial system? Is Cato as consul equal to being emperor?

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ave,
>
> > So you're telling me that a Christian as consul undermines NR more than a Christian in a *priesthood*?
>
> Of course. As cultores deorum a christian in the CP can be a sort of flamine of Jesus. It is not a problem. Pagans as polytheists can tolerate Jesus as among gods. But the contrary is not real, as showed us the poor story of the mankind after that this sectarian superstition was set and laid down.
>
> > So, in other words, we need polytheists in the political positions,
>
> Yes. Because polytheists are not sectarian. In other hand, we know by History how christian politics made laws against the gods. Christians are intolerate and sectarian. It is not a good thing for Nova Roma, if Cato is wanting to run for a political position, he has his macronation to do that. There christianity is almost the norm.
>
> > but Christians can be in the religious positions?
>
> It is their problem with their faith and conscience.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

C. Petronius K. Modiano s.p.d.,

> Dexter... Gualterus is trying to say that *I* am the Christian in the Collegium Pontificum.

I guessed. But as you saw I never said your name. I know that you are an augur, in whom I trust, and perhaps already a flamen. I do not remember if you have yet resigned from your flamonium... according the rule of no holding of several priesthoods concurrently. And you never have shown us negative positions into the votes and discussions in the CP.

> He is attempting to equate my Gnosticism/Esotericism
> with Cato's Eastern Orthodoxy. The two are not the same.

I know, amice. You are more open than Cato. There is no comparison.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Flamen Portunalis.

Maybe you should talk it over with Dexter and explain your distinctions to him. He was the one who used a blanket "Christian" label against Cato.

-GG

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salve:
>
> Dexter... Gualterus is trying to say that *I* am the Christian in the
> Collegium Pontificum. He is attempting to equate my Gnosticism/Esotericism
> with Cato's Eastern Orthodoxy. The two are not the same. I have never once
> adhered to a strict monotheism as has Cato so his claim of "Christians in
> the CP" is erroneous, BUT... this is something that Sulla and his friends
> try to bring up every now and then to cause trouble. I find it rather
> borish to be honest, and grow tired of having to constantly defend my
> personal religious beliefs.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:31 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > > So, let me get this straight, you do not approve of the Christians in the
> > CP?
> >
> > You take the wrong side of the problem. If christians are in the CP, it is
> > their problem with their faith as said in their bible. They cannot worship
> > other gods than their. It is not my problem.
> >
> > > Do you know who they are?
> >
> > They recognize themselves.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit

Salve,

Well, I don't think the convention is worthy of respect. I think all Senate activity should be public.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero salutem dicit
>
> You are correct about one thing, "...it's merely a convention observed by
> some." And broken by two: Sulla and Cato. You sure have picked your
> friends wisely! Talk about character. You can know a lot about a person by
> who their friends are.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:29 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > As I understand it, people can post *their own* posts from the Senate to
> > anywhere they want. And anyway, there is no real rule that Senate posts
> > can't be pasted; it's merely a convention observed by some.
> >
> > Are you on the BA? Do you read everything and compare to what she says? She
> > regularly distorts and misinforms. I understand it's not easy to confirm or
> > disconfirm that for people who don't read the BA regularly, but her
> > admission on here of being dishonest about her msg forwarding goes some way
> > to bridging the gap and allowing people to see her true nature.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
>

That is because Cato continuously indicates he is a Christian -  in the normative sense.  Lentulus and I are hardly normative, and we are not considered Christian by Cato's Orthodoxy (something that Cato has mentioned, and which is fine with me).

By that logic... then WHY do you have a problem with the Back Alley also being public?  Why is it such a problem for YOU when Hortensia forwards posts?  If the senate is to be public is the Back Alley somehow sanctified space and you and those who congregate there deserving of "privacy."  

He is certainly a Christian, but I don't think anyone who has even the smallest inkling of Christian history would think he embodied Christianity.

I'm sure you agree that a blanket attack on "Christians" would include you and Lentulus. If Dexter was targeting some subset of Christians he should've made that explicit. After all, this isn't merely about what Cato says, but both you and Lentulus identify yourselves as Christians, even if not "orthodox".

If you noticed how I led the discussion with Dexter, it was primarily about teasing out his notion of "Christian" and who (and under what circumstances) he thought was really dangerous. So, as I said, maybe you should have a talk with him.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> That is because Cato continuously indicates he is a Christian - in the
> normative sense. Lentulus and I are hardly normative, and we are not
> considered Christian by Cato's Orthodoxy (something that Cato has mentioned,
> and which is fine with me).
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:39 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe you should talk it over with Dexter and explain your distinctions to
> > him. He was the one who used a blanket "Christian" label against Cato.
> >
> > -GG.
> >
> >
> >
>

The BA isn't by any stretch of the imagination "private". Can I join the Senate list as a wall-fly? No. Can you or anyone else (except rule breakers, i.e. Maior and Anna) join the BA and post what you want? yes. There's no secret about what happens in the BA. The rule about forwarding posts was because the language and looseness that is tolerated on the BA is not tolerated in many other places. It was decided if people can't handle the atmosphere through joining, then forwarding posts to them (and especially to the ML) would only cause problems. This is most evident in the psychotic reaction we all witnessed from Regulus.

The day that I can join the Senate and post on there what I want will be the day that your analogy works.

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> By that logic... then WHY do you have a problem with the Back Alley also
> being public? Why is it such a problem for YOU when Hortensia forwards
> posts? If the senate is to be public is the Back Alley somehow sanctified
> space and you and those who congregate there deserving of "privacy."
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:53 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Well, I don't think the convention is worthy of respect. I think all Senate
> > activity should be public.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
>

Ave,

> Your response seems rather incoherent to me. Maybe you didn't articulate yourself properly.

Or may be you did not want to understand me.

> Why does it matter what macronation possibilities exist? He is part of NR.

I think a man as Cato is wasting his time in running for NR consul. He has more opportunities in a post of his macronation in which to be christian is almost the norm.

> Can you explain exactly how he is doing more harm in a political position instead of a Christian in a religious position?

Religion positions are collegial. No one priest can be a great problem for Nova Roma, even the Pontifex Maximus. Each pontifical decretum is adopted by a collegial vote. It is not the same with the consulship. A consul can be a brake, can curb the growth of Nova Roma for one year. So as citizen who loves Nova Roma and her patterns I do not want a consul as Cato.

> It seems you have in mind the 4th century Empire... do we have an Imperial system?

Notice that during the Republican regime, the christianism did not yet exist. So if I can refer to a Roman period with christianism I have the choice of Nero and his lions, with the interesting point of view that the Julio-claudians were the mere successors of the Republican Roman families and customs, and perhaps lions should be the solution that the Republican Senate should have adopted, and I have the later imperial period of Theodosius and his successors, a very sad and weak period.

> Is Cato as consul equal to being emperor?

Give me the name of a christian Republican consul of Rome.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter