Stoop to such behavior? You don't criticize Cato when he is insulting me, but I stand up for myself and tell the truth of what he is doing and I'm slinging mud? Thank you. It's good to know where I stand.
 
 
 
 

--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:


From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Claudia Juliana was right
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 7:58 PM


Aeternia Iuliae Virgo Maximae s.p.d.

Honestly attacks have been coming from every which way in  this convoluted
disaster, but those who are supposed to be the "role models" of our
community should not be stooping to such behaviors especially the Virgo
Maxima,  if the role models are mud slinging too what message does that also
say?  And I wouldn't have said anything to the Virgo Maxima if I did not
hold her in such high regard, politically I may not agree with Messalina but
she's a nice person..

Oh Obstructionists could you also try being the better people, its got to
start somewhere.. Why not?

But just more thing Julia and I hope you don't find this truly offensive and
if you do I give my utmost apology upfront...


Many a thing you could probably instruct me on, but do not tell me how to be
a friend..  I inquire all the time about the Chief Vestal's health status
in private correspondence.


Vale,
Aeternia


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:11 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Iulia Aeternia Virgo Maximae s.p.d
>
> The Vestal Virgin and the Consul Quintilianus, our Princeps have been
> repeatedly insulted and ridiculed.
> This is wrong. This demonstrates a lack of respect for all in Nova Roma, a
> lack of respect for the citizens whose will it was to elect them, the senate
> who appointed our Princeps Senatus who is the eldest and senior of the
> Censorii, to the State Religion – the gods themselves, and in turn to our
> Respublica.
>
> This has become a forum with very little real discussion and even that is
> spun to the obstructionists' advantage.
> Obstructionism doesn't happen overnight, it is a cumulative problem that
> gets worse as time goes by and some of the very people are viewed as
> obstructionists have been engaging in venomous insults and ridicule which
> seems to be escalating just for the sake of spreading the disdain associated
> with it.
>
> A friend, Aeternia, should optimally show concern in private, esp. if
> concerned about a friend's health.
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Aeternia Virgo Maximae Valeriae et omnibus s.p.d.
> >
> > Maxima Valeria Messalina, please calm down I do recall you stating in a
> > previous post that you would refrain from insulting and taking negative
> > connotations on this forum..
> >
> > Remember who you are and I say this with utmost respect, I have nothing
> but
> > admiration for you, hence why I am responding..
> >
> > You are above tantrums...
> >
> > This is beginning to look like one, see my comments below...
> >
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Well, Octavius, just look who we are talking about?

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

> luciaiuliaaquila wrote:
>
> > The Vestal Virgin and the Consul Quintilianus, our Princeps have been
> repeatedly insulted and ridiculed.
> > This is wrong. This demonstrates a lack of respect for all in Nova Roma,
> a lack of respect for the citizens whose will it was to elect them, the
> senate who appointed our Princeps Senatus who is the eldest and senior of
> the Censorii, to the State Religion � the gods themselves, and in turn to
> our Respublica.
>
> Titles do not merit respect.
>
> By their fruits ye shall know them.
>
> They are being held to account for their unethical actions - changing an
> agenda
> in the middle of a senate session and trying to ram appointment of a
> dictator
> through with less than twelve hours of debate.
>
> Why would anyone "respect" someone who does that?
>
> > the senate who appointed our Princeps Senatus
>
> Oh, and I was one of the Censors who appointed Quintilianus as Princeps
> Senatus.
> I did it because my colleague asked me to, and for no other reason. It
> was
> part of the horse-trading that got Maior into the Senate too - Modianus
> wanted
> Maior, I wanted Agricola, so we each accepted the other's choice.
>
> (yeah, I'm sorry about how that one turned out).
>
>
> Vale,
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> erstwhile Grand Poobah,
> Minister in Charge of Putting Things on Top of Other Things,
> Born-Again Virgin.
>
> crossposted to ML & BA.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

Cato,

You posting this wont make a difference. They make it out that it is you
and I are the sources of obstruction, ignoring the fact that over 1/3 of the
senate is doing the very same thing. They think that if they can neutralize
it to just you and I....the rest will fall into line. Sort of like the
sheep on their own side. They are the sheep.

Anyone with a few brain cells will know that Consul Albicius and I were
anything BUT friends last year. Now Messalina damn near accuses him of
being a boni. That is what they do, Cato. You were NEVER in the boni, but
you are tagged as one. They dont care if they lie. It's just a little
white lie to them.

Our side, the opposition for lack of a better word, have no leader because
we never needed one. Anyone on the BA can plainly see that we argue with
each other as much as we agree with each other. We just don't need to do it
in secret, conspiring and plotting like Messalina, Piscinus, Caeso Fabius,
and the others.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> I want to express in public what I said in the Senate this morning when I
> cast my original vote:
>
> ---------------
>
> ITEM III - Although I do not go to the extreme that Gn. Iulius Caesar does,
> I
> cannot help but agree that each "crisis" we are called upon to deal now
> with was
> brought up in one form or another and those who did so were mocked or
> ignored
> because of political convenience. I think this because I was, of course,
> one of
> them; exempli gratia, I have advocated for the by-laws change for *years*
> now,
> offering my proposals repeatedly and simply being ignored. Our compliance
> with
> Maine law was brought up repeatedly (again, by myself among others) - only
> to be
> scoffed at and ignored because those in power disliked the messengers
> rather
> than paying attention to the message. So my personal feelings urge me to
> refuse
> to allow those in power to stand back and make someone else responsible for
> cleaning up the messes they have made.
>
> Yet, the Romans themselves did not look with horror at the idea of a
> dictator,
> probably because they had no experience with our common modern
> understanding of
> dictatorial government, with Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Ceaucescu, Peron, Pol
> Pot,
> Castro, etc., standing in our collective modern consciousness as the
> epitome of
> governments marked by arbitrary cruelty and inhumanity. The Romans
> appointed
> dictators not only to carry out wars but often to simply get a particular
> job
> done: to fill vacancies in the Senate, to preside over public games, to
> create
> holidays...even just to drive a nail into the door of the temple of
> Iuppiter
> O.M. in times of plague. They did their job, and unless they were a Sulla
> or a
> Marius or a Caesar, when it was finished they simply stepped back down into
> regular public life.
>
> So while I do believe that this series of "crises" has been manufactured by
> willful ignorance or blatant disregard on the part of some of those who
> have
> held the reins of power over the past two years, I cannot justify standing
> in
> the way of what is apparently the only solution that will hopefully make -
> force
> - those who hold power to shut up and actually listen for a change. The end
> does *not* justify the means, but simple dislike for the means does not
> make
> them evil, nor does it justify accepting a crippling status quo, either.
>
> VTI ROGAS
>
> --------------
>
> Since then, recognizing the extremely shaky legal ground upoon which the
> Senate was acting, I withdrew my vote until I felt assured that what we were
> doing as legal. Equitius Marinus expressed his opinion that if the tribunes
> decide something is Constitutional, it is. My response is here:
>
> --------------
>
> I see the logic in your statement, but unfortunately you have been proven
> wrong by last year's consuls, who simply ignored a legally-pronounced
> tribunician veto, never mind simply vetoing a Senate call.
>
> You may not believe this, but I have told Quintilianus that I have
> withdrawn my vote, *not* changed it. This has made me very ... unpopular ...
> in some quarters, but my reasoning, which I explained when I originally
> voted, stands.
>
> What I cannot countenance is the idea that the foundation of a term as
> important as that of a dictator could possibly be built on questionable
> legal ground. this, and only this, is the reason I have appealed to the
> consuls to simply start fresh, with new auspices and a fully, recognizably
> legally-convened Senate session.
>
> ---------------
>
> There you have it. The hideous "conspiracy" to destroy the Respublica. The
> "obstructionist" at work.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>


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

C. Dexter C. Catoni s.p.d.,

> The idea of a Vestal being a tribune would have been utterly horrific to the Romans. You want to be Roman? Resign from the tribunate.

Not only a Vestal but a woman too being a tribune would have been horrific. But that is theorical. Now we are Nova Romans, for us this idea is not horrific. Women and Vestals too may run for politics.

Secondly, as tribune I close works with Messallina and I can say that Messallina is a great tribune. I like to work with her and she is very helpfull not only because she naturally speaks English but because she has deep advices.

In this call of the Senate in common with the consul Fabius vetoed by the other consul, I do not agree with her.

First the agenda was not clear and suddenly it changed during the session. The first item about the tribunes date of entrance in office, you do not see it on the Corvus'announce to people of the emergency Senate session nor a posteriori the item III about dictatorship.

Here, fellow citizens, the agenda on which this emergency session was called... and vetoed.

"For the information of the citizens of Nova Roma, here is a brief outline of the Senate's agenda:

1. Changes to our by-laws must be submitted by the end of the
fiscal to allow a concordance with our corporate needs a that of the
Res Publica;
2. Appointment of a new CFO is needed before the end of the fiscal
year;
3. Immediate action is needed to correct our IT problems in time
for fall elections;
4. And mounting civil discord, a lack of magistrates, and disputed
elections do not afford swift and decisive decisions on these and
other issues as required at this time."

And senators was called to vote on those 3 items:

Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
Here are the threee items, please vote. The time for voting may be
find at heend of this message.
AGENDA.
Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
(...)
Item II. The IT-project
(...)
Item III. Dictatorship
(...)
-------
Voting on the agenda will then begin on Friday 23 July 2010 at 00.02
hrs CET Roma [Thursday 18.02 22 July] and conclude on Sunday 25 July
2010 at 00.02 CET Roma [Saturday 18.02 24 July].
---------------------------

It is manifeste that senators and tribunes discovered this consular and not tribunes, so called the presiding of this Senate session, agenda during the emergency Senate session...

As you can read, there are many differences between the call Senate to order whose the announce is published by my colleague Corvus to make you, plebs of Nova Roma, adverted on the future session and the real agenda put during the session and submittet to the vote of the senators.

So, the reaction of the senators deceived and manipulated is normal. In this coup, I am not proud of my colleague Messallina.

But according to me, fellow citizens, if Messallina and my other colleagues were wrong to accept this coup and did some mistakes on this call Senate to order affair, whose I do not agree, I am sure that she is a great tribune and, of course, a respectable Maxima Vestalis virgo.

Valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IX Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Ave M. Horati,

> You have misunderstood the Constitution provision that you quote. It is only when "edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima" that consular edicta supercede leges passed "passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta". No SCU has been passed by the Senate. Therefore the consul's edictum falls under all of these as a simple "magisterial edictum."<

My quote is not only in case when edicta issued by consulta... it is in more general B. Legal precedence. "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence"

This is reinforced by this about consul imperium:
Constitution: IV,2.
2. Consul. Two consuls shall be elected annually ...
(...)
c. To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order;
d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another consul or magistrate of lesser authority;

> The Tribunes are not mentioned here at I.B. Instead it is at IV.7.a that tribunician vetoes are discussed, begining with "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex)."

My colleagues did not make an intercessio they called the Senate to order, this calling was vetoed by consul Albucius as he might do according to the Constitution IV,2,d...

Moreover, the Agenda of the emergency Senate session announced and published by my colleague Corvus has nothing to see with the Agenda of the same session submitted to the vote of the senators, the agenda suddenly has changed during the session... without taking other auspicia.

As you see, all that is not very honest but trully unfair and I do not want to be involved in.

Vale amice.

C. Petronius Dexter
tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. X Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salvete Romans



The four Tribunes could state that they want fries with their meal but it would not change the illegal nature of the Senate call and session.



Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.



A Consul or a Tribune can convene the Senate but not both at the same time. We only have one presiding magistrate at a time. Senate rules state that



“A tribunus plebis may convene the Senate in order to ask the Senate's advice on any subject which is clearly within the scope of his or her constitutionally mandated powers and obligations.”



They are not asking advice they are demanding a VOTE to install a dictator. They are not asking SHOULD we or CAN we do this or that they are pushing an agenda to establish a dictatorship for the next six months.



Senate rules also require that the Tribunes post the call of the Senate with



“A summary of the items on the Senate's agenda which shall be discussed and voted on.



This is from the Tribunes report to the people on the Session

********************************************************

"For the information of the citizens of Nova Roma, here is a brief outline of the Senate's agenda:

1. Changes to our by-laws must be submitted by the end of the fiscal to allow a concordance with our corporate needs a that of the Res Publica;


2. Appointment of a new CFO is needed before the end of the fiscal year;


3. Immediate action is needed to correct our IT problems in time for fall elections;


4. And mounting civil discord, a lack of magistrates, and disputed elections do not afford swift and decisive decisions on these and other issues as required at this time."
********************************************************
This is what the Senate was asked to vote on. Here is what was voted on.



********************************************************
Salvete Patres et Conscripti!
Here are the threee items, please vote. The time for voting may be
find at heend of this message.
AGENDA.
Item I. Proposal for Lex Fabia de magistratibus ordinariis ineundis.
(...)
Item II. The IT-project
(...)
Item III. Dictatorship
(...)


　

As you can see they are not the same. Another slight of hand?



At no time did the Tribunes so inform the citizens of what was actually being voted on as they are required to do.



Even if the joint call of the Consul and Tribunes was legal, which it is not, it still violates Senate Rules as stated above.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus





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

SALVE!

I am honored of your metaphoric compliment. Thank you.

VALE,
T. Iulius Sabinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Rota et Avete Omnes...
>
> I have had the appellation "a good Roman" appended to my name here in Nova Roma.
>
> I thank the variety of men and women who have "said" that over the
> years; it is a fine compliment, although I am a Germanic Pagan, who
> would (in historical times) be collecting the heads of those Romans I
> deem worthy.
>
> Right now (of the sitting major magistrates), I'd take the heads of
> Albucius, Sabinus and Placidus...none of those who have
> resigned...none of the Quaestors nor Aediles, as they are lieutenants,
> not chieftains.
>
> Of the Tribunes...I'd take the heads of Dexter, Corvus and Rota...
>
> Too many of the others seem bent upon collecting too many hats.
>
> Piffle...
>
> Venii
>

What a hypocrite you are, Sulla. You insulted Claudia Juliana and belittled her. Now you try and use her to belittle me. She would tell you off if she were here. You were never her friend nor did you ever hold her in high regard. You and your cohorts drove her from NR. Who do you think you're kidding? The only plotter and destroyer is you since 1999. It's all in the archives. Too bad you weren't driven from NR in 1999 instead of Claudia Juliana. NR would be a far better place now.



 





On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Flavia Claudia was WAY more of a Vestal than you will ever be. EVER BE.
> You dont even compare to her pinky finger, Messalina. I knew Flavia
> Claudia
> and YOU are no Flavia Claudia.
>
> You are a lowly plotter. A destroyer of the Res Publica and should be
> banished from Nova Roma.

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

Oh no she wouldnt. She would recognize her mistake. Since I wasn't
involved. It was proven during the dictatorship. That was why I worked
with Vedius in rewriting the original Constitution (the Legal Precedence
section - that was ME). He appointed me a Lictor and then I ran in the
first election of NR after the Dictatorship and became Consul. Endorsed by
both Cassius, Vedius and Palladius. Palladius and I had amicita between the
Gens Iunia and Gens Cornelia until Laeca.

Again, you're wrong. Just admit it. I have admitted I have been wrong
before, its not a big deal.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
> What a hypocrite you are, Sulla. You insulted Claudia Juliana and belittled
> her. Now you try and use her to belittle me. She would tell you off if she
> were here. You were never her friend nor did you ever hold her in high
> regard. You and your cohorts drove her from NR. Who do you think you're
> kidding? The only plotter and destroyer is you since 1999. It's all in the
> archives. Too bad you weren't driven from NR in 1999 instead of Claudia
> Juliana. NR would be a far better place now.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> > Flavia Claudia was WAY more of a Vestal than you will ever be. EVER BE.
> > You dont even compare to her pinky finger, Messalina. I knew Flavia
> > Claudia
> > and YOU are no Flavia Claudia.
> >
> > You are a lowly plotter. A destroyer of the Res Publica and should be
> > banished from Nova Roma.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Hypocrite? So speaks the Vestal who has been polluting her office for weeks by continuing to perform public rites while ill. No wonder Nova Roma is under a cloud. You've been so busy playing kingmaker and slinging mud that you've ignored the basic tenets of your own goddess. Don't whine to me about the mud on your white robes when you've deliberately made the choice to insult Vesta while playing at Tribune. While we've been wishing you well, you've been doing your best to undermine the foundations of Nova Roma and exposing everyone else to your impiety.

Go clean your own house before you lecture others on theirs.

V Rutilia Enodiaria
Sacerdos Iunonis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> What a hypocrite you are, Sulla. You insulted Claudia Juliana and belittled her. Now you try and use her to belittle me. She would tell you off if she were here. You were never her friend nor did you ever hold her in high regard. You and your cohorts drove her from NR. Who do you think you're kidding? The only plotter and destroyer is you since 1999. It's all in the archives. Too bad you weren't driven from NR in 1999 instead of Claudia Juliana. NR would be a far better place now.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Flavia Claudia was WAY more of a Vestal than you will ever be. EVER BE.
> > You dont even compare to her pinky finger, Messalina. I knew Flavia
> > Claudia
> > and YOU are no Flavia Claudia.
> >
> > You are a lowly plotter. A destroyer of the Res Publica and should be
> > banished from Nova Roma.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Maxima Valeria Messallina is a wonderful person and a devoted Virgo Maxima, I'm proud and grateful for all she has done and is doing for Nova Roma.

That someone would attack her, when she has pleurisy and still devoted herself to the gods, speaks about them. The same happened to Equestria Iunia Laeca, she was ill,abused & quit Nova Roma

I support you Messallina; you honour the gods with your devotion. If Nova Roma exists still it is due to her great Vestals!
Vesta Novae Romae faveat
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "enodia2002" <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
> Hypocrite? So speaks the Vestal who has been polluting her office for weeks by continuing to perform public rites while ill. No wonder Nova Roma is under a cloud. You've been so busy playing kingmaker and slinging mud that you've ignored the basic tenets of your own goddess. Don't whine to me about the mud on your white robes when you've deliberately made the choice to insult Vesta while playing at Tribune. While we've been wishing you well, you've been doing your best to undermine the foundations of Nova Roma and exposing everyone else to your impiety.
>
> Go clean your own house before you lecture others on theirs.
>
> V Rutilia Enodiaria
> Sacerdos Iunonis
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@> wrote:
> >
> > What a hypocrite you are, Sulla. You insulted Claudia Juliana and belittled her. Now you try and use her to belittle me. She would tell you off if she were here. You were never her friend nor did you ever hold her in high regard. You and your cohorts drove her from NR. Who do you think you're kidding? The only plotter and destroyer is you since 1999. It's all in the archives. Too bad you weren't driven from NR in 1999 instead of Claudia Juliana. NR would be a far better place now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@>wrote:
> >
> > > Flavia Claudia was WAY more of a Vestal than you will ever be. EVER BE.
> > > You dont even compare to her pinky finger, Messalina. I knew Flavia
> > > Claudia
> > > and YOU are no Flavia Claudia.
> > >
> > > You are a lowly plotter. A destroyer of the Res Publica and should be
> > > banished from Nova Roma.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

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

It appears that Yahoo failed to deliver Gualterus¹ warning to persons
other than myself, for things are becoming very heated in a rather personal
fashion. This is not appropriate, and will not be tolerated. Inter alia, I
doubt that Messallina was playing kingmaker, or that holding a secular as
well as a religious office is insulting to Roman deities (was Cicero augur
at the same time he was consul?). One should be grateful that someone
summons the strength to rise from a sickbed and perform rituals on the
appointed days; I seem to recall that Scaurus did.

As I said earlier elsewhere, maybe we should pass out estradiol;
certainly something to control these ad hominem attacks and emotional
outbursts is sorely needed. Those of us who are sensible know that
irrational behavior is not to be tolerated in human adults. Those who wish
to qualify as both human and adult use their cerebral cortices, not their
limbic systems or reptilian complexes, when responding to anything. We are
not at the Saturday Night Fights. Ira furor brevis est; animum rege; verbum
semel emissum volat irrevocabile. [anger is a short-lived madness; control
your temper; a word once sent forth flies irrevocable], as a couple of Roman
authors put it. All parties concerned should cool it; take a nice glass of
iced lemonade or limeade, and pipe down.

Valete.


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

Sulla

you will detract from your own words?

I forgot that NR is a toy for you and the only thing you like is
demagogy.........sad.

Vale


M�CVRIATIVS�COMPLVTENSIS
PROCONSVL HISPANIAE

NOVA ROMA

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

ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima


2010/7/24 Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>

>
>
> Compy, is that the best argument you have...you start losing so then its
> time to appeal to Cornelius Sulla/Cato/Caesar agree with you so you must be
> wrong. If you cannot resort to logic but resort to emotion you have lost
> the argument. But then that just turns into a repeat of your consulship.
> So when do we expect your sockpuppet to make a new appearance?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> 2010/7/23 M�CVR�COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...<complutensis%40gmail.com>
> >
>
>
> > Dextero
> >
> >
> > using these words I understood: who writes the text of your messages?
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Please don't make a mix.
> >
> > A tribune can veto a consul: according the Constitution of Nova Roma and
> > Cornelius Sulla words (remember that Cornelius Sulla is the foremost
> > authority on these issues, as he says) and Iulius Caesar words and Cato
> > words.............
> >
> > Vale
> >
> >
> > M�CVRIATIVS�COMPLVTENSIS
> > PROCONSVL HISPANIAE
> >
> > NOVA ROMA
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
> >
> >
> > 2010/7/24 petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... <jfarnoud94%40yahoo.fr>>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave Complutensis,
> > >
> > >
> > > > A Tribune can veto the actions and the **Senatus consulta*,
> magisterial
> > *
> > > edicta*, religious *decreta*, and *leges* passed by the *comitia.
> > >
> > > Where did you read a tribunes' veto?
> > >
> > > Calling the senate to order is not vetoing or words have no senses.
> > > Tribunes, even 4 on 5, have less power than 1 consul, it is written on
> > the
> > > Constitution.
> > >
> > > The duty of the tribunes is to veto or to make intercessio against
> edicta
> > > if they think edicta illegal or unconstitutional, here in this case
> they
> > did
> > > not veto nor make intercessio they called with one consul the Senate to
> > > order, and this call was vetoed by the other consul... and the
> tribunicia
> > > potestas has less power than the consular imperium according the NR
> > > Constitution as written on the legal precedence.
> > >
> > > I think that you mixed "veto" and "call to order"... these acts are
> > > different.
> > >
> > > According to our Constitution a tribune can veto a consul decree, but
> if
> > > the tribunes call the senate to order and this call is vetoing by a
> > consul
> > > who has vetoed? The tribunes or the consul?
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. X Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> <<--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> If you were not a tribune, and not getting yourself mixed up in all this -
> not to mention simply lying - there would never have been a need to correct
> you.>>
>
>
> I do not lie. I've been sworn to tell the truth as a Vestal and I don't
> need you to correct me as a Vestal. You are not my Paterfamilias.
>

Salve Virgo Maxima

May I first of all say that I totally agree that no one, absolutely no one
should ever insult the sacred office of the Vestals. I love, worship and
serve the gods of the Romans, that was what brought me to NR in the first
place. For the past 14 or 15 years my life has been privately dedicated to
Vesta. I cannot claim to be a virgin (I have a son and daughter) but I have
been willingly and cheerfully celibate since I dedicated my life to her and
have served her as best as I am able.

I am truly glad Nova Roma has Vestals for I genuinely believe they are the
cornerstone of the whole res publica and without them there is no hope
whatsoever. I am truly, truly glad you serve Vesta because I love her more
than any other. I find it sad that you would let insults from mere mortals
stop you from serving Vesta by training others. To me, the relationship with
the Goddess herself, transcends anything and everything else and what any
mortal thinks of me matters not a whit compared to that relationship.

I admit that I was privately horrified when you said you were standing for
Tribune merely because I, personally, believe that there could never be any
greater honour than serving Vesta so why dilute that be seeking other
office. However i read your arguments and had to agree that a tribune who
was honour bound to always speak the truth would be a wonderful thing so i
voted for you.

The problems that have arisen since then have really saddened me. I have
carefully followed the arguments on both sides. I will not call you a liar
because I do not believe that has ever been your intention but I do believe
that you, as a tribune, have contributed to the problem. As a Vestal you are
honour bound to speak the truth. As one who is privately dedicated to her, I
try to do the same. I really admire your passion and commitment but that
very passion leads to having strong opinions. And therein, as i see it, lies
the problem.

As a Tribune you stand up for your opinions, there would be no point in
being a Tribune otherwise. As a Vestal as well as a Tribune you will speak
the truth. However, and please believe me I mean no offense whatsoever to
the office of Vestal, but the inference I've drawn from a lot of your posts
is that being a Vestal makes your opinions true and that no one should argue
against that. You obviously believe your opinion is the correct one but a
Tribune should speak as a Tribune, accepting that others will have different
opinions which they are also entitled to hold. This is where I believe the
waters get muddied.

For instance, you have frequently called Cato a liar. Now he may be
opinionated, he may even be a pain in the proverbial at times but i have
carefully read all of his posts and have never found him to be lying. I have
seen several posts, mostly by Maior, where his words have been taken out of
context or deliberately misconstrued to make it appear that he's lying but
that could be done to any of us. That's my opinion. You are entitled to
yours and of course you are entitled to express that opinion However, he
has frequently asked you to back up that opinion and, as far as i am aware,
you have not done so. Instead you have appeared to imply that since you are
a Vestal no one can argue with your opinion.

Again, it is your opinion that Albucius did not veto this emergency session
of the senate but simply announced his intention to do so. Other people are
of the opinion that his words "I hereby veto the call of the Senate issued
on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:01:19 by my colleague, and its later "addendum"."
mean that he did veto it.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinions and you are entitled to express
them but it appears to me that you express your political opinions as gospel
with which no one may argue. Whenever anyone argues with your opinions you
appear to be the one that brings up the fact that you are a Vestal. You
continually insult others while claiming immunity from all insults yourself.
You make political posts and then talk about what you do as a Vestal.

I know you have been ill and I truly sympathise with you and I admire your
dedication in continuing to use your energy to pray to Vesta for all Nova
Romans but in the same post that you remind us of this, you then go on to
say we all make you sick. You then start screaming insults and telling
people to shut up. Is this as a Tribune or as a Vestal? As a Tribune you are
as open to arguments and disagreements and yes, even insults, as the rest of
us are.

As I said at the beginning, no one should insult the office of Vestal, but
you must have been aware of the problems that could arise when you stood for
the Tribunate. I am sorry if I offend you, but I believe you are the one who
has to take the responsibility for the keeping the two offices separate. I
believe you should make it clear when you are talking as a Tribune and when
you are talking as a Vestal. You cannot comfortably wear both hats at once.

When you mix the two together and imply that we all have to abide by your
political opinions and refrain from arguing against them because you are
also the Virgo Maxima, you try to impose some kind of theocratic
dictatorship. My personal opinion is that this shows no honour to the gods.
The office of Vestal requires the highest respect from us all but, even in
ancient Rome, that did not mean that the actions of individual Vestals could
never be questioned or censured.

I will continue to pray to Vesta that your health continues to improve.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

>
>
>
>
>

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

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Aqvillivs Rota
<c.aqvillivs_rota@...>wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> If anyone is interested, the Castra Rota is currently searching comic
> designers to launch a new political comic after the idea of Asterix and
> Obelix. Sulla and Cato two funny Roman Senators making fun of our political
> landscape in the West.
>
> Yes i think this is a brilliant idea. We could all use the light relief. I

always loved Asterix and Obelix, probably because their books were used to
teach us French at school.

Comparing Sulla and Cato to Asterix and Obelix is a stroke of genius. After
all Asterix and Obelix always showed themselves to be so much cleverer than
their Roman enemies and were always victorious in the end no matter how
underhand their opponents were.

As i said -genius!

Cheers
Flavia Lucilla Merula


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

M. Moravius Horatianus C. Petronio Dextri s. p. d.

Again, you misread the provisions of the Constitution. Ask any of us who have served as Tribuni Plebis or as Consuls. Consuls cannot veto Tribuni Plebis. We have previously had sessions of the Senate jointly called by conuls, and we have had comitia jointly called by consul and tribunus.

The argument raised about more than one presiding magistrate is a false argument. The Senate Handbook itself states which magistrates may call the Senate to session, and if people wish to play games with the wording, it is in plural form. More than one magistrate - consules, praetores, and/or tribuni plebis - may call the Senate under constitutional authority. Then the Senate Handbook speaks of the presiding magistrate who chairs the session. It distinguishes between the calling magistrates and the presiding magistrate

On the other point being made about the Agenda, agendas are changed all the time during the contio of a Senate session or the contio of a comitia. It it the purpose of the contio to work out measures that address the issues raised in the call to assemble. There is nothing illegal about the finalized voting agenda being different from what was stated in the call. This is a false argument being used.

Under Nova Roma laws, under Senate rules, and under laws of the State of Maine, everything was legally done in calling the Senate, in holding the Senate session, and now as the Senate votes this final day.

Sulla claim more than a 1/3 of the Senate opposes the actions of the Consul and Tribuni. His math is off, as all his arguments are off. There are 29 senators, two of whom are on leave, making only 27 present for the quorum. And under Senate rules, all those on the list were present. The quorum was met. Trying to declaim themselves withdrawn after the fact does not change the fact that they were there and quorum was met. So of the 27 senators, the last I looked, 23 are present. Of these 23, 18 voted in favor of the proposed measures. Since then, two senators have changed their votes, and one has suspended his votes for now. Only two voted against the measures their first time. So at the moment, with 23 present, the vote has 16 senators in favor (plus onevote by a former consul who is not a senator to make 17 in favor) against 3 opposed, and 4 not voting. That means more than 2/3 of the Senate present have voted in favor of the proposals by Consul Fabius and the Tribuni Plebis. Do the math.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave M. Horati,
>
> > You have misunderstood the Constitution provision that you quote. It is only when "edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima" that consular edicta supercede leges passed "passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta". No SCU has been passed by the Senate. Therefore the consul's edictum falls under all of these as a simple "magisterial edictum."<
>
> My quote is not only in case when edicta issued by consulta... it is in more general B. Legal precedence. "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence"
>
> This is reinforced by this about consul imperium:
> Constitution: IV,2.
> 2. Consul. Two consuls shall be elected annually ...
> (...)
> c. To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order;
> d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another consul or magistrate of lesser authority;
>
> > The Tribunes are not mentioned here at I.B. Instead it is at IV.7.a that tribunician vetoes are discussed, begining with "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex)."
>
> My colleagues did not make an intercessio they called the Senate to order, this calling was vetoed by consul Albucius as he might do according to the Constitution IV,2,d...
>
> Moreover, the Agenda of the emergency Senate session announced and published by my colleague Corvus has nothing to see with the Agenda of the same session submitted to the vote of the senators, the agenda suddenly has changed during the session... without taking other auspicia.
>
> As you see, all that is not very honest but trully unfair and I do not want to be involved in.
>
> Vale amice.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. X Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

Ex domo pontifici maximi:

Responsum Pontifici Maximi V. Rutilia Enodiaria

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus V. Rutiliae Enodiariae camillae dicit:

The announcement posted pridie kal. Iun. (30 May) of this year stated that "V. Rutilia Enodia, an aeditua of the Temple of Juno shall train to become a sacerdos of Juno." You were not adlected a sacerdos. You are a camilla in training. You are not authorized to use the title of sacerdos on Nova Roma lists. This is the second time you have violated your status as a camilla.

Your comments below make personal insult of one our most esteemed sacerdotes, a very fine Lady who is known and respected for her pietats. Your disrespect towards a Vestal Virgo Maxima, attempting to defame her as a sacerdos practitioner of the religio Romana, violates our laws as well as common decency. You, as a camilla, was instructed as were all sacerdotes, on 18 June 2010 by my Epistulum Pontific Maximi ad Sacerdotes omnes on how to behave towards one another on public lists. This is your third violation of instructions.

On my authority as Pontifex Maximus you, camilla, are hereby instructed to make a public apology immediately to Virgo Maxima Vestalis Valeria Messallina and perform piacula to Dea Vesta under the direct instruction of Virgo Maxima Vestalis Valeria Messallina. You are hereby suspended as a camilla and barred from any sacerdotal offices until you have completed your assignments and Collegium Pontificum has made a determination.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "enodia2002" <walkyr@...> wrote:
>
> Hypocrite? So speaks the Vestal who has been polluting her office for weeks by continuing to perform public rites while ill. No wonder Nova Roma is under a cloud. You've been so busy playing kingmaker and slinging mud that you've ignored the basic tenets of your own goddess. Don't whine to me about the mud on your white robes when you've deliberately made the choice to insult Vesta while playing at Tribune. While we've been wishing you well, you've been doing your best to undermine the foundations of Nova Roma and exposing everyone else to your impiety.
>
> Go clean your own house before you lecture others on theirs.
>
> V Rutilia Enodiaria
> Sacerdos Iunonis
>

Compy,

If that was the case I wouldn't be fighting as much nor willing to put my
own personal money involved, now wouldn't I.

Big EPIC FAIL there, the former sockpu...oops Compy.

2010/7/24 M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...>

> Sulla
>
> you will detract from your own words?
>
> I forgot that NR is a toy for you and the only thing you like is
> demagogy.........sad.
>
> Vale
>
>
> M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> PROCONSVL HISPANIAE
>
> NOVA ROMA
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
>
>
> 2010/7/24 Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>
> >
> >
> > Compy, is that the best argument you have...you start losing so then its
> > time to appeal to Cornelius Sulla/Cato/Caesar agree with you so you must
> be
> > wrong. If you cannot resort to logic but resort to emotion you have lost
> > the argument. But then that just turns into a repeat of your consulship.
> > So when do we expect your sockpuppet to make a new appearance?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > 2010/7/23 M·CVR·COMPLVTENSIS <complutensis@...<complutensis%
> 40gmail.com>
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Dextero
> > >
> > >
> > > using these words I understood: who writes the text of your messages?
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > Please don't make a mix.
> > >
> > > A tribune can veto a consul: according the Constitution of Nova Roma
> and
> > > Cornelius Sulla words (remember that Cornelius Sulla is the foremost
> > > authority on these issues, as he says) and Iulius Caesar words and Cato
> > > words.............
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > >
> > > M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
> > > PROCONSVL HISPANIAE
> > >
> > > NOVA ROMA
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/7/24 petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@... <jfarnoud94%40yahoo.fr
> >>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ave Complutensis,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A Tribune can veto the actions and the **Senatus consulta*,
> > magisterial
> > > *
> > > > edicta*, religious *decreta*, and *leges* passed by the *comitia.
> > > >
> > > > Where did you read a tribunes' veto?
> > > >
> > > > Calling the senate to order is not vetoing or words have no senses.
> > > > Tribunes, even 4 on 5, have less power than 1 consul, it is written
> on
> > > the
> > > > Constitution.
> > > >
> > > > The duty of the tribunes is to veto or to make intercessio against
> > edicta
> > > > if they think edicta illegal or unconstitutional, here in this case
> > they
> > > did
> > > > not veto nor make intercessio they called with one consul the Senate
> to
> > > > order, and this call was vetoed by the other consul... and the
> > tribunicia
> > > > potestas has less power than the consular imperium according the NR
> > > > Constitution as written on the legal precedence.
> > > >
> > > > I think that you mixed "veto" and "call to order"... these acts are
> > > > different.
> > > >
> > > > According to our Constitution a tribune can veto a consul decree, but
> > if
> > > > the tribunes call the senate to order and this call is vetoing by a
> > > consul
> > > > who has vetoed? The tribunes or the consul?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. X Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Aeterniae salutem dicit

He is not interested in making anything better, "what would be the fun in
that?"

Vale;

Modianus

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
>
> Sulla drop this, let it go now.... How is this making things better?
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia (The Tink woman)
>


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

In that you are absolutely wrong, as usual. I would be willing to assist
ANYONE at any time in any capacity formal or not to help improve NR. Right
now only way to do that is to do everything I can to stop this attempted
Coup.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:13 AM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Aeterniae salutem dicit
>
> He is not interested in making anything better, "what would be the fun in
> that?"
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...<syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Sulla drop this, let it go now.... How is this making things better?
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia (The Tink woman)
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

I'm reposting my warning which had originally been sent 6 hours ago but never arrived (yahoo!!).

Salvete,

It is not surprising that with the political upheavals going on at the moment that the state of the ML should be more heated and tense than usual.

Nonetheless, I would ask everyone to continue being mindful of their words and would like to offer the following suggestion: if you disagree with someone's words, especially when you feel some facts are being misrepresented, do not call the person a liar, but rather state that the position being espoused is wrong/misinformed/etc.

The moment you make a direct accusation of dishonesty, unless it can be demonstrated in some overwhelmingly obvious way from public records, you are closing down all hopes of dialog, no matter how slim they may already be.

If you truly feel that the other party is being dishonest and wish to publicly state that claim, you may do so, but I ask that you then withdraw from arguing with that individual on that topic since all hope of dialog will have been eliminated and continued bickering would contribute nothing but noise and disruption.

Valete,

M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
Praetorian Quaestor

Thank you, Merula, for your opinion. Reading your words was very enlightening. It has made me realized that there has been a wrong impression made here. I did not become angry at Cato for what he said about me as a Tribune. He can criticize me if he wants for what I do as a Tribune as can anyone else. If he feels I am not doing a good job as a Tribune, he is entitled to his opinion.
Where he crossed the line was in his comments of me as a Vestal. Since he has never spoken to me ever about what I do as a Vestal, since he does not know me personally nor how I have lived my life as a Vestal, he has no right to tell me what I am or am not as a Vestal. He crossed a line there. I admit I react probably more angrily than I should have, but I have since calmed down.
What I do as a Tribune is apart from what I do as a Vestal. That I fully understand. I do not find it is impossible to be both. Our first Vestal was both Virgo Maxima and Senatrix and even a candidate for Consul. So the precedent was set from the beginning. I chose to become a Tribune because I felt I needed to do more to help save Nova Roma. I do not find the honorable office of a Tribune to be in any way unbecoming for a Vestal to serve in. Quite the contrary. 
As for being clear when I am speaking as a Vestal, when I am speaking as a Tribune and when I am speaking as an ordinary citizen, I thought I was doing that when I signed my name. If I was speaking as a Vestal, I would add my title Sacerdos Vestalis or Virgo Maxima. If I was speaking as a Tribune, I would add Tribuna Plebis. If I was speaking as a citizen, I would not include any title. This has worked for the majority of the people in NR. I am sorry if it has not worked for all. I'll try and come up with something to make it more clear to those few who are still confused,
 
Vale bene,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 

--- On Sat, 7/24/10, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:


From: Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Claudia Juliana was right
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 3:16 AM


 



On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> <<--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> If you were not a tribune, and not getting yourself mixed up in all this -
> not to mention simply lying - there would never have been a need to correct
> you.>>
>
>
> I do not lie. I've been sworn to tell the truth as a Vestal and I don't
> need you to correct me as a Vestal. You are not my Paterfamilias.
>

Salve Virgo Maxima

May I first of all say that I totally agree that no one, absolutely no one
should ever insult the sacred office of the Vestals. I love, worship and
serve the gods of the Romans, that was what brought me to NR in the first
place. For the past 14 or 15 years my life has been privately dedicated to
Vesta. I cannot claim to be a virgin (I have a son and daughter) but I have
been willingly and cheerfully celibate since I dedicated my life to her and
have served her as best as I am able.

I am truly glad Nova Roma has Vestals for I genuinely believe they are the
cornerstone of the whole res publica and without them there is no hope
whatsoever. I am truly, truly glad you serve Vesta because I love her more
than any other. I find it sad that you would let insults from mere mortals
stop you from serving Vesta by training others. To me, the relationship with
the Goddess herself, transcends anything and everything else and what any
mortal thinks of me matters not a whit compared to that relationship.

I admit that I was privately horrified when you said you were standing for
Tribune merely because I, personally, believe that there could never be any
greater honour than serving Vesta so why dilute that be seeking other
office. However i read your arguments and had to agree that a tribune who
was honour bound to always speak the truth would be a wonderful thing so i
voted for you.

The problems that have arisen since then have really saddened me. I have
carefully followed the arguments on both sides. I will not call you a liar
because I do not believe that has ever been your intention but I do believe
that you, as a tribune, have contributed to the problem. As a Vestal you are
honour bound to speak the truth. As one who is privately dedicated to her, I
try to do the same. I really admire your passion and commitment but that
very passion leads to having strong opinions. And therein, as i see it, lies
the problem.

As a Tribune you stand up for your opinions, there would be no point in
being a Tribune otherwise. As a Vestal as well as a Tribune you will speak
the truth. However, and please believe me I mean no offense whatsoever to
the office of Vestal, but the inference I've drawn from a lot of your posts
is that being a Vestal makes your opinions true and that no one should argue
against that. You obviously believe your opinion is the correct one but a
Tribune should speak as a Tribune, accepting that others will have different
opinions which they are also entitled to hold. This is where I believe the
waters get muddied.

For instance, you have frequently called Cato a liar. Now he may be
opinionated, he may even be a pain in the proverbial at times but i have
carefully read all of his posts and have never found him to be lying. I have
seen several posts, mostly by Maior, where his words have been taken out of
context or deliberately misconstrued to make it appear that he's lying but
that could be done to any of us. That's my opinion. You are entitled to
yours and of course you are entitled to express that opinion However, he
has frequently asked you to back up that opinion and, as far as i am aware,
you have not done so. Instead you have appeared to imply that since you are
a Vestal no one can argue with your opinion.

Again, it is your opinion that Albucius did not veto this emergency session
of the senate but simply announced his intention to do so. Other people are
of the opinion that his words "I hereby veto the call of the Senate issued
on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:01:19 by my colleague, and its later "addendum"."
mean that he did veto it.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinions and you are entitled to express
them but it appears to me that you express your political opinions as gospel
with which no one may argue. Whenever anyone argues with your opinions you
appear to be the one that brings up the fact that you are a Vestal. You
continually insult others while claiming immunity from all insults yourself.
You make political posts and then talk about what you do as a Vestal.

I know you have been ill and I truly sympathise with you and I admire your
dedication in continuing to use your energy to pray to Vesta for all Nova
Romans but in the same post that you remind us of this, you then go on to
say we all make you sick. You then start screaming insults and telling
people to shut up. Is this as a Tribune or as a Vestal? As a Tribune you are
as open to arguments and disagreements and yes, even insults, as the rest of
us are.

As I said at the beginning, no one should insult the office of Vestal, but
you must have been aware of the problems that could arise when you stood for
the Tribunate. I am sorry if I offend you, but I believe you are the one who
has to take the responsibility for the keeping the two offices separate. I
believe you should make it clear when you are talking as a Tribune and when
you are talking as a Vestal. You cannot comfortably wear both hats at once.

When you mix the two together and imply that we all have to abide by your
political opinions and refrain from arguing against them because you are
also the Virgo Maxima, you try to impose some kind of theocratic
dictatorship. My personal opinion is that this shows no honour to the gods.
The office of Vestal requires the highest respect from us all but, even in
ancient Rome, that did not mean that the actions of individual Vestals could
never be questioned or censured.

I will continue to pray to Vesta that your health continues to improve.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

>
>
>
>
>

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











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

Salve Messalina,

You have failed to see my point well over the rainbow on this.. I'm not
condoning insulting the Position of Vestal, no of course not! But there are
better ways of stating your hurt feelings than the tactics you are using.
You came across a bit of having a temper tantrum, and I have said before if
I didn't respect you, I would not have bothered even replying.

Yes Cato may have been wrong, but another wrong doesn't make the situation
right now does it?

Again I ask you to step up and be the better person in this mess...

Vale,
Aeternia

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
> Stoop to such behavior? You don't criticize Cato when he is insulting me,
> but I stand up for myself and tell the truth of what he is doing and I'm
> slinging mud? Thank you. It's good to know where I stand.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/23/10, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...<syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@... <syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Claudia Juliana was right
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 7:58 PM
>
>
> Aeternia Iuliae Virgo Maximae s.p.d.
>
> Honestly attacks have been coming from every which way in this convoluted
> disaster, but those who are supposed to be the "role models" of our
> community should not be stooping to such behaviors especially the Virgo
> Maxima, if the role models are mud slinging too what message does that
> also
> say? And I wouldn't have said anything to the Virgo Maxima if I did not
> hold her in such high regard, politically I may not agree with Messalina
> but
> she's a nice person..
>
> Oh Obstructionists could you also try being the better people, its got to
> start somewhere.. Why not?
>
> But just more thing Julia and I hope you don't find this truly offensive
> and
> if you do I give my utmost apology upfront...
>
> Many a thing you could probably instruct me on, but do not tell me how to
> be
> a friend.. I inquire all the time about the Chief Vestal's health status
> in private correspondence.
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:11 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@... <luciaiuliaaquila%40hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Iulia Aeternia Virgo Maximae s.p.d
> >
> > The Vestal Virgin and the Consul Quintilianus, our Princeps have been
> > repeatedly insulted and ridiculed.
> > This is wrong. This demonstrates a lack of respect for all in Nova Roma,
> a
> > lack of respect for the citizens whose will it was to elect them, the
> senate
> > who appointed our Princeps Senatus who is the eldest and senior of the
> > Censorii, to the State Religion � the gods themselves, and in turn to our
> > Respublica.
> >
> > This has become a forum with very little real discussion and even that is
> > spun to the obstructionists' advantage.
> > Obstructionism doesn't happen overnight, it is a cumulative problem that
> > gets worse as time goes by and some of the very people are viewed as
> > obstructionists have been engaging in venomous insults and ridicule which
> > seems to be escalating just for the sake of spreading the disdain
> associated
> > with it.
> >
> > A friend, Aeternia, should optimally show concern in private, esp. if
> > concerned about a friend's health.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
>
> > Morte <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Aeternia Virgo Maximae Valeriae et omnibus s.p.d.
> > >
> > > Maxima Valeria Messalina, please calm down I do recall you stating in a
> > > previous post that you would refrain from insulting and taking negative
> > > connotations on this forum..
> > >
> > > Remember who you are and I say this with utmost respect, I have nothing
> > but
> > > admiration for you, hence why I am responding..
> > >
> > > You are above tantrums...
> > >
> > > This is beginning to look like one, see my comments below...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus M. Cornelio Gualtero et scribis praetorii omnibus s. p. d:

I think matters have gone beyond where decorum can be restored through gentle reminders. Where is the moderation that is to prevent such outbreaks from occurring or being prolonged as has happened over the last few days? What about the rights of some 1400 subscribers not involved in these exchanges to have informative posts "dedicated to the principles, philosophy and faith of ancient Rome. . . . points of history, organizational matters, religious questions, the Latin language and literature, re-enactment and costuming, and much more?"

I dispute that the ad hominum of the recent exchanges are in fact on "organizational matters," while all else for which this list was dedicated to provide is being neglected.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> I'm reposting my warning which had originally been sent 6 hours ago but never arrived (yahoo!!).
>
> Salvete,
>
> It is not surprising that with the political upheavals going on at the moment that the state of the ML should be more heated and tense than usual.
>
> Nonetheless, I would ask everyone to continue being mindful of their words and would like to offer the following suggestion: if you disagree with someone's words, especially when you feel some facts are being misrepresented, do not call the person a liar, but rather state that the position being espoused is wrong/misinformed/etc.
>
> The moment you make a direct accusation of dishonesty, unless it can be demonstrated in some overwhelmingly obvious way from public records, you are closing down all hopes of dialog, no matter how slim they may already be.
>
> If you truly feel that the other party is being dishonest and wish to publicly state that claim, you may do so, but I ask that you then withdraw from arguing with that individual on that topic since all hope of dialog will have been eliminated and continued bickering would contribute nothing but noise and disruption.
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
> Praetorian Quaestor
>

Salve,

I loved Asterix and Obelix, I used to watch the cartoons in german class,
great idea Rota!


Vale,
Aeternia

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Aqvillivs Rota
<c.aqvillivs_rota@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> If anyone is interested, the Castra Rota is currently searching comic
> designers to launch a new political comic after the idea of Asterix and
> Obelix. Sulla and Cato two funny Roman Senators making fun of our political
> landscape in the West.
>
> I think it is really a great idea, if we can get a good painter and a
> texter
> this could become a NR mascot comic!
> Who is interested please respond!
>
> Rota
>
> --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Aqvillivs Rota <c.aqvillivs_rota@...<c.aqvillivs_rota%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: Aqvillivs Rota <c.aqvillivs_rota@...<c.aqvillivs_rota%40yahoo.com>
> >
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]NEW PROGRAM SULLA & CATO the Remake of Pat and
> Patachon
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 1:09 AM
>
>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> wellcome to the Mainlist of Nova Roma !!!
>
> We proudly present within our Friday evening program motto "funny - dumb -
> and sensless"
>
> The all new SULLA & Cato Show the funniest Romans on the entire Web! With
> their humor, obstruction and rudeness they present again in the most ironic
> way what Roman values should be. After Asterix and Obelix surely the most
> laughable family show ever.
>
> Their team is unbeatable in creativity to teach us HOW NOT TO PROCEED as a
> Roman.
>
> ATTENTION***ACHTUNG***ATTENZIONE Watch your kids and make sure they do not
> copy this. Only under supervision of an adult.
>
> We proudly invite everyone to watch our two funny Nova Roma Stars now every
> Friday evening 2.30 AM Rome time.
>
> This is just a show and does not express the opinion of Nova Roma nor
>
> its political opinions.
>
> WATCH NOW it is free !!!!
>
> Have fun
>
> C.Aqu.Rota
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 7/24/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...<luciaiuliaaquila%40hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...<luciaiuliaaquila%40hotmail.com>
> >
>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Sulla ShowRe: What do the obstructionists don't
> understand ...
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 12:43 AM
>
>
>
> Wow Sulla
>
> How did you get all of that from a plot to increase the posts on the main
> list?
>
> Oh and who is "you guys" I only count one where I am sitting.
>
> Hey its your show not mine so you get to be plain silly, it's up to you if
> you want to be the Boogey Man,although you are not very frightening - Carry
> on:)
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Oh Iulia,
>
> >
>
> > I am so suspicious, OOOOH so first its the boni (Plotter Messalina rants
>
> > about), then its the BA (Plotter Piscinus rants about). Now its SULLA.
>
> >
>
> > Can you guys please make up your mind which one is the bigger boogeyman
> and
>
> > stick to it. Otherwise it's just plain silly.
>
> >
>
> > Vale,
>
> >
>
> > Sulla
>
> >
>
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
>
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Salvete omnes!
>
> > >
>
> > > Sulla is suspicious!
>
> > > If he wasn't so busy looking for something that is not there he would
> see
>
> > > what is plain in front of his eyes!
>
> > > He would recognize the true conspiracy!
>
> > > One that he would hold close to his heart!
>
> > >
>
> > > And that is:
>
> > >
>
> > > The plan is to cause enough controversy to cause a proliferation of
> posts
>
> > > so we could drive up the number of messages on the ML!
>
> > >
>
> > > Number! It's about post numbers Sulla!
>
> > >
>
> > > How ever did you miss it? Something so important to you!
>
> > >
>
> > > *laughs*
>
> > >
>
> > > Vale,
>
> > >
>
> > > Julia
>
> > >
>
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
>
> > > Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Yes! We barely had 12 hours to debate it. But let me tell you, consul
>
> > > > incompetent was sure ready with that agenda item, as if it was
>
> > > suspiciously
>
> > > > ready to go with little to NO notice.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Vale,
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Sulla
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>, Gnaeus
>
> > > > > Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > 3. Without very much notice, a few hours, a proposal for a
>
> > > > > > dictatorship was rammed into the agenda and a vote scheduled
> quickly
>
> > > > > > thereafter. A rather grubby way to impose a coup, but well tried
> and
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > tested
>
> > > > > by totalitarian regimes.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > A "few hours"?
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Are you saying they're trying to ram through the single most
> drastic
>
> > > and
>
> > > > > most
>
> > > > > important Senatus Consultum in the history of NR, with only a few
>
> > > *hours*
>
> > > > > of debate?
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Gods, what audacity they have!
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > If they're trying to push this through without even the debate
> period
>
> > > the
>
> > > > > Senate
>
> > > > > rules require, that's an even more egregious violation of protocol,
>
> > > > > tradition,
>
> > > > > and common sense, than ignoring a Consul's veto.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > When I was consul, I made the mistake of trying to simply reword an
>
> > > > > existing
>
> > > > > agenda item at the last minute, and was soundly - and correctly -
>
> > > reamed
>
> > > > > for it
>
> > > > > by Pater Patriae Vedius. ONE DOES NOT CHANGE THE AGENDA DURING
> DEBATE!
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > We had actual standards in those days.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > To think that the band of incompetents in charge now are trying to
> do
>
> > > the
>
> > > > > most
>
> > > > > drastic action in NR's history without even allowing a proper
> debate
>
> > > > > period...
>
> > > > > well, it's only what we've come to expect from them.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > M. Octavius Gracchus,
>
> > > > > Consular in Exile.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Crossposted, NR & BA, 18:43 CDT.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > --
>
> > > > > Matt Hucke (hucke@ <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
>
> > > > > Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
>
> > > > > "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > [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]
>
>
>

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

Q Caecilius Metellus M Morauio Piscino Horatiano dicit.

You are giving this pronouncement under *what* authority? Certainly
it is not under *any* authority as pontifex maximus pro temore, since
the position of pontifex maximus has not, now or ever, been given any
specific authority outside that given to any other pontiff, save for
the specific, limited, and very clearly defined authority and
obligation to convene the comitia curiata upon the election of
magistrates cum imperio.

What edictum gives you *specific* authority as pontifex maximus? What
decretum invests into the office of pontifex maximus any specific
authority? What senatus consultum gives specific authority to the
office of pontifex maximus? What law gives specific authority to the
office of the pontifex maximus (outside, as I have outlined above, the
specific authority and *obligation* to convene the comitia curiata)?
Again, what part of the lex constitutiua gives the position of
pontifex maximus any specific authority outside what I have outlined
above?

Let me save us all the trouble of looking. There is not one. This is
why, in the Collegium, this very thing was mentioned, both last year,
and again very recently. You do not have any authority greater than
any other pontifex; you are, in everything but title and the
*obligation* to convene the comitia curiata, the same as any other
pontifex, with respect to your authority. You have neither any more,
nor any less. Your responsum, therefore, is a farce, and without any
force whatsoever save the force it has in your mind alone.

It is not Vibia Rutilia who owes anyone an apology, especially not to
someone who has brought any mudslinging upon themselves by taking up
political office. It is you, Marcus Moravius, who owes an apology.
You, Sir, owe an apology to the Gods and to the People of Nova Roma,
for the continued usurpations and arrogations of powers to yourself
and your office -- that of pontifex maximus pro tempore -- , and to
the colleges of which you are a member, which you and they have not,
in any way, shape or form, been granted. May the Gods forgive any
college of which you are a member that does not eradicate and purify
itself of you and the shame, impiety, and guilt you bring upon it,
lest the Gods forsake them, as they ought.

To Maria Caeca, I am sorry if you have ever found anything I have said or done offensive or disappointing. I am sorry for not taking the time to answer your excellent, thoughtful and sagacious posts. You deserve better than what you have received overall by me and others. You are truly an exceptional person and I am glad to be able to call you sister and friend.
 
To Aeternia, I am sorry I spoke harshly to you, not once but twice on the ML. You have every right to stand up for your friends and I will not put you between a rock and a hard place. You are a sweet and endearing young woman with great potential and I am deeply distressed to have caused you any pain. I value your friendship greatly and your comment to me yesterday in the chat box has helped me more than you know. Thank you. And I really wasn't having a tantrum, but I was very wrong to have posted when I was so angry. I should have waited until I had calmed down. Thank you for your private email. I re-read this morning and you are right.
 
To Enodia, I am sorry you are so upset with me and that you feel I have not done my Vestal duties to the best of my abilities. I can only say I do try very hard every day to do my best for Vesta. I take no offense with what you have posted on the ML. Your private email did wound me, but that's only because I also value your friendship and I am also deeply distressed that your are so upset with me.
 
To Merula, I am sorry I confused or upset you in any way. I thank you for your words of wisdom to me on the ML. Many of your points are well taken. I am certain you honor Vesta well in your own way. I value our budding friendship as well and I hope we can continue.
 
To Iulia Aquila, I am sorry for not always having listened to your good advice and wisdom. It has been to my own detriment. I value your friendship very much and I want you to know, you are so spot on some times, I am going to take notes from now on.
 
To Hortensia Maior, I am very sorry for not always having been there for you when you have always been there for me time and time again. (Same for Laeca if you could please pass that along to her. Thank you.) Everyone has their faults and everyone has done wrong things, but no one person should be the butt of all blame when there is plenty to go around. No one here is perfect, not even Vesta's Vestal. I will never again fail to stand up for you when you are being bullied. I will remind everyone that we should not go around trying to remove splinters from the eyes of others when we have a beam stuck in our own.  
 
To Scholastica, I am sorry if I disappointed you, too. I know you have high expectations of me and I will try harder to live up to them. You are my dearest friend in Nova Roma and it would kill me to know I had upset you in any way.
 
To all the women of Nova Roma, I am truly sorry if I have offended you or disappointed you. I will tried harder to be a better Nova Roman, person and friend to whoever has need of me. Always.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
(Speaking as a dedicated Vestal for life, a Nova Roman, a priestess and friend - just so there is no further confusion because really if there is one thing NR does not need it is more confusion.)
 
P.S. Sharon, if you are reading this, I have your picture but I lost your email addy. I am so sorry. Could you please email me again? Thank you.




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

LOL

Demagogy, obstructionism, filibusterism, bad forms. Nothing new under the
sun of NR.


M·CVRIATIVS·COMPLVTENSIS
PROCONSVL HISPANIAE

NOVA ROMA

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

ex paucis multa, ex minimis maxima


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

Cato Messallinae sal.

Vestal, let me be the first to say that only if you use your position *as Vestal* to "prove" that you are right in a given discussion will I respond to your position as Vestal.

If you do not want your position as Vestal brought into an argument, then do not mention it yourself. That being said, in the future unless *you* bring it up, I will not do so.

Vale,

Cato

Q Caecilius Metellus M Morauio Piscino Horatiano dicit.

> May the Gods forgive any
> college of which you are a member that does not eradicate and purify
> itself of you and the shame, impiety, and guilt you bring upon it,
> lest the Gods forsake them, as they ought.

Well said.

Have not the past two and a half years taught the citizens of Nova Roma
anything? Has not the malaise, the rancor, the magisterial incompetence and
malfeasance, the endless series of failures and crises, demonstrated anything?

The gods abhor the usurper who now squats in the place of the true Pontifex
Maximus, our beloved Pater Patriae Marcus Cassius Iulianus, shunned and rejected
by the collegia that he created. In his place is a bully and plotter, a man of
ruthless ambition and ego, who continues his attempts to accrete more power to
himself, and in doing so has brought about the destruction of Nova Roma.

This false priest connived and schemed to be elected to the Collegium Augurum,
and then immediately launched an absurd "treason" trial against the senior
Augur, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus AUGUR (I give his full and true agnomen here,
in contempt of those who schemed to have it taken away), over a trivial matter
of ownership of a disused mailing list.

He has befouled both the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum, which he
and his lackeys now use as political tools against the one consul who had the
courage to stand up to them.

And what of the current crisis? It began with a disagreement over the mundane
matter of how to obtain programming services for the web site; services that I
provided, free of charge, for eight years. I withdrew my efforts, and turned my
back on Nova Roma, as a direct result of Piscinus' and Modianus' plot to wrest
control of the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum away from those who
built them. Were it not for their coup of 2008, you would not have lost my
services, would not have lost all hope of a maintainable web site, would not be
talking of allocating half the treasury to recreating it, would not soon be
under the thumb of a Dictator.

Why is Nova Roma now at its nadir? It is because the man who reawakened the
Cultus Deorum after sixteen hundred years of neglect has been illegally and
impiously deposed.

The foremost of the conspirators responsible now claims his title.

I name him ABOMINATION.

Valete,
M. Octavius Gracchus,
Consular,
supporter of the true Pontifex Maximus.

crossposted, 11:31 CDT.
--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams

M. Moravius Piscinus M. Octavi Gracche dicit:

Who invited me to return to Nova Roma? Why, I believe it was You and Mettullus and Hadrianus, and Modianus who invited me to return to Nova Roma. And I have the photoes to prove it.

And what was your reason? Because You, Marce Octavi, and Metellus the oh so pious one, wanted to depose Cassius. Where as I was defending Cassius as Pontifex Maximus, not only in Nova Roma and at Academia Thules, but also in SVR.

What's that, who else did you want to remove from the CP back then?


Crocadile tears in Tel Aviv

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus M Morauio Piscino Horatiano dicit.
>
> > May the Gods forgive any
> > college of which you are a member that does not eradicate and purify
> > itself of you and the shame, impiety, and guilt you bring upon it,
> > lest the Gods forsake them, as they ought.
>
> Well said.
>
> Have not the past two and a half years taught the citizens of Nova Roma
> anything? Has not the malaise, the rancor, the magisterial incompetence and
> malfeasance, the endless series of failures and crises, demonstrated anything?
>
> The gods abhor the usurper who now squats in the place of the true Pontifex
> Maximus, our beloved Pater Patriae Marcus Cassius Iulianus, shunned and rejected
> by the collegia that he created. In his place is a bully and plotter, a man of
> ruthless ambition and ego, who continues his attempts to accrete more power to
> himself, and in doing so has brought about the destruction of Nova Roma.
>
> This false priest connived and schemed to be elected to the Collegium Augurum,
> and then immediately launched an absurd "treason" trial against the senior
> Augur, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus AUGUR (I give his full and true agnomen here,
> in contempt of those who schemed to have it taken away), over a trivial matter
> of ownership of a disused mailing list.
>
> He has befouled both the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum, which he
> and his lackeys now use as political tools against the one consul who had the
> courage to stand up to them.
>
> And what of the current crisis? It began with a disagreement over the mundane
> matter of how to obtain programming services for the web site; services that I
> provided, free of charge, for eight years. I withdrew my efforts, and turned my
> back on Nova Roma, as a direct result of Piscinus' and Modianus' plot to wrest
> control of the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum away from those who
> built them. Were it not for their coup of 2008, you would not have lost my
> services, would not have lost all hope of a maintainable web site, would not be
> talking of allocating half the treasury to recreating it, would not soon be
> under the thumb of a Dictator.
>
> Why is Nova Roma now at its nadir? It is because the man who reawakened the
> Cultus Deorum after sixteen hundred years of neglect has been illegally and
> impiously deposed.
>
> The foremost of the conspirators responsible now claims his title.
>
> I name him ABOMINATION.
>
> Valete,
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular,
> supporter of the true Pontifex Maximus.
>
> crossposted, 11:31 CDT.
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>

Which lies about Q. Fabius Maximus?

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> Forgot to cc to BA list. As I just rejoined the ML yesterday I'm still
> moderated there, so it might be an hour or two before this shows up.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Responsum Pontifici Maximi V. Rutilia
> Enodiaria
> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:01:52 -0500
> From: Matt Hucke <hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>>
> Reply-To: hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> References: <i2fbh8+eqad@... <i2fbh8%2Beqad%40eGroups.com>>
>
> > Who invited me to return to Nova Roma? Why, I believe it was You and
> Mettullus and Hadrianus, and Modianus who invited me to return to Nova Roma.
> And I have the photoes to prove it.
>
> Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I invited you, I supported you, I
> endorsed you, I voted for you, I pled with Cincinnatus to make you Augur;
> and
> when you revealed your true colours my shame and despair were such that I
> could
> not remain here.
>
> Yes, I have the photos too: http://cynico.net/tmp/columbus.jpg
>
> We met 9 July 2005 in Columbus, Ohio to discuss the creation of "Pax
> Deorum", an
> alternative to Nova Roma, that ultimately never went anywhere.
>
>
> > And what was your reason? Because You, Marce Octavi, and Metellus the oh
> so pious one, wanted to depose Cassius. Where as I was defending Cassius as
> Pontifex Maximus, not only in Nova Roma and at Academia Thules, but also in
> SVR.
>
> I did not suggest removing Cassius. I do not recall that I ever favoured
> the
> idea, even briefly. I was an hour late for the meeting because I stopped at
> President Harding's grave on the way there - perhaps that was when you
> hatched
> your conspiracy?
>
> But talk is cheap. You and Modianus, on the other hand, plotted to remove
> Cassius and Cincinnatus, and carried it out, and have thereby brought Nova
> Roma
> to its lowest point.
>
>
> > What's that, who else did you want to remove from the CP back then?
>
> Only Quintus Fabius, based on the lies you told about him, which I
> investigated
> as Censor and found no evidence to support.
>
> Octavius.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
>
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>


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

Quiritibus s.d.

I am a self-exiled Consularis, having served with Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus in 2006 (and amicably). I took a leave because of personal reasons, but have not formally returned because of the administrative malfeasance I've seen since I left. As a matter of fact, I resigned my citizenship. I still have friends in NR of many years, and I keep in touch with them: Aeternia, my (always) Paterfamilias Marcus Minucius Audens, Matt Hucke (a fellow self-exiled Consularis) to name three. So I still have some passion and concern for the republic.

Quirites, the legal weight of this Senate call is negligible, and I will explain why I think this:

Let's look at the constitution (well, you look later, its on the website) under the section entitled "Senate". You will see that the Senate has certain constitutionally protected privileges, including deciding on how they will run their own internal procedures. These procedures have been voted on by the Senate via Senatus Consulta. We also see under the Magistrates section "Tribunes" that the Tribs may in fact call the Senate into session. Yes, that's true also, but let's look again under that "Senate" section and we see that Senators may comment on anything they see fit, implying that they have the decision to give a given item their attention, or not. Further, the established Senatus Consulta on Senate procedures ( again, to which the Senate is constitutionally entitled) states that their august body recognizes a Tribune's calling of the Senate as being limited to items pertaining to their role as Tribune, and pertaining to the Plebian assembly (this is paraphrased..you read the language).

This said....why do I see some Senators behave as though they are under lock and key, feeling obligated to respond to this Senate call, which is against their own established internal procedures, and which is against the spirit of the Senators ( again,constitution) being able to address items they see fit (and so not address items they don't see fit)...?

If someone tells you to go jump in the lake, should you do it?

Senators have constitutional privileges also... please read them. The Tribunes cannot override them. They are not dictators. They cannot cancel your constitutional privilege! Tribunes have no imperium, they have only potestas. How is it being recognized that they can "compel" a flea off their arm, much less compel the behaviour of the Senate, without any imperium?

Tribunes can 'veto', yes, yes. But they have not vetoed in this situation. The Senior Consul, Albucius (with respect to my long time friend Caeso Fabius Consul) vetoed this Senate session. I am not sure how the Tribunes could 'unveto' a cancelled Senate session, or how they can justify participation in a thus *nonexistent* Senate Session. Nonetheless, what the majority of Tribunes have done, is ignore a lawful consular veto (citing inconvenience), and continue forth, to call the Senate into session with agenda items on which they are not empowered to seek discussion. This is *not* an act of veto (intercessio); rather it is an illegal attempt to compel the Senate into discussion of matters the Senate does not recognize as being within the realm of a Tribune's Senate call.

Is a Dictatorship a sole internal Plebian concern? Is the IT issue strictly a Plebian concern? No, these are global concerns of NR, and the Tribunes are obnoxiously misusing their potestas. What is equally obnoxious is that some Senators seem to be falling for this. Please reason it out. If the Tribunes could call the Senate into session with an unlimited agenda, well we'd conceivably have a dictator every couple of years :>)
Tribunes are a check on abuse of magistrates, a protector of the people. Which is a good thing, but they have their limitations. They need them, as with any other magistracy.

Tribunes should not be proactively obstructing justice. Tribunes should not be attaching themselves to a Consul to bully the Senate. So attaching yourselves to a Consul does not give you any imperium O Tribunes;you must be elected as an imperium bearing magistrate :>) Standing next to the Queen does not make me a member of the royal family :>)


My advice to Senators, as some Senators have already done, would be to refuse to participate in this Senate session, to withdraw votes if you have already cast them, and cite your individual reasons for doing so. You have every reason to be uncomfortable with this Senate session. It is unconstitutional and it is likely quite unnecessary. I applaud those who have withdrawn their votes under these circumstances. You are not drones, you are the body of " wisdom and experience" of NR!

Marinus and/or Piscinus will live if they're not appointed Dictator, trust me. They've lived many years quite successfully without being dictator...they'll manage, I'm sure. I encourage Senators to honour common sense and established procedures, in consideration of the needs of the people. And feeding into what appears to be a hastily amended, unconstitutional Senate agenda, with little time to discuss matters, is hardly in the best interests of Nova Roma.

It is all too easy to 'invent' emergencies and crises, to pave the way for dictatorship. If all the past Consuls go together and had lunch one day, I would bet a good number of us have been asked to appoint dictators over perceived 'emergencies' :>) Who knows...we might even come up with the same names !

Be well
Pompeia






.

I wish people would stop using the term "Boni". The Bonis ceased to be a long time ago. There may very well be a new faction or factions, but it is not the Boni.

My thanks.

C. Popillius Laenas

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christina Moseley" <cheetahgirl5@...> wrote:
>
> Tiberia Octaviae Acleone Messallinae S.P.D
>
> I pray that the gods will heal you.
>
> What is wrong with these Boni these days? Hopefully the gods will give to
> us what we need.
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:06:31 -0500, Maxima Valeria Messallina
> <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> > Once again, the Boni (or whatever they call themselves these days) are
> > at their tricks and ploys, while trying, in vain, to pretend that it's
> > everyone else but them. They see plots where none exist.
> > Sorting out their lies from the facts they convienently forget or try
> > and disguise as something other than what they are:
> >
> > Consul Quintilianus and four of the Tribunes called an emergency session
> > of the Senate.
> > Consul Albucius, true to form, posted his intention to veto the call,
> > and added that he would later issue a formal edict. No such edict was
> > issued. In any case, NO MAGISTRATE CAN VETO THE TRIBUNES. That is in the
> > Constitution.
> > Under the potestas of the Tribunes, the session continued. The few
> > Senators who are making such a ruckus now, participated in the
> > discussions and when the voting began, cast their votes.
> > Suddenly, as voting nears conclusion, they withdraw their votes and
> > start their show of being "appalled" that the session is supposedly
> > "illegal". Really? Why then did they participate in the discussions? Why
> > then did they cast their votes?
> > Granted, a consul co-convening a senate session with four Tribunes may
> > not be the norm, but it was an EMERGENCY session. Immediate solutions to
> > very serious problems are needed NOW. The way things were going,
> > Albucius was vetoing (or trying to veto) everything in sight and
> > absolutely NOTHING was getting done.
> > It is just as our first Virgo Maxima, Claudia Juliana, said all those
> > years ago. Nothing has changed with these men. They are like Nero,
> > fiddling away with their insipid games, content to let Nova Roma burn to
> > the ground. Now I hear a persistent rumor that someone I defended and
> > have gone out of my way to befriend and support is going to stab me in
> > the back by bringing a petitio against me. For what? Caring so much
> > about Nova Roma that I was willing to stick my neck out, not once, but
> > twice in order to get what needed to be done - done?
> > I've been sick with pleurisy and confined to bed rest for almost a
> > month now and yet, with what little energy I have, I get up and offer
> > prayers on behalf of ALL Nova Romans, regardless of whether I like them
> > or not, twice a day. I try and read everything posted, answer hundreds
> > of private emails monthly. I even raised some eyebrows when I tried to
> > reach out to people I never talked to before in order to try and
> > understand their viewpoint, even Sulla's. And this is what it gets me.
> > Someone once told me - they only will like you when you do what they
> > want you to do and when you don't, they will throw you to the wolves.
> > I actually tried to be like Lentulus and reach out to everyone and this
> > is what it gets me. Claudia Juliana was right. She was so very right.
> > You all make me sick!
> > Maxima Valeria Messallina
> >
> >
> > <<--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Piscino sal.
> >
> > Nope. Once again you do not understand the law. Let's assume that the
> > tribunes *did* call the Senate to order. The consul vetoed that call.
> > The tribunes did not issue an intercessio, but a call to the Senate, an
> > act of an inferior magistrate over which the consul's imperium takes
> > much greater precedence according to the Constitution.
> >
> > So if the *tribunes* issued the call, the consular veto overrides it. If
> > the *consul* issued the call, his colleague's veto overrides it.
> >
> > The session is not legal.
> >
> > I have asked both consuls for the simplest and quickest remedy: that
> > they simply abandon this pseudo-session and re-issue a call for the
> > Senate to convene, without the hint of illegality, and with the same
> > agenda as has been presented to us in the Senate. I hope they do so.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato>>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>

C. Equitius Cato Memmio Albucio Fabio Quintilianusque consules SPD

I appeal to both of you, consuls, to stop this madness immediately.

With even the whisper of illegality, the results of any decisions made at this
point in time will never, ever, be accepted by a faction within the Respublica.
This will lead to more and deeper animosities and will aggravate the very
purposes for which the Senate was called.

Quintilianus, you do a grave injustice to all those for whom your harsh words
echo in the House; Albucius, you do as grave a harm by your silence.

Please, I ask you in the name of the People of the Respublica, call a new
session of the Senate unworried by any question of legality and let us address
the items presented to us.

Valete,

Cato

M. Petronius Dexter M0 Moravio Horatiano s.p.d.,

> Again, you misread the provisions of the Constitution.

I do not misread, I read. Say: "Again you do not read in my sense what you read". It is more realistic. I am not an idiot, and I am able to read what it is written about the consul's powers on the points c and d.

> Ask any of us who have served as Tribuni Plebis or as Consuls. Consuls cannot veto Tribuni Plebis.

It is contrary to his power written on the Constitution. And once again you misread the veto of Albucius. In this case, Albucius vetoed the call of an emergency Senate session. He did not veto the tribunes.

> We have previously had sessions of the Senate jointly called by conuls, and we have had comitia jointly called by consul and tribunus.

He did not veto that.

> The argument raised about more than one presiding magistrate is a false argument.

You misread me, I never used this argument.

> On the other point being made about the Agenda, agendas are changed all the time during the contio of a Senate session or the contio of a comitia. It it the purpose of the contio to work out measures that address the issues raised in the call to assemble. There is nothing illegal about the finalized voting agenda being different from what was stated in the call. This is a false argument being used.

This is not illegal... in any way it is not serious. Imagine I convene you for a travel for Haiti on summer and I force you to fly with me on Iceland on winter... It is not illegal. Ok. This argument failed, an agenda does not change during a session not by legal point of view but by courtesy or efficience. If it is not illegal to change an agenda during a session, it is not illegal to do not vote the changed agenda in this session.

> Under Nova Roma laws, under Senate rules, and under laws of the State of Maine, everything was legally done in calling the Senate, in holding the Senate session, and now as the Senate votes this final day.

No, you neglected the veto of a co-president of this Senate. It is not legal.

> Sulla claim more than a 1/3 of the Senate opposes the actions of the Consul and Tribuni. His math is off, as all his arguments are off.

Say taht with him. I do not argued about that.

So, in one message you did 2 digressions. Not only English language does not have grammar, according to Scholastica, it does not have no more meaning, according to you, but you do not rest on the subject.

The only point and the subject was is it written on the Constitution:
- "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."
and Constitution: IV,2.
- 2. Consul. Two consuls shall be elected annually ...
(...)
c. To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order;
d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another consul or magistrate of lesser authority;

If English has meanings what I may understand?

> There are 29 senators, two of whom are on leave, making only 27 present for the quorum. And under Senate rules, all those on the list were present. The quorum was met. Trying to declaim themselves withdrawn after the fact does not change the fact that they were there and quorum was met. So of the 27 senators, the last I looked, 23 are present. Of these 23, 18 voted in favor of the proposed measures. Since then, two senators have changed their votes, and one has suspended his votes for now. Only two voted against the measures their first time. So at the moment, with 23 present, the vote has 16 senators in favor (plus onevote by a former consul who is not a senator to make 17 in favor) against 3 opposed, and 4 not voting. That means more than 2/3 of the Senate present have voted in favor of the proposals by Consul Fabius and the Tribuni Plebis. Do the math.

But this session is not legal, it was vetoed by the consul Albucius. See above his constitutional rights...

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IX Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.



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

Collegae Tribunis Senatoribus omn.que

To every member of the Board and officers of Nova Roma Inc.





You may have seen that I did not take part to this meeting of the Senate.



Things are simple in my view : the veto I opposed this session makes this meeting void and illegal and, with it, all its decisions.



Naturally and once again, voices will be heard about the so-called impossibility to veto a tribunician call, for, to remind every one the odd circumstances of this meeting, my colleague agree with tribunes to issue a joint call so that I may not veto it, a consul being not authorized vetoing a tribunician action.

　

But this manoeuver witnesses a major misunderstanding of Roman Laws and how a Roman State work: the first principle is that consuls may veto each other's act, the tribunes, similarly, each other's act and, in addition, that a tribune may veto a consular act. The second principle is that each of these types of magistrates cannot convene jointly, just because, and it is simple to understand, such joint call would block the constitutional power of veto of the others. The third principle is that each type of magistrates (the consulate on one side and the tribunate on the other) have defined powers considering their relation to the Senate : a consul may convene and chair it with no other limitation than a possible veto to her/his call ; a tribune may convene and chair in the limitation of a tribunician veto (which means that a consul cannot veto a tribune), but also, in Nova Roma, in the limitation brought by the still in force Senatus consultum de ratione Senatus 11 November 2756 (http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2003-11-11-i.html), which says:




""The Senate may be convened by a consul, praetor, or tribunus plebis. The magistrate convening the Senate shall hereafter be referred to as the presiding magistrate.

A consul may convene the Senate for any purpose.

A praetor may convene the Senate for any purpose when both consuls are unavailable.

A tribunus plebis may convene the Senate in order to ask the Senate's advice on any subject which is clearly within the scope of his constitutionally mandated powers and obligations.""

　

All other arguments are irrelevant. Towards my ex-colleague praetor Equitius Marinus, whose I know the special attention he shows to the tribunes of the Plebs, and who said in this meeting that :

"the Tribunes are the ultimate judges of whether or not a given action is Constitutional. It seems obvious to me that at least four of the five elected Tribunes think that we
are in legal session. There is no appeal of their decision. None. That's what the Constitution gives us. Whatever a majority of Tribunes decides is what we must accept as Constitutional.",



I am afraid that he takes a political position, or at best issues a personal conviction, that I may respect as such, with a legal situation : as he and I well stated last year as praetors, a tribunician act is respectable as long as it is constitutional/ legal. We lived such a situation last year, and confirmed to Cos. Complutensis, this basic rule. We are in the same kind of situation here: the four tribunes and the consul committed an inconstitutionality which deprives the ones and the other of any legal base and legitimacy in their act. In order to try to speak Hon. Marinus ' language, I would say that his argument sounds as if I pretended that the gravitation force must be the only one to be taken in consideration in the equations relative to our universe, just because it may appear of the most important or seeable one.



This meeting, badly started, could not give birth to wise and productive decisions. I may be wrong, naturally, but the By-Laws question seem having been introduced just to serve as a smoke curtain, to convince some members of the Opposition to be indulgent with the calling consul's proposals, and to show the innocent intentions of the magistrates who decided, suddendly, that the Republic was in a such danger that the Senate should be called with no consultation of the consul maior. After some discussions, by a much surprising random, the question of the dictatorship popped up.



In this context, I decide, as member of the Board of Nova Roma Inc. and in due consideration of the risks, legal and financial, that the so-called decisions taken by this meeting would make run to Nova Roma, to each of its directors and members, to lay the following observations, in the frame of Maine Law, that I ask A. ZAVOIANU, Secretary of Nova Roma Inc. to duly record, and so that the respective legal responsibilities, under Maine Law, be clearly established.



LEGAL OBSERVATION under M.R.S.A.



I, Christophe PUISSANT, first president of Nova Roma Inc., in due consideration of my duties to protect the interests of the Corporation in the frame of the incorporation Law, on this July 24, 2010, deem necessary to observe that the meeting of NR Board, which will be closed on Su. 25 midnight Rome time, and which was convened by the second president, Christer Edling, along with the four officers called in NR inc. internal vocabulary "Tribunes of the Plebs" (the fifth Tribune, J.-F. Arnoud having not taken part), with no previous information of and therefore no agreement with me, was not convened in the forms required, either in its text or in its derived norms, by the "Constitution" of our corporation, which currently makes office of by-laws of the corporation. This absence of the required legal forms makes in my view this meeting, and all the decisions that may have been taken in it, as void for illegal, both in regard of NR Inc. internal own rules and regulations, but also towards Maine Law, and specially the Maine R.S. Act. As such I consider this meeting and its so-called "decisions" as void and illegal and does not consider myself as the whole Corporation, legally bound by them.

I deem necessary to add that both the way I, as first president, have been kept unaware of the foreseen meeting, and the decisions proposed to the Board, including one during the meeting (a "dictatorship" which forbids the president to take any action and replace it by a member chosen by the Board ; a IT contract of USD 10,000) make me think that this move has been organized in the intention to take the control of NR Inc. Board, of its Finances and Budget, and to hide the Board and the members of the association, the risks that NR Inc. may run in both matters.



I will come back towards the Senate, the People and the magistrates to take the needed consequences of the situation that this ill-convened session and its contents have created.



Valete omnes,





P. Memmius Albucius

consul

_________________________________________________________________
Exclu : Téléchargez la nouvelle version de Messenger !
http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/244627952/direct/01/

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

Salve Censor Caeso Modiane

Weren't you thrown off the Back Alley on false accusations of reposting emails from there? Wasn't Hortensia once thrown out on such an accusation? So Sulla can not only post from the sealled chambers of the Senate and our collegia to the Back Alley, but he can also repost from the Back Alley to our public lists in Nova Roma. tsk, tsk. It seem just the other day Sulla was claiming he had taken Fabius Maximus to task for doing that sort of thing.

I don't recall any lies being told about Fabius Maximus. Do you, Censor? I recall the presentation of unsolicited testimony from former Citizens that were received by the Censors during a census, testimony that was eventually posted in the Senate. Just like the email from Fabius Maximus that was posted in the Senate with an implicit death threat against Scaevola, and the complaints against Fabius Maximus (Stephen Phenow) that were investigated by the police in two states. And the women from years ago who sent complaints about Fabius Maximus harrassing them with emails threatening physical harm, or the two women who complained of Fabius Maximus soliciting them to work in his porn films, and the complaints of Traianus, Cornelia Antonia and other Temple Religio Romana members of how Fabius Maximus disgraced himself and Nova Roma by attending their religious services while drunk, acting vulgar, lewd and lascivious, exposing himself to women there, making improper advances to women, enthusiastically promoting temple prostitution for Nova Roma, and the sexual harrassment by Fabius Maximus that followed on the next day. Let's see, the complaint of physical threats by Fabius Maximus against a Professor at Kansas State University who works with battered women? and the complaint of slander against Fabius Maximus?

Then there are also the complaints made against Sulla for sexual harassment, and the complaints from years ago by Gina Vick and Greg Pellman, and about ten other former citizens.

Where the only response has been denials of these allegations, it is no lie that several complaints have been received by Nova Roma magistrates about both Fabius Maximus and Sulla.

Apparently a false accusation can get you thrown out of the Back Alley, but dare anyone to make a complaint about Sulla or Fabius Maximus sexually harrassing women and all of their accusers are decried as liars. I would like to know, Censor Modiane, where our defenders of public moralirty are? And where are the moderators who allow such baseless lies and name-calling to continue by Board members against our members, Directors, officers and sacerdotes?

When we have real problems to contend with, the resolution of which will benefit all Nova Roma Citizens and our guests, too, we are met by these attempted flames by the vulgari. Is there any real wonder why a 2/3 majority of the Senate has called for a dictator to resolve our problems?


Vale

M. Moravius Piscinus

Pontifex Maximus
Magister Collegii Augurum
Senator Consularius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Which lies about Q. Fabius Maximus?
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Forgot to cc to BA list. As I just rejoined the ML yesterday I'm still
> > moderated there, so it might be an hour or two before this shows up.
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Responsum Pontifici Maximi V. Rutilia
> > Enodiaria
> > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:01:52 -0500
> > From: Matt Hucke <hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>>
> > Reply-To: hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > References: <i2fbh8+eqad@... <i2fbh8%2Beqad%40eGroups.com>>
> >
> > > Who invited me to return to Nova Roma? Why, I believe it was You and
> > Mettullus and Hadrianus, and Modianus who invited me to return to Nova Roma.
> > And I have the photoes to prove it.
> >
> > Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I invited you, I supported you, I
> > endorsed you, I voted for you, I pled with Cincinnatus to make you Augur;
> > and
> > when you revealed your true colours my shame and despair were such that I
> > could
> > not remain here.
> >
> > Yes, I have the photos too: http://cynico.net/tmp/columbus.jpg
> >
> > We met 9 July 2005 in Columbus, Ohio to discuss the creation of "Pax
> > Deorum", an
> > alternative to Nova Roma, that ultimately never went anywhere.
> >
> >
> > > And what was your reason? Because You, Marce Octavi, and Metellus the oh
> > so pious one, wanted to depose Cassius. Where as I was defending Cassius as
> > Pontifex Maximus, not only in Nova Roma and at Academia Thules, but also in
> > SVR.
> >
> > I did not suggest removing Cassius. I do not recall that I ever favoured
> > the
> > idea, even briefly. I was an hour late for the meeting because I stopped at
> > President Harding's grave on the way there - perhaps that was when you
> > hatched
> > your conspiracy?
> >
> > But talk is cheap. You and Modianus, on the other hand, plotted to remove
> > Cassius and Cincinnatus, and carried it out, and have thereby brought Nova
> > Roma
> > to its lowest point.
> >
> >
> > > What's that, who else did you want to remove from the CP back then?
> >
> > Only Quintus Fabius, based on the lies you told about him, which I
> > investigated
> > as Censor and found no evidence to support.
> >
> > Octavius.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Hucke (hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
> >
> > Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> > "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Messalina,

Applause, applause, this is proving a  set of nice balls, coglioni which you demonstrate here!

You are a true Roman lady respect a nice gesture!  (What are you doing tonight?)

Sulla, Cato I am so sorry a woman just proved that you have peas instead of roman ... you know what I mean

A friendly smile towards two Roman heroes and future comic stars!

Was ihr zwoi deen, isch Hennadreg dreada. On des isch au wasr senn!
Blede Hennadregdreadr!

It is a pleasure..

Rota

--- On Sat, 7/24/10, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Public Apology to the Women of NR
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 2:57 PM







 









To Maria Caeca, I am sorry if you have ever found anything I have said or done offensive or disappointing. I am sorry for not taking the time to answer your excellent, thoughtful and sagacious posts. You deserve better than what you have received overall by me and others. You are truly an exceptional person and I am glad to be able to call you sister and friend.

 

To Aeternia, I am sorry I spoke harshly to you, not once but twice on the ML. You have every right to stand up for your friends and I will not put you between a rock and a hard place. You are a sweet and endearing young woman with great potential and I am deeply distressed to have caused you any pain. I value your friendship greatly and your comment to me yesterday in the chat box has helped me more than you know. Thank you. And I really wasn't having a tantrum, but I was very wrong to have posted when I was so angry. I should have waited until I had calmed down. Thank you for your private email. I re-read this morning and you are right.

 

To Enodia, I am sorry you are so upset with me and that you feel I have not done my Vestal duties to the best of my abilities. I can only say I do try very hard every day to do my best for Vesta. I take no offense with what you have posted on the ML. Your private email did wound me, but that's only because I also value your friendship and I am also deeply distressed that your are so upset with me.

 

To Merula, I am sorry I confused or upset you in any way. I thank you for your words of wisdom to me on the ML. Many of your points are well taken. I am certain you honor Vesta well in your own way. I value our budding friendship as well and I hope we can continue.

 

To Iulia Aquila, I am sorry for not always having listened to your good advice and wisdom. It has been to my own detriment. I value your friendship very much and I want you to know, you are so spot on some times, I am going to take notes from now on.

 

To Hortensia Maior, I am very sorry for not always having been there for you when you have always been there for me time and time again. (Same for Laeca if you could please pass that along to her. Thank you.) Everyone has their faults and everyone has done wrong things, but no one person should be the butt of all blame when there is plenty to go around. No one here is perfect, not even Vesta's Vestal. I will never again fail to stand up for you when you are being bullied. I will remind everyone that we should not go around trying to remove splinters from the eyes of others when we have a beam stuck in our own.  

 

To Scholastica, I am sorry if I disappointed you, too. I know you have high expectations of me and I will try harder to live up to them. You are my dearest friend in Nova Roma and it would kill me to know I had upset you in any way.

 

To all the women of Nova Roma, I am truly sorry if I have offended you or disappointed you. I will tried harder to be a better Nova Roman, person and friend to whoever has need of me. Always.

 

Maxima Valeria Messallina

(Speaking as a dedicated Vestal for life, a Nova Roman, a priestess and friend - just so there is no further confusion because really if there is one thing NR does not need it is more confusion.)

 

P.S. Sharon, if you are reading this, I have your picture but I lost your email addy. I am so sorry. Could you please email me again? Thank you.



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

























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

Salve Messalina,

Applause, applause, this is proving balls, colioni which you demonstrate here!

You are a true Roman lady respect a nice gesture!  (What are you doing tonight?)

Sulla, Cato I am so sorry a woman just proved that you have peas instead of roman ... you know what I mean

A friendly smile towards two Roman heroes and future comic stars!

It is a pleasure..

Rota

--- On Sat, 7/24/10, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

From: Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Public Apology to the Women of NR
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 2:57 PM







 









To Maria Caeca, I am sorry if you have ever found anything I have said or done offensive or disappointing. I am sorry for not taking the time to answer your excellent, thoughtful and sagacious posts. You deserve better than what you have received overall by me and others. You are truly an exceptional person and I am glad to be able to call you sister and friend.

 

To Aeternia, I am sorry I spoke harshly to you, not once but twice on the ML. You have every right to stand up for your friends and I will not put you between a rock and a hard place. You are a sweet and endearing young woman with great potential and I am deeply distressed to have caused you any pain. I value your friendship greatly and your comment to me yesterday in the chat box has helped me more than you know. Thank you. And I really wasn't having a tantrum, but I was very wrong to have posted when I was so angry. I should have waited until I had calmed down. Thank you for your private email. I re-read this morning and you are right.

 

To Enodia, I am sorry you are so upset with me and that you feel I have not done my Vestal duties to the best of my abilities. I can only say I do try very hard every day to do my best for Vesta. I take no offense with what you have posted on the ML. Your private email did wound me, but that's only because I also value your friendship and I am also deeply distressed that your are so upset with me.

 

To Merula, I am sorry I confused or upset you in any way. I thank you for your words of wisdom to me on the ML. Many of your points are well taken. I am certain you honor Vesta well in your own way. I value our budding friendship as well and I hope we can continue.

 

To Iulia Aquila, I am sorry for not always having listened to your good advice and wisdom. It has been to my own detriment. I value your friendship very much and I want you to know, you are so spot on some times, I am going to take notes from now on.

 

To Hortensia Maior, I am very sorry for not always having been there for you when you have always been there for me time and time again. (Same for Laeca if you could please pass that along to her. Thank you.) Everyone has their faults and everyone has done wrong things, but no one person should be the butt of all blame when there is plenty to go around. No one here is perfect, not even Vesta's Vestal. I will never again fail to stand up for you when you are being bullied. I will remind everyone that we should not go around trying to remove splinters from the eyes of others when we have a beam stuck in our own.  

 

To Scholastica, I am sorry if I disappointed you, too. I know you have high expectations of me and I will try harder to live up to them. You are my dearest friend in Nova Roma and it would kill me to know I had upset you in any way.

 

To all the women of Nova Roma, I am truly sorry if I have offended you or disappointed you. I will tried harder to be a better Nova Roman, person and friend to whoever has need of me. Always.

 

Maxima Valeria Messallina

(Speaking as a dedicated Vestal for life, a Nova Roman, a priestess and friend - just so there is no further confusion because really if there is one thing NR does not need it is more confusion.)

 

P.S. Sharon, if you are reading this, I have your picture but I lost your email addy. I am so sorry. Could you please email me again? Thank you.



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

























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

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Q. Caecilio Metello dicit:

The decretum that adlected me a pontifex, the decretum that appointed me pontifex maximus, the Constitution, gives me authority as a pontifex to address a camilla who usurped a sacerdotal title to which she is not entitled and for which none of our Collegia have adlected her.

You have already received one nota for the manner you insulted a sacerdos. I remind you that you were already rebuked once by the Collegium Pontificum for your recent indiscretions. Insulting the Virgo Maxima Vestalis, other sacerdotes, or myself, does not fulfill the Decretum Pontificum that was issued to you:

* * * * *

Decretum Pontificum de Pontifico Q. Caecilio Metello

The Collegium Pontificum instructs Pontifex Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius to perform a piaculum according to his private cultus Deorum and make a sincere public apology for his conduct both in public and in the Collegium Pontificum that was unbecoming of a pontifex and sacerdos publica.

In light of the nota issued to Pontifex Q. Caecilius Metellus by the Censores for his public conduct, his voting privileges in the Collegium Pontificum are hereby suspended for the duration of his nota and until the Collegium Pontificum is satisfied that he has complied with its instructions.

Datum est a. d. XII Kal. Sext. P. Memmio K. Fabio ccs in anno a. .u .c. MMDCCLXIII

* * * * *

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus M Morauio Piscino Horatiano dicit.
>
> You are giving this pronouncement under *what* authority? Certainly
> it is not under *any* authority as pontifex maximus pro temore, since
> the position of pontifex maximus has not, now or ever, been given any
> specific authority outside that given to any other pontiff, save for
> the specific, limited, and very clearly defined authority and
> obligation to convene the comitia curiata upon the election of
> magistrates cum imperio.
>
> What edictum gives you *specific* authority as pontifex maximus? What
> decretum invests into the office of pontifex maximus any specific
> authority? What senatus consultum gives specific authority to the
> office of pontifex maximus? What law gives specific authority to the
> office of the pontifex maximus (outside, as I have outlined above, the
> specific authority and *obligation* to convene the comitia curiata)?
> Again, what part of the lex constitutiua gives the position of
> pontifex maximus any specific authority outside what I have outlined
> above?
>
> Let me save us all the trouble of looking. There is not one. This is
> why, in the Collegium, this very thing was mentioned, both last year,
> and again very recently. You do not have any authority greater than
> any other pontifex; you are, in everything but title and the
> *obligation* to convene the comitia curiata, the same as any other
> pontifex, with respect to your authority. You have neither any more,
> nor any less. Your responsum, therefore, is a farce, and without any
> force whatsoever save the force it has in your mind alone.
>
> It is not Vibia Rutilia who owes anyone an apology, especially not to
> someone who has brought any mudslinging upon themselves by taking up
> political office. It is you, Marcus Moravius, who owes an apology.
> You, Sir, owe an apology to the Gods and to the People of Nova Roma,
> for the continued usurpations and arrogations of powers to yourself
> and your office -- that of pontifex maximus pro tempore -- , and to
> the colleges of which you are a member, which you and they have not,
> in any way, shape or form, been granted. May the Gods forgive any
> college of which you are a member that does not eradicate and purify
> itself of you and the shame, impiety, and guilt you bring upon it,
> lest the Gods forsake them, as they ought.
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Marco Moravio Piscino salutem dicit

Yes, I was kicked from the Back Alley after I was accused of sending
messages from the Back Alley to you. I did no such thing and have stated
that on several occasions. I actually joined the Back Alley in hopes of
doing some good.

I fully support Marinus as dictator and hope he can accomplish some good.
Regarding public morality, I work with a colleague, and we have to agree
before a nota can be issued on anyone. They are not something lightly given
out, and have to be used with the utmost of discretion.

Vale;

Modianus

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:18 PM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Censor Caeso Modiane
>
> Weren't you thrown off the Back Alley on false accusations of reposting
> emails from there? Wasn't Hortensia once thrown out on such an accusation?
> So Sulla can not only post from the sealled chambers of the Senate and our
> collegia to the Back Alley, but he can also repost from the Back Alley to
> our public lists in Nova Roma. tsk, tsk. It seem just the other day Sulla
> was claiming he had taken Fabius Maximus to task for doing that sort of
> thing.
>
> I don't recall any lies being told about Fabius Maximus. Do you, Censor? I
> recall the presentation of unsolicited testimony from former Citizens that
> were received by the Censors during a census, testimony that was eventually
> posted in the Senate. Just like the email from Fabius Maximus that was
> posted in the Senate with an implicit death threat against Scaevola, and the
> complaints against Fabius Maximus (Stephen Phenow) that were investigated by
> the police in two states. And the women from years ago who sent complaints
> about Fabius Maximus harrassing them with emails threatening physical harm,
> or the two women who complained of Fabius Maximus soliciting them to work in
> his porn films, and the complaints of Traianus, Cornelia Antonia and other
> Temple Religio Romana members of how Fabius Maximus disgraced himself and
> Nova Roma by attending their religious services while drunk, acting vulgar,
> lewd and lascivious, exposing himself to women there, making improper
> advances to women, enthusiastically promoting temple prostitution for Nova
> Roma, and the sexual harrassment by Fabius Maximus that followed on the next
> day. Let's see, the complaint of physical threats by Fabius Maximus against
> a Professor at Kansas State University who works with battered women? and
> the complaint of slander against Fabius Maximus?
>
> Then there are also the complaints made against Sulla for sexual
> harassment, and the complaints from years ago by Gina Vick and Greg Pellman,
> and about ten other former citizens.
>
> Where the only response has been denials of these allegations, it is no lie
> that several complaints have been received by Nova Roma magistrates about
> both Fabius Maximus and Sulla.
>
> Apparently a false accusation can get you thrown out of the Back Alley, but
> dare anyone to make a complaint about Sulla or Fabius Maximus sexually
> harrassing women and all of their accusers are decried as liars. I would
> like to know, Censor Modiane, where our defenders of public moralirty are?
> And where are the moderators who allow such baseless lies and name-calling
> to continue by Board members against our members, Directors, officers and
> sacerdotes?
>
> When we have real problems to contend with, the resolution of which will
> benefit all Nova Roma Citizens and our guests, too, we are met by these
> attempted flames by the vulgari. Is there any real wonder why a 2/3 majority
> of the Senate has called for a dictator to resolve our problems?
>
> Vale
>


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

Salvete,

I, too, have a Roman-themed tattoo which I just had done on the 26th of June, wonderfully soon after I received my NR citizenship (a happy coincidence). I love it very much and don't regret it in the slightest, and I don't think I ever will.

This was a rather pointless post, but just my two cents, heh. ;)

Valete,
Livia Ocella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Aeternia Neroni et omnibus s.p.d.
>
>
> Something tells me, I need to chime in on this since I'm very pro
> body-modification... As someone else who has tattoo's and will definitely
> get more, Nero does make a point that was then and this is now..
>
> Since body modification (i.e. tattoo's, piercings, implants, etc etc) has
> evolved, grown, and spread over time, its now a very common practice to get
> some "ink". Who knows perhaps if the Roman Empire had remained intact,
> perhaps it would have been embraced who knows..
>
> Meanwhile, Nero I'd love to hear what you have planned.. I also have
> something "Roman based" for a tattoo design, if nothing more contact me
> off-list so it doesn't upset the flow of the forum..
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > I know the Romans did not like tattoos but that was then this is now, there
> > is
> > so much we have changed from our forefathers, besides I already have two
> > why not
> > one more?
> > Further who's to say that by now the Romans wouldn't have changed their
> > minds
> > and said they were ok, if they were still around of course
> > DSTIC
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi%40aol.com>" <
> > QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi%40aol.com>>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 4:27:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: tattoos
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/22/2010 3:12:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > cheetahgirl5@... <cheetahgirl5%40yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Please enlighten me about why we Americans are different from our roman
> > counterparts in terms of tattooing
> >
> > Because we are Americans. We are Swedes, Germans, Goths, Irish, Scots,
> > Italians, Anglo-Saxons, French et al. One big melting pot.
> >
> > In the US Armed forces a painful tattoo is considered a rite of passage.
> > Solidarity. In the 90s it instead became an art form to illustrate that to
> > have sex was to die.
> >
> > Interesting you mention American Indians. I read a paper several years
> > ago which compared the Sioux face and body painting designs to be very
> > similar to the Skythian tattoos. Since the curtain fell, the Russians have
> > been
> >
> > sharing a lot of their knowledge with the US on Skythians, as well as the
> > Sarmations. We are catching up quickly on a previous little known culture.
> >
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
> >
> > [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]
>

Salvete,

It is not surprising that with the political upheavals going on at the moment that the state of the ML should be more heated and tense than usual.

Nonetheless, I would ask everyone to continue being mindful of their words and would like to offer the following suggestion: if you disagree with someone's words, especially when you feel some facts are being misrepresented, do not call the person a liar, but rather state that the position being espoused is wrong/misinformed/etc.

The moment you make a direct accusation of dishonesty, unless it can be demonstrated in some overwhelmingly obvious way from public records, you are closing down all hopes of dialog, no matter how slim they may already be.

If you truly feel that the other party is being dishonest and wish to publicly state that claim, you may do so, but I ask that you then withdraw from arguing with that individual on that topic since all hope of dialog will have been eliminated and continued bickering would contribute nothing but noise and disruption.

Valete,

M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
Praetorian Quaestor

Gaius Tullius Valerianus M. Horatio Piscino S.P.D.

Salve! Your post addressed to Censor Modianus reveals a lack of
understanding of some basic facts, so I thought I could help, since it may
be a while before Censor Modianus has time to correct you (as I am sure he
will).

You wrote:

> Weren't you thrown off the Back Alley on false accusations of reposting
> emails from there? Wasn't Hortensia once thrown out on such an accusation?
> So Sulla can not only post from the sealled chambers of the Senate and our
> collegia to the Back Alley, but he can also repost from the Back Alley to
> our public lists in Nova Roma. tsk, tsk. It seem just the other day Sulla
> was claiming he had taken Fabius Maximus to task for doing that sort of
> thing.
>

I reply:
Modianus was removed on suspicion of breaking the one rule of the
private club he had joined, which was that communications within that
private club remain exclusively within that club. The Back Alley is a
private club, not an official Nova Roman list, and is allowed to have
whatever rules its private owners decide, as you know. That one rule has
been enforced in the past. There is no presumption of innocence in this -
suspicion is enough to have someone removed temporarily or permanently - a
rule one accepts when one becomes a member of the club. I accept it - if I
am ever even suspected of breaking the trust of the club, I shall be
removed. I was there when Modianus said he accepted the rules of the club.
So. Was Modianus removed on suspicion? Yes he was. Was this fair? Maybe not.
But the rules are the rules. Hortensia Maior, as you mention, was - not
once, as you say, but more than once - removed for breaking this rule - and
she boasted of having done so. Not suspicion, in her case. She can't seem to
follow any rules - the Back Alley's rules, the rules of the praetura (being
convicted of her crimes), the Constitution of Nova Roma - there's a pattern
there, Piscine!
Now, I haven't seen where Sulla did repost from the BA to the Public
lists, but I suspect that if he did, he was reposting his own posts -
perfectly in accord with the rules. His own thoughts and ideas are his own
intellectual property. He may repost his own thoughts as he likes.
Furthermore, I can attest that I have never known Sulla to break the
tradition - not law or rule, but merely tradition - of the so-called Senate
Seal, except (again) to repost his own thoughts elsewhere.

You wrote:

> Apparently a false accusation can get you thrown out of the Back Alley, but
> dare anyone to make a complaint about Sulla or Fabius Maximus sexually
> harrassing women and all of their accusers are decried as liars. I would
> like to know, Censor Modiane, where our defenders of public moralirty are?
> And where are the moderators who allow such baseless lies and name-calling
> to continue by Board members against our members, Directors, officers and
> sacerdotes?
>

I respond:
Let me see if I understand you, Piscine. You are repeating old
accusation that have apparently never been proven, or perhaps been
disproved, in order to decry "baseless lies and name-calling?" And you
implicitly defend at least one person who was actually proved and convicted
of her misdeeds?
Either way, there is no such thing as a false accusation that can get
one thrown out of the Back Alley. But suspicion of breaking the rules can.
Modianus was suspected of breaking the rules - and he's out. Simple as that.
You can join yourself and find out the truth of how things work there, if
you would like to know whereof you speak.

You wrote:

> When we have real problems to contend with, the resolution of which will
> benefit all Nova Roma Citizens and our guests, too, we are met by these
> attempted flames by the vulgari. Is there any real wonder why a 2/3 majority
> of the Senate has called for a dictator to resolve our problems?
>

I respond:
There are real problems to contend with, mostly the making of the very
people now crying for a dictator to save them from the mess they've made. As
a plebeian citizen, I rely on the tribunes to prevent this sort of nonsense,
but even 4 of them seem to be derelict in their duties. An illegal Senate
session and an attempted coup isn't the answer to Nova Roma's problems,
Piscine. You are the Pontifex Maximus, a consular, a man of title and
position and respect. Why do you not stand for the people of Nova Roma
against this coup? Why are you not representing the people's interests? Why
are you obstructing the due process of the law?

~ Valerianus


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

Yep just the constant deflection... From the same people that got rid of
NR's Founders.

Typical of them.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> A skillful attempt to change the subject, O abominable false priest, but
> unsubstantiated allegations from long ago against Q. Fabius Maximus are
> irrelevant to the current crisis, a crisis brought about by your devious
> schemes.
>
> The web site is abandoned because you moved against the true Pontifex
> Maximus,
> M. Cassius Iulianus, and the senior Augur, L. Equitius Cincinnatus Augur.
> You
> have abused your stolen position like no augur ever before, attempting to
> overturn the actions of a lawfully elected consul. You chastise a priestess
> and
> make demands of her with no authority to do so, as your colleague and equal
>
> Metellus points out. Your fawning lackey, wrongfully elected to consecutive
>
> terms as Censor, has conspired with you to neutralize the one Pontifex with
> the
> courage to stand up to you.
>
> And soon, the crisis you engineered will be used to enshrine another of
> your
> allies as a false Dictator. No doubt the proscriptions will soon follow.
> Did
> you and he draw up the list together?
>
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
>
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>


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

Modianus wrote:

> They are not something lightly given
> out, and have to be used with the utmost of discretion.

Not lightly given out?

You slapped a Nota on a long-time, productive, accomplished citizen, because of
a one-paragraph insult against someone who continuously abuses whatever power
she's given, who has a history of joining the BackAlley list and forwarding
other people's messages, and who herself has one of the nastiest mouths and
personalities we've ever seen here. The person who almost daily posts that her
enemies "accomplish nothing for Nova Roma", who calls them atheists, who has
said Sulla and Cato "despise the Gods".

And somehow her actions *don't* deserve a nota?

You nota'd someone over a routine insult, the kind that happens here every day.
It just happened to be better written than most.

But your attack dog must be protected at all costs, right?

Back in my day one had to be a famous neo-Nazi who misrepresented Nova Roma to
the United States Government to get nota'd. We didn't use the Censors' office
as a political weapon then.

Never before has a nota been given out over such a trivial matter.

A one paragraph insult, directed at a serial abuser.

Disgraceful.


Vale,
M. Octavius Gracchus,
Consular.

crossposted, 18:19 CDT

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams

Ave Octavius,

Well no Octavius, she does their bidding. So, its sanctioned by those
individuals. Just look at the state of NR now. Look at how divided and
full of discord it is now. It is all because of those who are trying to set
up a coup against the Res Publica. They want to destroy the Republic and
everything created by Cassius and Vedius. They want to destroy NR and this
action will pretty much ensure the demise of NR - in more ways than one.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> Modianus wrote:
>
> > They are not something lightly given
> > out, and have to be used with the utmost of discretion.
>
> Not lightly given out?
>
> You slapped a Nota on a long-time, productive, accomplished citizen,
> because of
> a one-paragraph insult against someone who continuously abuses whatever
> power
> she's given, who has a history of joining the BackAlley list and forwarding
>
> other people's messages, and who herself has one of the nastiest mouths and
>
> personalities we've ever seen here. The person who almost daily posts that
> her
> enemies "accomplish nothing for Nova Roma", who calls them atheists, who
> has
> said Sulla and Cato "despise the Gods".
>
> And somehow her actions *don't* deserve a nota?
>
> You nota'd someone over a routine insult, the kind that happens here every
> day.
> It just happened to be better written than most.
>
> But your attack dog must be protected at all costs, right?
>
> Back in my day one had to be a famous neo-Nazi who misrepresented Nova Roma
> to
> the United States Government to get nota'd. We didn't use the Censors'
> office
> as a political weapon then.
>
> Never before has a nota been given out over such a trivial matter.
>
> A one paragraph insult, directed at a serial abuser.
>
> Disgraceful.
>
> Vale,
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular.
>
> crossposted, 18:19 CDT
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
>
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>


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

Salve Graecus;

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:03 PM, gualterus_graecus wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> It is not surprising that with the political upheavals going on at the moment that the state of the ML should be more heated and tense than usual.
>
> [excision]

Received 20 hours after it was sent...

Vale - Venator

Truer words have never been spoken. I am in complete agreement, M.
Octavius.

As we discussed last night, you and I had a very tumultuous consulship. We
were both 29 years old, hot-headed, and inexperienced. The consuls cannot
say that this year. Yet neither you nor I even once thought of appointing a
dictator, plotting a coup against each other or against NR. We said harsh
words against each other. We vetoed each other. But, that was it. This is
why, I believe that we have been able to put the past behind us and move
forward. It was political but not personal.

The current consuls not only skipped that phase, but flat out are
endangering the existence of Nova Roma and MORE IMPORTANTLY Nova Roma Inc.


Is it not enough that we would not have to even PAY $10000 if we did not
lose the infinitely valuable services you gave to NR?

Look at NR now, in every way NR is poorer under the leadership of Piscinus,
Modianus and the rest of the plotters. It is an undeniable fact. Number
are down, revenue is down, everything is in decline.
Cassius and Vedius are necessary elements in fixing NR and they should be,
along with Cincinnatus and yourself, brought back to help rebuild NR and
right the wrongs that these coup plotters have done.

Vedius is the only Dictator NR has ever had and so far is the only Dictator
NR ever needed.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus M Morauio Piscino Horatiano dicit.
>
> > May the Gods forgive any
> > college of which you are a member that does not eradicate and purify
> > itself of you and the shame, impiety, and guilt you bring upon it,
> > lest the Gods forsake them, as they ought.
>
> Well said.
>
> Have not the past two and a half years taught the citizens of Nova Roma
> anything? Has not the malaise, the rancor, the magisterial incompetence and
>
> malfeasance, the endless series of failures and crises, demonstrated
> anything?
>
> The gods abhor the usurper who now squats in the place of the true Pontifex
>
> Maximus, our beloved Pater Patriae Marcus Cassius Iulianus, shunned and
> rejected
> by the collegia that he created. In his place is a bully and plotter, a man
> of
> ruthless ambition and ego, who continues his attempts to accrete more power
> to
> himself, and in doing so has brought about the destruction of Nova Roma.
>
> This false priest connived and schemed to be elected to the Collegium
> Augurum,
> and then immediately launched an absurd "treason" trial against the senior
> Augur, Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus AUGUR (I give his full and true agnomen
> here,
> in contempt of those who schemed to have it taken away), over a trivial
> matter
> of ownership of a disused mailing list.
>
> He has befouled both the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum, which
> he
> and his lackeys now use as political tools against the one consul who had
> the
> courage to stand up to them.
>
> And what of the current crisis? It began with a disagreement over the
> mundane
> matter of how to obtain programming services for the web site; services
> that I
> provided, free of charge, for eight years. I withdrew my efforts, and
> turned my
> back on Nova Roma, as a direct result of Piscinus' and Modianus' plot to
> wrest
> control of the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum away from those
> who
> built them. Were it not for their coup of 2008, you would not have lost my
> services, would not have lost all hope of a maintainable web site, would
> not be
> talking of allocating half the treasury to recreating it, would not soon be
>
> under the thumb of a Dictator.
>
> Why is Nova Roma now at its nadir? It is because the man who reawakened the
>
> Cultus Deorum after sixteen hundred years of neglect has been illegally and
>
> impiously deposed.
>
> The foremost of the conspirators responsible now claims his title.
>
> I name him ABOMINATION.
>
> Valete,
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular,
> supporter of the true Pontifex Maximus.
>
> crossposted, 11:31 CDT.
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@... <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
> Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>
>


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

Yahoo is all messed up.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Graecus;
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:03 PM, gualterus_graecus wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > It is not surprising that with the political upheavals going on at the
> moment that the state of the ML should be more heated and tense than usual.
> >
> > [excision]
>
> Received 20 hours after it was sent...
>
> Vale - Venator
>
>

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus M. Octavio Graccho salutem dicit

I was willing to issue a nota gainst Marca Hortensia Maior, and told my
colleague of my willingness. However, notae are joint endeavors. If you
came back simply to attack me or bait me to attack you then don't waste your
time. I have no intention of counter attacking you. I have made peace with
you once before and I have no intention with fighting with you.

Vale;

Modianus

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

>
>
> Modianus wrote:
>
> > They are not something lightly given
> > out, and have to be used with the utmost of discretion.
>
> Not lightly given out?
>
> You slapped a Nota on a long-time, productive, accomplished citizen,
> because of
> a one-paragraph insult against someone who continuously abuses whatever
> power
> she's given, who has a history of joining the BackAlley list and forwarding
>
> other people's messages, and who herself has one of the nastiest mouths and
>
> personalities we've ever seen here. The person who almost daily posts that
> her
> enemies "accomplish nothing for Nova Roma", who calls them atheists, who
> has
> said Sulla and Cato "despise the Gods".
>
> And somehow her actions *don't* deserve a nota?
>
> You nota'd someone over a routine insult, the kind that happens here every
> day.
> It just happened to be better written than most.
>
> But your attack dog must be protected at all costs, right?
>
> Back in my day one had to be a famous neo-Nazi who misrepresented Nova Roma
> to
> the United States Government to get nota'd. We didn't use the Censors'
> office
> as a political weapon then.
>
> Never before has a nota been given out over such a trivial matter.
>
> A one paragraph insult, directed at a serial abuser.
>
> Disgraceful.
>
> Vale,
> M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular.
>
>


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

Salvete omnes,
actually I think this comic idea is really good! I'm glad we already have a
designer.
One doesn't need to mention Nova Roma in the actual comic.

A simple plot outline could be the following:

A group of people all dressed in costumes at a Roman re-enacting event have
been quarreling for hours.
The gods watching from above decide to have a bit of fun seeing just how
much the re-enactors' "roman-ness" would withstand the encounter with the
real thing, and send them all across space and time to the Forum Romanum
around 50 C.E.

From here the developments are endless and could provide us with a whole
comic series.

Unfortunately I'm not a good writer, but here are some comical elements
which can be developed by people with more talent than myself:

- A group of barbarians dressed up as Romans, but who can't speak Latin, are
spotted in the Forum.

- Some people whom nobody recognizes as senators or pontifices are wearing a
collection of togae pretextae and tunicae with laticlavi and angusticlavi.

- The embroidered sari worn by one man draws a lot of interest and offers of
purchase.

- The woman in a toga gets asked for her price, but nobody can understand
the answer.

- One man draws a lot of attention because nobody has ever seen such a fat
man before. People start to inquire as to his owner.

- The crucifix worn by one man as a pendant catches the eye of some youths
who find it very cool to wear the image of a criminal. The name they make
out as "Zizus Caest" of course doesn't ring any bells. They think it must be
some some famous tribal chief from Gallia or Britannia. Nobody suspects it
has to do with a particular sect of Judaism.

- A man who speaks Latin with Gallic accent claims ownership of the group of
funnily-dressed barbarian slaves, and explains that the meeting is a
publicity stunt for circus games to be given in a few days.


Optime valete,
Livia

>I have good drawing experience since I was 14. Recently I have learned to
> draw the eyes and the face in realistic style. If you would want to, I
> would draw it and paint it to look funny like in the Springfield News
> Leader Comic.
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:18:47 -0500, Aqvillivs Rota
> <c.aqvillivs_rota@...> wrote:
>
>> Salvete omnes,
>>
>> If anyone is interested, the Castra Rota is currently searching comic
>> designers to launch a new political comic after the idea of Asterix and
>> Obelix. Sulla and Cato two funny Roman Senators making fun of our
>> political landscape in the West.
>>
>>
>> I think it is really a great idea, if we can get a good painter and a
>> texter
>> this could become a NR mascot comic!
>> Who is interested please respond!
>>
>> Rota
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Aqvillivs Rota <c.aqvillivs_rota@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Aqvillivs Rota <c.aqvillivs_rota@...>
>> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]NEW PROGRAM SULLA & CATO the Remake of Pat and
>> Patachon
>> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 1:09 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Salvete omnes,
>>
>>
>>
>> wellcome to the Mainlist of Nova Roma !!!
>>
>>
>>
>> We proudly present within our Friday evening program motto "funny - dumb
>> - and sensless"
>>
>>
>>
>> The all new SULLA & Cato Show the funniest Romans on the entire Web!
>> With their humor, obstruction and rudeness they present again in the
>> most ironic way what Roman values should be. After Asterix and Obelix
>> surely the most laughable family show ever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Their team is unbeatable in creativity to teach us HOW NOT TO PROCEED as
>> a Roman.
>>
>>
>>
>> ATTENTION***ACHTUNG***ATTENZIONE Watch your kids and make sure they do
>> not copy this. Only under supervision of an adult.
>>
>>
>>
>> We proudly invite everyone to watch our two funny Nova Roma Stars now
>> every Friday evening 2.30 AM Rome time.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is just a show and does not express the opinion of Nova Roma nor
>>
>> its political opinions.
>>
>>
>>
>> WATCH NOW it is free !!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Have fun
>>
>> C.Aqu.Rota
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 7/24/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
>>
>> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Sulla ShowRe: What do the obstructionists don't
>> understand ...
>>
>> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 12:43 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow Sulla
>>
>>
>>
>> How did you get all of that from a plot to increase the posts on the
>> main list?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh and who is "you guys" I only count one where I am sitting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey its your show not mine so you get to be plain silly, it's up to you
>> if you want to be the Boogey Man,although you are not very frightening -
>> Carry on:)
>>
>>
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>>
>>
>> Julia
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh Iulia,
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am so suspicious, OOOOH so first its the boni (Plotter Messalina rants
>>
>>
>>
>>> about), then its the BA (Plotter Piscinus rants about). Now its SULLA.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you guys please make up your mind which one is the bigger boogeyman
>>> and
>>
>>
>>
>>> stick to it. Otherwise it's just plain silly.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Vale,
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sulla
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
>>
>>
>>
>>> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Salvete omnes!
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Sulla is suspicious!
>>
>>
>>
>>> > If he wasn't so busy looking for something that is not there he would
>>> see
>>
>>
>>
>>> > what is plain in front of his eyes!
>>
>>
>>
>>> > He would recognize the true conspiracy!
>>
>>
>>
>>> > One that he would hold close to his heart!
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > And that is:
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > The plan is to cause enough controversy to cause a proliferation of
>>> posts
>>
>>
>>
>>> > so we could drive up the number of messages on the ML!
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Number! It's about post numbers Sulla!
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > How ever did you miss it? Something so important to you!
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > *laughs*
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Vale,
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Julia
>>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > Yes! We barely had 12 hours to debate it. But let me tell you,
>>> consul
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > incompetent was sure ready with that agenda item, as if it was
>>
>>
>>
>>> > suspiciously
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > ready to go with little to NO notice.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > Vale,
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > Sulla
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>>> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>>
>>
>>
>>> > 40yahoogroups.com>, Gnaeus
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > > 3. Without very much notice, a few hours, a proposal for a
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > > dictatorship was rammed into the agenda and a vote scheduled
>>> quickly
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > > thereafter. A rather grubby way to impose a coup, but well
>>> tried and
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > tested
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > by totalitarian regimes.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > A "few hours"?
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Are you saying they're trying to ram through the single most
>>> drastic
>>
>>
>>
>>> > and
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > most
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > important Senatus Consultum in the history of NR, with only a few
>>
>>
>>
>>> > *hours*
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > of debate?
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Gods, what audacity they have!
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > If they're trying to push this through without even the debate
>>> period
>>
>>
>>
>>> > the
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Senate
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > rules require, that's an even more egregious violation of
>>> protocol,
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > tradition,
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > and common sense, than ignoring a Consul's veto.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > When I was consul, I made the mistake of trying to simply reword
>>> an
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > existing
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > agenda item at the last minute, and was soundly - and correctly -
>>
>>
>>
>>> > reamed
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > for it
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > by Pater Patriae Vedius. ONE DOES NOT CHANGE THE AGENDA DURING
>>> DEBATE!
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > We had actual standards in those days.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > To think that the band of incompetents in charge now are trying
>>> to do
>>
>>
>>
>>> > the
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > most
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > drastic action in NR's history without even allowing a proper
>>> debate
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > period...
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > well, it's only what we've come to expect from them.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > M. Octavius Gracchus,
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Consular in Exile.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Crossposted, NR & BA, 18:43 CDT.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > --
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Matt Hucke (hucke@ <hucke%40cynico.net>), programmer.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > > "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." - D. Adams
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>> > > [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]
>>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>