Cato Iulio Caesari consulis omnibusque in foro SPD

Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition.

When it comes to a piece of legislation (i.e., and edict) that assumes a definition which is crucial to understanding the Constitution, and carries with the the threat of punishment (moderation), then it is absolutely necessary to have that definition contained in our law. You cannot punish someone for something that is not against the law.

So if someone is moderated for using only Latin (or Finnish or Italian or Serbo-Croatian), and the only justifiable offense for which might have one's posts moderated is that it contains an "imminent and clear danger", then that phrase *must* be clearly defined.

In fact, if I were to use the very method you suggest, it would become pretty clear that a post in Latin alone would *not* pose an "imminent and clear danger" to, really, anyone at all.

Vale bene,

Cato

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

Yes, you can. I have made it quite clear that I believe that a violation of the Constitution negatively and directly impacts *all* citizens. Thanks for agreeing :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> We all can play that game, since you have suffered direct negative impact.
>
> Vale
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my Kindle Fire
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Sent: Fri Jan 13 16:44:49 MST 2012
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Provocatio matter - some basic facts.
>
>
>
>
> Cato Corneliae Aeterniae praetoris sal.
>
> Please read the post I just made. I will keep saying it over and over and over again as long as people keep asking me. I'll just copy and paste forever if need be.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ave,

How have you been directly negatively impacted?

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: "L. Lucretius Caupo" <caupo@...>
Sent: Fri Jan 13 17:11:24 MST 2012
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid




L. Caupo C. Petronio Dextro et C. Aeterniae S.P.D.

Praetores, I would echo civis Cato's provocatio. While I cannot speak for
HIS rights as a citizen, respectfully, I can state unequivocally that MY
rights are indeed directly and negatively impacted by your Edict, for the
following simple reasons (I have underlined the key issues for your
benefit):

1. As a multi-linguist, and ordinary citizen of Nova Roma, I look
forward to the privilege of welcoming new citizens to the Forum, especially
those who do not have any command of English. However, your Edict
effectively bars all such citizens from access to the Forum, unless they go
to considerable trouble and/or expense of having their messages translated
first, which most are unlikely to do because they have no way of personally
verifying the validity of the translation. Therefore, I am prevented from
getting to meet such new citizens, and my free association with them is
restricted because obtaining their email address is the only way to
introduce myself to them.

2. I have respectfully inquired whether it is a requirement that ALL
citizens of Nova Roma must speak English, but failed to get a definitive
answer. Your Edict implies that they must, indeed, be able to speak English.
This has a direct impact on my self-respect as a citizen of Nova Roma,
because I would never knowingly join any secular organization that is
exclusively Anglo-centric, much less accept citizenship in such a nation.
Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. What attracted me to
Nova Roma in the first place was the multi-lingual website - I would be very
disappointed to discover that that was only window dressing.

While English is NOT my mother tongue, like some of you, I am fortunate to
have learned it over the years - unlike other less fortunate individuals who
live in parts of the world where English is not spoken at all, some of whom
may likewise have been welcomed by the multi-lingual Nova Roma website.

Respectfully,

Valete,

L..LVCRETIVS.CAVPO

___________________________

On 1/13/2012 Praetor C. Petronius Dexter responded to civis Cato's
provocatio as follows:

Well, can you precise which rights of your citizenship is directly and
negatively attacked by this edict which is not an edict upon you?

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Ianuariis Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

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





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

C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:

All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff members, are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case. We are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or the largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the business of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.

In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language other than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of our Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen could read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately and tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.

Vale et valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

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

Cato Corneliae Aeterniae praetoris sal.

Let me ask you directly, praetor: do you personally think it is in fact necessary that every post be *required* to have an English translation? That there is no possible acceptable alternative to *requiring* it?

Vale bene,

Cato

Ave!

How would you know?

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Sent: Fri Jan 13 17:48:02 MST 2012
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution




Cato Iulio Caesari consulis omnibusque in foro SPD

Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition.

When it comes to a piece of legislation (i.e., and edict) that assumes a definition which is crucial to understanding the Constitution, and carries with the the threat of punishment (moderation), then it is absolutely necessary to have that definition contained in our law. You cannot punish someone for something that is not against the law.

So if someone is moderated for using only Latin (or Finnish or Italian or Serbo-Croatian), and the only justifiable offense for which might have one's posts moderated is that it contains an "imminent and clear danger", then that phrase *must* be clearly defined.

In fact, if I were to use the very method you suggest, it would become pretty clear that a post in Latin alone would *not* pose an "imminent and clear danger" to, really, anyone at all.

Vale bene,

Cato





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

Ave

And I have made it clear that you have no standing. We can play this all day and night.

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:49 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> Yes, you can. I have made it quite clear that I believe that a violation of the Constitution negatively and directly impacts *all* citizens. Thanks for agreeing :)
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > We all can play that game, since you have suffered direct negative impact.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my Kindle Fire
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> > Sent: Fri Jan 13 16:44:49 MST 2012
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Provocatio matter - some basic facts.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Corneliae Aeterniae praetoris sal.
> >
> > Please read the post I just made. I will keep saying it over and over and over again as long as people keep asking me. I'll just copy and paste forever if need be.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>


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

Cn Iulius Caesar consul C. Equitio Catoni consulari sal.
 
I agree, Latin would not be imminent and clear danger. However, think carefully of the logic as it applies both ways. The dictionary definition of content does not specifically include language as part of its meaning. This is a black and white approach - exactly what I have always advocated when issues arose in the past with the Constitution. Therefore if content is not language then language is not protected. I want you to clearly understand the consequences of your welcome support. In this specific issue the protection is to content NOT language. Content doesn't mention langauge specifically so language is excluded.
 
This establishes a standard way we can all understand the Constitution, but in the speicif matter of the praetorial edict your welcome support means language is NOT subject to the protection of that clause. Only content.
 
You can only look to exactly what the dictionary says. You cannot go further and try to then interpret the dictionary meaning as implying language is a part of content. Not there in the definition means not there - end of story. Equally Latin cannot ever caause an clear and imminent danger, so if ever there is an attmept to censor Latin as a clear and imminent danger you can point to the fact that content does not mean a language.
 
Optime vale.

From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution


 
Cato Iulio Caesari consulis omnibusque in foro SPD

Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition.

When it comes to a piece of legislation (i.e., and edict) that assumes a definition which is crucial to understanding the Constitution, and carries with the the threat of punishment (moderation), then it is absolutely necessary to have that definition contained in our law. You cannot punish someone for something that is not against the law.


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

Ave,

No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of Caupos direct relatives.

Vale,

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2012, at 5:50 PM, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:

> C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:
>
> All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff members, are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case. We are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or the largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the business of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.
>
> In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language other than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of our Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen could read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately and tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.
>
> 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]

Cato Mariae Caecae sal.

I appreciate the obvious concern you show in this response.

The problem is, of course, that it does not mitigate the fact that the Constitution is being violated by creating a restriction that should not exist in the first place.

That the praetura has these resources available *upon request* for our citizens is wonderful, but they should not be *required*.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:
>
> All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff members, are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case. We are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or the largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the business of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.
>
> In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language other than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of our Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen could read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately and tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.
>
> Vale et valete bene!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ave!

Again, you need to show some proof of that. Moderation? Warning? You
havent produced a shred of evidence. Therefore no infringement of rights
exist. You cant have an infringement of rights when none have occurred.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Mariae Caecae sal.
>
> I appreciate the obvious concern you show in this response.
>
> The problem is, of course, that it does not mitigate the fact that the
> Constitution is being violated by creating a restriction that should not
> exist in the first place.
>
> That the praetura has these resources available *upon request* for our
> citizens is wonderful, but they should not be *required*.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:
> >
> > All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff members,
> are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case. We
> are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or the
> largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the business
> of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.
> >
> > In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language other
> than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of our
> Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could
> write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen could
> read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately and
> tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any
> questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.
> >
> > 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]

Cato Iulio Caesari sal.

Now that is something to consider. On the other hand, I might contend that the phrase "shall not be restricted" refers to "such communications" directly, and that the content, referred to in a separated clause, is an *additional* protection to the right to participate freely.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar consul C. Equitio Catoni consulari sal.
>  
> I agree, Latin would not be imminent and clear danger. However, think carefully of the logic as it applies both ways. The dictionary definition of content does not specifically include language as part of its meaning. This is a black and white approach - exactly what I have always advocated when issues arose in the past with the Constitution. Therefore if content is not language then language is not protected. I want you to clearly understand the consequences of your welcome support. In this specific issue the protection is to content NOT language. Content doesn't mention langauge specifically so language is excluded.
>  
> This establishes a standard way we can all understand the Constitution, but in the speicif matter of the praetorial edict your welcome support means language is NOT subject to the protection of that clause. Only content.
>  
> You can only look to exactly what the dictionary says. You cannot go further and try to then interpret the dictionary meaning as implying language is a part of content. Not there in the definition means not there - end of story. Equally Latin cannot ever caause an clear and imminent danger, so if ever there is an attmept to censor Latin as a clear and imminent danger you can point to the fact that content does not mean a language.
>  
> Optime vale.
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:48 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution
>
>
>  
> Cato Iulio Caesari consulis omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition.
>
> When it comes to a piece of legislation (i.e., and edict) that assumes a definition which is crucial to understanding the Constitution, and carries with the the threat of punishment (moderation), then it is absolutely necessary to have that definition contained in our law. You cannot punish someone for something that is not against the law.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

I will do this one. last. time. Then I'm just finished.

Sulla, if Congress passed a law saying that wearing a baseball hat was now against the law and subject to fines and/or imprisonment, what would your reaction be:

1. "OK, I'll just never wear a baseball hat again! I'll be fine! No problem!"

2. "That's a ridiculous infringement on my right to freedom of expression and I will fight against it!"



Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Again, you need to show some proof of that. Moderation? Warning? You
> havent produced a shred of evidence. Therefore no infringement of rights
> exist. You cant have an infringement of rights when none have occurred.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Cato Mariae Caecae sal.
> >
> > I appreciate the obvious concern you show in this response.
> >
> > The problem is, of course, that it does not mitigate the fact that the
> > Constitution is being violated by creating a restriction that should not
> > exist in the first place.
> >
> > That the praetura has these resources available *upon request* for our
> > citizens is wonderful, but they should not be *required*.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:
> > >
> > > All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff members,
> > are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case. We
> > are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or the
> > largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the business
> > of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.
> > >
> > > In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language other
> > than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of our
> > Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could
> > write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen could
> > read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately and
> > tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any
> > questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.
> > >
> > > 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]
>

Ave,

And, again last time. YOU could not sue Congress personally to fight
against the law. Because you have no standing to sue the Federal
Government. You would need to seek the grievance through the State of New
York to have THEM sue the government to get the law overturned.

Now, you COULD have standing in NR if you have been directly negatively
impacted, ie MODERATED as you were with Hortenisa. You don't. Therefore
you are lacking that chain link connection linking you to use the Appeal
mechanism of Provactio. Get it?

Vale,

Sula

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> I will do this one. last. time. Then I'm just finished.
>
> Sulla, if Congress passed a law saying that wearing a baseball hat was now
> against the law and subject to fines and/or imprisonment, what would your
> reaction be:
>
> 1. "OK, I'll just never wear a baseball hat again! I'll be fine! No
> problem!"
>
> 2. "That's a ridiculous infringement on my right to freedom of expression
> and I will fight against it!"
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Again, you need to show some proof of that. Moderation? Warning? You
> > havent produced a shred of evidence. Therefore no infringement of rights
> > exist. You cant have an infringement of rights when none have occurred.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Mariae Caecae sal.
> > >
> > > I appreciate the obvious concern you show in this response.
> > >
> > > The problem is, of course, that it does not mitigate the fact that the
> > > Constitution is being violated by creating a restriction that should
> not
> > > exist in the first place.
> > >
> > > That the praetura has these resources available *upon request* for our
> > > citizens is wonderful, but they should not be *required*.
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Maria Caeca. L. Lucretio Cauponi Salutem Plurimam dicit:
> > > >
> > > > All actions taken by the Praetors, or by their designated staff
> members,
> > > are taken on a case by case basis, and this has always been the case.
> We
> > > are not here to enforce list management policies with heavy hands or
> the
> > > largest and most lethal weapons at our disposal, nor are we in the
> business
> > > of making *any* citizen feel uncomfortable or marginalized.
> > > >
> > > > In the scenario you present, the citizen who posted in a language
> other
> > > than English, without translation, would be contacted by either one of
> our
> > > Praetors, a designated member of their staff, or a volunteer who could
> > > write in the language in question. Upon finding out that the citizen
> could
> > > read, but not write in English, help in translating would immediately
> and
> > > tactfully be offered, and the citizen would be encouraged to ask any
> > > questions concerning the meaning of anything he/she read on the list.
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> >
>
>
>


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

Caupo Sullae S.P.D.



I do not understand your reference to my "direct relatives." Would you care
to clarify?



Vale,



Caupo



_____________________

On 1/13/2012 Sulla wrote:



Ave,

No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of Caupos
direct relatives.

Vale,

Sulla







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

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government! What nonsense is that?

Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:

To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF THE VIOLATION.

Vale bene,

Cato

Ave!

Really?

Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
against Obamacare right this very moment!

Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
flopping than John Kerry!

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government!
> What nonsense is that?
>
> Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
>
> To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF
> THE VIOLATION.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>


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

Ave

Well your email address references the last name Kruger. You are from
South Africa. I would imagine there would be some kind of connection
between the previous white ruling apartheid regime. That is what I am
referring to. Unless the name has no relation at all to the Krugerrand.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Caupo Sullae S.P.D.
>
> I do not understand your reference to my "direct relatives." Would you care
> to clarify?
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
> _____________________
>
>
> On 1/13/2012 Sulla wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of
> Caupos
> direct relatives.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Maria Caeca Cn. Equitio Catoni salutem plurimam dicit:

My intent was not to mitigate anything, but to demonstrate how the Praetura conducts it's day to day business of list management. My concern for the comfort of list members is irrelevant, since it is the mindset expected by our current Praetors from their staff, though, of course, you are perfectly free to trivialize it, and me. I was merely pointing out that the Praetura is not composed of automatons whose sole function is mindless or, (gasp) heartless enforcement of list rules.

Vale!
C. Maria Caeca

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

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

I said nothing about a citizen not being able to sue the government. I would not. A citizen can sue a governmental body in order to force it to uphold the law.

This has nothing to do with the provocatio, by the way, and I'm not sure why you continue to hammer this square peg into a round hole. Sulla, we DO NOT AGREE. Just let it go.

Vale bene,

Cato

Ave!

Because you keep bringing it up. As long as you keep bringing up...that YOU
are trying to peg a square in a round hole...I will be there to ensure to
correct you when you are wrong. Just like I would be there 100% to back
you up if I thought you were correct. As I have done in the past.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> I said nothing about a citizen not being able to sue the government. I
> would not. A citizen can sue a governmental body in order to force it to
> uphold the law.
>
> This has nothing to do with the provocatio, by the way, and I'm not sure
> why you continue to hammer this square peg into a round hole. Sulla, we DO
> NOT AGREE. Just let it go.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
>


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

Cato Mariae Caecae sal.

And I never intended to intimate that they are either mindless or heartless. I have a great deal of respect for both praetors, and disagreeing with a specific action they have taken does not mean that I have any personal grudge whatsoever, and I will not make this a personal issue under any circumstances.

I realize that this is relatively unusual in Nova Roman politics.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca Cn. Equitio Catoni salutem plurimam dicit:
>
> My intent was not to mitigate anything, but to demonstrate how the Praetura conducts it's day to day business of list management. My concern for the comfort of list members is irrelevant, since it is the mindset expected by our current Praetors from their staff, though, of course, you are perfectly free to trivialize it, and me. I was merely pointing out that the Praetura is not composed of automatons whose sole function is mindless or, (gasp) heartless enforcement of list rules.
>
> Vale!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caupo Omnibus in foro S.P.D.

AFRIKAANS:
Ek het besluit om voorlopig my boodskappe op hierdie forum in 'n verskeidenheid vreemde tale te skryf en hulle dan d.m.v. 'n gratis Internet-vertaler in Engels te vertaal -- net om aan almal te demonstreer hoe moeilik dit moet wees vir 'n burger wat glad nie Engels magtig is nie. Uit die aard van die saak, is dit natuurlik makliker vir so 'n persoon om 'n enkele boodskap te plaas as om die res van die gesprekke op die Forum (in Engels) te lees, maar dit stel hom of haar ten minste in staat om aanvanklike kontak te maak met ander burgers wat wel dieselfde taal kan praat. Terselfdertyd is hierdie 'n goeie oefening om vir almal te demonstreer hoe onwaarskynlik dit is dat iemand 'n vreemde taal sal gebruik om oop en bloot op die Forum teen die respublica saam te sweer -- enige Censor kan maklik hierdie selfde Internet-vertalers gebruik om agter te kom wat gesê word! (Ek het <webtranslation.paralink.com> hiervoor gebruik.)

ENGLISH:
I decided to provisionally my posts on this forum in a variety of foreign languages ​​and writing them by A free Internet translator to translate to English--just to demonstrate to everyone how difficult it must be a citizen who does not speak English yet. From the nature of the case, it is obviously easier for a person to a single message rather than to the rest of the conversation at the Forum (in English) to read, but it set him or her at least be able to make initial contact with other people who do speak the same language. Simultaneously, this is a good exercise for everyone to demonstrate how unlikely it is that someone has a foreign language will use the open forum on against respublica together to swear --any Censor can easily this same use Internet translators to find out what is being said! (I used <webtranslation.paralink.com> for this.)

Valete,

L·LVCRETIVS·CAVPO

Caeca Cauponi Sal!

Point made, LOL! Electronic translators have a way to go before they become efficient, do they not?

Vale!
C. Maria Caeca

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

Salve,

You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!

Vale bene,
Appius Galerius Aurelianus



________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid

Ave!

Really?

Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
against Obamacare right this very moment!

Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States!  You
just agreed with this line yesterday.  My G-d you are worse of flip
flopping than John Kerry!

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government!
> What nonsense is that?
>
> Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
>
> To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF
> THE VIOLATION.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Caupo Sullae S.P.D.

Ha-ha-hahh ... yes, I had a feeling that was what you were referring to.
Indeed, there is a Kruger Rand connection. The man whose head is on it (to
whom I bear a certain resemblance), also the man for whom Kruger National
Park is named, was my great-great-grandfather (five generations).

The only thing is ... old man Paul Kruger predated the previous regime of
South Africa by almost half a century. He was the president of the Transvaal
republic during the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), whereas the so-called
'Apartheid'-regime only took office in 1948. It would be like accusing
Bismarck of being SS :-) By the way, Paul Kruger, who was of Prussian
descent, did meet Bismarck in Prussia; they were contemporaries. But he
never lived to meet Hitler, since he died in exile back in 1904 already.

And for the record, Sulla ... I have an impeccable record with regard to the
atrocities committed in South Africa during the second half of the 20th
Century -- go check the regime's prison records in that country; I'm sure
they'll still have my paperwork there somewhere. He-he-hehhh ... nice try,
though.

I'm not your enemy, Sulla, regardless of what I said to you about good
manners on the forum. One day you and I will meet, hoist one together and
have a good chuckle.

Kind regards,

Vale,

Caupo



-----Original Message-----
From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Robert Woolwine
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:43 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid

Ave

Well your email address references the last name Kruger. You are from
South Africa. I would imagine there would be some kind of connection
between the previous white ruling apartheid regime. That is what I am
referring to. Unless the name has no relation at all to the Krugerrand.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Caupo Sullae S.P.D.
>
> I do not understand your reference to my "direct relatives." Would you

care

> to clarify?
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
> _____________________
>
>
> On 1/13/2012 Sulla wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of
> Caupos
> direct relatives.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ave!

Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve,
>
> You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
>
> Vale bene,
> Appius Galerius Aurelianus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> invalid
>
>
> Ave!
>
> Really?
>
> Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> against Obamacare right this very moment!
>
> Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> flopping than John Kerry!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> >
> > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government!
> > What nonsense is that?
> >
> > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> >
> > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF
> > THE VIOLATION.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
>
> [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]

Caupo Caecae S.P.D.



PORTUGUÊS

Sim, os programas de tradução disponíveis no Internet ainda não valem muito,
e francamente, eu duvido se eles poderão alcançar o nível necesário de
utilidade dentre da nossa geração! Mas assim como customamos dizer no meu
país: Na terra dos cegos, quem tem um olho é rei.



ENGLISH

Yes, the available programs of translation in still do not cost Internet
very much, and frankly, I doubt if they will be able to reach the level
necesário of usefulness among of our generation! But as well as customamos
to say in my country: In the land of the blind men, who has an eye is a
king.



Vale,



Caupo



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of C. Maria Caeca
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:07 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The joys (and limitations) of online translators





Caeca Cauponi Sal!

Point made, LOL! Electronic translators have a way to go before they become
efficient, do they not?

Vale!
C. Maria Caeca

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





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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Lucretio Cauponi praetoribusque S.P.D.
>
>
>
>
> Caupo Sullae S.P.D.
>
> I do not understand your reference to my "direct relatives." Would you care
> to clarify?
>
>
> ATS: If our praetors had any sense, they would put the author of this
> outrageous comment on instant and permanent moderation, if not expel him.
> However, they would prefer to regard a small part of their edictum which
> affects comparatively little of the message traffic with far greater affection
> than Gollum did his Precious, than Voldemort did the Elder Wand, instead of
> showing some sensible flexibility and amending this provision. They are here
> to prevent the likes of this, not to worry about whether Vergil was plotting
> against NR.
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
> Valete.
>
> _____________________
>
> On 1/13/2012 Sulla wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of Caupos
> direct relatives.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>

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

Ave,

Scholastica, I guess you made the wrong decision for the office to run for,
then, didn't ya?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:45 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Lucretio Cauponi praetoribusque S.P.D.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Caupo Sullae S.P.D.
> >
> > I do not understand your reference to my "direct relatives." Would you
> care
> > to clarify?
> >
> >
> > ATS: If our praetors had any sense, they would put the author of this
> > outrageous comment on instant and permanent moderation, if not expel him.
> > However, they would prefer to regard a small part of their edictum which
> > affects comparatively little of the message traffic with far greater
> affection
> > than Gollum did his Precious, than Voldemort did the Elder Wand, instead
> of
> > showing some sensible flexibility and amending this provision. They are
> here
> > to prevent the likes of this, not to worry about whether Vergil was
> plotting
> > against NR.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Caupo
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> > _____________________
> >
> > On 1/13/2012 Sulla wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > No if we wanted to use a heavy hand we can just follow the tactics of
> Caupos
> > direct relatives.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Caupo Sulla S.P.D.

AFRIKAANS
Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief geraak"
deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf wanneer
jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is die
beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?

ENGLISH
I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you can
say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
impact enough?

Something to think about ...

Vale,

Caupo


-----Original Message-----
From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Robert Woolwine
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid

Ave!

Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
<galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve,
>
> You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
>
> Vale bene,
> Appius Galerius Aurelianus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> invalid
>
>
> Ave!
>
> Really?
>
> Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> against Obamacare right this very moment!
>
> Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> flopping than John Kerry!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> >
> > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government!
> > What nonsense is that?
> >
> > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> >
> > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF
> > THE VIOLATION.
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
>
> [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

Ave,

Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
key.

Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
impacted.

This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue the
Federal Government.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
>
> AFRIKAANS
> Ek verstaan nie. Jy s�: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief geraak"
> deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgel� word, of deur die straf
> wanneer
> jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is
> die
> beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
>
> ENGLISH
> I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
> negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
> when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you can
> say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> impact enough?
>
> Something to think about ...
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Robert Woolwine
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> invalid
>
> Ave!
>
> Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
> me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
> NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
> now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
> one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> >
> > Vale bene,
> > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > invalid
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> >
> > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > flopping than John Kerry!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > >
> > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
> Government!
> > > What nonsense is that?
> > >
> > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > >
> > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE
> OF
> > > THE VIOLATION.
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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]

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Equitio Catoni Consularis sal:

That is a good question.

As you know in the beginning of this tempest, I advocated very strongly for
revision of this Edict, so that all parties could be accommodated, and we
could all move on to a better things.

To me requesting a english translation is no harm, because if you think
about it what if someone posts something that is a imminent and clear
danger how are we to know, there are liability issues, how would the
Praetors be able address such things? With the requesting of a English
translation, those types of scenarios would be knee-capped, there's a
bigger picture to look at. With this Edict, I truly believe make that I
know for certain my colleague was not in any capacity trying to restrict
anyone's right to free speech (which I know perfectly well you are aware of
despite what you repeatedly say) but to establish clearer channels of
communication in the forum, including the area of where one could slip in
and say actual dangerous things, it's covering one's base. Just as you are
in your actions, one could look at it as you are covering your base "in the
case of".

Some rewording of the Edict, where we urge a strong request of providing an
English translation may just stop all this nonsense, but if you read the
Edict no where does it say the word *required*.

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Lucretio Cauponi Omnibusque S.P.D.

I must say Magistra, you do not give up, you oddly enough get kudos on
that. Please see my comments below.

<snippage for brevity sake>

> outrageous comment on instant and permanent moderation, if not expel him.
> > However, they would prefer to regard a small part of their edictum which
> > affects comparatively little of the message traffic with far greater
> affection
> > than Gollum did his Precious, than Voldemort did the Elder Wand, instead
> of
> > showing some sensible flexibility and amending this provision. They are
> here
> > to prevent the likes of this, not to worry about whether Vergil was
> plotting
> > against NR.
> >
>

SCVIA: I admit Sulla strayed off-topic (as usual) but so do you and quite
often Magistra, we all seem to have a syndrome of going off-topic into many
different directions, if nothing more it shows our diversity however
chaotic it may be. However have you not been shouting to the roof-tops
the Praetor's are restricting free speech? How many posts have been made
where it clearly shows not the case hmmm? I don't see how Middle Earth or
Harry Potter has anything to do with Rome? And yet here you are again
unmoderated posting at free reign.

Now I must ask Magistra because you seem quite sensitive about this much
more than usual, is the request for an English bothers you because you
truly feel it hampers your right to free speech, or and I recall this quite
vividly the Junior Consul (who is also a Latin Teacher) pointed out a post
you made that contained some nasty remarks made in Latin. He called you
out on it did he not? In your case Scholastica, for one whose profession
requires the teachings of Latin words to students, requires some methods of
translating so that they can comprehend and pass your class, is this really
about restricting free speech in your case or the fact that now you must be
on your p's and q's inquiring minds would like to know .

Vale Optime,
Aeternia


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

Salve,

And I forgot to include Scholastica's name in the greeting. On that I do
apologize, sorry about that.


Vale,
Aeternia

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

> wrote:

> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Lucretio Cauponi Omnibusque S.P.D.
>
> I must say Magistra, you do not give up, you oddly enough get kudos on
> that. Please see my comments below.
>
> <snippage for brevity sake>
>
>
> > outrageous comment on instant and permanent moderation, if not expel him.
>> > However, they would prefer to regard a small part of their edictum which
>> > affects comparatively little of the message traffic with far greater
>> affection
>> > than Gollum did his Precious, than Voldemort did the Elder Wand,
>> instead of
>> > showing some sensible flexibility and amending this provision. They are
>> here
>> > to prevent the likes of this, not to worry about whether Vergil was
>> plotting
>> > against NR.
>> >
>>
>
> SCVIA: I admit Sulla strayed off-topic (as usual) but so do you and quite
> often Magistra, we all seem to have a syndrome of going off-topic into many
> different directions, if nothing more it shows our diversity however
> chaotic it may be. However have you not been shouting to the roof-tops
> the Praetor's are restricting free speech? How many posts have been made
> where it clearly shows not the case hmmm? I don't see how Middle Earth or
> Harry Potter has anything to do with Rome? And yet here you are again
> unmoderated posting at free reign.
>
> Now I must ask Magistra because you seem quite sensitive about this much
> more than usual, is the request for an English bothers you because you
> truly feel it hampers your right to free speech, or and I recall this quite
> vividly the Junior Consul (who is also a Latin Teacher) pointed out a post
> you made that contained some nasty remarks made in Latin. He called you
> out on it did he not? In your case Scholastica, for one whose profession
> requires the teachings of Latin words to students, requires some methods of
> translating so that they can comprehend and pass your class, is this really
> about restricting free speech in your case or the fact that now you must be
> on your p's and q's inquiring minds would like to know .
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>

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

C. Maria Caeca A. Tulliae Scholasticae Censori Praetoribus, omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

While it is true that I am merely a secretary, and do not, to my knowledge have moderation privileges on the main forum, I am a scriba in the Praetura, and did take note of Senator Sulla's post directed to L. Lucretius Caupo. I was in the process of contacting the Praetors for instructions, and was ready to ask Senator Sulla to refrain from ad hominum posts, when L. Lucretius Caupo answered his post more than adequately.

Unlike the Praetura in past years, our use of moderation is a last, not a first, resort.

Vale et valete!
C. Maria Caeca Scriba Praetoribus (Praetorian scribe)

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

Ave!

Wait a minute...I think we are losing grip with the big picture here. We
have Cato and Caupo and Scholastica complaining that their rights are being
violated. And, all I did was to actually bring the "REAL WORLD" back into
focus that when real rights are violated....people get really tortured,
killed and such. It was just a matter of convenience that Caupo served as
that segway given that I made the connection between his name and South
Africa.

It highlights just how much of a tempest in a teacup this diversion really
is.

Scholastica's reaction is SO over the top that well, I frankly wonder about
her sanity. Such a disconnect from the real world is scary.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:39 PM, C. Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca A. Tulliae Scholasticae Censori Praetoribus, omnibusque in
> foro S. P. D.
>
> While it is true that I am merely a secretary, and do not, to my knowledge
> have moderation privileges on the main forum, I am a scriba in the
> Praetura, and did take note of Senator Sulla's post directed to L.
> Lucretius Caupo. I was in the process of contacting the Praetors for
> instructions, and was ready to ask Senator Sulla to refrain from ad hominum
> posts, when L. Lucretius Caupo answered his post more than adequately.
>
> Unlike the Praetura in past years, our use of moderation is a last, not a
> first, resort.
>
> Vale et valete!
> C. Maria Caeca Scriba Praetoribus (Praetorian scribe)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C.Mariae Caecae A. Tulliae Scholasticae Censori
Omnibusque S.P.D.


Everyone included in the greeting much better.


Caeca you are not a mere secretary that is hogwash. I thought Caupo's
response was very adequate as well, and Caeca is also correct the use of
moderation is a very last resort, why moderate when you can simply
communicate and try to come to a amicable resolution? As you can tell both
my colleague and I are not harsh people, but we do follow the law.


Vale Optime,
Aeternia


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

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=life+of+brian+youtube+roman+go+home&view=detail&mid=68F7018AFD6549566FE768F7018AFD6549566FE7&first=0&FORM=LKVR1

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

Cato Caupo sal.

I have been trying to get that idea through, so far unsuccessfully. I don't have to actually murder someone for the very act of murder to be illegal. I believe that the restriction demanded by the edict is, in itself, inherently a violation of the Constitution.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Lucretius Caupo" <caupo@...> wrote:
>
> Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
>
> AFRIKAANS
> Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief geraak"
> deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf wanneer
> jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is die
> beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
>
> ENGLISH
> I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
> negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
> when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you can
> say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> impact enough?
>
> Something to think about ...
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Robert Woolwine
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid
>
> Ave!
>
> Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
> me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
> NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
> now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
> one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> >
> > Vale bene,
> > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > invalid
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> >
> > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > flopping than John Kerry!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > >
> > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal Government!
> > > What nonsense is that?
> > >
> > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > >
> > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE OF
> > > THE VIOLATION.
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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
>

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

That is the equivalent of saying that unless I actually get mugged then in *theory* the act of mugging is perfectly acceptable. It hasn't actually *happened* so it's OK.

Nonsense.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
> answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
> think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
> key.
>
> Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
> for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
> examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
> religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
> isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
> ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
> that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
> impacted.
>
> This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
> lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
> United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
> millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
> I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
> Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
> Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue the
> Federal Government.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
> >
> > AFRIKAANS
> > Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> > negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief geraak"
> > deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf
> > wanneer
> > jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> > voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is
> > die
> > beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
> >
> > ENGLISH
> > I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
> > negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> > affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
> > when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you can
> > say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> > impact enough?
> >
> > Something to think about ...
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Caupo
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Robert Woolwine
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > invalid
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
> > me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> > sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
> > NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
> > now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> > people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
> > one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> > <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > > invalid
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> > >
> > > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> > > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > > flopping than John Kerry!
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > > >
> > > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
> > Government!
> > > > What nonsense is that?
> > > >
> > > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > > >
> > > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE
> > OF
> > > > THE VIOLATION.
> > > >
> > > > Vale bene,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]
>

Cato Corneliae Aeternise preatoris sal.

The word "required" is not present in the edict. However:

"6. Except for the openings and closings, all Latin text posted on the ML MUST [my emphasis] be accompanied by an English translation so that those less familiar with Latin will be able to understand it."

There really isn't a question there. I would fully support the edict if the request was...a request, not a demand.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Equitio Catoni Consularis sal:
>
> That is a good question.
>
> As you know in the beginning of this tempest, I advocated very strongly for
> revision of this Edict, so that all parties could be accommodated, and we
> could all move on to a better things.
>
> To me requesting a english translation is no harm, because if you think
> about it what if someone posts something that is a imminent and clear
> danger how are we to know, there are liability issues, how would the
> Praetors be able address such things? With the requesting of a English
> translation, those types of scenarios would be knee-capped, there's a
> bigger picture to look at. With this Edict, I truly believe make that I
> know for certain my colleague was not in any capacity trying to restrict
> anyone's right to free speech (which I know perfectly well you are aware of
> despite what you repeatedly say) but to establish clearer channels of
> communication in the forum, including the area of where one could slip in
> and say actual dangerous things, it's covering one's base. Just as you are
> in your actions, one could look at it as you are covering your base "in the
> case of".
>
> Some rewording of the Edict, where we urge a strong request of providing an
> English translation may just stop all this nonsense, but if you read the
> Edict no where does it say the word *required*.
>
> Vale bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cn. Iulius Caesar consul C. Equitio Catoni consulari sal.


Very well, let us examine your contention using this method I described. First the section of the Constitution in dispute:

“Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic.”

Here is the meaning from the dictionary of communication.

“Communication” is “an act or instance of transmitting” or “information transmitted or conveyed” or “verbal or written message” or “process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior <the function of pheromones in insect communication>; also : exchange of information”.

So no sign of “language”. You could test the assumption whether language, in the sense of a written structured language such as English or Latin, is an attribute of each of the definitions above communication by asking whether its absence invalidates the definition and whether the definition holds true without the presence of language.

Thus let us test this. Can one transmit without language? Yes. In many ways such as hand signals, pictures, facial expressions to name but a few. Can information be transmitted or conveyed without language? Yes, a photograph conveys information, a painting. Does a written or verbal message require a written structured language such as English or Latin? No. A series of computations such as a sequence of numbers can be a written message. Binary numbers for example convey information. To those able to read binary, information can be gleaned from that. Is language the only mechanism by which information is exchanged? No, pictures can convey information. Is a written language the only form of a common system of symbols? No, binary is a way all computers communicate. Is language the only form of exchanging information? No, signs and gestures can.

So we can conclude that there is no actual mention of language in the definition of “communication”, let alone the requirement for communication to only function and occur through a written structured language such as English, Latin, or French and even less so a specific language such as ONLY Latin.

So what does communication actually mean? The definition provides the answer. The act of transmitting information. In fact every single example I provided is simple the transmission of information by one medium or another. There is not even one unique medium required for such transmission. Can we test this against the rest of the section of the Constitution? Yes, easily, by reference to “regardless of their content”.

“Content” has a dictionary meaning of”

Something contained; the principal substance; substance; gist; meaning; significance; the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art ; the matter dealt with in a field of study

So “content” is what is “in” something, or the meaning, information, etc.

Now let us apply what we have gleaned from all this to the section of the Constitution. Let us remove the words communication and content and replace them with their dictionary meanings.

“Such transmitting of information, regardless of their meaning, gist or information in that transmission, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic.”

So has the edict restricted the transmitting of information? Clearly the edict speaks to language and requiring Latin to be translated. Does this restrict the transmission of information? No, actually it enhances it. Latin without translation is readable only to a few. Latin with a translation is enhanced transmittal of information. Everything we have learned of the meaning of these words points not to language, but information. Also, language as in a written language isn’t unique to the meanings or in fact even mentioned.

So what was the intent of this section of the Constitution? To ensure that the contents, the gist, or substance, the information that is transmitted, did not represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic. Again looking to the edict the very act of requiring a translation ensures that provision is enhanced. The more understood the information transmitted then the more likely one can be to identify such “an imminent and clear danger to the Republic". Thus requiring translation enhances the purpose of this section of the Constitution. It is consistent with its purpose.

To conclude, language is not content and communication does not require language. The section of the Constitution clearly points to the information as what cannot be restricted, the ideas, concepts, thoughts. Placing a requirement for Latin to be translated does obviously thus not breach the Constitution and enhances communication and aids the goal of preventing “an imminent and clear danger to the Republic".

So you said “Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition”

My response is that firstly, you agreed initially with this approach and I hope that seeing it worked through you still agree in principle, regardless of the actual result.

Secondly, I want to achieve out of all of this time and energy expended, a common language in respect of ascertaining the meaning of a section of the Constitution. That is a good thing. If one were to say it was a bad thing it would mean continued endless arguments that went nowhere, no resolution and hours more wasted time. The only reason I can see someone would say this method was a bad thing was because they didn’t like the result. That however would mean that a person was more interested feeling they had “won”, or rather feeling they had not “lost”. As it stands without resolution to this I can foresee this as another year eaten up by these convoluted debates/arguments. That is most certainly, I am sure you will agree, not a good thing. This year of all years more so not a good thing.

I will deal with your condition in another post, but Cato do you still agree seeing the result worked through? If not, why not?

Optime vale



From: Cato
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:23 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution


Cato Iulio Caesari sal.

Now that is something to consider. On the other hand, I might contend that the phrase "shall not be restricted" refers to "such communications" directly, and that the content, referred to in a separated clause, is an *additional* protection to the right to participate freely.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn Iulius Caesar consul C. Equitio Catoni consulari sal.
>
> I agree, Latin would not be imminent and clear danger. However, think carefully of the logic as it applies both ways. The dictionary definition of content does not specifically include language as part of its meaning. This is a black and white approach - exactly what I have always advocated when issues arose in the past with the Constitution. Therefore if content is not language then language is not protected. I want you to clearly understand the consequences of your welcome support. In this specific issue the protection is to content NOT language. Content doesn't mention langauge specifically so language is excluded.
>
> This establishes a standard way we can all understand the Constitution, but in the speicif matter of the praetorial edict your welcome support means language is NOT subject to the protection of that clause. Only content.
>
> You can only look to exactly what the dictionary says. You cannot go further and try to then interpret the dictionary meaning as implying language is a part of content. Not there in the definition means not there - end of story. Equally Latin cannot ever caause an clear and imminent danger, so if ever there is an attmept to censor Latin as a clear and imminent danger you can point to the fact that content does not mean a language.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> To: mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:48 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution
>
>
>
> Cato Iulio Caesari consulis omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> Consul, what you write makes a great deal of sense, and I agree with it, with one small condition.
>
> When it comes to a piece of legislation (i.e., and edict) that assumes a definition which is crucial to understanding the Constitution, and carries with the the threat of punishment (moderation), then it is absolutely necessary to have that definition contained in our law. You cannot punish someone for something that is not against the law.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

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

> 1. the Constitution of Nova Roma guarantees her citizens the right "to participate in all public fora and discussions,

You participate and your right to participate is not attacked on that.

> and the right to reasonably expect such fora to be supported by the State.

The ML is reasonably supported by the state.

> Such communications, regardless of their content, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic." (Const. N.R. 2.B.4)

Your communications are not restricted by the State. The Yahoo ToS and the rules of politeness to be unserstanding are not a restriction of the communications but a way to respect everybody.

Now the Constitution in its article says too:
"Such officially sponsored fora may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility;"

The edict is written to make that in force.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIX Kalendas Februarias Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

Ave,

It isn't nonsense. It is completely logical. And, it is consistent.
Something that with all due respect you have not only experienced but are
now choosing to disregard. Cato, I keep asking you, begging you to prove
that you have been directly negatively impacted. You haven't been. You
are creating a problem where none exist. Enforcement is the key. There
has been no enforcement of any kind.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> That is the equivalent of saying that unless I actually get mugged then in
> *theory* the act of mugging is perfectly acceptable. It hasn't actually
> *happened* so it's OK.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
> > answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
> > think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
> > key.
> >
> > Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
> > for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
> > examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
> > religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
> > isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
> > ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
> > that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
> > impacted.
> >
> > This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
> > lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
> > United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
> > millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
> > I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
> > Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
> > Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue
> the
> > Federal Government.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
> > >
> > > AFRIKAANS
> > > Ek verstaan nie. Jy s�: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> > > negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief
> geraak"
> > > deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgel� word, of deur die straf
> > > wanneer
> > > jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> > > voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of
> is
> > > die
> > > beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
> > >
> > > ENGLISH
> > > I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none
> directly
> > > negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> > > affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the
> punishment
> > > when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before
> you can
> > > say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> > > impact enough?
> > >
> > > Something to think about ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Caupo
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> > > Behalf
> > > Of Robert Woolwine
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > > invalid
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to
> please
> > > me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> > > sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who
> governed
> > > NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other
> choice) is
> > > now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> > > people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that
> no
> > > one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> > > <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > **
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve,
> > > >
> > > > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> > > >
> > > > Vale bene,
> > > > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > > > invalid
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ave!
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > > >
> > > > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > > > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> > > >
> > > > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States!
> You
> > > > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > > > flopping than John Kerry!
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
> > > Government!
> > > > > What nonsense is that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > > > >
> > > > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of
> their
> > > > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY
> VIRTUE
> > > OF
> > > > > THE VIOLATION.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale bene,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

Sulla, the so-called "REAL WORLD" has only a passing importance in this question. We are talking about Nova Roman law, and I have been forced to try to explain it in terms of macronational law in hopes of helping you understand what I am thinking. Just because we don't have bodies lying in the streets does not mean the law cannot have been broken.

When push comes to shove, macronational law has nothing to do with the edict. I am attempting to show that under our own law, this edict violates the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.

And all references to Yahoo!'s Terms of Service are fallacious. If they were truly the basic required legal foundation of our moderation edicts, then we would not even need a moderation edict of our own. When Tullia Scholastica and I were praetors, we *didn't* issue a moderation edict at all, we *did* use Yahoo's ToS as our guideline, and guess what? The Respublica still stands! :)

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Wait a minute...I think we are losing grip with the big picture here. We
> have Cato and Caupo and Scholastica complaining that their rights are being
> violated. And, all I did was to actually bring the "REAL WORLD" back into
> focus that when real rights are violated....people get really tortured,
> killed and such. It was just a matter of convenience that Caupo served as
> that segway given that I made the connection between his name and South
> Africa.
>
> It highlights just how much of a tempest in a teacup this diversion really
> is.
>
> Scholastica's reaction is SO over the top that well, I frankly wonder about
> her sanity. Such a disconnect from the real world is scary.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

Ave!

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> Sulla, the so-called "REAL WORLD" has only a passing importance in this
> question. We are talking about Nova Roman law, and I have been forced to
> try to explain it in terms of macronational law in hopes of helping you
> understand what I am thinking. Just because we don't have bodies lying in
> the streets does not mean the law cannot have been broken.
>

No, it doesnt. You and I have both been using real world examples. To now
deny its importance now leads me to question why you are going this route.


>
> When push comes to shove, macronational law has nothing to do with the
> edict. I am attempting to show that under our own law, this edict violates
> the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
>
WHAT? Everything you and I have done when we were moderated and our rights
directly negatively affected proved that you and I were both willing to
have macronational law intervene if our rights were violated...so now that
doesnt matter. Cato! Stop flip flopping. How many times did you end up
calling Maine?

>
>
> And all references to Yahoo!'s Terms of Service are fallacious. If they
> were truly the basic required legal foundation of our moderation edicts,
> then we would not even need a moderation edict of our own. When Tullia
> Scholastica and I were praetors, we *didn't* issue a moderation edict at
> all, we *did* use Yahoo's ToS as our guideline, and guess what? The
> Respublica still stands! :)
>
I never referenced Yahoo ToS, both the consul and praetors have. To me it
is utterly a distraction. This entire paragrpah is a distraction to you
trying to use the provactio for a non-action that has not directly
negatively affected you. This is just a red herring. You cannot prove you
have been directly negatively impacted. Thus any attempt to use provactio
is not only incorrect but is a waste of time given that NO ONE has been
moderated.

Vale,

Sulla


>
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Wait a minute...I think we are losing grip with the big picture here. We
> > have Cato and Caupo and Scholastica complaining that their rights are
> being
> > violated. And, all I did was to actually bring the "REAL WORLD" back into
> > focus that when real rights are violated....people get really tortured,
> > killed and such. It was just a matter of convenience that Caupo served as
> > that segway given that I made the connection between his name and South
> > Africa.
> >
> > It highlights just how much of a tempest in a teacup this diversion
> really
> > is.
> >
> > Scholastica's reaction is SO over the top that well, I frankly wonder
> about
> > her sanity. Such a disconnect from the real world is scary.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
>
>


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

Caesar Catoni sal.

To be accurate, and I can be as I was a quaestor on the praetura, the reason you did that was because neither of you could agree on what to write. Scholastica favoured more stringent provisions, whereas you wanted very little. All that was left was Yahoo ToS because neither of you actually ever issued a moderation edict due to this disagreement. To be clear is wasn’t a deliberate choice on either of your parts.

Yahoo! Inc. ToS is a fact of life. It has nothing to do with a basic foundation. We squat in this forum courtesy of Yahoo Inc! and the moment they turn the lights out, it is all gone. So we HAVE to be cognizant of that and ensure the lights don’t go out here because we ignore our landlord’s rules. If that happens – we stand to get evicted.

Optime vale

From: Cato
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:59 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid


Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

Sulla, the so-called "REAL WORLD" has only a passing importance in this question. We are talking about Nova Roman law, and I have been forced to try to explain it in terms of macronational law in hopes of helping you understand what I am thinking. Just because we don't have bodies lying in the streets does not mean the law cannot have been broken.

When push comes to shove, macronational law has nothing to do with the edict. I am attempting to show that under our own law, this edict violates the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.

And all references to Yahoo!'s Terms of Service are fallacious. If they were truly the basic required legal foundation of our moderation edicts, then we would not even need a moderation edict of our own. When Tullia Scholastica and I were praetors, we *didn't* issue a moderation edict at all, we *did* use Yahoo's ToS as our guideline, and guess what? The Respublica still stands! :)

Vale bene,

Cato



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

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

> So when Petronius Dexter says that "disagreement is not in the Constitution", he is apparently misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase.

I did not write that, I only wrote that:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/86922

I well underdstand the Constitution and that your disagreement, as respectable it is, cannot motive a provocatio.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIX Kalendas Februarias Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

Cato Iulio Caesari consulis sal.

This is an approach I can appreciate. Now, let's look at your redaction of the wording of the Constitution.

"Such transmitting of information, regardless of their meaning, gist or information in that transmission, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."

Given all that you have written, the basic question remains: does a message solely in Latin (or any other language, as the praetors have made it clear that it pertains apparently to *all* non-English languages which in itself is a questionable expansion of the edict) fulfill the requirements set by the phrase "imminent and clear danger to the Republic"?

You wrote that requiring a translation "enhances communication and aids the goal of preventing 'an imminent and clear danger to the Republic'" - and yet there is no legal definition of "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" so by what measure can we judge whether or not a translated message is inherently an enhancement of protection against it? How can we know if a box is "stronger" if we don't know what weight it's supposed to hold to begin with?

The only body capable of amending the Constitution is the People in comitia (upheld by the Senate). So, barring an actual amendment which defines what an "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" is, the burden is left to the praetors to interpret it. But they have not done so, with the result that they have created a punishment (moderation) for a crime that does not have a definition.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a desperate need for a common lexicon of terminology, definitions, etc. I also agree that a great deal of common sense can and should be used. And by your own words, using common sense, on the face of it a message solely in Latin does not pose an imminent and clear danger to the Republic.

So until such time as a common handbook of definitions/terms/etc. is created, or until such time as an edict or lex is passed which defines the crime itself, there can be no reasonable legal punishment set out.

Vale bene,

Cato

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

I went "outside" our normal (internal) jurisdiction precisely because the government was violating our own internal law with abandon AND refused to even listen - attempting to silence all of us illegally by abusing their authority. It was a case of last resort, and there is no flopping or flipping anywhere on *my* end.

In this case, the praetors and consuls are listening, responding, answering and asking questions and making serious efforts to see this through intelligently, calmly and with a minimum - if any - of the kind of vitriol we have seen in the past and from which all of us suffered.

As I said to Maria Caeca, it is an unusual turn in Nova Roman politics, which is an incredibly good thing in my book.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> >
> > Sulla, the so-called "REAL WORLD" has only a passing importance in this
> > question. We are talking about Nova Roman law, and I have been forced to
> > try to explain it in terms of macronational law in hopes of helping you
> > understand what I am thinking. Just because we don't have bodies lying in
> > the streets does not mean the law cannot have been broken.
> >
>
> No, it doesnt. You and I have both been using real world examples. To now
> deny its importance now leads me to question why you are going this route.
>
>
> >
> > When push comes to shove, macronational law has nothing to do with the
> > edict. I am attempting to show that under our own law, this edict violates
> > the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
> >
> WHAT? Everything you and I have done when we were moderated and our rights
> directly negatively affected proved that you and I were both willing to
> have macronational law intervene if our rights were violated...so now that
> doesnt matter. Cato! Stop flip flopping. How many times did you end up
> calling Maine?
>
> >
> >
> > And all references to Yahoo!'s Terms of Service are fallacious. If they
> > were truly the basic required legal foundation of our moderation edicts,
> > then we would not even need a moderation edict of our own. When Tullia
> > Scholastica and I were praetors, we *didn't* issue a moderation edict at
> > all, we *did* use Yahoo's ToS as our guideline, and guess what? The
> > Respublica still stands! :)
> >
> I never referenced Yahoo ToS, both the consul and praetors have. To me it
> is utterly a distraction. This entire paragrpah is a distraction to you
> trying to use the provactio for a non-action that has not directly
> negatively affected you. This is just a red herring. You cannot prove you
> have been directly negatively impacted. Thus any attempt to use provactio
> is not only incorrect but is a waste of time given that NO ONE has been
> moderated.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> >
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Wait a minute...I think we are losing grip with the big picture here. We
> > > have Cato and Caupo and Scholastica complaining that their rights are
> > being
> > > violated. And, all I did was to actually bring the "REAL WORLD" back into
> > > focus that when real rights are violated....people get really tortured,
> > > killed and such. It was just a matter of convenience that Caupo served as
> > > that segway given that I made the connection between his name and South
> > > Africa.
> > >
> > > It highlights just how much of a tempest in a teacup this diversion
> > really
> > > is.
> > >
> > > Scholastica's reaction is SO over the top that well, I frankly wonder
> > about
> > > her sanity. Such a disconnect from the real world is scary.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Catoni S.P.D.

So it's a wording issue I believe I have mentioned this before, and did
not get a response from you.

Thank you for finally confirming something, this is something I can
appreciate.

First time ever you've made sense in this whole thing. This I can
understand somewhat, but I still feel it does not hamper you from posting
since you are again not moderated.

But I get it, I finally get your reasoning, does not mean I agree with your
actions, but I am coming to an understanding :)

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Caupo Sullae S.P.D.

Respectfully, I disagree with you on the question of whether private
individuals can sue the Federal Government of the United States, and I am
going to provide two very clear examples:

Example No. 1: A group of "negatively affected" private citizens of the U.S.
recently filed a lawsuit against the Federal government of the U.S. on the
grounds that they were being unfairly discriminated against by a law known
as DOMA (the 'Defense of Marriage Act'). You're familiar with it, I'm sure.
These citizens are legally married under the laws of the State of
Massachusetts, but they are not entitled to the same Federal benefits (e.g.
Social Security benefits, immigration rules, and tax laws) as heterosexual
married couples because of the restrictions of this DOMA law. They were the
ones who sued, in their private capacity, NOT the State of Massachusetts.
The Federal government has declined to defend the suit, because the Obama
administration happens to agree that the law is discriminatory. It is not as
if these individuals have not been penalized for violating any law -- they
simply feel that the existing law denies them their civil rights as
citizens. This suit is fully expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court
of the United States.

Example No. 2: Two "negatively affected" married couples, private citizens
of California, filed suit in Federal court, claiming that the approval of
Proposition 8, which led to an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
California, removing the right of same-sex couples to marry previously
guaranteed under California law, violates the equal rights clause of the
Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs were represented in
Federal court in San Francisco by Ted Olson and David Boies, two
conservative lawyers who also represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore,
and the Plaintiffs subsequently PREVAILED. The defendants in the suit, the
State of California as represented by (then) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
and (then) Attorney General Jerry Brown, declined to defend the suit. Some
concerned citizens, proponents of Prop 8, appealed. The matter is presently
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the
critical issue is whether the proposed DEFENDANTS have legal standing to
defend the case in lieu of the State of California.

What do we, the citizens of Nova Roma learn from this?

1. Private citizens DO have the right to sue the Federal Government of the
U.S. when their civil rights appear to have been impacted by legislation.
2. Their claim to be "negatively affected" by Federal laws is viewed as
potentially valid, even though they have not yet been punished for violating
the existing law. The very fact that the law in question is claimed to
remove their inalienable civil rights is considered sufficient reason to
bring the matter to trial.

Now, I bring this to your attention, not because Nova Roma is in any way
bound by U.S. Federal law, because you have repeatedly challenged citizen
Cato, stating that private citizens have no standing to sue the Federal
government. I have proved to you that you are wrong. Secondly, I have proved
to you that one does not actually have to be PUNISHED by the enforcement of
a certain law ('moderated' in our case) to have been "directly and
negatively impacted." Certain laws are already enforced by the very
restrictions that they impose upon an individual, such as the laws
prohibiting same-sex marriage. There is no 'moderation' there -- the
negative impact is the very restriction of liberties protected under the
Constitution.

Much as I felt the need to bring these logical arguments to your attention,
Sulla, I have no desire to turn this into the "Caupo & Sulla" show on this
Forum. Respectfully, you may process this information as you wish, and if
you would like to debate the matter further in private that would be
acceptable to me.

Kind regards,

Vale,

L·LVCRETIVS·CAVPO





-----Original Message-----
From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Robert Woolwine
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:12 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio - invalid

Ave,

Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
key.

Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
impacted.

This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue the
Federal Government.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
>
> AFRIKAANS
> Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief

geraak"

> deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf
> wanneer
> jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is
> die
> beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
>
> ENGLISH
> I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
> negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
> when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you

can

> say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> impact enough?
>
> Something to think about ...
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Caupo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Robert Woolwine
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> invalid
>
> Ave!
>
> Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
> me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
> NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
> now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
> one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> >
> > Vale bene,
> > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > invalid
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> >
> > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > flopping than John Kerry!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > >
> > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
> Government!
> > > What nonsense is that?
> > >
> > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > >
> > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE
> OF
> > > THE VIOLATION.
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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

Ave!

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <
caupo@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caupo Sullae S.P.D.
>
> Respectfully, I disagree with you on the question of whether private
> individuals can sue the Federal Government of the United States, and I am
> going to provide two very clear examples:
>
> Example No. 1: A group of "negatively affected" private citizens of the
> U.S.
> recently filed a lawsuit against the Federal government of the U.S. on the
> grounds that they were being unfairly discriminated against by a law known
> as DOMA (the 'Defense of Marriage Act'). You're familiar with it, I'm sure.
> These citizens are legally married under the laws of the State of
> Massachusetts, but they are not entitled to the same Federal benefits (e.g.
> Social Security benefits, immigration rules, and tax laws) as heterosexual
> married couples because of the restrictions of this DOMA law. They were the
> ones who sued, in their private capacity, NOT the State of Massachusetts.
> The Federal government has declined to defend the suit, because the Obama
> administration happens to agree that the law is discriminatory. It is not
> as
> if these individuals have not been penalized for violating any law -- they
> simply feel that the existing law denies them their civil rights as
> citizens. This suit is fully expected to go all the way to the Supreme
> Court
> of the United States.
>

So, only because the federal government refused to actually defend the law.
;) See, again not applicable. If the Government chose to actually fight
the law the standing issue would have been aired. So, again, irrelevant.

>
> Example No. 2: Two "negatively affected" married couples, private citizens
> of California, filed suit in Federal court, claiming that the approval of
> Proposition 8, which led to an amendment to the Constitution of the State
> of
> California, removing the right of same-sex couples to marry previously
> guaranteed under California law, violates the equal rights clause of the
> Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs were represented in
> Federal court in San Francisco by Ted Olson and David Boies, two
> conservative lawyers who also represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore,
> and the Plaintiffs subsequently PREVAILED. The defendants in the suit, the
> State of California as represented by (then) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
> and (then) Attorney General Jerry Brown, declined to defend the suit. Some
> concerned citizens, proponents of Prop 8, appealed. The matter is presently
> pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the
> critical issue is whether the proposed DEFENDANTS have legal standing to
> defend the case in lieu of the State of California.
>

This is a state issue not a federal government issue. Does not apply. Any
citizen can sue the state. The Federal government is a different beast.

The situation with Obamacare is the most relevant example, because it
affects the citizens...and the citizens have no recourse because we have no
standing to sue the Federal Government, thus our state governments are
forced to act on our behalf to sue the Federal Government.

Vale,

Sulla

>
> What do we, the citizens of Nova Roma learn from this?
>
> 1. Private citizens DO have the right to sue the Federal Government of the
> U.S. when their civil rights appear to have been impacted by legislation.
> 2. Their claim to be "negatively affected" by Federal laws is viewed as
> potentially valid, even though they have not yet been punished for
> violating
> the existing law. The very fact that the law in question is claimed to
> remove their inalienable civil rights is considered sufficient reason to
> bring the matter to trial.
>
> Now, I bring this to your attention, not because Nova Roma is in any way
> bound by U.S. Federal law, because you have repeatedly challenged citizen
> Cato, stating that private citizens have no standing to sue the Federal
> government. I have proved to you that you are wrong. Secondly, I have
> proved
> to you that one does not actually have to be PUNISHED by the enforcement of
> a certain law ('moderated' in our case) to have been "directly and
> negatively impacted." Certain laws are already enforced by the very
> restrictions that they impose upon an individual, such as the laws
> prohibiting same-sex marriage. There is no 'moderation' there -- the
> negative impact is the very restriction of liberties protected under the
> Constitution.
>
> Much as I felt the need to bring these logical arguments to your attention,
> Sulla, I have no desire to turn this into the "Caupo & Sulla" show on this
> Forum. Respectfully, you may process this information as you wish, and if
> you would like to debate the matter further in private that would be
> acceptable to me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Vale,
>
> L�LVCRETIVS�CAVPO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf
> Of Robert Woolwine
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:12 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> invalid
>
> Ave,
>
> Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
> answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
> think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
> key.
>
> Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
> for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
> examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
> religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
> isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
> ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
> that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
> impacted.
>
> This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
> lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
> United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
> millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
> I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
> Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
> Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue the
> Federal Government.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <
> caupo@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
> >
> > AFRIKAANS
> > Ek verstaan nie. Jy s�: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
> > negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief
> geraak"
> > deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgel� word, of deur die straf
> > wanneer
> > jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
> > voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is
> > die
> > beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
> >
> > ENGLISH
> > I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
> > negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
> > affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
> > when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you
> can
> > say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
> > impact enough?
> >
> > Something to think about ...
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Caupo
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Robert Woolwine
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > invalid
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
> > me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
> > sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
> > NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice)
> is
> > now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
> > people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
> > one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
> > <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
> > >
> > > Vale bene,
> > > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
> > > invalid
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
> > > against Obamacare right this very moment!
> > >
> > > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
> > > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
> > > flopping than John Kerry!
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
> > > >
> > > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
> > Government!
> > > > What nonsense is that?
> > > >
> > > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
> > > >
> > > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
> > > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
> > > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE
> > OF
> > > > THE VIOLATION.
> > > >
> > > > Vale bene,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [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]

Cn. Iulius Caesar consul C. Equitio Catoni consulari sal.

The state guarantees the content of a post, not the medium it is transmitted in. The medium – the language – is irrelevant. It is just the concept and thoughts Cato. That is all that is protected except when those thoughts, that information causes imminent and clear danger.

Actually, you are very wrong in my opinion. I can solve this by an edict. Forget interpreting the Constitution. I can enshrine this in an edict as the method of deriving meaning where there is no interpretative process included in a legal instrument. You already said you as consul interpreted the Constitution so clearly either you shouldn’t have done that or you feel there is a way. I have said consistently one cannot “interpret” those sections which are confused. In my method you look up the words and if it is still confused after that redaction then it is a section that is unintelligible. In such a case there is no meaning that can be ascribed and it is ignored.

My edict would not be a violation of the law. The supremacy of legal instruments in the hierarchy of I.B of the Constitution only applies in cases where there is a conflict. We all know the Constitution has no specific stated method of deducing meaning. I can establish a general procedure and not even touch the Constitution and that would be strictly within the law and my functions, and i wouldn’t have to interpret the Constitution to do so. Absence means I can. I don’t need to amend the Constitution. In fact I may add it to the agenda for this session for a discussion in the Senate and seek their advice as to whether this method makes sense. I could ask them for a Senatus consultum. I don’t even need a lex to end this.

As to you suggestion that no definition can be derived, clearly you agreed in principle then when I walked through the steps to the conclusion now you seem not to. The only ting that is unjust is retroactively setting a “punishment” in place. Look to Cincinnatus’ trial. The law did not have a provision to cater for a “defendant” who refused to turn up to his “trial”. The solution of the praetors? Invent one after the fact and fine him. Absurdly unjust and unconstitutional. Ex post facto offences are not allowed.

The Constitution says:

“No one shall suffer: a penalty for an action which was not subject to a penalty when the action was performed. If an action was subject to a penalty when the action was performed but is no longer subject to any penalty, no penalty shall be applied for that action.”

Nowhere Cato does it say in our laws that as long as it is not applied retroactively, a rule cannot be created with a punishment. The edict is entirely constitutional. You agreed with the method in principle. I showed the results. You must agree with the result?

You are missing the point about what I said. Of course the use of the language Latin isn’t a danger. No one is going to get hurt with a dative case usage. It is the thoughts contained in it. That is what the law protects, that is what cannot be restricted except in imminent and clear danger.. Concepts. The same concepts that can be conveyed in any language.

Optime vale



From: Cato
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:21 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Interpretation and the Constitution


Cato Iulio Caesari consulis sal.

This is an approach I can appreciate. Now, let's look at your redaction of the wording of the Constitution.

"Such transmitting of information, regardless of their meaning, gist or information in that transmission, may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic."

Given all that you have written, the basic question remains: does a message solely in Latin (or any other language, as the praetors have made it clear that it pertains apparently to *all* non-English languages which in itself is a questionable expansion of the edict) fulfill the requirements set by the phrase "imminent and clear danger to the Republic"?

You wrote that requiring a translation "enhances communication and aids the goal of preventing 'an imminent and clear danger to the Republic'" - and yet there is no legal definition of "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" so by what measure can we judge whether or not a translated message is inherently an enhancement of protection against it? How can we know if a box is "stronger" if we don't know what weight it's supposed to hold to begin with?

The only body capable of amending the Constitution is the People in comitia (upheld by the Senate). So, barring an actual amendment which defines what an "imminent and clear danger to the Republic" is, the burden is left to the praetors to interpret it. But they have not done so, with the result that they have created a punishment (moderation) for a crime that does not have a definition.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a desperate need for a common lexicon of terminology, definitions, etc. I also agree that a great deal of common sense can and should be used. And by your own words, using common sense, on the face of it a message solely in Latin does not pose an imminent and clear danger to the Republic.

So until such time as a common handbook of definitions/terms/etc. is created, or until such time as an edict or lex is passed which defines the crime itself, there can be no reasonable legal punishment set out.

Vale bene,

Cato





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

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

> The problem is, of course, that it does not mitigate the fact that the Constitution is being violated by creating a restriction that should not exist in the first place.

The Constitution has restrictions, and according to the Constitution the Main List is moderated. Moderation propose rules. You did not make the evidence that those rules directly and negatively impacted your citizenship rights.

To use English in order to be understood by the maximum of citizens is the contrary of a restriction. To be not understood, to be alone in a language not understantable could be a restriction.

As French native speaker, to be understood and to participate to the debates I had to practice English more than necessary in my French citizenship rights. Writing in English on such a Forum, is-it an attempt to my French citizenship rights? French is the official language of the French Republic. Why? So that the Britton may understand the Alsacian and the Alsacian may understand the Languedocian...

To write in English on this Forum to be understood by all citizens is it an attempt to my French culture and nature? Not at all, neither an attempt to my Nova Roman citizenship. Many times, if you remind it, I protested against the usage of English as Nova Roma language. Of course I would prefer the Latin becoming our national language, but it is more a dream, perhaps a nightmare for you, than right now possible.

Language is a way to communicate. If I wrote in Martian I cannot be read nor understood.

This main list is our Forum, in which any citizen has the citizenship right to be understood by the other citizens.

Now let's imagine the extreme case of someone applying to the citizenship and not able to understand English. Is it able to fulfill his citizenship application? It is not so obvious.

I remember that when in the 27 november 2007 I had to fulfill the application form to send to the praetores. I did not have understood that the mailing address was the city, street city address and I fulfilled it with my e-mail address that I yet wrote in other frame and thinking those American are stupid,- It is a French custom to think North American people as children for the best case - because they have my e-mail address by my mail. I received a praetor response in which it was explained what is a mailing address and that I had to give it to obtain the citizenship.

After that my surprise was more great in seeing that Nova Roma was an such English organization. It is not clearly said, this organization is supposed to be international. But have a look on the wiki pages. How many are in English, how many in Français, in Italiano, in Deutsh, in Esperanto, in Español, in Magyar... asking is answering.

The ML posts are predominantly written in English, almost exclusively and your rights - you are English native speaker - are suddenly directly and negatively attacked!? Have I to laugh or to cry?

When one applies to Nova Roma he/she quicly understand that he/she will learn English language in a short time. From the beginning I participate to the Main List, I saw many citizens make progress in English, none in Latin. This edict follows the tradition. You may disagree with, of course, but issuing a "provocatio" against the right to be understood by everyone in pretending your citizenship rights violated, is-it not like to claim an indecent assault, when a kid pisses to a tree?

" In Gallia non solum in omnibus civitatibus atque in omnibus pagis partibusque, sed paene etiam in singulis domibus factiones sunt..."
(C.I.Caesar,de Bello Gallico, VI, 11)

"In Gaul, not only in every state and every canton and district, but almost in each several household, there are parties..."

That seems the same in Nova Roma. :o)

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XIX Kalendas Februarias Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni S.P.D.
>
>
> Cato Caupo sal.
>
> I have been trying to get that idea through, so far unsuccessfully. I don't
> have to actually murder someone for the very act of murder to be illegal. I
> believe that the restriction demanded by the edict is, in itself, inherently a
> violation of the Constitution.
>
> ATS: Cato, you might as well be addressing a brick wall with the word
> Praetura and a couple of pictures of the praetores painted on it. There is
> absolutely no understanding of this among the praetores or (apparently) chez
> Caesar. It seems one must first be murdered in order for murder to be a
> crime. Sigh.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> Vale bene.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "L.
> Lucretius Caupo" <caupo@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
>> >
>> > AFRIKAANS
>> > Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
>> > negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief geraak"
>> > deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf
>> wanneer
>> > jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
>> > voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is >>

die

>> > beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
>> >
>> > ENGLISH
>> > I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none directly
>> > negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
>> > affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
>> > when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you can
>> > say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
>> > impact enough?
>> >
>> > Something to think about ...
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Caupo
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
>> Behalf
>> > Of Robert Woolwine
>> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
>> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
>> invalid
>> >
>> > Ave!
>> >
>> > Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to please
>> > me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
>> > sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who governed
>> > NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice) is
>> > now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
>> > people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
>> > one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
>> > <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>> >
>>> > > **
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Salve,
>>> > >
>>> > > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale bene,
>>> > > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
>>> > >
>>> > > ________________________________
>>> > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>>> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
>>> > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
>>> > > invalid
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Ave!
>>> > >
>>> > > Really?
>>> > >
>>> > > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
>>> > > against Obamacare right this very moment!
>>> > >
>>> > > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States! You
>>> > > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
>>> > > flopping than John Kerry!
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Sulla
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > > > **
>>> > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
>>>> Government!
>>>> > > > What nonsense is that?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
>>>> > > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of their
>>>> > > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY VIRTUE

OF

>>>> > > > THE VIOLATION.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Vale bene,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Cato
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >

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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae C. Equitio Catoni consulari
> S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Equitio Catoni Consularis sal:
>
> That is a good question.
>
> As you know in the beginning of this tempest, I advocated very strongly for
> revision of this Edict, so that all parties could be accommodated, and we
> could all move on to a better things.
>
> ATS: And why did you not do that very simple and useful thing?
>
> To me requesting a english translation is no harm, because if you think
> about it what if someone posts something that is a imminent and clear
> danger how are we to know, there are liability issues, how would the
> Praetors be able address such things?
>
> ATS: The very thought that anyone is going to post such a document is
> evidence of paranoia. Now paranoia is a mental illness, and those suffering
> from it should consider seeing a professional in that field. I have heard
> that those who watch a lot of TV, especially the likes of soap operas, are
> prone to this, much more so that those who sensibly abstain.
>
> Secondly, what makes you think that someone who had such thoughts in mind
> was going to translate such posts accurately? If Abdul al-Qaida wants to
> destroy The Great Satan Nova Roma, do you think he is going to translate his
> Arabic accurately, or just write something very sweet and nice, complimenting
> us on our devotion to, say, several deities he regards with loathing?
>
>
> With the requesting of a English
> translation, those types of scenarios would be knee-capped, there's a
> bigger picture to look at. With this Edict, I truly believe make that I
> know for certain my colleague was not in any capacity trying to restrict
> anyone's right to free speech (which I know perfectly well you are aware of
> despite what you repeatedly say) but to establish clearer channels of
> communication in the forum, including the area of where one could slip in
> and say actual dangerous things, it's covering one's base. Just as you are
> in your actions, one could look at it as you are covering your base "in the
> case of".
>
> ATS: Aeternia, you already have the cure for dealing with posts in Latin.
> Their names are C. Petronius Dexter, member of the Circulus Lutetiensis
> Latin-speaking group,
>
> <">http://www.youtube.com/user/circuluslatinus#p/u/10/i_EQXPwpqG0>
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/circuluslatinus#p/u/10/i_EQXPwpqG0>
>
> [now much larger than in this video] and Gualterus Graecus, PhD student in
> classics. Now if someone posts truly seditious remarks in ancient Egyptian or
> classical Greek, Gualterus is your guy. I¹m pretty sure he can read both as
> well as Latin. I¹m quite sure Petronius can read French, too. I hear you can
> read German, and maybe Spanish, so what¹s the problem? Someone is going to
> write in Inuit and Caesar has to translate it for you?
>
> Some rewording of the Edict, where we urge a strong request of providing an
> English translation may just stop all this nonsense, but if you read the
> Edict no where does it say the word *required*.
>
> ATS: There is a word required; it is the word MUST. The solution to this
> is very, very easy: drop the requirement for translation of Latin and any
> other language. You might want to add something against the outrageous
> insults your housemate posted against Caupo, insults which had absolutely no
> basis in fact and should have resulted in instant moderation, maybe with a
> post to the ML to that effect. You might also want to reconsider the
> moderation provisions on the FH, where there are Roman citizens; if memory
> serves, they may be in violation of the lex poenalis as being excessive.
> Those who have done something to merit some castigation might deserve some,
> but tarring someone with such insults merely for being a resident of a
> particular country and belonging to a given ethnic group is well beyond the
> pale.
>
> Vale bene,
> Aeternia
>
> Vale bene.
>

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae S.P.D.
>
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Lucretio Cauponi Omnibusque S.P.D.
>
> I must say Magistra, you do not give up, you oddly enough get kudos on
> that. Please see my comments below.
>
> <snippage for brevity sake>
>
>> > outrageous comment on instant and permanent moderation, if not expel him.
>>> > > However, they would prefer to regard a small part of their edictum which
>>> > > affects comparatively little of the message traffic with far greater
>> > affection
>>> > > than Gollum did his Precious, than Voldemort did the Elder Wand, instead
>> > of
>>> > > showing some sensible flexibility and amending this provision. They are
>> > here
>>> > > to prevent the likes of this, not to worry about whether Vergil was
>> > plotting
>>> > > against NR.
>>> > >
>> >
>
> SCVIA: I admit Sulla strayed off-topic (as usual)
>
> ATS: Sulla seems to spurt out the first thing that crosses his mind.
> There was ABSOLUTELY NO justification for assuming that Caupo was in any way
> involved with the tactics of the South African regime. Was Scriptrix, too?
> Gee, she lives in that country, and has a Germanic name as well.
>
>
> but so do you and quite
> often Magistra, we all seem to have a syndrome of going off-topic into many
> different directions,
>
> ATS: Not necessarily, but one must make one¹s point by using various
> devices.
>
> if nothing more it shows our diversity however
> chaotic it may be. However have you not been shouting to the roof-tops
> the Praetor's are restricting free speech? How many posts have been made
> where it clearly shows not the case hmmm?
>
> ATS: Requiring a translation of Latin or any language is insulting to it,
> and to those who use it. Maybe that hasn¹t registered yet. Cato has been
> trying very hard to convince you two of this and other matters, but so far the
> inflatable version of the GEICO gecko has been more responsive.
>
>
> I don't see how Middle Earth or
> Harry Potter has anything to do with Rome?
>
> ATS: These are comparisons, Aeternia, relating one situation to another
> well-known one. Not everything has to pertain immediately to Rome. Do the
> recent inappropriate discussions of modern alcoholic beverages pertain to
> ancient Rome? I didn¹t see a word about Falernian. There is no need for
> encouragement of such things in the presence of young people, whether or not
> minors, yet you complain when I use a well-known comparison to illustrate
> something?
>
>
> And yet here you are again
> unmoderated posting at free reign.
>
> Now I must ask Magistra because you seem quite sensitive about this much
> more than usual, is the request for an English bothers you because you
> truly feel it hampers your right to free speech, or and I recall this quite
> vividly the Junior Consul (who is also a Latin Teacher) pointed out a post
> you made that contained some nasty remarks made in Latin. He called you
> out on it did he not?
>
> ATS: Well, I don¹t recall any such thing, either his comments or mine.
> However, there are some who have merited some castigation.
>
>
> In your case Scholastica, for one whose profession
> requires the teachings of Latin words to students, requires some methods of
> translating so that they can comprehend and pass your class, is this really
> about restricting free speech in your case or the fact that now you must be
> on your p's and q's inquiring minds would like to know .
>
> ATS: Not all methods of teaching Latin rely on translating anything.
> There is one called the Nature Method which is entirely in Latin. The
> students learn by associating little pictures in the margins and such with the
> Latin words. This is very popular, and is one of two means of teaching Latin
> by assimilation. We use the other one, which includes modern vocabulary as
> the original Nature Method does not. Secondly, there is a huge difference
> between translating vocabulary words for instructional purposes and
> translating passages of private or semi-private correspondence for the
> entertainment of nosy people who think they have to read everything on a
> mailing list. Traditional method Latin instruction translates vocabulary,
> teaches grammatical principles, and presents translations of sentences and
> paragraphs, plus sentences in the speaker¹s language to be translated into
> Latin. Other methods work by repetition of sound files which accompany the
> text and written lessons to be recited by the learner. Our Assimil uses this.
>
> I might add that I have to learn Spanish by absorption in order to manage
> my classes. Several of my students are Spanish-only, and one class is very
> chatty...in Spanish. The interpreter became ill and has been missing for
> about two months, so I have to figure out what the students are saying and
> answer them. Answers are in English or Latin, but at least I can get the
> basic meaning of some of the messages in Spanish. Obviously I have no
> translation available to me, and I have never studied Spanish formally. I
> have no Spanish dictionary or textbook. Learn enough of it, however, I must.
> Our citizens can do the same with Latin...but will not make the effort if a
> translation is presented to them.
>
> Now I shall repeat what I said to Petronius. Suppose I want to address
> Latin speakers on the ML, and only Latin speakers, about something which
> pertains only to them. Now, I know the names and addresses of some, and the
> names of some others, but have no way of knowing if there are still others.
> The best way of reaching such people is to write in Latin on the ML. If I
> must disclose the content of such a message by writing it in Punic, that is a
> violation of my right to privacy (and theirs); if I write in Latin and there
> is some idiotic and unnecessary paranoia-driven requirement to translate and I
> do not comply, my right of freedom of speech is violated. Now freedom of
> speech is not absolute; it must be regulated to keep inappropriate material
> under wraps...but when the content is perfectly acceptable, there is no reason
> why I or anyone else cannot write in untranslated Latin.
>
> Paranoia is STILL a mental illness. Xenophobia is another mental issue
> due for a cure.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> Vale optime.
>

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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae S.P.D.
>
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca A. Tulliae Scholasticae Censori Praetoribus, omnibusque in foro
> S. P. D.
>
> While it is true that I am merely a secretary,
>
> ATS: Nonsense.
>
>
> and do not, to my knowledge have moderation privileges on the main forum,
>
> ATS: Praetorian scribae always have such privileges, although at
> different levels.
>
>
> I am a scriba in the Praetura, and did take note of Senator Sulla's post
> directed to L. Lucretius Caupo. I was in the process of contacting the
> Praetors for instructions, and was ready to ask Senator Sulla to refrain from
> ad hominum posts, when L. Lucretius Caupo answered his post more than
> adequately.
>
> ATS: Indeed, L. Lucretius Caupo did a fine job of answering this baseless
> insult, and in the process provided us with some very interesting historical
> information.
>
> ad hominem, accusative, not hominum, genitive plural...
>
> Unlike the Praetura in past years, our use of moderation is a last, not a
> first, resort.
>
> ATS: There are times, amica, when moderation should be the first
> resort...to allow for some heel-cooling. This is one of them. Weeping and
> wailing and rending one¹s hair and garments because someone writes in Latin
> (and is therefore wrongly perceived as subversive) is one which should never,
> ever result in moderation or anything else but commendation for making the
> effort. In fact, the very idea that anyone writing in something other than
> English is a terrorist is one which should be expunged ASAP by whatever means
> are necessary. People boarding airplanes are not terrorists, people writing
> in Cherokee are not terrorists, people speaking Latin are not terrorists...
>
> Vale et valete!
> C. Maria Caeca Scriba Praetoribus (Praetorian scribe)
>
> Vale!
>

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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae C.Equitio Catoni Omnisbusque
S.P.D.

Please see my comments below.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:52 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae C. Equitio Catoni
> consulari
> > S.P.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Equitio Catoni Consularis sal:
> >
> > That is a good question.
> >
> > As you know in the beginning of this tempest, I advocated very strongly
> for
> > revision of this Edict, so that all parties could be accommodated, and we
> > could all move on to a better things.
> >
> > ATS: And why did you not do that very simple and useful thing?
>

SCIVA: Did I issue this Edict?

>
> >
> > To me requesting a english translation is no harm, because if you think
> > about it what if someone posts something that is a imminent and clear
> > danger how are we to know, there are liability issues, how would the
> > Praetors be able address such things?
> >
> > ATS: The very thought that anyone is going to post such a document is
> > evidence of paranoia. Now paranoia is a mental illness, and those
> suffering
> > from it should consider seeing a professional in that field. I have heard
> > that those who watch a lot of TV, especially the likes of soap operas,
> are
> > prone to this, much more so that those who sensibly abstain.
>

SCIVA: Hi Kettle thine name is Black. So we're not to supposed to know the
meaning of the content of what is posted? Abudans cautela non nocet
(Abundant caution does no harm) Didn't know being cautious could morph to
being mentally ill that's a gigantic leap.

> >
> > Secondly, what makes you think that someone who had such thoughts in mind
> > was going to translate such posts accurately? If Abdul al-Qaida wants to
> > destroy The Great Satan Nova Roma, do you think he is going to translate
> his
> > Arabic accurately, or just write something very sweet and nice,
> complimenting
> > us on our devotion to, say, several deities he regards with loathing?
>

SCIVA: How are we to know if we cannot understand the content they are
posting?

>
> >
> >
> > With the requesting of a English
> > translation, those types of scenarios would be knee-capped, there's a
> > bigger picture to look at. With this Edict, I truly believe make that I
> > know for certain my colleague was not in any capacity trying to restrict
> > anyone's right to free speech (which I know perfectly well you are aware
> of
> > despite what you repeatedly say) but to establish clearer channels of
> > communication in the forum, including the area of where one could slip in
> > and say actual dangerous things, it's covering one's base. Just as you
> are
> > in your actions, one could look at it as you are covering your base "in
> the
> > case of".
> >
> > ATS: Aeternia, you already have the cure for dealing with posts in Latin.
> > Their names are C. Petronius Dexter, member of the Circulus Lutetiensis
> > Latin-speaking group,
> >
> > <">http://www.youtube.com/user/circuluslatinus#p/u/10/i_EQXPwpqG0>
> > <http://www.youtube.com/user/circuluslatinus#p/u/10/i_EQXPwpqG0>
> >
> > [now much larger than in this video] and Gualterus Graecus, PhD student
> in
> > classics. Now if someone posts truly seditious remarks in ancient
> Egyptian or
> > classical Greek, Gualterus is your guy. I¹m pretty sure he can read both
> as
> > well as Latin. I¹m quite sure Petronius can read French, too. I hear you
> can
> > read German, and maybe Spanish, so what¹s the problem? Someone is going
> to
> > write in Inuit and Caesar has to translate it for you?
>

SCIVA: Yes I speak and can read German spent many years studying the
language and exposure also when I lived in Germany as an exchange student ,
same goes for Spanish of the Borricuan (Puerto Rican) dialect, I can read
Espanol (Spanish). I'd have no problems translating if it came down to it,
I'd be more willing it seems than those who seem to do this as profession
or call themselves official linguists. I'm pretty sure my colleague would
be willing with french as well.

> >
> > Some rewording of the Edict, where we urge a strong request of providing
> an
> > English translation may just stop all this nonsense, but if you read the
> > Edict no where does it say the word *required*.
> >
> > ATS: There is a word required; it is the word MUST. The solution to this
> > is very, very easy: drop the requirement for translation of Latin and any
> > other language. You might want to add something against the outrageous
> > insults your housemate posted against Caupo, insults which had
> absolutely no
> > basis in fact and should have resulted in instant moderation, maybe with
> a
> > post to the ML to that effect. You might also want to reconsider the
> > moderation provisions on the FH, where there are Roman citizens; if
> memory
> > serves, they may be in violation of the lex poenalis as being excessive.
> > Those who have done something to merit some castigation might deserve
> some,
> > but tarring someone with such insults merely for being a resident of a
> > particular country and belonging to a given ethnic group is well beyond
> the
> > pale.
>

SCIVA: As much as I feel your personal reason for the protest is because
you'd for once actually wouldn't be able to insult someone on the sly, so
the issuer of the Edict changes the word from *must* to *should* and all of
these illusions created by yourself, Cato, Caupo, and lets not forget
Metellus, of supposed restriction of free-speech simply vanquishes? It all
comes down to just one word? (As if free-speech was even restricted in the
first place which it hasn't been that's clearly obvious) I understand you
wish to recommend your suggestions, but keep in mind they are only
suggestions not dictations.

Personally I think Caupo handled Sulla quite well, for once Sulla got as
good as he gave.

> >
> > Vale bene,
> > Aeternia
> >
>

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Equitio Catoni S.P.D.
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> That is the equivalent of saying that unless I actually get mugged then in
> *theory* the act of mugging is perfectly acceptable. It hasn't actually
> *happened* so it's OK.
>
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> ATS: It sho be, though nothing, but nothing, is registering on TPTB, new
> series. Left hemi decortication mode is in full swing.
>
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
> Vale!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ave,
>> >
>> > Having been directly negatively impacted by Praetors before, I think the
>> > answer to that is quite clear. :) So, no it really isn't anything to
>> > think about. Passing a law is just passing a law. But enforcement is the
>> > key.
>> >
>> > Each of cato's examples passing the law is bad let alone a waste of time
>> > for congress (I am not captializing them because they were used as
>> > examples)...like the wearing of the hate or making baptist the official
>> > religion of the US. But, until the law is actively enforced there really
>> > isn't much of a problem. It only becomes a problem that must be addressed
>> > ONCE IT IS ENFORCED. Which is why I have kept asking Cato for anything
>> > that would validate the claim that he has been directly negatively
>> > impacted.
>> >
>> > This is why I responded with the actual present example of the Obamacare
>> > lawsuit. If I, Robert Woolwine, had standing to sue the Government of the
>> > United States for passing Obamacare I would have joined the lawsuit with
>> > millions of fellow Americans who want that abomination repealed. Instead,
>> > I have no standing so I, like many of our citizens had to petition the
>> > Attorney General of our state to take up the cause and sue the Federal
>> > Government, because they had jurisdictional standing to proceed and sue the
>> > Federal Government.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Sulla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:05 PM, L. Lucretius Caupo <caupo@...
>>> > > wrote:
>> >
>>> > > **
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Caupo Sulla S.P.D.
>>> > >
>>> > > AFRIKAANS
>>> > > Ek verstaan nie. Jy sê: "Wat meer belangrik is, is dat geeneen direk
>>> > > negatief geraak is deur die Edik nie." Word 'n mens "direk negatief
>>> geraak"
>>> > > deur die beperkinge wat deur die Edik opgelê word, of deur die straf
>>> > > wanneer
>>> > > jy dit noodgedwonge veronagsaam? Moet jy noodwendig die straf ondergaan
>>> > > voordat jy kan beweer dat jy "direk negatief" daardeur "geraak is" of is
>>> > > die
>>> > > beperkinge op sigself alreeds negatief genoeg?
>>> > >
>>> > > ENGLISH
>>> > > I do not understand. You say "What's more important is that none
>>> directly
>>> > > negatively affected by the Edict no." Is a person "directly adversely
>>> > > affected" by the restrictions imposed by the Edict, or by the punishment
>>> > > when you forced to ignore it? Do you necessarily be punished before you

can

>>> > > say you "direct negative affected", or the limitations itself negative
>>> > > impact enough?
>>> > >
>>> > > Something to think about ...
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Caupo
>>> > >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
>>> > > Behalf
>>> > > Of Robert Woolwine
>>> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:39 PM
>>> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
>>> > > invalid
>>> > >
>>> > > Ave!
>>> > >
>>> > > Actually, if you ask anyone who knows me there is one clear way to
>>> please
>>> > > me. Be Consistent. Unfortunately, Cato is not being consistent and it
>>> > > sucks. Because I really like him. And, it sucks that the man who
>>> governed
>>> > > NR by SCU during his Consulship (mainly because he had no other choice)

is

>>> > > now trying to take on the mantle of protector of the people, when the
>>> > > people have their protectors, the Tribunes. And more importantly that no
>>> > > one has been directly negatively impacted by said edict.
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > >
>>> > > Sulla
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Robert Levee
>>> > > <galerius_of_rome@...>wrote:
>>> > >
>>>> > > > **
>>> > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Salve,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > You just can't please you with a pleasing machine Sulla!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Vale bene,
>>>> > > > Appius Galerius Aurelianus
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > ________________________________
>>>> > > > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
>>>> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>> > > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:41 PM
>>>> > > > Subject: Re: List management: was: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio -
>>>> > > > invalid
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Ave!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Really?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Then why are we not having the largest class action lawsuit going on
>>>> > > > against Obamacare right this very moment!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Instead the states are suing because we are citizens of the States!

You

>>>> > > > just agreed with this line yesterday. My G-d you are worse of flip
>>>> > > > flopping than John Kerry!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Vale,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Sulla
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > **
>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Of course a citizen of the United States can sue the Federal
>>> > > Government!
>>>>> > > > > What nonsense is that?
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Sulla, it simply cannot be any clearer:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > To make punishable an action that is a right guaranteed by the
>>>>> > > > > Constitution is a violation of citizens' rights. A violation of

their

>>>>> > > > > rights has a direct, negative impact on those citizens JUST BY

VIRTUE

>>> > > OF
>>>>> > > > > THE VIOLATION.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Vale bene,
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Cato
>>>>> > > > >

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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XIX Kalendas Februarius; hic dies endotercisus aterque est.

"Observing that the means by which the whole body of citizens, the
greater part of whom are hard to guide, can be induced to lead a life
of moderation, to prefer justice to gain, to cultivate perseverance in
hardships, and to look upon nothing as more valuable than virtue, si
not oral instruction, but the habitual practice of such employments as
lead to each virtue, and knowing that the great mass of men come to
practise them through necessity rather than choice, and hence, if
there is nothing to restrain them, return to their natural
disposition, he appointed slaves and foreigners to exercise those
trades that are sedentary and mechanical and promote shameful
passions, looking upon them as the destroyers and corruptors both of
the bodies and souls of all who practise them; and such trades were
for a very long time held in disgrace by the Romans and were carried
on by none of the native-born citizens. The only employments he left
to free men were two, agriculture and warfare; for he observed that
men so employed become masters of their appetite, are less entangled
in illicit love affairs, and follow that kind of covetousness only
which leads them, not to injure one another, but to enrich themselves
at the expense of the enemy. But, as he regarded each of these
occupations, when separate from the other, as incomplete and conducive
to fault-finding, instead of appointing one part of the men to till
the land and the other to lay waste the enemy's country, according to
the practice of the Lacedaemonians, he ordered the same persons to
exercise the employments both of husbandmen and soldiers. In time of
peace he accustomed them to remain at their tasks in the country,
except when it was necessary for them to come to market, upon which
occasions they were to meet in the city in order to traffic, and to
that end he appointed every ninth day for the markets; and when war
came he taught them to perform the duties of soldiers and not to yield
to others either in the hardships or advantages that war brought. For
he divided equally among them the lands, slaves and money that he took
from the enemy, and thus caused them to take part cheerfully in his
campaigns.

In the case of wrongs committed by the citizens against one another he
did not permit the trials to be delayed, but caused them to be held
promptly, sometimes deciding the suits himself and sometimes referring
them to others; and he proportioned the punishment to the magnitude of
the crime. Observing, also, that nothing restrains men from all evil
actions so effectually as fear, he contrived many things to inspire
it, such as the place where he sat in judgment in the most conspicuous
part of the Forum, the very formidable appearance of the soldiers who
attended him, three hundred in number, and the rods and axes borne by
twelve men, who scourged in the Forum those whose offences deserved it
and beheaded others in public who were guilty of the greatest crimes.
Such then, was the general character of the government established by
Romulus; the details I have mentioned are sufficient to enable one to
form a judgment of the rest." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, "Roman
Antiquities" 2.28-29


The Carmentalia continues today.


"From the country of the East,
Came this strong and handsome beast:
This able ass, beyond compare,
Heavy loads and packs to bear.
Now, seignor ass, a noble bray,
Thy beauteous mouth at large display;
Abundant food our hay-lofts yield,
And oats abundant load the field.
Hee-haw! Hee-haw! Hee-haw!" - traditional English tune

On this day the "Festival of the Ass" was celebrated in commemmoration
of the flight of Ioseph, Maria and Iesus out of Palestine and into
Egypt. The escape of the holy family of Iesus into Egypt was
represented by a beautiful girl holding a child at her breast, and
seated on an ass, splendidly decorated with trappings of
gold-embroidered cloth. After the procession, the ass was taken to the
church's high altar, where it remained during the religious services.
In place of the usual responses, the congregation brayed like donkeys.
At the end, the priest brayed three times instead of pronouncing the
benediction. He was answered by a general hee-hawing. The Festival of
the Ass, and other religious burlesques of a similar description,
derive their origin from Constantinople; being instituted by the
patriarch Theophylact, with the design of weaning the people's minds
from pagan ceremonies, particularly the Bacchanalean and calendary
observances, by the substitution of Christian spectacles, partaking of
a similar spirit of licentiousness, a principle of accommodation to
the manners and prejudices of an ignorant people, which led to a still
further adoption of rites, more or less imitated from the pagans.
According to the pagan mythology, an ass, by its braying, saved Vesta
from brutal violence, and, in consequence, "the coronation of the ass"
formed part of the ceremonial feast of the chaste goddess.

Valete bene!

Cato

Cato Corneliae Aeterniae preatoris sal.

Skipping the "first time" making sense bit :)

It is not a matter of hampering me from posting. It is a matter of violating a guaranteed Constitutional right.

Contrary to what Sulla thinks, it is entirely possible for the rights of citizens to be violated without them having to suffer a specific act resulting from that violation. The violation itself is a directly negative act that would *allow* further abuses with it as their foundation.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Catoni S.P.D.
>
> So it's a wording issue I believe I have mentioned this before, and did
> not get a response from you.
>
> Thank you for finally confirming something, this is something I can
> appreciate.
>
> First time ever you've made sense in this whole thing. This I can
> understand somewhat, but I still feel it does not hamper you from posting
> since you are again not moderated.
>
> But I get it, I finally get your reasoning, does not mean I agree with your
> actions, but I am coming to an understanding :)
>
> Vale bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

Sulla, I have to say that your dismissal of facts that directly and completely disprove your attempt to defend the edict is almost staggering in its blindness.

You said private citizens can't sue the government. You are wrong.

You said that a citizen must have to suffer a specific act for a law to impact that citizen negatively. You are wrong.

It's that simple.

Vale bene,

Cato