--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> As the individual who happened to write that particular passage, please
> accept my assurance that the "order and civility" clause was never
> intended to be an excuse for shutting down conversations that happened
> to be repeats of earlier conversations, or that made certain magistrates
> uncomfortable. Quite the opposite. It was intended to allow for the
> moderation of individuals who were engaged in egregious profanity,
> name-calling, calumny, and the like. The puritanical reaction to
> anything the least bit racy is, to use a phrase that is bandied about
> too often by people who haven't the slightest conception of what it
> really means, un-Roman.
>
> The pre-emptive presumption that "if topic X is discussed, it will
> inevitably lead to uncivil behavior" is a complete fallacy. The
> Constitution does not allow for such "we stopped him before he could
> break the law" type behavior, and any edict that supports such should
> have been struck down with the utmost vigor by the tribunes at the very
> least; its enforcement certainly should be.
>
> I would also say that Yahoogroups setting an email list to "adults only"
> hardly constitutes "a certain danger to the Republic". The Republic is
> much much more than an email list, and the fact that you seem to equate
> the two is, in my humble opinion, much more dangerous to the Republic
> than any potential action Yahoogroups could take. More real-world, less
> internet!
>
> "Mayhem"? If you think that an argument on an email list is "mayhem",
> you don't know the slightest meaning of the word.
>
> vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
> On 11/3/2010 10:32 PM, gualterus_graecus wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > There is also another sentence in that paragraph in the Constitution (II.B.4): "Such officially sponsored fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility".
> >
> > To help spell out what the Praetura considers order and civility we have a moderation edict in place which already has been violated on this thread by the posting of sexually explicit material. Even more critical than lost civility, such material may get the attention of Yahoo and restrict this list to adult-only, which would constitute a certain danger to the Republic.
> >
> > In addition, every time the topic of women in NR is brought up it begins a flame war of one sort or another between parties well-known to us all, which is nothing but lost "order and civility". If in the future it becomes evident that the topic can be discussed in a civilized way without people flaming each other then it certainly should be tolerated. Even if someone now were to bring it up again, but clearly in a manner that is not merely intended to accuse or condemn others, then that would be OK; however, the topic, as far as I can remember, has only ever been raised in order to cause mayhem on the list--as was once again the case here.
> >
> > Finally, this has nothing to do with petty tyranny--I rarely ever intervene in discussions. Perhaps it is my usually hands-off approach which makes these moments all the more notable.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius<vedius@> wrote:
> >> Salve M. Corneli,
> >>
> >> May I ask by what authority you are closing this discussion?
> >>
> >> The Constitution explicitly guarantees that all cives have the freedom
> >> to say what they will, how they will, as long as such speech is not "an
> >> imminent and clear danger to the Republic". Are you claiming that the
> >> current discussion rises to that level?
> >>
> >> Discussions wandering across topics, repeating conversations and
> >> arguments from the past, discussing items that are not directly related
> >> to ancient Rome or modern Nova Roma, are still fair game and part of the
> >> right of every and any Nova Roman citizen to engage in. People are free
> >> to "repeat the same old stuff" as many times as they wish, regardless of
> >> your personal feelings on the matter.
> >>
> >> Don't like it? Your computer, I am sure, has a "delete" button on its
> >> keyboard just the same as mine does.
> >>
> >> We have far too many petty tyrants letting some minuscule authority
> >> going to their heads around here already; the muses list comes to mind
> >> as a particularly egregious offender. The right of freedom of speech was
> >> placed in the Constitution for a reason, and just because you or any
> >> other magistrate finds the discussion not to their particular taste,
> >> does not give them the authority to override those rights.
> >>
> >> Vale,
> >>
> >> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> >> Pater Patriae
> >>
> >> On 11/3/2010 7:33 PM, gualterus_graecus wrote:
> >>> Salvete,
> >>>
> >>> This thread is now closed. It has changed topics more than once and at this point is merely a distraction and contributing nothing on-topic.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I am issuing a warning not to raise the tired old bogeyman of how NR treats women. This matter has been raised several times in the past with the same claims being repeated and nothing new or productive being added. If you merely want to repeat the same old stuff, you've been warned.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, be MINDFUL of the ML restriction on sexually explicit language. It doesn't matter who said it first and where; if you post it to the ML you're responsible for it.
> >>>
> >>> Valete,
> >>>
> >>> M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus
> >>> Praetorian Quaestor
> >>>
> >>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77"<lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine<robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> >>>>> Ave,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No no lol, its from the Mythbusters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEInbnz5XG0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Salve,
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe I just posted that.....
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Vale,
> >>>>
> >>>> Anna Bucci
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>Q Caecilius Metellus Omnibus salutem dicit.
>
> I, for a variety of reasons, refrained from commenting on this, but it
> seems there may be no end to things in sight, so I hope that I can
> help bring a swifter end to things in shedding a bit of light on what
> seems to have happened.
>
> When, on the Kalends of November, L Livia posted a statement
> dissociating herself from a variety of elements of Nova Roma, both
> from her words posted here and having spoken with her about it, V
> Rutilia understood that statement to be a resignation of citizenship.
> That is not entirely unreasonable: there were, and are, differing
> interpretations of what L Livia meant, yet given what has been said
> over the past two days, it is sufficiently clear that she did not
> resign her citizenship. Acting on the understanding that L Livia had
> resigned, V Rutilia unsubscribed L Livia from the mailing list for the
> concilium plebis. Although removed, though I cannot verify for
> myself, the word of V Rutilia is sufficient for me to accept that she
> was not banned from said mailing list, but only removed.
>
> Having been removed from said list, L Livia was free to resubscribe to
> that mailing list at any time had she so wished once she returned to
> citizenship. It was then understood that L Livia had not resigned,
> for which reason a number of citizens voiced their complaints about
> her removal (seemingly unaware of what V Rutilia had understood to be
> the case). Again, though, many thought L Livia had been banned,
> equally unaware that she had simply been removed, and that difference
> is more than just semantic, but has led to the various cries left and
> right over what can only be surmised as a grave misunderstanding on no
> shortage of sides.
>
> Would it be wrong to unilaterally remove a citizen from a mailing list
> in which they are entitled to participate? I would agree that it is,
> surely. But the case here was one of a misunderstanding: it was the
> understanding of V Rutilia that L Livia had resigned her citizenship,
> and was therefore no longer entitled to participate in the happenings
> of that forum. That L Livia resigned has been demonstrated not to
> have been the case, and she remained free to resubscribe at her
> leisure.
>
> I have not communicated with L Livia, and so I can not say anything
> for her view of things, as they were happening or as they stand
> presently; having spoken with V Rutilia, however, I understand her
> actions and beliefs at the time things were happening. I hope L Livia
> can understand the viewpoint of V Rutilia as events were happening;
> equally, I know V Rutilia understands how she would feel were things
> reversed.
>
> Ut ualeatis, curate.
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "enodia2002" <walkyr@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:57 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: TO ALL CULTORES DEORUM


Salve,

I repeat: Livia resigned by disassociating herself from NR. She was
removed from the list, NOT banned. Once it was demonstrated that she was
indeed still a citizen she was put back on the list.

Enodiaria

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> Oh you are absolutely correct! 100% correct. Its just everytime when
> livia or compy or damn near anyone in that faction speaks criticizing
> someone they oppose - it is just ironic that they don't see the beam in
> their own eye! Like livia being bounced from a list, that wasn't cool -
> yet livia could have made a hugely stronger appeal if she had criticized
> her own ally, piscinus for doing the same exact thing - on an official
> list, at the time, instead she was completely silent. Giving the
> impression that she has no problems with piscinus actions!
>
> Vale
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 6:58 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > Cato Cornelio Sullae omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > First off, remember that the List which Piscinus has taken random
> > control of is no longer the "CP List", as Iulius Sabinus has legally
> > replaced it with the official List of the Respublica's valid College.
> > Piscinus can do whatever he wants in his own little world, it means
> > nothing to the Respublica.
> >
> > It would be a double standard for Livia to be kept off Lists as a
> > citizen, and so I am glad that Petronius Dexter has remedied at least
> > that situation.
> >
> > We must never, ever - even if badly goaded and urged to do so - act like
> > those against whom we struggle. This means that while rhetoric and
> > polemics are expected in fierce debate, actual violation of the laws and
> > rights of citizens is absolutely unacceptable.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert <robert.woolwine@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave,
> > >
> > > It's just their usual claptrap of double standards, notice livia never
> > > responded to piscinus removing cp members from the cp list. Nope it
> > > was just about her being removed from a list.
> > >
> > > This is just another example!
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:22 AM, "M. Valerius Chlorus" <valerius_chlorus@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Salve Anna,
> > > >
> > > > That can not easily be remedied and it can not act as rock solid
> > > > evidence.
> > > > Please remember that in the digital age we currently live in it is
> > > > amazingly easy to falsify anything, and e-mails are the easiest of
> > > > them all.
> > > >
> > > > This does not mean it is not true of course, but it can certainly
> > > > not be
> > > > proof of the truth.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > M.Valerius Chlorus
> > > >
> > > > Decurio Princeps
> > > > Sodalitas Militarium
> > > >
> > > > On 03/11/10 09:43, lathyrus77 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > Gaius Lucretius Seneca <c.lucretius.seneca@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/2/2010 9:28 PM, rory12001 wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See below the vile note I received from Sulla when praetrix.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oops, I missed that bit, and the alleged message you quoted - I
> > > > > > looked
> > > > > > down and just saw Anna's message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, if that happened, I would call that sexual harassment. But
> > > > > > Nova
> > > > > > Roma didn't sexually harass you, unless you're equating Sulla
> > > > > > with NR
> > > > > > now. But since you equate yourself with all women, perhaps you
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > think that too.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve,
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL I guessed right. By the way, how is it an "alleged message"?
> > > > > You
> > > > > can clearly see it's a message, so there's nothing to allege.
> > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > you aren't sure if the message came from sulla. That can be easily
> > > > > remedied, she could just forward you the email as evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > And since sulla is a Senator of NR, his conduct reflects on
> > > > > NR(which
> > > > > is why I can never return as a member as long as NR permits him to
> > > > > be
> > > > > here, let alone on the Board of Directors/Senate). It's quite
> > > > > surprising he's only had one nota put on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Anna Bucci
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> If any citizen or peregrine

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis
> S.P.D.
>
> Gualterus is hardly the only member of the praetura who considers the
> revolting sexual comments posted by Hortensia inappropriate for the ML (or
> much of anything else).

>
> My analysis; I have been banned for not aiding and abetting.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes;
>
> It appears that, as a Lictor of Nova Roma, I have been banned from the
> "official" list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NRComitiaCuriata/
>
> Apparently a delayed reaction to my saying no upon being called to
> grant Imperium to the appointment of a Dictator, which personage did
> the honorable thing and demurred until finding out the legality.
> Marinus informed us that under Maine law, a Dictatorship is illegal.
>
> My analysis; I have been banned for not aiding and abetting.
>
> --
> In amicitia et fide
> P Ullerius Stephanus Venator
> Lictor, Civis et Poeta
>

On 04/11/10 11:43, lathyrus77 wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that no one would've
> been "purged" if Nova Roma used a proper message board rather than
> dozens of disconnected yahoo! groups with various owners.
>
> I had once prepared a lovely message board demo for Nova Roma,
> demonstrating the ease of use and efficiency. It has since been
> deleted of course.
>
> For those who like message boards and like Roman Reconstructionism,
> email me privately at anna@... <mailto:anna%40thebucci.com>
> and I'll send you the link for my Roman Recon forums.
>
> Valete,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>


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

On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...> wrote:

> Salve Sulla,
>
> I am missing several groups also.
>
> Sodalitas Cog et Coq
> Sodalitas Militarium
>
> Sodalitas Pro Diis
>
> Hopefully this is just a Yahoo glitch.
>
> Vale,
>
> C. Octavius Priscus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>; BackAlley
> <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:14:32 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Comitia Curita List?
>
> Ave!
>
> Does anyone know what happened to the Comitia Curiata list? As a Lictor and
> was an active member of that list It is no longer listed in my yahoogroups.
> Is this another list that has been purged by Piscinus?
>
> 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]

On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...> wrote:

> Salve Sulla,
>
> I am missing several groups also.
>
> Sodalitas Cog et Coq
> Sodalitas Militarium
>
> Sodalitas Pro Diis
>
> Hopefully this is just a Yahoo glitch.
>
> Vale,
>
> C. Octavius Priscus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>; BackAlley
> <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:14:32 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Comitia Curita List?
>
> Ave!
>
> Does anyone know what happened to the Comitia Curiata list? As a Lictor and
> was an active member of that list It is no longer listed in my yahoogroups.
> Is this another list that has been purged by Piscinus?
>
> 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]







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

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> I don't think we are having the same problem. I can find my missing groups
> by
> searching for them and I can access them quite normally after that. They
> just
> don't, for some reason, appear in my main yahoo groups page. Strange.
>
> Vale,
>
> C. Octavius Priscus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>" <
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Cc: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>" <
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 8:52:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Comitia Curita List?
>
>
> Ave,
>
> It's not a glitch. Try to rejoin the lists and see what happens. I, a
> lictor
> of nova Roma have been banned from the list.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...<jeancourdant%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Salve Sulla,
> >
> > I am missing several groups also.
> >
> > Sodalitas Cog et Coq
> > Sodalitas Militarium
> >
> > Sodalitas Pro Diis
> >
> > Hopefully this is just a Yahoo glitch.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > C. Octavius Priscus
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> > To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>" <
> nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma%40yahoogroups.com>>; BackAlley
> > <backalley@yahoogroups.com <backalley%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:14:32 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Comitia Curita List?
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Does anyone know what happened to the Comitia Curiata list? As a Lictor
> and
> > was an active member of that list It is no longer listed in my
> yahoogroups.
> > Is this another list that has been purged by Piscinus?
> >
> > 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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

> I'd posted in response to Valerianus who denied that women were sexually
> harassed in Nova Roma.
>
> To clarify, I do not and have never denied that sexual harassment does

>
> It appears that, as a Lictor of Nova Roma, I have been banned from the
> "official" list:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NRComitiaCuriata/
>
> Apparently a delayed reaction to my saying no upon being called to
> grant Imperium to the appointment of a Dictator, which personage did
> the honorable thing and demurred until finding out the legality.
> Marinus informed us that under Maine law, a Dictatorship is illegal.
>
> My analysis; I have been banned for not aiding and abetting.
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
But
> just saying that it is the fault of all men, or all citizens of the Back
> Alley, or all citizens who are left handed, or whatever if ludicrous in the
> extreme.
> THAT was the point, which Anna missed.
>

Salve,

That wasn't missed, it's irrelevent to the actual point. Maior didn't say every single person on the back alley harrasses every single female in Nova Roma. She didn't say every single person in NR harrasses every single female. That's a strawman.

The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days. How many others have not come forward for fear of moderation or ridicule, or embarrassment? If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my opinion. It reflects on Nova Roma that it's members can sexually harrass others and nothing is done about it.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

> The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days.

>
> Ave,
>
> > The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days.
>
> Hola hola hola... stop to say stupid things. I never sexually harassed Maior.
>

>
> The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days. How many others have not come forward for fear of moderation or ridicule, or embarrassment? If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my opinion. It reflects on Nova Roma that it's members can sexually harrass others and nothing is done about it.


>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete;
> and Metellus,the pontiff, he called me vile sexual epithets on the ML.
>
> Max. Valeria Messallina the Virgo Maxima also received vile sexually
> explicit mail from Sulla and we brought up sexual harassment in the
> Collegium Pontificum. Metellus wasn't kicked out; he should have been.
>
> Now the Board of Directors is meeting, I forwarded the email and
> information to some senators. Sulla should be kicked out. If he isn't that
> means the Board condones his actions and they are legally responsible & can
> be sued.
>
> Legally you can't have an executive of an org. who sends sexually explicit
> unsolicited emails to other officers or members. It's against federal and
> state law.
>
> Sexual Harassment:
> What is sexual harassment?
>
> "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.The legal definition of
> sexual harassment is "unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a
> sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or
> creates a hostile work environment."
> .
> "Verbal or written: Comments about clothing, personal behavior, or a
> person's body; sexual or sex-based jokes; requesting sexual favors or
> repeatedly asking a person out; sexual innuendoes; telling rumors about a
> person's personal or sexual life; threatening a person"
>
> Sulla, Metellus, Dexter are part of an unnaceptable culture in Nova Roma.
> It is up to the Board & the members to change it.
>
> valete
> M. Hortensia Maior, ex-civis
>
> >
> > The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed
> Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days. How many others
> have not come forward for fear of moderation or ridicule, or embarrassment?
> If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my
> opinion. It reflects on Nova Roma that it's members can sexually harrass
> others and nothing is done about it.
>
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
>
>


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

> Sulla, Metellus, Dexter are part of an unnaceptable culture in Nova Roma. It is up to the Board & the members to change it.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete;
> and Metellus,the pontiff, he called me vile sexual epithets on the ML.
>
> Max. Valeria Messallina the Virgo Maxima also received vile sexually
> explicit mail from Sulla and we brought up sexual harassment in the
> Collegium Pontificum. Metellus wasn't kicked out; he should have been.
>
> Now the Board of Directors is meeting, I forwarded the email and
> information to some senators. Sulla should be kicked out. If he isn't that
> means the Board condones his actions and they are legally responsible & can
> be sued.
>
> Legally you can't have an executive of an org. who sends sexually explicit
> unsolicited emails to other officers or members. It's against federal and
> state law.
>
> Sexual Harassment:
> What is sexual harassment?
>
> "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.The legal definition of
> sexual harassment is "unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a
> sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or
> creates a hostile work environment."
> .
> "Verbal or written: Comments about clothing, personal behavior, or a
> person's body; sexual or sex-based jokes; requesting sexual favors or
> repeatedly asking a person out; sexual innuendoes; telling rumors about a
> person's personal or sexual life; threatening a person"
>
> Sulla, Metellus, Dexter are part of an unnaceptable culture in Nova Roma.
> It is up to the Board & the members to change it.
>
> valete
> M. Hortensia Maior, ex-civis
>
> >
> > The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed
> Maior. And that's just what we know from the last few days. How many others
> have not come forward for fear of moderation or ridicule, or embarrassment?
> If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my
> opinion. It reflects on Nova Roma that it's members can sexually harrass
> others and nothing is done about it.
>
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
>
>


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

> LOL, your attempt at backtracking is quite laughable.

>
> Ave,
>
> > Sulla, Metellus, Dexter are part of an unnaceptable culture in Nova Roma. It is up to the Board & the members to change it.
>
> I think that you want to feed a troll, but we can quick stop that. Show the evidences of a sexual harassment on you from me.
>

>
> Ave,
>
> Isn't it ironic that the same women complaining about sexual harassment are
> the same ones who are expert in playing the role of the victim? Just food
> for thought.
>

>
> Ave,
>
> > LOL, your attempt at backtracking is quite laughable.
>
> Backtracking? I never sexually harassed Maior, I do not backtrack, I just reestablish the truth.
>

> No I do not wish to feed sulla.

>
> Ave,
>
> > No I do not wish to feed sulla.
>
> I think that you come here, on this list, only in order to feed trolls.
>

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> So, it seems that a few months after an abortive attempt, the long-awaited
> coup
> has finally taken place.
>
> Piscinus, the traitor and usurper who claims to be Pontifex Maximus, has
> now
> abandoned all pretense of sanity and legitimacy. He has unilaterally and
> maliciously ejected everyone who has ever criticized him from any official
> mailing lists that he controls.
>
> He'd been doing this for some time, on a smaller scale, but his allies in
> the
> Senate and the consular office turned a blind eye to it. For months now, he
> has
> refused to admit Senators to the Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum
>
> lists (as the law required), solely due to personal enmity.
>
> Long-time members of Nova Roma will recognize the absurdity of this
> position.
> For how did Piscinus himself climb to power? A month after being elected
> consul
> (with my full support and endorsement, to my later shame), Piscinus
> obtained a
> Senatus Consultum requiring owners of all official lists to admit any
> Senator
> who requested access. Then, when Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
> continued
> his refusal to add Senator Modianus to the Augurs' mailing list, Piscinus
> prosecuted him on ludicrous charges - a count of treason for every day,
> going
> back several years, that that situation had been in effect. Cincinnatus
> rightly
> refused to cooperate with this farce, and departed from us.
>
> I left the Senate then, and refused to do any more enhancements to the web
> site,
> later withdrawing even basic support; Piscinus's actions thus led directly
> to
> the "IT crisis" which has brought Nova Roma to its knees this year, with
> membership payments down more than a third, with no one really sure how to
> assign tribes and centuries, where it is not even known if there can be an
> election this month, with no one to run it.
>
> Of course, he tried to turn this to his advantage, plotting a dictatorship.
>
> When his victory seemed assured, he even admitted on the main list that the
>
> purpose of the dictatorship was to purge the Senate of his enemies - the
> "IT
> crisis" had been only a pretext. It was only due to the hue and cry from
> those
> on his enemies list - a list that expanded considerably then as he
> attempted to
> bully lictors into becoming accessories to the plot - that the dictatorship
> was
> averted.
>
> One consul has had to courage to stand up to this creature. One consul
> refused,
> from the beginning of the year, to kowtow to this false augur. For this, he
> was
> labeled "impius", he received no cooperation from Piscinus's toadies in the
>
> Collegium Pontificum and Collegium Augurum.
>
> Now, the cloak has fallen away. In the past few weeks we've all seen
> Piscinus
> for what he truly is: a tyrant, a schemer, a manipulator, a rank hypocrite.
> At
> the Conventus, he held a secret meeting with other priests present at which
> he
> refused to admit a Senatorial observer. Upon his return, he at once began
> calling openly for people to depart from the main list. Even worse, he
> ejected
> Pontifices and Lictores from the official lists where these officers carry
> out
> their business. Not only is he now in open defiance of the Senate, he is in
>
> open defiance of the Collegium Pontificum, which he fancies himself the
> sole
> master of. Those loyal Pontifices, who have not fallen under his sway, have
>
> been forced to regroup elsewhere, and no doubt they will soon take away the
>
> title of Pontifex Maximus, which will take years to recover from the stain
> he
> has placed upon it.
>
> What is different between Cincinnatus's behaviour and that of Piscinus?
>
> Cincinnatus was prosecuted for keeping one Senator/Augur off a mailing
> list,
> under a Senatus Consultum that was passed *years* after that situation had
> been
> in effect. It was a list that he had personally established, that was
> declared
> Nova Roma property after the fact - yet keeping one person off it is
> treason, in
> Piscinus's view; and to him it there is nothing unethical about "ex post
> facto"
> laws.
>
> Piscinus, on the other hand, refused admittance to multiple Senators, and
> has
> now *ejected* nearly the entire Collegium Pontificum from an *official*
> mailing
> list established *after* the Senatus Consultum (authored by Piscinus) went
> into
> effect. No "ex post facto" here; Piscinus is committing treason, by his
> *own*
> definition.
>
> He openly and defiantly breaks the law that he himself authored, and that
> he
> himself used to eliminate his enemy Cincinnatus, nearly three years ago.
>
> Piscinus is a traitor, and he must be expelled.
>
> Throughout this crisis, another question comes to mind:
>
> WHERE IS THE SECOND CONSUL?
>
> Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus, where are you?
>
> Are you in hiding?
>
> You failed to support your colleague when the false priest declared him
> "impius"
> because he sat instead of stood when taking auguries, or some such rubbish.
>
> When he bullied lictors and tried to unilaterally dismiss one, you let that
>
> travesty proceed; and when the citizens tried to hold him to account for
> this
> foul deed, you came out of hiding only long enough to thwart justice with a
>
> shameful veto.
>
> Consul Fabius, are you a leader, or are you a puppet?
>
> Your boon companion has taken the official mailing lists of Nova Roma's
> religious institutions hostage. He has expelled Pontifices from the
> Collegium
> Pontificum list, and expelled Lictors from the Comitia Curiata list, and
> still
> refuses the Senatorial oversight that he once claimed was essential.
>
> Yet you remain mute.
>
> Stand by your colleague, for once. Piscinus has proven beyond any shadow of
> a
> doubt that he has no honour, no piety, no legitimacy. Act now, Consul
> Fabius,
> if there is to be anything left of Nova Roma.
>
> Valete, M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular, Peregrinus.
>
>
>
>

>
> Salvete Omnes,
>

> Valete, M. Octavius Gracchus,
> Consular, Peregrinus.
>
>

> In the absence of a legal way to dispose of anyone who disagrees with him, he has apparently just decided to ban us from the lists illegally.

>
>
> Salve Anna,
>
> On this I have to agree.
> A message board/forum is far more useful then these loads of emails.
> When I joined NR I also asked why we did not use a MB/Forum, but that
> question died early
>
> an Mb?Forum makes voting and taking polls also much easier.
> Also it is far more controllable.
>
> M.Valerius Chlorus
>
> Decurio Princeps
> Sodalitas Militarium
>
> On 04/11/10 11:43, lathyrus77 wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that no one would've
> > been "purged" if Nova Roma used a proper message board rather than
> > dozens of disconnected yahoo! groups with various owners.
> >
> > I had once prepared a lovely message board demo for Nova Roma,
> > demonstrating the ease of use and efficiency. It has since been
> > deleted of course.
> >
> > For those who like message boards and like Roman Reconstructionism,
> > email me privately at anna@... <anna%40thebucci.com> <mailto:
> anna%40thebucci.com <anna%2540thebucci.com>>
> > and I'll send you the link for my Roman Recon forums.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
>
> > Valete, M. Octavius Gracchus,
> > Consular, Peregrinus.
> >
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Why is Sulla signing with someone else's name?
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

>
> Ave,
>
> For the first couple or three years NR did have message boards through at
> the time onelist (which got sold to Yahoo and became Yahoogroups). They
> were very clunky and not very effective given at the time the amount of
> traffic generated. The email list, while it has obvious issues, just tends
> to work better, until you have someone like Piscinus tossing off people of
> lists.
>
>

>
> Ave!
>
> Because, I was asked to forward the message since it had been sent over 3
> hours ago without it posting to the ML.
>

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Jean Courdant wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> I am missing several groups also.
>
> Sodalitas Cog et Coq
> Sodalitas Militarium
>
> Sodalitas Pro Diis
>
> Hopefully this is just a Yahoo glitch.
>
> Vale,
>
> C. Octavius Priscus
>

I certainly hope this is a Yahoo glitch, because I am the owner and I
have banned only 1 entity since starting the list a decade ago, a
definite spammer address.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/

I checked the member list and you're are there, no "bounce indication
from your email address. Looks like I approved your membership on 24
September.

Take care - Venii

>
>
> I get very, very peeved when someone brings up an obscene remark or
> two as evidence of sexual harassment...........
>


> Harassment is not just an occurrence or two, it is a pattern of words,
> and deeds..............
>
> Not every rude, juvenile, obscene remark is harassment. They are just
> rude, juvenile and obscene remark...............................
>
> Harassment also contains elements of the ability to cause RAEL harm,
> not just personal outrage or hurt feelings.
>

>
> Women who are near and dear to me (family and friends) have been
> truly, sexually harassed, possibly assaulted.
>
>
> I get very, very peeved when someone brings up an obscene remark or
> two as evidence of sexual harassment.
>
> Said persons are making rude noises emit from the terminal end of
> their alimentary canal.
>
> Have we bought into the modern "sensitivity disease" so much?
> Harassment is not just an occurrence or two, it is a pattern of words,
> and deeds.
>
>
>
> Sometimes rude just invites rude, regardless of the package in which
> the person dwells.
>
> --
>
>

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete;
> Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII
> of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
> physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
> submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects
> an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's
> work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work
> environment.
>
> Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but
> not limited to the following:
>
> The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does
> not have to be of the opposite sex.
> The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a
> supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
> The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone
> affected by the offensive conduct.
> Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or
> discharge of the victim.
> The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.
> http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
>
> MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
> "Sexual Harassment on is Sex Discrimination and it is Illegal
> Unwelcome Sexual Advances
> Suggestive or Lewd Remark
> Unwanted Hugs, Touches, Kisses
> Requests for Sexual Favors
> Retaliation for Complaining About Sexual Harassment"
> http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/guidance/index.html
>
> I was an officer and a board member of Nova Roma, Inc, when I received that
> obscene note from Sulla, a director of Nova Roma, Inc, in the course of my
> duties as officer (praetrix.) I have many posts by Sulla, a director,
> calling me obscene sexual epithets, as well as Mesallina. Those are
> admissable as evidence.
>
> that's legal sexual harassment under State and Federal Law.
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> -
> >
> > Women who are near and dear to me (family and friends) have been
> > truly, sexually harassed, possibly assaulted.
> >
> >
> > I get very, very peeved when someone brings up an obscene remark or
> > two as evidence of sexual harassment.
> >
> > Said persons are making rude noises emit from the terminal end of
> > their alimentary canal.
> >
> > Have we bought into the modern "sensitivity disease" so much?
> > Harassment is not just an occurrence or two, it is a pattern of words,
> > and deeds.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sometimes rude just invites rude, regardless of the package in which
> > the person dwells.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

>
> Salvete and hello;
>
> All I am going to write is this.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

>
> Ave,
>
> Are you an attorney Courtney Sarah Kirshner?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Did you happen to notice that you've only quoted the sexual harassment clauses related to a WORK environment? Focus, Maior.
>
> If you feel like Sulla sexually harassed you, take him to court. It's that simple. Either put up or shut up. You yammer on about something which is quite serious and offensive, yet you choose to do so without putting your money where your mouth is.
>
> Sue Sulla. Sue Nova Roma. Sue me, for Iuppiter's sake, but either do something or just go back into your "self-exile".
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> > Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> > "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> >
> > Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
>

>

> Sue Sulla. Sue Nova Roma. Sue me, for Iuppiter's sake, but either do something or just go back into your "self-exile".
>

--- On Thu, 11/4/10, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] U.S. Fed & State Sexual Harassment law [ was Re: Trying not to be angry...]
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 4, 2010, 7:02 PM
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Did you happen to notice that you've only quoted the sexual
> harassment clauses related to a WORK environment? 
> Focus, Maior.
>
> If you feel like Sulla sexually harassed you, take him to
> court.  It's that simple.  Either put up or shut
> up.  You yammer on about something which is quite
> serious and offensive, yet you choose to do so without
> putting your money where your mouth is.
>
> Sue Sulla.  Sue Nova Roma.  Sue me, for
> Iuppiter's sake, but either do something or just go back
> into your "self-exile".
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> >           
>    Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> > "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination
> that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> >
> > Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
> and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
> constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or
> rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects
> an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
> individual's work performance or creates an intimidating,
> hostile or offensive work environment.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

> That wasn't missed, it's irrelevent to the actual point. Maior didn't say
> every single person on the back alley harrasses every single female in Nova
> Roma. She didn't say every single person in NR harrasses every single
> female.
>

> The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior.
>

> If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my
> opinion.
>

> I too was removed from the NR Comitia Curiata list in the same time that I
> was removed from the Piscinus'CP list on November 1st. But, it is not so
> terrible, we will leave Piscinus alone on his lists and as magistrates and
> sacerdotes of Nova Roma we will recreate new lists but lists without unic
> owner.
>

> We yet began with the Collegium Pontificum NR list.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve;
> Gods, Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3);
> it's a charitable corporation! NR falls under business law, just because none of us were paid doesn't mean you can behave any way you like. You really know zero.
>
> I'll do as I please. And it pleases me to draw attention to the Board of Directors.
>
> If someone wants to sue NR & its Board of Directors, I may help them with advice, I could join with them in the action. I could inform Sulla's community college about his behaviors. I'll see....
>
> Maior
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Did you happen to notice that you've only quoted the sexual harassment clauses related to a WORK environment? Focus, Maior.
> >
> > If you feel like Sulla sexually harassed you, take him to court. It's that simple. Either put up or shut up. You yammer on about something which is quite serious and offensive, yet you choose to do so without putting your money where your mouth is.
> >
> > Sue Sulla. Sue Nova Roma. Sue me, for Iuppiter's sake, but either do something or just go back into your "self-exile".
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete;
> > > Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> > > "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> > >
> > > Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
> >
>

>
> You have no idea what you're talking about, following your normative pattern of incoherence and error. You now go back to the same place that the Bucci person does as far as I am concerned: you are a non-person, unworthy of further consideration.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> > Gods, Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3);
> > it's a charitable corporation! NR falls under business law, just because none of us were paid doesn't mean you can behave any way you like. You really know zero.
> >
> > I'll do as I please. And it pleases me to draw attention to the Board of Directors.
> >
> > If someone wants to sue NR & its Board of Directors, I may help them with advice, I could join with them in the action. I could inform Sulla's community college about his behaviors. I'll see....
> >
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > <sigh>
> > >
> > > Did you happen to notice that you've only quoted the sexual harassment clauses related to a WORK environment? Focus, Maior.
> > >
> > > If you feel like Sulla sexually harassed you, take him to court. It's that simple. Either put up or shut up. You yammer on about something which is quite serious and offensive, yet you choose to do so without putting your money where your mouth is.
> > >
> > > Sue Sulla. Sue Nova Roma. Sue me, for Iuppiter's sake, but either do something or just go back into your "self-exile".
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete;
> > > > Federal Sexual Harassment Law
> > > > "Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> > > >
> > > > Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
>
> I say:
> Maior and Piscinus have both repeatedly tried to tar every citizen that
> doesn't agree with them, and especially those on the Back Alley, with that
> brush. Guilt by association, y'know? You know how this works, Anna, you're
> a victim of it yourself - remember all those accusations that you're a
> neo-Nazi just because you associated with a few neo-Nazis online?


Ah, because I've chosen to sever our friendship, you feel the need to bring up the old "neo-nazi" canard. Nice.

Point of fact: I have never associated with a neo-nazi. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, or a big fat hairy liar.


Now, I
> don't know if you are or are not . . . I'd take your word for it if you
> denied it - but that isn't the point.

Just like I don't know if you're a molester of small children or not....I'd take your word for it if you denied it though.


The point is that "guilt by
> association" is not valid in this type of case - we're not all misogynists
> or harassers just because one or two people may have made harassing or
> misogynistic statements.

The strawman argument that members of Nova Roma do no haraas women based on the fact that not all members of Nova Roma harrass all women, is entirely irrelevent to this issue. No one is guilty by association on this issue.

I'll refer again to the army. Before I enlisted my father told me that women gets sexually harrassed in the Army. Did he mean all members of the Army harrass all the females in the Army? I don't think so. He made a generalization, like Maior did.

The fact that you are more concerned about pointing out that not all members of Nova Roma sexually harrass others rather than voicing contempt for those that do is rather telling, however.

You may be guilty of associating with a vulgar senator, but that speaks more to your character and reason rather than your propensity for harrassment.

> Anyone who has been a survivor or rape or sexual harassment knows this
> is not a laughing matter. Anyone who loves a survivor knows this is not a
> laughing matter. Anyone with any decency knows it is not a laughing matter.
> We all take it very seriously . . . well, at least those of us who take Nova
> Roma seriously and keep to our oaths and commitments.

Some of the recent posts contradict this.


> And don't dare try to claim that no one has been saying that. To quote
> from Piscinus' "TO ALL CULTORES DEORUM rant: "another element has festered
> and arrived from the Back Alley, spreading derision and ridicule, slander
> and false rumors, obscenities and gross insults . . . Their actions included
> obscene assaults directed towards our Virgo Maxima Vestalis and other female
> Sacerdotes and towards the women in our Senate; they engaged in sexual
> harassment of women, especially Sacerdotes; they assaulted the beliefs of
> others; made mocking assaults against the Gods of Roma antiqua, against our
> traditions and our religion; they assaulted the Collegia and the
> administrative authority granted by the Constitution to our Collegia."
> Except that not a word of it is true. Unless on an individual basis, in
> which case the accusation that we all did such things is still not true.


Saying that an element from the back alley does terrible things(which is actually very true) does not equate to saying that EVERYONE from the back alley does terrible things. There's that strawman again.

And it's not like this is the first time it's been said. Every time someone speaks out against members of the back alley, the response isn't to the actual issues but to the fact that not every single person on the back alley does something complained about.

YEA, WE GET IT. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE BACK ALLEY THAT AREN'T AS BAD AS OTHERS.

Let's move past this, shall we?


> Heck, as a former Back Alley member yourself,

Exactly!

I was a member of the back alley, as was Maior. Same with Livia. But funny enough, when I've criticized the back alley for terrible actions/words I didn't actually include myself in that criticism. Nor did I include every single member, like Livia or Maior, or Lentulus, etc.

Funny how that works, eh? Maybe because a generalization doesn't mean "every instance, every person". Hello?


srsly...




I guess you're a
> harasser-of-women too, as well as a Neo-Nazi from your Stormfront
> connections, by such logic.
>

I'm a harrasser of trolls. Both on the back alley and stormfront.

Oh and by your logic, since you've associated with me that means you're a neo-nazi too.


>
> Anna says:
>
> > The fact is from self-admission Dexter and Sulla sexually harrassed Maior.
> >
>
> I say:
> I didn't see Dexter admit to any such thing . . . but maybe I missed
> something.

He admitted he sent a joke to Maior and he made statement regarding "sexual problems" that he alleges Maior has.



If Sulla sexually harassed Maior, that would be between them and
> the authorities.

She's sent the senate her complaint. I doubt they will do anything.


But the attempt to label anyone who disagrees with Piscinus
> a misogynist and harasser-of-women is ludicrous. To say the least.
>

No, just the misogynists and sexual harrassers. If you're not one, then you have no need to be so defensive.


> Anna says:
>
> > If this doesn't bother you, then that's says something about you in my
> > opinion.
> >
>
> I say:
> I am fortunate in that I have never personally suffered rape or sexual
> harassment. Good for me, right? But many of my loved ones, family, and
> friends *are* survivors of rape and sexual harassment. It's a serious issue.

It would be nice if it were treated as such rather than being dismissed, denies, and dodged by many people here.


> It would bother me if Nova Roma or the Back Alley or anywhere else *were* a
> culture in which it is OK to sexually harass others. But they're not. So . .
> . end of story.

The end of the story is yet to come actually. What will Nova Roma do about this issue?


Vale,

Anna

>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> You have no idea what you're talking about, following your normative pattern of incoherence and error. You now go back to the same place that the Bucci person does as far as I am concerned: you are a non-person, unworthy of further consideration.
>

> One final, peripheral note ...Dexter ...now that my curiosity has been well titillated, you *must* send me a copy of this joke!

> That is all. And as answer she claimed she was harassed by a satyr...

>
> C. Petronius C. Caecae s.p.d.,
>
> > That is all. And as answer she claimed she was harassed by a satyr...
>
> And seeing satyrs everywhere, in my opinion, is the evidence of sexual problems... This opinion is not an harassment but a friendly advice for her to consult a psy.
>
>

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius C. Caecae s.p.d.,
> >
> > > That is all. And as answer she claimed she was harassed by a satyr...
> >
> > And seeing satyrs everywhere, in my opinion, is the evidence of sexual
> problems... This opinion is not an harassment but a friendly advice for her
> to consult a psy.
> >
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> And he continues. Why is this person allowed to make remarks regarding
> "sexual problems" of other people?
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>

>
>

>
> Salve,
>
> The same reason probably, why you're allowed to even post most likely.

> Anna, sometimes Dexter has a strange way of explaining things, I'm sure he
> meant no harm towards Maior, he's usually quite a gentleman.
>

> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> C. Petronius C. Caecae s.p.d.,
>>>
>>>> That is all. And as answer she claimed she was harassed by a satyr...
>>>
>>> And seeing satyrs everywhere, in my opinion, is the evidence of sexual
>> problems... This opinion is not an harassment but a friendly advice for her
>> to consult a psy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Salve,
>>
>> And he continues. Why is this person allowed to make remarks regarding
>> "sexual problems" of other people?
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Anna Bucci
>>
>>
>
> Salve,
>
> The same reason probably, why you're allowed to even post most likely.
> Anna, sometimes Dexter has a strange way of explaining things, I'm sure he
> meant no harm towards Maior, he's usually quite a gentleman.

>
> Vale,
> Aeternia

>
>>
>>
>
>

> We normal women can tell
> the difference.

--- On Fri, 11/5/10, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

Are you an attorney .......




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

--- On Fri, 11/5/10, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: To all sexually harassed
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 12:35 AM
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
> >  We normal women can tell
> > the difference. 
>
>
> Salve,
>
> You're wrong, and your "normalcy" is subjective. If I made
> the same remark Dexter made regarding someone's "sexual
> problems" at work, I'd be counseled for sexual harassment.
> The fact that he's not a native speaker is no excuse.
>
> Having worked for the US government for 5 years, I have had
> to go through a lot of sensitivity training and sexual
> harassment awareness training. There is no way his statement
> would NOT be seen as sexual harassment.
>
> Let's do a test. Next time any of you are at work, tell
> someone they have sexual problems because they didn't like
> your joke. See what happens.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > The same reason probably, why you're allowed to even post most likely.
>
> salve,
>
> So it would be ok if I were to talk about your sexual problems?
>

>
>
> > Anna, sometimes Dexter has a strange way of explaining things, I'm sure
> he
> > meant no harm towards Maior, he's usually quite a gentleman.
> >
>
> So that makes it ok.
>

>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>