Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Sep 1 - 4, 2010

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80220 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80221 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80222 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80223 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80224 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80225 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80226 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80227 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80228 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80229 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80230 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80231 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80232 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80233 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80234 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80235 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80236 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80237 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80238 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Re Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80239 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80240 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80241 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: KALENDAE SEPTEMBRES: Juno Regina, Jupiter Tonans
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80242 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80243 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80244 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80245 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80246 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: *IMPORTANT* - Speaking in the Forum : cives and addresses
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80247 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80248 From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80249 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80250 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80251 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80252 From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80253 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80254 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80255 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80256 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80257 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80258 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80259 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80260 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80261 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80262 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80263 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80264 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80265 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80267 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80268 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80269 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80270 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80271 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80272 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80273 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80274 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80275 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80276 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80277 From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: After every Kalends, Nones, Ides, the next day is "Ater", 9/2/2010,
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80278 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80279 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "False Re
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80280 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "False
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80281 From: Gaius Aurelius Vindex Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-An
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80282 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80283 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: comment on disertations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80284 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "Fals
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80285 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "Fals
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80286 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80287 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80288 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRom
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80289 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80290 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80291 From: Gnaea Livia Ocella Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: comment on disertations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80292 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80293 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80294 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80295 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80296 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: a. d. IV Nonas Septembris: The Battle of Actium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80297 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80298 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80299 From: robert574674 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80300 From: Aqvillivs Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: CONVENTUS ET CASTRA MERCATORIA NEWS !!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80301 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80302 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: CONVENTUS ET CASTRA MERCATORIA NEWS !!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80303 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80304 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: comment on disertations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80305 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80306 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80307 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80308 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80309 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80310 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80311 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80312 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80313 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: LVDI ROMANI 2763 AVC - CHARIOT RACE: Last Call for charioteers!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80314 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80315 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80316 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80317 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80318 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80319 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80320 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80321 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80322 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80323 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80324 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: The Roman Library at Box.net
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80325 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80326 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80327 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80328 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80329 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80330 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80331 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80332 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80333 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80334 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80335 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80336 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80337 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80338 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80339 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80340 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80341 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80342 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80343 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80344 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80345 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80346 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80347 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80348 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80349 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80350 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: LVDI ROMANI 2763 AVC EXTENSION Call for charioteers!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80351 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80352 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80353 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80354 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80355 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80356 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80357 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80358 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80359 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80360 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80361 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80362 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Latin salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80363 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Latin salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80364 From: Terry Wilson Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80365 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Latin salutations
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80366 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80367 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80368 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80369 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: a. d. III Nonas Septembris: Flamen Dialis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80370 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80371 From: csentiusleoninus Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80372 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80373 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80374 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80375 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80376 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80377 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80378 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80379 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80380 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Pre-Ludi Romani Humorous Roman Skit Contest
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80381 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80382 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80383 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80384 From: flavius_vedius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80385 From: jeancourdant Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80386 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80387 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80388 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80389 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80390 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80391 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80392 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80393 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80394 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-04
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80395 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-04
Subject: Re: ex nihilo



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80220 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Salve,

> B. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall serve as the Pontifex
> Maximus, pro tempore, beginning Id. Sep. MMDCCLXIII auc, and lasting
> until a decretum is issued detailing the duties of a pontifex maximus
> or through pr. Id. Mar. MDCCLXIV auc, whichever is sooner."

An unexpected, and very welcome development.

Pontifex Graecus, I urge you to accept.

Whatever you think of Piscinus as a man, there is no question but that he is
very controversial; he has fractured the citizens, the Collegium Pontificum, the
Comitia Curiata.

There are those who think him a squatter, an usurper, a traitor, despised by the
gods for the way he cast out our Founders. And there those who gaze upon him
with adoration, as their saviour, and the one who smote their enemies.

Everything that he says or does is interpreted in light of his personal honour
or lack thereof. Everything he writes is viewed through whatever lens has been
shaped by our past experiences with this polarizing individual.

Even laying aside the events by which he seized power two years ago, consider
the events of the past month, in which he bullied and threatened a Lictor who
had the courage to disobey an illegal order (and who was later proven *correct*
in his refusal, when the candidate for Dictator consulted a *real* attorney).

If Piscinus remains as Pontifex Maximus, the credibility of the Collegium is
tied to his own.

Pontifex Graecus, you are - as far as I know - universally admired as a diligent
scholar who stays out of the political mire. You would restore *dignity* to an
office that has been sadly lacking in it these past two years. Were you to take
the office of Pontifex Maximus, your words and actions and decrees would be
judged by your own merits, not by the taint of past wickedness.

The Collegium Pontificum, battered and bruised, needs a leader who will lead it
forward, not lead it deeper into the swamp.

Pontifex Maximus Graecus, please stand and accept.

Vale, M. Octavius,
Consular, ex-citizen.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80221 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
C. Petronius Minuciae Marcellae s.p.d.,

> Another few questions I have about a possible dissolution and/or separation:

I think this bad solution (dissolution) never will happen. We have to search for all which gather us together than divide us.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80222 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
I did not say it was absolutely 100% caused by the Gods, I said it might be.
And apparently no one will listen to what the Gods have to say or was this
thread not made for the lack of auguries.
And for the record, I am chill, you should see me when I get mad.
DTIC
Nero



________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:59:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices


Salve Nero

I think the satire in my friend's Sulla's post was more directed at Piscinus
than anyone else, because he found it absurd that anyone would make that
statement having minimal information about the facts. Remember in ancient times
everyone and their aunt was always seeing portents - or so they thought - but
simply seeing one wasn't enough. It had to be investigated, researched,
confirmed and discussed. The FACTS were examined. In this case someone would
have arrived to investigate the role the washing machine and the pillow case
played.

Now, I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge the Collegium Pontificum
has not met to discuss Sulla's flood and the relationship, if any, his pillow
case played in it, or why his washing machine clogged. Therefore the possible
disfavour by the Gods is not an official opinion ventured by the PM on behalf of
the collegium but instead obviously just a satirical dig at Sulla. I thought
Sulla turned it around rather adeptly with his very Roman risposte about good
fortune from adversity.


As for the comment on his operation since Sulla prays to a different deity that
is a matter for Sulla to investigate if he so wishes with the appropriate Judaic
religious authorities. I highly doubt our Gods would have punished Sulla by
clogging his washing machine. The least one could have expected was something
dire and awe invoking. A piddly flood caused by a pillow hardly seems up to the
might of IOM for example. Let us retain some vestige of common sense here. As
for his operation, well no doubt much to the dismay of many he is still with us.


Not every act, action etc is the work of the Gods and to even claim that
requires painstaking research and validation. I see none here surrounding the
PM's claim. It could be blasphemy for you to claim blasphemy, for aren't you
taking onto yourself the right to speak for the Gods of the res publica?

If you are going to survive Nova Roma with any degree of sanity left you need to
go and order a large bottle of chill pills and consume them at a large dosage
rate before reading this forum.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:24 PM

I have no problem with christians my problem lies in christianity which I admit
is a flaw in me.
I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society which our forefathers
built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it was destroyed so much
art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith. Millions were and are
killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand because of a faith. Also
some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter ten feet from a
church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips I would get little
flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it got so bad.
I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not proud of it, but I was
not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was raised and what I
have been exposed to.
Nero.
As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as hate speech I know
christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.

________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices

LOL

Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a start!

Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you have no thought about it,
perhaps?

I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much as we mortals do,
at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin Williams said, just look at
the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.

And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am allied to - cultor or
non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I have been Consular twice
and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the Religio - my problem are
with various individuals. Not the Religio. That is the difference. Just
like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still be a Church
going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this as she would
attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).

And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. Because your posts do
tend to come off that you have serious issues with Christianity in general
and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed to Christians. I
have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own experiences.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I just almost died
> laughing
> right now.
> It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> I am friends with many christians and at least in my circle of friends, we
> go
> out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz here people), but if
> I ask
> them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because and I quote "I can't
> stay
> out too late, I have church in the morning."
> And the main point of my last post is that they could do what they wanted,
> they
> are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound by our laws. You are
>
> which is the whole point of this whole list of posts. If you were not
> sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died many many years ago then
> I
> wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you that they are
> important
> to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes about your god then I
> will
> allow jokes about mine.
> Nero
>
> P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up people for trial
> without my
> acknowledgment.
> And as a matter of record I don't have problems with monotheists unless
> they
> want to start something first.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
> So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy but by the end of
> your
> post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you do not know the
> relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then that leaves open that
> by your own rationale the ancient writers like Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> others are blasphemous, right?
>
> Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I am not - that makes it
> ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I am going with this?
>
> You have defeated your own argument.
>
> Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate speech.
>
> Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be it. But you do not
> make your example any better by bringing that up.
>
> And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am Jewish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > No they were not, they were paid for that job, and also went home at the
> > end of
> > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > Just like the christians who go out and bomb abortion clinics and spout
> > hate and
> > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and poof just like magic
> the
> > sin
> > is gone.
> > I do not know what relationship the ancients had with their Gods but I'm
> > sure
> > that the satires and comedians had their reasons.
> > That and they were actually funny unlike some people......
> > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that when I show you the
> > constitution
> > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> >
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that all those ancient Roman
> > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms of comedic writings that
> > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer the question. Don't avoid
> > not answering it.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> ><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > They are dead and gone and were not under our laws.
> > >
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> 40gmail.com>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > And, are you implying that all those ancient Roman Writers who used
> > Satire,
> > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing that involved the Gods are
> also
> > > blasphemous?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
>
> > 40gmail.com>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > And where does it say that in the Constitution?
> > > >
> > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies without knowing the full story of
> > what
> > > is
> > > > involved giving a false impression - should that not be countered?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Any action that may have been ira deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > taken
> > > >>
> > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > >> Joking about the Gods shows disrespect for the Gods.
> > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nero
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > ><robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >> >
> > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09 PM
> > > >>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >>
> > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > >>
> > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous and why?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > >><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in violation of the constitution.
> > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > >> > DTIC
> > > >> > Nero
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> >
> > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > ><robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > >
> > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:09:48 PM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to respond to just this part.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > That means that the insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > the
> > > >> Virgo
> > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of the Constitution. And so were his
> remarks
> > > >> about
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > to
> > > >> him
> > > >> > when
> > > >> > > his operation went bad and his house flooded
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > Oh really?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I believe my house flooded because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > machine
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > the Washing machine ate it up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > back
> > > >> up
> > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Let us not forget the rationale world Ok?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And, if by some remote chance the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > kind
> > > >> of
> > > >> > luck again, because I got enough money from the insurance
> settlement
> > > >> that I
> > > >> > was able to redo my Master Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > at
> > > >> all
> > > >> > by
> > > >> > the minor flood that happened.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I can use some more of that bonus anytime!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Vale,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sulla
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [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]
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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]
>
>
>

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links



[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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80223 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Yes I'll hang with the ones who call my Gods monstrous delusions of the past and
my orientation an abomination...
Nero



________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:31:13 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices


Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

If you want to experience a whole different Christian mentality, I would suggest
that you try hanging out with Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox :) It's a whole
different mindset.

NOTE TO PRAETURA: this is NOT proselytization.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with christians my problem lies in christianity which I admit
>
> is a flaw in me.
> I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society which our forefathers
> built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it was destroyed so much

> art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith. Millions were and are
>
> killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand because of a faith. Also

> some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter ten feet from a
> church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips I would get little

> flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it got so bad.
> I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not proud of it, but I was
>
> not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was raised and what I
> have been exposed to.
> Nero.
> As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as hate speech I know

> christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
> LOL
>
> Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a start!
>
> Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you have no thought about it,
> perhaps?
>
> I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much as we mortals do,
> at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin Williams said, just look at
> the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
>
> And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am allied to - cultor or
> non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I have been Consular twice
> and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the Religio - my problem are
> with various individuals. Not the Religio. That is the difference. Just
> like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still be a Church
> going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this as she would
> attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
>
> And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. Because your posts do
> tend to come off that you have serious issues with Christianity in general
> and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed to Christians. I
> have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own experiences.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I just almost died
> > laughing
> > right now.
> > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > I am friends with many christians and at least in my circle of friends, we
> > go
> > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz here people), but if
> > I ask
> > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because and I quote "I can't
> > stay
> > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > And the main point of my last post is that they could do what they wanted,
> > they
> > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound by our laws. You are
> >
> > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts. If you were not
> > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died many many years ago then
> > I
> > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you that they are
> > important
> > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes about your god then I
> > will
> > allow jokes about mine.
> > Nero
> >
> > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up people for trial
> > without my
> > acknowledgment.
> > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with monotheists unless
> > they
> > want to start something first.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy but by the end of
> > your
> > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you do not know the
> > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then that leaves open that
> > by your own rationale the ancient writers like Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > others are blasphemous, right?
> >
> > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I am not - that makes it
> > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I am going with this?
> >
> > You have defeated your own argument.
> >
> > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate speech.
> >
> > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be it. But you do not
> > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> >
> > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am Jewish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> ><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > No they were not, they were paid for that job, and also went home at the
> > > end of
> > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb abortion clinics and spout
> > > hate and
> > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and poof just like magic
> > the
> > > sin
> > > is gone.
> > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had with their Gods but I'm
> > > sure
> > > that the satires and comedians had their reasons.
> > > That and they were actually funny unlike some people......
> > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that when I show you the
> > > constitution
> > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > >
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that all those ancient Roman
> > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms of comedic writings that
> > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer the question. Don't avoid
> > > not answering it.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They are dead and gone and were not under our laws.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >
> > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient Roman Writers who used
> > > Satire,
> > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing that involved the Gods are
> > also
> > > > blasphemous?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > > robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> >
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And where does it say that in the Constitution?
> > > > >
> > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies without knowing the full story of
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > involved giving a false impression - should that not be countered?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sulla
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any action that may have been ira deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > taken
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nero
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > ><robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09 PM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous and why?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > >><rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in violation of the constitution.
> > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > >> > Nero
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ________________________________
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:09:48 PM
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to respond to just this part.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > That means that the insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > the
> > > > >> Virgo
> > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of the Constitution. And so were his
> > remarks
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > to
> > > > >> him
> > > > >> > when
> > > > >> > > his operation went bad and his house flooded
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I believe my house flooded because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > machine
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > back
> > > > >> up
> > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let us not forget the rationale world Ok?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > kind
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > luck again, because I got enough money from the insurance
> > settlement
> > > > >> that I
> > > > >> > was able to redo my Master Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > at
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > by
> > > > >> > the minor flood that happened.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can use some more of that bonus anytime!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80224 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Is this fair or reasonable?

"Graecus claims my posts are not being approved because I didn't put any latin greetings in them. Seriously.


when I pointed out that neither does sulla, he came back with that since I'm not a civ, and I'm on moderation, then I have to comply with the made up rule and sulla gets more leeway."
Anna Bucci


Ridiculous.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> > M. HOrtensia Quiritibus spd;
>
> > I head from Anna today it seems she received 9 days! moderation for
> > being too logical with Graecus last night..
>
> > Considering the foul insults thrown at the Virgo Maxima by Cato and Sulla who
> > screamed at getting 3 days moderation, this sickens me.
>
> Annia is a non-citizen.
>
> I, too, am a non-citizen. I have been moderated ever since I returned to this
> list a month ago.
>
> (Which is fine by me; I don't expect the same rights that a citizen has).
>
> I, however, have never willingly defied the edict of the Praetors or their
> staff. I've used a few colourful idioms that they asked me to revise, which I
> willingly consented to. Never did I *disobey*, yet I remain moderated.
>
> In the interests of FAIRNESS, *all* non-citizens should be moderated.
>
> I am happy to remain moderated if the same standard is applied to others in my
> situation. But for me to be in a position inferior to that of Annia is absurd.
>
> Vale, M. Octavius.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80225 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
A lot of things could be caused by the Gods, but I highly doubt that included on their agenda is causing Sulla's washing machine to get clogged with a pillowcase.

I think those of us who believe in the Gods would always listen to what they have to say, were it a genuine portent. What I am doing is listening to what you say the Gods might have said or done, and there is of course a stark difference between the two. One involves the Gods directly and the other involves you speculating what they might of have done to his washing machine.

I am sure that at some point in the not too distant future I will see evidence of you being truly mad. It is only a question of how long. It happens to many in here. I hope you rise above the average displays of madness and put forth a spectacular display of frothing, gnashing and convulsing. Life can be so tedious on here at times, with only Maior to entertain us.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:26 PM
> I did not say it was absolutely 100%
> caused by the Gods, I said it might be.
> And apparently no one will listen to what the Gods have to
> say or was this
> thread not made for the lack of auguries.
> And for the record, I am chill, you should see me when I
> get mad.
> DTIC
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:59:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
>  
> Salve Nero
>
> I think the satire in my friend's Sulla's post was more
> directed at Piscinus
> than anyone else, because he found it absurd that anyone
> would make that
> statement having minimal information about the facts.
> Remember in ancient times
> everyone and their aunt was always seeing portents - or so
> they thought - but
> simply seeing one wasn't enough. It had to be investigated,
> researched,
> confirmed and discussed. The FACTS were examined. In this
> case someone would
> have arrived to investigate the role the washing machine
> and the pillow case
> played.
>
> Now, I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge the
> Collegium Pontificum
> has not met to discuss Sulla's flood and the relationship,
> if any, his pillow
> case played in it, or why his washing machine clogged.
> Therefore the possible
> disfavour by the Gods is not an official opinion ventured
> by the PM on behalf of
> the collegium but instead obviously just a satirical dig at
> Sulla. I thought
> Sulla turned it around rather adeptly with his very Roman
> risposte about good
> fortune from adversity.
>
>
> As for the comment on his operation since Sulla prays to a
> different deity that
> is a matter for Sulla to investigate if he so wishes with
> the appropriate Judaic
> religious authorities. I highly doubt our Gods would have
> punished Sulla by
> clogging his washing machine. The least one could have
> expected was something
> dire and awe invoking. A piddly flood caused by a pillow
> hardly seems up to the
> might of IOM for example. Let us retain some vestige of
> common sense here. As
> for his operation, well no doubt much to the dismay of many
> he is still with us.
>
>
> Not every act, action etc is the work of the Gods and to
> even claim that
> requires painstaking research and validation. I see none
> here surrounding the
> PM's claim. It could be blasphemy for you to claim
> blasphemy, for aren't you
> taking onto yourself the right to speak for the Gods of the
> res publica?
>
> If you are going to survive Nova Roma with any degree of
> sanity left you need to
> go and order a large bottle of chill pills and consume them
> at a large dosage
> rate before reading this forum.
>
> Vale bene
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:24 PM
>
> I have no problem with christians my problem lies in
> christianity which I admit
> is a flaw in me.
> I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society
> which our forefathers
> built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it
> was destroyed so much
> art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith.
> Millions were and are
> killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand
> because of a faith. Also
> some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter
> ten feet from a
> church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips
> I would get little
> flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it
> got so bad.
> I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not
> proud of it, but I was
> not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was
> raised and what I
> have been exposed to.
> Nero.
> As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as
> hate speech I know
> christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
> LOL
>
> Well good you have a sense of humor!  That is a
> start!
>
> Who does not joke about my G-d?  Maybe because you
> have no thought about it,
> perhaps?
>
> I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much
> as we mortals do,
> at least I hope so.  As the great Comedian Robin
> Williams said, just look at
> the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
>
> And, just a minor correct.  Nearly everyone who I am
> allied to - cultor or
> non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods.  I
> have been Consular twice
> and Censor twice.  I have taken Oaths to defend the
> Religio - my problem are
> with various individuals.  Not the Religio.  That
> is the difference.  Just
> like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still
> be a Church
> going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this
> as she would
> attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
>
> And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. 
> Because your posts do
> tend to come off that you have serious issues with
> Christianity in general
> and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed
> to Christians.  I
> have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own
> experiences.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I
> just almost died
> > laughing
> > right now.
> > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > I am friends with many christians and at least in my
> circle of friends, we
> > go
> > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz
> here people), but if
> > I ask
> > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because
> and I quote "I can't
> > stay
> > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > And the main point of my last post is that they could
> do what they wanted,
> > they
> > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound
> by our laws. You are
> >
> > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts.
> If you were not
> > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died
> many many years ago then
> > I
> > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you
> that they are
> > important
> > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes
> about your god then I
> > will
> > allow jokes about mine.
> > Nero
> >
> > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up
> people for trial
> > without my
> > acknowledgment.
> > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with
> monotheists unless
> > they
> > want to start something first.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy
> but by the end of
> > your
> > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you
> do not know the
> > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then
> that leaves open that
> > by your own rationale the ancient writers like
> Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > others are blasphemous, right?
> >
> > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I
> am not - that makes it
> > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I
> am going with this?
> >
> > You have defeated your own argument.
> >
> > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate
> speech.
> >
> > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be
> it. But you do not
> > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> >
> > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am
> Jewish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> ><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > No they were not, they were paid for that job,
> and also went home at the
> > > end of
> > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb
> abortion clinics and spout
> > > hate and
> > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and
> poof just like magic
> > the
> > > sin
> > > is gone.
> > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had
> with their Gods but I'm
> > > sure
> > > that the satires and comedians had their
> reasons.
> > > That and they were actually funny unlike some
> people......
> > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that
> when I show you the
> > > constitution
> > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > >
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that
> all those ancient Roman
> > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms
> of comedic writings that
> > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer
> the question. Don't avoid
> > > not answering it.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They are dead and gone and were not under
> our laws.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and
> auspices
> > > >
> > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient
> Roman Writers who used
> > > Satire,
> > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing
> that involved the Gods are
> > also
> > > > blasphemous?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert
> Woolwine <
> > > > robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> >
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And where does it say that in the
> Constitution?
> > > > >
> > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies
> without knowing the full story of
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > involved giving a false impression -
> should that not be countered?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sulla
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku
> Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any action that may have been ira
> deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > taken
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the
> Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows
> disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nero
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09
> PM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs
> and auspices
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous
> and why?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM,
> Riku Demyx
> > > > >><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in
> violation of the constitution.
> > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine
> law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > >> > Nero
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> ________________________________
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > >>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010
> 12:09:48 PM
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> Augurs and auspices
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to
> respond to just this part.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > That means that the
> insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > the
> > > > >> Virgo
> > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of
> the Constitution. And so were his
> > remarks
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to
> punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > to
> > > > >> him
> > > > >> > when
> > > > >> > > his operation went bad
> and his house flooded
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I believe my house flooded
> because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > machine
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it
> up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > back
> > > > >> up
> > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let us not forget the
> rationale world Ok?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance
> the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > kind
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > luck again, because I got
> enough money from the insurance
> > settlement
> > > > >> that I
> > > > >> > was able to redo my Master
> Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > at
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > by
> > > > >> > the minor flood that
> happened.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can use some more of that
> bonus anytime!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]
> >
> > 
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>      
>
> [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
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80226 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
Caesar Dextro sal.

I too think it is a bad idea, but regardless it would require coordination between the two halves, and that would require cooperation. I think you probably have spotted why this idea is a non-starter. A committee for dissolution would likely be formed which would conclude it's initial inquiries by, oh 2021, at best.

Optime vale

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Back to Partitioning
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:16 PM
> C. Petronius Minuciae Marcellae
> s.p.d.,
>
> > Another few questions I have about a possible
> dissolution and/or separation:
>
> I think this bad solution (dissolution) never will happen.
> We have to search for all which gather us together than
> divide us.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80227 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Salve Nero,

Oops the iPad seems to have eaten my salutation to you. Apologies on behalf of the infernal machine, though I note you omitted it too :)

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:46 PM
>
> A lot of things could be caused by the Gods, but I highly
> doubt that included on their agenda is causing Sulla's
> washing machine to get clogged  with a pillowcase.

> I am sure that at some point in the not too distant future
> I will see evidence of you being truly mad. It is only a
> question of how long. It happens to many in here. I hope you
> rise above the average displays of madness and put forth a
> spectacular display of frothing, gnashing and convulsing.
> Life can be so tedious on here at times, with only Maior to
> entertain us.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>  
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:26 PM
> > I did not say it was absolutely 100%
> > caused by the Gods, I said it might be.
> > And apparently no one will listen to what the Gods
> have to
> > say or was this
> > thread not made for the lack of auguries.
> > And for the record, I am chill, you should see me when
> I
> > get mad.
> > DTIC
> > Nero
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:59:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> >  
> > Salve Nero
> > 
> > I think the satire in my friend's Sulla's post was
> more
> > directed at Piscinus
> > than anyone else, because he found it absurd that
> anyone
> > would make that
> > statement having minimal information about the facts.
> > Remember in ancient times
> > everyone and their aunt was always seeing portents -
> or so
> > they thought - but
> > simply seeing one wasn't enough. It had to be
> investigated,
> > researched,
> > confirmed and discussed. The FACTS were examined. In
> this
> > case someone would
> > have arrived to investigate the role the washing
> machine
> > and the pillow case
> > played.
> > 
> > Now, I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge
> the
> > Collegium Pontificum
> > has not met to discuss Sulla's flood and the
> relationship,
> > if any, his pillow
> > case played in it, or why his washing machine
> clogged.
> > Therefore the possible
> > disfavour by the Gods is not an official opinion
> ventured
> > by the PM on behalf of
> > the collegium but instead obviously just a satirical
> dig at
> > Sulla. I thought
> > Sulla turned it around rather adeptly with his very
> Roman
> > risposte about good
> > fortune from adversity.
> >
> > 
> > As for the comment on his operation since Sulla prays
> to a
> > different deity that
> > is a matter for Sulla to investigate if he so wishes
> with
> > the appropriate Judaic
> > religious authorities. I highly doubt our Gods would
> have
> > punished Sulla by
> > clogging his washing machine. The least one could
> have
> > expected was something
> > dire and awe invoking. A piddly flood caused by a
> pillow
> > hardly seems up to the
> > might of IOM for example. Let us retain some vestige
> of
> > common sense here. As
> > for his operation, well no doubt much to the dismay of
> many
> > he is still with us.
> >
> > 
> > Not every act, action etc is the work of the Gods and
> to
> > even claim that
> > requires painstaking research and validation. I see
> none
> > here surrounding the
> > PM's claim. It could be blasphemy for you to claim
> > blasphemy, for aren't you
> > taking onto yourself the right to speak for the Gods
> of the
> > res publica?
> > 
> > If you are going to survive Nova Roma with any degree
> of
> > sanity left you need to
> > go and order a large bottle of chill pills and consume
> them
> > at a large dosage
> > rate before reading this forum.
> >
> > Vale bene
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar
> >
> > --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:24 PM
> >
> > I have no problem with christians my problem lies in
> > christianity which I admit
> > is a flaw in me.
> > I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the
> society
> > which our forefathers
> > built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view
> it
> > was destroyed so much
> > art and architecture just obliterated because of a
> faith.
> > Millions were and are
> > killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand
> > because of a faith. Also
> > some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a
> waiter
> > ten feet from a
> > church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of
> tips
> > I would get little
> > flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment
> because it
> > got so bad.
> > I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am
> not
> > proud of it, but I was
> > not born with it either, I am who I am because of how
> I was
> > raised and what I
> > have been exposed to.
> > Nero.
> > As a note to any christians in NR please don't take
> this as
> > hate speech I know
> > christians who can be good and nice...Cato as
> example.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Well good you have a sense of humor!  That is a
> > start!
> >
> > Who does not joke about my G-d?  Maybe because you
> > have no thought about it,
> > perhaps?
> >
> > I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as
> much
> > as we mortals do,
> > at least I hope so.  As the great Comedian Robin
> > Williams said, just look at
> > the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
> >
> > And, just a minor correct.  Nearly everyone who I am
> > allied to - cultor or
> > non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods.  I
> > have been Consular twice
> > and Censor twice.  I have taken Oaths to defend the
> > Religio - my problem are
> > with various individuals.  Not the Religio.  That
> > is the difference.  Just
> > like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can
> still
> > be a Church
> > going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of
> this
> > as she would
> > attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius
> X).
> >
> > And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. 
> > Because your posts do
> > tend to come off that you have serious issues with
> > Christianity in general
> > and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be
> exposed
> > to Christians.  I
> > have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own
> > experiences.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny,
> because I
> > just almost died
> > > laughing
> > > right now.
> > > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > > I am friends with many christians and at least in
> my
> > circle of friends, we
> > > go
> > > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking
> waltz
> > here people), but if
> > > I ask
> > > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no
> because
> > and I quote "I can't
> > > stay
> > > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > > And the main point of my last post is that they
> could
> > do what they wanted,
> > > they
> > > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not
> bound
> > by our laws. You are
> > >
> > > which is the whole point of this whole list of
> posts.
> > If you were not
> > > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who
> died
> > many many years ago then
> > > I
> > > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I
> remind you
> > that they are
> > > important
> > > to us. And no more would you allow me to make
> jokes
> > about your god then I
> > > will
> > > allow jokes about mine.
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put
> up
> > people for trial
> > > without my
> > > acknowledgment.
> > > And as a matter of record I don't have problems
> with
> > monotheists unless
> > > they
> > > want to start something first.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > So, you say at first no, they are not doing
> blasphemy
> > but by the end of
> > > your
> > > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said
> you
> > do not know the
> > > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So
> then
> > that leaves open that
> > > by your own rationale the ancient writers like
> > Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > > others are blasphemous, right?
> > >
> > > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and
> since I
> > am not - that makes it
> > > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See
> where I
> > am going with this?
> > >
> > > You have defeated your own argument.
> > >
> > > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate
> > speech.
> > >
> > > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so
> be
> > it. But you do not
> > > make your example any better by bringing that
> up.
> > >
> > > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am
> > Jewish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > > No they were not, they were paid for that
> job,
> > and also went home at the
> > > > end of
> > > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > > Just like the christians who go out and
> bomb
> > abortion clinics and spout
> > > > hate and
> > > > party at strip clubs can go to a
> confessional and
> > poof just like magic
> > > the
> > > > sin
> > > > is gone.
> > > > I do not know what relationship the ancients
> had
> > with their Gods but I'm
> > > > sure
> > > > that the satires and comedians had their
> > reasons.
> > > > That and they were actually funny unlike
> some
> > people......
> > > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient
> that
> > when I show you the
> > > > constitution
> > > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and
> auspices
> > > >
> > > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying
> that
> > all those ancient Roman
> > > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other
> forms
> > of comedic writings that
> > > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous?
> Answer
> > the question. Don't avoid
> > > > not answering it.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku
> Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@...
> >
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They are dead and gone and were not
> under
> > our laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nero
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > <robert.woolwine@...
> >
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs
> and
> > auspices
> > > > >
> > > > > And, are you implying that all those
> ancient
> > Roman Writers who used
> > > > Satire,
> > > > > comedy and other forms of comedic
> writing
> > that involved the Gods are
> > > also
> > > > > blasphemous?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM,
> Robert
> > Woolwine <
> > > > > robert.woolwine@...
> >
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > >
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > And where does it say that in the
> > Constitution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies
> > without knowing the full story of
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > involved giving a false impression
> -
> > should that not be countered?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM,
> Riku
> > Demyx
> > > > ><rikudemyx@...
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Any action that may have been
> ira
> > deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > > taken
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about
> the
> > Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows
> > disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Nero
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> ________________________________
> > > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> >
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010
> 12:22:09
> > PM
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> Augurs
> > and auspices
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ok time for a legal
> discussion.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What part of my post is
> blasphemous
> > and why?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16
> AM,
> > Riku Demyx
> > > > > >><rikudemyx@...
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This post is blasphemy
> and in
> > violation of the constitution.
> > > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in
> Maine
> > law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > > >> > Nero
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > ________________________________
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> >
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > >>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > >
> > > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31,
> 2010
> > 12:09:48 PM
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma]
> Re:
> > Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going
> to
> > respond to just this part.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > That means that the
> > insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > > the
> > > > > >> Virgo
> > > > > >> > > Maxima is a
> violation of
> > the Constitution. And so were his
> > > remarks
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them
> to
> > punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > > to
> > > > > >> him
> > > > > >> > when
> > > > > >> > > his operation went
> bad
> > and his house flooded
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I believe my house
> flooded
> > because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > > machine
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > the Washing machine ate
> it
> > up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > > back
> > > > > >> up
> > > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Let us not forget the
> > rationale world Ok?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > And, if by some remote
> chance
> > the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > > kind
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > luck again, because I
> got
> > enough money from the insurance
> > > settlement
> > > > > >> that I
> > > > > >> > was able to redo my
> Master
> > Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > > at
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > by
> > > > > >> > the minor flood that
> > happened.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I can use some more of
> that
> > bonus anytime!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [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]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >      
> >
> > [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
> >
> >
> >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80228 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Fine it was chance.
Gods this gets old with you.
Chance okay there I said it.
Happy?
LMA
Nero.



________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 10:46:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices



A lot of things could be caused by the Gods, but I highly doubt that included on
their agenda is causing Sulla's washing machine to get clogged with a
pillowcase.

I think those of us who believe in the Gods would always listen to what they
have to say, were it a genuine portent. What I am doing is listening to what you
say the Gods might have said or done, and there is of course a stark difference
between the two. One involves the Gods directly and the other involves you
speculating what they might of have done to his washing machine.

I am sure that at some point in the not too distant future I will see evidence
of you being truly mad. It is only a question of how long. It happens to many in
here. I hope you rise above the average displays of madness and put forth a
spectacular display of frothing, gnashing and convulsing. Life can be so tedious
on here at times, with only Maior to entertain us.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:26 PM
> I did not say it was absolutely 100%
> caused by the Gods, I said it might be.
> And apparently no one will listen to what the Gods have to
> say or was this
> thread not made for the lack of auguries.
> And for the record, I am chill, you should see me when I
> get mad.
> DTIC
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:59:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
>
> Salve Nero
>
> I think the satire in my friend's Sulla's post was more
> directed at Piscinus
> than anyone else, because he found it absurd that anyone
> would make that
> statement having minimal information about the facts.
> Remember in ancient times
> everyone and their aunt was always seeing portents - or so
> they thought - but
> simply seeing one wasn't enough. It had to be investigated,
> researched,
> confirmed and discussed. The FACTS were examined. In this
> case someone would
> have arrived to investigate the role the washing machine
> and the pillow case
> played.
>
> Now, I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge the
> Collegium Pontificum
> has not met to discuss Sulla's flood and the relationship,
> if any, his pillow
> case played in it, or why his washing machine clogged.
> Therefore the possible
> disfavour by the Gods is not an official opinion ventured
> by the PM on behalf of
> the collegium but instead obviously just a satirical dig at
> Sulla. I thought
> Sulla turned it around rather adeptly with his very Roman
> risposte about good
> fortune from adversity.
>
>
> As for the comment on his operation since Sulla prays to a
> different deity that
> is a matter for Sulla to investigate if he so wishes with
> the appropriate Judaic
> religious authorities. I highly doubt our Gods would have
> punished Sulla by
> clogging his washing machine. The least one could have
> expected was something
> dire and awe invoking. A piddly flood caused by a pillow
> hardly seems up to the
> might of IOM for example. Let us retain some vestige of
> common sense here. As
> for his operation, well no doubt much to the dismay of many
> he is still with us.
>
>
> Not every act, action etc is the work of the Gods and to
> even claim that
> requires painstaking research and validation. I see none
> here surrounding the
> PM's claim. It could be blasphemy for you to claim
> blasphemy, for aren't you
> taking onto yourself the right to speak for the Gods of the
> res publica?
>
> If you are going to survive Nova Roma with any degree of
> sanity left you need to
> go and order a large bottle of chill pills and consume them
> at a large dosage
> rate before reading this forum.
>
> Vale bene
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:24 PM
>
> I have no problem with christians my problem lies in
> christianity which I admit
> is a flaw in me.
> I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society
> which our forefathers
> built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it
> was destroyed so much
> art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith.
> Millions were and are
> killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand
> because of a faith. Also
> some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter
> ten feet from a
> church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips
> I would get little
> flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it
> got so bad.
> I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not
> proud of it, but I was
> not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was
> raised and what I
> have been exposed to.
> Nero.
> As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as
> hate speech I know
> christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
> LOL
>
> Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a
> start!
>
> Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you
> have no thought about it,
> perhaps?
>
> I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much
> as we mortals do,
> at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin
> Williams said, just look at
> the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
>
> And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am
> allied to - cultor or
> non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I
> have been Consular twice
> and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the
> Religio - my problem are
> with various individuals. Not the Religio. That
> is the difference. Just
> like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still
> be a Church
> going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this
> as she would
> attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
>
> And, I am glad you have friends who are christians.
> Because your posts do
> tend to come off that you have serious issues with
> Christianity in general
> and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed
> to Christians. I
> have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own
> experiences.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I
> just almost died
> > laughing
> > right now.
> > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > I am friends with many christians and at least in my
> circle of friends, we
> > go
> > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz
> here people), but if
> > I ask
> > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because
> and I quote "I can't
> > stay
> > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > And the main point of my last post is that they could
> do what they wanted,
> > they
> > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound
> by our laws. You are
> >
> > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts.
> If you were not
> > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died
> many many years ago then
> > I
> > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you
> that they are
> > important
> > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes
> about your god then I
> > will
> > allow jokes about mine.
> > Nero
> >
> > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up
> people for trial
> > without my
> > acknowledgment.
> > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with
> monotheists unless
> > they
> > want to start something first.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy
> but by the end of
> > your
> > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you
> do not know the
> > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then
> that leaves open that
> > by your own rationale the ancient writers like
> Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > others are blasphemous, right?
> >
> > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I
> am not - that makes it
> > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I
> am going with this?
> >
> > You have defeated your own argument.
> >
> > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate
> speech.
> >
> > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be
> it. But you do not
> > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> >
> > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am
> Jewish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> ><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > No they were not, they were paid for that job,
> and also went home at the
> > > end of
> > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb
> abortion clinics and spout
> > > hate and
> > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and
> poof just like magic
> > the
> > > sin
> > > is gone.
> > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had
> with their Gods but I'm
> > > sure
> > > that the satires and comedians had their
> reasons.
> > > That and they were actually funny unlike some
> people......
> > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that
> when I show you the
> > > constitution
> > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > >
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that
> all those ancient Roman
> > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms
> of comedic writings that
> > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer
> the question. Don't avoid
> > > not answering it.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They are dead and gone and were not under
> our laws.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and
> auspices
> > > >
> > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient
> Roman Writers who used
> > > Satire,
> > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing
> that involved the Gods are
> > also
> > > > blasphemous?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert
> Woolwine <
> > > > robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> >
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And where does it say that in the
> Constitution?
> > > > >
> > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies
> without knowing the full story of
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > involved giving a false impression -
> should that not be countered?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sulla
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku
> Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any action that may have been ira
> deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > taken
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the
> Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows
> disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nero
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09
> PM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs
> and auspices
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous
> and why?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM,
> Riku Demyx
> > > > >><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in
> violation of the constitution.
> > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine
> law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > >> > Nero
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> ________________________________
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > >>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010
> 12:09:48 PM
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> Augurs and auspices
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to
> respond to just this part.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > That means that the
> insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > the
> > > > >> Virgo
> > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of
> the Constitution. And so were his
> > remarks
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to
> punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > to
> > > > >> him
> > > > >> > when
> > > > >> > > his operation went bad
> and his house flooded
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I believe my house flooded
> because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > machine
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it
> up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > back
> > > > >> up
> > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let us not forget the
> rationale world Ok?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance
> the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > kind
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > luck again, because I got
> enough money from the insurance
> > settlement
> > > > >> that I
> > > > >> > was able to redo my Master
> Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > at
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > by
> > > > >> > the minor flood that
> happened.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can use some more of that
> bonus anytime!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
> Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80229 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Salve C,
I left mine out in a haste to type, sorry.
Nero



________________________________
From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 10:58:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices


Fine it was chance.
Gods this gets old with you.
Chance okay there I said it.
Happy?
LMA
Nero.

________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 10:46:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices

A lot of things could be caused by the Gods, but I highly doubt that included on

their agenda is causing Sulla's washing machine to get clogged with a
pillowcase.

I think those of us who believe in the Gods would always listen to what they
have to say, were it a genuine portent. What I am doing is listening to what you

say the Gods might have said or done, and there is of course a stark difference
between the two. One involves the Gods directly and the other involves you
speculating what they might of have done to his washing machine.

I am sure that at some point in the not too distant future I will see evidence
of you being truly mad. It is only a question of how long. It happens to many in

here. I hope you rise above the average displays of madness and put forth a
spectacular display of frothing, gnashing and convulsing. Life can be so tedious

on here at times, with only Maior to entertain us.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:26 PM
> I did not say it was absolutely 100%
> caused by the Gods, I said it might be.
> And apparently no one will listen to what the Gods have to
> say or was this
> thread not made for the lack of auguries.
> And for the record, I am chill, you should see me when I
> get mad.
> DTIC
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:59:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
>
> Salve Nero
>
> I think the satire in my friend's Sulla's post was more
> directed at Piscinus
> than anyone else, because he found it absurd that anyone
> would make that
> statement having minimal information about the facts.
> Remember in ancient times
> everyone and their aunt was always seeing portents - or so
> they thought - but
> simply seeing one wasn't enough. It had to be investigated,
> researched,
> confirmed and discussed. The FACTS were examined. In this
> case someone would
> have arrived to investigate the role the washing machine
> and the pillow case
> played.
>
> Now, I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge the
> Collegium Pontificum
> has not met to discuss Sulla's flood and the relationship,
> if any, his pillow
> case played in it, or why his washing machine clogged.
> Therefore the possible
> disfavour by the Gods is not an official opinion ventured
> by the PM on behalf of
> the collegium but instead obviously just a satirical dig at
> Sulla. I thought
> Sulla turned it around rather adeptly with his very Roman
> risposte about good
> fortune from adversity.
>
>
> As for the comment on his operation since Sulla prays to a
> different deity that
> is a matter for Sulla to investigate if he so wishes with
> the appropriate Judaic
> religious authorities. I highly doubt our Gods would have
> punished Sulla by
> clogging his washing machine. The least one could have
> expected was something
> dire and awe invoking. A piddly flood caused by a pillow
> hardly seems up to the
> might of IOM for example. Let us retain some vestige of
> common sense here. As
> for his operation, well no doubt much to the dismay of many
> he is still with us.
>
>
> Not every act, action etc is the work of the Gods and to
> even claim that
> requires painstaking research and validation. I see none
> here surrounding the
> PM's claim. It could be blasphemy for you to claim
> blasphemy, for aren't you
> taking onto yourself the right to speak for the Gods of the
> res publica?
>
> If you are going to survive Nova Roma with any degree of
> sanity left you need to
> go and order a large bottle of chill pills and consume them
> at a large dosage
> rate before reading this forum.
>
> Vale bene
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:24 PM
>
> I have no problem with christians my problem lies in
> christianity which I admit
> is a flaw in me.
> I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society
> which our forefathers
> built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it
> was destroyed so much
> art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith.
> Millions were and are
> killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand
> because of a faith. Also
> some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter
> ten feet from a
> church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips
> I would get little
> flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it
> got so bad.
> I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not
> proud of it, but I was
> not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was
> raised and what I
> have been exposed to.
> Nero.
> As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as
> hate speech I know
> christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
> LOL
>
> Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a
> start!
>
> Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you
> have no thought about it,
> perhaps?
>
> I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much
> as we mortals do,
> at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin
> Williams said, just look at
> the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
>
> And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am
> allied to - cultor or
> non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I
> have been Consular twice
> and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the
> Religio - my problem are
> with various individuals. Not the Religio. That
> is the difference. Just
> like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still
> be a Church
> going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this
> as she would
> attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
>
> And, I am glad you have friends who are christians.
> Because your posts do
> tend to come off that you have serious issues with
> Christianity in general
> and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed
> to Christians. I
> have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own
> experiences.
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I
> just almost died
> > laughing
> > right now.
> > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > I am friends with many christians and at least in my
> circle of friends, we
> > go
> > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz
> here people), but if
> > I ask
> > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because
> and I quote "I can't
> > stay
> > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > And the main point of my last post is that they could
> do what they wanted,
> > they
> > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound
> by our laws. You are
> >
> > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts.
> If you were not
> > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died
> many many years ago then
> > I
> > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you
> that they are
> > important
> > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes
> about your god then I
> > will
> > allow jokes about mine.
> > Nero
> >
> > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up
> people for trial
> > without my
> > acknowledgment.
> > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with
> monotheists unless
> > they
> > want to start something first.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy
> but by the end of
> > your
> > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you
> do not know the
> > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then
> that leaves open that
> > by your own rationale the ancient writers like
> Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > others are blasphemous, right?
> >
> > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I
> am not - that makes it
> > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I
> am going with this?
> >
> > You have defeated your own argument.
> >
> > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate
> speech.
> >
> > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be
> it. But you do not
> > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> >
> > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am
> Jewish.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> ><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > No they were not, they were paid for that job,
> and also went home at the
> > > end of
> > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb
> abortion clinics and spout
> > > hate and
> > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and
> poof just like magic
> > the
> > > sin
> > > is gone.
> > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had
> with their Gods but I'm
> > > sure
> > > that the satires and comedians had their
> reasons.
> > > That and they were actually funny unlike some
> people......
> > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that
> when I show you the
> > > constitution
> > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > >
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that
> all those ancient Roman
> > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms
> of comedic writings that
> > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer
> the question. Don't avoid
> > > not answering it.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They are dead and gone and were not under
> our laws.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and
> auspices
> > > >
> > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient
> Roman Writers who used
> > > Satire,
> > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing
> that involved the Gods are
> > also
> > > > blasphemous?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert
> Woolwine <
> > > > robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> >
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And where does it say that in the
> Constitution?
> > > > >
> > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies
> without knowing the full story of
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > involved giving a false impression -
> should that not be countered?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sulla
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku
> Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any action that may have been ira
> deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > taken
> > > > >>
> > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the
> Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows
> disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nero
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09
> PM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs
> and auspices
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous
> and why?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM,
> Riku Demyx
> > > > >><rikudemyx@...
> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in
> violation of the constitution.
> > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine
> law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > >> > Nero
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> ________________________________
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@...
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > >>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > >
> > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010
> 12:09:48 PM
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re:
> Augurs and auspices
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to
> respond to just this part.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > That means that the
> insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > the
> > > > >> Virgo
> > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of
> the Constitution. And so were his
> > remarks
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to
> punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > to
> > > > >> him
> > > > >> > when
> > > > >> > > his operation went bad
> and his house flooded
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I believe my house flooded
> because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > machine
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it
> up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > back
> > > > >> up
> > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let us not forget the
> rationale world Ok?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance
> the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > kind
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > luck again, because I got
> enough money from the insurance
> > settlement
> > > > >> that I
> > > > >> > was able to redo my Master
> Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > at
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > by
> > > > >> > the minor flood that
> happened.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I can use some more of that
> bonus anytime!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [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]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> [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
>
>
> Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

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







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80230 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Cato Maiori sal.

Maior, YOU ARE LYING.

I want you to produce proof within one hour that I threw "foul insults" at the EX Virgo Maxima. If you cannot, I formally ask the praetura to place you under the strictest moderation they can reasonably agree upon.

I don't even care if you insult me, personally, I have never, in five years of citizenship, ever before asked that someone be moderated. Never.

But to allow you continue unabated in this stream of lying is unconscionable.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. HOrtensia Quiritibus spd;
>
> I head from Anna today it seems she received 9 days! moderation for
> being too logical with Graecus last night..
>
> Considering the foul insults thrown at the Virgo Maxima by Cato and Sulla who screamed at getting 3 days moderation, this sickens me.
>
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> Salve Anna,
>
> Your refusal to stop posting on a topic that was closed by me last night has resulted in your third violation on the ML. The posts in question are 80133 and 80131. Your first two violations concerned posts 79802 and 79882, for which you were warned by me and then Crispus.
>
> By agreement with the Praetura you are being put on moderation for one nundinum (9 days) starting from the sending of this email.
>
> Please be mindful of your conduct on the ML in the future, especially since you are not a civis and therefore do not enjoy the same rights and tolerances as those who are.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus Graecus
> Praetorian Quaestor
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What don't you understand about "I'm shutting this topic down"? It's done. You're not getting more any more time for your troll session.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Your use of troll is inaccurate. Just because a discussion isn't going your way doesn't mean your opponent is trolling you. It would seem you have no idea what trolling is if you think that's what I'm doing.
> >
> > I suspect you refuse to answer the question because we all know the answer wouldn't fit your narrative that Maior is a bigoted fanatic attempting to throw out all who don't believe as she does.
> >
> > Hello Fox news.
> >
> >
> > -Anna Bucci
> >
> > Ps. Haters don't like being challenged on their misconception, but they still gotta hate.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80231 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Salve Nero
 
Happiness has nothing to do with it, just interested in seeing that as cultors we don't paint ourselves out as ridiculous by ascribing the hand of the Gods in things so trite as a blocked washing machine with no evidence to support such claims. It rather diminishes our Gods too.
 
Oh trust me, it could have got a lot older ;) 
 
Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:


From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:58 PM


Fine it was chance.
Gods this gets old with you.
Chance okay there I said it.
Happy?
LMA
Nero.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80232 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

Ummm...Gene Robinson was the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the historic episcopate, in New Hampshire; enthroned in AD 2004 by the Episcopal Church (Anglican).

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I'll hang with the ones who call my Gods monstrous delusions of the past and
> my orientation an abomination...
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:31:13 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> If you want to experience a whole different Christian mentality, I would suggest
> that you try hanging out with Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox :) It's a whole
> different mindset.
>
> NOTE TO PRAETURA: this is NOT proselytization.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with christians my problem lies in christianity which I admit
> >
> > is a flaw in me.
> > I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society which our forefathers
> > built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it was destroyed so much
>
> > art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith. Millions were and are
> >
> > killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand because of a faith. Also
>
> > some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter ten feet from a
> > church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips I would get little
>
> > flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it got so bad.
> > I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not proud of it, but I was
> >
> > not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was raised and what I
> > have been exposed to.
> > Nero.
> > As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as hate speech I know
>
> > christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a start!
> >
> > Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you have no thought about it,
> > perhaps?
> >
> > I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much as we mortals do,
> > at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin Williams said, just look at
> > the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
> >
> > And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am allied to - cultor or
> > non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I have been Consular twice
> > and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the Religio - my problem are
> > with various individuals. Not the Religio. That is the difference. Just
> > like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still be a Church
> > going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this as she would
> > attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
> >
> > And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. Because your posts do
> > tend to come off that you have serious issues with Christianity in general
> > and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed to Christians. I
> > have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own experiences.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I just almost died
> > > laughing
> > > right now.
> > > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > > I am friends with many christians and at least in my circle of friends, we
> > > go
> > > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz here people), but if
> > > I ask
> > > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because and I quote "I can't
> > > stay
> > > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > > And the main point of my last post is that they could do what they wanted,
> > > they
> > > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound by our laws. You are
> > >
> > > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts. If you were not
> > > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died many many years ago then
> > > I
> > > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you that they are
> > > important
> > > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes about your god then I
> > > will
> > > allow jokes about mine.
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up people for trial
> > > without my
> > > acknowledgment.
> > > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with monotheists unless
> > > they
> > > want to start something first.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy but by the end of
> > > your
> > > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you do not know the
> > > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then that leaves open that
> > > by your own rationale the ancient writers like Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > > others are blasphemous, right?
> > >
> > > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I am not - that makes it
> > > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I am going with this?
> > >
> > > You have defeated your own argument.
> > >
> > > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate speech.
> > >
> > > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be it. But you do not
> > > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> > >
> > > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am Jewish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > > No they were not, they were paid for that job, and also went home at the
> > > > end of
> > > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb abortion clinics and spout
> > > > hate and
> > > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and poof just like magic
> > > the
> > > > sin
> > > > is gone.
> > > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had with their Gods but I'm
> > > > sure
> > > > that the satires and comedians had their reasons.
> > > > That and they were actually funny unlike some people......
> > > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that when I show you the
> > > > constitution
> > > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >
> > > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that all those ancient Roman
> > > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms of comedic writings that
> > > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer the question. Don't avoid
> > > > not answering it.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They are dead and gone and were not under our laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nero
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > <robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > >
> > > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient Roman Writers who used
> > > > Satire,
> > > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing that involved the Gods are
> > > also
> > > > > blasphemous?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > > > robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > >
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > And where does it say that in the Constitution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies without knowing the full story of
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > involved giving a false impression - should that not be countered?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Any action that may have been ira deorum is not a joke and not to be
> > > > > taken
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Nero
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09 PM
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous and why?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > > >><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in violation of the constitution.
> > > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > > >> > Nero
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ________________________________
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > >
> > > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:09:48 PM
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to respond to just this part.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > That means that the insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > > the
> > > > > >> Virgo
> > > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of the Constitution. And so were his
> > > remarks
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to punish him. I assume They gave Their answer
> > > > to
> > > > > >> him
> > > > > >> > when
> > > > > >> > > his operation went bad and his house flooded
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I believe my house flooded because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > > machine
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > > back
> > > > > >> up
> > > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Let us not forget the rationale world Ok?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > > kind
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > luck again, because I got enough money from the insurance
> > > settlement
> > > > > >> that I
> > > > > >> > was able to redo my Master Bathroom too (and that was not impacted
> > > > at
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > by
> > > > > >> > the minor flood that happened.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I can use some more of that bonus anytime!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [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]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [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]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80233 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Knowledge is a terrible thing to waste.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> Ummm...Gene Robinson was the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be
> ordained a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the
> historic episcopate, in New Hampshire; enthroned in AD 2004 by the Episcopal
> Church (Anglican).
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Riku Demyx
> <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I'll hang with the ones who call my Gods monstrous delusions of the
> past and
> > my orientation an abomination...
> > Nero
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:31:13 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> >
> > Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
> >
> > If you want to experience a whole different Christian mentality, I would
> suggest
> > that you try hanging out with Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox :) It's a
> whole
> > different mindset.
> >
> > NOTE TO PRAETURA: this is NOT proselytization.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Riku
> Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no problem with christians my problem lies in christianity which
> I admit
> > >
> > > is a flaw in me.
> > > I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society which our
> forefathers
> > > built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it was destroyed
> so much
> >
> > > art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith. Millions were
> and are
> > >
> > > killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand because of a
> faith. Also
> >
> > > some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter ten feet
> from a
> > > church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips I would get
> little
> >
> > > flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it got so bad.
> > > I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not proud of it,
> but I was
> > >
> > > not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was raised and
> what I
> > > have been exposed to.
> > > Nero.
> > > As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as hate speech
> I know
> >
> > > christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a start!
> > >
> > > Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you have no thought about
> it,
> > > perhaps?
> > >
> > > I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much as we mortals
> do,
> > > at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin Williams said, just
> look at
> > > the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
> > >
> > > And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am allied to - cultor
> or
> > > non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I have been Consular
> twice
> > > and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the Religio - my problem
> are
> > > with various individuals. Not the Religio. That is the difference. Just
> > > like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still be a Church
> > > going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this as she
> would
> > > attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
> > >
> > > And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. Because your posts
> do
> > > tend to come off that you have serious issues with Christianity in
> general
> > > and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed to
> Christians. I
> > > have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own experiences.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I just almost died
> > > > laughing
> > > > right now.
> > > > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > > > I am friends with many christians and at least in my circle of
> friends, we
> > > > go
> > > > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz here people),
> but if
> > > > I ask
> > > > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because and I quote "I
> can't
> > > > stay
> > > > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > > > And the main point of my last post is that they could do what they
> wanted,
> > > > they
> > > > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound by our laws.
> You are
> > > >
> > > > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts. If you were not
> > > > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died many many years
> ago then
> > > > I
> > > > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > > > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you that they are
> > > > important
> > > > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes about your god
> then I
> > > > will
> > > > allow jokes about mine.
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up people for trial
> > > > without my
> > > > acknowledgment.
> > > > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with monotheists
> unless
> > > > they
> > > > want to start something first.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >
> > > > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy but by the end
> of
> > > > your
> > > > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you do not know the
> > > > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then that leaves open
> that
> > > > by your own rationale the ancient writers like Martial, Lucian, Ovid
> and
> > > > others are blasphemous, right?
> > > >
> > > > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I am not - that
> makes it
> > > > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I am going with
> this?
> > > >
> > > > You have defeated your own argument.
> > > >
> > > > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate speech.
> > > >
> > > > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be it. But you do
> not
> > > > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> > > >
> > > > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am Jewish.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve,
> > > > > No they were not, they were paid for that job, and also went home
> at the
> > > > > end of
> > > > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb abortion clinics and
> spout
> > > > > hate and
> > > > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and poof just like
> magic
> > > > the
> > > > > sin
> > > > > is gone.
> > > > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had with their Gods
> but I'm
> > > > > sure
> > > > > that the satires and comedians had their reasons.
> > > > > That and they were actually funny unlike some people......
> > > > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that when I show you the
> > > > > constitution
> > > > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nero
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > >
> > > > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that all those ancient
> Roman
> > > > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms of comedic writings
> that
> > > > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer the question. Don't
> avoid
> > > > > not answering it.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They are dead and gone and were not under our laws.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nero
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > <robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient Roman Writers who
> used
> > > > > Satire,
> > > > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing that involved the Gods
> are
> > > > also
> > > > > > blasphemous?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > > > > robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > >
> > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And where does it say that in the Constitution?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies without knowing the full
> story of
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > involved giving a false impression - should that not be
> countered?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Any action that may have been ira deorum is not a joke and not
> to be
> > > > > > taken
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the Gods, it's not a laughing
> matter.
> > > > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Nero
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09 PM
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous and why?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > > > >><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > > > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in violation of the constitution.
> > > > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine law that you have forgotten
> NR's
> > > > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > > > >> > Nero
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ________________________________
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com
> ><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:09:48 PM
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to respond to just this part.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > That means that the insults that Senator Sulla directed
> against
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> Virgo
> > > > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of the Constitution. And so were his
> > > > remarks
> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to punish him. I assume They gave Their
> answer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> him
> > > > > > >> > when
> > > > > > >> > > his operation went bad and his house flooded
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I believe my house flooded because I put a pillow in the
> Washing
> > > > > > machine
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it up....causing a clog tha allowed
> it to
> > > > > back
> > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Let us not forget the rationale world Ok?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance the Gods did it. Hey I can use
> that
> > > > > kind
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > luck again, because I got enough money from the insurance
> > > > settlement
> > > > > > >> that I
> > > > > > >> > was able to redo my Master Bathroom too (and that was not
> impacted
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >> > by
> > > > > > >> > the minor flood that happened.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I can use some more of that bonus anytime!
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > [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]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [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]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [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]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80234 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
That's great Cato, I have just performed my evening prayer and am feeling at
peace with the world so here it is: You win, you were right, thank you for the
lesson.
Peace
DTIC
Nero.



________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 11:30:53 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices


Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

Ummm...Gene Robinson was the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be
ordained a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the historic
episcopate, in New Hampshire; enthroned in AD 2004 by the Episcopal Church
(Anglican).

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I'll hang with the ones who call my Gods monstrous delusions of the past
>and
>
> my orientation an abomination...
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:31:13 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> If you want to experience a whole different Christian mentality, I would
>suggest
>
> that you try hanging out with Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox :) It's a whole
> different mindset.
>
> NOTE TO PRAETURA: this is NOT proselytization.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with christians my problem lies in christianity which I
>admit
>
> >
> > is a flaw in me.
> > I am devoted in entirety to my religion and the society which our forefathers
>
> > built. Rome ruled the world as it were and in my view it was destroyed so
>much
>
>
> > art and architecture just obliterated because of a faith. Millions were and
>are
>
> >
> > killed over a faith. I can't hold my boyfriend's hand because of a faith.
>Also
>
>
> > some personal issues in my past. I used to work as a waiter ten feet from a
> > church and a lot of times on morning shifts instead of tips I would get
>little
>
>
> > flyers and pamplets, I almost lost my apartment because it got so bad.
> > I admit there is an animosity deep in my heart, I am not proud of it, but I
>was
>
> >
> > not born with it either, I am who I am because of how I was raised and what I
>
> > have been exposed to.
> > Nero.
> > As a note to any christians in NR please don't take this as hate speech I
>know
>
>
> > christians who can be good and nice...Cato as example.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:13:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Well good you have a sense of humor! That is a start!
> >
> > Who does not joke about my G-d? Maybe because you have no thought about it,
> > perhaps?
> >
> > I would like to think my G-d has a sense of humor as much as we mortals do,
> > at least I hope so. As the great Comedian Robin Williams said, just look at
> > the Platypus, clearly G-d as a sense of humor.
> >
> > And, just a minor correct. Nearly everyone who I am allied to - cultor or
> > non-cultor - know my respect for the Roman Gods. I have been Consular twice
> > and Censor twice. I have taken Oaths to defend the Religio - my problem are
> > with various individuals. Not the Religio. That is the difference. Just
> > like a Catholic who has a problem with Vatican II can still be a Church
> > going Catholic (my ex fiancee was a perfect example of this as she would
> > attend services at a splinter Church of Society Pius X).
> >
> > And, I am glad you have friends who are christians. Because your posts do
> > tend to come off that you have serious issues with Christianity in general
> > and the best way to alter that view IMHO is to be exposed to Christians. I
> > have that failing with Islam, so I speak from my own experiences.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh Sulla I lied about you not being funny, because I just almost died
> > > laughing
> > > right now.
> > > It's not hate speech it is the truth.
> > > I am friends with many christians and at least in my circle of friends, we
> > > go
> > > out and party, drink, dance(and I'm not talking waltz here people), but if
> > > I ask
> > > them to hang out late on Saturday I get a no because and I quote "I can't
> > > stay
> > > out too late, I have church in the morning."
> > > And the main point of my last post is that they could do what they wanted,
> > > they
> > > are DEAD. Further as I have stated they were not bound by our laws. You
are
> > >
> > > which is the whole point of this whole list of posts. If you were not
> > > sidestepping the issue by bringing up men who died many many years ago
then
> > > I
> > > wouldn't have ever brought up anything else.
> > > Our Gods may not be important to you, but I remind you that they are
> > > important
> > > to us. And no more would you allow me to make jokes about your god then I
> > > will
> > > allow jokes about mine.
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > P.S. I never asked to be the judge you simply put up people for trial
> > > without my
> > > acknowledgment.
> > > And as a matter of record I don't have problems with monotheists unless
> > > they
> > > want to start something first.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:55:37 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > >
> > > So, you say at first no, they are not doing blasphemy but by the end of
> > > your
> > > post you're saying MAYBE because hey as you said you do not know the
> > > relationship they had with the Gods. Right? So then that leaves open that
> > > by your own rationale the ancient writers like Martial, Lucian, Ovid and
> > > others are blasphemous, right?
> > >
> > > Or are you saying because they are FUNNY and since I am not - that makes
it
> > > ok? So, who gets to play all mighty judge? See where I am going with this?
> > >
> > > You have defeated your own argument.
> > >
> > > Now for the rest of your post you are doing hate speech.
> > >
> > > Look you have a problem with Christians fine - so be it. But you do not
> > > make your example any better by bringing that up.
> > >
> > > And, for the record, I am not a Christian. I am Jewish.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Riku Demyx
> > ><rikudemyx@<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > > No they were not, they were paid for that job, and also went home at the
> > > > end of
> > > > the night and prayed to the same Gods.
> > > > Just like the christians who go out and bomb abortion clinics and spout
> > > > hate and
> > > > party at strip clubs can go to a confessional and poof just like magic
> > > the
> > > > sin
> > > > is gone.
> > > > I do not know what relationship the ancients had with their Gods but I'm
> > > > sure
> > > > that the satires and comedians had their reasons.
> > > > That and they were actually funny unlike some people......
> > > > And speaking of avoidance how convenient that when I show you the
> > > > constitution
> > > > that mysteriously got forgotten.
> > > >
> > > > Nero
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > <robert.woolwine@<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:42:59 PM
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > >
> > > > That isn't what I asked. Are you implying that all those ancient Roman
> > > > Writers who used satire, comedy and other forms of comedic writings that
> > > > involved the Gods are also blasphemous? Answer the question. Don't avoid
> > > > not answering it.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They are dead and gone and were not under our laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nero
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > <robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:31:37 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > >
> > > > > And, are you implying that all those ancient Roman Writers who used
> > > > Satire,
> > > > > comedy and other forms of comedic writing that involved the Gods are
> > > also
> > > > > blasphemous?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > > > robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > >
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > And where does it say that in the Constitution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When someone spreads inaccuracies without knowing the full story of
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > involved giving a false impression - should that not be countered?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sulla
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > ><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Any action that may have been ira deorum is not a joke and not to
be
> > > > > taken
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> lightly. We do not joke about the Gods, it's not a laughing matter.
> > > > > >> Joking about the Gods shows disrespect for the Gods.
> > > > > >> Blasphemy.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Nero
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > >> From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:22:09 PM
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ok time for a legal discussion.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What part of my post is blasphemous and why?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Riku Demyx
> > > > > >><rikudemyx@ <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com> <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>
> > > <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com
> > > > ><rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This post is blasphemy and in violation of the constitution.
> > > > > >> > You're so wrapped up in Maine law that you have forgotten NR's
> > > > > >> > DTIC
> > > > > >> > Nero
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ________________________________
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > From: Robert Woolwine
> > > > > ><robert.woolwine@ <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > 40gmail.com><robert.woolwine%
> > > > > 40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> > > > >
> > > > > >> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 12:09:48 PM
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Oh Piscinus, I am going to respond to just this part.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > That means that the insults that Senator Sulla directed against
> > > > the
> > > > > >> Virgo
> > > > > >> > > Maxima is a violation of the Constitution. And so were his
> > > remarks
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > Gods, daring Them to punish him. I assume They gave Their
answer
> > > > to
> > > > > >> him
> > > > > >> > when
> > > > > >> > > his operation went bad and his house flooded
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > Oh really?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I believe my house flooded because I put a pillow in the Washing
> > > > > machine
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > the Washing machine ate it up....causing a clog tha allowed it to
> > > > back
> > > > > >> up
> > > > > >> > and thus flood.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Let us not forget the rationale world Ok?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > And, if by some remote chance the Gods did it. Hey I can use that
> > > > kind
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > luck again, because I got enough money from the insurance
> > > settlement
> > > > > >> that I
> > > > > >> > was able to redo my Master Bathroom too (and that was not
impacted
> > > > at
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > by
> > > > > >> > the minor flood that happened.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I can use some more of that bonus anytime!
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Vale,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Sulla
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [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]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [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]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80235 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
Salve,
Forgive me, a lifetime of defending myself and I've become stubborn (that
superiority complex doesn't help either)
I don't wish to paint us in any negative light and the last thing on my heart is
to defame the Gods, but I was trying to make one simple point, who says the Gods
only act in big ways? Little things can make all the difference in the world.
And that was what I was fighting to say in so many words.
As always,
May the Gods keep you and yours safe and may the light of IOM shine upon your
house.
Di Te Incolumem Custodiant,
Nero



________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 11:27:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices



Salve Nero

Happiness has nothing to do with it, just interested in seeing that as cultors
we don't paint ourselves out as ridiculous by ascribing the hand of the Gods in
things so trite as a blocked washing machine with no evidence to support such
claims. It rather diminishes our Gods too.

Oh trust me, it could have got a lot older ;)

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Augurs and auspices
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:58 PM

Fine it was chance.
Gods this gets old with you.
Chance okay there I said it.
Happy?
LMA
Nero.

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







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80236 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
Ave!

Does this mean the Praetorian team should follow the precedent that Maior
set and set Maior on Moderation since, well Hey we dont know but Maior COULD
BE Anna?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Maior, YOU ARE LYING.
>
> I want you to produce proof within one hour that I threw "foul insults" at
> the EX Virgo Maxima. If you cannot, I formally ask the praetura to place you
> under the strictest moderation they can reasonably agree upon.
>
> I don't even care if you insult me, personally, I have never, in five years
> of citizenship, ever before asked that someone be moderated. Never.
>
> But to allow you continue unabated in this stream of lying is
> unconscionable.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > M. HOrtensia Quiritibus spd;
> >
> > I head from Anna today it seems she received 9 days! moderation for
> > being too logical with Graecus last night..
> >
> > Considering the foul insults thrown at the Virgo Maxima by Cato and Sulla
> who screamed at getting 3 days moderation, this sickens me.
> >
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> > Salve Anna,
> >
> > Your refusal to stop posting on a topic that was closed by me last night
> has resulted in your third violation on the ML. The posts in question are
> 80133 and 80131. Your first two violations concerned posts 79802 and 79882,
> for which you were warned by me and then Crispus.
> >
> > By agreement with the Praetura you are being put on moderation for one
> nundinum (9 days) starting from the sending of this email.
> >
> > Please be mindful of your conduct on the ML in the future, especially
> since you are not a civis and therefore do not enjoy the same rights and
> tolerances as those who are.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus Graecus
> > Praetorian Quaestor
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What don't you understand about "I'm shutting this topic down"? It's
> done. You're not getting more any more time for your troll session.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of troll is inaccurate. Just because a discussion isn't going
> your way doesn't mean your opponent is trolling you. It would seem you have
> no idea what trolling is if you think that's what I'm doing.
> > >
> > > I suspect you refuse to answer the question because we all know the
> answer wouldn't fit your narrative that Maior is a bigoted fanatic
> attempting to throw out all who don't believe as she does.
> > >
> > > Hello Fox news.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Anna Bucci
> > >
> > > Ps. Haters don't like being challenged on their misconception, but they
> still gotta hate.
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80237 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Res Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Octavio Graccho quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Salve,
>
>> > M. HOrtensia Quiritibus spd;
>
>> > I head from Anna today it seems she received 9 days! moderation for
>> > being too logical with Graecus last night..
>
> ATS: That was not the reason.
>
>> > Considering the foul insults thrown at the Virgo Maxima by Cato and Sulla
>> who
>> > screamed at getting 3 days moderation, this sickens me.
>
> ATS: Certain parties must learn to take their punishments like Romans.
> Fermez la bouche and take it.
>
>
>
> Annia is a non-citizen.
>
> I, too, am a non-citizen. I have been moderated ever since I returned to this
> list a month ago.
>
> (Which is fine by me; I don't expect the same rights that a citizen has).
>
> ATS: And initial moderation is more than one month. Normally, it is six
> months and requires a set number of innocuous posts which consist of more than
> hello and / or I agree.
>
> I, however, have never willingly defied the edict of the Praetors or their
> staff. I've used a few colourful idioms that they asked me to revise, which I
> willingly consented to. Never did I *disobey*, yet I remain moderated.
>
> ATS: You are on initial moderation. Annia was unmoderated by Albucius
> last year. She was among those who were treated to wholesale unmoderation
> despite their never having posted to the ML and despite the fact that she is
> no longer a citizen...and had a long history of controversial and aggressive
> posts.
>
> In the interests of FAIRNESS, *all* non-citizens should be moderated.
>
> ATS: I agree, or at least until they can demonstrate proper behavior.
>
> I am happy to remain moderated if the same standard is applied to others in my
> situation. But for me to be in a position inferior to that of Annia is
> absurd.
>
> ATS: I agree. Unfortunately she was unmoderated, and we are under orders
> to keep her as such unless she refuses to obey instructions from the staff, as
> is the case now. Some of us think she should be moderated in aeternum.
>
> Vale, M. Octavius.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80238 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: De Re Publica - PRAETORIAL UNFAIRNESS
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica M. Hortensiae Majori quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Ahem...where is YOUR Latin greeting, Hortensia? Avitus returned briefly
> from sailing around Croatia today and sent us some pix; he would be
> disappointed if a graduate of Sermo II did not use a Latin greeting here in
> NR.
>
>
> Is this fair or reasonable?
>
> "Graecus claims my posts are not being approved because I didn't put any latin
> greetings in them. Seriously.
>
> ATS: This is only part of the issue. Because she is now on mod, we are
> training her to think before she writes, and to add the greeting as well as a
> signature. It is otherwise difficult to know who is addressing whom.
>
> when I pointed out that neither does sulla, he came back with that since I'm
> not a civ, and I'm on moderation, then I have to comply with the made up rule
> and sulla gets more leeway."
>
> ATS: Be it known by these presents that ALL of you will have to learn to
> use proper greetings, preferably naming the addressee of your remarks. You
> will also have to sign unless you use the formal Latin greeting. We are
> giving a little leeway to those of you who have become too rash in your
> postings but are not under mod; those on mod will add the greetings, or their
> posts will not be accepted. In time, that leeway will disappear from Sulla
> and anyone else who does not use the proper greeting.
>
> No, I did NOT dream this one up. It is becoming almost impossible to tell
> who is responding to whom, especially with the very heavy volume here of late.
> We are helping you (plural) learn what your English teacher did not teach you
> in grammar school: how to write a letter. We are simply doing part of it in
> Latin as we are a Roman-based organization.
>
> All rules not emanating from Mater Natura are made up, often as the
> situation demands. Laws are made by males to regulate the conduct of males
> (unless, of course, you think that most legislatures have a female majority),
> often with horse trading involved. The rules for baseball are made up; the
> rules for football are made up; the rules for contract bridge are made up.
> So, too, are those in moderation edicta; if you want to play here, you gotta
> follow the rules. They are not drawn from thin air, but based in good sense.
>
> Maybe this will help a little with the spate of character assassination
> which passes for intellectual commentary here.
>
>
> Anna Bucci
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> ATS: Minimé.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "M.
> Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Salve,
>> >
>>> > > M. HOrtensia Quiritibus spd;
>> >
>>> > > I head from Anna today it seems she received 9 days! moderation for
>>> > > being too logical with Graecus last night..
>> >
>>> > > Considering the foul insults thrown at the Virgo Maxima by Cato and
>>> Sulla who
>>> > > screamed at getting 3 days moderation, this sickens me.
>> >
>> > Annia is a non-citizen.
>> >
>> > I, too, am a non-citizen. I have been moderated ever since I returned to
>> this
>> > list a month ago.
>> >
>> > (Which is fine by me; I don't expect the same rights that a citizen has).
>> >
>> > I, however, have never willingly defied the edict of the Praetors or their
>> > staff. I've used a few colourful idioms that they asked me to revise,
>> which I
>> > willingly consented to. Never did I *disobey*, yet I remain moderated.
>> >
>> > In the interests of FAIRNESS, *all* non-citizens should be moderated.
>> >
>> > I am happy to remain moderated if the same standard is applied to others in
>> my
>> > situation. But for me to be in a position inferior to that of Annia is
>> absurd.
>> >
>> > Vale, M. Octavius.
>> >
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80239 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Augurs and auspices
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Nero,
>
> Oops the iPad seems to have eaten my salutation to you. Apologies on behalf of the infernal machine, though I note you omitted it too :)


Salve Caesar, et salve Nero

My thanks to you for your intention to follow the guidelines. If everyone tries to remember, before too long it should be standard in all our posts.

I've just managed to pick myself up off the floor from laughing at your message - absolutely brilliant, the funniest thing I have seen in years.

Thank you for brightening my day.

Vale, et valete optime!
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80240 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.

This report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.

The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.

Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.

Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.

Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.

M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus pontifex Senatui Populoque Quiritium
> Romano salutem dicit.
>
> With a session of the Collegium Pontificum having just finished, as
> the convening pontifex, it rests with me to announce the results of
> that session. The session was called to determine a pontifex maximus
> pro tempore, and one has been chosen. Of the total pontifices, one
> explicitly kept his name off the list of "eligible pontifices"
> (namely, myself), therefore the vote was based on seven pontifices.
> Of those, two received majorities (with the Collegium able to vote in
> favour or against, or to abstain from voting, on each individual
> candidate). One candidate, however, received a higher percentage of
> favourable votes of those cast. Therefore:
>
> "QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
>
> As further research is required to properly determine what the duties
> of a pontifex maximus shall be, the Collegium Pontificum has
> determined that, in accordance with the laws of our Republic, it is
> best to appoint a pontifex maximus on a pro tempore basis, until such
> time as the aforementioned research may be properly concluded and a
> determination made on the duties of a pontifex maximus. The Collegium
> Pontificum having met to determine who shall serve in that position,
> and what the term of office shall be for such an individual, has
> concluded that:
>
> A. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall be the Pontifex Maximus, pro
> tempore; and that,
>
> B. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall serve as the Pontifex
> Maximus, pro tempore, beginning Id. Sep. MMDCCLXIII auc, and lasting
> until a decretum is issued detailing the duties of a pontifex maximus
> or through pr. Id. Mar. MDCCLXIV auc, whichever is sooner."
>
> Di Romanis faueant.
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> Pontifex
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80241 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: KALENDAE SEPTEMBRES: Juno Regina, Jupiter Tonans
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Salvete, vosque bona Iuppiter auctet ope.

Hodie est Kalendae Septembres; haec dies fastus est: Iunonis Reginae in Aventino; feriae Iovi Liberi; Iovi Tonanti in Capitolio; calor.

"Lean and sloping ground is not to be ploughed in summer, but around the Kalends of September; for if it is broken before this time, the earth, being exhausted and destitute of moisture, is burned by the summer sun and has no reserves of strength. Therefore, it is best to plough it between the Kalends and the Ides of September, and then work it again immediately, so that it may be sown during the first rains of the equinox, and such land is to be sown, not in the ridges, but in the furrows." ~ L. Iunius Moderatus Columella, Rei Rusticae 2.4.11

AUC 361 / 392 BCE: Dedication of the Temple of Juno Regina on the Aventine

"After the Dictator had taken the auspices and issued orders for the soldiers to arm for battle, he uttered this prayer: "Pythian Apollo, guided and inspired by thy will I go forth to destroy the city of Veii, and a tenth part of its spoils I devote to thee. Thee too, Queen Juno, who now dwellest in Veii, I beseech, that thou wouldst follow us, after our victory, to the City which is ours and which will soon be shine, where a temple worthy of thy majesty will receive thee." After this prayer, finding himself superior in numbers, he attacked the city on all sides, to distract the enemies' attention from the impending danger of the mine. The Veientines, all unconscious that their doom had already been sealed by their own prophets and by oracles in foreign lands, that some of the Gods had already been invited to Their share in the spoils, whilst others, called upon in prayer to leave their city, were looking to new abodes in the temples of their foes.

"When all that belonged to man had been carried away from Veii, they began to remove from the temples the votive gifts that had been made to the gods, and then the gods themselves; but this they did as worshippers rather than as plunderers. The deportation of Queen Juno to Rome was entrusted to a body of men selected from the whole army, who after performing their ablutions and arraying themselves in white vestments, reverently entered the temple and in a spirit of holy dread placed their hands on the statue, for it was as a rule only the priest of one particular house who, by Etruscan usage, touched it. Then one of them, either under a sudden inspiration, or in a spirit of youthful mirth, said, "Art thou willing, Juno, to go to Rome?" The rest exclaimed that the goddess nodded assent. An addition to the story was made to the effect that she was heard to say, "I am willing." At all events we have it that she was moved from her place by appliances of little power, and proved light and easy of transport, as though she were following of her own accord. She was brought without mishap to the Aventine, her everlasting seat, whither the prayers of the Roman Dictator had called her, and where this same Camillus afterwards dedicated the temple which he had vowed." ~ Titus Livius 5.21 and 22


The many Junones

Just as every man has his genius, and every woman her juno, each God has a Genius and every Goddess Her Juno. Thus, at one point, Proserpina is called "the Juno of Hades" and Hercules, as the son of Jupiter is also said to be the Genius of Jupiter. Each city had their own protective Goddess. Rome kept the name of their Goddess secret so that no enemy might evoke Her away as Rome was to do to other cities. In the story told by Livy of the downfall of Veii, Rome's victory is attributed to fulfilling a prophecy and to successfully evoking the Etruscan Goddess Vei from Her city to Rome where She was installed as Juno Regina of the Aventine. Other Goddess were likewise install at Rome. Carthaginian Tanit, for example, came to Rome as Juno Caelestis. On the Esquiline was a shrine of Mefitis of the Samnites, who was at times referred to as a Juno Regina, and another Juno Regina in the Forum Holitorium came from elsewhere.

Under the Republic these various Junones remained distinct. In the dialogue on the Gods by Cicero, he used these distinctions in an argument against supposing anthropomorphic Gods.

"You never see (Juno Sospita) even in your dreams unless equipped with goat-skin, spear, buckler and slippers turned up at the toes. Yet that is not the same as the Argive Juno nor the Roman Juno." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.29 (82)

Under Augustus there began a syncretism that brought the various Latin Junones together, to be seen as Juno Capitolina, while more distant Junones remained distinct. Later still, however, in the mystery religions of the Eastern provinces, syncretism moved towards seeing various Goddesses as a single Goddess, and lesser goddesses as Her daughters, and pushed the imperial religio Romana towards henotheism. In Apuleius' "Metamorphosis" we see this syncretism at work on two levels. Below, a prayer addressed to Juno combines many different Junones as though They are all the same Goddess. Then later in the story, upon meeting Isis, the Ass learns that all Goddesses, under this Hellenistic mystery religion, were thought to be manifestations of Isis.

"O spouse and sister of Mighty Jupiter, whether You are worshipped and adored in the public rites of the temples of Samos, or whether You are called upon singularly by women in their tearful moment of giving birth, Your glory is nourished. You dwell in ancient temples, whether at haughty Carthage, whose temples You frequently bless when they celebrate Your journey from heaven on the back of a lion, or whether in Your temple beside the riverbank of Inachus where You are celebrated as the wife of thundering Jupiter Tonans and as Queen of the Gods. Famous among the Argives whose walls You defend, You who all the east venerates as Life-giving Zygia, who all the west names Lucina, may You be an advocate for me against my utter downfall, Juno Sospita, and endure until the end in all my weary labors, exhausted as I am, deliver me from imminent peril and free me from my fears." ~ Lucius Apuleius of Madaura, Metamorphoses 6.

In the religio Romana the feast days of the various Junones retain Their distinctions, fully recognizing that it is upon Their Junones that They are invoked, but that each is a seperate and unique Goddess.


AUC 722 / 31 BCE: Restoration of the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius

The first templum at Rome was established by Romulus on the Capitoline Hill.

"Romulus mounted to the Capitol with the spoils of his dead foe (the Sabine King Akron of Caeninenses) borne before him on a frame constructed for the purpose. He hung them there on an oak, which the shepherds looked upon as a sacred tree, and at the same time marked out the site for the temple of Jupiter, and addressing the god by a new title, uttered the following invocation: 'Jupiter Feretrius! these arms taken from a king, I, Romulus a king and conqueror, bring to thee, and on this domain, whose bounds I have in will and purpose traced, I dedicate a temple to receive the 'spolia opima' which posterity following my example shall bear hither, taken from the kings and generals of our foes slain in battle.' Such was the origin of the first temple dedicated in Rome. And the Gods decreed that though its founder did not utter idle words in declaring that posterity would thither bear their spoils, still the splendour of that offering should not be dimmed by the number of those who have rivalled his achievement. For after so many years have elapsed and so many wars been waged, only twice have the 'spolia opima' been offered. So seldom has Fortune granted that glory to men." ~ Titus Livius 1.10

The others who won the spoilia opima were A. Cornelius Cossus who defeated Lar Tolumnius, the king of Veii, in 428 BCE (Livy 4.20; Valerius Maximus 3.2.4), and C. Claudius Marcellus who, in 221 BCE, defeated Viridomarus, the Isubrian king (Livy Ep. 20; Plutarch, Marcellus 8). At the suggestion of Atticus, friend of Cicero, Augustus restored the sacullum of Jupiter Feretrius near the Capitolium in 31 BCE. It is the dedication of this restored sacullum that is celebrated today. Afterward the Senate granted Augustus "the right to offer spolia opima, as they are called, at the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, as if he had slain some hostile general with his own hand, and to have lictors who always carried laurel, and after the Feriae Latinae to ride from the Alban Mount into the city on horseback (Dio Cassius 44.4.3)."


AUC 732 /22 BCE: Dedication of the Temple of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitoline Hill

"I pray first to You, thunderous Jupiter Tonans, that now finally You spare me in my old age and lift Your anger from me." ~Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 4.474-76

Augustus dedicated this temple after a vow in 26 BCE in thanks for his miraculous escape from being struck by a lightning bolt in Spain during his Cantabrian campaign. He erected it at the entrance to the sacred precinct of the Capitolium.

"Concerning this temple two stories have been handed down, first, that at that time claps of thunder occurred when the ritual was being performed, and, second, that at a later time Augustus had a dream as follows. The people, he thought, approached Jupiter who is called Tonans and did reverence to him, partly because of the novelty of his name and of the form of his statue, and partly because the statue had been set up by Augustus, 3 but chiefly because it was the first they encountered as they ascended the Capitol; and thereupon the Jupiter in the Capitolium was angry because he was now reduced to second place as compared with the other. At this, Augustus related, he said to Jupiter Capitolinus, 'You have Tonans as your sentinel;' and when it was day, he attached a bell to the statue as confirmation of the vision. For those who guard communities at night carry a bell, in order to be able to signal to the inhabitants whenever they need to do so." ~ Dio Cassius 54.4

Augustus especially embellished this temple, making its walls of marble and adorning it with famous pieces of art. In front were statues of Castor and Pollux by Hegias. Leochares produced the bronze statue of Jupiter Tonans for the temple [G. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 34.19 (78 and 79)].


Today's thought is from Demophilus, Pythagorean Sentences 1.

"Request not of Divinity such things as, when obtained, you cannot preserve; for no gift of Divinity can ever be taken away; and on this account They do not confer that which you are unable to retain."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80242 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Prove it's false!

And, I dont think you have ANY authority to do the action you are trying to
do.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:42 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus
> Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> This report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
>
> The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It
> failed.
>
> Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus
> withdrew their nominations.
>
> Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
>
> Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
>
> M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Quintus
> Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus pontifex Senatui Populoque Quiritium
> > Romano salutem dicit.
> >
> > With a session of the Collegium Pontificum having just finished, as
> > the convening pontifex, it rests with me to announce the results of
> > that session. The session was called to determine a pontifex maximus
> > pro tempore, and one has been chosen. Of the total pontifices, one
> > explicitly kept his name off the list of "eligible pontifices"
> > (namely, myself), therefore the vote was based on seven pontifices.
> > Of those, two received majorities (with the Collegium able to vote in
> > favour or against, or to abstain from voting, on each individual
> > candidate). One candidate, however, received a higher percentage of
> > favourable votes of those cast. Therefore:
> >
> > "QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
> >
> > As further research is required to properly determine what the duties
> > of a pontifex maximus shall be, the Collegium Pontificum has
> > determined that, in accordance with the laws of our Republic, it is
> > best to appoint a pontifex maximus on a pro tempore basis, until such
> > time as the aforementioned research may be properly concluded and a
> > determination made on the duties of a pontifex maximus. The Collegium
> > Pontificum having met to determine who shall serve in that position,
> > and what the term of office shall be for such an individual, has
> > concluded that:
> >
> > A. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall be the Pontifex Maximus, pro
> > tempore; and that,
> >
> > B. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall serve as the Pontifex
> > Maximus, pro tempore, beginning Id. Sep. MMDCCLXIII auc, and lasting
> > until a decretum is issued detailing the duties of a pontifex maximus
> > or through pr. Id. Mar. MDCCLXIV auc, whichever is sooner."
> >
> > Di Romanis faueant.
> >
> > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> > Pontifex
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80243 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Back to Partitioning
salve
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Minuciae Marcellae s.p.d.,
>
> > Another few questions I have about a possible dissolution and/or separation:
>
> I think this bad solution (dissolution) never will happen. We have to search for all which gather us together than divide us.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>

That's doubtful. I think it would behoove everyone to discuss this possibility.


-Anna
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80244 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Cato Piscino sal.

Unless you can prove otherwise, Piscinus, you are no longer in the chair of the pontifex maximus and have no authority to speak as such.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> This report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
>
> The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.
>
> Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.
>
> Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
>
> Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
>
> M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus pontifex Senatui Populoque Quiritium
> > Romano salutem dicit.
> >
> > With a session of the Collegium Pontificum having just finished, as
> > the convening pontifex, it rests with me to announce the results of
> > that session. The session was called to determine a pontifex maximus
> > pro tempore, and one has been chosen. Of the total pontifices, one
> > explicitly kept his name off the list of "eligible pontifices"
> > (namely, myself), therefore the vote was based on seven pontifices.
> > Of those, two received majorities (with the Collegium able to vote in
> > favour or against, or to abstain from voting, on each individual
> > candidate). One candidate, however, received a higher percentage of
> > favourable votes of those cast. Therefore:
> >
> > "QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
> >
> > As further research is required to properly determine what the duties
> > of a pontifex maximus shall be, the Collegium Pontificum has
> > determined that, in accordance with the laws of our Republic, it is
> > best to appoint a pontifex maximus on a pro tempore basis, until such
> > time as the aforementioned research may be properly concluded and a
> > determination made on the duties of a pontifex maximus. The Collegium
> > Pontificum having met to determine who shall serve in that position,
> > and what the term of office shall be for such an individual, has
> > concluded that:
> >
> > A. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall be the Pontifex Maximus, pro
> > tempore; and that,
> >
> > B. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall serve as the Pontifex
> > Maximus, pro tempore, beginning Id. Sep. MMDCCLXIII auc, and lasting
> > until a decretum is issued detailing the duties of a pontifex maximus
> > or through pr. Id. Mar. MDCCLXIV auc, whichever is sooner."
> >
> > Di Romanis faueant.
> >
> > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> > Pontifex
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80245 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Moravio Caecilioque Pontificibus s.d.



I must confess to you both that, at this time, I am a bit lost towards the results of this vote, and I have the unpleasant impression that I am not the only one.



Not contesting the sincerity of the one or the other, I cannot but state that the presiding Pontifex issues a result who states that you, Piscine, are no longer Pontifex Maximus, while your responsum below contests this publication.



Reading you both, my first reaction is to wonder how there may be so much difference upon what should be clear and immediately understandable. I suppose that the CP has a corpus of objective rules that organizes the convening of the sessions of the CP, how the CP votes and who may vote, how the votes are counted, etc..



May you please forward to me and all senators these rules or the hyperlinks to them, so that the Senate, all magistrates and I may have a precise opinion asap?



Meanwhile, I suggest that you consult each other on how you may reach an agreement on the results of this vote, and with no delay, for the good working of our Collegium Pontificum seems, at least to me, essential for the health of the Republic.



Thanks last sending to me the e-address of M. Antonius Gryllus Graecus.





Vobis gratias Pontifices,







P. Memmius Albucius cos.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com
From: MHoratius@...
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium Pontificum


M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.

The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.

The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.

Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.

Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.

Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.

M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus









To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com
From: MHoratius@...
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium Pontificum






M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.

The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.

The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.

Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.

Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.

Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.

M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80246 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: *IMPORTANT* - Speaking in the Forum : cives and addresses
Quirites,



Fyi !



This announce follows the previous reminders issued by our praetorian officers.



Qu. Gualterus and the whole praetorian team, our Latinists if necessary too, are ready to help you in reviewing, if necessary, how to address someone and how to end a letter.



Thanks for your assistance, and valete omnes,





P. Memmius Albucius

cos. p. pr.



To: nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com; nrmagistrates@yahoogroups.com
CC: praetores@yahoogroups.com
From: albucius_aoe@...
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:28:45 +0200
Subject: [NR_Senaculum] Speaking in the Forum : cives and addresses






Senatoribus Magistratibusque s.d.


Just an info on our Forum.

In the current context, I have been proposed, by the Praetorian team coordinated by Qu. Gualterus, to authorize a more attentive watch of the "uncivil" posts.

I have given such authorization in 2 directions :
- the non-cives cannot hold the same rights than our cives ;
- the formulas of politeness must be respected (again).

The first point is going to be worked upon by the praetorian team, in order to make me proposals so that we get an objective and simple system, clear to understand, that sets the different rules to apply to uncivil non-cives.
At the present time, we could just apply Yahoo! T.O.S. and, like in any list, ban any non-civis for the smallest mistake. This is not my wish. I wish keeping the these people who, though not yet or no more cives, are interested by NR, and have their place among us, but inside a clear "contract".

If our conditions allow it later, I will, with the agreement of my colleague, propose a system which would give us two fora, one for internal discussions, and one open to the external world.

On the second point, the praetorian team has stated that, probably because of the heat of our public debates, our contributors become more and more reluctant avoiding just a "salve, an address, and a "vale". I am not happy to say it here, but several senators and magistrates - and among the highest ones - happen to forget this elementary rule, that allows us to think twice to the letters we send in the forum, and thus to improve the way saying correctly our.. possible incorrect thoughts. ;-)

I have therefore asked the Praetura to be, after a first, and exceptionally a second warning to the concerned contributor, severe with this behaviors, and whoever be the contributor. The concerned person would be moderated, for an appropriate time that will be defined by the praetura.

This measure will apply *from tomorrow on*.

I am sure that you will support the action of our Praetura, which remains at the service of everyone and, therefore, of our Republic.


Thanks and valete Senatores, Magistratusque.


P. Memmius Albucius
cos. p. pr.










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80247 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus omnibus s. p. d.

Pontifex Modianus reported that Pontifex Gryllus withdrew his name. Flamenica Hortensia reported that Metellus had not counted votes correctly, in fact no one knows what his count was as he never reported a vote count. And I have provided the vote count. And any other member can attest as well that Metellus' proposal failed, that Gryllus, along with others, withdrew their names from consideration, and that among those who voted the majority voted to retain the current Pontifex Maximus.

When Metellus first announced on 11 August his intentions to call the Collegium into session on this matter, Pontifex Gryllus Graecus responded :

"Regarding the reestablishment and adaptation of the Religio to modern
society, Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus is doing a great job. He
dispenses a lot of effort to the Religio, something that I couldn't say about the previous Pontifex Maximus. The Religio Romana needs people who are dedicated to the Religio, people who -besides knowing a lot about the ancient practices through direct and secondary sources - spends time organizing and offering the rites. Few of us have been as active as Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, and this must be recognized and rewarded.

"I thus declare my full support to Marcus Moravius Piscinus Horatianus
and I make an appeal to all Pontifices, including Q Caecilius Metellus
Postumianus, in order to support him as well and stop this political
intrigues that are useless.

Di vos bene ament
Graecus


The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex Maximus has failed once again. They have systematicly insulted and attacked our Sacerdotes, begining with our Virgo Maxima, in an effort to undermine cultores Deorum who support me. They think that by calling me antipope and other derogatory terms they can defame and demean me to where the Collegium would remove me. They do so because I am an active Pontifex Maximus and uphold the position of the Religio Romana in Nova Roma against those who seek to debase and undermine the Religio Romana. Their deceptions, falsehoods, and other ploys have not persuaded the Collegium Pontificum. Calumnae, Sollicitudo, and Contumella Pietate are offenses against the Constitution. They threaten harm to the Res Publica and thus may be thought to involve Laesa Patriae as well.


Vadete in pace Deorum



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Piscino sal.
>
> Unless you can prove otherwise, Piscinus, you are no longer in the chair of the pontifex maximus and have no authority to speak as such.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
> >
> > This report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
> >
> > The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.
> >
> > Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.
> >
> > Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
> >
> > Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
> >
> > M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus Postumianus pontifex Senatui Populoque Quiritium
> > > Romano salutem dicit.
> > >
> > > With a session of the Collegium Pontificum having just finished, as
> > > the convening pontifex, it rests with me to announce the results of
> > > that session. The session was called to determine a pontifex maximus
> > > pro tempore, and one has been chosen. Of the total pontifices, one
> > > explicitly kept his name off the list of "eligible pontifices"
> > > (namely, myself), therefore the vote was based on seven pontifices.
> > > Of those, two received majorities (with the Collegium able to vote in
> > > favour or against, or to abstain from voting, on each individual
> > > candidate). One candidate, however, received a higher percentage of
> > > favourable votes of those cast. Therefore:
> > >
> > > "QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS
> > >
> > > As further research is required to properly determine what the duties
> > > of a pontifex maximus shall be, the Collegium Pontificum has
> > > determined that, in accordance with the laws of our Republic, it is
> > > best to appoint a pontifex maximus on a pro tempore basis, until such
> > > time as the aforementioned research may be properly concluded and a
> > > determination made on the duties of a pontifex maximus. The Collegium
> > > Pontificum having met to determine who shall serve in that position,
> > > and what the term of office shall be for such an individual, has
> > > concluded that:
> > >
> > > A. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall be the Pontifex Maximus, pro
> > > tempore; and that,
> > >
> > > B. Marcus Antonius Gryllus Graecus shall serve as the Pontifex
> > > Maximus, pro tempore, beginning Id. Sep. MMDCCLXIII auc, and lasting
> > > until a decretum is issued detailing the duties of a pontifex maximus
> > > or through pr. Id. Mar. MDCCLXIV auc, whichever is sooner."
> > >
> > > Di Romanis faueant.
> > >
> > > Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> > > Pontifex
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80248 From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Q Caecilius Metellus Pontifex Quiritibus salutem.

Saluete,

M Moravius stated:

> Pontifex Modianus reported that Pontifex Gryllus withdrew his name. Flamenica
> Hortensia reported that Metellus had not counted votes correctly, in fact no one
> knows what his count was as he never reported a vote count. And I have
> provided the vote count. And any other member can attest as well that Metellus'
> proposal failed, that Gryllus, along with others, withdrew their names from
> consideration, and that among those who voted the majority voted to retain the
> current Pontifex Maximus.

There are a litany of issues here; I will address now only two.
First, the question must be raised: Where, between the time the
College was notified it was to be convened, and the time that voting
commenced, did Pontifex Graecus state in chambers that that he wanted
his name to be removed from the list of eligible pontifices?
Secondly, it may be the opinion of M Hortensia that I have not counted
the votes correctly, but that has not been conclusively demonstrated,
for reasons I will address later.

> When Metellus first announced on 11 August his intentions to call the Collegium into
> session on this matter, Pontifex Gryllus Graecus responded :

[Graecus' words cut for brevity]

Another question has to be asked here: Is M Moravius posting the
content (verbatim, in fact) of deliberations held in the chambers of
the Collegium Pontificum?

The rest of what M Moravius has said does not merit further
consideration. However, there is another issue. As he has stated, M
Moravius has provided the individual tallies from the vote of the
Collegium Pontificum, in message 80240 to this list. I do not, in
fact, contest the individual tallies given. However, one has to ask
why only one-third the voting picture has been published, and, if
voting tallies are going to be reported for individual items, why the
other two-thirds of the voting picture has not been published. Just
as importantly, one has to wonder what there is in the other two
thirds of the voting picture.

Di nos ament!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80249 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Ave Pontifex,

Are you saying that Pontifex Piscinus altered email communication and failed
to disclose that he altered such communication?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <
q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Pontifex Quiritibus salutem.
>
> Saluete,
>
> M Moravius stated:
>
>
> > Pontifex Modianus reported that Pontifex Gryllus withdrew his name.
> Flamenica
> > Hortensia reported that Metellus had not counted votes correctly, in fact
> no one
> > knows what his count was as he never reported a vote count. And I have
> > provided the vote count. And any other member can attest as well that
> Metellus'
> > proposal failed, that Gryllus, along with others, withdrew their names
> from
> > consideration, and that among those who voted the majority voted to
> retain the
> > current Pontifex Maximus.
>
> There are a litany of issues here; I will address now only two.
> First, the question must be raised: Where, between the time the
> College was notified it was to be convened, and the time that voting
> commenced, did Pontifex Graecus state in chambers that that he wanted
> his name to be removed from the list of eligible pontifices?
> Secondly, it may be the opinion of M Hortensia that I have not counted
> the votes correctly, but that has not been conclusively demonstrated,
> for reasons I will address later.
>
>
> > When Metellus first announced on 11 August his intentions to call the
> Collegium into
> > session on this matter, Pontifex Gryllus Graecus responded :
>
> [Graecus' words cut for brevity]
>
> Another question has to be asked here: Is M Moravius posting the
> content (verbatim, in fact) of deliberations held in the chambers of
> the Collegium Pontificum?
>
> The rest of what M Moravius has said does not merit further
> consideration. However, there is another issue. As he has stated, M
> Moravius has provided the individual tallies from the vote of the
> Collegium Pontificum, in message 80240 to this list. I do not, in
> fact, contest the individual tallies given. However, one has to ask
> why only one-third the voting picture has been published, and, if
> voting tallies are going to be reported for individual items, why the
> other two-thirds of the voting picture has not been published. Just
> as importantly, one has to wonder what there is in the other two
> thirds of the voting picture.
>
> Di nos ament!
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80250 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Q. Caecilio dicit

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
<snipped> As he has stated, M
> Moravius has provided the individual tallies from the vote of the
> Collegium Pontificum, in message 80240 to this list. I do not, in
> fact, contest the individual tallies given.


If you do not contest the vote tally then why did you issue a false report?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80251 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cn. Lentulus pontifex Quiritibus sal.

Although I am not the convening pontifex, nor the pontifex maximus, I can not bear this mess anymore, and I give my counting of the votes in the session as follows, I do this exclusively so that everything be clear.

This is how I counted:

M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)

M. Antonius got 3 votes. (T. Sabinus, Q. Maximus and C. Petronius voted for M. Antonius)

T. Sabinus got 2 votes. (Q. Maximus and C. Petronius voted for T. Sabinus)


Cn. Lentulus got 1 vote (C. Petronius voted for Cn. Lentulus)

Fl. Galerius got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Fl. Galerius)

Q. Maximus got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Q. Maximus)


I hope this ends the misunderstandings about the results.















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80252 From: Quintus Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Q Caecilius Metellus Quiritibus salutem iterum dicit.

Let me reiterate, as stated now by both Cn Lentulus and M Moravius,
only one-third is being shown, nevermind the fact that M Hortensia is
no longer a flamenica due to the judgment issued against her. Where,
then, in the reports given by both, are the other two-thirds of the
voting picture?

Di nos ament!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80253 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cn. Lentulus Q. Metello sal.


I would gladly answer to your question, Q. Metelle, but I do not understand.

What the other 2/3 means?

I gave all the votes for candidates. I do not see other votes. Please let me know what you imply.


Cura, ut valeas in pace deorum!






--- Mer 1/9/10, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> ha scritto:

Da: Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Mercoledì 1 settembre 2010, 17:30







 









Q Caecilius Metellus Quiritibus salutem iterum dicit.



Let me reiterate, as stated now by both Cn Lentulus and M Moravius,

only one-third is being shown, nevermind the fact that M Hortensia is

no longer a flamenica due to the judgment issued against her. Where,

then, in the reports given by both, are the other two-thirds of the

voting picture?



Di nos ament!























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80254 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Salvete Omnes!

This is a correct report by Lentulus! Metellus has given a false report.

**********

1 sep 2010 kl. 17.18 skrev Cn. Cornelius Lentulus:


Cn. Lentulus pontifex Quiritibus sal.

Although I am not the convening pontifex, nor the pontifex maximus, I
can not bear this mess anymore, and I give my counting of the votes in
the session as follows, I do this exclusively so that everything be
clear.

This is how I counted:

M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior,
K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)

M. Antonius got 3 votes. (T. Sabinus, Q. Maximus and C. Petronius
voted for M. Antonius)

T. Sabinus got 2 votes. (Q. Maximus and C. Petronius voted for T.
Sabinus)


Cn. Lentulus got 1 vote (C. Petronius voted for Cn. Lentulus)

Fl. Galerius got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Fl. Galerius)

Q. Maximus got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Q. Maximus)


I hope this ends the misunderstandings about the results.















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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80255 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Really? Will you take an oath that that is the case?

Vale,

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes!
>
> This is a correct report by Lentulus! Metellus has given a false report.
>
> **********
>
> 1 sep 2010 kl. 17.18 skrev Cn. Cornelius Lentulus:
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex Quiritibus sal.
>
> Although I am not the convening pontifex, nor the pontifex maximus, I
> can not bear this mess anymore, and I give my counting of the votes in
> the session as follows, I do this exclusively so that everything be
> clear.
>
> This is how I counted:
>
> M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior,
> K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
>
> M. Antonius got 3 votes. (T. Sabinus, Q. Maximus and C. Petronius
> voted for M. Antonius)
>
> T. Sabinus got 2 votes. (Q. Maximus and C. Petronius voted for T.
> Sabinus)
>
> Cn. Lentulus got 1 vote (C. Petronius voted for Cn. Lentulus)
>
> Fl. Galerius got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Fl. Galerius)
>
> Q. Maximus got 1 vote. (C. Petronius voted for Q. Maximus)
>
> I hope this ends the misunderstandings about the results.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80256 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Moravius Piscinus Q. Metellus dicit:

What are you talking about? Why this cryptic nonsense? If you have something to say then why are you not explicit in your reason for issuing a false report?

There were eleven possible votes in the session, as Aurelianus had not returned from leave. Eight votes were counted. 8/11 or 72% is more than 2/3, and five votes out of eight is 62.5% in favor of retaining the current Pontifex Maximus. So what is this 2/3 picture that you abover the actual vote of the Collegium Pontificum?


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Quiritibus salutem iterum dicit.
>
> Let me reiterate, as stated now by both Cn Lentulus and M Moravius,
> only one-third is being shown, nevermind the fact that M Hortensia is
> no longer a flamenica due to the judgment issued against her. Where,
> then, in the reports given by both, are the other two-thirds of the
> voting picture?
>
> Di nos ament!
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80257 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Salve,

I thought senators could go on the CP as read only. So couldn't other senators easily verify what the pontifexes are saying?


-Anna Bucci
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80258 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex Maximus has failed once again.

I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.

Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very great problem who blinds a fine analysis.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80259 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus P. Memmius Albucius Consuli s. p. d.

There is no wonder at your confusion. The false report by Metellus was apparently intended to cause confusion and additional divisiveness in our Re Publica.

The rules of our sessions are outlined in the Decretum de ratione pontificum collegii as modified by the Decretum pontificum de membris collegiorum issued a.d. V Non. Mar. ‡ M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXII a.u.c. restoring voting privileges to all Collegium members. Both decreta are available on our website.

The vote, as already correctly reported by other members of the Collegium was five in favor of retaining myself as Pontifex Maximus, three votes were for for Pontifex Gryllus instead, even though he had withdrawn himself from consideration for the office on 11 August and stated his support for me at that time. And one member cast votes for more than one pontifex. The vote has been confirmed by members of the Collegium and can be further confirmed by Senators who are still subscribed on the list.

Now Pontifex Gryllus has complained in the Collegium that he is receiving emails claiming that he is Pontifex Maximus. He is upset by these emails as some seek to place him in the middle of their attempts to disrupt the Collegium Pontificum. He wants no part of their political schemes. He does not want to become Pontifex Maximus and he does not want to be contacted further on this subject.

What we see is that the very same individuals who attacked our Virgo Maxima, who attacked our CFO Equestria Iunia, who attacked the Praetrices, who attacked and continue to attack our Sacerdotes, who plotted a coup to depose elected magistrates and adlected Sacerdotes, who proposed to dissolve and partition Nova Roma, are once again spreading false reports to disrupt the Res Publica. How much longer shall the Consules allow this to go on? How many more good Citizens must resign because of the antics of these few individuals who oppose the Res Publica, some who are not even Citizens, before the Consules realize where the problem lies and that they must take firm action?


Vade in pace Deorum



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
>
> Moravio Caecilioque Pontificibus s.d.
>
>
>
> I must confess to you both that, at this time, I am a bit lost towards the results of this vote, and I have the unpleasant impression that I am not the only one.
>
>
>
> Not contesting the sincerity of the one or the other, I cannot but state that the presiding Pontifex issues a result who states that you, Piscine, are no longer Pontifex Maximus, while your responsum below contests this publication.
>
>
>
> Reading you both, my first reaction is to wonder how there may be so much difference upon what should be clear and immediately understandable. I suppose that the CP has a corpus of objective rules that organizes the convening of the sessions of the CP, how the CP votes and who may vote, how the votes are counted, etc..
>
>
>
> May you please forward to me and all senators these rules or the hyperlinks to them, so that the Senate, all magistrates and I may have a precise opinion asap?
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I suggest that you consult each other on how you may reach an agreement on the results of this vote, and with no delay, for the good working of our Collegium Pontificum seems, at least to me, essential for the health of the Republic.
>
>
>
> Thanks last sending to me the e-address of M. Antonius Gryllus Graecus.
>
>
>
>
>
> Vobis gratias Pontifices,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P. Memmius Albucius cos.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com
> From: MHoratius@...
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
> Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium Pontificum
>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
>
> The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.
>
> Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.
>
> Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
>
> Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
>
> M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com
> From: MHoratius@...
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
> Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium Pontificum
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
>
> The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus. It failed.
>
> Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus withdrew their nominations.
>
> Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
>
> Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
>
> M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80260 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Hortensia Annae Bucciae spd;

Marinus is there as well as NR's 2 censors. So do ask.

I reposted a tally & asked all the CP to verify the numbers. Poor Metellus has a lot of issues. He needs to take a break and deal with them.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> I thought senators could go on the CP as read only. So couldn't other senators easily verify what the pontifexes are saying?
>
>
> -Anna Bucci
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80261 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Ave Tribune,

I would hazard to guess that this is because this is how their own faction
works. Like during the coup wherein it probably was a group effort on their
part to do a hostile takeover of the corporation.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
>
> > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex
> Maximus has failed once again.
>
> I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that
> all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such
> so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
>
> Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very great
> problem who blinds a fine analysis.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80262 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,

> This is how I counted:
>
> M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)

The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.

As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80263 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Staia Cornelia Aeternia M. Moravio Piscino Omnibus S.P.D.

Apologies but I feel oddly compelled to respond.


Pisci enough of this. Your cauldron stirring needs to come to an end as of
now.

Have Pontifex Metellus explain the statistical side of his calculations,
each and every step of how he actually came to his numbers.

M. Hortensia Maior was condemned therefore not being able to hold any Public
Office, which includes her religious Office. And before you squeak thats
not true, but it is since she would be serving the public in regards to
religious duties. It's public, therefore unfortunately her vote would not
count, to continue to allow her to hold office while she is condemned is in
violation of the law, which while you were Pontifex Maximus should have been
aware of.

Newly elected Pontifex Maximus Gracchus should at least behoove the people
of the forum with some form of a statement backing your claims that he
refuses his newly elected position. If you want the position that badly
Pisci then you'd have no problem reattaining such said position the legal
and proper way now wouldn't you?

What we are seeing is two opposing views constantly clashing like a twisted
merry-go-round. It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
Nova Roma, only some agreed because that seemed the best way for all
parties, for your faction to vanish into the lost sunset but we know better
don't we Piscinus? You and others left to form the SVR, that didn't seem to
be satisfactory for here you are now. I don't think Paritioning will stop
you from returning lets face it. Dictatorial Plot? Was it not your allies
who proposed and nominated Marinus to become Dictator? Only Marinus was
smart enough to attain advice from a Maine Law Lawyer(good thinking btw
Marinus) where he was advised it would be illegal to assume such a position.
And as far as attacking Sacerdotes and the Virgo Maxima, which Sacerdotes?
The Virgo Maxima (and as much as I adore her) took upon a Political Office,
did you expect her to keep the off mud considering how NR politics goes?
Were you not thinking of her best interests at heart? Or just another
Tribunal seat to be filled?

Piscinus take a step back and see what you are doing, it's been more
damaging than beneficial.

Vale Optime,
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia



On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:45 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus P. Memmius Albucius Consuli s. p. d.
>
> There is no wonder at your confusion. The false report by Metellus was
> apparently intended to cause confusion and additional divisiveness in our Re
> Publica.
>
> The rules of our sessions are outlined in the Decretum de ratione
> pontificum collegii as modified by the Decretum pontificum de membris
> collegiorum issued a.d. V Non. Mar. ‡ M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXII
> a.u.c. restoring voting privileges to all Collegium members. Both decreta
> are available on our website.
>
> The vote, as already correctly reported by other members of the Collegium
> was five in favor of retaining myself as Pontifex Maximus, three votes were
> for for Pontifex Gryllus instead, even though he had withdrawn himself from
> consideration for the office on 11 August and stated his support for me at
> that time. And one member cast votes for more than one pontifex. The vote
> has been confirmed by members of the Collegium and can be further confirmed
> by Senators who are still subscribed on the list.
>
> Now Pontifex Gryllus has complained in the Collegium that he is receiving
> emails claiming that he is Pontifex Maximus. He is upset by these emails as
> some seek to place him in the middle of their attempts to disrupt the
> Collegium Pontificum. He wants no part of their political schemes. He does
> not want to become Pontifex Maximus and he does not want to be contacted
> further on this subject.
>
> What we see is that the very same individuals who attacked our Virgo
> Maxima, who attacked our CFO Equestria Iunia, who attacked the Praetrices,
> who attacked and continue to attack our Sacerdotes, who plotted a coup to
> depose elected magistrates and adlected Sacerdotes, who proposed to dissolve
> and partition Nova Roma, are once again spreading false reports to disrupt
> the Res Publica. How much longer shall the Consules allow this to go on? How
> many more good Citizens must resign because of the antics of these few
> individuals who oppose the Res Publica, some who are not even Citizens,
> before the Consules realize where the problem lies and that they must take
> firm action?
>
> Vade in pace Deorum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Publius
> Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Moravio Caecilioque Pontificibus s.d.
> >
> >
> >
> > I must confess to you both that, at this time, I am a bit lost towards
> the results of this vote, and I have the unpleasant impression that I am not
> the only one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not contesting the sincerity of the one or the other, I cannot but state
> that the presiding Pontifex issues a result who states that you, Piscine,
> are no longer Pontifex Maximus, while your responsum below contests this
> publication.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reading you both, my first reaction is to wonder how there may be so much
> difference upon what should be clear and immediately understandable. I
> suppose that the CP has a corpus of objective rules that organizes the
> convening of the sessions of the CP, how the CP votes and who may vote, how
> the votes are counted, etc..
> >
> >
> >
> > May you please forward to me and all senators these rules or the
> hyperlinks to them, so that the Senate, all magistrates and I may have a
> precise opinion asap?
> >
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile, I suggest that you consult each other on how you may reach an
> agreement on the results of this vote, and with no delay, for the good
> working of our Collegium Pontificum seems, at least to me, essential for the
> health of the Republic.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks last sending to me the e-address of M. Antonius Gryllus Graecus.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Vobis gratias Pontifices,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > P. Memmius Albucius cos.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com<NovaRoma-Announce%40yahoogroups.com>
> > From: MHoratius@...
>
> > Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
> > Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium
> Pontificum
> >
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus
> Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
> >
> > The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
> >
> > The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus.
> It failed.
> >
> > Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus
> withdrew their nominations.
> >
> > Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
> >
> > Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
> >
> > M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: NovaRoma-Announce@yahoogroups.com<NovaRoma-Announce%40yahoogroups.com>
> > From: MHoratius@...
>
> > Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:57 +0000
> > Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] False Report of the Session of the Collegium
> Pontificum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Pontifex Maximus Consulibus, Tribunibus
> Plebis, Quiritibus s. p. d.
> >
> > The report by Q. Caecilius Metellus is FALSE and VOIDED.
> >
> > The proposal was whether or not to appoint a temporary pontifex maximus.
> It failed.
> >
> > Among those eligible to take the office, Metellus, Modianus, and Gryllus
> withdrew their nominations.
> >
> > Lentulus, Sabinus, Fabius Maximus and Aurelianus each received one vote.
> >
> > Gryllus Graecus received three votes in spite of withdrawing his name.
> >
> > M. Moravius received four votes and remains Pontifex Maximus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80264 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.

As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.

Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.

" Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
>
> > This is how I counted:
> >
> > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
>
> The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
>
> As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80265 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Salve male

That was you who plotted a coup for a hostile takeover of the corporation, and the majority of the Senate put a stop to your plot.

The majority "faction" or as you call us TPTB are in office because a majority elected us to our offices. You don't like it? Then run for office and be defeated again. But instead your "faction" of Cato, Metellus, and Sulla, supported by non-citizens from the Back Alley, tries to chase off people with your slander, insults, and falsehoods. You can't win election, so you plot coups and revolution and civil war, all the time planning to disrupt what you can never gain.

Just who are you now trying to deceive? Do you think the Senate hasn't seen your "theoretical" plan for civil war? Spreading falsehoods, jabbering away from your cell just to see your own name appear so often on our lists. Go ahead, post all those abstracts that you'll never read. Just more of our bandwidth for you to dance around in. "Hey, Everybody, Look at Me!" cries the little boy off in the corner, scorned by everyone else, just like the time on the playground when you were in kindergarten, Sulla?

M. Moravius Piscinus
Pontifex Maximus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Tribune,
>
> I would hazard to guess that this is because this is how their own faction
> works. Like during the coup wherein it probably was a group effort on their
> part to do a hostile takeover of the corporation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> >
> >
> > > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex
> > Maximus has failed once again.
> >
> > I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that
> > all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such
> > so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
> >
> > Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very great
> > problem who blinds a fine analysis.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80266 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Ave,

It was you who plotted the takeover of the corporation. Not I. Again you
are confusing me with yourself. You really need to get that looked into.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:03 PM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve male
>
> That was you who plotted a coup for a hostile takeover of the corporation,
> and the majority of the Senate put a stop to your plot.
>
> The majority "faction" or as you call us TPTB are in office because a
> majority elected us to our offices. You don't like it? Then run for office
> and be defeated again. But instead your "faction" of Cato, Metellus, and
> Sulla, supported by non-citizens from the Back Alley, tries to chase off
> people with your slander, insults, and falsehoods. You can't win election,
> so you plot coups and revolution and civil war, all the time planning to
> disrupt what you can never gain.
>
> Just who are you now trying to deceive? Do you think the Senate hasn't seen
> your "theoretical" plan for civil war? Spreading falsehoods, jabbering away
> from your cell just to see your own name appear so often on our lists. Go
> ahead, post all those abstracts that you'll never read. Just more of our
> bandwidth for you to dance around in. "Hey, Everybody, Look at Me!" cries
> the little boy off in the corner, scorned by everyone else, just like the
> time on the playground when you were in kindergarten, Sulla?
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus
> Pontifex Maximus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave Tribune,
> >
> > I would hazard to guess that this is because this is how their own
> faction
> > works. Like during the coup wherein it probably was a group effort on
> their
> > part to do a hostile takeover of the corporation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> > >
> > >
> > > > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex
> > > Maximus has failed once again.
> > >
> > > I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure
> that
> > > all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such
> > > so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
> > >
> > > Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very
> great
> > > problem who blinds a fine analysis.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80267 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Salve Dexter

I did not refer to the vote by the members of the Collegium. I know we all voted in good conscious.

I was referring instead to the false report issued by Metellus and how Cato and Sulla, along with Gracchus, have since tried to take that falsehood up as a decision of the Collegium when it is not. Cato and Sulla scream for proof that the report was falsified. Why haven't they demanded proof from Metellus? Oh, but Metellus has confirmed the vote reported by Maior is correct, even as he denies the result. Sulla asks that a Consul and Censorius take an oath to confirm the vote as given by Maior. While Metellus gives some cryptic nonsense about a hidden picture to hide his own deception.

Does it slip from your observation who is behind all this? Who is trying once more to disrupt the Res Publica? Does it also slip your obversation that Metellus lives with Sulla from time to time? Or how they earlier hatched some scheme to discredit me and made false claims about me then? Or all the insults they directed against the Virgo Maximus and other members of the Collegium Pontificum? How Metellus filed a claim against Hortensia and has since tried to claim she is not a Sacerdos when she was appointed by to her offices by decreta pontifica? Any Citizen can read the Constitution Art. I.B to see that decreta pontifica hold a higher authority than magisterial edicta and that neither edicta nor leges may conflict with the internal affairs of the Collegium. I stand against their interpretation that tries to depose a Sacerdos and Flamenica because they oppose her political views and because she has not been intimidated by their harassment. And then there are all the names they like to call me as they profess to one another how much they loathe me - such childishness by them - it only makes me smile as it proves I stand in their way of debasing the Religio Romana. I am neither swayed nor intimidated by such foolish antics as Metellus and Sulla play at convincing themselves of the loathesome antipope. Thus yet another attempt by Metellus to have the Collegium vote me out of office. And when he failed, he issued a false report and had non-practitioners take up the call to proclaim someone, anyone else, as Pontifex Maximus. Why do these non-practitioners have such an interest in removing cultores Deorum from the Collegium Pontificum? To me it only confirms that the Collegium Pontificum made the correct decision to retain me as Pontifex Maximus as someone who will stand against them and uphold the Religio Romana and the rights and privileges of it Collegia.

Vale optime et vade in pace Deorum

M. Moravius Piscinus
Pontifex Maximus et
Magister Collegii Augurum


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
> > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex Maximus has failed once again.
>
> I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
>
> Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very great problem who blinds a fine analysis.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80268 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus C. Petronio et Quiritibus s. p. d.

I affirm that Flamenica M. Hortensia' voting privileges were restored as reported on 21 Aug 2010:

Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis

"Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium
Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium Pontificum are restored."

I affirm that under the Constitution I.B.1 and the Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus issued 21 July 2010, and by the Constitution Article VI.B.1.c and the Decretum pontificum de sacrificiis of 2004, that magisterial edicta do not and cannot conflict with decreta appointing Sacerdotes to their offices since such decreta are "relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures."

Ref: Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus

"The Collegium Pontificum, under the Constitution VI.B.1, has sole authority to appoint or dismiss sacerdotes under its administration. Only in the case of a sacerdos losing his or her citizenship in Nova Roma may the Collegium Pontificum be required to dismiss the non-citizen from a sacerdotal public office."

And since the Constitution, Article VI.B.1.c continues, "such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum," it holds that the lesser authority of a tribunal and or praetorial edictum also cannot overrule such decreta which appoint Sacerdotes to perform sacra publica.

The vote by M. Hortensia was appropriate. She retains her offices as Sacerdos Mentis and Flamenica Carmentis and had been granted voting privileges in the Collegium Pontificum before this recent vote was taken.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
> after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.
>
> As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.
>
> Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.
>
> " Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
> >
> > > This is how I counted:
> > >
> > > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
> >
> > The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
> >
> > As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80269 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Let me knock one more straw man down:

I have not made any "attempts to depose" anyone as pontifex maximus, let alone made one "again".

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
>
> > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex Maximus has failed once again.
>
> I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
>
> Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very great problem who blinds a fine analysis.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80270 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Yeah, you know how Maior said Metellus needs some time to rest. I think
that needs to be applied to Piscinus.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Petronio Dextero sal.
>
> Let me knock one more straw man down:
>
> I have not made any "attempts to depose" anyone as pontifex maximus, let
> alone made one "again".
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,
> >
> > > The attempts by Sulla, Metellus, and Cato to depose me as Pontifex
> Maximus has failed once again.
> >
> > I wonder how our votes can be involved in a such attempt? I am sure that
> all of us voted in following his/her conscience not by making a such
> so-called complot. Read, please, the comments added to the votes.
> >
> > Your systematick attack against your fellow adversaries are your very
> great problem who blinds a fine analysis.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80271 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cato Piscino sal.

Read my response to Maior: her sentence of condemnation removed her from *all* public offices until the Kalends of Ianuarius. You do not have the authority to override a sentence passed by a Nova Roman court.

Her piaculum was to settle an internal condemnation of her - by you.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus C. Petronio et Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> I affirm that Flamenica M. Hortensia' voting privileges were restored as reported on 21 Aug 2010:
>
> Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis
>
> "Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium
> Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium Pontificum are restored."
>
> I affirm that under the Constitution I.B.1 and the Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus issued 21 July 2010, and by the Constitution Article VI.B.1.c and the Decretum pontificum de sacrificiis of 2004, that magisterial edicta do not and cannot conflict with decreta appointing Sacerdotes to their offices since such decreta are "relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures."
>
> Ref: Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus
>
> "The Collegium Pontificum, under the Constitution VI.B.1, has sole authority to appoint or dismiss sacerdotes under its administration. Only in the case of a sacerdos losing his or her citizenship in Nova Roma may the Collegium Pontificum be required to dismiss the non-citizen from a sacerdotal public office."
>
> And since the Constitution, Article VI.B.1.c continues, "such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum," it holds that the lesser authority of a tribunal and or praetorial edictum also cannot overrule such decreta which appoint Sacerdotes to perform sacra publica.
>
> The vote by M. Hortensia was appropriate. She retains her offices as Sacerdos Mentis and Flamenica Carmentis and had been granted voting privileges in the Collegium Pontificum before this recent vote was taken.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
> > after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.
> >
> > As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.
> >
> > Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.
> >
> > " Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
> > >
> > > > This is how I counted:
> > > >
> > > > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
> > >
> > > The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
> > >
> > > As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80272 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cato Maiori sal.

Your piaculum had nothing to do with your sentence of condemnation from the Nova Roman court; it was in response to a sentence passed upon you *internally* within the College of Pontiffs.

Don't try to equate the two.

You are not a public priest nor are you a senator, and you cannot return to those offices before the Kalends of Ianuarius as the court ordered.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
> after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.
>
> As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.
>
> Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.
>
> " Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
> >
> > > This is how I counted:
> > >
> > > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
> >
> > The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
> >
> > As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80273 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
salve

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> Nova Roma,



No it was Matt Hucke. Maior suggested dissolving NR.


vale

Anna
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80274 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Cn Iulius Caesar Maiori sal.
 
No, sadly I don't think you have read all the law.
 
The Lex Salicia poenalis, duly passed in comitia, cannot be overriden by a decretum, as per Section I.B of the Constitution, order of legal precedence. Section 12 of that lex states:
 
"Once a sententia has been issued by a legal Novoroman court, since this court represents the will of the Comitia, only a vote in the Comitia may rescind a sententia by the passage of a lex."
 
Therefore no decretum could in any case affect the sententia of the court you were tried and convicted by. You incorrectly ascribe the sententia as having only the weight of a magisterial edict, when in fact by law it has the force of a lex. According to the constitution a lex ranks higher than a decretum.
 
It is nice to see you actually quoting the constitution for a change, rather than vague assertions as to how things were once in Ancient Rome or wild assertions as to what Cordus thinks. Now all you have to work on is understanding the meaning and impact of sections like I.B, and widening your research to other laws of Nova Roma, such as the Lex Salicia poenalis.
 
Optime vale.

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:


From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 1:51 PM


M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
    after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.

As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.

Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.

" Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
>
> > This is how I counted:
> >
> > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
>
> The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
>
> As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80275 From: M. Octavius Gracchus Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Ave Annia Minucia,

> It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
>> Nova Roma,

> No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.

My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.

Vale, Octavius.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80276 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
Salve Annia,

To my recollection it was Maior who suggested complete Dissolution, then it
was Octavius (aka Matt Hucke) who suggested Parition. But you are right,
there was a slight error in my statement which I retract.


But Piscinus was suggestng the supposedly formed BA Faction were the
original instigators of complete Dissolution.
Which is not the case.

Vale,
Aeternia
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:11 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
> salve
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > Nova Roma,
>
> No it was Matt Hucke. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
>
> vale
>
> Anna
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80277 From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: After every Kalends, Nones, Ides, the next day is "Ater", 9/2/2010,
Reminder from:   Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
 
Title:   After every Kalends, Nones, Ides, the next day is "Ater"
 
Date:   Thursday September 2, 2010
Time:   All Day
Repeats:   This event repeats every month.
Notes:   Ater (unlucky)
*Gods or Goddesses should not be invoked by name while indoors, and no celestial God or Goddess should be invoked by name while outdoors.
*Sacrifices should not be made.
*These days are ill-omened to begin any new project since any new project would necessarily begin by performing a rite calling for the assistance of the gods. Such religious rites, beginning something new, are not to be performed.
*Avoid making journeys, or doing anything risky.
NOTA BENE: Normal work would still be performed on dies atri, and as part of performing any work one performs rites for the patron deities, geni locii, and other appropriate deities. Likewise, the daily routine is also performed before the lararium
 
Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80278 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report" of the Session of the Collegi
salve

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Annia Minucia,
>
> > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> >> Nova Roma,
>
> > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
>
> My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>


My name is Anna bucci.


vale

Anna Bucci
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80279 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "False Re
Savete;
now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to go the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he wants me to do it.

Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.

I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles on gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go out & have a social life too;-)

I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few individuals who really need a life.
optime vale
Maior


from Graecus
Salve,

I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that your accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on the Praetura to deal with this.

I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in what capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she was insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.

Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24 hours.

Vale,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> salve
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> >
> > Ave Annia Minucia,
> >
> > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > >> Nova Roma,
> >
> > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> >
> > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> >
> > Vale, Octavius.
> >
>
>
> My name is Anna bucci.
>
>
> vale
>
> Anna Bucci
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80280 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "False
Ave,

And yet you have enough time to post this? Ummmm...interesting.

And you also forgot to include your first trial too. That is interesting as
well.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:13 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Savete;
> now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to
> go the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he
> wants me to do it.
>
> Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one
> lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.
>
> I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles
> on gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go
> out & have a social life too;-)
>
> I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few
> individuals who really need a life.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> from Graecus
> Salve,
>
> I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that
> your accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on
> the Praetura to deal with this.
>
> I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in
> what capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether
> she was insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.
>
> Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes
> stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24
> hours.
>
> Vale,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
> >
> > salve
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "M.
> Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave Annia Minucia,
> > >
> > > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > > >> Nova Roma,
> > >
> > > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> > >
> > > Vale, Octavius.
> > >
> >
> >
> > My name is Anna bucci.
> >
> >
> > vale
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80281 From: Gaius Aurelius Vindex Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-An
Salve Maior
You have all my solidarity and my total understanding, try do not forget
your priorities facing all these nuisances.
All the best to you.
Vale Optime in Gratia Deorum
Gaius Aurelius Vindex

-------Messaggio originale-------

Da: rory12001
Data: 02/09/2010 0.13.34
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was
NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report


Savete;
now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to go
the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he wants
me to do it.

Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one
lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.

I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles on
gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go
out & have a social life too;-)

I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few
individuals who really need a life.
optime vale
Maior

from Graecus
Salve,

I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that your
accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on the
Praetura to deal with this.

I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in what
capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she was
insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.

Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes
stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24 hours


Vale,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> salve
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus"
<octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> >
> > Ave Annia Minucia,
> >
> > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > >> Nova Roma,
> >
> > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> >
> > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> >
> > Vale, Octavius.
> >
>
>
> My name is Anna bucci.
>
>
> vale
>
> Anna Bucci
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80282 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Caesar Piscino sal.
 
Regarding your statement:
 
 "And since the Constitution, Article VI.B.1.c continues, "such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum," it holds that the lesser authority of a tribunal and or praetorial edictum also cannot overrule such decreta which appoint Sacerdotes to perform sacra publica."
 
That conflicts with Section I.B of the Constitution that has laws in comitia ranked higher than a decretum. I think we have had this conversation in email before on this very point, and as discussed before if a decretum is issued, no subsequent lex can overturn it as long as the decretum only concerns the internal functions of the collegium. The apparent clash between two sections of the constitution is not a clash if this principle is followed. The decretum has to be (a) only concerning internal matters of the religio/collegium AND (b) have been issued before any lex that tries to affect the decretum.
 
In this case however the lex salacia poenalis pre-dated the decretum. The sententia of the court pre-dated the decretum. Therefore Section I.B prevails, and the decretum cannot affect the higher authority. If we follow your interpretation section I.B would be violated, since the lex salacia clearly states the sententia cannot be anulled by any other means than a lex passed in comitia. That requirment in the lex must prevail over a decretum which ranks lower in the order of legal priority.
 
Section VI.B.1.c of the Constitution protects decretum already issued on internal matters being overturned by comitia vote. That preserves the internal authority of the collegium over its own affairs, but only so long as the collegium has issued a decretum prior to the passage of a lex through comitia. If the collegium has not taken a stand on an issue, a lex passed in comitia could not then be SUBSEQUENTLY challenged by a decretum, because of section I.B of the Constitution.
 
So..as the decretum in the collegium relating to Maior came after the passing of the lex salacia poenalis, which stated that a sententia could only be overturned by a lex passed for that purpose in a comitia, it cannot affect the sententia - by virtue of section I.B of the Constitution.
 
Optime vale

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...> wrote:


From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 2:29 PM


M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus C. Petronio et Quiritibus s. p. d.

I affirm that Flamenica M. Hortensia' voting privileges were restored as reported on 21 Aug 2010:

Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis

"Having completed her instruction as previously given by the Collegium
Pontificum, the voting privileges of Flamenica M. Hortensia in the Collegium Pontificum are restored."

I affirm that under the Constitution I.B.1 and the Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus issued 21 July 2010, and by the Constitution Article VI.B.1.c and the Decretum pontificum de sacrificiis of 2004, that magisterial edicta do not and cannot conflict with decreta appointing Sacerdotes to their offices since such decreta are "relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures."

Ref: Decretum Pontificum de sacerdotibus

"The Collegium Pontificum, under the Constitution VI.B.1, has sole authority to appoint or dismiss sacerdotes under its administration. Only in the case of a sacerdos losing his or her citizenship in Nova Roma may the Collegium Pontificum be required to dismiss the non-citizen from a sacerdotal public office."

And since the Constitution, Article VI.B.1.c continues, "such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum," it holds that the lesser authority of a tribunal and or praetorial edictum also cannot overrule such decreta which appoint Sacerdotes to perform sacra publica.

The vote by M. Hortensia was appropriate. She retains her offices as Sacerdos Mentis and Flamenica Carmentis and had been granted voting privileges in the Collegium Pontificum before this recent vote was taken.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Lentulos C. Petronioque;
>     after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.
>
> As for Dexter's contention that the praetor's edict revokes my vote in the CP I refer to the Constitution 1.B which I've copied below.
>
> Decreta passed by the CP have legal precedence over that of magistrates. Les lois des pontifices sont superior aux ceux des magistrates. C'est tres simple.
>
> " Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed dictator. It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by edicta issued by consuls acting under the Senatus consulta ultima, laws properly voted and passed by one of the comitia, decreta passed by the collegium pontificum, decreta passed by the collegium augurum, Senatus consulta, and magisterial edicta (in order of descending authority as described in section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take precedence."
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
> >
> > > This is how I counted:
> > >
> > > M. Piscinus got 5 votes. (M. Antonius, M. Piscinus, Hortensia Maior, K. Buteo Minor and K. Buteo Maior voted for M. Piscinus)
> >
> > The vote of Maior does not count. She voted but she is not yet a member of the CP untill the term of her condemnation on Januery 1st 2764.
> >
> > As I asked to the Collegium Pontificum since a long time now, this sacred body must follow the sentence of the justice, the Collegium Pontificum is a public institution not the room of some agitators.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Kalendis Septembribus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80283 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: comment on disertations
C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori omnibusque in foro S. P.
D.

I would like, publicly, to thank L. Cornelius Sulla Felix Senator and Q.
Caecilius Metellus Pontifex for making available a wide variety of
dissertations on topics pertinent to Rome. Since I do not have access to a
University library, or to the services they use, and, since I have reason to
deeply appreciate material which is easily accessible, as this is, and,
since I am eager to learn all I can about Roma Antiqua's many aspects, I not
only do not think this service is a waste of band width, but I consider
these efforts as a kindness, and will make very good use of the material I
have received and hope to continue receiving.

To me, these are treasured gifts, and each time I read one of them, I thank
the giver, so, thank you, again.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80284 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "Fals
Cato Maiori sal.

You don't need to "deal" with anything - you're not a member of the College of Pontiffs, by court sentence, nor are you a senator, by the same court sentence.

You're free at *least* until the Kalends of Ianuarius! You have plenty of time to do whatever you want.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Savete;
> now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to go the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he wants me to do it.
>
> Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.
>
> I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles on gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go out & have a social life too;-)
>
> I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few individuals who really need a life.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
> from Graecus
> Salve,
>
> I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that your accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on the Praetura to deal with this.
>
> I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in what capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she was insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.
>
> Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24 hours.
>
> Vale,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> > salve
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave Annia Minucia,
> > >
> > > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > > >> Nova Roma,
> > >
> > > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> > >
> > > Vale, Octavius.
> > >
> >
> >
> > My name is Anna bucci.
> >
> >
> > vale
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80285 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-01
Subject: Re: Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-Announce] "Fals
Cato Maiori sal.

And, just as an afterthought, if you didn't lie then you wouldn't have to waste time trying to cover it up with bluster and misdirection. Try not lying for a while, and you won't be bothered with this kind of irritation.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Savete;
> now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to go the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he wants me to do it.
>
> Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.
>
> I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles on gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go out & have a social life too;-)
>
> I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few individuals who really need a life.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
> from Graecus
> Salve,
>
> I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that your accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on the Praetura to deal with this.
>
> I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in what capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she was insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.
>
> Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24 hours.
>
> Vale,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> > salve
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus" <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave Annia Minucia,
> > >
> > > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > > >> Nova Roma,
> > >
> > > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> > >
> > > Vale, Octavius.
> > >
> >
> >
> > My name is Anna bucci.
> >
> >
> > vale
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80286 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
C. Petronius M. Moravio s.p.d.,

> I affirm that Flamenica M. Hortensia' voting privileges were restored as reported on 21 Aug 2010:
>
> Decretum Pontificum de M. Hortensia Flamenica Carmentis

But you know this item was illegal because she was then under a trial condemnation.

This decretum restoration to vote, has nothing to do with the justice sentence of judex Sabinus and was about another and internal decision in which the CP had removed from the right to vote both Maior and Metellus with for Maior the begging of piaculum because she had issued a praetorian edict during a nefastus dies.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80287 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
C. Petronius M. Maiori s.p.d.,

> after performing my piaculum I was returned with full voting privileges to the CP with 6 votes.

You made a piaculum for another thing that about the subject of the sentence of the judex Sabinus. They are different affairs, and you know it.

The judgement of the tribunal was issued:

"I, T. Iulius Sabinus, the sole iudex in the case Q. Caecilius vs. M. Hortensia, acting as tribunal, based on the agreement of both parties, in the frame of leges Saliciae, iudiciaria and poenalis, DECIDE to:
CONDEMN M. Hortensia Maior and INFLICT to her an inhabilitatio to hold or to be candidate for any Nova Roman magistracy or office until Kal. Ian. 2764 a.U.c.
Datum pridie idus Quint. 2763 a.U.c."

Pridie Idus Quint 2763 = 2010/07/14 (on the Bastille day!)

So from this day you had to be removed from the CP.

The internal decision of the CP about the piaculum and the forbidding to vote for you was statued before this sentence.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Nonas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80288 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRom
Salve Vindex;
mille grazie, I appreciate the support and kind words; it means a lot. They've hounded out Equestria Laeca, M. Valeria Messallina, not it's my turn, but you're right to keep focused on priorities.
di nobis favent
Maior

>
> Salve Maior
> You have all my solidarity and my total understanding, try do not forget
> your priorities facing all these nuisances.
> All the best to you.
> Vale Optime in Gratia Deorum
> Gaius Aurelius Vindex
>
> -------Messaggio originale-------
>
> Da: rory12001
> Data: 02/09/2010 0.13.34
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was
> NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report
>
>
> Savete;
> now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to go
> the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he wants
> me to do it.
>
> Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had one
> lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.
>
> I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles on
> gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go
> out & have a social life too;-)
>
> I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few
> individuals who really need a life.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> from Graecus
> Salve,
>
> I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that your
> accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on the
> Praetura to deal with this.
>
> I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in what
> capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she was
> insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.
>
> Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes
> stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24 hours
>
>
> Vale,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> > salve
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M. Octavius Gracchus"
> <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave Annia Minucia,
> > >
> > > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > > >> Nova Roma,
> > >
> > > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> > >
> > > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> > >
> > > Vale, Octavius.
> > >
> >
> >
> > My name is Anna bucci.
> >
> >
> > vale
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80289 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Rif: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was NovaRoma-
Ave,

Maior, you have reaped the venom many times over (GIVEN you have been on
trial TWICE) that has been directed at you.

I have been reading your first trial information. It is fascinating and I
think it should be reposted so that everyone can see the type of person you
were even back in 2007.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Vindex;
> mille grazie, I appreciate the support and kind words; it means a lot.
> They've hounded out Equestria Laeca, M. Valeria Messallina, not it's my
> turn, but you're right to keep focused on priorities.
> di nobis favent
> Maior
>
>
> >
> > Salve Maior
> > You have all my solidarity and my total understanding, try do not forget
> > your priorities facing all these nuisances.
> > All the best to you.
> > Vale Optime in Gratia Deorum
> > Gaius Aurelius Vindex
> >
> > -------Messaggio originale-------
> >
> > Da: rory12001
> > Data: 02/09/2010 0.13.34
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re the endless time-wasters....: [was
> > NovaRoma-Announce] "False Report
> >
> >
> > Savete;
> > now after dealing with Metellus' false reports I have Cato threatening to
> go
> > the praetors about me. I told Graecus where to comb the files but he
> wants
> > me to do it.
> >
> > Forget it. This is what Cato, Sulla, Metellus & their buddies do. I had
> one
> > lawsuit by Metellus/Cato & I'm not wasting anymore of my time on them.
> >
> > I have better things to do: prepare for the Conventus, send more articles
> on
> > gestures and prayer to the PM, perhaps have a toga pulla sewn, oh yes, go
> > out & have a social life too;-)
> >
> > I'm sick of the persecution & continual dysfunction here by a few
> > individuals who really need a life.
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> > from Graecus
> > Salve,
> >
> > I am contacting you because of Cato's post #80230, where he claims that
> your
> > accusation that he insulted the ex-Virgo Maxima is a lie and called on
> the
> > Praetura to deal with this.
> >
> > I would like to know which post of his you considered an insult, and in
> what
> > capacity the ex-VM was insulted in your view. By this I mean whether she
> was
> > insulted as a woman, as VM or as tribune.
> >
> > Matters like this need to be dealt with quickly before the issue becomes
> > stale, so I ask that you please provide the information in the next 24
> hours
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > salve
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "M.
> Octavius Gracchus"
> > <octaviusgracchus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ave Annia Minucia,
> > > >
> > > > > It twas your Hortensia who first proposed the Parition of
> > > > >> Nova Roma,
> > > >
> > > > > No it was Matt H----. Maior suggested dissolving NR.
> > > >
> > > > My name is Marcus Octavius Gracchus. Please use it.
> > > >
> > > > Vale, Octavius.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My name is Anna bucci.
> > >
> > >
> > > vale
> > >
> > > Anna Bucci
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80290 From: Q Caecilius Metellus Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem.

It seems that, rather than ask the simple question of how I came to the
results I published, it suits M Moravius and some others to rather
promote intrigues and assumptions. The easy step of simply asking how
the results were determined, as Statia Cornelia recommended, might have
perhaps saved no small number of us much of the day's headaches.
Nevertheless, I shall make the necessary corrections, and provide the
remaining two-thirds of the voting picture that, as I mentioned earlier,
was missing from both of the reports given by M Moravius and Cn Lentulus.

As previously stated, I do not disagree with as much of the votes as
have been reported by Cn Lentulus and M Moravius. As previously stated
as well, however, only one-third of the entire voting picture was given.
As many of you know, having voted in the comitia in the past, there
are three ways a person can vote on a given issue: in favour, against,
or not at all (i.e., to abstain). These are the three parts of the
voting picture, of which only the first has yet been presented. (I want
to acknowledge here the initiative of Cn Lentulus, who actually asked
what I meant when referring to the voting picture and the missing
two-thirds. It would have saved a day of difficulties had others done
similarly.)

Now, then, let me finish the report as has been seen so far. I only
discuss the two individuals who received a majority of approval (i.e., M
Moravius and M Antonius). M Moravius, as has been stated, received four
votes in favour. He also, however, received three votes against, and
one individual abstained to vote on him. M Antonius, as has also been
stated, received three votes in favour. He, however, received only one
vote against, and three abstentions. Now, then, we arrive at the crux
of the matter.

Of the votes cast regarding him, M Moravius received the favour of
four-sevenths (57%; if we count that of M Hortensia, five-eights or
62.5%). Of the votes cast regarding M Antonius, however, three-fourths
(75%) were in favour. Looking at the full voting picture, of favour,
opposition, and indifference, takes into account the full sentiment of a
voting body, rather than just how it favours.

M Antonius accordingly receives the greater favour of the Collegium.

This is not inconsistent with the method by which M Moravius was
installed as pontifex maximus. Two years ago, there were four votes to
his favour, one against, and two abstentions (thus, the favour of 80%),
whereas the other pontifex receiving a majority received three votes in
favour, one vote against, and three abstentions (a favour of 75%).

Accordingly, with M Antonius receiving the greater sentiment in his
favour, he is named pontifex maximus pro tempore, and accordingly, my
report has been issued.

Di Romanis Faueant.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80291 From: Gnaea Livia Ocella Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: comment on disertations
Cn. Livia Ocella L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Q. Caecilio Metello Pontifici omnibusque sal,

I'd like to echo Caeca's sentiments with my own sincere thanks. Even though I *do* have access to a university library and its resources, I have found the dissertations posted to be a fascinating source of information.

Gratias vobis ago!

Valete bene,
Cn. Livia Ocella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori omnibusque in foro S. P.
> D.
>
> I would like, publicly, to thank L. Cornelius Sulla Felix Senator and Q.
> Caecilius Metellus Pontifex for making available a wide variety of
> dissertations on topics pertinent to Rome. Since I do not have access to a
> University library, or to the services they use, and, since I have reason to
> deeply appreciate material which is easily accessible, as this is, and,
> since I am eager to learn all I can about Roma Antiqua's many aspects, I not
> only do not think this service is a waste of band width, but I consider
> these efforts as a kindness, and will make very good use of the material I
> have received and hope to continue receiving.
>
> To me, these are treasured gifts, and each time I read one of them, I thank
> the giver, so, thank you, again.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80292 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salvete omnes

Please note that from 16:00 hours Rome time today – in 4 hours time – it will become a strict requirement for all messages posted on this list to have proper Latin openings and closings.

We recently encouraged all subscribers to this list to use Latin greeting and farewell expressions at the start and end of each message. We acknowledge and thank you all for the efforts you have been making. This Main List is the place for citizens and visitors to exchange views on Roman matters, and the fact that messages are now being posted in proper roman style is greatly improving its appearance

Doing this emphasises the fact that this is the main message centre for Nova Roma. It helps to remind us that we are addressing our fellow Roman citizens and friends, and so helps to put us in the correct frame of mind when composing our message.

It also has practical benefits, especially when posts are arriving at speed on the list, otherwise it can be impossible to tell who is saying what to whom.

Newer members should copy the good examples being set here, and study the official Nova Roma guide. This can be found at:-

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Latin_for_e-mail

Please remember to use proper Roman names and titles, not macronational names or nicknames. Just write the way Romans would write.

So, remember not to use the *praenomen* unless both contributors are close friends. Normally you will use the nomen or cognomen.
If writing to an officer of the state, use the relevant title, "Pontifex Maximus" or "Augur" or "Senator" or "Consularis" or "Proconsul", unless they invite you to use one of their Roman names.

This will from now on be the rule, and it will be enforced. Advice followed by warnings will be given to those who do not comply. We hope that stronger measures will not be required, but they will be taken if necessary. Please see the official guide for more help. Our Latinists are here to provide help for those who ask.

Remember, this starts in 4 hours time.

Valete omnes
C Marcius Crispus
Praetorial Team
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80293 From: Kirsteen Wright Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM, GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <
jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:

>
> Salvete omnes
>
> Please note that from 16:00 hours Rome time today � in 4 hours time � it
> will become a strict requirement for all messages posted on this list to
> have proper Latin openings and closings.
>
> Can I say how extremely disappointed I am in this ruling. I thought that,
according to our laws, English was the official language with Latin being
the ceremonial official language. i have always attempted to be polite and
civil in my posts but i find Latin extremely difficult to use.

I am loathe to talk about my disabilities here, since I felt totally
humiliated by some of the responses I got last time they were mentioned.
However I have Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a severely debilitating
neurological condition. I am frequently, as today, bedbound and suffer
severe brainfog. I have to type my emails on my laptop virtually lying flat.
It is a slow and exhausting process, made worse by both my inability to
properly see the keyboard and, although I've been typing for over 40 years
my current inability to remember where the keys are or at it's worse the
inability to distinguish between certain keys.it's like dyslexia of the
fingers. I rely heavily on the spell checker to correct thing before I send
them as otherwise they make little or no sense even to me. This does not
however cope with Latin or any other language.

Although in my previous life (before M.E.) i had a university degree and an
IQ of MENSA level, I no longer have the cognitive ability especially
linguistically to retain much in the way of new information. The only words
I am able to use now are those I knew previously. humiliating as it is to
have to admit it, I cannot remember the Latin salutations and the added
effort of having to search them out each time I actually manage to post is
simply beyond me.

I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for over 8 years. I feel really sad that
my disabilities are now going to preclude me from being allowed to post to
the ML. Because I am so isolated in reality, email is the only way I have of
communicating with others. If I am barred from participating, i have to
question if there is really any point in me staying somewhere that simply
reinforces my feelings of isolation.

In sorrow
Merula


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80294 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Merula

We do not wish to lose you, and we know that Nova Roma, and the ability to post to the Main List are important in your life.

We will consider your special case carefully, and get back to you.

Vale optime
Crispus
Praetorial Team
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80295 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
M. Moravius Q. Caecilio dicit

You need to go back to grade school. Your math still does not add up.

Gryllus, you say, received 3 in favor, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. He therefore had the favor of 3 of 7 votes, or 42.8%, not 75%.

Or why not bump up my approval rating? 5 in favor, 3 against, one abstained, so by your new math, that is 6/9 , or 67% in favor of retaining the current Pontifex Maximus.

The bottom line, no matter how you pose it, is that the majority does not agree with your math and hold yours to have been a false report.




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem.
>
> It seems that, rather than ask the simple question of how I came to the
> results I published, it suits M Moravius and some others to rather
> promote intrigues and assumptions. The easy step of simply asking how
> the results were determined, as Statia Cornelia recommended, might have
> perhaps saved no small number of us much of the day's headaches.
> Nevertheless, I shall make the necessary corrections, and provide the
> remaining two-thirds of the voting picture that, as I mentioned earlier,
> was missing from both of the reports given by M Moravius and Cn Lentulus.
>
> As previously stated, I do not disagree with as much of the votes as
> have been reported by Cn Lentulus and M Moravius. As previously stated
> as well, however, only one-third of the entire voting picture was given.
> As many of you know, having voted in the comitia in the past, there
> are three ways a person can vote on a given issue: in favour, against,
> or not at all (i.e., to abstain). These are the three parts of the
> voting picture, of which only the first has yet been presented. (I want
> to acknowledge here the initiative of Cn Lentulus, who actually asked
> what I meant when referring to the voting picture and the missing
> two-thirds. It would have saved a day of difficulties had others done
> similarly.)
>
> Now, then, let me finish the report as has been seen so far. I only
> discuss the two individuals who received a majority of approval (i.e., M
> Moravius and M Antonius). M Moravius, as has been stated, received four
> votes in favour. He also, however, received three votes against, and
> one individual abstained to vote on him. M Antonius, as has also been
> stated, received three votes in favour. He, however, received only one
> vote against, and three abstentions. Now, then, we arrive at the crux
> of the matter.
>
> Of the votes cast regarding him, M Moravius received the favour of
> four-sevenths (57%; if we count that of M Hortensia, five-eights or
> 62.5%). Of the votes cast regarding M Antonius, however, three-fourths
> (75%) were in favour. Looking at the full voting picture, of favour,
> opposition, and indifference, takes into account the full sentiment of a
> voting body, rather than just how it favours.
>
> M Antonius accordingly receives the greater favour of the Collegium.
>
> This is not inconsistent with the method by which M Moravius was
> installed as pontifex maximus. Two years ago, there were four votes to
> his favour, one against, and two abstentions (thus, the favour of 80%),
> whereas the other pontifex receiving a majority received three votes in
> favour, one vote against, and three abstentions (a favour of 75%).
>
> Accordingly, with M Antonius receiving the greater sentiment in his
> favour, he is named pontifex maximus pro tempore, and accordingly, my
> report has been issued.
>
> Di Romanis Faueant.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80296 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: a. d. IV Nonas Septembris: The Battle of Actium
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Sapite animo; fruamini anima

Hodie est ante diem IIII Nonas Septembris; haec dies fastus aterque est: feriae ex senatus consulto quod eo die Imperator Caesar divi filius Augustus apud Actium vicit se et Titio consulibus; Piscis austrinus desinit occidere, calor.

AUC 709 /44 BCE: Cicero delivers the First Philippic against Anthony before the Senate

"What I am more afraid of is lest, being ignorant of the true path to glory, you, should think it glorious for you to have more power by yourself than all the rest of the people put together, and lest you should prefer being feared by your fellow-citizens to being loved by them. And if you do think so, you are ignorant of the road to glory." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, Philippic I.14 (34)

AUC 722 / 31 BCE: The Battle of Actium

"Then came the day of the great conflict, in which Caesar and Anthony led out their fleets and fought, one for the safety, and the other for ruin, of the world." ~ Vellius Paterculus, Historia 2.85-86

M. Agrippa, commanding the fleet for Octavius, had blockaded Anthony's fleet and the Egyptian fleet inside a bay overlooked by the town of Actium and a Temple of Apollo on the slopes above. Out-numbered and caught on the leeward side of the bay, Marcus Antonius built his ships up in height, reinforced their sides, and loaded extra soldiers on them to combat the marines that Agrippa had used so successfully in defeating Sextius Pompeius off the coast of Sicily. His plan was to use oar-power to edge his fleet forward, protecting his flanks by use of the bay's narrow opening, then split his center where the winds prevailed and would allow Cleopatra and the remainder of his fleet to escape under sail. His plan worked effectively enough, considering the situation that he was in. Cleopatra escaped with the treasury and Antonius was able to disengage and escape with roughly a third of his fleet. Later historians painted a different picture. Of the two accounts presented here, Plutarch's seems the more accurate. Dio Cassius embellished his account to make it seem like a set piece naval engagement when really the Battle of Actium was Anthony's attempt to break through a blockade in a running battle.

"That day and the three following the sea was so rough they could not engage. But on the fifth there was a calm, and they fought; Antonius commanding with Publicola the right, and Coelius the left squadron, Marcus Octavius and Marcus Insteius the centre. Cæsar gave the charge of the left to Agrippa, commanding in person on the right. As for the land-forces, Canidius was general for Antony, Taurus for Cæsar; both armies remaining drawn up in order along the shore. . ." ~ Plutarch, Parallel Lives: Anthony 65


"And when they set sail at the sound of the trumpet, and with their ships in dense array drew up their line a little outside the strait and advanced no further, Caesar set out as if to engage with them, if they stood their ground, or even to make them retire. But when they neither came out against him on their side nor turned to retire, but remained where they were, and not only that, but also vastly increased the density of their line by their close formation, Caesar checked his course, in doubt what to do. He then ordered his sailors to let their oars rest in the water, and waited for a time; after this he suddenly, at a given signal, led forward both his wings and bent his line in the form of a crescent, hoping if possible to surround the enemy, or otherwise to break their formation in any case. Antonius, accordingly, fearing this flanking and encircling movement, advanced to meet it as best he could, and thus reluctantly joined battle with Caesar.

"So they engaged and began the conflict, each side indulging in a great deal of exhortation to its own men in order to call forth the skill and zeal of the fighters, and also hearing many orders shouted out to them from the men on shore. The struggle was not of a similar nature on the two sides, but Caesar's followers, having smaller and swifter ships, would dash forward and ram the enemy, being armored on all sides to avoid receiving damage. If they sank a vessel, well and good; if not, they would back water before coming to grips, and would either ram the same vessels suddenly again, or would let those go and turn their attention to others; and having done some damage to these also, so far as they could in a brief time, they would proceed against others and then against still others, in order that their assault upon any vessel might be so far as possible unexpected. For since they dreaded the long-range missiles of the enemy no less than their fighting at close quarters, they wasted no time either in the approach or in the encounter, but running up suddenly so as to reach their object before the enemy's archers could get in their work, they would inflict injuries or else cause just enough disturbance to escape being held, and then would retire out of range. The enemy, on the other hand, tried to hit the approaching ships with dense showers of stones and arrows, and to cast iron grapnels upon their assailants. And in case they could reach them they got the better of it, but if they missed, their own boats would be pierced and would sink, or else in their endeavour to avoid this calamity they would waste time and lay themselves more open to attack by other ships; for two or three ships would fall at one time upon the same ship, some doing all the damage they could while the others took the brunt of the injuries. On the one side the pilots and the rowers endured the most hardship and fatigue, and on the other side the marines; and the one side resembled cavalry, now making a charge and now retreating, since it was in their power to attack and back off at will, and the others were like heavy-armed troops guarding against the approach of foes and trying their best to hold them. Consequently each gained advantages over the other; the one party would run in upon the lines of oars projecting from the ships and shatter the blades, and the other party, fighting from the higher level, would sink them with stones and engines. On the other hand, there were also disadvantages on each side: the one party could do no damage to the enemy when it approached, and the other party, if in any case it failed to sink a vessel which it rammed, was hemmed in no longer fought an equal contest." ~ Dio Cassius 31.4-32.8


"When they engaged, there was no charging or striking of one ship by another, because Antonius', by reason of their great bulk, were incapable of the rapidity required to make the stroke effectual, and on the other side, Cæsar's durst not charge head to head on Antonius', which were all armed with solid masses and spikes of brass; nor did they like even to run in on their sides, which were so strongly built with great squared pieces of timber, fastened together with iron bolts, that their vessels' beaks would easily have been shattered upon them. So that the engagement resembled a land fight, or, to speak yet more properly, the attack and defence of a fortified place; for there were always three or four vessels of Cæsar's about one of Antonius', pressing them with spears, javelins, poles, and several inventions of fire, which they flung among them, Antonius' men using catapults also, to pour down missiles from wooden towers. Agrippa drawing out the squadron under his command to outflank the enemy, Publicola was obliged to observe his motions, and gradually to break off from the middle squadron, where some confusion and alarm ensued, while Arruntius engaged them. But the fortune of the day was still undecided, and the battle equal, when on a sudden Cleopatra's sixty ships were seen hoisting sail and making out to sea in full flight, right through the ships that were engaged. For they were placed behind the great ships, which, in breaking through, they put into disorder. The enemy was astonished to see them sailing off with a fair wind towards Peloponnesus. Here it was that Antonius showed to all the world that he was no longer actuated by the thoughts and motives of a commander or a man, or indeed by his own judgment at all, and what was once said as a jest, that the soul of a lover lives in some one else's body, he proved to be a serious truth. For, as if he had been born part of her, and must move with her wheresoever she went, as soon as he saw her ship sailing away, he abandoned all that were fighting and spending their lives for him, and put himself aboard a galley of five banks of oars, taking with him only Alexander of Syria and Scellias, to follow her that had so well begun his ruin and would hereafter accomplish it." ~ Plutarch, Parallel Lives: Anthony 66


As a side note of the battle, Gaius Sosius was a Pompeian during the Civil War. Caesar pardoned him and after Caesar's assassination Sosius joined with Antonius. As reward he was made governor of Syria and Cilicia. Antonius ordered him to support Herod against Antigonus the Hasmonean. Sosius then took Jerusalem in 37 BCE, and placed Herod on the throne. Sosius gained a triumph for this exploit and also became consul in 32. He again sided with Antonius when war broke out with Octavius. At Actium he commanded a squadron in the left wing of Marcus Antonius' fleet. He defeated and put to flight an Octavian squadron led by Lucius Arruntius. When Agrippa reinforced Arruntius, it was Sosius' turn to flee. He was eventually discovered and captured but it was Arruntius who then begged Octavius to spare the life of Sosius. Octavius granted pardon and even appointed Sosius one of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis. He appears along with Octavius, Agrippa, and Arruntius as the celebrants of the Ludi Saeculares of 17 BCE.


Today's thought is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.31:

"Take thy joy in simplicity, in integrity, and with indifference towards all that lies between virtue and vice. Love mankind. Follow the Gods. 'All else,' says Democritus, 'is subject to convention; only the elements are absolute and real.' And it is enough to remember that Law rules all."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80297 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salvete omnes

It has been drawn to my attention that there may be some here who, perhaps because of particular physical etc problems, may have difficulty in adding Latin greetings to their messages.

While we want all subscribers to use Latin for the salutations (but not for the main body of their message) we also want to encourage people to use the list.

I know that there may be some who face real challenges and for whom the life here on the Main List is an important part of their social lives.

We do not want to drive people away. If there are genuine problems, we in the Praetorial Team would like to work with you to find solutions so that you can continue your involvement here.

We appreciate that you might not want to discuss your problems openly in this public forum. If this is the case, perhaps you would like to send me a personal message (no Latin required!) telling me how we might be able to help.

My email address is:-

jbshr1pwa@...

Please do not hesitate to let me know if you need help. We will do all we can.

Valete optime, omnes.
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80298 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Ave!

Did you NOT read his post? He explained his rational quite clear! Maybe
you need reading comprehension classes?

Vale,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:56 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> M. Moravius Q. Caecilio dicit
>
> You need to go back to grade school. Your math still does not add up.
>
> Gryllus, you say, received 3 in favor, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. He
> therefore had the favor of 3 of 7 votes, or 42.8%, not 75%.
>
> Or why not bump up my approval rating? 5 in favor, 3 against, one
> abstained, so by your new math, that is 6/9 , or 67% in favor of retaining
> the current Pontifex Maximus.
>
> The bottom line, no matter how you pose it, is that the majority does not
> agree with your math and hold yours to have been a false report.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Q
> Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
> >
> > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem.
> >
> > It seems that, rather than ask the simple question of how I came to the
> > results I published, it suits M Moravius and some others to rather
> > promote intrigues and assumptions. The easy step of simply asking how
> > the results were determined, as Statia Cornelia recommended, might have
> > perhaps saved no small number of us much of the day's headaches.
> > Nevertheless, I shall make the necessary corrections, and provide the
> > remaining two-thirds of the voting picture that, as I mentioned earlier,
> > was missing from both of the reports given by M Moravius and Cn Lentulus.
> >
> > As previously stated, I do not disagree with as much of the votes as
> > have been reported by Cn Lentulus and M Moravius. As previously stated
> > as well, however, only one-third of the entire voting picture was given.
> > As many of you know, having voted in the comitia in the past, there
> > are three ways a person can vote on a given issue: in favour, against,
> > or not at all (i.e., to abstain). These are the three parts of the
> > voting picture, of which only the first has yet been presented. (I want
> > to acknowledge here the initiative of Cn Lentulus, who actually asked
> > what I meant when referring to the voting picture and the missing
> > two-thirds. It would have saved a day of difficulties had others done
> > similarly.)
> >
> > Now, then, let me finish the report as has been seen so far. I only
> > discuss the two individuals who received a majority of approval (i.e., M
> > Moravius and M Antonius). M Moravius, as has been stated, received four
> > votes in favour. He also, however, received three votes against, and
> > one individual abstained to vote on him. M Antonius, as has also been
> > stated, received three votes in favour. He, however, received only one
> > vote against, and three abstentions. Now, then, we arrive at the crux
> > of the matter.
> >
> > Of the votes cast regarding him, M Moravius received the favour of
> > four-sevenths (57%; if we count that of M Hortensia, five-eights or
> > 62.5%). Of the votes cast regarding M Antonius, however, three-fourths
> > (75%) were in favour. Looking at the full voting picture, of favour,
> > opposition, and indifference, takes into account the full sentiment of a
> > voting body, rather than just how it favours.
> >
> > M Antonius accordingly receives the greater favour of the Collegium.
> >
> > This is not inconsistent with the method by which M Moravius was
> > installed as pontifex maximus. Two years ago, there were four votes to
> > his favour, one against, and two abstentions (thus, the favour of 80%),
> > whereas the other pontifex receiving a majority received three votes in
> > favour, one vote against, and three abstentions (a favour of 75%).
> >
> > Accordingly, with M Antonius receiving the greater sentiment in his
> > favour, he is named pontifex maximus pro tempore, and accordingly, my
> > report has been issued.
> >
> > Di Romanis Faueant.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80299 From: robert574674 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salvete omnes

Please note that from now onwards it is a *strict requirement* for all messages posted on this list to have proper Latin openings and closings.

We recently encouraged all subscribers to this list to use Latin greeting and farewell expressions at the start and end of each message. We acknowledge and thank you all for the immediate efforts you have been making. This Main List is the place for citizens and visitors to exchange views on Roman matters, and the fact that messages are now being posted in proper roman style is greatly improving its appearance.

Doing this emphasises the fact that this is the main message centre for Nova Roma. It helps to remind us that we are addressing our fellow Roman citizens and supporters of the Roman way, and so helps to put us in the correct frame of mind when composing our message.

It also has practical benefits, especially when posts are arriving at speed on the list, otherwise it can be impossible to tell who is saying what to whom.

Newer members should copy the good examples being set here, and study the official Nova Roma guide. This can be found at:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Latin_for_e-mail

Please remember to use proper Roman names and titles, *not macronational names or nicknames*. Just write the way Romans would write.

So, remember *not to use the praenomen* unless both contributors are close friends: the praenomen is just for the private sphere. Normally you will use the nomen or the cognomen.
If writing to an officer of the state, you are asked to use the relevant title (ex. "Praetor" or "Pontifex" or "Senator" etc.) in your normal relationship.

This will from now on be the rule, and it *will be enforced*. Advice and warnings will be given to those who have difficulties understanding and complying with this.

But we sincerely hope that stronger measures will not be required. Please see the official guide for more help. Our Latinists and elder citizens are here to provide help for those who ask.

Remember, this only relates to the opening and closing of your message, not to the main part of what you want to say, which you will write in your own language.

Remember, this starts now.

Valete omnes,

C Marcius Crispus
Praetorial Team
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80300 From: Aqvillivs Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: CONVENTUS ET CASTRA MERCATORIA NEWS !!!
Salvete,

for all questions about the local conditions, travel or driving
instructions,tips or general questions about the event,

please call the Praetorium at:

843-737-6055


Castra Rota
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80301 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.

Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there were one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the papers, articles etc. upon request.
Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had time to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.

Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier to access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to get them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts in the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts - but attached to a main thread.

Gratias,

Valete optime,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80302 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: CONVENTUS ET CASTRA MERCATORIA NEWS !!!
Salvete,

Please also remember to register for the conventus at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Info_NR_North_American_Conventus_2010/messages

Thank you,

Valete,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Aqvillivs" <c.aqvillivs_rota@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> for all questions about the local conditions, travel or driving
> instructions,tips or general questions about the event,
>
> please call the Praetorium at:
>
> 843-737-6055
>
>
> Castra Rota
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80303 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave!

Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire address
as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.

If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I hope,
be an added benefit for all members of the ML.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
>
> Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there were
> one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> papers, articles etc. upon request.
> Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had time
> to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
>
> Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier to
> access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to get
> them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts in
> the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts - but
> attached to a main thread.
>
> Gratias,
>
> Valete optime,
>
> Julia
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80304 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: comment on disertations
Ave!

Thank you very much for the compliment. It is both a pleasure and a
privilege to conduct these searches and at the same time learn many new
topics as I read the abstracts and the dissertations themselves. I will
strive to continue to post additional dissertations in the immediate and
long term future. :)

If anyone has any topic of interest that can be Roman related or not -
please feel free to drop me an email and I would be happy to conduct that
search.

As I noted earlier, most of the dissertations that I have been downloading
have been uploaded over at Senator Paulinus's library @ box.net. Over time
all of the dissertations will be included there - just at present there is a
lag from the time I download and distribute the files to the time they get
uploaded to the library.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Gnaea Livia Ocella <lbciddio@...>wrote:

>
>
> Cn. Livia Ocella L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Q. Caecilio Metello Pontifici
> omnibusque sal,
>
> I'd like to echo Caeca's sentiments with my own sincere thanks. Even though
> I *do* have access to a university library and its resources, I have found
> the dissertations posted to be a fascinating source of information.
>
> Gratias vobis ago!
>
> Valete bene,
> Cn. Livia Ocella
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "C.Maria
> Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori omnibusque in foro S.
> P.
> > D.
> >
> > I would like, publicly, to thank L. Cornelius Sulla Felix Senator and Q.
> > Caecilius Metellus Pontifex for making available a wide variety of
> > dissertations on topics pertinent to Rome. Since I do not have access to
> a
> > University library, or to the services they use, and, since I have reason
> to
> > deeply appreciate material which is easily accessible, as this is, and,
> > since I am eager to learn all I can about Roma Antiqua's many aspects, I
> not
> > only do not think this service is a waste of band width, but I consider
> > these efforts as a kindness, and will make very good use of the material
> I
> > have received and hope to continue receiving.
> >
> > To me, these are treasured gifts, and each time I read one of them, I
> thank
> > the giver, so, thank you, again.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > C. Maria Caeca
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80305 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salvete omnes,

This is not very hard.
Here are the simplest forms...

Adressing one person:

Rather than Hello you will say...

Salve [insert name of the person you are addressing]

It is understandable that you may not know the proper form of the name, so don't sweat it.

Rather than goodbye, sincerely etc. you will say...

Vale,
[your name]

Addressing more than one person is even easier:

Rather than Hello you will say...

Salvete omnes

Rather than goodbye, sincerely etc. you will say...

Valete,
[your name]

Gratias tibi,

Valete,

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "robert574674" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> Please note that from now onwards it is a *strict requirement* for all messages posted on this list to have proper Latin openings and closings.
>
> We recently encouraged all subscribers to this list to use Latin greeting and farewell expressions at the start and end of each message. We acknowledge and thank you all for the immediate efforts you have been making. This Main List is the place for citizens and visitors to exchange views on Roman matters, and the fact that messages are now being posted in proper roman style is greatly improving its appearance.
>
> Doing this emphasises the fact that this is the main message centre for Nova Roma. It helps to remind us that we are addressing our fellow Roman citizens and supporters of the Roman way, and so helps to put us in the correct frame of mind when composing our message.
>
> It also has practical benefits, especially when posts are arriving at speed on the list, otherwise it can be impossible to tell who is saying what to whom.
>
> Newer members should copy the good examples being set here, and study the official Nova Roma guide. This can be found at:
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Latin_for_e-mail
>
> Please remember to use proper Roman names and titles, *not macronational names or nicknames*. Just write the way Romans would write.
>
> So, remember *not to use the praenomen* unless both contributors are close friends: the praenomen is just for the private sphere. Normally you will use the nomen or the cognomen.
> If writing to an officer of the state, you are asked to use the relevant title (ex. "Praetor" or "Pontifex" or "Senator" etc.) in your normal relationship.
>
> This will from now on be the rule, and it *will be enforced*. Advice and warnings will be given to those who have difficulties understanding and complying with this.
>
> But we sincerely hope that stronger measures will not be required. Please see the official guide for more help. Our Latinists and elder citizens are here to provide help for those who ask.
>
> Remember, this only relates to the opening and closing of your message, not to the main part of what you want to say, which you will write in your own language.
>
> Remember, this starts now.
>
> Valete omnes,
>
> C Marcius Crispus
> Praetorial Team
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80306 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Salve Sulla,

Bene, thanks.

Still it would be cool to put everything in one thread for those who are not at box.net ;) ( I am in organization mode)

Posting it to the wiki is a good idea, Paulinus knows how to do this.

Gratias tibi,

Vale,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire address
> as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
> sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.
>
> If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I hope,
> be an added benefit for all members of the ML.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
> >
> > Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there were
> > one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> > papers, articles etc. upon request.
> > Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had time
> > to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> > So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
> >
> > Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier to
> > access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to get
> > them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts in
> > the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts - but
> > attached to a main thread.
> >
> > Gratias,
> >
> > Valete optime,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80307 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave,

Umm, I am trying to wrap my mind around the one thread idea. Can you
explain it better for me (and we can take this off list if this isn't
interesting to others).

How I have been posting the documents consistently is based on the title of
the dissertation. This way if someone knows ahead of time the title is not
interesting to them they can simply delete the email and move to the next
one - which might strike their fancy.

Overall, I have posted about 90 Dissertation abstracts and recently have
been posting up to 9 at a time.

Given those vague guidelines how would you suggest threading the messages?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> Bene, thanks.
>
> Still it would be cool to put everything in one thread for those who are
> not at box.net ;) ( I am in organization mode)
>
> Posting it to the wiki is a good idea, Paulinus knows how to do this.
>
> Gratias tibi,
>
> Vale,
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire
> address
> > as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
> > sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.
> >
> > If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I
> hope,
> > be an added benefit for all members of the ML.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
> > >
> > > Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there
> were
> > > one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> > > papers, articles etc. upon request.
> > > Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had
> time
> > > to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> > > So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier
> to
> > > access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to
> get
> > > them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts
> in
> > > the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts -
> but
> > > attached to a main thread.
> > >
> > > Gratias,
> > >
> > > Valete optime,
> > >
> > > Julia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80308 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve et Salvete Omnes,

Not only is this not fair but this is not right. Borderlining on Censorship practically, this is a long time citizen and I would be very sad if Flavia Lucilla Merula could no longer join on us in this forum. She is a delightful woman, and abonus to NR.

Crispus and the rest of the Praetorian Bandwagon, can an accomodation not be done?

Vale Bene,
Aeternia








> > Can I say how extremely disappointed I am in this ruling. I thought that,
> according to our laws, English was the official language with Latin being
> the ceremonial official language. i have always attempted to be polite and
> civil in my posts but i find Latin extremely difficult to use.
>
> I am loathe to talk about my disabilities here, since I felt totally
> humiliated by some of the responses I got last time they were mentioned.
> However I have Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a severely debilitating
> neurological condition. I am frequently, as today, bedbound and suffer
> severe brainfog. I have to type my emails on my laptop virtually lying flat.
> It is a slow and exhausting process, made worse by both my inability to
> properly see the keyboard and, although I've been typing for over 40 years
> my current inability to remember where the keys are or at it's worse the
> inability to distinguish between certain keys.it's like dyslexia of the
> fingers. I rely heavily on the spell checker to correct thing before I send
> them as otherwise they make little or no sense even to me. This does not
> however cope with Latin or any other language.
>
> Although in my previous life (before M.E.) i had a university degree and an
> IQ of MENSA level, I no longer have the cognitive ability especially
> linguistically to retain much in the way of new information. The only words
> I am able to use now are those I knew previously. humiliating as it is to
> have to admit it, I cannot remember the Latin salutations and the added
> effort of having to search them out each time I actually manage to post is
> simply beyond me.
>
> I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for over 8 years. I feel really sad that
> my disabilities are now going to preclude me from being allowed to post to
> the ML. Because I am so isolated in reality, email is the only way I have of
> communicating with others. If I am barred from participating, i have to
> question if there is really any point in me staying somewhere that simply
> reinforces my feelings of isolation.
>
> In sorrow
> Merula
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80309 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave Sulla,

By naming the main thread something simple and pertinent to the thread is "The Abstracts" the yahoo search engine will bring up said thread and they can easily negotiate the thread from just one of the results (see examples.) This way cives who may not remember the individual abstracts will not have to sift through a myriad of unrelated posts if they search, for example "Religio Women Abstract" ( try it and see what happens:))

A good example is the Roman Medicine Thread begun by Scaurus:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/10553

Attached to that initial post in the thread are several threads related to Roman Medicine and all one has to do is click on "next" and rather than having an unrelated post, it will be a related one and each time "next" is clicked there is another related post.

You can even go one better by typing the title of the abstract like you do now and so cives can view then at a glance.

In addition, when there are enough abstracts posted (and surely there are) at the bottom of the "thread page" field will appear that read "First", so cives can go back to the beginning and review "all" the abstracts" and also fields for "prev"[list] "next" [list] and "last"[post]
As shown here in the Roman Cookery thread:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/63177?var=1&l=1

Cives can still see the title and can still delete it if it does not interest them but they will have an easy archive list as well.

Gratias tibi,

Vale,

Julia




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> Umm, I am trying to wrap my mind around the one thread idea. Can you
> explain it better for me (and we can take this off list if this isn't
> interesting to others).
>
> How I have been posting the documents consistently is based on the title of
> the dissertation. This way if someone knows ahead of time the title is not
> interesting to them they can simply delete the email and move to the next
> one - which might strike their fancy.
>
> Overall, I have posted about 90 Dissertation abstracts and recently have
> been posting up to 9 at a time.
>
> Given those vague guidelines how would you suggest threading the messages?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Sulla,
> >
> > Bene, thanks.
> >
> > Still it would be cool to put everything in one thread for those who are
> > not at box.net ;) ( I am in organization mode)
> >
> > Posting it to the wiki is a good idea, Paulinus knows how to do this.
> >
> > Gratias tibi,
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> > Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire
> > address
> > > as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
> > > sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.
> > >
> > > If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I
> > hope,
> > > be an added benefit for all members of the ML.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > > luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there
> > were
> > > > one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> > > > papers, articles etc. upon request.
> > > > Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had
> > time
> > > > to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> > > > So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier
> > to
> > > > access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to
> > get
> > > > them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts
> > in
> > > > the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts -
> > but
> > > > attached to a main thread.
> > > >
> > > > Gratias,
> > > >
> > > > Valete optime,
> > > >
> > > > Julia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80310 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: False report a Decretum Pontificum
Salve,




perhaps this latest quarrel over the CP votes and report is yet another reason to separate? It's obvious people will continue to use powerplays and misinformation, which will stifle anything productive.




-Anna Bucci
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80311 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeterniae s.d.

Flavia Lucilla Merula composed an eloquent post regarding this demonstrating the ability to use "salve, vale, salvete and valete" which I have see her use in the past.
I have disabilities as well and could probably match her level of disability. So I empathize with her.
She, or anyone else, does not even have to decline one's name when typing "salve or vale" just typing the nomen will be fine.

I am not a moderator anymore but I feel this is within the ability of all those who are able to form such eloquent sentences.
Just my opinion.

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Salve et Salvete Omnes,
>
> Not only is this not fair but this is not right. Borderlining on Censorship practically, this is a long time citizen and I would be very sad if Flavia Lucilla Merula could no longer join on us in this forum. She is a delightful woman, and abonus to NR.
>
> Crispus and the rest of the Praetorian Bandwagon, can an accomodation not be done?
>
> Vale Bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Can I say how extremely disappointed I am in this ruling. I thought that,
> > according to our laws, English was the official language with Latin being
> > the ceremonial official language. i have always attempted to be polite and
> > civil in my posts but i find Latin extremely difficult to use.
> >
> > I am loathe to talk about my disabilities here, since I felt totally
> > humiliated by some of the responses I got last time they were mentioned.
> > However I have Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a severely debilitating
> > neurological condition. I am frequently, as today, bedbound and suffer
> > severe brainfog. I have to type my emails on my laptop virtually lying flat.
> > It is a slow and exhausting process, made worse by both my inability to
> > properly see the keyboard and, although I've been typing for over 40 years
> > my current inability to remember where the keys are or at it's worse the
> > inability to distinguish between certain keys.it's like dyslexia of the
> > fingers. I rely heavily on the spell checker to correct thing before I send
> > them as otherwise they make little or no sense even to me. This does not
> > however cope with Latin or any other language.
> >
> > Although in my previous life (before M.E.) i had a university degree and an
> > IQ of MENSA level, I no longer have the cognitive ability especially
> > linguistically to retain much in the way of new information. The only words
> > I am able to use now are those I knew previously. humiliating as it is to
> > have to admit it, I cannot remember the Latin salutations and the added
> > effort of having to search them out each time I actually manage to post is
> > simply beyond me.
> >
> > I have been a citizen of Nova Roma for over 8 years. I feel really sad that
> > my disabilities are now going to preclude me from being allowed to post to
> > the ML. Because I am so isolated in reality, email is the only way I have of
> > communicating with others. If I am barred from participating, i have to
> > question if there is really any point in me staying somewhere that simply
> > reinforces my feelings of isolation.
> >
> > In sorrow
> > Merula
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80312 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
......... This is not very hard.
> Here are the simplest forms...


Salve Iulia, et salvete omnes

Thank you Iulia for your helpful guidelines.

It should be simple - nothing complicated is asked for.

The expert latinists are welcome to show us all the very best examples so that we can aspire to them.

The rest of us can stick to the basics.

Vale, et valete optime.
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80313 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: LVDI ROMANI 2763 AVC - CHARIOT RACE: Last Call for charioteers!
LVDI ROMANI 2763 AVC - CHARIOT RACE: Call for charioteers!


L. Iulia Aquila omnibus civibus SPD.


I hereby invite all of the citizens of Nova Roma to take part in the Chariot
Race which shall take place during the upcoming Ludi
Romani from September 5th and continue through September 13th 2010.
Enter your chariots by sending your subscription entries to Aedile P. Annæus
Constantinus Placidus at ugo.coppola@... (ugo.coppola AT tin.it). The total
number of chariots allowed is sixteen.
In the subject field type "Ludi Circenses."

The deadline for entries is 2nd September 2010 12:00 pm Rome Time


Do not post entries on the ML.

All entries must include the following information:

A. Your Nova Roma Name;

B. The name of your driver;

C. The name of your chariot;

D. Your tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;

E. Your tactics for the Finals;

F. The name of your "factio" or team.


Tactics: Six (6) race tactics are possible:


A. To hurry in the last laps
B. To pass the curves closely the "spina" of the circus.
C. To support a constant pace
D. To lash the rivals
E. To push the rivals to the wall of the circus
F. To hurry in the straight lines


There will be NO "DIRTY ACTIONS" for these races.


Please remember to include any additional comments about the chariots or the
drivers' personalities, the way they look, etc. which are not strictly required
but are much appreciated by the commentators ;-)

Example of subscription entry:
Chariot: Solana Tuberosa
Driver: Triumphus
Owner: Quinta Amatius Macula
Faction: Factio Praesina
Quarterfinal Tactics: to lash rivals
Semi-final Tactics: Support a constant pace
Finals Tactics: Hurry in the last laps
Additional information: Triumphus has just returned to Rome after a long
campaign in Germania to find his farm is now owned by Macula who promised to
return the farm if he wins the Ludi.

Again, the deadline for entries is 2nd September 2010

Good luck to everyone and happy racing!


Valete optime,

L. Iulia Aquila
Ædilis Curulis Novæ Romæ


Regulae ludorum: http://novaroma.org/nr/Regulae_ludorum#Circenses_Rules
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80314 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Juliae s.d.


Which I can understand to a point, but English is also the official language of NR.

Not that I'm not against Latin or anything and not really wanting to nitpick the matter.

I would not be okay, knowing that there is a possibility of adding anymore suffering and discomfort for Flavia Lucilla, when an accomodation and possibly an exemption be made.

That's just me though.

Vale,
Aeterni

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Aeterniae s.d.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula composed an eloquent post regarding this demonstrating the ability to use "salve, vale, salvete and valete" which I have see her use in the past.
> I have disabilities as well and could probably match her level of disability. So I empathize with her.
> She, or anyone else, does not even have to decline one's name when typing "salve or vale" just typing the nomen will be fine.
>
> I am not a moderator anymore but I feel this is within the ability of all those who are able to form such eloquent sentences.
> Just my opinion.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Julia
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80315 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave!

English is the official language in nr. Latin is ceremonially also. But the predominant is English per the lex Cornelia that I wrote and successfully promulgated.

No praetorian clause can trump an existing lex.

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:16 AM, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> Juliae s.d.
>
> Which I can understand to a point, but English is also the official language of NR.
>
> Not that I'm not against Latin or anything and not really wanting to nitpick the matter.
>
> I would not be okay, knowing that there is a possibility of adding anymore suffering and discomfort for Flavia Lucilla, when an accomodation and possibly an exemption be made.
>
> That's just me though.
>
> Vale,
> Aeterni
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > Aeterniae s.d.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula composed an eloquent post regarding this demonstrating the ability to use "salve, vale, salvete and valete" which I have see her use in the past.
> > I have disabilities as well and could probably match her level of disability. So I empathize with her.
> > She, or anyone else, does not even have to decline one's name when typing "salve or vale" just typing the nomen will be fine.
> >
> > I am not a moderator anymore but I feel this is within the ability of all those who are able to form such eloquent sentences.
> > Just my opinion.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80316 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

Not only is this not fair but this is not right. Borderlining on Censorship practically, this is a long time citizen and I would be very sad if Flavia Lucilla Merula could no longer join on us in this forum. She is a delightful woman, and abonus to NR.
>
> Crispus and the rest of the Praetorian Bandwagon, can an accomodation not be done?

Salve Aeternia, et salvete omnes

Thanks for your post, and thanks to Iulia also.

Yes, we on the bandwagon are aware of this:)

I have sent two personal messages to Merula today, asking how I and the team can help.

We don't want to lose anyone, we want to do absolutely everything we can to make it as easy as possible for Merula and anyone else who asks for help.

I don't want to say too much here in the open forum, but please rest assured that I and the team are onto it.

We are Romans, and don't leave our people behind:)

Vale, et valete optime
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80317 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Cato Sullae sal.

I *think* she means that if you put the dissertations all together in a single post, with the title "New Dissertations" or something; the actual descriptions of the dissertations would be all inside the one post?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> Umm, I am trying to wrap my mind around the one thread idea. Can you
> explain it better for me (and we can take this off list if this isn't
> interesting to others).
>
> How I have been posting the documents consistently is based on the title of
> the dissertation. This way if someone knows ahead of time the title is not
> interesting to them they can simply delete the email and move to the next
> one - which might strike their fancy.
>
> Overall, I have posted about 90 Dissertation abstracts and recently have
> been posting up to 9 at a time.
>
> Given those vague guidelines how would you suggest threading the messages?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Sulla,
> >
> > Bene, thanks.
> >
> > Still it would be cool to put everything in one thread for those who are
> > not at box.net ;) ( I am in organization mode)
> >
> > Posting it to the wiki is a good idea, Paulinus knows how to do this.
> >
> > Gratias tibi,
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> > Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire
> > address
> > > as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
> > > sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.
> > >
> > > If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I
> > hope,
> > > be an added benefit for all members of the ML.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > > luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there
> > were
> > > > one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> > > > papers, articles etc. upon request.
> > > > Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had
> > time
> > > > to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> > > > So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier
> > to
> > > > access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to
> > get
> > > > them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts
> > in
> > > > the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts -
> > but
> > > > attached to a main thread.
> > > >
> > > > Gratias,
> > > >
> > > > Valete optime,
> > > >
> > > > Julia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80318 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Caesar Crispo sal.
 
If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
 
Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
 
Optime vale.


--- On Thu, 9/2/10, GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:


From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 11:30 AM




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

Not only is this not fair but this is not right. Borderlining on Censorship practically, this is a long time citizen and I would be very sad if Flavia Lucilla Merula could no longer join on us in this forum.  She is a delightful woman, and abonus to NR.
>
> Crispus and the rest of the Praetorian Bandwagon, can an accomodation not be done?

Salve Aeternia, et salvete omnes

Thanks for your post, and thanks to Iulia also.

Yes, we on the bandwagon are aware of this:)

I have sent two personal messages to Merula today, asking how I and the team can help.

We don't want to lose anyone, we want to do absolutely everything we can to make it as easy as possible for Merula and anyone else who asks for help.

I don't want to say too much here in the open forum, but please rest assured that I and the team are onto it.

We are Romans, and don't leave our people behind:)

Vale, et valete optime
Crispus




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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80319 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave,

The short answer is that the email would be far too long. Nor am I a fan of a wall of text. Also, it would make it more difficult for individuals to tell me which dissertation they want, if they choose to be selective.

Respectfully,

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:48 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> Cato Sullae sal.
>
> I *think* she means that if you put the dissertations all together in a single post, with the title "New Dissertations" or something; the actual descriptions of the dissertations would be all inside the one post?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > Umm, I am trying to wrap my mind around the one thread idea. Can you
> > explain it better for me (and we can take this off list if this isn't
> > interesting to others).
> >
> > How I have been posting the documents consistently is based on the title of
> > the dissertation. This way if someone knows ahead of time the title is not
> > interesting to them they can simply delete the email and move to the next
> > one - which might strike their fancy.
> >
> > Overall, I have posted about 90 Dissertation abstracts and recently have
> > been posting up to 9 at a time.
> >
> > Given those vague guidelines how would you suggest threading the messages?
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Sulla,
> > >
> > > Bene, thanks.
> > >
> > > Still it would be cool to put everything in one thread for those who are
> > > not at box.net ;) ( I am in organization mode)
> > >
> > > Posting it to the wiki is a good idea, Paulinus knows how to do this.
> > >
> > > Gratias tibi,
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Julia
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> > > Woolwine <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ave!
> > > >
> > > > Senator Paulinus has a library @ box.net (I do not have the entire
> > > address
> > > > as I am at my office) but the dissertations I have been downloading and
> > > > sending out to individuals are being uploaded there.
> > > >
> > > > If someone can put a link to it on the Wiki and website that would, I
> > > hope,
> > > > be an added benefit for all members of the ML.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:42 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > > > luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Iulia Sullae omnes s.p.d.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you to those who are posting these abstracts, Sulla and there
> > > were
> > > > > one or two others, and also thank you for taking the time to send the
> > > > > papers, articles etc. upon request.
> > > > > Some of them I have found very interesting as well but I have not had
> > > time
> > > > > to request them and when I did they were hard to find.
> > > > > So, I have a suggestion, in good faith.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible to post them all in one thread as this makes it easier
> > > to
> > > > > access/find them - for example if for some reason we are too busy to
> > > get
> > > > > them right away we do not have to sift through endless unrelated posts
> > > in
> > > > > the archives to find them again. They will still have different posts -
> > > but
> > > > > attached to a main thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gratias,
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete optime,
> > > > >
> > > > > Julia
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80320 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Marcio Crispo scribae praetori omnibusque in Foro SPD

I applaud the praetura's stated desires to give guidelines for speaking here in the Forum as, no doubt, they are truly intended to give the flavor of Rome to this place.

I would only point out that it is also very clear under our law that English is the official language of the government in day-to-day communications; while the lex does not specify that English is the "official" language of the Forum, it also makes it quite clear that English translations are to accompany posts in other languages, etc., so it is reasonable to think that citizens are welcome to use English as their primary language of communication.

More importantly, to *require* the use of a foreign language, no matter how simply put, may actually be a violation of Yahoo!'s terms of Service, compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I doubt that one or two citizens' necessary use of simple English greetings will do serious harm to the intent of the praetura. I leave it in your hands, but ask you to consider carefully how to move forward.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80321 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeternia Gaio Marcio Crispo sal:


Thank you for your quick response Crispus, I am hoping the solution will be a positive one.

And you're right, Flavia will be not be left behind by any means, or anyone else that faces such a terrible situation.

Vale Optime,
Statia Aeternia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
>
> Not only is this not fair but this is not right. Borderlining on Censorship practically, this is a long time citizen and I would be very sad if Flavia Lucilla Merula could no longer join on us in this forum. She is a delightful woman, and abonus to NR.
> >
> > Crispus and the rest of the Praetorian Bandwagon, can an accomodation not be done?
>
> Salve Aeternia, et salvete omnes
>
> Thanks for your post, and thanks to Iulia also.
>
> Yes, we on the bandwagon are aware of this:)
>
> I have sent two personal messages to Merula today, asking how I and the team can help.
>
> We don't want to lose anyone, we want to do absolutely everything we can to make it as easy as possible for Merula and anyone else who asks for help.
>
> I don't want to say too much here in the open forum, but please rest assured that I and the team are onto it.
>
> We are Romans, and don't leave our people behind:)
>
> Vale, et valete optime
> Crispus
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80322 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Iulia Catoni Sullae sal,

No, it does not mean that it will go all in one post. Absolutely not. But - as Sulla, or whomever, adds to it they will have to trim off the post of the previous one - many of us do that and it takes a second.
Its not rocket science:)

Valete optime,

Julia
P.S. took a nano-second to trim this one;o)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> The short answer is that the email would be far too long. Nor am I a fan of a wall of text. Also, it would make it more difficult for individuals to tell me which dissertation they want, if they choose to be selective.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:48 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > Cato Sullae sal.
> >
> > I *think* she means that if you put the dissertations all together in a single post, with the title "New Dissertations" or something; the actual descriptions of the dissertations would be all inside the one post?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80323 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Iulia Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.

Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.

However this is why I support the more informal address, such as "ave" rather than the more formal address I used above.

As for it being a "rule" of the forum is not for me to determine.

I support the right of Novi Romani to have their say in this.
Such discussion should be considered in amending a rule of this caliber.

I will continue to use a Roman salutation regardless of the rule - but I may forget it a time or two:) and surely I will get the declensions wrong.

Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave, Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations.

To all: We are already tolerant of new and non-native speakers, at least we were when I was a moderator.
If we allow for "exceptions" (as surely there will be)for long time citizens, how would the praetorial staff keep track of this?

It is important to offer a solution to the proposed scenario if someone supports an addendum or amendment.

On the other hand, if we go to no rule or guideline, what will consequences be and what solution does on who supports this has?

Just a few thoughts.

Vale, et vale, et valete optime,

Julia

P.S. Do people still believe that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt? Just teasing...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Crispo sal.
>  
> If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
>  
> Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
>  
> Optime vale.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80324 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: The Roman Library at Box.net
Salvete,

Just a reminder that a library of Roman relate articles and books are being upload to Box.net. We currently have 44 items in the library. Anybody who would like access can send me their name and email address and will be added to the site. You will then be able to upload and download any items of interest.

Valete

Ti. Galerius Paulinus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80325 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Caesar Iuliae sal.
 
Yes I entirely agree that this is the proper, and preferred, and Roman, form of address and should be encouraged by the praetorial tema and advocated for privately to those who don't, but the only point when I differ with the curent proposal is the implication that moderation measures will be taken against those that don't comply. That might be simple error and as you and I know the tenor of response in the future will be determined by those praetors who sit in the seat, and how balanced and fair they are themselves. I think you know where I am going with that, no ;)?
 
I too will use one variant or another. I just get uncomforatble over the thought that a Big brother note will be dropped on someone when in haste they omit the salutation or closing phrases. At least establish a continuing patter before dropping a note in private to them, and a tactful one. That is how I would think it should be handled. really this isn't to me, though it maybe to others, a huge problem. people aren't opening their posts with "Ello mates!" or "Yo to my bros and sistas" etc. etc. so I guess I feel we are about to stoke a fire that isn't an ember into a burning forest, through cack handed enforcement measures.
 
Ok..yes I hear you saying "But Caesar this is NR" <lol>. Anyway you see my point and that I do agree with your sentiments, but don't like the compulsion angle to this.
 
Optime vale

--- On Thu, 9/2/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:


From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 12:45 PM


Iulia  Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.

Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80326 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeternia Iuliae Caesari omnibusque s.p.d.


Hi Caesar.

Well Julia, what we could do or rather the Praetorian Bandwagon could do.

Is make a list, or even better a spreadsheet of those who follow under the category of "exemption".

Color-code it even, have it each color stand for a specific exemption.

This could be made rather quickly anddistributed within the ranks of the Praetura.

Just a suggestion.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Iulia Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.
>
> Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.
>
> However this is why I support the more informal address, such as "ave" rather than the more formal address I used above.
>
> As for it being a "rule" of the forum is not for me to determine.
>
> I support the right of Novi Romani to have their say in this.
> Such discussion should be considered in amending a rule of this caliber.
>
> I will continue to use a Roman salutation regardless of the rule - but I may forget it a time or two:) and surely I will get the declensions wrong.
>
> Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
> So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave, Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations.
>
> To all: We are already tolerant of new and non-native speakers, at least we were when I was a moderator.
> If we allow for "exceptions" (as surely there will be)for long time citizens, how would the praetorial staff keep track of this?
>
> It is important to offer a solution to the proposed scenario if someone supports an addendum or amendment.
>
> On the other hand, if we go to no rule or guideline, what will consequences be and what solution does on who supports this has?
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Vale, et vale, et valete optime,
>
> Julia
>
> P.S. Do people still believe that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt? Just teasing...
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar Crispo sal.
> >  
> > If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
> >  
> > Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
> >  
> > Optime vale.
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80327 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
........> I doubt that one or two citizens' necessary use of simple English greetings will do serious harm to the intent of the praetura. I leave it in your hands, but ask you to consider carefully how to move forward.

Salve Cato, et salvete omnes

Thank you for your contribution to this topic.

I think that some citizens might be worried that we expect complex Latin sentences, or even that the whole of their post must be in Latin. Not so. I have tried to explain that it is just a simple Latin "Hello" and "Goodbye" that we are after, nothing complicated.

As you will have seen from recent posts, we want to bring everyone with us, not leave anyone behind. Of course we all have different abilities, and to begin with some will find it a challenge .To them we are saying "keep it simple". Iulia has helpfully suggested some very basic methods.

We realise that others may have real problems for various reasons that we need not go into here. We are more than happy to work with them, and give them all the help we can, so that they can continue to join in on this list. We do appreciate that for some of our citizens the content and personalities on this list are an important part of their lives, which it would be cruel to remove. We are not going to remove it.

I know that various experienced citizens are standing by ready to help. But if anyone has particular problems that they would like to discuss in private, they are welcome to contact me direct at the following address:

jbshr1pwa@...

I am sure we can accommodate all our citizens, Some may make steady progress and become proud that they can say just a few words to start with, and then go on to explore the Latin language in more detail. But, at the same time, we know we will need to help others manage just the barest essentials, so that they too can feel they are the equal of anyone else here and be able to play their full part in our discussions.

I do not want to suggest that everyone become expert latinists, but at the same time I am not going to suggest that everyone just settles for the merest basics if they can gradually go a few steps further. We want to let everyone go as far as they can, and take pride in that achievement, whether great or small. I am determined that we will leave no one behind.

Vale, et valete optime omnes.
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80328 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salvete,

"Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave,
Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations."

 
I will answer for her. She can not comply with this new rule because of a medical condition that
NO one needs to know anymore about.

Rules are made to have exceptions this is one of those times.
The Praetors and their staff will have to acknowledge that not everything they want can be accommodated.
They need to publicly state that NO ONE, not one Roman will be forced out of the forum for using hello or
goodbye instead of Salve or Vale.

We have too many REAL issues to deal with.

Valete

Ti. Galerius Paulinus





To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 18:45:54 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.






Iulia Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.

Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.

However this is why I support the more informal address, such as "ave" rather than the more formal address I used above.

As for it being a "rule" of the forum is not for me to determine.

I support the right of Novi Romani to have their say in this.
Such discussion should be considered in amending a rule of this caliber.

I will continue to use a Roman salutation regardless of the rule - but I may forget it a time or two:) and surely I will get the declensions wrong.

Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave, Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations.

To all: We are already tolerant of new and non-native speakers, at least we were when I was a moderator.
If we allow for "exceptions" (as surely there will be)for long time citizens, how would the praetorial staff keep track of this?

It is important to offer a solution to the proposed scenario if someone supports an addendum or amendment.

On the other hand, if we go to no rule or guideline, what will consequences be and what solution does on who supports this has?

Just a few thoughts.

Vale, et vale, et valete optime,

Julia

P.S. Do people still believe that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt? Just teasing...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Crispo sal.
>
> If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
>
> Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
>
> Optime vale.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80329 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Caesar Aeterniae sal.

We could, or rather than succumbing to the need for this we could just exercise common sense, which of course isn't that common, so hence the problem.
 
This will not be an issue if no moderation/enforcement measures and a generally humane approach to "infractions" are adopted.
 
Ummm yes, ok you too will say "Caesar this is Nova Roma", but honestly this is just so NR. On top of everything else we are about to create another uncessary flash point. I find it absurd.
 
Optime vale.


--- On Thu, 9/2/10, Tragedienne <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:


From: Tragedienne <syrenslullaby@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 12:58 PM


Aeternia Iuliae Caesari omnibusque s.p.d.


Hi Caesar.

Well Julia, what we could do or rather the Praetorian Bandwagon could do.

Is make a list, or even better a spreadsheet of those who follow under the category of "exemption".

Color-code it even, have it each color stand for a specific exemption.

This could be made rather quickly anddistributed within the ranks of the Praetura.

Just a suggestion.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Iulia  Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.
>
> Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.
>
> However this is why I support the more informal address, such as "ave" rather than the more formal address I used above.
>
> As for it being a "rule" of the forum is not for me to determine.
>
> I support the right of Novi Romani to have their say in this.
> Such discussion should be considered in amending a rule of this caliber.
>
> I will continue to use a Roman salutation regardless of the rule - but I may forget it a time or two:) and surely I will get the declensions wrong.
>
> Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
> So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave, Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations.
>
> To all: We are already tolerant of new and non-native speakers, at least we were when I was a moderator.
> If we allow for "exceptions" (as surely there will be)for long time citizens, how would the praetorial staff keep track of this?
>
> It is important to offer a solution to the proposed scenario if someone supports an addendum or amendment.
>
> On the other hand, if we go to no rule or guideline, what will consequences be and what solution does on who supports this has?
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Vale, et vale, et valete optime,
>
> Julia
>
> P.S. Do people still believe that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt? Just teasing...
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar Crispo sal.
> >  
> > If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
> >  
> > Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
> >  
> > Optime vale.
> >
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80330 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeternia Caesari sal:

I agree this is rather unneccessary, but since you know the chances of this nonsense being overturned is high-flying in the ethers.

I was offering a solution as it were, so that I'm contributing at least an idea of some sort than just my proverbial wail of protest;)


Vale Optime,
Aeternia
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Aeterniae sal.
>
> We could, or rather than succumbing to the need for this we could just exercise common sense, which of course isn't that common, so hence the problem.
>  
> This will not be an issue if no moderation/enforcement measures and a generally humane approach to "infractions" are adopted.
>  
> Ummm yes, ok you too will say "Caesar this is Nova Roma", but honestly this is just so NR. On top of everything else we are about to create another uncessary flash point. I find it absurd.
>  
> Optime vale.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 9/2/10, Tragedienne <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Tragedienne <syrenslullaby@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 12:58 PM
>
>
> Aeternia Iuliae Caesari omnibusque s.p.d.
>
>
> Hi Caesar.
>
> Well Julia, what we could do or rather the Praetorian Bandwagon could do.
>
> Is make a list, or even better a spreadsheet of those who follow under the category of "exemption".
>
> Color-code it even, have it each color stand for a specific exemption.
>
> This could be made rather quickly anddistributed within the ranks of the Praetura.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> >
> > Iulia  Aeterniae Caesari omnibusque in foro S.P.D.
> >
> > Cousin, you are right the ML culture prefers we address each other in the Roman way and most do comply.
> >
> > However this is why I support the more informal address, such as "ave" rather than the more formal address I used above.
> >
> > As for it being a "rule" of the forum is not for me to determine.
> >
> > I support the right of Novi Romani to have their say in this.
> > Such discussion should be considered in amending a rule of this caliber.
> >
> > I will continue to use a Roman salutation regardless of the rule - but I may forget it a time or two:) and surely I will get the declensions wrong.
> >
> > Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
> > So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave, Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations.
> >
> > To all: We are already tolerant of new and non-native speakers, at least we were when I was a moderator.
> > If we allow for "exceptions" (as surely there will be)for long time citizens, how would the praetorial staff keep track of this?
> >
> > It is important to offer a solution to the proposed scenario if someone supports an addendum or amendment.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we go to no rule or guideline, what will consequences be and what solution does on who supports this has?
> >
> > Just a few thoughts.
> >
> > Vale, et vale, et valete optime,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > P.S. Do people still believe that Nero fiddled while Rome burnt? Just teasing...
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Caesar Crispo sal.
> > >  
> > > If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues. This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken. Now one may say without them that it has no teeth, but surely if this has legitimate support from people, all it takes is for those that reply to point out the issue if they feel it as an issue. I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.
> > >  
> > > Fiddling while Nova Roma burns is one thing, but requiring citizens to engage in formal sulations before yelling "FIRE!" and "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" is, forgive me, ludicrous.
> > >  
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80331 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> "Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
> So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave,
> Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations."

Salve Pauline

Thanks for your post.

Merula has kindly taken up my offer of private discussion to work through how we can help her.

There is no way I want to cause her problems, and I shall continue to work with her as long as it takes.

Vale optime
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80332 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Caesari s.d

> Ok..yes I hear you saying "But Caesar this is NR" <lol>. Anyway you see my point and that I do agree with your sentiments, but don't like the compulsion angle to this.

*laughs* no actually I was thinking "damn that is a short post for Caesar, if he doesn't watch out he'll have to hand back his 'Iulian gen card'."

But now that you mention it...

Vale bene,

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80333 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeternia Crispo sal:


Thank you for posting this Crispus, you have my personal thanks.

Flavia Lucilla Merula is very loved, so thank you for taking the time to do something of this nature.

vale,
Aeternia


> Salve Pauline
>
> Thanks for your post.
>
> Merula has kindly taken up my offer of private discussion to work through how we can help her.
>
> There is no way I want to cause her problems, and I shall continue to work with her as long as it takes.
>
> Vale optime
> Crispus
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80334 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Aeterniae s.d

Good suggestion.

Of course in addition we could simply remind people of the culture here:)

I am wondering if part of the logic behind the "enforcement measures" are a result of salutations (and lack thereof) being offensive. In this case it is not a simple salutation problem, but another issue altogether that is a muddy grey area because it has the grey perception issue.

"Yo" for example, in Bronx, N.Y. this is common and nothing is thought of it. In a heated discussion in farm meeting in Nebraska, this most likely will be seen as derogatory to the person it is being shouted at.
Just another thought or three.

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Aeternia Iuliae Caesari omnibusque s.p.d.
>
>
> Hi Caesar.
>
> Well Julia, what we could do or rather the Praetorian Bandwagon could do.
>
> Is make a list, or even better a spreadsheet of those who follow under the category of "exemption".
>
> Color-code it even, have it each color stand for a specific exemption.
>
> This could be made rather quickly anddistributed within the ranks of the Praetura.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80335 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Crispe,

Thank you as well. I am glad we took the time to discuss this as adults, Romans.
And also to trust the our praetorian team value our input.

Vale optime,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > "Aeternia, I would also not be ok with it if Merulla was unable to post.
> > So it is up to Merula to appraise us if she unable to post the informal Ave,
> > Salve, Salvete, Vale et Valete salutations."
>
> Salve Pauline
>
> Thanks for your post.
>
> Merula has kindly taken up my offer of private discussion to work through how we can help her.
>
> There is no way I want to cause her problems, and I shall continue to work with her as long as it takes.
>
> Vale optime
> Crispus
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80336 From: Robert Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave,

The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.

And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:30 PM, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> Aeterniae s.d
>
> Good suggestion.
>
> Of course in addition we could simply remind people of the culture here:)
>
> I am wondering if part of the logic behind the "enforcement measures" are a result of salutations (and lack thereof) being offensive. In this case it is not a simple salutation problem, but another issue altogether that is a muddy grey area because it has the grey perception issue.
>
> "Yo" for example, in Bronx, N.Y. this is common and nothing is thought of it. In a heated discussion in farm meeting in Nebraska, this most likely will be seen as derogatory to the person it is being shouted at.
> Just another thought or three.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Aeternia Iuliae Caesari omnibusque s.p.d.
> >
> >
> > Hi Caesar.
> >
> > Well Julia, what we could do or rather the Praetorian Bandwagon could do.
> >
> > Is make a list, or even better a spreadsheet of those who follow under the category of "exemption".
> >
> > Color-code it even, have it each color stand for a specific exemption.
> >
> > This could be made rather quickly anddistributed within the ranks of the Praetura.
> >
> > Just a suggestion.
> >
> > Vale Optime,
> > Aeternia
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80337 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Crispo sal.
>  
> If I may point out something I consider salient. Curently Nova Roma faces more than a few issues.


Salve Caesar

>>> CMC Indeed it does, and we must hope that progress is soon made

This proposal is laudable, up to the point that enforcement measures are taken.

>>> CMC We have been impressed by the number of citizens now saying "Hello" and "Goodbye" after just a short time. We realise that some may occasionally forget, and that some may have real problems. We are not setting out to punish people, we want to help and gently encourage. What we need to avoid is giving the impression that "it doesn't really matter, so we won't do it". We hope that most subscribers will continue the good progress being made, and that occasional reminders is all that will be necessary.

I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise, state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of this.

>>>CMC It is not the policy of the Praetorial team to seek out citizens to place on moderation. We hope that will not be necessary. Reminders will be given when necessary. Only if there is wilful refusal will we need to ask why that person wishes to be a member of a roman list. We shall have to see how it develops.

Vale optime
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80338 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Aeternia Crispo sal:
>
>
> Thank you for posting this Crispus, you have my personal thanks.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula is very loved, so thank you for taking the time to do something of this nature.
>
Salve Aeternia

Indeed she is, and I shall give her all the help I can.

Thank you.

Vale optime
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80339 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
>
>
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Cato Marcio Crispo scribae praetori omnibusque in Foro SPD
>
> I applaud the praetura's stated desires to give guidelines for speaking here
> in the Forum as, no doubt, they are truly intended to give the flavor of Rome
> to this place.
>
> ATS: They are also intended to give a flavor of politeness to this place.
> Think before you write is a good idea, too.
>
> I would only point out that it is also very clear under our law that English
> is the official language of the government in day-to-day communications; while
> the lex does not specify that English is the "official" language of the Forum,
> it also makes it quite clear that English translations are to accompany posts
> in other languages, etc., so it is reasonable to think that citizens are
> welcome to use English as their primary language of communication.
>
> ATS: I don¹t recall Crispus or anyone saying that one could not use
> English in the body of one¹s communications. Using a brief Latin greeting
> (not one like that I used above!) is no imposition on anyone who is
> able-bodied.
>
> More importantly, to *require* the use of a foreign language, no matter how
> simply put, may actually be a violation of Yahoo!'s terms of Service,
> compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
>
> ATS: For the record, I have had, or will have, three blind students, one
> in a wheelchair with MS, and one quadriplegic IN MY LATIN CLASSES. Of these,
> all but one blind student were NR citizens. The quadriplegic student was
> doing A work before he left due to illness in his family, and one of the blind
> students completed the extremely challenging Sermo Combined course with a very
> respectable grade. The others are incoming or in progress or have completed
> one course or another. Blind people must use a special software which reads
> the screen (or books) to them, software which is not available in Latin...but
> they managed despite the mangling caused by Latin being pronounced as English
> or whatever. Note, too, that modules are available for various languages,
> though Latin apparently is not one of them. They have not gotten the message
> that people these days communicate across macronational language barriers via
> the universal language.
>
> I doubt that one or two citizens' necessary use of simple English greetings
> will do serious harm to the intent of the praetura. I leave it in your hands,
> but ask you to consider carefully how to move forward.
>
> ATS: I doubt that any harm will come from one or two exceptions due to
> extreme disability, as apparently in Merula¹s case. Rules can have
> exceptions. However, such cases are a long remove from an outright refusal to
> do this, as with certain other individuals. I note, too, that a former
> citizen posts to the Grex Latine Loquentium (an all-Latin mailing list) with
> some regularity despite suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> Vale, et valete.
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80340 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Sulla,

> The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.

Well, I see your point but... different organizations, like fraternal for example have rules that would be restrictive in macro life.
So ultimately it is a choice of the individual member and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum. Preferably in a manner conducive to productive dialogue.
As this one has been.

> And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!

Thank goodness for that, eh? *laughs*

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
>
> And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
>
> Vale
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80341 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Iulia.
 
" eh?"
 
Ah, now you are talking Canadian I see.
 
Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Thu, 9/2/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:


From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 2:04 PM


Salve Sulla,

> The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.

Well, I see your point but... different organizations, like fraternal for example have rules that would be restrictive in macro life.
So ultimately it is a choice of the individual member and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum. Preferably in a manner conducive to productive dialogue.
As this one has been.

> And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!

Thank goodness for that, eh? *laughs*

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
>
> And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
>
> Vale
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80342 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Caesari,

Ayup:) (Maine & Midlands)

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Iulia.
>  
> " eh?"
>  
> Ah, now you are talking Canadian I see.
>  
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> --- On Thu, 9/2/10, luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 2:04 PM
>
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
>
> Well, I see your point but... different organizations, like fraternal for example have rules that would be restrictive in macro life.
> So ultimately it is a choice of the individual member and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum. Preferably in a manner conducive to productive dialogue.
> As this one has been.
>
> > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
>
> Thank goodness for that, eh? *laughs*
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
> >
> > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80343 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum.


Salve,

but not non-cives, apparently.


vale,


Anna Bucci
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80344 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.

Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)

I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".

Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80345 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave,

Oh come on Cato, Pontiff Piscinus was just referring to me. Hey he can call
me infelix and no one lifts a single protest because it's directed at
Sulla.

What a joke!

So, tell me Cato, are there laws in NY that require the peeps over there in
NYC to say Yo? Or are we just dealing with a stereotype?

Vale,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they*
> can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has
> explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both
> of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs
> are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
>
> I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not
> a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper
> greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus
> addressed Sulla as "male".
>
> Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80346 From: Tragedienne Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salve Anna (Annia),

Not true, I see your posts often in the forum. If non-cives were not allowed to speak, we wouldn't see posts from you at all they'd be vanquished.

Not trying to start an argument with you, just giving a different perspective.

vale,
Aeternia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> >
> and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum.
>
>
> Salve,
>
> but not non-cives, apparently.
>
>
> vale,
>
>
> Anna Bucci
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80347 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave!

Iulia I use Gmail and it is easier for me to send one email per
dissertation. And, in the beginning when I used a subject heading
Dissertation 1 and someone responds and trims their post they could
accidentally trim the title of the dissertation thus it requires far more
effort to determine which dissertation that individual wanted. (and that has
happened - this is why I changed to start using the dissertation titles in
the subject line)

In the end I do this as a service because I know there are some people who
enjoy reading the documents and also because I enjoy finding them. If this
is going to become inconvenient I can simply post them on lists that will
more readily accept them (the Back Alley). It is a matter of consistency
that I have never done anything in NR to cater to popularity and I sure as
hell am not going to start now.

Be that as it may, I will review this thread when I am not in my office to
see if it will make the process easier or more complicated. If it is easier
- I will adopt it. If more complicated - I wont.

Thank you for your thoughts and opinion,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

>
>
> Iulia Catoni Sullae sal,
>
> No, it does not mean that it will go all in one post. Absolutely not. But -
> as Sulla, or whomever, adds to it they will have to trim off the post of the
> previous one - many of us do that and it takes a second.
> Its not rocket science:)
>
> Valete optime,
>
> Julia
> P.S. took a nano-second to trim this one;o)
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > The short answer is that the email would be far too long. Nor am I a fan
> of a wall of text. Also, it would make it more difficult for individuals to
> tell me which dissertation they want, if they choose to be selective.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:48 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Cato Sullae sal.
> > >
> > > I *think* she means that if you put the dissertations all together in a
> single post, with the title "New Dissertations" or something; the actual
> descriptions of the dissertations would be all inside the one post?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80348 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Salven

You see a fraction. Message me privately to see the rest.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Tragedienne" <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Anna (Annia),
>
> Not true, I see your posts often in the forum. If non-cives were not allowed to speak, we wouldn't see posts from you at all they'd be vanquished.
>
> Not trying to start an argument with you, just giving a different perspective.
>
> vale,
> Aeternia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> > >
> > and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum.
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > but not non-cives, apparently.
> >
> >
> > vale,
> >
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80349 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave Sulla,

Yes, I understand email restrictions - I use hotmail:)

I also can't post from my iphone, I thought the new Iphone4 would alleviate that, but nooooo. I see you have no problem though. I think it is my service area...but anyway...

Thanks for a good discussion,

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Iulia I use Gmail and it is easier for me to send one email per
> dissertation. And, in the beginning when I used a subject heading
> Dissertation 1 and someone responds and trims their post they could
> accidentally trim the title of the dissertation thus it requires far more
> effort to determine which dissertation that individual wanted. (and that has
> happened - this is why I changed to start using the dissertation titles in
> the subject line)
>
> In the end I do this as a service because I know there are some people who
> enjoy reading the documents and also because I enjoy finding them. If this
> is going to become inconvenient I can simply post them on lists that will
> more readily accept them (the Back Alley). It is a matter of consistency
> that I have never done anything in NR to cater to popularity and I sure as
> hell am not going to start now.
>
> Be that as it may, I will review this thread when I am not in my office to
> see if it will make the process easier or more complicated. If it is easier
> - I will adopt it. If more complicated - I wont.
>
> Thank you for your thoughts and opinion,
>
> Sulla
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80350 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: LVDI ROMANI 2763 AVC EXTENSION Call for charioteers!
L. Iulia Aquila omnibus civibus SPD.

Why? Because we have TWELVE chariots entered and it would be great to have SIXTEEN!

So gather your worthy Charioteers, dust off the Chariots and call your Horses in from the pastures!

Instructions below! You have until September 4th Midnight Rome time!


I hereby invite all of the citizens of Nova Roma to take part in the Chariot
Race which shall take place during the upcoming Ludi
Romani from September 5th and continue through September 13th 2010.
Enter your chariots by sending your subscription entries to Aedile P. Annæus
Constantinus Placidus at ugo.coppola@... (ugo.coppola AT tin.it). The total
number of chariots allowed is sixteen.
In the subject field type "Ludi Circenses."

The deadline for entries is 4th September 2010 12:00 pm Rome Time


Do not post entries on the ML.

All entries must include the following information:

A. Your Nova Roma Name;

B. The name of your driver;

C. The name of your chariot;

D. Your tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals;

E. Your tactics for the Finals;

F. The name of your "factio" or team.


Tactics: Six (6) race tactics are possible:


A. To hurry in the last laps
B. To pass the curves closely the "spina" of the circus.
C. To support a constant pace
D. To lash the rivals
E. To push the rivals to the wall of the circus
F. To hurry in the straight lines


There will be NO "DIRTY ACTIONS" for these races.


Please remember to include any additional comments about the chariots or the
drivers' personalities, the way they look, etc. which are not strictly required
but are much appreciated by the commentators ;-)

Example of subscription entry:
Chariot: Solana Tuberosa
Driver: Triumphus
Owner: Quinta Amatius Macula
Faction: Factio Praesina
Quarterfinal Tactics: to lash rivals
Semi-final Tactics: Support a constant pace
Finals Tactics: Hurry in the last laps
Additional information: Triumphus has just returned to Rome after a long
campaign in Germania to find his farm is now owned by Macula who promised to
return the farm if he wins the Ludi.

Again, the deadline for entries is 2nd September 2010

Good luck to everyone and happy racing!


Valete optime,

L. Iulia Aquila
Ædilis Curulis Novæ Romæ


Regulae ludorum: http://novaroma.org/nr/Regulae_ludorum#Circenses_Rules
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80351 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave Crispus,

My response below:


>
> I just don't think this is a cross to nail citizens to, so as a compromise,
> state the policy again, but for heaven's sake let us not start taking
> punative actions against someone for this. Drop the enforcement part of
> this.
>
> >>>CMC It is not the policy of the Praetorial team to seek out citizens to
> place on moderation. We hope that will not be necessary. Reminders will be
> given when necessary. Only if there is wilful refusal will we need to ask
> why that person wishes to be a member of a roman list. We shall have to see
> how it develops.
>

I apologize in advance because I know you are working behind the scenes to
resolve this tempest in a tea cup, but I have a serious issue with this
response here. Please bear with me. To begin with Nova Roma is MORE than
just Latin. Nova Roma was founded to be everything to everyone. If your
interest was in the Religion, you had a place in NR. The Military - also a
place - the law - also a place. You wanted a pointy hat there was that
option too. But to sum up the involvement of the ML to say that if someone
does not comply with adding salutations is to question their intent is just
flat out wrong to do. The ML is a reflection of all that Nova Roma is, has
been and should continue to be. Latin has no higher place than the
government or for that matter the Religio (when it comes to the ML). This
is why in the applications there are several choices one can choose as to
their interest in NR and in ancient Rome. My interest is in philosophy,
history, politics and government. Right now in the Back Alley we are having
a great discussion about the Mos Maiorum, and dare I say, I think that is
more important of a topic than Latin, but as with everything in Nova Roma,
opinions vary. Though I do think that your statement, that I responded to
was at the very least poorly worded.

Respectfully,

Sulla


>
> Vale optime
> Crispus
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80352 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Let me say that I enjoy seeing Latin used here and elsewhere in NR, and I like the idea of using correct Latin greetings and closings in emails posted here. Learning how to do this was one of my first exposures to Latin (well, since high school), and, eventually led, along with other things to my entrance into Gramatica I. sometimes, especially if I am more than mildly annoyed by something, having to write a long salutation in a Foreign language also gives me time to take a deep breath ...and decide to put what I write into drafts for future scrutiny, and, often as not, deleting without sending.

Having said that, I think using Latin on this list is a wonderful custom, and should be encouraged, but I don't think it should be mandated. I still remember how, as a new citizen, I was thoroughly daunted by the *idea* of posting on this list, and how I practiced using the most basic forms of greeting in Newroman until I felt confident enough, and yes, brave enough, to use them here. I would hate to even have cause to be concerned that our policies might deter new or prospective citizens from introducing themselves, or from participation in our discussion, for lack of confidence in using phrases in a language they may or may not know.

Let's encourage everyone to follow this policy by all means ...and the best way to do that is to set the example ...but let's stop just short of making this a punishable offense!

Respectfully,
Valete quam optime,
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80353 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori S. P. D.

and hi. Sulla, If you began each subject line of a dissertation
announcement with the word ABSTRACT: then the title, would Yahoo search
bring up all of those posts as a thread? That way, you could still make on
post per abstract, which is handy for the reader, while still creating a
thread that people who don't follow the list closely could reference when
they have time to do that. Yes? No?

Vale bene,
CMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80354 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Ave,

That would be perfect. I can do that with no difficulty at all.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:38 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori S. P. D.
>
> and hi. Sulla, If you began each subject line of a dissertation
> announcement with the word ABSTRACT: then the title, would Yahoo search
> bring up all of those posts as a thread? That way, you could still make on
> post per abstract, which is handy for the reader, while still creating a
> thread that people who don't follow the list closely could reference when
> they have time to do that. Yes? No?
>
> Vale bene,
> CMC
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80355 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Yes ...I know ...you have heard way too much from me today ...but I do want
to address another issue, which is, perhaps, tangential to this matter.

I am sure that you are all aware of the principle of unintended
consequences, which states that the consequences of doing something may
become or turn out to be, far different than the intent. This particular
Praetorial team is scrupulus, even handed, fair, and does their job
extremely well, I think, despite the lack of Praetors, and I applaud you.
However, we have no way of knowing of assuring that the policies you want to
install, especially if those policies include punitive measures, will not be
used, in future, by the unscrupulous of vindictive as tools of intimidation
or worse. I urge anyone who contemplates doing something that can be
enforced and which could result in actions detrimental to citizens to think
*very* carefully about all the ways in which such a proposal could be
misused or abuse, before making such policies.

Valete quam optime,
C. Maria Caeca, who enjoys, and will continue to enjoy, using her bits and
pieces of Latin, whenever she gets the chance.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80356 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Iuliae Aquilae Cornelio Sullae SPD

Hey now, there's nothing wrong with a good "yo". I say it often myself.

Valete,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
>
> Well, I see your point but... different organizations, like fraternal for example have rules that would be restrictive in macro life.
> So ultimately it is a choice of the individual member and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum. Preferably in a manner conducive to productive dialogue.
> As this one has been.
>
> > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
>
> Thank goodness for that, eh? *laughs*
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
> >
> > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80357 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: The Abstracts: A suggestion
Salve Maria,

I tried searching with abstract and I got all sorts of things and two abstracts. Yahoo's search is inadequate:) So what else is new? It's yahoo.

But if Paulinus is putting them all in box.net that takes care of it for me. Now all I have to do is find the time.

Vale,

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Senatori S. P. D.
>
> and hi. Sulla, If you began each subject line of a dissertation
> announcement with the word ABSTRACT: then the title, would Yahoo search
> bring up all of those posts as a thread? That way, you could still make on
> post per abstract, which is handy for the reader, while still creating a
> thread that people who don't follow the list closely could reference when
> they have time to do that. Yes? No?
>
> Vale bene,
> CMC
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80358 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Iulia Catoni Sullae sal.

The world needs a good "yo" from time to time, a couple of "youse guys" never hurt either! I was going to say it's the NYC (and the boroughs) culture but... it has spread to Florida and... of course, Arizona, where there are a lot of New York transplants;) Oh and let us not forget Joisey.

Vale,

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Iuliae Aquilae Cornelio Sullae SPD
>
> Hey now, there's nothing wrong with a good "yo". I say it often myself.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Sulla,
> >
> > > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
> >
> > Well, I see your point but... different organizations, like fraternal for example have rules that would be restrictive in macro life.
> > So ultimately it is a choice of the individual member and why it is so important for cives to voice their opinions in the forum. Preferably in a manner conducive to productive dialogue.
> > As this one has been.
> >
> > > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
> >
> > Thank goodness for that, eh? *laughs*
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave,
> > >
> > > The problem of enforcement is that you cannot expect members to stay in an organization where they have less freedom than in our macro lives.
> > >
> > > And I don't see NYC passing laws that its residents must say yo!
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80359 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> Let me say that I enjoy seeing Latin used here and elsewhere in NR, and I like
> the idea of using correct Latin greetings and closings in emails posted here.
> Learning how to do this was one of my first exposures to Latin (well, since
> high school), and, eventually led, along with other things to my entrance into
> Gramatica I. sometimes, especially if I am more than mildly annoyed by
> something, having to write a long salutation in a Foreign language also gives
> me time to take a deep breath ...and decide to put what I write into drafts
> for future scrutiny, and, often as not, deleting without sending.
>
> ATS: And that in and of itself is helpful, especially in case of temper
> tantrums...and while you do not seem to be afflicted with those, clearly there
> are some here who suffer from a propensity for them.
>
> Having said that, I think using Latin on this list is a wonderful custom, and
> should be encouraged, but I don't think it should be mandated. I still
> remember how, as a new citizen, I was thoroughly daunted by the *idea* of
> posting on this list, and how I practiced using the most basic forms of
> greeting in Newroman until I felt confident enough, and yes, brave enough, to
> use them here. I would hate to even have cause to be concerned that our
> policies might deter new or prospective citizens from introducing themselves,
> or from participation in our discussion, for lack of confidence in using
> phrases in a language they may or may not know.
>
> ATS: Amica, you are unusually sensitive to this. All that is required is
> the use of Salve(te) or Ave(te) at the beginning of a letter, and vale(te) at
> the end. There is nothing terribly challenging about this. We are not even
> worrying about getting the grammatical number correct. Note that neither
> Lentulus nor I suggested this...but we will enforce the rules.
>
> Let's encourage everyone to follow this policy by all means ...and the best
> way to do that is to set the example ...but let's stop just short of making
> this a punishable offense!
>
> ATS: While I support good examples, the fact is that unfortunately, some
> people will not respond unless they are punished, as you call it. That is one
> means of learning, and if tinpot dictators need Uncle Sam to carry a big stick
> when dealing with them, so be it; if able-bodied Romans need a little dose of
> moderation to learn elementary letter-writing and courtesy, so be it.
> Warnings will be issued first.
>
> Respectfully,
> Valete quam optime,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80360 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.

"All that is required is the use of Salve(te) or Ave(te) at the beginning of a letter, and vale(te) at the end. There is nothing terribly challenging about this. We are not even worrying about getting the grammatical number correct...but we will enforce the rules."

With due respect, Scholastica, it *is* "terribly challenging" to at least one citizen who has spoken out. It is not appropriate to simply dismiss this as you, unlike Crispus, seem to do, and there is a slightly chilling aspect to your words. If push came to shove, it may actually violate the Constitution's guarantee to all citizens the "right to participate in all public fora and discussions".

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80361 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave,

I am sure the Praetors office will demand proof in triplicate of all medical
disabilities to "prove" to their satisfaction that such a disability exists.

And, Merula just illustrated my proof that there is no way we can expect
anyone in this organization to stay in this organization when they have less
freedom here than they do in their macronational lives.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> "All that is required is the use of Salve(te) or Ave(te) at the beginning
> of a letter, and vale(te) at the end. There is nothing terribly challenging
> about this. We are not even worrying about getting the grammatical number
> correct...but we will enforce the rules."
>
> With due respect, Scholastica, it *is* "terribly challenging" to at least
> one citizen who has spoken out. It is not appropriate to simply dismiss this
> as you, unlike Crispus, seem to do, and there is a slightly chilling aspect
> to your words. If push came to shove, it may actually violate the
> Constitution's guarantee to all citizens the "right to participate in all
> public fora and discussions".
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80362 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-09-02
Subject: Latin salutations
Salvete,

I would like to respectfully suggest that our Praetorian staff announce that they understand the limits of any rule enforcement. They need to let those who CAN NOT post the required salutation to talk in our forum unmolested.

If this concession is not made by the Praetorian staff then I will, as an act of civil disobedience, refrain from including Latin salutations in my posts.

Valete,

Ti. Galerius Paulinus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80363 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Latin salutations
Salve,

You have many examples of ancient Latin salutations in the work of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus. The work is yet done...

Here for example for salve:
http://www.stoa.org/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Stoa:text:2003.02.0006:colloquium=1:topic=1

Here for vale:
http://www.stoa.org/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Stoa:text:2003.02.0006:colloquium=1:topic=3

Da operam, ut sis prospera valetudine.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Nonas Septembres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80364 From: Terry Wilson Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
C. Terentius Varro A.Tulliae Scholasticae omnibusque sal.

While I won't comment on the proposal under discussion, I will say that I find
it to be good practice for myself to try to use the appropriate Latin greetings
and closings. But since I know comparatively little Latin it usually takes me as
long to figure out the appropriate formal greeting as it does to compose the
message itself (I know we can use the simple forms, but as I said I need the
practice).  In fact, I'm not completely sure I got it all right in this message.

If the use of Latin in the openings and closings of e-mails is going to be
enforced for the sake of cultivating a more Roman attitude and consciousness
here, maybe we should give some thought to strongly encouraging posters to
exercise a little more of Comitas, of Clementia, of Gravitas, of Humanitas, of
Pietas, of Prudentia, of Severitas, and of Veritas, and all in the fullness of
their meanings.  Nothing could be more Roman than that, could it?

Optime valete!

C-TER-VARRO














 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80365 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Latin salutations
>
>
>
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Ti. Galerio Paulino quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> I would like to respectfully suggest that our Praetorian staff announce that
> they understand the limits of any rule enforcement. They need to let those who
> CAN NOT post the required salutation to talk in our forum unmolested.
>
> ATS: We have repeatedly said as much, but this does not seem to
> penetrate. Perhaps Yahoo is losing the relevant posts. None of us wishes to
> bar someone who has a serious disability from posting to the ML. Willful
> disobedience is another matter.
>
> If this concession is not made by the Praetorian staff then I will, as an act
> of civil disobedience, refrain from including Latin salutations in my posts.
>
> ATS: The praetorian staff is following directions on these matters, but
> is quite willing to make concessions for such unusual cases as that of Merula
> and anyone else who is physically unable to comply. One hopes that her
> condition improves, and even is cured, dis volentibus.
>
> Valete,
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80366 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> "All that is required is the use of Salve(te) or Ave(te) at the beginning of a
> letter, and vale(te) at the end. There is nothing terribly challenging about
> this. We are not even worrying about getting the grammatical number
> correct...but we will enforce the rules."
>
> With due respect, Scholastica, it *is* "terribly challenging" to at least one
> citizen who has spoken out.
>
> ATS: As we mentioned, concessions will be made in such cases. We have
> said this repeatedly; why does it not sink in? Are the posts not arriving?
> We are trying to work with Merula, and will do so with anyone else in need. I
> do not set the rules, nor did I suggest this policy, but we are required to
> enforce it. The ML is not some chat room or whatever where anyone may throw
> out anything that crosses his or her mind. It should be more formal, and
> reflect enough courtesy that the writers address the intended recipient(s) of
> their remarks, and that they should sign their posts unless they use the
> formal salutation, in which case this latter is not necessary (the formal
> salutation is the one I used above in expanded form).
>
> It is not appropriate to simply dismiss this as you, unlike Crispus,
>
> ATS: If memory serves, Crispus and Gualterus wrote the rules at the
> direction of a higher authority. All of us are flexible. I am simply stating
> that there is nothing difficult about using two Latin words in a post. Any
> able-bodied person should be able to do this. Those who cannot and those who
> will not fall into different categories; concessions can, and will, be made
> for those who a physically unable to do so. Merula need not fear that she
> will be unable to post. She and others who need concessions for physical
> disabilities will be granted exemptions. I doubt that there will be many, but
> there may be some others.
>
>
> seem to do, and there is a slightly chilling aspect to your words.
>
> ATS: I hardly think so. I am straightforward in my speech. For the
> able-bodied, there is nothing difficult about learning two words in Latin,
> French, German, ...but not everyone is able-bodied. Merula apparently has a
> very serious disability, and we do not wish to remove her social contacts via
> the ML or anything else.
>
>
> If push came to shove, it may actually violate the Constitution's guarantee
> to all citizens the "right to participate in all public fora and discussions".
>
> ATS: No, it does not; as above, concessions will be made for those who
> are physically unable to comply. Despite numerous repetitions, this seems not
> to have sunk in. Initially some in the cohors were unaware that some citizens
> are handicapped and unable to follow this simple directive. I am well aware
> of this fact, given that several of my students have various disabilities, but
> since all of them have been fully able to do Latin homework, it did not occur
> to me that anyone would be unable to use two Latin words (especially ones
> which are identical in form to two English words) in a post. Kindly note,
> too, that this instruction did not emanate from the praetorian staff, but from
> a higher source. We have been asked to enforce the rules. You and some of
> your new-found buddies are creating a tempest in a teapot because some are
> unwilling to acquire social graces or to put their interest in Rome to the
> simple test of learning two Latin words...and using them. It should look very
> strange to you that anyone who is both able-bodied and interested in Rome
> thinks along such lines, but certain parties seem very devoted to a scrupulous
> interpretation of every sort of law or rule unless it pertains directly to
> them. If they perceive that someone they deem an enemy has broken some rule
> (however inadvertently), they are all over that person, but when they have to
> obey a directive or do anything new, they rise in fury. Apart from the need
> for adults to control their emotions, one needs to gain some perspective on
> these matters, which one might find in the APOD for September 1st:
> <http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100901html>.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80367 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Terentio Varroni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Good to see you back among us, Varro. As you may have noticed, the place
> hasn¹t changed much.
>
>
> C. Terentius Varro A.Tulliae Scholasticae omnibusque sal.
>
> While I won't comment on the proposal under discussion, I will say that I find
> it to be good practice for myself to try to use the appropriate Latin
> greetings
> and closings. But since I know comparatively little Latin it usually takes me
> as
> long to figure out the appropriate formal greeting as it does to compose the
> message itself (I know we can use the simple forms, but as I said I need the
> practice).  In fact, I'm not completely sure I got it all right in this
> message.
>
> ATS: You got it absolutely perfect! Optimé!
>
> If the use of Latin in the openings and closings of e-mails is going to be
> enforced for the sake of cultivating a more Roman attitude and consciousness
> here, maybe we should give some thought to strongly encouraging posters to
> exercise a little more of Comitas, of Clementia, of Gravitas, of Humanitas, of
> Pietas, of Prudentia, of Severitas, and of Veritas, and all in the fullness of
> their meanings. 
>
> ATS: LOL! That, however, would produce an even bigger hurricane of
> protests. Asking people to use greetings is a step in the right direction.
> It might slow down the impulse to anger and reduce the rudeness we see all too
> often here. Comitas? (Typical response: Hey, namecalling and character
> assassination are fun!) Clementia (When we hate so many people?) Gravitas?
> (Why be formal?) Veritas? (huh?) Prudentia? Hoo dey? We don¹t do none of
> dat foolishness. Bring on da fights! The BA is wholly inadequate!
>
>
> Nothing could be more Roman than that, could it?
>
> ATS: In our dreams...just see how hard it is to get people to use two
> words of Latin, or even to greet one another in a post.
>
> Optime valete!
>
>
>
> C-TER-VARRO
>
> Et tu, et omnes bonae voluntatis!
>
>  
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80368 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave,

Or maybe you could start yourself by stop mentioning the Back Alley?

Vale,

Sulla

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:16 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
> wrote:

>
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica C. Terentio Varroni quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque
>
> > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> > Good to see you back among us, Varro. As you may have noticed, the place
> > hasn�t changed much.
>
> >
> >
> > C. Terentius Varro A.Tulliae Scholasticae omnibusque sal.
> >
> > While I won't comment on the proposal under discussion, I will say that I
> find
> > it to be good practice for myself to try to use the appropriate Latin
> > greetings
> > and closings. But since I know comparatively little Latin it usually
> takes me
> > as
> > long to figure out the appropriate formal greeting as it does to compose
> the
> > message itself (I know we can use the simple forms, but as I said I need
> the
> > practice). In fact, I'm not completely sure I got it all right in this
> > message.
> >
> > ATS: You got it absolutely perfect! Optim�!
>
> >
> > If the use of Latin in the openings and closings of e-mails is going to
> be
> > enforced for the sake of cultivating a more Roman attitude and
> consciousness
> > here, maybe we should give some thought to strongly encouraging posters
> to
> > exercise a little more of Comitas, of Clementia, of Gravitas, of
> Humanitas, of
> > Pietas, of Prudentia, of Severitas, and of Veritas, and all in the
> fullness of
> > their meanings.
> >
> > ATS: LOL! That, however, would produce an even bigger hurricane of
> > protests. Asking people to use greetings is a step in the right
> direction.
> > It might slow down the impulse to anger and reduce the rudeness we see
> all too
> > often here. Comitas? (Typical response: Hey, namecalling and character
> > assassination are fun!) Clementia (When we hate so many people?)
> Gravitas?
> > (Why be formal?) Veritas? (huh?) Prudentia? Hoo dey? We don�t do none of
> > dat foolishness. Bring on da fights! The BA is wholly inadequate!
>
> >
> >
> > Nothing could be more Roman than that, could it?
> >
> > ATS: In our dreams...just see how hard it is to get people to use two
> > words of Latin, or even to greet one another in a post.
>
> >
> > Optime valete!
> >
> >
> >
> > C-TER-VARRO
> >
> > Et tu, et omnes bonae voluntatis!
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80369 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: a. d. III Nonas Septembris: Flamen Dialis
M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di vos salvam et servatam volunt

Hodie est ante diem III Nonas Septembres; haec dies comitialis est: feriae et supplicationes apud omnia pulvinaria quod eo die Caesar divi filius vicit in Sicilia Censorino et Calvisio consulibus.

"Go, prepare the sacred vessels, fetch sacrificial offerings and priests to prepare them, that I may give thanks to Jove." ~ T. Maccius Plautus, Pseudolus 326-27

AUC 719 / 34 BCE: Triumph of C. Sosius C.f. T.n., proconsul, held in celebration of his victory in Judaea.

Yesterday, in regard to the Battle of Actium, we met with one of the lesser known participants, C. Sosius who had been praetor in 49 BCE. During the Civil War he had sided with Pompeius, returning to Rome after Pharsala where he was pardoned by Julius Caesar. He then sided with Marcus Antonius after Caesar's assassination. In 38 BCE Antonius was besieging Antiochus at Samosata, but as this was proving too lengthy for his political ambitions, he abandoned the siege and left for Rome. "After doing this he set out for Italy, and Gaius Sosius received from him the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. The Jews, indeed, had done Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn. And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and afterwards slew him." ~ Dio Cassius 49.22.2-6

It was C. Sosius who took Jerusalem in 37 BCE and placed Herod on the throne of Judea, in place of Antigonus. In 34 he not only celebrated a triumph on this date for capturing Jerusalem, he was also consul.That year he began construction of the Temple of Apollo Medicus (later called the Temple of Apollo Sosianus). It was not until after Actium and his pardon by Augustus than Sosius completed and dedicated this temple in the Campus Martius.


The Flamen Dialis

Much of the month of September being devoted to the Ludi Romani in honor of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, we shall be looking at the chief priest of Jupiter, the flamen Dialis. The Flamen Dialis was an ex officio member of the Senate, given the privileges of wearing a toga praetexta, having a sella curulis in the Senate, and the services of a lictor. He was chosen by the Pontifex Maximus to hold his office for life. The qualifications were that he had to be of the patrician order, a son of a marriage consecrated in the special rite of confarreatio, and be married by the same rite. One duty of the Flamen Dialis and his wife was to preside over rites of confarreatio. Every day involved a religious ceremony for him to perform. As such, there were several taboos placed upon him so that he remained in ritual purity at all times. It is some of these taboos that we shall examine throughout this month.

"He does not lay off his inner tunic except under cover, in order that he may not be naked in the open air, as it were under the eyes of Jupiter." ~ Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 10.15.20

"Why is it not allowed the priest of Jupiter (Flamen Dialis) to anoint himself in the open air? Is it because it used not to be proper or decent for sons to strip in their father's sight, nor a son-in law in the presence of his father-in law, nor in ancient days did they bathe together? Now Jupiter is our father, and whatever is in the open air is in some way thought to be particularly in his sight.

"Or, just as it is against divine ordinance to strip oneself in a shrine or a temple, so also did they scrupulously avoid the open air and the space beneath the heavens, since it was full of Gods and spirits? Wherefore also we perform many necessary acts under a roof, hidden and concealed by our houses from the view of Divine powers.

"Or are some regulations prescribed for the priest alone, while others are prescribed for all by the law through the priest? Wherefore also, in my country, to wear a garland, to wear the hair long, not to have any iron on one's person, and not to set foot within the boundaries of Phocis, are the special functions of an archon; but not to taste fruit before the autumnal equinox nor to prune a vine before the vernal equinox are prohibitions disclosed to practically all alike through the archon; for those are the proper seasons for each of these acts.

"In the same way, then, it is apparently a special obligation of the Roman priest also not to use a horse nor to be absent from the city more than three nights nor to lay aside the cap from which he derives the name of flamen. But many other regulations are revealed to all through the priest, and one of them is the prohibition not to anoint oneself in the open air. For the Romans used to be very suspicious of rubbing down with oil, and even to day they believe that nothing has been so much to blame for the enslavement and effeminacy of the Greeks as their gymnasia and wrestling-schools, which engender much listless idleness and waste of time in their cities, as well as paederasty and the ruin of the bodies of the young men with regulated sleeping, walking, rhythmical movements, and strict diet; by these practices they have unconsciously lapsed from the practice of arms, and have become content to be termed nimble athletes and handsome wrestlers rather than excellent men-at arms and horsemen. It is hard work, at any rate, when men strip in the open air, to escape these consequences; but those who anoint themselves and care for their bodies in their own houses commit no offence." ~ Plutarch Roman Questions 40


AUC 666 to 742 / 87 to 11 BCE: Office of Flamen Dialis Remained Vacant for Seventy-Five Years

"Sevius Maluginensis, the flamen Dialis, demanded to have Asia allotted to him. 'It was, he asserted, `a popular error that it was not lawful for the flamines Dialis to leave Italy; in fact, his own legal position did not differ from that of the flamen Martialis and of the flamen Quirinalis. If these latter had provinces allotted to them, why was it forbidden to the flamen Dialis? There were no resolutions of the people or anything to be found in the books of ceremonies on the subject. Pontiffs had often performed the rites of Jupiter when his priest was hindered by illness or by public duty. For seventy-five years after the suicide of Cornelius Merula no successor to his office had been appointed; yet religious rites had not ceased. If during so many years it was possible for there to be no appointment without any prejudice to religion, with what comparative ease might he be absent for one year's proconsulate? That these priests in former days were prohibited by the pontiffs from going into the provinces was the result of private feuds. Now, thank the Gods, the Pontifex Maximus was also the princeps and was influence by no rivalry, hatred, or personal feelings.'" ~ P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales 3.58

There has always been a question as to why such an important priesthood should have remained vacant for so long. The way it began is quite clear.

"In that stormy time of the republic L. Conelius Merula too, Consularius and flamen Dialis, not wishing to expose himself to the mockery of the insolent victors, severed his veins in the sanctuary of Jupiter, thus escaping the insults of life through death. The most ancient altar (of Jupiter) was thus drenched with the blood of His own priest." ~ Valerius Maximus 9.12.5

In 87 BCE the elected Consul Cornelius Cinna regained control of Rome from the usurpation of Sulla. Soon after Cinna was joined by the ever popular Marius. Merula supported Sulla. In spite of this Cinna and Marius did not act against Merula, because he was the flamen Dialis. Due to his office, he was unable to leave Rome, which left him in the City of his enemies and open to ridicule from the public. Rather than continue in his situation, as he was unable to leave the City, Merula chose suicide. But how he did it proved to be a major sacrilege because he threw himself onto the altar of Jupiter, thereby making his suicide into a human sacrifice. The temple precinct had to be purified and a new flamen Dialis selected. Cinna and Marius chose a young patrician for the office – Gaius Julius Caesar. Marius was married to Caesar's aunt. Caesar himself was married to Cinna's daughter. Caesar's connections to the Consuls Cinna and Marius may explain his selection on political grounds, but it does not explain the role of the pontifex maximus as would have been normal. In any event Sulla returned before Caesar was consecrated into the office. Sulla overturned all other appointments made by his enemies and slaughtered much of the Senate. Between the purges of Sulla and those made by Cinna and Marius there were not many patricians left to fill the priestly offices that were traditionally prerogatives of their order. Sulla did not nullify Caesar's appointment. Instead he demanded that Caesar divorce Cinna's daughter before he would allow Caesar to be consecrated. Caesar refused. Sulla did not eliminate Caesar, he also did not allow Caesar to be consecrated into office. Never the less Caesar was the designated flamen Dialis and nothing, it would seem, could alter his position.

This situation poses a problem for modern historians. It would seem that just as Marius refrained from killing Merula, Sulla was unable, or unwilling, to kill Caesar because, although not consecrated, Caesar was in some way thought to be the flamen Dialis. We know that as long as he lived, no one was appointed flamen Dialis. When Caesar was elected pontifex maximus, and thus he could have appointed someone to the office, he never did. Just before his assassination Caesar was criticized for adopting the wearing of the purple robes of a king, but we should recall that as pontifex maximus, and more so as the flamen Dialis, Caesar would have worn purple. It would seem that he was beginning to combine his political and religious offices in a manner that Augustus would later exhibit to enhance his position.

When Caesar died Lepidus was chosen to replace him as pontifex maximus. Even after Lepidus revolted, Augustus did not remove him from office or execute him, just as Marius and Sulla had been reluctant to remove priests from their offices. Why Lepidus did not appoint another to replace Caesar as the designated flamen Dialis is unclear. After Lepidus died and Augustus replaced him as pontifex maximus, Augustus then appointed a flamen Dialis as part of his Restoration of the religio Romana. No doubt he painted this as the restoration of an office that had been neglected, but there would seem to have something else involved for those seventy-five years, and, as Tacitus relates, even though the office was not officially filled, the rites of Jupiter were continued uninterrupted.


Our thought for today comes from Epicurus, Vatican Saying 39

"Neither he who is always seeking material aid from his friends nor he who never considers such aid is a true friend; for one engages in petty trade, taking a favor instead of gratitude, and the other deprives himself of hope for the future."


Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80370 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
M. Moravius C. Catone dicit

I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.

You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.

Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.

Ergo creatio est impossibiles.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
>
> Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
>
> I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
>
> Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80371 From: csentiusleoninus Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Leoninus Moravio S.P.D



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius C. Catone dicit

What on earth is this? Scholastica, it appears that you need to teach our would-be Priest-King of Nova Roma the difference between the dative and the ablative.


>
> I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.

If your English were any better than your Latin you would see that Cato did not suggest that you called Sulla "a male". He said that you called him "male" as indeed you did in message 80265 - "Salve male..."

To my way of thinking "male" in a greeting is the vocative (quite appropriately) of malus, -a, -um, meaning bad, wicked, evil.

If you are going to tell lies, you really need to be a little better at it.

Vale.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80372 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Piscino sal.

Perhaps you need to read your own words:


"--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve male
>
> That was you..." - Wed Sep 1, 2010 4:03 pm, message #80265


- responding to Sulla.


I did not say you called Sulla "a male". I said you called Sulla "male":

"I also see where using proper
> greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus
> addressed Sulla as 'male'." - Sep 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM

You need to think before you write.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
>
> I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80373 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Cato Piscino sal.

Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
>
> I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
>
> You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
>
> Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
>
> Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> >
> > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> >
> > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> >
> > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80374 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Piscinus Catone salutem

Did I say that the Gods are incapable of creating? Even I can create things from things. What I said was that the universe was not created, and neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.

Your very conception of what a God is or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So your question has little meaning to me.

Plotinus said, "The world, we must reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness. Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are engendered through natural processes that take place over time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal form produced by Nature through natural processes. While things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an unchanging whole.

A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.

Vade in pace Deorum


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Piscino sal.
>
> Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> >
> > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> >
> > You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
> >
> > Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> >
> > Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> > >
> > > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > >
> > > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > >
> > > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80375 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Piscinus dicit

Considering he lives with you, there is no wonder that he has lost his math skills and his reasoning skills. Did you not read the posts of the Collegium members who disputed his claim, his report, and his reasoning as unsound and false?

And maybe Metellus has not read also how Aurelianus said he needs to correct his error, admit he made a false report and replace it with an accurate report. Aurelianus also suggested Metellus perform a piaculum for his error in making a false report, but considering that Metellus still has not complied with the Collegium's previous instructions of July, I doubt that he will.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Did you NOT read his post? He explained his rational quite clear! Maybe
> you need reading comprehension classes?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:56 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > M. Moravius Q. Caecilio dicit
> >
> > You need to go back to grade school. Your math still does not add up.
> >
> > Gryllus, you say, received 3 in favor, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. He
> > therefore had the favor of 3 of 7 votes, or 42.8%, not 75%.
> >
> > Or why not bump up my approval rating? 5 in favor, 3 against, one
> > abstained, so by your new math, that is 6/9 , or 67% in favor of retaining
> > the current Pontifex Maximus.
> >
> > The bottom line, no matter how you pose it, is that the majority does not
> > agree with your math and hold yours to have been a false report.
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Q
> > Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem.
> > >
> > > It seems that, rather than ask the simple question of how I came to the
> > > results I published, it suits M Moravius and some others to rather
> > > promote intrigues and assumptions. The easy step of simply asking how
> > > the results were determined, as Statia Cornelia recommended, might have
> > > perhaps saved no small number of us much of the day's headaches.
> > > Nevertheless, I shall make the necessary corrections, and provide the
> > > remaining two-thirds of the voting picture that, as I mentioned earlier,
> > > was missing from both of the reports given by M Moravius and Cn Lentulus.
> > >
> > > As previously stated, I do not disagree with as much of the votes as
> > > have been reported by Cn Lentulus and M Moravius. As previously stated
> > > as well, however, only one-third of the entire voting picture was given.
> > > As many of you know, having voted in the comitia in the past, there
> > > are three ways a person can vote on a given issue: in favour, against,
> > > or not at all (i.e., to abstain). These are the three parts of the
> > > voting picture, of which only the first has yet been presented. (I want
> > > to acknowledge here the initiative of Cn Lentulus, who actually asked
> > > what I meant when referring to the voting picture and the missing
> > > two-thirds. It would have saved a day of difficulties had others done
> > > similarly.)
> > >
> > > Now, then, let me finish the report as has been seen so far. I only
> > > discuss the two individuals who received a majority of approval (i.e., M
> > > Moravius and M Antonius). M Moravius, as has been stated, received four
> > > votes in favour. He also, however, received three votes against, and
> > > one individual abstained to vote on him. M Antonius, as has also been
> > > stated, received three votes in favour. He, however, received only one
> > > vote against, and three abstentions. Now, then, we arrive at the crux
> > > of the matter.
> > >
> > > Of the votes cast regarding him, M Moravius received the favour of
> > > four-sevenths (57%; if we count that of M Hortensia, five-eights or
> > > 62.5%). Of the votes cast regarding M Antonius, however, three-fourths
> > > (75%) were in favour. Looking at the full voting picture, of favour,
> > > opposition, and indifference, takes into account the full sentiment of a
> > > voting body, rather than just how it favours.
> > >
> > > M Antonius accordingly receives the greater favour of the Collegium.
> > >
> > > This is not inconsistent with the method by which M Moravius was
> > > installed as pontifex maximus. Two years ago, there were four votes to
> > > his favour, one against, and two abstentions (thus, the favour of 80%),
> > > whereas the other pontifex receiving a majority received three votes in
> > > favour, one vote against, and three abstentions (a favour of 75%).
> > >
> > > Accordingly, with M Antonius receiving the greater sentiment in his
> > > favour, he is named pontifex maximus pro tempore, and accordingly, my
> > > report has been issued.
> > >
> > > Di Romanis Faueant.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80376 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Cato Piscino sal.

Then we shall agree to disagree; for I believe that everything *was* created ex nihilo. And I'm not alone.

Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous, brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your* belief that it was not.

Vale,

Cato


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> Piscinus Catone salutem
>
> Did I say that the Gods are incapable of creating? Even I can create things from things. What I said was that the universe was not created, and neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
>
> Your very conception of what a God is or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So your question has little meaning to me.
>
> Plotinus said, "The world, we must reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness. Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are engendered through natural processes that take place over time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal form produced by Nature through natural processes. While things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an unchanging whole.
>
> A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
>
> Vade in pace Deorum
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Piscino sal.
> >
> > Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > >
> > > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > >
> > > You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
> > >
> > > Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > >
> > > Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> > > >
> > > > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > >
> > > > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > >
> > > > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80377 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Decretum Pontificum de Pontificis Maximi Cooptatione Spatioque
Ave,

Well obviously you have never heard of congruency. Be that as it may, it
would still probably behoove you to re-enroll in some math courses and then
you can enlighten yourself.

Oh Aurelianus said that? Interesting, you'll sound the same. If it
supposedly comes out of his mouth, I just as well assume it came out of your
own mouth since you'll sound the same.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 5:27 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Piscinus dicit
>
> Considering he lives with you, there is no wonder that he has lost his math
> skills and his reasoning skills. Did you not read the posts of the Collegium
> members who disputed his claim, his report, and his reasoning as unsound and
> false?
>
> And maybe Metellus has not read also how Aurelianus said he needs to
> correct his error, admit he made a false report and replace it with an
> accurate report. Aurelianus also suggested Metellus perform a piaculum for
> his error in making a false report, but considering that Metellus still has
> not complied with the Collegium's previous instructions of July, I doubt
> that he will.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Did you NOT read his post? He explained his rational quite clear! Maybe
> > you need reading comprehension classes?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:56 AM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Q. Caecilio dicit
> > >
> > > You need to go back to grade school. Your math still does not add up.
> > >
> > > Gryllus, you say, received 3 in favor, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. He
> > > therefore had the favor of 3 of 7 votes, or 42.8%, not 75%.
> > >
> > > Or why not bump up my approval rating? 5 in favor, 3 against, one
> > > abstained, so by your new math, that is 6/9 , or 67% in favor of
> retaining
> > > the current Pontifex Maximus.
> > >
> > > The bottom line, no matter how you pose it, is that the majority does
> not
> > > agree with your math and hold yours to have been a false report.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Q
>
> > > Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Q Caecilius Metellus pontifex Quiritibus salutem.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that, rather than ask the simple question of how I came to
> the
> > > > results I published, it suits M Moravius and some others to rather
> > > > promote intrigues and assumptions. The easy step of simply asking how
> > > > the results were determined, as Statia Cornelia recommended, might
> have
> > > > perhaps saved no small number of us much of the day's headaches.
> > > > Nevertheless, I shall make the necessary corrections, and provide the
> > > > remaining two-thirds of the voting picture that, as I mentioned
> earlier,
> > > > was missing from both of the reports given by M Moravius and Cn
> Lentulus.
> > > >
> > > > As previously stated, I do not disagree with as much of the votes as
> > > > have been reported by Cn Lentulus and M Moravius. As previously
> stated
> > > > as well, however, only one-third of the entire voting picture was
> given.
> > > > As many of you know, having voted in the comitia in the past, there
> > > > are three ways a person can vote on a given issue: in favour,
> against,
> > > > or not at all (i.e., to abstain). These are the three parts of the
> > > > voting picture, of which only the first has yet been presented. (I
> want
> > > > to acknowledge here the initiative of Cn Lentulus, who actually asked
> > > > what I meant when referring to the voting picture and the missing
> > > > two-thirds. It would have saved a day of difficulties had others done
> > > > similarly.)
> > > >
> > > > Now, then, let me finish the report as has been seen so far. I only
> > > > discuss the two individuals who received a majority of approval
> (i.e., M
> > > > Moravius and M Antonius). M Moravius, as has been stated, received
> four
> > > > votes in favour. He also, however, received three votes against, and
> > > > one individual abstained to vote on him. M Antonius, as has also been
> > > > stated, received three votes in favour. He, however, received only
> one
> > > > vote against, and three abstentions. Now, then, we arrive at the crux
> > > > of the matter.
> > > >
> > > > Of the votes cast regarding him, M Moravius received the favour of
> > > > four-sevenths (57%; if we count that of M Hortensia, five-eights or
> > > > 62.5%). Of the votes cast regarding M Antonius, however,
> three-fourths
> > > > (75%) were in favour. Looking at the full voting picture, of favour,
> > > > opposition, and indifference, takes into account the full sentiment
> of a
> > > > voting body, rather than just how it favours.
> > > >
> > > > M Antonius accordingly receives the greater favour of the Collegium.
> > > >
> > > > This is not inconsistent with the method by which M Moravius was
> > > > installed as pontifex maximus. Two years ago, there were four votes
> to
> > > > his favour, one against, and two abstentions (thus, the favour of
> 80%),
> > > > whereas the other pontifex receiving a majority received three votes
> in
> > > > favour, one vote against, and three abstentions (a favour of 75%).
> > > >
> > > > Accordingly, with M Antonius receiving the greater sentiment in his
> > > > favour, he is named pontifex maximus pro tempore, and accordingly, my
> > > > report has been issued.
> > > >
> > > > Di Romanis Faueant.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80378 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
Ave,

Does this mean Piscinus earned the Agnomen of Mendax?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:18 AM, csentiusleoninus <leoninus@...>wrote:

>
>
> Leoninus Moravio S.P.D
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
>
> What on earth is this? Scholastica, it appears that you need to teach our
> would-be Priest-King of Nova Roma the difference between the dative and the
> ablative.
>
>
> >
> > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and
> anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
>
> If your English were any better than your Latin you would see that Cato did
> not suggest that you called Sulla "a male". He said that you called him
> "male" as indeed you did in message 80265 - "Salve male..."
>
> To my way of thinking "male" in a greeting is the vocative (quite
> appropriately) of malus, -a, -um, meaning bad, wicked, evil.
>
> If you are going to tell lies, you really need to be a little better at it.
>
> Vale.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80379 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
hehe, the retreat from a sound philosophical discussion, into the safe cove of 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish history or faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a sophisticated and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our intellect. Just look at Philo.

Anyway that reminds me, I will try to pick up Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses & bring it to the conventus, a very useful little guide on conducting one's life.
di nobis favent
Maior

>
> Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous, brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your* belief that it was not.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > Piscinus Catone salutem
> >
> > Did I say that the Gods are incapable of creating? Even I can create things from things. What I said was that the universe was not created, and neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
> >
> > Your very conception of what a God is or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So your question has little meaning to me.
> >
> > Plotinus said, "The world, we must reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness. Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are engendered through natural processes that take place over time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal form produced by Nature through natural processes. While things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an unchanging whole.
> >
> > A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
> >
> > Vade in pace Deorum
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > >
> > > Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > > >
> > > > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > > >
> > > > You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
> > > >
> > > > Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > >
> > > > Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80380 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Pre-Ludi Romani Humorous Roman Skit Contest
L. Iulia Aquila omnibus civibus SPD.

This year the Aedilician Cohors are seeking short humorous skits under 300 words, in most cases this is one or two paragraphs.
Those entries that work best in the context of the Circenses commentaries will be chosen to be used in the "Intermessio" and may be positioned elsewhere in the commentaries as well.
Those chosen to appear in the commentaries will also be entered in the contest for the winning prize.

The skits should be written in a scenario incorporating characteristics of Roman comedy for entertaining other Romans.
For example street entertainers, puppet shows, mimes, an orator or a Roman theatrical production. Or even a skit that we weave into the fabric of the panorama of the Circenses, for example Livia posted a descriptive scenario a short while back about a small group of Novi Romani going back in time to the Republic, or even an acting troupe from a far away provincia coming to attend the Ludi. Other possibilities include Atellan farces (burlesque type parody), satire, jugglers, acrobatics, solo musicians, solo dancers and on and on.

The entries can be submitted up to September 11th 2010, but the earlier the better chance yours will be chosen, preferable entry date is by September 5th 2010.
Entrants may be notified by a writer if their submission is being considered to discuss its placement in the commentaries.

The final entries chosen will be judged by the Aedilician Jury based on humor, dialogue and subject matter after the Ludi is over and then the results will be announced.

We are also asking for citizen volunteers who would like to help out judging this contest and the audio-visual context.

Please send all entries and volunteer enquiries to luciaiuliaaquila AT hotmail.com

See you at the Ludi Romani Circenses!

Good luck to everyone!

Valete optime,

L. Iulia Aquila
Ædilis Curulis Novæ Romæ
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80381 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Praetorial Notice: Using Latin salutations on this list.
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Sentio Leonino magistro araneario doctissimo
> benignissimo quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Leoninus Moravio S.P.D
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
>
> What on earth is this? Scholastica, it appears that you need to teach our
> would-be Priest-King of Nova Roma the difference between the dative and the
> ablative.
>
> ATS: Ah, but one must be registered in one of our Latin classes for that,
> lest we terrify anyone else. As you know, Grammatica II is in early progress
> and Grammatica I will begin Monday, but we can still accommodate new students.
> There is a little leeway in Grammatica I regarding the text as it is not
> necessary until the second week, but students must have it in order to
> register. Sermo has more time, but one must hurry to obtain the text. I just
> got a new postulatio today from a Spanish-speaking student, and hope he can
> understand my English response as our interpreter seems to have vanished.
>
>> >
>> > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway
>> it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
>
> If your English were any better than your Latin you would see that Cato did
> not suggest that you called Sulla "a male". He said that you called him
> "male" as indeed you did in message 80265 - "Salve male..."
>
> To my way of thinking "male" in a greeting is the vocative (quite
> appropriately) of malus, -a, -um, meaning bad, wicked, evil.
>
>
> ATS: Apice absenti, videtur esse casus vocativus vocabuli Œmalus¹, non
> adverbium Œmalé,¹ sed difficile scitu est utrum recté conjiciam annon. Quia
> vox Œsalve¹ adest, vocativus verisimilis videtur.
>
> If you are going to tell lies, you really need to be a little better at it.
>
> Vale.
>
> Vale, et valete.
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80382 From: Cato Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Cato Maiori sal.

Ahhh, my dear Maior, you never cease to say the wrong thing LOL

It was *Piscinus* who tried to "prove" that creation ex nihilo was impossible by quoting others' words. I said I didn't need to :) Thank you for supporting my argument.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> hehe, the retreat from a sound philosophical discussion, into the safe cove of 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish history or faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a sophisticated and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our intellect. Just look at Philo.
>
> Anyway that reminds me, I will try to pick up Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses & bring it to the conventus, a very useful little guide on conducting one's life.
> di nobis favent
> Maior
>
> >
> > Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous, brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your* belief that it was not.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > >
> > > Did I say that the Gods are incapable of creating? Even I can create things from things. What I said was that the universe was not created, and neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
> > >
> > > Your very conception of what a God is or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So your question has little meaning to me.
> > >
> > > Plotinus said, "The world, we must reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness. Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are engendered through natural processes that take place over time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal form produced by Nature through natural processes. While things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an unchanging whole.
> > >
> > > A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
> > >
> > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > >
> > > > Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > > > >
> > > > > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > > > >
> > > > > You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80383 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Salvete Piscine omnes;
interestingly Philo was very dependent on Greek thought, Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism in Genesis 1.1. supposes that El created the world out of chaos. Jewish thought has always been undogmatic. I thought as much but had to research it.

It seems (and this isn't my area) that when the various christianities of the gnostic, ortho etc types were fighting it out that such concepts as creatio ex nihilio became popular.

Since my ancestral cultus' new year is next week, I took an interest and I have some nice books on Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, which includes the Near East.
optime valete
Maior
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > hehe, the retreat from a sound philosophical discussion, into the safe cove of 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish history or faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a sophisticated and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our intellect. Just look at Philo.
> >
> > Anyway that reminds me, I will try to pick up Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses & bring it to the conventus, a very useful little guide on conducting one's life.
> > di nobis favent
> > Maior
> >
> > >
> > > Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous, brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your* belief that it was not.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > > >
> > > > Did I say that the Gods are incapable of creating? Even I can create things from things. What I said was that the universe was not created, and neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
> > > >
> > > > Your very conception of what a God is or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So your question has little meaning to me.
> > > >
> > > > Plotinus said, "The world, we must reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness. Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are engendered through natural processes that take place over time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal form produced by Nature through natural processes. While things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an unchanging whole.
> > > >
> > > > A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
> > > >
> > > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you *absolutely sure* that you want to say that the gods are incapable of creation (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice that power?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did not call Sulla 'a male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You did, however, call me "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Creatio enim est productio totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ergo creatio est impossibiles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato Tulliae Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Much as I applaud all those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do - and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just because some people who can also use both their legs are Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that a *refusal* to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very good example to set for new citizens. I also see where using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still, I trust our praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80384 From: flavius_vedius Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
>
> A theological debate such as you wish is not appropriate for this
> list.

The stated purpose of this list is to "...discuss points of history, organizational matters, religious questions..."

I am very certain that "religious questions" encompasses the "theological debate" you mention.

So why not have your debate here, oh Pontifex Maximus? I, for one, would enjoy such a thing, and I am sure that others would find it edifying.

> But as Metellus has barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the
> Religio Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.

As far as I am aware, no one is "barred" from posting on the unofficial, non-government-sponsored (at your insistence, I believe), privately-owned Religio Romana email list. Certain members are moderated, perhaps, but such decisions are up to the list owner to make, of course.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80385 From: jeancourdant Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Salvete omnes!

My name is Jean Courdant. I am from Portland, Maine, USA. I recently discovered the Nova Roma website and was very intrigued by what I found there.

I'm considering the possibility of applying for membership and as such decided to audit this mailing list for a while so as to get a feel for the organization.

I would very much be interested in comments and insights anyone would be willing to share.

Optime valete!

Jean
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80386 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Salve Jean, et salvete omnes!

Jean, welcome! there is so much to discover, here ...and, as this is the main list, where anything and everything can happen, it can be daunting and confusing, at times. (at least, I found it so, in the beginning. I had to create a "score card" even to get the players straight, LOL!) What you might want to consider doing, if you haven't, is to join the Newroman list ...which is dedicated to helping new and potential citizens learn about us, orient themselves, and help them build the foundation that will enable them, with confidence, to become active, productive members of our endeavor. You can do this by sending an email to:

newroman-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Meanwhile ...if you have any specific questions, or need help of any sort, I try to keep myself always available to new citizens, so just email me.

One of the first things you might like to do is to choose a Roman name. You can find a guide for doing that in our WIKI web site ...and the good people who work in the Censors' cohors will be more than happy to work with you, so that you get something historically correct ..that you like, and can be comfortable with!

Again, welcome, and I hope your stay with us is enjoyable and of value to you!

Vale et valete bene,
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80387 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: Interested in Joining Nova Roma.
Ave!

Don't forget to join the Back alley the fun email list! heheheh

BackAlley-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:12 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Jean, et salvete omnes!
>
> Jean, welcome! there is so much to discover, here ...and, as this is the
> main list, where anything and everything can happen, it can be daunting and
> confusing, at times. (at least, I found it so, in the beginning. I had to
> create a "score card" even to get the players straight, LOL!) What you might
> want to consider doing, if you haven't, is to join the Newroman list
> ...which is dedicated to helping new and potential citizens learn about us,
> orient themselves, and help them build the foundation that will enable them,
> with confidence, to become active, productive members of our endeavor. You
> can do this by sending an email to:
>
> newroman-subscribe@yahoogroups.com <newroman-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Meanwhile ...if you have any specific questions, or need help of any sort,
> I try to keep myself always available to new citizens, so just email me.
>
> One of the first things you might like to do is to choose a Roman name. You
> can find a guide for doing that in our WIKI web site ...and the good people
> who work in the Censors' cohors will be more than happy to work with you, so
> that you get something historically correct ..that you like, and can be
> comfortable with!
>
> Again, welcome, and I hope your stay with us is enjoyable and of value to
> you!
>
> Vale et valete bene,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80388 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Caesar sal.

It appears Philo also authored a tome on "The Art of Waffling To Hide The Fact I Made A Boo Boo".

Translated from Latin it also contains this advice "In the event you don't read to the end of the scroll before saying something silly, dredge up some author and drone on endlessly about him and maybe the forum audience won't notice your embarrassing error".

Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently follows this snippet of ancient sage advice?

Optime valete.

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56 PM
> Salvete Piscine omnes;
> interestingly Philo was very dependent on Greek thought,
> Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism in Genesis 1.1.
> supposes that El created the world out of chaos. Jewish
> thought has always been undogmatic. I thought as much but
> had to research it.
>
> It seems (and this isn't my area) that when the various
> christianities of the gnostic, ortho etc types were fighting
> it out that such concepts as creatio ex nihilio became
> popular.
>
> Since my ancestral cultus' new year is next week, I took an
> interest and I have some nice books on Magic and Ritual in
> the Ancient World, which includes the Near East.
>                
>             optime valete
>                
>              
>    Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > >     hehe, the retreat from a
> sound philosophical discussion, into the safe cove of
> 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish history or
> faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a sophisticated
> and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our intellect.
> Just look at Philo.
> > >
> > > Anyway that reminds me, I will try to pick up
> Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses & bring it to
> the conventus, a very useful little guide on conducting
> one's life.
> > >             
>         di nobis favent
> > >             
>           Maior
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to
> throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous,
> brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the
> past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo
> in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your*
> belief that it was not.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > > > >
> > > > > Did I say that the Gods are incapable
> of creating? Even I can create things from things. 
> What I said was that the universe was not created, and
> neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness. 
> Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you
> not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of
> Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus
> or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar
> of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they
> proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did
> not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your very conception of what a God is
> or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So
> your question has little meaning to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plotinus said, "The world, we must
> reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate
> purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own
> likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about
> himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural
> process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness.
> Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are
> engendered through natural processes that take place over
> time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic
> being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a
> Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal
> form produced by Nature through natural processes. While
> things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle
> and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity
> has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an
> unchanging whole. 
> > > > >
> > > > > A theological debate such as you wish
> is not appropriate for this list.  But as Metellus has
> barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio
> Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you *absolutely sure* that you
> want to say that the gods are incapable of creation
> (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice
> that power?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did not call Sulla 'a
> male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only
> shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You did, however, call me
> "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my
> religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept
> the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but
> rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Creatio enim est productio
> totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil
> fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et
> evidenti experientia universali firmatum. 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ergo creatio est
> impossibiles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cato Tulliae
> Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Much as I applaud all
> those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can
> do.  It matters what *this* particular citizen can do -
> and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the
> circumstances are.  I can use both of my legs, but just
> because some people who can also use both their legs are
> Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am  :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that a *refusal*
> to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very
> good example to set for new citizens.  I also see where
> using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing
> we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Still, I trust our
> praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80389 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Ave!

I think that edition is mandatory reading for all members of the CA. How
did you get a hold of that super secret reading list?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> It appears Philo also authored a tome on "The Art of Waffling To Hide The
> Fact I Made A Boo Boo".
>
> Translated from Latin it also contains this advice "In the event you don't
> read to the end of the scroll before saying something silly, dredge up some
> author and drone on endlessly about him and maybe the forum audience won't
> notice your embarrassing error".
>
> Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently follows this snippet of ancient
> sage advice?
>
> Optime valete.
>
> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56 PM
>
> > Salvete Piscine omnes;
> > interestingly Philo was very dependent on Greek thought,
> > Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism in Genesis 1.1.
> > supposes that El created the world out of chaos. Jewish
> > thought has always been undogmatic. I thought as much but
> > had to research it.
> >
> > It seems (and this isn't my area) that when the various
> > christianities of the gnostic, ortho etc types were fighting
> > it out that such concepts as creatio ex nihilio became
> > popular.
> >
> > Since my ancestral cultus' new year is next week, I took an
> > interest and I have some nice books on Magic and Ritual in
> > the Ancient World, which includes the Near East.
> >
> > optime valete
> >
> >
> > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > > > hehe, the retreat from a
> > sound philosophical discussion, into the safe cove of
> > 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish history or
> > faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a sophisticated
> > and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our intellect.
> > Just look at Philo.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway that reminds me, I will try to pick up
> > Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses & bring it to
> > the conventus, a very useful little guide on conducting
> > one's life.
> > > >
> > di nobis favent
> > > >
> > Maior
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike you, though, I don't have the need to
> > throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand famous,
> > brilliant scholars and philosophers from history over the
> > past 4000+ years who have believed it was created ex nihilo
> > in order to make it seem more true or to denigrate *your*
> > belief that it was not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did I say that the Gods are incapable
> > of creating? Even I can create things from things.
> > What I said was that the universe was not created, and
> > neither is anyhing else created out of nothingness.
> > Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with Plotinus? Do you
> > not know the distinction between Being and the absurdity of
> > Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads of Proclus
> > or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also unfamiliar
> > of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs" how they
> > proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a demiurge, did
> > not prove the existence of a higher deity as he claimed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your very conception of what a God is
> > or is not differs from what is held in our own tradition. So
> > your question has little meaning to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Plotinus said, "The world, we must
> > reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of deliberate
> > purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering in its own
> > likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He talks about
> > himself being made by a God, but that was by a natural
> > process as well, and not by creation out of nothingness.
> > Things that coming into Being, for a limited time, are
> > engendered through natural processes that take place over
> > time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his authentic
> > being, was made by Being, an ultimate being (being a
> > Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a phyiscal
> > form produced by Nature through natural processes. While
> > things in Nature exist in time, having a beginning, middle
> > and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and eternity
> > has no gain and no loss of any quantity but exists as an
> > unchanging whole.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A theological debate such as you wish
> > is not appropriate for this list. But as Metellus has
> > barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the Religio
> > Romana list, there is not a list to take up this debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you *absolutely sure* that you
> > want to say that the gods are incapable of creation
> > (creation is impossible)- and that They did not practice
> > that power?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M. Moravius C. Catone dicit
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did not call Sulla 'a
> > male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and anyway it only
> > shows your lack of understanding Latin greetings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You did, however, call me
> > "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me and of my
> > religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings, nor I accept
> > the irrational proposition that the cosmos was created, but
> > rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Creatio enim est productio
> > totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo nihil
> > fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter acceptum et
> > evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ergo creatio est
> > impossibiles.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> ,
> > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cato Tulliae
> > Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Much as I applaud all
> > those students, it doesn't really matter what *they* can
> > do. It matters what *this* particular citizen can do -
> > and she has explained clearly and succinctly what the
> > circumstances are. I can use both of my legs, but just
> > because some people who can also use both their legs are
> > Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree that a *refusal*
> > to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not a very
> > good example to set for new citizens. I also see where
> > using proper greetings might free us from the kind of thing
> > we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Still, I trust our
> > praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80390 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Salve amice.

It was filed in some papers relating to Cincinnatus' trial, in a box marked "Trial Rigging Kit" along with some senatus consultum on senatorial oversight. Seems like both got forgotten and discarded as no longer of any use now.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:21 PM
> Ave!
>
> I think that edition is mandatory reading for all members
> of the CA.  How
> did you get a hold of that super secret reading list?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Caesar sal.
> >
> > It appears Philo also authored a tome on "The Art of
> Waffling To Hide The
> > Fact I Made A Boo Boo".
> >
> > Translated from Latin it also contains this advice "In
> the event you don't
> > read to the end of the scroll before saying something
> silly, dredge up some
> > author and drone on endlessly about him and maybe the
> forum audience won't
> > notice your embarrassing error".
> >
> > Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently follows this
> snippet of ancient
> > sage advice?
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...
> <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@...
> <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56 PM
> >
> > > Salvete Piscine omnes;
> > > interestingly Philo was very dependent on Greek
> thought,
> > > Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism in Genesis
> 1.1.
> > > supposes that El created the world out of chaos.
> Jewish
> > > thought has always been undogmatic. I thought as
> much but
> > > had to research it.
> > >
> > > It seems (and this isn't my area) that when the
> various
> > > christianities of the gnostic, ortho etc types
> were fighting
> > > it out that such concepts as creatio ex nihilio
> became
> > > popular.
> > >
> > > Since my ancestral cultus' new year is next week,
> I took an
> > > interest and I have some nice books on Magic and
> Ritual in
> > > the Ancient World, which includes the Near East.
> > >
> > >         
>    optime valete
> > >
> > >
> > >    Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > > > >     hehe, the
> retreat from a
> > > sound philosophical discussion, into the safe
> cove of
> > > 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish
> history or
> > > faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a
> sophisticated
> > > and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our
> intellect.
> > > Just look at Philo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway that reminds me, I will try to
> pick up
> > > Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses &
> bring it to
> > > the conventus, a very useful little guide on
> conducting
> > > one's life.
> > > > >
> > >         di nobis
> favent
> > > > >
> > >       
>    Maior
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you, though, I don't have
> the need to
> > > throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand
> famous,
> > > brilliant scholars and philosophers from history
> over the
> > > past 4000+ years who have believed it was created
> ex nihilo
> > > in order to make it seem more true or to
> denigrate *your*
> > > belief that it was not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did I say that the Gods are
> incapable
> > > of creating? Even I can create things from
> things.
> > > What I said was that the universe was not
> created, and
> > > neither is anyhing else created out of
> nothingness.
> > > Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with
> Plotinus? Do you
> > > not know the distinction between Being and the
> absurdity of
> > > Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads
> of Proclus
> > > or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also
> unfamiliar
> > > of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs"
> how they
> > > proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a
> demiurge, did
> > > not prove the existence of a higher deity as he
> claimed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your very conception of what
> a God is
> > > or is not differs from what is held in our own
> tradition. So
> > > your question has little meaning to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Plotinus said, "The world, we
> must
> > > reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of
> deliberate
> > > purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering
> in its own
> > > likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He
> talks about
> > > himself being made by a God, but that was by a
> natural
> > > process as well, and not by creation out of
> nothingness.
> > > Things that coming into Being, for a limited
> time, are
> > > engendered through natural processes that take
> place over
> > > time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his
> authentic
> > > being, was made by Being, an ultimate being
> (being a
> > > Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a
> phyiscal
> > > form produced by Nature through natural
> processes. While
> > > things in Nature exist in time, having a
> beginning, middle
> > > and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and
> eternity
> > > has no gain and no loss of any quantity but
> exists as an
> > > unchanging whole.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A theological debate such as
> you wish
> > > is not appropriate for this list.  But as
> Metellus has
> > > barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the
> Religio
> > > Romana list, there is not a list to take up this
> debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you *absolutely
> sure* that you
> > > want to say that the gods are incapable of
> creation
> > > (creation is impossible)- and that They did not
> practice
> > > that power?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > ,
> > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M. Moravius C.
> Catone dicit
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did not call
> Sulla 'a
> > > male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and
> anyway it only
> > > shows your lack of understanding Latin
> greetings.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You did, however,
> call me
> > > "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me
> and of my
> > > religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings,
> nor I accept
> > > the irrational proposition that the cosmos was
> created, but
> > > rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Creatio enim est
> productio
> > > totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo
> nihil
> > > fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter
> acceptum et
> > > evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ergo creatio est
> > > impossibiles.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > ,
> > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cato Tulliae
> > > Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Much as I
> applaud all
> > > those students, it doesn't really matter what
> *they* can
> > > do.  It matters what *this* particular
> citizen can do -
> > > and she has explained clearly and succinctly what
> the
> > > circumstances are.  I can use both of my
> legs, but just
> > > because some people who can also use both their
> legs are
> > > Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am  :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree that a
> *refusal*
> > > to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not
> a very
> > > good example to set for new citizens.  I
> also see where
> > > using proper greetings might free us from the
> kind of thing
> > > we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Still, I trust
> our
> > > praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80391 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Ave amice!

Well I guess the senators are just going to have to resign to be able to
view the CP list......umm..kinda like Messalina!

Ooops did I let the cat out of the bag?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Salve amice.
>
> It was filed in some papers relating to Cincinnatus' trial, in a box marked
> "Trial Rigging Kit" along with some senatus consultum on senatorial
> oversight. Seems like both got forgotten and discarded as no longer of any
> use now.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:21 PM
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > I think that edition is mandatory reading for all members
> > of the CA. How
> > did you get a hold of that super secret reading list?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@... <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Caesar sal.
> > >
> > > It appears Philo also authored a tome on "The Art of
> > Waffling To Hide The
> > > Fact I Made A Boo Boo".
> > >
> > > Translated from Latin it also contains this advice "In
> > the event you don't
> > > read to the end of the scroll before saying something
> > silly, dredge up some
> > > author and drone on endlessly about him and maybe the
> > forum audience won't
> > > notice your embarrassing error".
> > >
> > > Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently follows this
> > snippet of ancient
> > > sage advice?
> > >
> > > Optime valete.
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56 PM
> > >
> > > > Salvete Piscine omnes;
> > > > interestingly Philo was very dependent on Greek
> > thought,
> > > > Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism in Genesis
> > 1.1.
> > > > supposes that El created the world out of chaos.
> > Jewish
> > > > thought has always been undogmatic. I thought as
> > much but
> > > > had to research it.
> > > >
> > > > It seems (and this isn't my area) that when the
> > various
> > > > christianities of the gnostic, ortho etc types
> > were fighting
> > > > it out that such concepts as creatio ex nihilio
> > became
> > > > popular.
> > > >
> > > > Since my ancestral cultus' new year is next week,
> > I took an
> > > > interest and I have some nice books on Magic and
> > Ritual in
> > > > the Ancient World, which includes the Near East.
> > > >
> > > >
> > optime valete
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > > > > > hehe, the
> > retreat from a
> > > > sound philosophical discussion, into the safe
> > cove of
> > > > 'others believe it.' Don't let him co-opt Jewish
> > history or
> > > > faith either, it's offensive to us... We are a
> > sophisticated
> > > > and ancient people not afraid to cultivate our
> > intellect.
> > > > Just look at Philo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway that reminds me, I will try to
> > pick up
> > > > Proclus' Commentary on the Golden Verses &
> > bring it to
> > > > the conventus, a very useful little guide on
> > conducting
> > > > one's life.
> > > > > >
> > > > di nobis
> > favent
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unlike you, though, I don't have
> > the need to
> > > > throw out the names of a hundred or a thousand
> > famous,
> > > > brilliant scholars and philosophers from history
> > over the
> > > > past 4000+ years who have believed it was created
> > ex nihilo
> > > > in order to make it seem more true or to
> > denigrate *your*
> > > > belief that it was not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Piscinus Catone salutem
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Did I say that the Gods are
> > incapable
> > > > of creating? Even I can create things from
> > things.
> > > > What I said was that the universe was not
> > created, and
> > > > neither is anyhing else created out of
> > nothingness.
> > > > Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides, with
> > Plotinus? Do you
> > > > not know the distinction between Being and the
> > absurdity of
> > > > Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of the Henads
> > of Proclus
> > > > or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you are also
> > unfamiliar
> > > > of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five proofs"
> > how they
> > > > proved nothing, and though proposed to prove a
> > demiurge, did
> > > > not prove the existence of a higher deity as he
> > claimed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your very conception of what
> > a God is
> > > > or is not differs from what is held in our own
> > tradition. So
> > > > your question has little meaning to me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plotinus said, "The world, we
> > must
> > > > reflect, is a product of Necessity, not of
> > deliberate
> > > > purpose: it is due to a higher Kind engendering
> > in its own
> > > > likeness by a natural process." Ennead 3.2.3 He
> > talks about
> > > > himself being made by a God, but that was by a
> > natural
> > > > process as well, and not by creation out of
> > nothingness.
> > > > Things that coming into Being, for a limited
> > time, are
> > > > engendered through natural processes that take
> > place over
> > > > time. Plotinus would argue that he himself, his
> > authentic
> > > > being, was made by Being, an ultimate being
> > (being a
> > > > Platonist), but held as the nexus entombed in a
> > phyiscal
> > > > form produced by Nature through natural
> > processes. While
> > > > things in Nature exist in time, having a
> > beginning, middle
> > > > and an end, the Universe exists in eternity, and
> > eternity
> > > > has no gain and no loss of any quantity but
> > exists as an
> > > > unchanging whole.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A theological debate such as
> > you wish
> > > > is not appropriate for this list. But as
> > Metellus has
> > > > barred the Pontifex Maximus from posting to the
> > Religio
> > > > Romana list, there is not a list to take up this
> > debate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vade in pace Deorum
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cato Piscino sal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you *absolutely
> > sure* that you
> > > > want to say that the gods are incapable of
> > creation
> > > > (creation is impossible)- and that They did not
> > practice
> > > > that power?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > ,
> > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M. Moravius C.
> > Catone dicit
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I did not call
> > Sulla 'a
> > > > male.' Such a notion is just too funny, and
> > anyway it only
> > > > shows your lack of understanding Latin
> > greetings.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You did, however,
> > call me
> > > > "creature" even though it was disrespectful of me
> > and of my
> > > > religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus, Hawkings,
> > nor I accept
> > > > the irrational proposition that the cosmos was
> > created, but
> > > > rather that it results from natural process.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Creatio enim est
> > productio
> > > > totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed <ex nihilo
> > nihil
> > > > fit> est axioma ab omnibus indubitauter
> > acceptum et
> > > > evidenti experientia universali firmatum.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ergo creatio est
> > > > impossibiles.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > ,
> > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cato Tulliae
> > > > Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Much as I
> > applaud all
> > > > those students, it doesn't really matter what
> > *they* can
> > > > do. It matters what *this* particular
> > citizen can do -
> > > > and she has explained clearly and succinctly what
> > the
> > > > circumstances are. I can use both of my
> > legs, but just
> > > > because some people who can also use both their
> > legs are
> > > > Olympic athletes doesn't mean I am :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that a
> > *refusal*
> > > > to use Latin greetings *just to be ornery* is not
> > a very
> > > > good example to set for new citizens. I
> > also see where
> > > > using proper greetings might free us from the
> > kind of thing
> > > > we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as "male".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Still, I trust
> > our
> > > > praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80392 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Salve amice.

I don't know, it's a secret bag now.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:29 PM
> Ave amice!
>
> Well I guess the senators are just going to have to resign
> to be able to
> view the CP list......umm..kinda like Messalina!
>
> Ooops did I let the cat out of the bag?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve amice.
> >
> > It was filed in some papers relating to Cincinnatus'
> trial, in a box marked
> > "Trial Rigging Kit" along with some senatus consultum
> on senatorial
> > oversight. Seems like both got forgotten and discarded
> as no longer of any
> > use now.
> >
> > Vale bene
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:21 PM
> >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > I think that edition is mandatory reading for all
> members
> > > of the CA.  How
> > > did you get a hold of that super secret reading
> list?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gnaeus Iulius
> Caesar <
> > > gn_iulius_caesar@...
> <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Caesar sal.
> > > >
> > > > It appears Philo also authored a tome on
> "The Art of
> > > Waffling To Hide The
> > > > Fact I Made A Boo Boo".
> > > >
> > > > Translated from Latin it also contains this
> advice "In
> > > the event you don't
> > > > read to the end of the scroll before saying
> something
> > > silly, dredge up some
> > > > author and drone on endlessly about him and
> maybe the
> > > forum audience won't
> > > > notice your embarrassing error".
> > > >
> > > > Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently
> follows this
> > > snippet of ancient
> > > > sage advice?
> > > >
> > > > Optime valete.
> > > >
> > > > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@...
> <rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56
> PM
> > > >
> > > > > Salvete Piscine omnes;
> > > > > interestingly Philo was very dependent
> on Greek
> > > thought,
> > > > > Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism
> in Genesis
> > > 1.1.
> > > > > supposes that El created the world out
> of chaos.
> > > Jewish
> > > > > thought has always been undogmatic. I
> thought as
> > > much but
> > > > > had to research it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems (and this isn't my area) that
> when the
> > > various
> > > > > christianities of the gnostic, ortho
> etc types
> > > were fighting
> > > > > it out that such concepts as creatio ex
> nihilio
> > > became
> > > > > popular.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since my ancestral cultus' new year is
> next week,
> > > I took an
> > > > > interest and I have some nice books on
> Magic and
> > > Ritual in
> > > > > the Ancient World, which includes the
> Near East.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >    optime valete
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > > > > > >     hehe,
> the
> > > retreat from a
> > > > > sound philosophical discussion, into
> the safe
> > > cove of
> > > > > 'others believe it.' Don't let him
> co-opt Jewish
> > > history or
> > > > > faith either, it's offensive to us...
> We are a
> > > sophisticated
> > > > > and ancient people not afraid to
> cultivate our
> > > intellect.
> > > > > Just look at Philo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway that reminds me, I
> will try to
> > > pick up
> > > > > Proclus' Commentary on the Golden
> Verses &
> > > bring it to
> > > > > the conventus, a very useful little
> guide on
> > > conducting
> > > > > one's life.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >     
>    di nobis
> > > favent
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >    Maior
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unlike you, though, I
> don't have
> > > the need to
> > > > > throw out the names of a hundred or a
> thousand
> > > famous,
> > > > > brilliant scholars and philosophers
> from history
> > > over the
> > > > > past 4000+ years who have believed it
> was created
> > > ex nihilo
> > > > > in order to make it seem more true or
> to
> > > denigrate *your*
> > > > > belief that it was not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Piscinus Catone
> salutem
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Did I say that the
> Gods are
> > > incapable
> > > > > of creating? Even I can create things
> from
> > > things.
> > > > > What I said was that the universe was
> not
> > > created, and
> > > > > neither is anyhing else created out of
> > > nothingness.
> > > > > Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides,
> with
> > > Plotinus? Do you
> > > > > not know the distinction between Being
> and the
> > > absurdity of
> > > > > Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of
> the Henads
> > > of Proclus
> > > > > or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you
> are also
> > > unfamiliar
> > > > > of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five
> proofs"
> > > how they
> > > > > proved nothing, and though proposed to
> prove a
> > > demiurge, did
> > > > > not prove the existence of a higher
> deity as he
> > > claimed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your very
> conception of what
> > > a God is
> > > > > or is not differs from what is held in
> our own
> > > tradition. So
> > > > > your question has little meaning to
> me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Plotinus said, "The
> world, we
> > > must
> > > > > reflect, is a product of Necessity, not
> of
> > > deliberate
> > > > > purpose: it is due to a higher Kind
> engendering
> > > in its own
> > > > > likeness by a natural process." Ennead
> 3.2.3 He
> > > talks about
> > > > > himself being made by a God, but that
> was by a
> > > natural
> > > > > process as well, and not by creation
> out of
> > > nothingness.
> > > > > Things that coming into Being, for a
> limited
> > > time, are
> > > > > engendered through natural processes
> that take
> > > place over
> > > > > time. Plotinus would argue that he
> himself, his
> > > authentic
> > > > > being, was made by Being, an ultimate
> being
> > > (being a
> > > > > Platonist), but held as the nexus
> entombed in a
> > > phyiscal
> > > > > form produced by Nature through
> natural
> > > processes. While
> > > > > things in Nature exist in time, having
> a
> > > beginning, middle
> > > > > and an end, the Universe exists in
> eternity, and
> > > eternity
> > > > > has no gain and no loss of any quantity
> but
> > > exists as an
> > > > > unchanging whole.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A theological
> debate such as
> > > you wish
> > > > > is not appropriate for this list. 
> But as
> > > Metellus has
> > > > > barred the Pontifex Maximus from
> posting to the
> > > Religio
> > > > > Romana list, there is not a list to
> take up this
> > > debate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vade in pace
> Deorum
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cato Piscino
> sal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you
> *absolutely
> > > sure* that you
> > > > > want to say that the gods are incapable
> of
> > > creation
> > > > > (creation is impossible)- and that They
> did not
> > > practice
> > > > > that power?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > > ,
> > > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > M.
> Moravius C.
> > > Catone dicit
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I did not
> call
> > > Sulla 'a
> > > > > male.' Such a notion is just too funny,
> and
> > > anyway it only
> > > > > shows your lack of understanding Latin
> > > greetings.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You did,
> however,
> > > call me
> > > > > "creature" even though it was
> disrespectful of me
> > > and of my
> > > > > religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus,
> Hawkings,
> > > nor I accept
> > > > > the irrational proposition that the
> cosmos was
> > > created, but
> > > > > rather that it results from natural
> process.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Creatio
> enim est
> > > productio
> > > > > totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed
> <ex nihilo
> > > nihil
> > > > > fit> est axioma ab omnibus
> indubitauter
> > > acceptum et
> > > > > evidenti experientia universali
> firmatum.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ergo
> creatio est
> > > > > impossibiles.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > > ,
> > > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cato
> Tulliae
> > > > > Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Much
> as I
> > > applaud all
> > > > > those students, it doesn't really
> matter what
> > > *they* can
> > > > > do.  It matters what *this*
> particular
> > > citizen can do -
> > > > > and she has explained clearly and
> succinctly what
> > > the
> > > > > circumstances are.  I can use both
> of my
> > > legs, but just
> > > > > because some people who can also use
> both their
> > > legs are
> > > > > Olympic athletes doesn't mean I
> am  :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> agree that a
> > > *refusal*
> > > > > to use Latin greetings *just to be
> ornery* is not
> > > a very
> > > > > good example to set for new
> citizens.  I
> > > also see where
> > > > > using proper greetings might free us
> from the
> > > kind of thing
> > > > > we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as
> "male".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> Still, I trust
> > > our
> > > > > praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> Vale,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> Cato
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80393 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-03
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Ave!

Well I am tired of secrets and star chambers. Better to let it out.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve amice.
>
> I don't know, it's a secret bag now.
>
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:29 PM
>
> > Ave amice!
> >
> > Well I guess the senators are just going to have to resign
> > to be able to
> > view the CP list......umm..kinda like Messalina!
> >
> > Ooops did I let the cat out of the bag?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@... <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve amice.
> > >
> > > It was filed in some papers relating to Cincinnatus'
> > trial, in a box marked
> > > "Trial Rigging Kit" along with some senatus consultum
> > on senatorial
> > > oversight. Seems like both got forgotten and discarded
> > as no longer of any
> > > use now.
> > >
> > > Vale bene
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
>
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > >
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 9:21 PM
> > >
> > > > Ave!
> > > >
> > > > I think that edition is mandatory reading for all
> > members
> > > > of the CA. How
> > > > did you get a hold of that super secret reading
> > list?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gnaeus Iulius
> > Caesar <
> > > > gn_iulius_caesar@... <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>
> > <gn_iulius_caesar%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Caesar sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears Philo also authored a tome on
> > "The Art of
> > > > Waffling To Hide The
> > > > > Fact I Made A Boo Boo".
> > > > >
> > > > > Translated from Latin it also contains this
> > advice "In
> > > > the event you don't
> > > > > read to the end of the scroll before saying
> > something
> > > > silly, dredge up some
> > > > > author and drone on endlessly about him and
> > maybe the
> > > > forum audience won't
> > > > > notice your embarrassing error".
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm I wonder who obviously consistently
> > follows this
> > > > snippet of ancient
> > > > > sage advice?
> > > > >
> > > > > Optime valete.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Fri, 9/3/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> <rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: rory12001 <rory12001@... <rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>
> > > > <rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> > >
> > > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: ex nihilo
> > > > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > > > Date: Friday, September 3, 2010, 6:56
> > PM
> > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete Piscine omnes;
> > > > > > interestingly Philo was very dependent
> > on Greek
> > > > thought,
> > > > > > Platonism entirely and ancient Judaism
> > in Genesis
> > > > 1.1.
> > > > > > supposes that El created the world out
> > of chaos.
> > > > Jewish
> > > > > > thought has always been undogmatic. I
> > thought as
> > > > much but
> > > > > > had to research it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems (and this isn't my area) that
> > when the
> > > > various
> > > > > > christianities of the gnostic, ortho
> > etc types
> > > > were fighting
> > > > > > it out that such concepts as creatio ex
> > nihilio
> > > > became
> > > > > > popular.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since my ancestral cultus' new year is
> > next week,
> > > > I took an
> > > > > > interest and I have some nice books on
> > Magic and
> > > > Ritual in
> > > > > > the Ancient World, which includes the
> > Near East.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > optime valete
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maior
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >
> > > > > > "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maior Fabiana Piscino spd;
> > > > > > > > hehe,
> > the
> > > > retreat from a
> > > > > > sound philosophical discussion, into
> > the safe
> > > > cove of
> > > > > > 'others believe it.' Don't let him
> > co-opt Jewish
> > > > history or
> > > > > > faith either, it's offensive to us...
> > We are a
> > > > sophisticated
> > > > > > and ancient people not afraid to
> > cultivate our
> > > > intellect.
> > > > > > Just look at Philo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway that reminds me, I
> > will try to
> > > > pick up
> > > > > > Proclus' Commentary on the Golden
> > Verses &
> > > > bring it to
> > > > > > the conventus, a very useful little
> > guide on
> > > > conducting
> > > > > > one's life.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > di nobis
> > > > favent
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > Maior
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unlike you, though, I
> > don't have
> > > > the need to
> > > > > > throw out the names of a hundred or a
> > thousand
> > > > famous,
> > > > > > brilliant scholars and philosophers
> > from history
> > > > over the
> > > > > > past 4000+ years who have believed it
> > was created
> > > > ex nihilo
> > > > > > in order to make it seem more true or
> > to
> > > > denigrate *your*
> > > > > > belief that it was not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >
> > > > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Piscinus Catone
> > salutem
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Did I say that the
> > Gods are
> > > > incapable
> > > > > > of creating? Even I can create things
> > from
> > > > things.
> > > > > > What I said was that the universe was
> > not
> > > > created, and
> > > > > > neither is anyhing else created out of
> > > > nothingness.
> > > > > > Are you unfamiliar with Parmenides,
> > with
> > > > Plotinus? Do you
> > > > > > not know the distinction between Being
> > and the
> > > > absurdity of
> > > > > > Non-Being? Of Eternity and of time? Of
> > the Henads
> > > > of Proclus
> > > > > > or the Involuti of Seneca? Perhaps you
> > are also
> > > > unfamiliar
> > > > > > of Anselm's critique of Aquinas' "five
> > proofs"
> > > > how they
> > > > > > proved nothing, and though proposed to
> > prove a
> > > > demiurge, did
> > > > > > not prove the existence of a higher
> > deity as he
> > > > claimed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Your very
> > conception of what
> > > > a God is
> > > > > > or is not differs from what is held in
> > our own
> > > > tradition. So
> > > > > > your question has little meaning to
> > me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Plotinus said, "The
> > world, we
> > > > must
> > > > > > reflect, is a product of Necessity, not
> > of
> > > > deliberate
> > > > > > purpose: it is due to a higher Kind
> > engendering
> > > > in its own
> > > > > > likeness by a natural process." Ennead
> > 3.2.3 He
> > > > talks about
> > > > > > himself being made by a God, but that
> > was by a
> > > > natural
> > > > > > process as well, and not by creation
> > out of
> > > > nothingness.
> > > > > > Things that coming into Being, for a
> > limited
> > > > time, are
> > > > > > engendered through natural processes
> > that take
> > > > place over
> > > > > > time. Plotinus would argue that he
> > himself, his
> > > > authentic
> > > > > > being, was made by Being, an ultimate
> > being
> > > > (being a
> > > > > > Platonist), but held as the nexus
> > entombed in a
> > > > phyiscal
> > > > > > form produced by Nature through
> > natural
> > > > processes. While
> > > > > > things in Nature exist in time, having
> > a
> > > > beginning, middle
> > > > > > and an end, the Universe exists in
> > eternity, and
> > > > eternity
> > > > > > has no gain and no loss of any quantity
> > but
> > > > exists as an
> > > > > > unchanging whole.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A theological
> > debate such as
> > > > you wish
> > > > > > is not appropriate for this list.
> > But as
> > > > Metellus has
> > > > > > barred the Pontifex Maximus from
> > posting to the
> > > > Religio
> > > > > > Romana list, there is not a list to
> > take up this
> > > > debate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vade in pace
> > Deorum
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >
> > > > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cato Piscino
> > sal.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are you
> > *absolutely
> > > > sure* that you
> > > > > > want to say that the gods are incapable
> > of
> > > > creation
> > > > > > (creation is impossible)- and that They
> > did not
> > > > practice
> > > > > > that power?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > M.
> > Moravius C.
> > > > Catone dicit
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I did not
> > call
> > > > Sulla 'a
> > > > > > male.' Such a notion is just too funny,
> > and
> > > > anyway it only
> > > > > > shows your lack of understanding Latin
> > > > greetings.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You did,
> > however,
> > > > call me
> > > > > > "creature" even though it was
> > disrespectful of me
> > > > and of my
> > > > > > religious beliefs. Neither, Plotinus,
> > Hawkings,
> > > > nor I accept
> > > > > > the irrational proposition that the
> > cosmos was
> > > > created, but
> > > > > > rather that it results from natural
> > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Creatio
> > enim est
> > > > productio
> > > > > > totius substantiae ex nihilo. Sed
> > <ex nihilo
> > > > nihil
> > > > > > fit> est axioma ab omnibus
> > indubitauter
> > > > acceptum et
> > > > > > evidenti experientia universali
> > firmatum.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ergo
> > creatio est
> > > > > > impossibiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cato
> > Tulliae
> > > > > > Scholasticae sal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Much
> > as I
> > > > applaud all
> > > > > > those students, it doesn't really
> > matter what
> > > > *they* can
> > > > > > do. It matters what *this*
> > particular
> > > > citizen can do -
> > > > > > and she has explained clearly and
> > succinctly what
> > > > the
> > > > > > circumstances are. I can use both
> > of my
> > > > legs, but just
> > > > > > because some people who can also use
> > both their
> > > > legs are
> > > > > > Olympic athletes doesn't mean I
> > am :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > agree that a
> > > > *refusal*
> > > > > > to use Latin greetings *just to be
> > ornery* is not
> > > > a very
> > > > > > good example to set for new
> > citizens. I
> > > > also see where
> > > > > > using proper greetings might free us
> > from the
> > > > kind of thing
> > > > > > we saw when Piscinus addressed Sulla as
> > "male".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Still, I trust
> > > > our
> > > > > > praetura to do the right thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Vale,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Cato
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> <Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<Nova-Roma-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80394 From: lathyrus77 Date: 2010-09-04
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Well I am tired of secrets and star chambers. Better to let it out.
>

Salve,

What is a star chamber?


Vale,

Anna Bucci
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 80395 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-09-04
Subject: Re: ex nihilo
Ave!

Well the law dictionary definition is this:

star chamber A court or group that engages in secret, harsh, or arbitrary
procedures.

Now, what body sounds like this in Nova Roma?

The term goes back to England. The best example I can give is the movie
from 1983:

In the 1983 movie *The Star
Chamber<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber>
*, Michael Douglas, playing an idealistic Los Angeles Superior Court judge
frustrated about having to free obviously guilty criminals merely because of
legal technicalities, learns from his mentor about a secret cabal of
judges�a Star Chamber�that metes out its own brand of justice against those
it determines have wrongly been set free.

And in NR, this is best characterized to what the CP did to Consul
Albucius. Given there was no due process - no means for him to defend
himself. He probably had no idea he was even being investigated.

In the US, star chambers are outlawed and the English Star Chambers inspired
the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the_court_of_star_chamber.htm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Star+chamber
http://www.answers.com/topic/star-chamber

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:01 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Well I am tired of secrets and star chambers. Better to let it out.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> What is a star chamber?
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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