Salvete Omnes,

I have been focusing, intensely, over the last couple of days on some very
basic questions about my relationship to Nova Roma, my personal definition
of what it is, what its goals and potentials are, what it is not, and yes,
my reasons for coming, staying, and continuing to stay and serve. I am
using a personal approach because, only when I understand my own views and
perspectives thoroughly, can I examine other views with clarity and
dispassion. I cannot hope to obtain accord with others, or be able to
contribute constructively, unless I can, specifically and coherently,
present my own viewpoints, and I cannot do *that* unless I know what they
are, without the distractions of either the convincing logic of others, or
the lure of emotional appeals of others. Therefore, what I have to say
might sound self-absorbed and emotionally indulgent, and perhaps, to some
extent, it will be. I present my process publicly only because it might be
that others here are asking the same questions, and might find my journey to
a modicum of understanding a bit helpful. If not, my apologies for taking
up your time .and please feel free to dismiss and delete.



The first thing I had to do was to define what I think Nova Roma is, and map
out its 'shape" for my own benefit. I came up with:



Nova Roma is a spiritual nation which, within the framework of all pertinent
State, national and International laws, has chosen to govern itself and
conduct its internal affairs using the forms, reconstructed practices, and
reconstructed institutions of the Republic of Ancient Rome. Our
sovereignty, insomuch as it exists, does solely in those matters concerning
our own Res Publica, and we willingly abide within the limits and
restrictions of all pertinent laws, rules and regulations, and hold
ourselves accountable to the Government of the United States and the State
of Maine.



Within Nova Roma, we have, and are in the process of constructing all facets
of Ancient Roman culture and Government, and we are reconstructing, as best
we can, the Sacra publica, and assisting citizens to reconstruct a
historically based cultus Privitum (for those who are, or are in the process
of becoming, Culters Deorum.)



It is within this broad, yet interrelated and cohesive framework that I, as
a citizen and as an individual can further my education concerning all
things Roman to the limits of my potential, and it here that I, as a citizen
and an individual am free and able to serve to the utmost extent of my
ability.



So, yes, I do see Nova as my spiritual nation .and yes, I have most
assuredly invested in Her, emotionally, mentally, and to the extent I can,
fiscally. I came by choice. I became a citizen by choice, and, so long as
I am welcome here and permitted to learn, serve, and form friendships (which
have become precious to me), it is here that I will stay.



Do I think that we are autonomous, independent, and unbound by the laws of
the host Nation in we which we reside? Of cause not! Does my citizenship
in Nova Roma in any way affect my citizenship in, or loyalty to the country
where I was born, raised, educated, employed and live? Certainly not! Does
the fact that Nova Roma is not a physical nation state, with all the
responsibilities, privileges and infrastructure of such a physical entity
embody mean that my citizenship in, and loyalty to, Nova Roma is nothing but
fantasy? No, I think not .because, whatever we may become, right *now* we
are a landless, borderless spiritual nation, protected by a not for profit
corporation, and therefore free to pursue our goals, hopes and aspirations,
both short and long term.



Am I passionate about my Res Publica? Um, it would seem that I am, more
than I realized. I find that I care about what we are building a great
deal, and that I have received far more than I have given. I find that I am
comfortable here in ways I never expected, and that, from time to time, I
can contribute something constructive. I find that I care about our
citizens, even those with whom I emphatically disagree, or do not yet know.
So .the question arises .how is Nova Roma different than any special
interest club? There are those who will say that is is not, and they say it
with impeccable logic; I cannot defend my stand with that same logic,
because what makes us unique to me has little to do with objective forms of
measurement. Perhaps it is as simple as the fortuitous group of people who
I have observed, and some of whom I have come to know. Perhaps it is broad
scope of our interests, which all, in their way, come together or form a
wonderful "mosaic". Perhaps it is the sense that we are laying a foundation
for something most of us may never see, but trust will somehow come into
being .either directly, or in stages. Perhaps it is all of these
things .and perhaps, who knows, I exist in a delusionary fantasy world,
though, since I can manage my life and run a business, I tend to doubt that.



I rather like Livia's description of us as an excellent simulation,
although, I suspect I am more emotional about things.



I can definitely see a need for some alteration in our public documents,
especially since the Constitution, though "merely" a part of our by laws
(which I agree should be separate from our internal documents), is still the
document that both defines us and from which our internal legal system
stems, is advisable, for many of the reasons already stated. Our internal
affairs are ours to conduct as we see fit .but in those things which connect
us with the rest of the world, we must be very careful of the impression we
make. We must also be very careful of what we include in the Constitution,
even in its preamble, because what we say there can be used to justify legal
actions, laws, policies, and decisions that could *and have) distracted us
from constructively performing our business and seeking our goals.



Oddly, although I had made my voting decision, I saw something last night
that really threw a wrench into the "works", and I have seen very little
discussion on this. There was a post from one of our Sarmacian (SP?)
citizens that seemed to indicate that the wording of our preamble could
literally cause citizens in his Province harm. As his co-citizen, I find
this absolutely unacceptable. In some senses, we are, indeed, "our
brother's keepers", and to ignore or dismiss a potential problem for a group
of citizens, a problem which we can correct, is, at the very least, callous,
and at the worst, irresponsible, and unbecoming a citizen of Nova Roma.
While I strongly feel that what we are, and what we seek to become should be
held heart close, and protected with energy and intelligence, I will not,
and cannot, in good conscience or in good faith to my promises as citizen,
not to mention those vows I made to the gods, sit back and allow citizens
who do not share our democratic and tolerant forms of macronational
government to be threatened, even potentially threatened. I am, therefore,
looking forward, with eagerness and some hope to the new language the
Consuls are creating.



Respectfully,

C. Maria Caeca

Salve Livia,

You share Cato's logic: If the thing isn't in your hand right now, it can NEVER exist. Therefore you should not work to have the thing, or ever express the intent to get it.

If everyone followed that logic, nothing would ever be built, or obtained.

Nova Roma does not claim to be a fully formed macronation with land, cities, complete self rule, etc. The founding documents you are so intent on changing to "reflect reality" are actually quite pragmatic and realistic.

Nova Roma never made claims at the founding that were not true. We stated clearly that we were a micronation, with *limited* self sovereignty, but that we intended to become more than that over time. That is not unrealistic fantasy. It was the first step in manifesting an idea in the real world.

What you propose will not make Nova Roma "more real". It will simply remove its original goals, and replace them with whatever YOUR goals may be.

If you want an apple, you must recognize you have the desire for an apple and then work toward obtaining one, through purchase or perhaps even obtaining seeds to grow an apple tree. If you refuse to ever think of apples because one isn't in your hand right now, you'll never have one.


Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae, Nova Roma

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.pl auta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cassi,
>
> is this thing I'm holding in my hand an apple?
>
> Is it round? No
> Is it a fruit? No
> Is it red? No
> Is it yellow? No
> Is it edible? No
> Is it sweet? No
> Does it have seeds? No
> Does it have a stem? No
>
> Do any of the above criteria have anything to do with the intent toward
> being an apple? No.
>
> Therefore it is an apple, because I state that it has the intent of being an
> apple.
>
> LOL! Please, anyone who wants an apple, come to my place: I have an endless
> supply of such "apples"!
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William" <cassius622@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:14 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Yes. Nova Roma, right now, is a sovereign nation.
>
>
> *********
>
> Does it have land? No.
>
> Is it subject ONLY to it's own internal laws? No.
>
> Are it's Citizens ONLY Citizens of Nova Roma? No.
>
> Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by any major world nation? No.
>
> Is it able to defend it's sovereignty or able to physically police its
> community? No.
>
> Does it have its own monetary system and economy? No.
>
> *********
>
> Do any of the above criteria have anything to do with the intent toward
> sovereignty? No.
>
> Is it totally impossible for a living community to grow and gain the above
> elements of nationhood? No.
>
> What is the only thing that DOES make the above criteria for nationhood
> impossible? The loss of intent to obtain them, and abandoining efforts to
> achieve them.
>
> ********
>
> Nova Roma HAD land, until Consul Piscinus gave it away because the current
> Senate did not want it. It could easily obtain more if the Senate and People
> were to work toward it.
>
> Nova Roma HAD its own coinage, but there was not the will to continue
> minting and dispersing it. We currently have a Macellum list for the
> development of a Roman Economy... started and recently revived by me.
>
>
> Nova Roma is currently most like a government in exile - a sovereign state
> that has lost control of its ancient territory but has hopes to rebuild a
> better future.
>
> We are not that dissimilar to the nation of Israel before the Second World
> War... except that we DO have a functioning government and do NOT have
> worldwide enemies wanting to commit genocide aginst our people.
>
> We are not in that dissimilar a position to the governments of France and
> Poland during the start of the Second World War... we have a landless
> government that WE recognize as being legitimate. True, we don't have other
> major nations supporting us for their own political ends against a common
> military enemy - but we currently still have some structure and some intent.
> Until these changes remove even that.
>
> Building a real physical nation requires both intent and work. Nova Roma has
> abandoned the work. Now it seeks to abandon the intent.
>
> Abandoning sovereignty and nationhood is not "a recognition of true reality"
> as some here would call it. It is a willful abandonment of the desire to
> build something great and lasting. It is total spiritual and moral surrender
> of the ancient goals of Rome.
>
> Nova Roma can do nothing more final than to complete the rejection of
> sovereign intent that has been underway through the last four years. When it
> is completed, the spirit of Rome will be utterly lost from this place.
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pater Patriae
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato omnibus in foro SPD
> >
> > One very simple question: is Nova Roma, right now, a sovereign nation?
> >
> > valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Salve Cato,

"And there it ends?" Do you really think so?

You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it.

Nova Roma has never claimed to be a complete nation. It claimed to be a Micronation, which had sincere intent to grow into something more.

First the word "micronation" was removed... now you wish to remove the intent to become a nation as well.

I must say - if you succeed with this, you will automatically prove yourself right. If Nova Roma can no longer consider itself as a tiny, limited nation, with intent to grow into a "real" nation, it will certainly never become one.

Remove the idea, and remove the possibility of the idea becoming real. It's as simple as that.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae, Nova Roma

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Cassio sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Does it have land? No.
> Is it subject ONLY to it's own internal laws? No.
> Are it's Citizens ONLY Citizens of Nova Roma? No.
> Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by any major world nation? No.
> Is it able to defend it's sovereignty or able to physically police its
> community? No.
> Does it have its own monetary system and economy? No."
>
> And there it ends. Intent, no matter how heartfelt or sincere, means absolutely nothing in any legal sense whatsoever when it comes to being your own country, a sovereign and independent nation. To bring it back around, I may have every intent in the world to be the King of Siam, but that simply does not make it so.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

Salvete,

Perhaps I have read too much ...and thought too much ...and am hungry, and, therefore, cranky ...but ...I am a Nova Roman. I will be a nova Roman whether any document written by another person says I am or not. I will be a Nova Roman in the face of being called delusional, or a role player ...or any other epithet anyone can come up with. I am a Nova Roman, because that is what I have chosen to be. Does that make me not Shoshana Hathaway? Nope. Does my being shoshana Hathaway make me less C. Maria Caeca? Nope. Does that mean I have multi personality syndrome? Nope. There is a long tradition, in many cultures of having both a "mundane" name, by which one functions in the day to day world, and a "spiritual" name, which is used in certain environments, and certain circumstances, sometimes to affirm one's identity with a particular group, culture or faith, and sometimes as a focus to help one bring forth one's ideals. Does my saying that I am a member of the spiritual Nation of Nova Roma make it so, or make that spiritual nation exist? Nope. But my actions do. My commitment does. The exertion of my practical abilities and training do ...and ultimately, my choice to be so, whether ever spoken or not, does. No, it isn't logical. It won't stand up in court, and many, including several here, will dismiss me, and what I say as immature fantasy. that is their right, and it does not affect *me* or my choices in the least.

OK ...rant over! I don't rant much ...so you probably won't see another one for um ...a year or so.

C. Maria Caeca, who shall now go do some escape reading ...for everybody's sake.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete,

All of the furor over the dissolution of Nova Roma's sovereignty has, it
seems, distracted us from discussion of the other laws presently before
the Comitia. I thought it might be prudent to give a brief commentary on
those.

I. Lex Memmia de imminutione numeri quaestorum. This law would remove
two quaestors. I see absolutely no problem with this. The current law
providing for a quaestor for every magistrate, was intended for
magistracies that were going to be much more active than they currently
are. I could even see the removal of one or two others, for all the
difference they make (other than as plums for one's political cronies).

II. Lex Memmia de initio tribunatus anno. This law gives the Comitia
Tributa absolute authority for deciding how Tribunes are elected
(unintentionally, I think). While I certainly have no issue with the
intent-- having the Tribunes elected earlier than other magistrates, in
order to allow them to assume office on December 10-- I'm afraid that
putting the whole matter in the hands of the Comitia is unwise. All of
the comitiae are all too easily swayed by whatever is put before them,
and I could foresee a time when the process was abused to turn the
tribunate into a tool of corruption by some ill-conceived lex that
managed to get rammed through the Comitia. Why not just add a line
stating "Elections of the Tribunes shall take place no later than
December 1, and they shall assume office on December 10"? If that is
truly the overall intent, that seems a lot less problematic than simply
turning over the process to the Comitia.

III. Lex Memmia de sublatione rogatorum. This removes the office of
rogatore (the magistrates who count votes, amongst other duties). Am I
just missing something, or does the lex not say explicitly who would
take on those duties? If not, I think that's an omission that should be
corrected; the whole point of having separate rogatores is to separate
the issuance of voter codes with the tabulation of votes, so no one
person can theoretically see how a particular citizen voted on some issue.

IV. Lex Memmia religiosa. This alters the relationship between
magistrates and the Religio. I am filled with a great sense of
foreboding about this proposed change. The original intent of the
phrasing "All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall
be required to publicly show respect for the Religio Romana and the Gods
and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates, Senators, and citizens
need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in
any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the
Religio Romana, or its practitioners." was specifically to prevent a
hostile Christian takeover of Nova Roma. The idea was to disqualify
anyone from holding a Magistracy that would be unwilling to place the
proverbial pinch of incense on the altar of the Gods. The new phrasing
seems to weaken this requirement to no good purpose, other than to make
the non-Pagans in Nova Roma feel more comfy. Also, I note that the
proposed lex makes reference to the Religio being the "State religion".
How is this to be reconciled with the law attacking Nova Roma's
sovereignty, if we are no longer to be a state? Just seems a tad
inconsistent...

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

C. Petronius omnibus s.p.d.,

I was far to make a link between this sudden discussion and the fact I bought a book in my favorite library. The book is "La cité antique" by Numa-Denis Fustel de Coulanges. An old French historian of the 19th century (birth on 1830 - death on 1889). He was the French Mommsen and the father of the scientifical historian researchs on the Antiquity. Perhaps hurted or shocked by the French Revolution in which all revolutionaries politics had Athens and Rome under their eyes, obviously a Rome or an Athens virtual and as excuse to build our new French Nation, our new Republic, and as wrote Fustel "On s'est fait illusion sur la liberté chez les anciens et pour cela seul la liberté chez les modernes a été mise en péril." his main point of view is the Ancient world cannot be studied with the modern feelings and meanings moved or shifted on that times. The ancient world is definitively dead. Why? Because the soul which animated it now is dead. Men are changed. This great book is big and I do not want be boring with that.

But to explain the foundation of the ancient cities or nations he thought that it was needed a "croyance", a myth of foundation, something which is a link to permit men leaving together. It is why Romans can give a date of foundation to Rome, the 21 April 753 BC. The date in which Romulus is said to take the auspices to buil the new city.

If we want live together, even through Internet connexions, we have to share together a dream, a croyance, a myth. Even if the Constitution use some words which might make us fun or ridiculous in front of others, the Constitution must pronounce our dream, the dream we want to share.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Flavio Vedio Germanico patri patriae quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> All of the furor over the dissolution of Nova Roma's sovereignty has, it
> seems, distracted us from discussion of the other laws presently before
> the Comitia. I thought it might be prudent to give a brief commentary on
> those.
>
> ATS: I am glad that you posted these here so that we could comment on
> them more easily.
>
> I. Lex Memmia de imminutione numeri quaestorum. This law would remove
> two quaestors. I see absolutely no problem with this. The current law
> providing for a quaestor for every magistrate, was intended for
> magistracies that were going to be much more active than they currently
> are. I could even see the removal of one or two others, for all the
> difference they make (other than as plums for one's political cronies).
>
> ATS: A better Latin title for this would be de deminutione numeri
> quaestorum, which specifically refers to reducing the number of something,
> whereas imminutio does not. I also support the removal of two quaestores, but
> not their total removal from the plebeian aediles. Better would be what some
> of us have proposed, to assign one to each pair of the lower magistrates. In
> recent years we have had difficulty in getting candidates to run for the
> quaestura and the other lower magistracies in particular, whereas I remember
> having contested elections for at least some of the eight present positions as
> well as those of the election officials.
>
> II. Lex Memmia de initio tribunatus anno. This law gives the Comitia
> Tributa absolute authority for deciding how Tribunes are elected
> (unintentionally, I think). While I certainly have no issue with the
> intent-- having the Tribunes elected earlier than other magistrates, in
> order to allow them to assume office on December 10-- I'm afraid that
> putting the whole matter in the hands of the Comitia is unwise. All of
> the comitiae are all too easily swayed by whatever is put before them,
> and I could foresee a time when the process was abused to turn the
> tribunate into a tool of corruption by some ill-conceived lex that
> managed to get rammed through the Comitia. Why not just add a line
> stating "Elections of the Tribunes shall take place no later than
> December 1, and they shall assume office on December 10"? If that is
> truly the overall intent, that seems a lot less problematic than simply
> turning over the process to the Comitia.
>
> ATS: Apart from its historicity, the December 10th date was necessary as
> we had one year when no one had the authority to run the plebeian elections.
> It seems to be a good idea to have someone available and authorized to perform
> this chore. As I am not a plebeian, I shan¹t comment further on this matter.
>
> III. Lex Memmia de sublatione rogatorum. This removes the office of
> rogatore (the magistrates who count votes, amongst other duties). Am I
> just missing something, or does the lex not say explicitly who would
> take on those duties? If not, I think that's an omission that should be
> corrected; the whole point of having separate rogatores is to separate
> the issuance of voter codes with the tabulation of votes, so no one
> person can theoretically see how a particular citizen voted on some issue.
>
> ATS: Here, pater, with all due respect you are indeed missing something.
> The rogatores are censorial assistants, functioning as the equivalent of
> censorial quaestores, but requiring special expertise in Latin and matters of
> Roman nomenclature. The rogatores do not count votes; the diribitores do, and
> their work is checked by the custodes. Supposedly the rogatores hand out
> voter codes, but I suspect that that is more a matter of the computer program
> in question than of any action on their parts. There is an error in the
> proposal, for though we have two elected suffect rogatores, only one has taken
> the oath of office, and both have indicated that they would not serve.
> Nonetheless I am opposed to the abolition of the rogatura, for the rogatores
> are supposed to take over for the censores when both are unavailable and in
> theory are supposed to be the only elected officials in the censors¹ office
> after the end of the 18 month term of the censura...but that provision has
> never been invoked. No censor has left office after the specified 18 months.
> Often we have had one MIA rogator, as we have had with most of the other
> magistracies, but this is the first year that we could not get anyone to run,
> or at least to serve. Lentulus and I have both served in this capacity, but I
> am not eligible this year and Lentulus is plenty busy. Since the censores
> don¹t know Latin, it falls upon the rogatores to provide that expertise so
> that we avoid the ridiculous names once deemed appropriate in NR. The scribae
> of course assist, but they are not elected, and do not have as much authority
> as the rogatores. My view is to vote no on this proposal.
>
> IV. Lex Memmia religiosa. This alters the relationship between
> magistrates and the Religio. I am filled with a great sense of
> foreboding about this proposed change. The original intent of the
> phrasing "All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall
> be required to publicly show respect for the Religio Romana and the Gods
> and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates, Senators, and citizens
> need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in
> any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the
> Religio Romana, or its practitioners." was specifically to prevent a
> hostile Christian takeover of Nova Roma. The idea was to disqualify
> anyone from holding a Magistracy that would be unwilling to place the
> proverbial pinch of incense on the altar of the Gods. The new phrasing
> seems to weaken this requirement to no good purpose, other than to make
> the non-Pagans in Nova Roma feel more comfy. Also, I note that the
> proposed lex makes reference to the Religio being the "State religion".
> How is this to be reconciled with the law attacking Nova Roma's
> sovereignty, if we are no longer to be a state? Just seems a tad
> inconsistent...
>
> ATS: I shan¹t comment at length on this, but if memory serves, there is a
> clause in the proposal which prohibits proselytizing...that is almost
> certainly against U.S. law, else we might be rid of the Jehovah¹s Witnesses
> and perhaps the Mormons and the Hare Krishnas who do just that. I wouldn¹t
> mind the absence of such intrusions, but the law is the law...
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Petronius Dexter omnibus Quiritibus,

I inform you, people of Nova Roma, that I am preparing the report of the last Senate session which were an important session in which there were many items.

Valete in pace deorum.

C. Petronius Dexter
Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Venatori Scholasticae s.d.





U.K. Ordre de la Jarreti�re motto:

>> "shame upon him who thinks evil upon it" or "evil to him who evil thinks"

>Probably who thinks evil about it...who thinks that it is evil, in other
>words. Albucius can confirm this...

Exact!! Honni with 2 "n". :-)





Valete ambo et omnes,





Albucius

















To: NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com
From: flavia@...
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 00:54:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: 1 st Law : Lex religiosa





Salve, Venator, et salvete, omnes!

> Salve Sholastica;
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica scripsit:
>>
>> A. Tullia Scholastica P. Ullerio Venatori P. Memmio Albucio C. Petronio
>> Dextro omnibusque S.P.D.
>>
> [excision]
>>
>> ATS: Honi soit qui mal y pense! (whatever honi means; it�s not in my
>> dictionaries...)
>>
>> Valete � Venator
>>
>> Valete!
>>
>
> "shame upon him who thinks evil upon it" or "evil to him who evil thinks"

Probably who thinks evil about it...who thinks that it is evil, in other
words. Albucius can confirm this...

>
> This is the motto of the Order of the Garter, which was founded by
> Edward Windsor, third of that name to be King of England, in 1344.

Yes, I know. In fact, somewhere in this house is a tiny wooden shield
with those words on it.

>
> I believe that the French used was current at the time, but is quite
> archaic today.

Possibly. Definitely 'honi' is not in any of my French dictionaries,
including the Larousse I won for excellence in French--many long years ago.

>
> Edward's son Edward is one of my favorite historic figures; he that
> was called the Black Prince later on...

Ah! Thanks for the historical background!

>
> Valete - Venator

Vale, et valete.

>

Scholastica

>

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail et MSN dans la poche? HOTMAIL et MSN sont dispo gratuitement sur votre t�l�phone!
http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/?d=Hotmail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Petronius Fl. Vedio Patri Patriae s.p.d.,

>>> IV. Lex Memmia religiosa. This alters the relationship between

magistrates and the Religio. I am filled with a great sense of
foreboding about this proposed change. The original intent of the
phrasing "All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall be required to publicly show respect for the Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates, Senators, and citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the Religio Romana, or its practitioners." was specifically to prevent a hostile Christian takeover of Nova Roma. The idea was to disqualify anyone from holding a Magistracy that would be unwilling to place the proverbial pinch of incense on the altar of the Gods. The new phrasing seems to weaken this requirement to no good purpose, other than to make the non-Pagans in Nova Roma feel more comfy. Also, I note that the proposed lex makes reference to the Religio being the "State religion". How is this to be reconciled with the law attacking Nova Roma's sovereignty, if we are no longer to be a state? Just seems a tad inconsistent...<<<

About this proposition of law, I begged on the NRCC list, but in French, why all mentions about "Gods and Goddesses of Rome" were deleted. In my opinion Religio Romana, without mention of the Gods and Goddesses of Rome" can mean the Roman catholic religion too. So I suggest, if Gods and Goddesses of Rome" is too restrictive, in place to religio Romana to write "cultus deorum".

A "state religion" is possible only if NR is a state. So as in the preamble the NR Sovereignity is denied, by the fact, RR shall not be a state religion.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Reminder from:		Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
Title:		Reminder Ludi Apollinares
Date:		Saturday April 3, 2010
Time:		12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
Repeats:		This event repeats every week until Friday July 9, 2010.
Location:		Ludi Apollinares
Notes:		Don't forget to be inspired and start your project for the Ludi honoring Apollo! http://www.novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLXIII/Ludi_Apollinares
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

C. Petronius Dexter omnibus s.p.d.,

I want to share with you my own experience about Nova Roma. If I joined Nova Roma, in despite of my difficult to plainly express my deeper thoughts in the foreign, to me, English language, it was because this organization, Nova Roma, claims in her Declaration and in her Constitution her sovereignity and her high dreams.

I translated the Declaration in Latin. The Latin Declaration which Cornelius Lentulus so well, so perfectly pronounces on the videos is the Latin translation I made. Did you think I had translated the Declaration in Latin only by fun? No. I translated it because I trust it. In Latin, because I like the idea of a nation in which Latin will be the common language. What nation except Nova Roma might speak Latin?

Twice I met NR citizens. At Rome, to perform the Parilia, last year, and later in Hungary, at Budapest, to assist the performing of the Floralia. And twice I was sharing the dream of Nova Roma. I can say that Nova Roma is real, I met her. We were Italian, French, English, Hungarian by birth but New Roman by choice.

Are we a micronation? Yes, according to the size. But, in fact, we are a supranation.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Cassio sal.

You wrote:

"You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."

This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.

Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.

Vale,

Cato

C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,

> it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.

Is foolish or is a miracle.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Dextro s.d.

If it is a "miracle", it is Christian.

Cato, a scholar comment (less than 666 lines pls) ? ;-)


Vale et omnes,


Albucius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,
>
> > it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
>
> Is foolish or is a miracle.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Maxima Valeria Messallina ominbus S.P.D.
 
 
Consul Albucius and Consul Quintilianus,
 
Many have raised their concerns over what both of you are endeavoring to do. Their words seem to be falling on deaf ears. Your refusal to listen to us makes me wonder why this attitude towards Citizens who are offering an alternate solution to your own?
 
You both have failed to understand that what you are doing will erase the very essence of what makes Nova Roma special and unique amongst so many Roman groups. I use to belong to The Roman Way. That group never had any intention of creating an independent and sovereign nation. No Roman group does that I know of EXCEPT for Nova Roma. We are the only one! That is why so many stay and do not leave despite all the in-fighting. Now the two of you want to remove the very words that so aptly describe what Nova Roma is! Why can you not understand how deeply disturbing and offensive that is to those of us who are truly committed to making Nova Roma more than just an Internet group?
 
Furthermore, if you really feel the idea of Nova Roma as an independent, sovereign nation to be "delusional", then why did you join Nova Roma? In fact, why do you stay? As Vedius pointed out, it was always there for anyone to read before they joined. Why did you join Nova Roma if you always felt our "independent, sovereign nation" concept to be so repulsive to you? This now makes me very suspicious of your true motives for rushing this along without letting all Citizens discuss it and offer their own views on it.
 

Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making! It's what we were founded to be! Thank you to both Vedius and Cassius for speaking up about this. Since it was their original vision, perhaps you could be humble enough to listen to them instead of ignoring them and rushing along with no genuine concern for what you are really doing. Stop and think, please!
 
Also, why the rush? This whole thing is being rushed, rushed, rushed! Why not take the time to let all Citizens discuss this, give their opinions and possibly offer their own solutions, as Pallidus did? Just because you are Consuls does not mean you have the only solution to the problem.
 
As I have said, the basic idea is good, but your method is wrong. This is not the way to go about this. That is why I cannot support your endeavor. This is why I urge all Citizens to vote NO.
 
Yes, we must make some changes, but this is NOT the way to do it.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis
 
____________________________________________________
 
"We, the Senate and People of New Rome, in order to restore the foundations of Western civilization, declare the founding of Nova Roma as a sovereign nation. We manifest Nova Roma as an independent world nation and republic, with its own legal constitution and lawful government, with all international rights and responsibilities that such status carries.
As a sovereign nation Nova Roma makes the following claim to various international territories and rights:
We acknowledge ancient Roman territory to be our cultural and religious homeland, and claim historical rights to all sites and territories which were under the direct control or administration of the ancient Roman Republic and Empire between 753 BCE and 395 CE.
We recognize the modern political realities which make the restoration of such ancient lands to us impossible. Therefore we limit our active territorial claim to an amount of land at least equal to that held by the sovereign state of Vatican City; 108 contiguous acres. On this land a world capital for the administration of our culture will be founded in the form of a Forum Romanum. The exact site for this New Roman governmental and spiritual capital is to be determined.
Further, in order that our world presence may be established, Nova Roma claims our physical territory to be extant and manifest through those places that our state, citizens, and religious organizations may physically own, occupy, and maintain throughout the world. These territories shall exist in a status of dual sovereignty, being under the cultural and spiritual administration of Nova Roma, even as they remain under the civil dominion and laws of other hosting nations. Our pledge is to embody a benign and beneficial cultural and spiritual influence throughout all societies, while remaining politically neutral and lawful in action.
Nova Roma also claims temporary dual sovereignty over all other sites where the gods and goddesses of ancient Rome shall be worshiped by our citizens, to preserve our cultural and spiritual unity. This dual sovereignty shall be administered by the People directly and shall last only for the duration of religious ceremonies and rites. In this way we shall remain one culture and nation, even as we exist throughout other world countries.
Citizenship in Nova Roma is open to people of all nationalities and races. The express purpose of our nation is to promote international understanding and cooperation through the preservation of our common classical foundation, and to breathe new life and honor into all Western Civilization through the restoration of ancient Piety, Virtue, and Civilitas.
We, the citizens and Senate of New Rome hereby formally renounce, eternally and without exception, the use of force, rebellion, coercion, or intimidation in the pursuit of our international status and claims. We strive to exist as a lawful, peaceful and benign nation, in accord with the principles acknowledged and shared by the world community."
____________________________________________________
 
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Cato,

Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation*, not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?

Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty*, acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae, Nova Roma

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Cassio sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
>
> This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
>
> Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

Salve Palladius,

And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.

At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation", and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.

This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?

The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve amice,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve amice
> >
> > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
>
>
> They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>

Yes, I understood it from the moment I read it. It's quite clear. The idea of a Nova Roma nation is one of the reasons I joined. I dare say it's the reasons why many of us joined and stay despite the fighting. It's not 'delusional' or 'divisive' or any other negative word being hurled about. It's the reason why NR was created. It's pretty straightforward. It's our main goal. It always has been and always will be.
Hello!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina


<<--- On Sat, 4/3/10, William <cassius622@...> wrote:
 
Salve Cato,

Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation* , not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?

Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty* , acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae, Nova Roma>>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato Messallinae sal.

You wrote:

"Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"

and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.

Let me put it another way:

I do not have a driver's license.

Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.

Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.

But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.

Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.

Vale,

cato

Casto Cassio sal.

Of course I can.

But to claim that we are an independent sovereign nation is simply foolish.

To act as if our very existence *depends* upon our being a sovereign, independent nation is foolish.

To act as if anyone who wishes to bring some practical sense to our Constitution's Preamble is only interested in destroying the Respublica is foolish.

To act as if a recognition of our limits is somehow "impiety" and worthy of a charge being brought is beyond foolish.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "William" <cassius622@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation*, not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
>
> Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty*, acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pater Patriae, Nova Roma
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Cassio sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
> >
> > This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
> >
> > Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

Cato Cassio sal.

And as I've said many times, *intent* has no place in a working Constitution.

It has a place in the Declaratio, certainly, but the Constitution is meant to approach us *as we are* and explain how we will govern ourselves.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "William" <cassius622@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Palladius,
>
> And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.
>
> At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation", and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.
>
> This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?
>
> The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve amice,
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve amice
> > >
> > > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
> >
> >
> > They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
>

<<--- On Sat, 4/3/10, William <cassius622@...> wrote:

Salve Palladius,

And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.

At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation" , and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.

This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?

The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus>>
 
 
Yep, that's it! That's what this whole thing boils down to. Is NR a "club" like so many others or are we trying to do something unique here? Why do we have a Constitution? A state religion? Certainly not to be just a "club" or an Internet group.
What does it say on our splash page to our website - "Because the Gods of Roma are calling..." Well, They are not calling us to Bingo! LOL
Nova Roma was always about nationhood and sovereignity. It was always there. So why now this badly and rushed proposal? Roman clubs abound. If that is all anyone here wants, there are plenty to choose from or start one of your own, as Lentulus suggested, but leave Nova Roma to those of us who truly love her and will work diligently for the day we achieve this austere goal of nationhood. It will, no doubt, take a long time. It may not even be in my own lifetime, but as long as we are free to work for nationhood, it will happen and I apologize to no one who finds my zealousness embarasssing. Hey, go join a club, because NR is not a club. It's far more than that (in case you haven't read our Declaration).
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

You wrote:

"Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"

and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.

Let me put it another way:

I do not have a driver's license.

Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.

Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.

But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.

Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.

Vale,

cato











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato Messallinae sal.

You simply don't get it.

IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
>
> and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
>
> Let me put it another way:
>
> I do not have a driver's license.
>
> Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
>
> Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
>
> But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
>
> Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

I certainly am not confused. And I am as Nova Roman as you are.

"Micronations — sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects — are entities that claim to be independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organizations. These nations often exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators."

Is that what you really want to be?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> <<--- On Sat, 4/3/10, William <cassius622@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Palladius,
>
> And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.
>
> At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation" , and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.
>
> This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?
>
> The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus>>
>  
>  
> Yep, that's it! That's what this whole thing boils down to. Is NR a "club" like so many others or are we trying to do something unique here? Why do we have a Constitution? A state religion? Certainly not to be just a "club" or an Internet group.
> What does it say on our splash page to our website - "Because the Gods of Roma are calling..." Well, They are not calling us to Bingo! LOL
> Nova Roma was always about nationhood and sovereignity. It was always there. So why now this badly and rushed proposal? Roman clubs abound. If that is all anyone here wants, there are plenty to choose from or start one of your own, as Lentulus suggested, but leave Nova Roma to those of us who truly love her and will work diligently for the day we achieve this austere goal of nationhood. It will, no doubt, take a long time. It may not even be in my own lifetime, but as long as we are free to work for nationhood, it will happen and I apologize to no one who finds my zealousness embarasssing. Hey, go join a club, because NR is not a club. It's far more than that (in case you haven't read our Declaration).
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

It's not foolishness. It's our goal. If you don't want to work for that goal, that's your business, but stop belittling those of us who do, especially one of our Founders.
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:35 AM


 



Casto Cassio sal.

Of course I can.

But to claim that we are an independent sovereign nation is simply foolish.

To act as if our very existence *depends* upon our being a sovereign, independent nation is foolish.

To act as if anyone who wishes to bring some practical sense to our Constitution' s Preamble is only interested in destroying the Respublica is foolish.

To act as if a recognition of our limits is somehow "impiety" and worthy of a charge being brought is beyond foolish.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato,
>
> Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation* , not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
>
> Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty* , acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pater Patriae, Nova Roma
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Cassio sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
> >
> > This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
> >
> > Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It has every place in any Constitution! To say otherwise is true foolishness!
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:37 AM


 



Cato Cassio sal.

And as I've said many times, *intent* has no place in a working Constitution.

It has a place in the Declaratio, certainly, but the Constitution is meant to approach us *as we are* and explain how we will govern ourselves.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salve Palladius,
>
> And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.
>
> At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation" , and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.
>
> This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?
>
> The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve amice,
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve amice
> > >
> > > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
> >
> >
> > They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Palladius
> >
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.

 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

You simply don't get it.

IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
>
> and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
>
> Let me put it another way:
>
> I do not have a driver's license.
>
> Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
>
> Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
>
> But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
>
> Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato Messallinae sal.

I am not belittling the concept of the desire for nationhood.

I am belittling the irrational and foolish demand that we claim to be something that we are not. It doesn't matter who demands it. Reality doesn't change.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> It's not foolishness. It's our goal. If you don't want to work for that goal, that's your business, but stop belittling those of us who do, especially one of our Founders.
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:35 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Casto Cassio sal.
>
> Of course I can.
>
> But to claim that we are an independent sovereign nation is simply foolish.
>
> To act as if our very existence *depends* upon our being a sovereign, independent nation is foolish.
>
> To act as if anyone who wishes to bring some practical sense to our Constitution' s Preamble is only interested in destroying the Respublica is foolish.
>
> To act as if a recognition of our limits is somehow "impiety" and worthy of a charge being brought is beyond foolish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation* , not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty* , acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Pater Patriae, Nova Roma
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Cassio sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
> > >
> > > This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
> > >
> > > Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

I think you might want to read the US Constitution. It would tell you otherwise. Once again, a short lesson:

"Declaration" = aspirations, dreams, intentions

"Constitution" = working document for governance

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> It has every place in any Constitution! To say otherwise is true foolishness!
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:37 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Cassio sal.
>
> And as I've said many times, *intent* has no place in a working Constitution.
>
> It has a place in the Declaratio, certainly, but the Constitution is meant to approach us *as we are* and explain how we will govern ourselves.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Palladius,
> >
> > And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.
> >
> > At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation" , and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.
> >
> > This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?
> >
> > The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve amice,
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve amice
> > > >
> > > > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
> > >
> > >
> > > They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Palladius
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

"Leave us alone!" LOL

I have done more work for this Respublica than you have even begun to imagine, Messallina, even if I don't stand around trumpeting my achievements at every turn.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.
>
>  
>  
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You simply don't get it.
>
> IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> >
> > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> >
> > Let me put it another way:
> >
> > I do not have a driver's license.
> >
> > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> >
> > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> >
> > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> >
> > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Quirinus pacem nobiscum det.

Hodie est ante diem III Nonas Aprilis; haec dies comitialis est. Natalis Quirini

"Circus shows with twenty-four races, [because this is] the Birthday of Quirinus."

The calendar of Filocalus, dated 354 CE, includes festivals and games that were added to the fasti sometime after the early first century. Here the reference is to the anniversary of the dedication of a Temple of Quirinus.


Rex Numa Pompilius: Founder of the Religio Romana

"Having in this way obtained the crown, Numa prepared to found, as it were, anew, by laws and customs, that City which had so recently been founded by force of arms. He saw that this was impossible whilst a state of war lasted, for war brutalised men. Thinking that the ferocity of his subjects might be mitigated by the disuse of arms, he built the temple of Janus at the foot of the Aventine as an index of peace and war, to signify when it was open that the State was under arms, and when it was shut that all the surrounding nations were at peace. Twice since Numa's reign has it been shut, once after the first Punic war in the consulship of T. Manlius, the second time, which heaven has allowed our generation to witness, after the battle of Actium, when peace on land and sea was secured by the emperor Caesar Augustus. After forming treaties of alliance with all his neighbours and closing the temple of Janus, Numa turned his attention to domestic matters. The removal of all danger from without would induce his subjects to luxuriate in idleness, as they would be no longer restrained by the fear of an enemy or by military discipline. To prevent this, he strove to inculcate in their minds the fear of the gods, regarding this as the most powerful influence which could act upon an uncivilised and, in those ages, a barbarous people. But, as this would fail to make a deep impression without some claim to supernatural wisdom, he pretended that he had nocturnal interviews with the nymph Egeria: that it was on her advice that he was instituting the ritual most acceptable to the gods and appointing for each deity his own special priests. First of all he divided the year into twelve months, corresponding to the moon's revolutions. But as the moon does not complete thirty days in each month, and so there are fewer days in the lunar year than in that measured by the course of the sun, he interpolated intercalary months and so arranged them that every twentieth year the days should coincide with the same position of the sun as when they started, the whole twenty years being thus complete. He also established a distinction between the days on which legal business could be transacted and those on which it could not, because it would sometimes be advisable that there should be no business transacted with the people.

"Next he turned his attention to the appointment of priests. He himself, however, conducted a great many religious services, especially those which belong to the Flamen of Jupiter. But he thought that in a warlike state there would be more kings of the type of Romulus than of Numa who would take the field in person. To guard, therefore, against the sacrificial rites which the king performed being interrupted, he appointed a Flamen as perpetual priest to Jupiter, and ordered that he should wear a distinctive dress and sit in the royal curule chair. He appointed two additional Flamens, one for Mars, the other for Quirinus, and also chose virgins as priestesses to Vesta. This order of priestesses came into existence originally in Alba and was connected with the race of the founder. He assigned them a public stipend that they might give their whole time to the temple, and made their persons sacred and inviolable by a vow of chastity and other religious sanctions. Similarly he chose twelve "Salii" for Mars Gradivus, and assigned to them the distinctive dress of an embroidered tunic and over it a brazen cuirass. They were instructed to march in solemn procession through the City, carrying the twelve shields called the "Ancilia," and singing hymns accompanied by a solemn dance in triple time. The next office to be filled was that of the Pontifex Maximus. Numa appointed the son of Marcus, one of the senators- Numa Marcius-and all the regulations bearing on religion, written out and sealed, were placed in his charge. Here was laid down with what victims, on what days, and at what temples the various sacrifices were to be offered, and from what sources the expenses connected with them were to be defrayed. He placed all other sacred functions, both public and private, under the supervision of the Pontifex, in order that there might be an authority for the people to consult, and so all trouble and confusion arising through foreign rites being adopted and their ancestral ones neglected might be avoided. Nor were his functions confined to directing the worship of the celestial gods; he was to instruct the people how to conduct funerals and appease the spirits of the departed, and what prodigies sent by lightning or in any other way were to be attended to and expiated. To elicit these signs of the divine will, he dedicated an altar to Jupiter Elicius on the Aventine, and consulted the god through auguries, as to which prodigies were to receive attention." ~ Titus Livius 1.19-20


His first measure on assuming the government was to disband the body of three hundred men that Romulus always kept about his person, and called "Celeres" (that is, swift ones); for he would not consent to distrust those who trusted him, nor to reign over those who distrusted him. His second measure was to add to the two priests of Jupiter and Mars a third priest of Romulus, whom he called the Flamen Quirinalis. Now before this time the Romans called their priests 'flamines,' from the close-fitting 'piloi,' or caps, which they wear upon their heads, and which have the longer name of 'pilamenai,' as we are told, there being more Greek words mingled with the Latin at that time than now. Thus also the name 'laena,' which the Romans give to the priestly mantle, Juba says is the same as the Greek "chlaina"; and that the name Camillus, which the Romans give to the boy with both parents living who attends upon the priest of Jupiter, is the same as that which some of the Greeks give to Hermes, from his office of attendant." ~ Plutarch, Life of Numa 7.4-5


The thought of the day is from Seneca, On Providence 5:

"Good men toil, spend, and are spent, and willingly so. They are not dragged along by Fortune - they follow Her, and match Her every step."

You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

You wrote:

"Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"

and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.

Let me put it another way:

I do not have a driver's license.

Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.

Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.

But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.

Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.

Vale,

cato











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LOL Reality changes every second. Reality is constant change, in case you haven't noticed.
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:06 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

I am not belittling the concept of the desire for nationhood.

I am belittling the irrational and foolish demand that we claim to be something that we are not. It doesn't matter who demands it. Reality doesn't change.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> It's not foolishness. It's our goal. If you don't want to work for that goal, that's your business, but stop belittling those of us who do, especially one of our Founders.
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:35 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Casto Cassio sal.
>
> Of course I can.
>
> But to claim that we are an independent sovereign nation is simply foolish.
>
> To act as if our very existence *depends* upon our being a sovereign, independent nation is foolish.
>
> To act as if anyone who wishes to bring some practical sense to our Constitution' s Preamble is only interested in destroying the Respublica is foolish.
>
> To act as if a recognition of our limits is somehow "impiety" and worthy of a charge being brought is beyond foolish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation* , not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty* , acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Pater Patriae, Nova Roma
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Cassio sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
> > >
> > > This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
> > >
> > > Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have read the US Constitution. Perhaps you should read it again. The intention of the Declaration is in every part of it. It's what gives cohesiveness to the whole thing. The intention behind any written work is what always gives cohesiveness to the whole work. Any good writer will tell you that.
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:09 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

I think you might want to read the US Constitution. It would tell you otherwise. Once again, a short lesson:

"Declaration" = aspirations, dreams, intentions

"Constitution" = working document for governance

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> It has every place in any Constitution! To say otherwise is true foolishness!
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the proposed changes to the preamble
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:37 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Cassio sal.
>
> And as I've said many times, *intent* has no place in a working Constitution.
>
> It has a place in the Declaratio, certainly, but the Constitution is meant to approach us *as we are* and explain how we will govern ourselves.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "William" <cassius622@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Palladius,
> >
> > And the people proposing to change the constitution have confused "micronation" with nation.
> >
> > At its founding, Nova Roma never claimed to be a fully formed world nation. Surely you remember that - you were there! We claimed to be a "micronation" , and happily acknowledged that we did not yet meet the complete definition of nationhood.
> >
> > This whole argument is much more about *intent* than about any current state of being. Does Nova Roma intend to become a real nation and will it work toward that goal? Or is Nova Roma merely a club that will never aspire to be anything more?
> >
> > The folks that want to change the Constitution want to belong to a "Roman Club". They don't want to work toward building a nation. the folks that want the Consitution to remain as is want to continue trying to build a nation. That's pretty much all there is to this.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve amice,
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve amice
> > > >
> > > > If Rome had been totally destroyed by the Gauls, burned to the ground and a straggling group of refugees taken to the hills, would >the worship of the Gods continued? Would the Ancient Romans have >checked themselves and effetively said "Oh rats, we are no longer a >"nation", all is lost, we cannot continue with our religion"? Not a >bit of it. worship would likely have continued unchecked.
> > >
> > >
> > > They wouldn't have said that because they still would have been a nation. Landless but a nation nonetheless. You are confusing state with nation.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Palladius
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Don't put words in my mouth, Cato. That is not what I said. You always twist the truth around.
I said if you don't believe in our goal, don't want it or don't want to work hard for it, that is your own affair. Stop belittling those of us who do believe in it, want it and work hard for it.
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:11 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

"Leave us alone!" LOL

I have done more work for this Respublica than you have even begun to imagine, Messallina, even if I don't stand around trumpeting my achievements at every turn.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.
>
>  
>  
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You simply don't get it.
>
> IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> >
> > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> >
> > Let me put it another way:
> >
> > I do not have a driver's license.
> >
> > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> >
> > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> >
> > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> >
> > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Traditionally today is the day when Christ descended to the dead in Hades and rescued those captive to Death, called the Harrowing of Hell or the Anastasis.

"Down through the tomb's inward arch
He has shouldered out into Limbo
to gather them, dazed, from dreamless slumber:
the merciful dead, the prophets,
the innocents just His own age and those
unnumbered others waiting here
unaware, in an endless void He is ending
now, stopping to tug at their hands,
to pull them from their sarcophagi,
dazzled, almost unwilling. Didmas,
neighbor in death, Golgotha dust
still streaked on the dried sweat of his body
no one had washed and anointed, is here,
for sequence is not known in Limbo;
the promise, given from cross to cross
at noon, arches beyond sunset and dawn.
All these He will swiftly lead
to the Paradise road: they are safe.
That done, there must take place that struggle
no human presumes to picture:
living, dying, descending to rescue the just
from shadow, were lesser travails
than this: to break
through earth and stone of the faithless world
back to the cold sepulchre, tearstained
stifling shroud; to break from them
back into breath and heartbeat, and walk
the world again, closed into days and weeks again,
wounds of His anguish open, and Spirit
streaming through every cell of flesh
so that if mortal sight could bear
to perceive it, it would be seen
His mortal flesh was lit from within, now,
and aching for home. He must return,
first, in Divine patience, and know
hunger again, and give
to humble friends the joy
of giving Him food -- fish and a honeycomb." - Denise Levertov

The Harrowing of Hell: this is the Old English and Middle English term
for the triumphant descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between the
time of His Crucifixion and His Resurrection, when, according to
Christian belief, He brought salvation to the souls held captive there
since the beginning of the world. According to the "New English
Dictionary" the word "harrowing" in the above connection first occurs
in Aelfric's homilies, about A.D. 1000; but, long before this, the
descent into hell had been related in the Old English poems connected
with the name of Caedmon and Cynewulf. Writers of Old English prose
homilies and lives of saints continually employ the subject, but it is
in medieval English literature that it is most fully found, both in
prose and verse, and particularly in the drama. Art and literature all
through Europe had from early times embodied in many forms the Descent
into Hell, and specimens plays upon this theme in various European
literatures still exist, but it is in Middle English dramatic
literature that we find the fullest and most dramatic development of
the subject. The earliest specimen extant of the English religious
drama is upon the Harrowing of Hell, and the four great cycles of
English mystery plays each devote to it a separate scene. It is found
also in the ancient Cornish plays. These medieval versions of the
story, while ultimately based upon the New Testament and the Fathers,
have yet, in their details, been found to proceed from the apocryphal
Gospel of Nicodemus, the literary form of a part of which is said to
date back to the second of third century. In its Latin form this
"gospel" was known in England from a very early time; Bede and other
Old English writers are said to show intimate acquaintance with it.
English translations were made of it in the Middle Ages, and in the
long Middle English poem known as "Cursor Mundi" a paraphrase of it is
found.

The Harrowing of Hell is called by the Orthodox Church the
"Anastasis"; anastasis is made up of the prefix ana having the idea of
intensity, repetition or reversal and the cognate (anistemi) of the
root histemi meaning to stand or raise up. On this day Christ descends
to Hades, casts down the Brazen Gates and liberates (causes to "stand
again") those who had been captive in the power of Death. The icons of
the Anastasis usually show Him raising Adam and Eve from the grave, or
the Kings David and Solomon. Poor Hades, the Lord of Death lies bound
at Christ's feet: "Today," the hymns of the service say, "Hades groans
and cries aloud ..."

Valete,

Cato

Cato Messallinae sal.

The "method is wrong"? Proposing legislation in accordance with our law is "wrong"? In what way?

If you don't like the proposal, vote against it. But don't pretend that this is a life-or-death situation and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil in heart mind and soul.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
> We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
> It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>  
>  
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
>
> and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
>
> Let me put it another way:
>
> I do not have a driver's license.
>
> Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
>
> Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
>
> But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
>
> Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

LOL So you accuse me of doing something which I haven't done - yet you do the exact thing you are accusing me of doing. very nice!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> Don't put words in my mouth, Cato. That is not what I said. You always twist the truth around.
> I said if you don't believe in our goal, don't want it or don't want to work hard for it, that is your own affair. Stop belittling those of us who do believe in it, want it and work hard for it.
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:11 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> "Leave us alone!" LOL
>
> I have done more work for this Respublica than you have even begun to imagine, Messallina, even if I don't stand around trumpeting my achievements at every turn.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.
> >
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You simply don't get it.
> >
> > IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Messallinae sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> > >
> > > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> > >
> > > Let me put it another way:
> > >
> > > I do not have a driver's license.
> > >
> > > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> > >
> > > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> > >
> > > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> > >
> > > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,

> Well if one word was all Nova Roma was and is, then it was a weak creation. We are scattered all over the globe. We are few. We have never been a nation, nor are we now, nor will we be. It simply is as Maior said, a myth.<

All nations need myth to exist. No myth, no nations.

> We are a respublica. We are not a nation.

A respublica is only a way of government. Nova Roma is not only a political creation, but also religious, cultural too. So NR has the wish to be a nation.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Caesar Dextro sal.

If you want a myth have one, write it on a piece of paper and put it on your mirror and repeat the contents daily, just don't put it in the constitution.

Optime vale


From: petronius_dexter
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:57 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: VOTE YES - for "The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)"


C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,

> Well if one word was all Nova Roma was and is, then it was a weak creation. We are scattered all over the globe. We are few. We have never been a nation, nor are we now, nor will we be. It simply is as Maior said, a myth.<

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete,



"No censor has left office after the specified 18 months"



There is no such requirement in Nova Roman law. The Nova Roman Censorship is a twenty-four month term that is staggered so that there is always one Censor in office.



This was by design and while different from Roman practice it was deliberate on the part of the founders.



Valete,



Ti. Galerius Paulinus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dexter Caesari s.d.,

> If you want a myth

The myth is yet on march...

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Caesar Dextro sal.

No it isn't. After 12 years it is in exactly the same spot it was before. There have been no practical steps taken to make NR a nation. No land. Nothing. The level of enthusiasm, or otherwise, for the concept of nation in NR is not something you can cite as an example of being "on the march". Working on observer status at the UN are we? Anything practical like that? Or is it just post after post here declaiming we are one? As with Rhodesia if the rest of the world ignores you, or in our case doesn't even notice all 200 taxpayers and some that float in and out, the march isn't a march.

Now if you mean the myth is still alive an kicking, well good. Just don't say things in the constitution that are a myth.

Optime vale


From: petronius_dexter
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The lex de novo proemio constitutionis (New Constitution Preamble)


Dexter Caesari s.d.,

> If you want a myth

The myth is yet on march...

Vale.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and twisting the truth, Cato.

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:50 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

The "method is wrong"? Proposing legislation in accordance with our law is "wrong"? In what way?

If you don't like the proposal, vote against it. But don't pretend that this is a life-or-death situation and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil in heart mind and soul.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
> We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
> It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>  
>  
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
>
> and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
>
> Let me put it another way:
>
> I do not have a driver's license.
>
> Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
>
> Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
>
> But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
>
> Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
>
> Vale,
>
> cato
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Honored Consul Quintillianus;

Oh Man!!! You'll bring down the wrath of the Gods on your head by
working at night, or so the RR believers say. It would seem that
while the RR is required to be held in highest esteem, other belief
structures may be trampled and defiled at will here on the main list,
even by the founders who have said in the past," all are welcome in
NR." I guess that has changed over the years as well to hear some go
on about other religious views. Perhaps something should be said
about that as well as unsuitable and foul language on the various NR
Lists by those privileged few who may do so without fear of criticism.

However, for what it is worth, I approve of you both working hard to
produce something that has needed doing for some time.

Very Respectfully;

Marcus Audens




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You put words into other's people's mouths and you twist the truth around. You do it all the time. Not me, You. All the time, Cato. All the time when you can't find any other way to get the last word in. You do it every time. It's old hat with you.
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 6:01 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

LOL So you accuse me of doing something which I haven't done - yet you do the exact thing you are accusing me of doing. very nice!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> Don't put words in my mouth, Cato. That is not what I said. You always twist the truth around.
> I said if you don't believe in our goal, don't want it or don't want to work hard for it, that is your own affair. Stop belittling those of us who do believe in it, want it and work hard for it.
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:11 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> "Leave us alone!" LOL
>
> I have done more work for this Respublica than you have even begun to imagine, Messallina, even if I don't stand around trumpeting my achievements at every turn.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.
> >
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You simply don't get it.
> >
> > IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Nova Roma *is* sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Messallinae sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> > >
> > > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> > >
> > > Let me put it another way:
> > >
> > > I do not have a driver's license.
> > >
> > > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> > >
> > > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> > >
> > > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> > >
> > > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

C. Petronius Ti. Paulino s.p.d.,

> "No censor has left office after the specified 18 months"

18 months = 1,5 year.

K. Fabius Bureo Modianus is a current censor since 22 june 2762.
T. Julius Sabinus is a current censor since the 1 january 2763.

Nor K. Fabius neither T. Julius have 18 months of censure. In another hand, the Constitution states:
"1. Censor. Two censors shall be elected by the comitia centuriata to serve a term lasting two years, to be elected in alternate years so as to have a one-year overlap of terms."

Can you give your point of view in what the current censors could be in fault with the Constitution.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Cato Messallinae sal.

Nice try, but your own words rebuke you.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> You put words into other's people's mouths and you twist the truth around. You do it all the time. Not me, You. All the time, Cato. All the time when you can't find any other way to get the last word in. You do it every time. It's old hat with you.
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 6:01 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> LOL So you accuse me of doing something which I haven't done - yet you do the exact thing you are accusing me of doing. very nice!
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > Don't put words in my mouth, Cato. That is not what I said. You always twist the truth around.
> > I said if you don't believe in our goal, don't want it or don't want to work hard for it, that is your own affair. Stop belittling those of us who do believe in it, want it and work hard for it.
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:11 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > "Leave us alone!" LOL
> >
> > I have done more work for this Respublica than you have even begun to imagine, Messallina, even if I don't stand around trumpeting my achievements at every turn.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > It's you who doesn't get it. It's clear this is not what you want and you are not willing to work hard for it, nor do you even believe it. That your business, but please stay out of the way of those who do believe, do want it and are willing to work hard for it.
> > >
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:58 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Messallinae sal.
> > >
> > > You simply don't get it.
> > >
> > > IN THE MAKING. Not now. Not in the past. We have no claim to be a sovereign independent nation *now*. No matter how many times you say it it doesn't actually change reality.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roma *is*ÃÆ'‚ sovereign nation in the making right now. It's our goal. We are working for it RIGHT NOW. It's what we have always been doing. Some of you have posted that it will never happen. Perhaps you don't want it to happen, perhaps you don't believe it will ever happen, I don't know and I don't care. Believe what you want to believe, but let those of us who want this and are willing to work hard for it get on with it!
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato Messallinae sal.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> > > >
> > > > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> > > >
> > > > Let me put it another way:
> > > >
> > > > I do not have a driver's license.
> > > >
> > > > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> > > >
> > > > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> > > >
> > > > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> > > >
> > > > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Messallinae sal.

I'm sorry but you must not be able to read your own words, below, where you say the "method is wrong". Let's quote them here:

"The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong."

So you *did* say that.

On the other hand, I have never belittled anyone who wants to see a nation in our future for having that vision. Quite the opposite.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and twisting the truth, Cato.
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:50 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> The "method is wrong"? Proposing legislation in accordance with our law is "wrong"? In what way?
>
> If you don't like the proposal, vote against it. But don't pretend that this is a life-or-death situation and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil in heart mind and soul.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
> > We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
> > It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > Sacerdos Vestalis
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> >
> > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> >
> > Let me put it another way:
> >
> > I do not have a driver's license.
> >
> > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> >
> > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> >
> > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> >
> > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Liar. You have belittled me and others, including one of our Founders. The only delusions around here are the ones in your own mind about what you say. Go back and reread your posts. It's all there.
 
 
 

--- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:


From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 8:46 AM


 



Cato Messallinae sal.

I'm sorry but you must not be able to read your own words, below, where you say the "method is wrong". Let's quote them here:

"The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong."

So you *did* say that.

On the other hand, I have never belittled anyone who wants to see a nation in our future for having that vision. Quite the opposite.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and twisting the truth, Cato.
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@. ..>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:50 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> The "method is wrong"? Proposing legislation in accordance with our law is "wrong"? In what way?
>
> If you don't like the proposal, vote against it. But don't pretend that this is a life-or-death situation and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil in heart mind and soul.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
> > We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
> > It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
> >  
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > Sacerdos Vestalis
> >  
> >  
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> >
> > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> >
> > Let me put it another way:
> >
> > I do not have a driver's license.
> >
> > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> >
> > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> >
> > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> >
> > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well Said Mistress Caeca!!'

In reading your views on this matter I realized how close your views
are to mine I too joined NR to learn more about Ancient Rome and I
was welcomed here, my beliefs never questioned. I have served Nova
Roman in the ways that I can and I value greatly, as do you, those
friendships that I have here. However the poem listed a day or so ago
was also very telling. I have several things of value to which I turn
my attentions outside of Nova Roma. And although I admire Nova Roma
greatly she is not my "nation." I served my "nation" for twenty years
in the military, and for my "nation" I have gone into harm's way more
than once If I had the opportunity and the need I would do so again.
I would not do that for any other organization of the many that I
embrace. Why?? Well, because the United States is my "nation" now
and as long as I live or my memory lives after me. I love the United
States and the opportunities that she has afforded me and the riches
that she has given me. My other interests are simply not that
important or as precious as my "nation." Now those who have not
served their nation in that way may have a different view, but I
believe that my view ranks up there with some fairly important
national and international icons so I am satisfied that my views fit
me very well.

My thanks Mistress Caeca for your thoughts. Like Senators Palladius
and Caesar you have given me much to think about and I find in the
words of you three the words that outline my own views.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:27 PM, C.Maria Caeca wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I have been focusing, intensely, over the last couple of days on
> some very
> basic questions about my relationship to Nova Roma, my personal
> definition
> of what it is, what its goals and potentials are, what it is not,
> and yes,
> my reasons for coming, staying, and continuing to stay and serve. I am
> using a personal approach because, only when I understand my own
> views and
> perspectives thoroughly, can I examine other views with clarity and
> dispassion. I cannot hope to obtain accord with others, or be able to
> contribute constructively, unless I can, specifically and coherently,
> present my own viewpoints, and I cannot do *that* unless I know what
> they
> are, without the distractions of either the convincing logic of
> others, or
> the lure of emotional appeals of others. Therefore, what I have to say
> might sound self-absorbed and emotionally indulgent, and perhaps, to
> some
> extent, it will be. I present my process publicly only because it
> might be
> that others here are asking the same questions, and might find my
> journey to
> a modicum of understanding a bit helpful. If not, my apologies for
> taking
> up your time .and please feel free to dismiss and delete.
>
> The first thing I had to do was to define what I think Nova Roma is,
> and map
> out its 'shape" for my own benefit. I came up with:
>
> Nova Roma is a spiritual nation which, within the framework of all
> pertinent
> State, national and International laws, has chosen to govern itself
> and
> conduct its internal affairs using the forms, reconstructed
> practices, and
> reconstructed institutions of the Republic of Ancient Rome. Our
> sovereignty, insomuch as it exists, does solely in those matters
> concerning
> our own Res Publica, and we willingly abide within the limits and
> restrictions of all pertinent laws, rules and regulations, and hold
> ourselves accountable to the Government of the United States and the
> State
> of Maine.
>
> Within Nova Roma, we have, and are in the process of constructing
> all facets
> of Ancient Roman culture and Government, and we are reconstructing,
> as best
> we can, the Sacra publica, and assisting citizens to reconstruct a
> historically based cultus Privitum (for those who are, or are in the
> process
> of becoming, Culters Deorum.)
>
> It is within this broad, yet interrelated and cohesive framework
> that I, as
> a citizen and as an individual can further my education concerning all
> things Roman to the limits of my potential, and it here that I, as a
> citizen
> and an individual am free and able to serve to the utmost extent of my
> ability.
>
> So, yes, I do see Nova as my spiritual nation .and yes, I have most
> assuredly invested in Her, emotionally, mentally, and to the extent
> I can,
> fiscally. I came by choice. I became a citizen by choice, and, so
> long as
> I am welcome here and permitted to learn, serve, and form
> friendships (which
> have become precious to me), it is here that I will stay.
>
> Do I think that we are autonomous, independent, and unbound by the
> laws of
> the host Nation in we which we reside? Of cause not! Does my
> citizenship
> in Nova Roma in any way affect my citizenship in, or loyalty to the
> country
> where I was born, raised, educated, employed and live? Certainly
> not! Does
> the fact that Nova Roma is not a physical nation state, with all the
> responsibilities, privileges and infrastructure of such a physical
> entity
> embody mean that my citizenship in, and loyalty to, Nova Roma is
> nothing but
> fantasy? No, I think not .because, whatever we may become, right
> *now* we
> are a landless, borderless spiritual nation, protected by a not for
> profit
> corporation, and therefore free to pursue our goals, hopes and
> aspirations,
> both short and long term.
>
> Am I passionate about my Res Publica? Um, it would seem that I am,
> more
> than I realized. I find that I care about what we are building a great
> deal, and that I have received far more than I have given. I find
> that I am
> comfortable here in ways I never expected, and that, from time to
> time, I
> can contribute something constructive. I find that I care about our
> citizens, even those with whom I emphatically disagree, or do not
> yet know.
> So .the question arises .how is Nova Roma different than any special
> interest club? There are those who will say that is is not, and they
> say it
> with impeccable logic; I cannot defend my stand with that same logic,
> because what makes us unique to me has little to do with objective
> forms of
> measurement. Perhaps it is as simple as the fortuitous group of
> people who
> I have observed, and some of whom I have come to know. Perhaps it is
> broad
> scope of our interests, which all, in their way, come together or
> form a
> wonderful "mosaic". Perhaps it is the sense that we are laying a
> foundation
> for something most of us may never see, but trust will somehow come
> into
> being .either directly, or in stages. Perhaps it is all of these
> things .and perhaps, who knows, I exist in a delusionary fantasy
> world,
> though, since I can manage my life and run a business, I tend to
> doubt that.
>
> I rather like Livia's description of us as an excellent simulation,
> although, I suspect I am more emotional about things.
>
> I can definitely see a need for some alteration in our public
> documents,
> especially since the Constitution, though "merely" a part of our by
> laws
> (which I agree should be separate from our internal documents), is
> still the
> document that both defines us and from which our internal legal system
> stems, is advisable, for many of the reasons already stated. Our
> internal
> affairs are ours to conduct as we see fit .but in those things which
> connect
> us with the rest of the world, we must be very careful of the
> impression we
> make. We must also be very careful of what we include in the
> Constitution,
> even in its preamble, because what we say there can be used to
> justify legal
> actions, laws, policies, and decisions that could *and have)
> distracted us
> from constructively performing our business and seeking our goals.
>
> Oddly, although I had made my voting decision, I saw something last
> night
> that really threw a wrench into the "works", and I have seen very
> little
> discussion on this. There was a post from one of our Sarmacian (SP?)
> citizens that seemed to indicate that the wording of our preamble
> could
> literally cause citizens in his Province harm. As his co-citizen, I
> find
> this absolutely unacceptable. In some senses, we are, indeed, "our
> brother's keepers", and to ignore or dismiss a potential problem for
> a group
> of citizens, a problem which we can correct, is, at the very least,
> callous,
> and at the worst, irresponsible, and unbecoming a citizen of Nova
> Roma.
> While I strongly feel that what we are, and what we seek to become
> should be
> held heart close, and protected with energy and intelligence, I will
> not,
> and cannot, in good conscience or in good faith to my promises as
> citizen,
> not to mention those vows I made to the gods, sit back and allow
> citizens
> who do not share our democratic and tolerant forms of macronational
> government to be threatened, even potentially threatened. I am,
> therefore,
> looking forward, with eagerness and some hope to the new language the
> Consuls are creating.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Petronius Dexter,



I was quoting A. Tullia Scholastica . There is no requirement to leave office after 18 months as the term is two years.



Vale



Ti. Galerius Paulinus





To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: jfarnoud94@...
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:39:39 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Term of Censor





C. Petronius Ti. Paulino s.p.d.,

> "No censor has left office after the specified 18 months"

18 months = 1,5 year.

K. Fabius Bureo Modianus is a current censor since 22 june 2762.
T. Julius Sabinus is a current censor since the 1 january 2763.

Nor K. Fabius neither T. Julius have 18 months of censure. In another hand, the Constitution states:
"1. Censor. Two censors shall be elected by the comitia centuriata to serve a term lasting two years, to be elected in alternate years so as to have a one-year overlap of terms."

Can you give your point of view in what the current censors could be in fault with the Constitution.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato Messallinae sal.

No, ma'am. I think your obsession with claiming that we are something that we are not is both foolish and dangerous.

Once again, I challenge you to find a single post in which I belittle believing in a possible *future*. You won't.

Vale,

cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> Liar. You have belittled me and others, including one of our Founders. The only delusions around here are the ones in your own mind about what you say. Go back and reread your posts. It's all there.
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 8:46 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Cato Messallinae sal.
>
> I'm sorry but you must not be able to read your own words, below, where you say the "method is wrong". Let's quote them here:
>
> "The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong."
>
> So you *did* say that.
>
> On the other hand, I have never belittled anyone who wants to see a nation in our future for having that vision. Quite the opposite.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> >
> > I never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth and twisting the truth, Cato.
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 5:50 AM
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Messallinae sal.
> >
> > The "method is wrong"? Proposing legislation in accordance with our law is "wrong"? In what way?
> >
> > If you don't like the proposal, vote against it. But don't pretend that this is a life-or-death situation and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil in heart mind and soul.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > You also don't get what I am saying here. I agree that changes need to be made, but the way it is being done is wrong. The basic idea is good, but the method is wrong. That is why I am asking Citizens to vote NO.
> > > We went through a similar thing here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed three laws to try and offset the bad economic situation in our state, but Californians voted "No" on all three. Why? Not because we didn't feel they were necessary or a good idea. We did! But because of the way the proposals were poorly written, the voters could tell the three proposals would end up doing more harm than good.
> > > It's the same with the Consuls' rushed-in proposal. It will end up doing more harm than good. That's why Citizens need to vote NO on this proposal.
> > >  
> > > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> > > Sacerdos Vestalis
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 4/3/10, Cato <catoinnyc@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Cato <catoinnyc@ ..>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010, 4:32 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Messallinae sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nova Roma IS an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION in the making!"
> > >
> > > and it is precisely those last three words that are the very keystone of the argument.
> > >
> > > Let me put it another way:
> > >
> > > I do not have a driver's license.
> > >
> > > Under "current national and international law" I cannot legally drive a car.
> > >
> > > Does this automatically mean that I will never, *can* never, in the future drive a car? Of course not.
> > >
> > > But for me to stand and say "I am a car driver" is nonsense, and even if I get behind the wheel of a car and drive it, I am still not a legal driver.
> > >
> > > Nova Roam *is not* a sovereign, independent nation.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caesar Catoni sal.

It's a tried and tested tactic amice. "Go back and reread your posts. It's all there" is code for "It isn't there but I will say it is so others think it is", or "I think it's there and if it isn't I am sure you would have said it anyway".

It is designed to convince people you did say something without having to provide the actual "evidence", preventing you from replying specifically. Totalitarians do this all the time in the wider world. This sort of comment is worthy of Pravda or some rag printed in North Korea.

But then you know that, having been through this with both Messalina and Maior before.

Optime vale.



From: Cato
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:07 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Open Letter to the Consuls


Cato Messallinae sal.

No, ma'am. I think your obsession with claiming that we are something that we are not is both foolish and dangerous.

Once again, I challenge you to find a single post in which I belittle believing in a possible *future*. You won't.

Vale,

cato



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Cato,

Obviously, you do not understand at all.

Can you understand a sentence if I type it in all caps?

NOVA ROMA NEVER CLAIMED TO BE AN INTDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION.

Still with me? Let's try another:

NOVA ROMA CLAIMED TO BE A MICRONATION, THAT WAS NOT INDEPENDENT AT ALL, AND WHICH CLAIMED ONLY A VERY LIMITED NOTION OF SOVEREIGNTY.

Okay, that was a longer sentence... but I'm hoping we're still good.

You keep saying over, and over, and over that Nova Roma is not an independent sovereign nation. I AGREE WITH YOU.

Nova Roma was founded as a MICRONATION. Once Piscinus and friends had that word removed, it should have been replaced with something else, such as "sovereignty PROJECT" (which was suggested by Flavius Vedius Germanicus).

Removing all intent to EVER have nationhood does not help anything. It doesn't make NR more real... it just kills the point of the entire endeavor.


Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pater Patriae

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Casto Cassio sal.
>
> Of course I can.
>
> But to claim that we are an independent sovereign nation is simply foolish.
>
> To act as if our very existence *depends* upon our being a sovereign, independent nation is foolish.
>
> To act as if anyone who wishes to bring some practical sense to our Constitution's Preamble is only interested in destroying the Respublica is foolish.
>
> To act as if a recognition of our limits is somehow "impiety" and worthy of a charge being brought is beyond foolish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "William" <cassius622@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding claimed to be a *micronation*, not a fully developed nation. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Nova Roma at its founding did not claim to have full sovereignty, it claimed to have *limited sovereignty*, acknowledging that it currently does not have total self rule and is subject to the laws of other nations. Can you understand the difference between the two claims?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Pater Patriae, Nova Roma
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Cassio sal.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "You seem to be promoting some interesting logic- If a thing does not exist RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE, it can NEVER exist. And since it can never exist, one should not ever work to obtain it, or express the intent to have it."
> > >
> > > This is one of the worst pieces claiming to be "logic" that I have ever read; it both incorrectly portrays what I have said - in fact, contradicts what I have said several times, and in itself makes no sense.
> > >
> > > Nova Roma *is not* a sovereign independent nation, any more than a rock can be called an apple. That does not mean that an apple does not - or cannot - exist; it means that an apple is not in your hand, and claiming that the rock in your hand is an apple is foolish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> >
>

Dexter Caesari s.p.d.,

> No it isn't. After 12 years it is in exactly the same spot it was before. There have been no practical steps taken to make NR a nation.

And you think that things will be improving if the word nation is removed from the constitution?

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
A. d. III Nonas Apriles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Caesar Cassio sal.

As you full well know, having said it on the Back Alley numerous times, Nova Roma has departed from your vision. You have for the longest time stated that we were going backwards. This position of yours contradicts those here who say the "myth is on the march", "we are a nation", great steps have already been taken etc. etc. You have spent the last two years or more saying the complete opposite. So has Vedius, when he occasionally bothered to appear.

Guess what, no one went out to buy apple seeds. Not even when you and Vedius were at the helm. You wrote it on a shopping list and did nothing with it, other than as now, discuss endlessly how important the item is, oh I suppose the odd treaty with some whack job micronation, much like the chap yesterday who thinks he is King of some island in the USA. Apart from that NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING of practical value has been done to advance this "myth", "dream" etc. since you promised everyone an orchard full of apples. Nada. Zip. Unless you count thousands of words penned in the forum on the subject.

Oh, well yes one thing did happen. Let's think of one example you were vocal on, the prosecution of Cincinnatus. The needs of the state outweighed the needs of the individual. Remember that drivel? I could if bothered cite so many other examples, but I can't because you are intent on pushing your vision of micronation. Let us not forget that some of those currently patting you on the head were the same ones lining up to boot your backside out the door. The whole cause of the micronation has been cast aside, including by those now railing against this proposed lex. So on the one hand you are touting the tired out old concept of a micronation and those alongside you in opposing this very necessary change are saying the complete opposite about micronations, or they were.

No apple seed was bought when you were running the show. The land in Texas? Let's not even touch that one. I could drag too many derogatory comments made by the very people ranged with you against this proposed change. No apple seed has been bought now. There is no plan to buy it. There is no land to sow it on. There are no tools. Absolutely no progress has been made, nor will it as you full well know, and have stated to that effect.

This is all about keeping Nova Roma locked in its same perpetual circle isn't it. Who knows what it is for Vedius, pique at someone changing something he wrote? Maybe. For you I can only conclude that your bitterness at how you were treated, and you were treated badly, has motivated you to insist this absurd claim stays, because that way nothing will ever get done. The stagnation of Nova Roma will continue, meanwhile you build your new group to shining success. Let me guess, you have written another shopping list with apple seed for that group too?

This is what it is all about isn't Cassi? You just want Nova Roma stuck in the mud with no chance of success, a view you have penned voluminously on, because without you at the helm it cannot succeed, must not, at all costs. What the hell do you care about Nova Roma? What does Vedius care? Two years and more of agreeing the situation has gone down the tubes, two years of you saying you were done with it, a new group started and yet on the one occasion when something can be done to remove an absurd claim that at the very least was used to beat Cincinnatus over the head, and give us a chance to actually build something here of value, suddenly you appear here in the forum full of vim and vigor and declaiming about the blessed micronation. They hate micronations Cassi. It is a matter of record they do. You know they do. You have commented on it. Well you have a long track record of being used, and here you go again.

No apple seed. No tools. No land. No fertilizer. Just the same tatty old shopping list 12 years on and a promise that one day we will have a spanky big orchard. Rubbish. Utter rubbish and you know it.

Optime vale.



From: William
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:34 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: On the removal of sovereignty and nationhood


Salve Livia,

You share Cato's logic: If the thing isn't in your hand right now, it can NEVER exist. Therefore you should not work to have the thing, or ever express the intent to get it.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]