Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Mar 14-27, 2012

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87785 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87786 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87787 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87788 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87789 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87790 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87791 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87792 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87793 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87794 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87795 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87796 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87797 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87798 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: LATIN LANGUAGE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87799 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LATIN LANGUAGE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87800 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LATIN LANGUAGE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87801 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87802 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87803 From: Marcus Prometheus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87804 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87805 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87806 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87807 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87808 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87809 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Thank you for your participation in Ludi Novi Romani 2765
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87810 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87811 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87812 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87813 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87814 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87815 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87816 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87817 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87818 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87819 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: CLOSING RITUAL of the ludi Novi Romani TO PAX AND CONCORDIA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87820 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87821 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87822 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Close of the Ludi Novi Romani
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87823 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87824 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87825 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87826 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Free JSTOR for everybody!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87827 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: ADJUSTING Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87828 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87829 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: ] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87830 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: ADJUSTING Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thurs
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87831 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87832 From: R.E. Marquardt Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: Re: PRAETORIAL EDICT CPD StCVIA 65-01: MODERATION OF THE FORUM NOVAE
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87833 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: SPEAKERS IN MONDO: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thur
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87834 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: Re: SPEAKERS IN MONDO: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87835 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL R
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87836 From: publius_porcius_licinus Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: The Color Purple, Was: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87837 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: Spoken Latin videos
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87838 From: reddragon25@btinternet.com Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL R
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87839 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-18
Subject: Re: The Color Purple, Was: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 32
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87841 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-18
Subject: Socrates on trial 2008 [videorecording] : cast and story / filmed an
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87842 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87843 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Close of the Ludi Novi Romani
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87844 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: a.d. XIV Kal. Apr.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87845 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: a.d. XIV Kal. Apr.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87846 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87847 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-20
Subject: a.d. XIII Kal. Apr.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87848 From: Marcus Prometheus Date: 2012-03-20
Subject: Effects of ancient weapons on flesh and bone, with and without steel
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87849 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-21
Subject: a.d. XII Kal. Apr.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87850 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-22
Subject: a.d. XI Kal. Apr.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87853 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-23
Subject: a.d. X Kal. Apr. - THE TUBILUSTRIUM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87854 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Taxes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87855 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Re: Taxes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87856 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Re: Taxes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87857 From: Denise D. Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87858 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87859 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87860 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87861 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87862 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87863 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: New on the NR Wiki et Temple/Sanctuary on FB
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87864 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87865 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87866 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87867 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87868 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87869 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87870 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87871 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87872 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87873 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 14.49
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87874 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87875 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87876 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87877 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87878 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87879 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87880 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87881 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87882 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87883 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87884 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87885 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87886 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87887 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87888 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87889 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87890 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87891 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87892 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87893 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87894 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87895 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87896 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87897 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87898 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87899 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87900 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87901 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87902 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87903 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87904 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87905 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87906 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87907 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87908 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87909 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87910 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87911 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87912 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87913 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87914 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87915 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87916 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87917 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87918 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87919 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87920 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87921 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87922 From: Denise D. Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Transation fee
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87923 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87924 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Transation fee
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87925 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Transation fee
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87926 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Tax rates including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87927 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: RE publicizing the games.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87928 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87929 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87930 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: RE publicizing the games.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87931 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87932 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87933 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87934 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: RE publicizing the games.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87935 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87936 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87937 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87938 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87939 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87940 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87941 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87942 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87943 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87944 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87945 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87946 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87947 From: Steven "Venator" Robinson Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Venator lives, and has healed...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87948 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Classical Reading Group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87949 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87950 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87951 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87952 From: Bruno Zani Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87953 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87954 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87955 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87956 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Requesting Permission to Start Meetup
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87957 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87958 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87959 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87960 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87961 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87962 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87963 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87785 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Ave!

I wish :) that would remind me back in the days when I was in college. :)
I think its a great idea. When Tink was Curule Aedile I kept trying to get
something like this going and to give prizes to the best essay and have
them posted on the website.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Yehya <yehya_61@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve!
>
> In Plato's Symposium the participants all spoke in turn on a given subject
> and then debated the different responses. Is there any interest in
> something similar here where the participants would all post a short essay
> on a defined topic, either by name or anonymously, and then we debate the
> responses? The topic could be related to any aspect of Ancient Rome or Nova
> Roma we all agree on.
>
> Vale!
>
> Gaius Claudius
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87786 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve Claudi et omnes,



""First I would like to say it is always dangerous to try to rationalize too
much complex social dynamics because there is an important, but many times
hidden, irrational aspect in how every society behaves. In fact many time
first there is the moral norm and afterwards appears the rationalization for
it."

All too true, although I think the danger comes from trying to implement
such rationalizations. Debating and discussing them simply adds to the
discussion."



True, I wasn't saying it is dangerous or a bad idea to debate it, much on
the contrary. The danger would be in a conceptual way to expect a totally
rational behavior and in practical way to try to implement an artificial and
over rationalized society.

Valete optime,

Crassus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87787 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve!

"While this communal understanding can be observed and practiced in practical ways, it cannot and should not be legislated, first, because behavior, which can be legislated, and sometimes must be, is the product, not the source of this code, and 2nd, because attitudes, being internal, can be altered in some ways, but never forcibly, even with clubs and guns, virtual or otherwise."

Nor would I recommend legislating, or even codifying, such practices. As I mentioned in my initial post such matters as should be legislated, the structural and financial aspects, of this society are well in hand.

Unwritten codes are unwritten for a reason and are best left unwritten. But not written does not mean not discussed or not debated.

Social norms are usually unwritten and develop over time. One can not, nor should not try to, legislate the impact of morality on social norms, nor should they try to enforce against any less than egregious breeches of a code that cross the line from annoyance to destructive.

As you state Nova Roma is a virtual society incorporating segments of a diverse multi-national group. As such I would find it interesting to discuss, and debate, the various approaches to morality and virtues to find commonalities, not to force one approach on the others, but to learn from each approach.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87788 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Ave!

There is a saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :) I
kinda see it like that. We want to strike a balance because ultimately
Nova Roma is a voluntary organization. You get too controlling people will
walk away. But we cannot at the same time be paralyzed from taking
appropriate and necessary action.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Yehya <yehya_61@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve!
>
>
> "First I would like to say it is always dangerous to try to rationalize
> too much complex social dynamics because there is an important, but many
> times hidden, irrational aspect in how every society behaves. In fact many
> time first there is the moral norm and afterwards appears the
> rationalization for it."
>
> All too true, although I think the danger comes from trying to implement
> such rationalizations. Debating and discussing them simply adds to the
> discussion.
>
> Vale!
>
> Gaius Claudius
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87789 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve!

"There is a saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :) I kinda see it like that. We want to strike a balance because ultimately Nova Roma is a voluntary organization. You get too controlling people will walk away. But we cannot at the same time be paralyzed from taking appropriate and necessary action."

Interesting the responses. I enjoy debating morality and virtues to see the different approaches, the different philosophical bases, and the different influences each of us brings to the discussion. It never occurred to me that any would then seek to implement that discussion in any way, except what each of us would voluntarily retain from the discussion and incorporate as we saw fit.

As I would never seek to impose my code, my beliefs, or my moral virtues on another (nor would I expect another to follow my example) I didn't forecast the problems you all see. The responses themselves, the hesitance to discuss these issues, is in itself educational.

But to be clear I was proposing no action beyond a healthy debate of philosophical underpinnings. Debating philosophy isn't like proposing laws, or writing legislation, it is more akin to herding kittens from room to room.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87790 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salvete,

Since "Aeternia & Tinka" are the same person. Sulla remember we must try
to use my Roman moniker please.

The problem with this idea would be participation, as it is hard to get
participation for the Essay contests for the Ludi currently..

Nice idea though...

Valete bene,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87791 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salve!

"The problem with this idea would be participation, as it is hard to get participation for the Essay contests for the Ludi currently."

You, Sulla, and I would make three :) Sometimes you need to start small. No contest, no judging, no one needs even sign their name to the entry if they don't want to (I could post it for them) just a different way to get conversations started

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87792 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salve,

Me? I always support innovation in NR, is there a theme/topic these would
fall under?

Expound this idea please...


Vale bene,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87793 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salve!

"Me? I always support innovation in NR, is there a theme/topic these would fall under?"

Someone picks a topic they are interested in, as in you could pick one. It could be a functional aspect of Nova Roma, a historical aspect of Rome, philosophy, art, literature, anything that interests you that is some way related to Nova Roma.

Anyone who wants to contribute then has two weeks, or four weeks, or whatever sounds good to us to write an essay. Then we all post them to one thread, under one topic, read each others, and discuss them. Plus anyone who didn't write an essay can also discuss them, which might get them to write one the next time.

The purpose is two fold, one to encourage participation and interaction in debating interesting topics and, two, to expose each of us to new and interesting ways of looking at things.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87794 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salve et Salvete Omnes.


Thinking outside the square box. I like it.

Well, Gai Claudi, this is your idea & concept, it's fitting the first round
would be yours to start =).


Vale et Valete bene,
Aetermia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87795 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Ave!

And, I think that the essays should be posted on the website especially if
they are well written and good information essays.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Belle Morte Statia <
syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve et Salvete Omnes.
>
> Thinking outside the square box. I like it.
>
> Well, Gai Claudi, this is your idea & concept, it's fitting the first round
> would be yours to start =).
>
> Vale et Valete bene,
> Aetermia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87796 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salve!

"Well, Gai Claudi, this is your idea & concept, it's fitting the first round would be yours to start =)"

OK, I will set the first topic:

What aspect of Ancient Rome has the most relevance to our lives today?

Essays a minimum of 300 words (no maximum) and to be posted around April 14th. I will start a thread on the 14th by that title for anyone who wants to contribute to add their essay to. If you want to participate anonymously send your essay to me by that date and I will post it for you.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87797 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salvete,

Nice topic, I can see a few cives participating with topic selection. You
may also want to cross-post this idea to the FH forum, I believe there
would be a certain member of the Iulian gens who'd like to participate with
this... It would give this cive a chance to participate, he doesn't get
the chance often..


Valete bene,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87798 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: LATIN LANGUAGE
Salvete,
Here's my request: To Nova Roma's fluent Latin speakers.
On a daily basis that restarts annually, create 12 monthly levels of progressive basic speaking.

Since I, as well as many others, read NR emails daily, these lessons will build Latin speakers. However, lessons that have more than one basic (two or 3 to 5 max) daily lesson become too time consuming.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.
Example of progressive lessons:
Level 1 (Dictata Uno) - I am a man. (continue for the month)
Level 2 (Dictata Due) - I am a man who reads. (continue for the month)
Level 3 (Dictata Tre) - I am a man who likes to read. (continue for the month)
Level 4 (Dictata Quattuor) - I am a man who writes books. (continue for the month)
Level 5 (Dictata Quinque) - I am a man who has written five books. (continue for the month)
Level 6 (Dictata Sei) - I am a man who wrote five books, one on the subject of the ides of March. (continue for the month)
Level 7 (Dictata Septem) - The ides of March is on the 15th of March. (continue for the month)
Level 8 (Dictata Octo) - The ides of March is date we should honor Julius Caesar. (continue for the month)
Level 9 (Dictata Noven) - We should honor Julius Caesar because he was a great Roman leader. (continue for the month)
Level 10 (Dictata Decim) - Julius Caesar lead Rome to many victories. (continue for the month)
Level 11 (Dictata Undecim) - Many wars were fought as Rome experienced a learning curve. (continue for the month)
Level 12 (Dictata Duodecim) - Rome is a great example of how wars lead to civility as in the United States of America. (continue for the month)
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

What I'm trying relay is my request of a daily and monthly set of brief Latin lessons, that repeat annually, and gradually progress; so that in a year's time, five years time, I can converse in Latin. The basis of this request is that since I'm reading Nova Roma emails regularly, it would be an additional benefit if a system is in place.
Gratias tibi ago,
Tiberius Marcius Quadra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87799 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LATIN LANGUAGE
Salvete!

You know, a couple of years ago, Lentulus did some wonderful things on the ML with Latin grammar, built first around writing salutations. I remember 2 of his exercises, that were a lot of fun for many people, even those with some knowledge. In one, we put our names into the dative case, which is what you use to the person you are addressing in a formal salutation, and then in the vocative case, which you use in an individual greeting. I think those exercises, and the fun we had with them, encouraged some who would never have tried, to start using more complex salutations. It certainly increased my confidence. Perhaps ....?

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87800 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LATIN LANGUAGE
Iulia Ti. Marcio Quadrae C. Mariae Caecae Quiritibusque S.P.D

Excellent initiative! Quadra, would you volunteer to coordinate it, say every six months, so new citizens could take advantage as well? You might be able to get Magistra, Lentulus, Petronius, Placidus and Hadrianus to contribute as well, this way it is not left to one.

Caeca, that was fun, here is the link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/69920?var=1&l=1

At novaroma.org there is quite a bit of beginning material on Latin salutations and simple phrases:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Latin_phrasebook
http://novaroma.org/nr/Latin_for_e-mail

In addition, Magistra Scholastica mentioned that her new classes will begin in the fall (I think).

Vale, et valete,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> You know, a couple of years ago, Lentulus did some wonderful things on the ML with Latin grammar, built first around writing salutations. I remember 2 of his exercises, that were a lot of fun for many people, even those with some knowledge. In one, we put our names into the dative case, which is what you use to the person you are addressing in a formal salutation, and then in the vocative case, which you use in an individual greeting. I think those exercises, and the fun we had with them, encouraged some who would never have tried, to start using more complex salutations. It certainly increased my confidence. Perhaps ....?
>
> Valete bene!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87801 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Iulia G. Claudio Axenrotho Quiritibusque S.P.D

An ambitious project to be sure and I thank you for serving the respublica by volunteering to administer it! I am beyond pleased that you are not just offering ideas but also availing yourself to see it through. I look forward to what transpires:)

Just an fyi, if you wish to address the entire group use the plural "Salvete", "Salve" is when you are speaking to one person. You may also use "Salve, et salvete", to one and all.

Gai Claudi, I look forward to many good things from you in the future!

Vale, et valete,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Yehya" <yehya_61@...> wrote:
>
> Salve!
>
> "Well, Gai Claudi, this is your idea & concept, it's fitting the first round would be yours to start =)"
>
> OK, I will set the first topic:
>
> What aspect of Ancient Rome has the most relevance to our lives today?
>
> Essays a minimum of 300 words (no maximum) and to be posted around April 14th. I will start a thread on the 14th by that title for anyone who wants to contribute to add their essay to. If you want to participate anonymously send your essay to me by that date and I will post it for you.
>
> Vale!
>
> Gaius Claudius
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87802 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Iulia C. Mariae Caecae Aedili Curuli Ceteris Scribis Bonae Voluntatis Quiritibusque S.P.D

Plurimas gratias vobis for a most splendid Ludi! Much gratitude to all for volunteering to serve the respublica!
Congratulations to all the winners of the games, you participation serves the respublica as well! Optime factum! [very well done]
Vivat Res Publica nostra prosperrime!

The Gods of Nova Roma have once again been honored – and as in past years – this proves that despite problems we rally together!
Dis gratias! [rich thanks]


Vale, et Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> Congratulations, all you very smart people! Thanks, also for participating! You are all far more brave than I am! Canine, you need to contact me, please, I need info from you ...and *you* have a choice to make!
>
> Valete Bene!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87803 From: Marcus Prometheus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
http://vimeo.com/32038695


Rome Reborn 2.2: A Tour of Ancient Rome in 320 CE
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer> [image:
plus]<http://vimeo.com/frischer>
4 months ago
See all <http://vimeo.com/frischer/videos/sort:date>Show me
Bernard Frischer's videos

<http://vimeo.com/32079453>
19. A Digital Restoration of the Portrait of Epicurus
�<http://vimeo.com/32079453>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
3 months ago
18. Rome Reborn 2.2: A Tour of Ancient Rome in 320 CE
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
4 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/30021107>
17. Caligula Toga Praetexta <http://vimeo.com/30021107>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
5 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/30020285>
16. Caligula with Toga Purpurea <http://vimeo.com/30020285>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
5 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/30016140>
15. Augustus of Prima Porta <http://vimeo.com/30016140>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
5 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/29679846>
14. 3D Model of the Augustus of Prima Porta <http://vimeo.com/29679846>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
5 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/29679547>
13. The Lansdowne Hercules <http://vimeo.com/29679547>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
5 months ago
<http://vimeo.com/15808133>
12. Rome Reborn 2.1: A View of the Current State of
th�<http://vimeo.com/15808133>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
1 year ago
<http://vimeo.com/11805593>
11. Rome Reborn 2.1: A Tour Through Ancient Rome <http://vimeo.com/11805593>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
1 year ago
<http://vimeo.com/11502620>
10. Rome Reborn 2.1: A tour of the ancient city in A.D.
320<http://vimeo.com/11502620>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
1 year ago
<http://vimeo.com/9413637>
9. The Roman Forum - Part 2 <http://vimeo.com/9413637>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
2 years ago
<http://vimeo.com/9413076>
8. The Roman Forum - Part 1 <http://vimeo.com/9413076>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
2 years ago
<http://vimeo.com/9408030>
7. The Early Building History of the Basilica of Sant�<http://vimeo.com/9408030>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
2 years ago
<http://vimeo.com/9407401>
6. A Roman Villa in Malibu - Part 4 <http://vimeo.com/9407401>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
2 years ago
<http://vimeo.com/9406916>
5. A Roman Villa in Malibu. A Guided Tour by Prof. Be�<http://vimeo.com/9406916>
by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
2 years ago
This video presents a fly-through of the latest version of Rome Reborn
(2.2). The new version incorporates some new content (including the
Pantheon) and for the first time includes animations.

Rome Reborn is an international initiative to create a 3D digital model of
the ancient city as it might have appeared in A.D. 320. For more about the
project, please see:
romereborn.virginia.edu<http://www.romereborn.virginia.edu/>
.

For more information, contact the project director, Prof. Bernard Frischer
at:bernard.d.frischer@...; cell +1-310-266-0183


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87804 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Ave Julia!

Hmmm ...that doesn't sound as ... familiar as your usual greeting to me, LOL! I might only add this. What the Aedilician cohors does in producing and presenting the Ludi is only half of the equation. In order for them to be successful and memorable ...the other half, your active participation, is absolutely essential ...so, thank each and every one of you who participated in any way, shape or form ...and get ready ...we aren't done by a long shot! April is going to be almost, but not quite, a 30 day party! Can you stand it? Are you brave enough? Strong enough? (big smile) We'll find out!

Vale et valete omnes!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87805 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts
Iulia Quiritibusque S.P.D

Cicero believed that natural law had predominance over governmental laws. This did not mean that if a person broke a law he would not be culpable but that careful judgment based on the variables of the case, not subjective prejudices etc, are necessary for justice. Societies are judged on many factors but how they treat each other, particularly the elderly, infirm and dead, count greatly in how their humanity is perceived by others.

Meminerimus etiam adversus infimos justitiam esse servandam.
[Let us remember that justice must be observed even to the lowest.]
Cicero, De Natura Deorum (45 BC), III. 15

Observantior æqui
Fit populus, nec ferre negat, cum viderit ipsum
Auctorem parere sibi.
[The people become more observant of justice, and do not refuse to submit to the laws when they see them obeyed by their enactor.]
Claudianus, De Quarto Consulatu Honorii Augusti Panegyris, CCXCVII.

Arma tenenti
Omnia dat qui justa negat.
[He who refuses what is just, gives up everything to him who is armed.]
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, Pharsalia, I. 348.

Curate ut valeatis optime!

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87806 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Ave Maria!

And you totally missed my greeting done in the accusative! There you were referred to as "caecam". *laughs* I have been practicing!

Looking forward to April of course!

I shall be performing ritual as I always do for Venus on the Veneralia, April 1st. You should come up *laughs* it would be so much fun to see you awake at 4 am!!! But I think you would enjoy it.

Vale dahlin'

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Julia!
>
> Hmmm ...that doesn't sound as ... familiar as your usual greeting to me, LOL! I might only add this. What the Aedilician cohors does in producing and presenting the Ludi is only half of the equation. In order for them to be successful and memorable ...the other half, your active participation, is absolutely essential ...so, thank each and every one of you who participated in any way, shape or form ...and get ready ...we aren't done by a long shot! April is going to be almost, but not quite, a 30 day party! Can you stand it? Are you brave enough? Strong enough? (big smile) We'll find out!
>
> Vale et valete omnes!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87807 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae Aedili Curuli Omnibusque S.P.D.

Congratulations to our Curule Aedile and to the Aedilician Cohors for a
fantastic Ludi, their continuing efforts of hard work and creativity never
cease to amaze me.

Many kudos, for it was truly smashing =)


Valete quam Optime,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87808 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
Salve!

These are wonderful!

Gratias tibi!

Vale optime

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Prometheus <marcusprometheus@...> wrote:
>
> http://vimeo.com/32038695
>
>
> Rome Reborn 2.2: A Tour of Ancient Rome in 320 CE
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer> [image:
> plus]<http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 4 months ago
> See all <http://vimeo.com/frischer/videos/sort:date>Show me
> Bernard Frischer's videos
>
> <http://vimeo.com/32079453>
> 19. A Digital Restoration of the Portrait of Epicurus
> Â…<http://vimeo.com/32079453>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 3 months ago
> 18. Rome Reborn 2.2: A Tour of Ancient Rome in 320 CE
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 4 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/30021107>
> 17. Caligula Toga Praetexta <http://vimeo.com/30021107>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 5 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/30020285>
> 16. Caligula with Toga Purpurea <http://vimeo.com/30020285>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 5 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/30016140>
> 15. Augustus of Prima Porta <http://vimeo.com/30016140>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 5 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/29679846>
> 14. 3D Model of the Augustus of Prima Porta <http://vimeo.com/29679846>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 5 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/29679547>
> 13. The Lansdowne Hercules <http://vimeo.com/29679547>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 5 months ago
> <http://vimeo.com/15808133>
> 12. Rome Reborn 2.1: A View of the Current State of
> thÂ…<http://vimeo.com/15808133>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 1 year ago
> <http://vimeo.com/11805593>
> 11. Rome Reborn 2.1: A Tour Through Ancient Rome <http://vimeo.com/11805593>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 1 year ago
> <http://vimeo.com/11502620>
> 10. Rome Reborn 2.1: A tour of the ancient city in A.D.
> 320<http://vimeo.com/11502620>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 1 year ago
> <http://vimeo.com/9413637>
> 9. The Roman Forum - Part 2 <http://vimeo.com/9413637>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 2 years ago
> <http://vimeo.com/9413076>
> 8. The Roman Forum - Part 1 <http://vimeo.com/9413076>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 2 years ago
> <http://vimeo.com/9408030>
> 7. The Early Building History of the Basilica of SantÂ…<http://vimeo.com/9408030>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 2 years ago
> <http://vimeo.com/9407401>
> 6. A Roman Villa in Malibu - Part 4 <http://vimeo.com/9407401>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 2 years ago
> <http://vimeo.com/9406916>
> 5. A Roman Villa in Malibu. A Guided Tour by Prof. BeÂ…<http://vimeo.com/9406916>
> by Bernard Frischer <http://vimeo.com/frischer>
> 2 years ago
> This video presents a fly-through of the latest version of Rome Reborn
> (2.2). The new version incorporates some new content (including the
> Pantheon) and for the first time includes animations.
>
> Rome Reborn is an international initiative to create a 3D digital model of
> the ancient city as it might have appeared in A.D. 320. For more about the
> project, please see:
> romereborn.virginia.edu<http://www.romereborn.virginia.edu/>
> .
>
> For more information, contact the project director, Prof. Bernard Frischer
> at:bernard.d.frischer@...; cell +1-310-266-0183
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87809 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Thank you for your participation in Ludi Novi Romani 2765
M. Pompeius Caninus Omnibus in foro S.P.D.

I would like to thank the citizens who have participated in these games. I received a total of 22 entries from 17 citizens in the Circenses! That was a great turn out for the first chariot races of the year. Another four citizens participated in the Certamen Historicum. Thank you. Citizen participation makes the work worthwhile and is really the only true gauge of success for the games. I look forward to seeing even greater levels of participation through the rest of the year.

Optime valete! 

M. Pompeius Caninus
America Boreoccidentalis
Vivat Nova Roma! 
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87810 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Caeca Juliae sal!

You want to see me awake ...and I assume coherent at *what* time??????? Um ...yeah, OK, LOL! Not even the *birds* are awake at 4 AM ...except the mockingbird outside my window, perhaps.

Vale et valete!
Maria

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87811 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: LUDI NOVI ROMANI 2765- Certamen Mythologicum Winners!
Caeca Aeterniae sal!

Don't forget to pat yourself on the back, too ...and take a deep breath! We have ...work to do!

Vale et valete!
CMC

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87812 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
On this Ides of March, allow me to begin the Speak Latin Initiative. How to participate. I will write a sentence. The Latin speakers of Nova Roma will translate; I will write another sentence, speakers of NR will translate, and this process will continue forever.

SPEAK LATIN (Narro Latin)
Tiberius Marcius Quadra's name can be written Ti. Marci Quadra. He reads and writes emails.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87813 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-14
Subject: Re: Symposium
Salvete,
My answer: Public senate and litigation. 
Ti. Marci Quadra

________________________________
From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:53 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Symposium


 
Salve!

"Well, Gai Claudi, this is your idea & concept, it's fitting the first round would be yours to start =)"

OK, I will set the first topic:

What aspect of Ancient Rome has the most relevance to our lives today?

Essays a minimum of 300 words (no maximum) and to be posted around April 14th. I will start a thread on the 14th by that title for anyone who wants to contribute to add their essay to. If you want to participate anonymously send your essay to me by that date and I will post it for you.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87814 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
C. Petronius Ti. Marquae Quiritibusque salutem,

>>> On this Ides of March, allow me to begin the Speak Latin Initiative. How to participate. I will write a sentence. The Latin speakers of Nova Roma will translate; I will write another sentence, speakers of NR will translate, and this process will continue forever.<<<

This forum is not the ground of such exercices. As you know in this forum we write we do not speak. If you want to speak Latin you must use something like Skype and speak with Latin speakers of Nova Roma in a Skype group.

Now for writing in Latin in Nova Roma, you may meet the NR Latin writers in 2 fora.
First Latinitas:
Latinitas@yahoogroups.com

secondly Nova Roma Latina:
Nova-Roma-Latina@yahoogroups.com

I suggest all those interested to write or read Latin to join these fora.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Martiis Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87815 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
C. Petronius C. Claudio salutem,

One of the first mos maiorum virtue is to be honest. When I read such mails that you wrote since you join the ML, I wonder if you are such a new citizen that you claimed. You seem more experienced on what could be Nova Roma than a new citizen is. If I remember the mos maiorum, the new citizens in ancient Rome, the tirones, wanted to learn more throught the elders, they did not come in the Forum with their wishes about the society, they were more modest.

A second mos maiorum virtue is to be frank. But as everyone, in Nova Roma is behind a internet screen everyone imagines more than knows who is writting, and everybody may write exactly the contrary that he thinks. The anonymous of internet permits many things.

So, I think that sharing an internet society we must to write our laws and our constitution. The mos maiorum does not work on an internet society, because the Internet is virtual not virtuous.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Idibus Martiis Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87816 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
How do I address the person who prefers to keep the spoken Latin by whatever means, written, dead?

 
I don't blame him, because if I wanted to keep a language among a privileged few, I too would prevent the slightest chance of the language to be practiced.

Let me ask Dexter: if those of us who do want to practice writing Latin here, would that be a violation of any kind? Considering the numerous arguments I read that seem aimless, I'm sorry, I see no harm in Nova Romans reviving Latin in this forum.
Cordially,

Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday


 
C. Petronius Ti. Marquae Quiritibusque salutem,

>>> On this Ides of March, allow me to begin the Speak Latin Initiative. How to participate. I will write a sentence. The Latin speakers of Nova Roma will translate; I will write another sentence, speakers of NR will translate, and this process will continue forever.<<<

This forum is not the ground of such exercices. As you know in this forum we write we do not speak. If you want to speak Latin you must use something like Skype and speak with Latin speakers of Nova Roma in a Skype group.

Now for writing in Latin in Nova Roma, you may meet the NR Latin writers in 2 fora.
First Latinitas:
Latinitas@yahoogroups.com

secondly Nova Roma Latina:
Nova-Roma-Latina@yahoogroups.com

I suggest all those interested to write or read Latin to join these fora.

Optime valete.

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87817 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C.Petronio Dextro S.P.D.

As I just have made a post to the Latinitas list, and now in waiting for my
message to approved..

Perhaps people are making posts to the Latin lists, and their posts are
just stuck in pending land?

Maybe this is the reason why there are stronger attempts for Latin to be on
the ML?

There is a connection. And I have a feeling my own post will be pending
land for quite some time.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87818 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve!
"One of the first mos maiorum virtue is to be honest. When I read such mails that you wrote since you join the ML, I wonder if you are such a new citizen that you claimed. You seem more experienced on what could be Nova Roma than a new citizen is. If I remember the mos maiorum, the new citizens in ancient Rome, the tirones, wanted to learn more throught the elders, they did not come in the Forum with their wishes about the society, they were more modest."

I am completely new to Nova Roma and, yes, honesty is important both to the Mos and in all aspects of life. It has always been my policy to be upfront and honest in all my dealings

Am I more experienced on what Nova Roma could be then a new citizen. should be? Interesting question, or opinion if not a question. And should I be here to learn, and not to challenge or question? I will try to answer directly.

Although new to Nova Roma, and and all aspects of Ancient Roman restoration societies, I am not new to the internet, philosophical thought, religion, or life. I am 50, not 20, and have been discussing and debating these issues on the internet, in one forum or another, for many years.

Do I have a vision for what Nova Roma could be? Yes.

Is it appropriate for me, as a tirone, to have such a vision? Maybe not. It certainly isn't modest, as you point out, yet modesty is not a virtue I have attained yet.

Is my vision consistent with what the leaders of Nova Roma, and the majority of its members are comfortable with? I am unsure and that is one aspect I want to learn.

Should I be here to learn from my elders? Yes, if you want to define the learning process for me. My method of learning is to post on a topic and learn from the responses. Perhaps not modest but I have found it effective. So to learn about the Mos I construct a virtual one, not to be adopted or implemented, but to learn from the responses. To understand the vision of Nova Roma I post my own, not for others to accept or reject but to be debated so I can learn from the responses.

I think it is a matter of style and perhaps my style is inappropriate but sitting quietly and waiting for pearls of wisdom to drip out never worked for me. What I try to do is turn the faucet on as there is a lot of wisdom here.

"A second mos maiorum virtue is to be frank. But as everyone, in Nova Roma is behind a internet screen everyone imagines more than knows who is writing, and everybody may write exactly the contrary that he thinks. The anonymous of internet permits many things."

The internet can hide a multitude of sins which makes honesty even more important. That's why I try to answer every question straight out.

"So, I think that sharing an internet society we must to write our laws and our constitution. The mos maiorum does not work on an internet society, because the Internet is virtual not virtuous."

I disagree. If the Mos Maiorum is simply another name for a set of social norms governing a society, and what we have on the internet is a virtual society, than a version of the Mos Maiorum will develop naturally.

Each of us, in our own life, develops our own set of rules we live by. Usually they are based on existing social norms in the society where we live, religious instructions, our own life experiences, and conscious decisions based on study and reflection. What I hoped to bring out, and learn from, were others experiences, rules, codes, and basis for moral thought. Not to implement them for others but for my own edification. Perhaps not modest but it is how I learn.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87819 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: CLOSING RITUAL of the ludi Novi Romani TO PAX AND CONCORDIA
Salvete aqtue avete, Quirites!

This is the text of the ritual I conducted yesterday to ritually close the ludi Novi Romani, celebrating the 14th anniversary of the founding of the Res Publica Nova Romana, a ritual for Pax and Concordia.

Quirites, if Nova Roma means anything to you, please join into my prayers with your own home rituals, and pray the Peace and Concordance may rule in Nova Roma by creative social cooperation, sense of community and comradeship, sense of togetherness, towards our mission, the restoration ancient Roman religion, culture and virtues.

Together, for our community, together, for our Roman future, together, for a change!

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

CLOSING SACRIFICE TO PAX AND CONCORDIA POPULI NOVI ROMANI QUIRITIUM

Favete linguis!

(Beginning of the sacrifice.)

1. PRAEFATIO

Dea Pax,
Pax Novae Romae,
Pax Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Pax Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Pax civium Novorum Romanorum,
Pax deorum et mortalium,
te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor,
uti sies volens propitia Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
mihi, domo, familiae!

[Goddess Pax,
the Peace of Nova Roma,
the Peace of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
the Peace of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
the Peace of the Nova Roman citizens,
the Peace of the gods and the mortals,
by offering you this incense, I pray good prayers so
that you may be benevolent and propitious
to the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to me, to my household and to my family.]

(Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)

Dea Concordia,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia civium Novorum Romanorum,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor,
uti sies volens propitia Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
mihi, domo, familiae!

[Goddess Concordia,
the Concordance of Nova Roma,
the Concord of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
the Concordance of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
the Concordance of the Nova Roman citizens,
the Concord of the gods and the mortals,
Goddess of peace and welfare of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
by offering you this incense, I pray good prayers so
that you may be benevolent and propitious
to the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to me, to my household and to my family.]

(Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)

Dea Pax,
Pax Novae Romae,
Pax Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Pax Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Pax civium Novorum Romanorum,
Pax deorum et mortalium,
uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte lacte inferio esto!"

[Goddess Pax,
the Peace of Nova Roma,
the Peace of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
the Peace of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
the Peace of the Nova Roman citizens,
the Peace of the gods and the mortals,
as by offering you the incense I have well prayed good prayers,
for the very same reason be thou blessed by this sacrificial milk.]

(Libation of milk is made.)

Dea Concordia,
Concordia Novae Romae,
Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Concordia civium Novorum Romanorum,
Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Dea pacis et salutis et gloriae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte lacte inferio esto!"

[Goddess Concordia,
the Concordance of Nova Roma,
the Concord of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
the Concordance of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
the Concordance of the Nova Roman citizens,
the Concord of the gods and the mortals,
Goddess of peace and welfare of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
as by offering you the incense I have well prayed good prayers,
for the very same reason be thou blessed by this sacrificial milk.]

(Libation of milk is made.)

2. PRECATIO

Pax et Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Pax et Concordia Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
Pax et Concordia Novae Romae,
Pax et Concordia deorum et mortalium,
Deae salutis et gloriae Senatus Populique Novi Romani,
hoc die ultimo ludorum Novorum Romanorum,
vos precor, veneror, quaesoque obtestorque:
uti pacem concordiamque et iustitiam constantem societati Novae Romae tribuatis;
utique Rem Publicam Populi Novi Romani Quiritium confirmetis, augeatis, adiuvetis,
omnibusque discordiis liberetis;
utique Res Publica Populi Novi Romani Quiritium semper floreat;
atque hoc anno anniversarii quarti decimi Novae Romae conditae convalescat;
atque pax et concordia, salus et gloria Novae Romae omni tempore crescat,
utique omnes qui se Romanos nominant unificetis,
unum populum unamque gentem omnes qui se Romanos nominant faciatis,
unum populum in Nova Roma omnes Romanos hodiernos colligatis;
utique Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
mihi, domo, familiae
omnes in hoc anno quinto decimo Novae Romae eventus bonos faustosque esse siritis;
utique sietis volentes propitiae
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
magistratibus, censoribus, consulibus, praetoribus Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
tribunis Plebis Novae Romanae,
Senatui Novo Romano,
Collegio Pontificum,
omnibus civibus, viris et mulieribus, pueris et puellabus Novis Romanis,
mihi, domo, familiae!

[Peace and Concordance of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
Peace and Concord of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
Peace and Concordance of Nova Roma,
the Peace and Concord of the gods and the mortals,
Goddesses of peace, welfare and glory of the Senate and the People of Nova Roma,
on this last day of the New Roman Games
I pray, worship, ask and beseech you so
that you may grant peace and steadfast concord to the society of Nova Roma;
so that you may confirm, strengthen and help
the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
and save it from all discord;
so that the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites
may always flourish and prosper,
and in this year of the 14th anniversary may get even stronger;
that peace and concord, the welfare and glory of Nova Roma may increase all the time;
and that you may unite all people who call themselves Roman,
make them who call themselves Roman one people and one nation,
collect together all modern Romans as one nation united into Nova Roma;
and that you allow all events in this now starting 15th year of Nova Roma to be good and salutary
to the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to me, to my household and to my family;
and so that you may be benevolent and propitious
to the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the magistrates, the censors, consuls, the praetors of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the tribunes of the Nova Roman Plebs,
to the Nova Roman Senate,
to the College of Pontiffs,
to all Nova Roman citizens, men and women, boys and girls,
to me, to my household and to my family.]

3. SACRIFICIUM

Sicut verba nuncupavi,
quaeque ita faxitis,
uti ego me sentio dicere:
harum rerum ergo macte
his quattuordecim libis libandis,
hoc lacte melle mixto libando,
hoc ture ommovendo
estote fitote volentes propitiae
et hoc anno anniversarii quarti decimo Novae Romae conditae et semper
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
magistratibus, consulibus, praetoribus Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
tribunis Plebis Novae Romanae,
Senatui Novo Romano,
omnibus civibus, viris et mulierbus, pueris et puellabus Novis Romanis,
mihi, domo, familiae!

[As I have these words pronounced,
you shall do exactly
what I mean I am saying:
for all these reasons, thou blessed
by offering these 14 liba,
by offering this milk with honey,
by offering this incense
be benevolent and propitious
both in this year of the 14th anniversary of the founding of Nova Roma and always,
to the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the magistrates, the consuls, the praetors of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
to the tribunes of the Nova Roman Plebs,
to the Nova Roman Senate,
to the College of Pontiffs,
to all Nova Roman citizens, men and women, boys and girls,
to me, to my household and to my family.]

(Libation of 14 liba, milk with honey is made and incense is
sacrificed.)

4. SACRIFICE TO MARS

Mars Pater,
cuius mensis et feriae hodie sunt,
earundem rerum ergo
macte vino inferio esto fito volens propitius
Populo Novo Romano Quiritibus,
Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
mihi, domo, familiae!

[Father Mars,
whose month and festival is today,
for the very same reasons
be thou blessed by offering you this sacrificial wine,
and be benevolent and propitious
to the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of the Quirites,
to me, to my household and to my family.]

(Libation of wine is made)

Ilicet!

(End of the sacrifice.)

5. PIACULUM

Iane,
Pax, Concordia Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,
Iuppiter Optime Maxmime,
Iuno, Minerva, Mars,
Omnes Di Immortales quocumque nomine:
si quidquam vobis in hac caerimonia displicet,
hoc vino inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio.

[Ianus,
Pax, Concordia of the Nova Roman People of Quirites,
Iuppiter, the Best and Greatest,
Iuno, Minerva, Mars,
All Gods Immortal by whathever name I may call you:
if anything in this ceremony was displeasing to you,
with this sacrificial wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.]

(I offered incense on the altar and poured a libation of wine on the altar.)



VIVAT NOVA ROMA ANNORUM XIV !!!

NOVA ROMA XIV !!!

Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus
P O N T I F E X
SACERDOS CONCORDIAE


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87820 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve Claudi et omnes,



For my part I like your questions and willing to debate and to think what we
are and what we want to achieve.



It wasnÂ’t the way I learned about Nova Roma but for each one his own ways. I
only hope to see you also giving contributions and thoughts and not only
questions. But that will probably will happen in the symposium project you
are starting.



Valete optime,

Crassus



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Yehya
Sent: quinta-feira, 15 de Março de 2012 09:27
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum







Salve!
"One of the first mos maiorum virtue is to be honest. When I read such mails
that you wrote since you join the ML, I wonder if you are such a new citizen
that you claimed. You seem more experienced on what could be Nova Roma than
a new citizen is. If I remember the mos maiorum, the new citizens in ancient
Rome, the tirones, wanted to learn more throught the elders, they did not
come in the Forum with their wishes about the society, they were more
modest."

I am completely new to Nova Roma and, yes, honesty is important both to the
Mos and in all aspects of life. It has always been my policy to be upfront
and honest in all my dealings

Am I more experienced on what Nova Roma could be then a new citizen. should
be? Interesting question, or opinion if not a question. And should I be here
to learn, and not to challenge or question? I will try to answer directly.

Although new to Nova Roma, and and all aspects of Ancient Roman restoration
societies, I am not new to the internet, philosophical thought, religion, or
life. I am 50, not 20, and have been discussing and debating these issues on
the internet, in one forum or another, for many years.

Do I have a vision for what Nova Roma could be? Yes.

Is it appropriate for me, as a tirone, to have such a vision? Maybe not. It
certainly isn't modest, as you point out, yet modesty is not a virtue I have
attained yet.

Is my vision consistent with what the leaders of Nova Roma, and the majority
of its members are comfortable with? I am unsure and that is one aspect I
want to learn.

Should I be here to learn from my elders? Yes, if you want to define the
learning process for me. My method of learning is to post on a topic and
learn from the responses. Perhaps not modest but I have found it effective.
So to learn about the Mos I construct a virtual one, not to be adopted or
implemented, but to learn from the responses. To understand the vision of
Nova Roma I post my own, not for others to accept or reject but to be
debated so I can learn from the responses.

I think it is a matter of style and perhaps my style is inappropriate but
sitting quietly and waiting for pearls of wisdom to drip out never worked
for me. What I try to do is turn the faucet on as there is a lot of wisdom
here.

"A second mos maiorum virtue is to be frank. But as everyone, in Nova Roma
is behind a internet screen everyone imagines more than knows who is
writing, and everybody may write exactly the contrary that he thinks. The
anonymous of internet permits many things."

The internet can hide a multitude of sins which makes honesty even more
important. That's why I try to answer every question straight out.

"So, I think that sharing an internet society we must to write our laws and
our constitution. The mos maiorum does not work on an internet society,
because the Internet is virtual not virtuous."

I disagree. If the Mos Maiorum is simply another name for a set of social
norms governing a society, and what we have on the internet is a virtual
society, than a version of the Mos Maiorum will develop naturally.

Each of us, in our own life, develops our own set of rules we live by.
Usually they are based on existing social norms in the society where we
live, religious instructions, our own life experiences, and conscious
decisions based on study and reflection. What I hoped to bring out, and
learn from, were others experiences, rules, codes, and basis for moral
thought. Not to implement them for others but for my own edification.
Perhaps not modest but it is how I learn.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87821 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve Crassus,

"For my part I like your questions and willing to debate and to think what we are and what we want to achieve.
It wasn't the way I learned about Nova Roma but for each one his own ways. I only hope to see you also giving contributions and thoughts and not only questions."

Me offer my own opinions? Kind of like expecting birds to fly or fish to swim. I am not only too opinionated, and given of sharing them, but over fond of the sound of my own voice. I try to keep it on the good side of boorishness but I do probably overstep at times and do not get insulted if taken to task for it. I like to debate, probably appear too sure of myself and my opinions but am always open to listening, learning, and changing, and can be too pushy at times. So while I may appear to strongly take a position I am always open to being challenged and to learning if the challenger has a better argument. My goal is never to "win" the debate but arrive at a better, more honest, or more truthful understanding of the topic under discussion

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87822 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Close of the Ludi Novi Romani
EX OFFICIO

I, C. Maria Caeca Curulis Aedilis in Nova Roma, declare the Ludi Novi Romani closed.

3/15 2765 A.U.C.
Cn. Iulius Caesar, C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus Cos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87823 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve Crassus

"I would say a moral action is one which seems to contribute to the benefit and/or social cohesion of the society within a long time span so it is fixed in the moral custom. I mean moral custom isn't a casuistic matter and usually it is absolute. It is wrong to rob someone no matter the circumstances (at least from the same society if it from other society as you have said in other post it is good and it is called plunder). For something to become part of the moral custom it needs to be considered good or bad for the most of the society for long time and gradually it is fixed in the moral code. So I can't use the formula if it contributes for social cohesion it is moral to decide the moral action."

I did want to answer this I just wanted to clear up the matter of motives for discussing these issues first.

I think you make some good points about why things are adopted into a moral code but are there moral absolutes? In other words is theft immoral across all moral codes? I think it is and I think underlying the many different moral codes are some basic universal moral principles. But what is the source of these principles?

The most common source for many moral codes is in "divine" origin. The ten commandments are just one example of a basic moral code masquerading as being of such origins (hope I didn't just insult anyone's beliefs) as a commandment from God. Yet to accept divine origin as a source, given the commonality of many basic moral principles, would require either the acceptance of a commonality of divine origins across multiple religious disciplines and beliefs or point to some other origin. I tend to prefer the latter interpretation.

So what is the correct origin? I believe basic moral principles developed evolutionary using the criteria stated above, in that actions that resulted in social cohesion were adopted by primitive man and the social groups that adopted these basic moral principles survived, and that groups that failed to adopted them did not survive. Later they were codified and given divine sanction.

Does this matter if both you and I agree that theft is morally wrong? No probably not for practical reasons, we both agree on the outcome, but I find it interesting in the discussion of adoption of moral codes.

Is the internet community that mush different as a social dynamic from primitive man? Although survival as a social group is not a matter of life and death as it was to tribal societies internet communities do also grow or perish in part based on the moral codes they adopt.

Vale
Gaius Axenrothus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87824 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C.Claudio S.P.D.


I must say Gai Claudi, most likely you are a new citizen with a extensive
knowledge of Ancient Rome, but you do remind me of another citizen it's
truly uncanny. One of our Tribunes, V. Valerius Volusus, shares very
similar traits and interests as you do. He seems to be away for a bit, but
if he were present on the lists as of now. One could say he would have
found a twin , hopefully Volusus will rejoin us, the two of you conversing
would be an interesting sight to see and fantastic dialogue.

Just a few thoughts.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87825 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Praetor Ti.Marcio Quadrae S.P.D.

Quick question for Ti. Marci, have you joined either of the Latin lists? I
understand they moderate new coming members, my own Latinitas post finally
did appear (although I am confused as to why I was stuck in pending land,
after being a member of that particular list for three years is slightly
beyond me). Are you a member, have you tried making posts at all?

To get to the grit of your questions..

There is a Moderation Edict in effect for this year, in case you missed the
memo I'll provide you the link to it if required.

Also, I do not believe anyone wants to hamper you or anyone else from
using Latin on this forum (we just request a English translation to
accompany it). What my fellow Praetor may have tried to stress was with
the exercises you propose, would be well suited in a more structured
environment where there are other Latinists to offer support, knowledge,
and their expertise.

Plus a resurgence of a non-active list, never a bad notion.


Vale Optime,
Aeternia


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87826 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Free JSTOR for everybody!
Salvete By decree of the Censors we hereby give free JSTOR to everybody! http://about.jstor.org/rr Ok so it is JSTOR who is giving away. But I guy can try , right? :) Valete Paulinus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87827 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: ADJUSTING Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
Salve Aeternia, et al,

Yes; I joined both of the Latin lists yesterday, posted my first elementary sentence, and have yet to get better acquainted with the aspects of the two lists (?are they named Latinitas, and Nuntii Latini).  

Yes; please provide the link for the Moderation Edict for this year.

My tendency to want to get my way combined with my passion leads me to have a "whatever it takes" approach. So if I slip and use this forum for my Latin practice, where I'm not supposed too, my apologies.

To mark and date for my mental awareness, I am connected with NOVA ROMA, Latinitas, and Nuntii Latini. Are these the correct names and order of the three groups?

I get the nuance of proper place for specific activities.
Gratius tibi ago,

Tiberius Marcius Quadra


________________________________
From: Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday


 
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Praetor Ti.Marcio Quadrae S.P.D.

Quick question for Ti. Marci, have you joined either of the Latin lists? I
understand they moderate new coming members, my own Latinitas post finally
did appear (although I am confused as to why I was stuck in pending land,
after being a member of that particular list for three years is slightly
beyond me). Are you a member, have you tried making posts at all?

To get to the grit of your questions..

There is a Moderation Edict in effect for this year, in case you missed the
memo I'll provide you the link to it if required.

Also, I do not believe anyone wants to hamper you or anyone else from
using Latin on this forum (we just request a English translation to
accompany it). What my fellow Praetor may have tried to stress was with
the exercises you propose, would be well suited in a more structured
environment where there are other Latinists to offer support, knowledge,
and their expertise.

Plus a resurgence of a non-active list, never a bad notion.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87828 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
Cn. Lentulus scriba aedilicius Quiritibus: S. P. D.


Citizens and visitors, I am proud to announce you the final results and rankings of the Certamen Latinum of the Ludi Novi Romani, celebrating the 14th Anniversary of our beloved Nova Roman Republic.

This was the page of the Certamen Latinum, with all info:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani/MMDCCLXV/Certamen_Latinum

Let's see those answers that were kept unpublished until this moment:

Answer #8
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani/MMDCCLXV/Certamen_Latinum#Answers_8

Answer #9
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani/MMDCCLXV/Certamen_Latinum#Answers_9

Answer #10
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani/MMDCCLXV/Certamen_Latinum#Answers_10


CLSOING THE CERTAMEN LATINUM


First of all, thank YOU, all who participated in the Certamen Latinum, even if not in all questions! I think it was worth to answer even if one question. But those who participate in all 10 questions, even if they did not notice it, but they have now become real Latinists. We went through all the hardest and most difficult parts of the Latin language. There is no monster in this grammar that you would not have seen and killed in this certamen. This means that from now you must not fear Latin anymore.

You are just some steps away from complete knowledge of Latin grammar. Keep studying this language - I will help you if you ask me privately.

Keep studying: you have to make some efforts, on vocabulary, on completing the missing grammar. But there is no barrier that you could not jump over - once you have gone through this certamen this far.

So, let's not delay the most exciting part anymore.

WHO IS THE WINNER OF THE CERTAMEN LATINUM of 2765 AUC?

...

...

...


1. THE WINNER OF THE CERTAMEN LATINUM:


P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus!!!

CONGRATULATIONS!

Placidus again, that's impressive! He has been triumphs unbeaten for years now as winner of the Certamen Latinum! It will be a REAL challenge to win over Placidus next time - because be sure that there will be a next time for revenge :)

2. THE SECOND PLACE GOES TO:

A. Liburnius Hadrianus!!

He is proven to be a very fine Latinist, and jus with a little effor Hadrianus would easily become a star Latinist of Nova Roma. His performace was extraordinary and exquisite! Congratulations to A. Liburnius!

3. THE THIRD PLACE GOES TO:

L. Aelia Corva!

A brand new citizen, unknown to many, but from now she is the bronze medal Latinist of the New Roman Games, a princess of the Latin language, emerging and soon demanding the throne. Very well done, Aelia, please accept our deepest admiration and respect. Congratultions! And welcome to your new home: Nova Roma!

And now, let's see all rankings and points:


RANKINGS - FINAL RESULTS


http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Novi_Romani/MMDCCLXV/Certamen_Latinum#Final_Results

1st Place: P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus - 484 pts; (Participated in all questions)
2nd Place: A. Liburnius Hadrianus - 473.5 pts; (Participated in all questions)
3rd Place: L. Aelia Corva - 466; (Participated in all questions)
4th Place: V. Aemilia Regilla - 446 pts; (Participated in all questions)
5th Place: M. Pompeius Caninus - 329 pts; (Participated in 8 questions)
6th Place: Ti. Valeria Celeris - 166 pts; (Participated in 5 questions)
7th Place: St. Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia - 12 pts; (Participated in 1 question)

This was an epic competition indeed!
A. Liburnius fought himself from the lower places slowly up entirely to the second place, and while Placidus did not started as first, he managed himself to crown this year, too.
Aemilia Regilla was first for 5 turns, than slowly went back to the 4 place, nontheless glorious, and close to first three ones. She must count now among the number of the bests.
M. Pompeius Caninus was excellent and he had all the chances to win this certamen, but, unfortunatelly he did not sent in the last two questions -- the same thing happened last year. So we still can't know how far he could have gone. May be now he would be the first?
Valeria Celeris performed excellently until she withdrew from the race, but we hope next time we can welcome her again in the certamen! We are grateful she participated, a new citizen.
And Cornelia Aeternia praetrix showed example to the citizenry that it's worth trying a contest even if you just jump in for one turn. Thank to the praetrix for participating!

THANK YOU ALL WHO WATCHED US AND FOLLOWED THIS CERTAMEN LATINUM!

LONG LIVE LATIN!

LONG LIVE NOVA ROMA!

LONG LIVE THE LATIN NOVA ROMA!



Valete!

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus,
scriba aedilis curulis Mariae Caecae
magister sodalitatis Latinitatis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87829 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: ] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
Salvete Omnes!

My congratulations to all who participated in this Certamen! You all have my absolute and humble admiration! In other words, you all are rock stars! I will be contacting our Plebeian Aedile very soon, with news that I think he will like!

I would also like to thank Lentulus for providing this certamen for our games. As always, he has outdone himself! And ...I'm going to brag, so be warned! I have the absolute best cohors in Nova Roma, and I appreciate each and every one of them more than I can say!

Again, congratulations to all!

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87830 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-15
Subject: Re: ADJUSTING Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thurs
Sta. Cornelia Aeterni Ti. Marci Quadrae Omnibusque S.P.D.

Please see my comments below..


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve Aeternia, et al,
>
> Yes; I joined both of the Latin lists yesterday, posted my first
> elementary sentence, and have yet to get better acquainted with the aspects
> of the two lists (?are they named Latinitas, and Nuntii Latini).
>

Aeternia- The Nuntii Latini is an online radio station (which it is awesome
and I'm huge fan) the Latin lists for Nova Roma are the following
Latinitas@yahoogroups.com and the second Nova Roma Latina:
Nova-Roma-Latina@yahoogroups.com which I recall quite vividly both my
colleague and myself have pointed you in that direction many times in the
last few weeks.

>
> Yes; please provide the link for the Moderation Edict for this year.
>

Aeternia- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/86665

>
> My tendency to want to get my way combined with my passion leads me to
> have a "whatever it takes" approach. So if I slip and use this forum for my
> Latin practice, where I'm not supposed too, my apologies.
>

Aeternia- Everyone has a "want" but not one can always "do" that want or
what we want it is how life is . There is nothing wrong with having
passion, if you don't have passion for an interest/hobby then why bother
doing it? Although I think you are taking my words slightly out of
context hence why I feel you should actually read this Edict, I understand
you want to learn and speak Latin and there is nothing wrong with that.
However like any other language you learn as a second,third, fourth (etc)
you have to have discipline, sure translations can be provided to your
requests but hopefully you are also retaining the knowledge. But since
you display such passion and vigor Ti. Marci, I'm sure you are giving your
Latin studies an extreme amount of discipline with a balance of tender care.

>
> To mark and date for my mental awareness, I am connected with NOVA ROMA,
> Latinitas, and Nuntii Latini. Are these the correct names and order of the
> three groups?
>

Aeternia- See my answer in the previous statement above, way above...

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87831 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday
C. Petronius Ti. Quadrae salutem,

> How do I address the person who prefers to keep the spoken Latin by whatever means, written, dead?

You do not know me well. You address the person who speaks Latin in a Latin circle since four years now, and writes Latin everyday since thirty years. I am just working on my long seventh opus. I practice Latin since many years and I do not know you as a Latin speaker.

But, as I said, if you want learn it and meet Latin speakers of Nova Roma you must join the lists I gave you the links.

> I don't blame him, because if I wanted to keep a language among a privileged few, I too would prevent the slightest chance of the language to be practiced.

If you want to practice it, join the groups I said and search a Latin circle around you.

> Let me ask Dexter: if those of us who do want to practice writing Latin here, would that be a violation of any kind? Considering the numerous arguments I read that seem aimless, I'm sorry, I see no harm in Nova Romans reviving Latin in this forum.

This Forum is for everybody not for some with their own hobbies making others apart. If you write Latin in this Forum, you have to accompagn your Latin with a English translation because few people understand Latin, many people think to write latin something absolutely no Latin, and the goal of this main list is to have debate and discuss between citizens with the same chances to understand and participate.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87832 From: R.E. Marquardt Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: Re: PRAETORIAL EDICT CPD StCVIA 65-01: MODERATION OF THE FORUM NOVAE
Salve Dexter, Aeternia, et omnes,
I have read, understand, and agree to Praetorial Moderation Edict for the Forum Novae Romae.
Sincerely,
Tiberius Marcius Quadra

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Dexter praetor Novis Romanis Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit:
>
> ----------------------
> Ex Officio Praetoris Novae Romae:
>
> PRAETORIAL EDICT CPD StCVIA 65-01:
> MODERATION EDICT FOR THE FORUM NOVAE ROMAE (AKA MAIN LIST OR ML)
>
> We, Gaius Petronius Dexter and Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia, praetores of Nova Roma for the year MMDCCLXV, in the hope of promoting a more free and lively, yet well-ordered, setting for the gathering and interaction of those who are citizens, including probationary citizens, of Nova Roma within our principal forum, Forum Novae Romae (also known as The Main List or The ML), http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma, promulgate the following edict for civil conduct within the Forum Novae Romae:
>
> 1. Citizens are reminded that the ML is a moderated list, and all posts sent to the ML must conform with the requirements and restrictions of the Yahoo Terms of Service (ToS) (available in summary form here: http://groups.yahoo.com/local/guidelines.html).
>
> 2. Citizens are reminded that the ML is not classified as an adult group and should govern their choice of language accordingly to comply with the restrictions imposed by the Yahoo ToS. Additionally citizens should be aware that posts that may be considered defamatory, libelous or otherwise injurious could give rise to a cause of action either within Nova Roma under any current relevant leges, or macronationally in courts of competent jurisdiction and should therefore govern themselves accordingly.
>
> 3. Prohibited, disruptive or offensive conduct/language, or a combination thereof, as defined by either Yahoo ToS and/or the Praetors, will be dealt with by warnings and/or imposed moderation. The Praetors are not bound by precedent in deciding these matters, which will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 4. Serious consideration will be taken of any apology or explanation in defense of a behavior for which a penalty may be or has been considered by the Praetura with the understanding that, ultimately, the decision of the Praetores, subject to all legal forms of redress and veto within the Res Publica, will be considered final.
>
> 5. All posts will be expected to be signed by the poster's Roman name. Latin openings and closings will be welcome but not mandatory. More information about the use of Latin in email is given here: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Latin_for_e-mail
>
> 6. Except for the openings and closings, all Latin text posted on the ML must be accompanied by an English translation so that those less familiar with Latin will be able to understand it.
>
> This edict shall take effect immediately.
>
> DATVM A. D. VI IDVS IANVARIAS MMDCCLXV A.V.C.
> CN. IVLIO CAESARE C. TVLLIO VALERIANO CONSVLIBVS
> [8 January 2012]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87833 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-16
Subject: SPEAKERS IN MONDO: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thur
Ti. Quadra C. Petronius salutem,

I'm starting to get it. 

I'm starting to realize more people speak Latin fluently, that I've found - Finland and Austria; than I thought Latin only existed in the Vatican anymore.

What does Arcoiali scribebat mean?

Gratius tibi ago,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:57 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday


 
C. Petronius Ti. Quadrae salutem,

> How do I address the person who prefers to keep the spoken Latin by whatever means, written, dead?

You do not know me well. You address the person who speaks Latin in a Latin circle since four years now, and writes Latin everyday since thirty years. I am just working on my long seventh opus. I practice Latin since many years and I do not know you as a Latin speaker.

But, as I said, if you want learn it and meet Latin speakers of Nova Roma you must join the lists I gave you the links.

> I don't blame him, because if I wanted to keep a language among a privileged few, I too would prevent the slightest chance of the language to be practiced.

If you want to practice it, join the groups I said and search a Latin circle around you.

> Let me ask Dexter: if those of us who do want to practice writing Latin here, would that be a violation of any kind? Considering the numerous arguments I read that seem aimless, I'm sorry, I see no harm in Nova Romans reviving Latin in this forum.

This Forum is for everybody not for some with their own hobbies making others apart. If you write Latin in this Forum, you have to accompagn your Latin with a English translation because few people understand Latin, many people think to write latin something absolutely no Latin, and the goal of this main list is to have debate and discuss between citizens with the same chances to understand and participate.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87834 From: Gaius Petronius Dexter Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: Re: SPEAKERS IN MONDO: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012
C. Petronius Ti. Quadrae salutem,

> Ti. Quadra C. Petronius salutem,

You must use the dative "Petronio".

> What does Arcoiali scribebat mean?

Scribebat is the imperfect of scribo and means "he wrote".
Arcoiali is the locative of Arcoialum, the Galloroman name of the town in which I live.

So "Arcoiali scribebat" means "He wrote in Arcoialum/Arcueil."

Optime vale.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XVI Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss


----- Message d'origine -----
De : Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
À : "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 16 mars 2012 17h07
Objet : SPEAKERS IN MONDO: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPEAK LATIN - March 15, 2012 Thursday


> Ti. Quadra C. Petronius salutem,
> I'm starting to get it.
> I'm starting to realize more people speak Latin fluently, that I've found - Finland and Austria; than I thought Latin only existed in the Vatican anymore.
> What does Arcoiali scribebat mean?
>Gratius tibi ago,
>Ti. Marci Quadra



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87835 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL R
Salve, aedilis!

Thank you very much, and my warmest congratulations to Placidus!

Also to Liburnius for place 2 and Aelia for place 3!

VALETE!
Lentulus

--- Ven 16/3/12, C. Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...> ha scritto:

Da: C. Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Venerdì 16 marzo 2012, 02:25








 









Salvete Omnes!



My congratulations to all who participated in this Certamen! You all have my absolute and humble admiration! In other words, you all are rock stars! I will be contacting our Plebeian Aedile very soon, with news that I think he will like!



I would also like to thank Lentulus for providing this certamen for our games. As always, he has outdone himself! And ...I'm going to brag, so be warned! I have the absolute best cohors in Nova Roma, and I appreciate each and every one of them more than I can say!



Again, congratulations to all!



Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca



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






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87836 From: publius_porcius_licinus Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: The Color Purple, Was: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 320
Porcius Licinus Marco Prometheo omnibusque SPD

Many thanks for posting the links to the videos of the extraordinary work done by the project Rome Reborn. The digital recreation of the ancient city gives an impression that is delightfully different from the way it is typically portrayed in film.

My attention was drawn to the recreation of the sculture of the Emperor Caligula, in these videos.

http://vimeo.com/30021107
http://vimeo.com/30020285

I presume the colors in the digital image are as close as can be approximated to the pigments used on the statuary. I realize that this shade would be slightly different from that of the actual garments the emperor would wear, as it would be wildly impractical to paint statuary with the most expensive dye in common use for dying the finest garments. However, I would expect the artist to match the color of the garments as best he could with the materials available to him.

On my monitor, the color of the toga comes across as plum. That was a little bit of a surprise to me, as I had been led to believe that Tyrian Purple was closer to a red, as described in Wikipedia and other places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

In older films, this was depicted as a brighter, more modern purple.

So, my question for the forum is, does anyone here have a more definitive reference for the Tyrian purple that was used by the senators and later the emperor? Pliny mentioned the dye as being the color of "clotted blood", but I presume it may have looked much different on a dyed garment. Have there been any modern recreations using dye extracted from snails, even as museum pieces?

My thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this mystery.

Vale et Valete!

P Poricus Licinus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87837 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: Spoken Latin videos
 
A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus tantum bonae voluntatis, praesertim T.
Marcio Quadrae, S.P.D.

Have been battling mail problems and other issues...these seemed to be
of interest on Latinitas, so perhaps may interest others here.

    The following are some fairly short videos of assorted Latinists
speaking Latin.  

        http://www.youtube.com/user/circuluslatinus#p/u/10/i_EQXPwpqG0

    This is of our Petronius Dexter and a much smaller kernel of the
Parisian Circulus Latinus, or Latin speaking group.  The first gentleman
uses the Italian pronunciation of Mento¹s favorite Latin word, and the rest
may have a little French accent.  The Latin is very simple and written on
the screen, so is easy to follow.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=KDg70dIbDUw

   This is a bit longer, featuring former NR citizen A. Gratius Avitus,
founder of the Sermo Latinus courses we teach.  He is a prominent European
Latinist from Spain who lives in London, and is well-known for his fluency
in spoken and written Latin.  Here he discusses his courses, which were then
at the Academia Thules.  The vocabulary may prove difficult, especially
since the text is not onsite, though part is available in the all-Latin
journal Melissa.  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggmssbaGKc&feature=channel

    This third one is of our Cn. Cornelius Lentulus reading the Declaration
of Nova Roma in Latin.  The text is also displayed on the screen, so should
be easy to follow, though this is much longer.  Lentulus also has some
related videos which might be of interest to some of you.  

And this last one is of a well-known professor from Germany or Monaco,
Valafridus Stroh; he has numerous videos, many quite long. I tried to pick
a short one especially as he is very histrionic (even in our class video of
a Latinists¹ convention), and that might not be to everyone¹s taste.

   :45
ew.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CFT_I3VLY

    This may not work as is and probably will have to be copied into your
browser.  The first two w¹s  of www. did not copy and the copied text did
not allow me to add them.  Will retype this:
<www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CFT_I3VLY>  but in the original Arial one cannot
distinguish capital I from lower case L, so my retyping might not work,
either.  If you like this, you might want to Google his other videos.

Several other Latinists have videos online, and I believe one of
Valafridus¹ has a second European Latinist, Gaius Licoppe, the publisher of
the Latin journal Melissa, in it as well.

There are many Latin speakers throughout Europe and the United States,
as well as some in unexpected places, such as Hong Kong and Tokyo. Our
school video has Latinists from Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Italy,
Spain, Hungary, Russia, Bulgaria, and the United States, to mention only
some of the countries represented in this convention video. Italy even
provided some schoolgirls practicing their Latin with their teacher. Of
course if you want to see this (and hear the various pronunciations of Latin
therein represented), you must take our assimilation method courses and
persist until this is made available late in the course ... but there are
many videos online of Latinists reciting various texts which the interested
might find to their liking.


    Valete!  




.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87838 From: reddragon25@btinternet.com Date: 2012-03-17
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL R
1. Aelia Corva Cn. Cornelio Lentulo omnibusque in foro S P D



I just wanted to say "thank you" – or rather "gratias
tibi ago" for all the work you must have put in for the Certamen
Latinum. I particularly appreciated the time you must have spent on
correcting my mistakes! I don't think my brain has worked so hard
for many yearsÂ…..



It has given me confidence to continue with my Latin studies and I
really look forward to learning more.



So many thanks to you.



Di te incolumem custodiant.



Vale et valete bene!





L. Aelia Corva









--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
<cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Salve, aedilis!
>
> Thank you very much, and my warmest congratulations to Placidus!
>
> Also to Liburnius for place 2 and Aelia for place 3!
>
> VALETE!
> Lentulus
>
> --- Ven 16/3/12, C. Maria Caeca c.mariacaeca@... ha scritto:
>
> Da: C. Maria Caeca c.mariacaeca@...
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum -
FINAL RESULTS
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Venerdì 16 marzo 2012, 02:25
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete Omnes!
>
>
>
> My congratulations to all who participated in this Certamen! You all
have my absolute and humble admiration! In other words, you all are rock
stars! I will be contacting our Plebeian Aedile very soon, with news
that I think he will like!
>
>
>
> I would also like to thank Lentulus for providing this certamen for
our games. As always, he has outdone himself! And ...I'm going to brag,
so be warned! I have the absolute best cohors in Nova Roma, and I
appreciate each and every one of them more than I can say!
>
>
>
> Again, congratulations to all!
>
>
>
> 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]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87839 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-18
Subject: Re: The Color Purple, Was: Digital reconstruction of ancient Rome 32
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica P. Porcio Licino M. Prometheo quiritibus bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Porcius Licinus Marco Prometheo omnibusque SPD
>
> Many thanks for posting the links to the videos of the extraordinary work done
> by the project Rome Reborn. The digital recreation of the ancient city gives
> an impression that is delightfully different from the way it is typically
> portrayed in film.
>
> My attention was drawn to the recreation of the sculture of the Emperor
> Caligula, in these videos.
>
> http://vimeo.com/30021107
> http://vimeo.com/30020285
>
> I presume the colors in the digital image are as close as can be approximated
> to the pigments used on the statuary. I realize that this shade would be
> slightly different from that of the actual garments the emperor would wear, as
> it would be wildly impractical to paint statuary with the most expensive dye
> in common use for dying the finest garments. However, I would expect the
> artist to match the color of the garments as best he could with the materials
> available to him.
>
> ATS: Paint and dye are two different entities, and what might color wool
> very successfully might not touch marble. The artist would try to match the
> colors he or she saw, but perceptions differ, too.
>
> On my monitor, the color of the toga comes across as plum. That was a little
> bit of a surprise to me, as I had been led to believe that Tyrian Purple was
> closer to a red, as described in Wikipedia and other places:
>
> ATS: From what I have read in the past (when I was investigating ancient
> clothing), Tyrian purple was highly variable in color, ranging from about
> cranberry red through magenta (the color in the swatch on the wiki article)
> through something like our purple. Fabric was also double-dyed (as noted in
> the article), and then had a much darker color. In Latin, this was called
> dibaphus, and was highly prized. The basic dye could also be watered down to
> produce lilac and pinkish hues.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple
>
> In older films, this was depicted as a brighter, more modern purple.
>
> So, my question for the forum is, does anyone here have a more definitive
> reference for the Tyrian purple that was used by the senators and later the
> emperor? Pliny mentioned the dye as being the color of "clotted blood", but I
> presume it may have looked much different on a dyed garment. Have there been
> any modern recreations using dye extracted from snails, even as museum pieces?
>
> ATS: The article says that some modern attempts have been made; as you
> probably know, both the original source and the inferior substitute one were
> exterminated, though a gentler means could have provided the dye without
> killing the provider thereof. The passenger pigeons might have appreciated
> kinder treatment, too.
>
> People¹s color perceptions differ, just as their taste in colors does.
> Some have an extra set of cone cells, as I understand it, and in all of us
> perception will change over time as the lens and cornea develop darkening and
> cataracts, etc., etc. Some people can hear at dolphin and whale frequencies,
> and some cannot. There is a wide range of variation. Clotted blood doesn¹t
> do it for me, but maybe Pliny liked it; that color sounds more like dibaphus.
>
> My thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this mystery.
>
> Vale et Valete!
>
> P Poricus Licinus
>
> Vale et valete!
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87841 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-18
Subject: Socrates on trial 2008 [videorecording] : cast and story / filmed an
Salvete FYI https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/39408 Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87842 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve Claudi et omnes,



This would give an very good debate although I think we both are more or
less on the same page.



Sadly IÂ’m with very little time at the moment.



Plato also stipulated the existence of the absolutes including the moral
ones without the need of a supreme creator, so it can be argued for the
existence of good without having religion in the mixture ;)



I agree with you on how social conducts are incorporated in the moral code
of the societies. I would also like to stress the fact that usually the
behaviors take a lot of time to be incorporated in the moral code of the
society but after they are there it is almost impossible to remove them even
if change to have a negative effect. More since in ancient times there
werenÂ’t that much competition between societies (they werenÂ’t much
difference from their immediate neighbors) not only the behaviors that
promote the competitively of the society were incorporated as also were
neutral or negative ones.



Is there a Good and an Evil? Absolutes equal to all mankind? I would say no
unless the ones that would lead to the survival or extinction of our specie.



Does this mean that I consider everything valid or all moral codes to be
equals? No, one thing is to say in the conceptual way how the moral codes
may have developed other thing is to accept that because they have the same
principle behind all are equally valid.



One of the reasons I have joined NR is because I consider us to be the heirs
of what was made in ancient Greece and Roma. And I feel we, in the so called
Western world, are losing our cultural identity and what makes us different
from the rest of the world and we do need to return to our cultural roots
and rediscover ourselves once more. That doesnÂ’t mean we need to convert and
impose our ways to the rest of the world but we should esteem and struggle
for our own ways. One of the aspects of the difference is the concept of
citizen with the inherit obligations and rights.



I love very much the books “The History of Government” by S. E. Finer that
describes the several ways of government of different societies from ancient
times to more recent, sadly he died before ending the books so the more
modern ones are lacking. But these books are somewhat boring because without
counting with the ancient Greece and Rome almost every society and type of
the government are slightly variations of the same absolute ruler (not so
absolute due to practical reasons) and subjects. When the concept of
citizenship appears it is a fresh innovation and that only happen around
page 300 of the first book! And sadly disappears soon enough. Nevertheless I
strongly recommend these books.



There are a lot more I would like to say on these and other matters but alas
time is lacking.



Valete optime,

Crassus



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Yehya
Sent: quinta-feira, 15 de Março de 2012 15:02
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum






Salve Crassus

"I would say a moral action is one which seems to contribute to the benefit
and/or social cohesion of the society within a long time span so it is fixed
in the moral custom. I mean moral custom isn't a casuistic matter and
usually it is absolute. It is wrong to rob someone no matter the
circumstances (at least from the same society if it from other society as
you have said in other post it is good and it is called plunder). For
something to become part of the moral custom it needs to be considered good
or bad for the most of the society for long time and gradually it is fixed
in the moral code. So I can't use the formula if it contributes for social
cohesion it is moral to decide the moral action."

I did want to answer this I just wanted to clear up the matter of motives
for discussing these issues first.

I think you make some good points about why things are adopted into a moral
code but are there moral absolutes? In other words is theft immoral across
all moral codes? I think it is and I think underlying the many different
moral codes are some basic universal moral principles. But what is the
source of these principles?

The most common source for many moral codes is in "divine" origin. The ten
commandments are just one example of a basic moral code masquerading as
being of such origins (hope I didn't just insult anyone's beliefs) as a
commandment from God. Yet to accept divine origin as a source, given the
commonality of many basic moral principles, would require either the
acceptance of a commonality of divine origins across multiple religious
disciplines and beliefs or point to some other origin. I tend to prefer the
latter interpretation.

So what is the correct origin? I believe basic moral principles developed
evolutionary using the criteria stated above, in that actions that resulted
in social cohesion were adopted by primitive man and the social groups that
adopted these basic moral principles survived, and that groups that failed
to adopted them did not survive. Later they were codified and given divine
sanction.

Does this matter if both you and I agree that theft is morally wrong? No
probably not for practical reasons, we both agree on the outcome, but I find
it interesting in the discussion of adoption of moral codes.

Is the internet community that mush different as a social dynamic from
primitive man? Although survival as a social group is not a matter of life
and death as it was to tribal societies internet communities do also grow or
perish in part based on the moral codes they adopt.

Vale
Gaius Axenrothus





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87843 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Close of the Ludi Novi Romani
C. Aemilius Crassus C. Mariae Caecae Curuli Aedili omnibusque SPD,



A little late I know but I would like to give my sincere congratulations to
Caeca , all her team and everyone who have participated for these wonderful
Ludi. IÂ’m only sorry to not have been able to participate more.



Valete optime.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of C. Maria Caeca
Sent: quinta-feira, 15 de Março de 2012 12:11
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Close of the Ludi Novi Romani





EX OFFICIO

I, C. Maria Caeca Curulis Aedilis in Nova Roma, declare the Ludi Novi Romani
closed.

3/15 2765 A.U.C.
Cn. Iulius Caesar, C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus Cos.

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87844 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: a.d. XIV Kal. Apr.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XIV Kalendas Aprilis; hic dies nefastus publicus est.

"After a one day interval, the rites of Minerva are performed,
Which take their name from the sequence of five days.
The first day is bloodless, and sword fights are unlawful,
Because Minerva was born on that very day.
The next four are celebrated with gladiatorial shows,
The warlike goddess delights in naked swords.
Pray now you boys and tender girls to Pallas:
He who can truly please Pallas, is learned.
Pleasing Pallas let girls learn to card wool,
And how to unwind the full distaff.
She shows how to draw the shuttle through the firm
Warp, and close up loose threads with the comb.
Worship her, you who remove stains from damaged clothes,
Worship her, you who ready bronze cauldrons for fleeces.
If Pallas frowns, no one could make good shoes,
Even if he were more skilled than Tychius:
And even if he were cleverer with his hands
Than Epeus once was, he'll be useless if Pallas is angry.
You too who drive away ills with Apollo's art,
Bring a few gifts of your own for the goddess:
And don't scorn her, you schoolmasters, a tribe
So often cheated of its pay: she attracts new pupils:
Nor you engravers, and painters with encaustics,
Nor you who carve the stone with a skilful hand.
She's the goddess of a thousand things: and song for sure:
If I'm worthy may she be a friend to my endeavours.
Where the Caelian Hill slopes down to the plain,
At the point where the street's almost, but not quite, level,
You can see the little shrine of Minerva Capta,
Which the goddess first occupied on her birthday.
The source of the name is doubtful: we speak of
`Capital' ingenuity: the goddess is herself ingenious.
Or is it because, motherless, she leapt, with a shield
From the crown of her father's head (caput)?
Or because she came to us as a `captive' from the conquest
Of Falerii? This, an ancient inscription claims.
Or because her law ordains `capital' punishment
For receiving things stolen from that place?
By whatever logic your title's derived, Pallas,
Shield our leaders with your aegis forever." - Ovid, Fasti III

"I begin to sing of Pallas Athena, the glorious goddess, bright-eyed,
inventive, unbending of heart, pure virgin, saviour of cities,
courageous, Tritogeneia. From his awful head wise Zeus himself bare
her arrayed in warlike arms of flashing gold, and awe seized all the
gods as they gazed. But Athena sprang quickly from the immortal head
and stood before Zeus who holds the aegis, shaking a sharp spear:
great Olympos began to reel horribly at the might of the grey-eyed
goddess, and earth round about cried fearfully, and the sea was moved
and tossed with dark waves, while foam burst forth suddenly: the
bright Son of Hyperion [the Sun] stopped his swift-footed horses a
long while, until the maiden Pallas Athena had stripped the heavenly
armour from her immortal shoulders. And wise Zeus was glad. Hail to
you, daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis!" - Homeric Hymn 29 to
Athena

"Da, Diva, veniam si te non pecudum fibris, non sanguine fuso, quaero
nec arcanis numen coniecto sub extis. Dies admoniet et forti
sacrificare deae, quod est illa nata Minerva die. Pallada nunc oremus.
Qui bene placavit Pallada, doctus erit. Nec quisquam invita Pallade
faciet bene licet antiquo manibus conlatus Epeo sit prior, irata
Pallade mancus erit. Vos quoque, Phoeba morbos qui pellitis arte,
munera de vestris pauca referte deae. Nec vos, turba fere censu
fraudante, magistri, spernite; discipulos attrahit illa novos.
Mille dea est operum. Si mereramus, studiis adsit amica nostris.
Domina haec domii sodalitatisque patrona, te hoc sacrificio obmovendo
precamus uti sies volens propitius nobis domi familiaeque nostris;
harumce rerum ergo, macte hoc sacrificio. Sulis Minerva Belisama,
Medica, Sollertissima, Pallas, Athena, Propugnatrix, sive quo alio
nomine appelari volveris, aegida semper super nos extende." - Prayer
to Minerva, N. Moravius Vado

(Grant, Goddess, pardon, if I seek you not with the bodies of slain
beasts, nor with blood poured forth, nor divine heaven's will from the
secrets of their entrails. This day reminds us to sacrifice to the
strong goddess, for today is Minerva's birthday. Let us pray now to
Pallas, for whosoever wins Pallas' favour shall be learned. No one,
though more cunning in handiwork than old Epeus, can do well; he shall
be helpless, if Pallas be displeased with him. You too, who banish
sickness by Phoebus' art, bring from your earnings a few gifts to the
goddess. Schoolmasters, do not spurn her either, nor cheat her of
your earnings: she will bring you new students. She is the goddess of
a thousand works. May she be friendly to our pursuits, if we deserve
it. Lady, protectress of these households and this fellowship, in
making this offering to you we pray that you be propitious toward us
and our families; because of these things, be honoured by this
sacrifice).

Today we celebrate a festival of Minerva, the "Greater" Quinquatrus.
Ovid says that this festival was celebrated in commemoration of the
birthday of Minerva; but according to Festus it was sacred to Minerva
because her temple on the Aventine was consecrated on that day. The
temple stood outside the pomerium, and the exact year of its
construction is unknown, though it is first mentioned during the time
of the Second Punic War (218-202 B.C.). In keeping with the Roman
custom of temples serving purposes other than those specifically
religious, the Aventine temple was used as the headquarters of a
writer's and actor's guild.

Sacrifices were offered to Minerva, the goddess of war as well as
wisdom, arts and crafts, dyeing, science and trade, and patroness of
trumpet players. She was also the patroness of scholars and
pedagogues, who enjoyed a holiday at this time, with the pupils giving
their pedagogues gifts, dedicated to Minerva, at the close of the
festival. We see her depicted in art with Iuno and Iuppiter on the
Great Arch of Trajan, and she frequently appears on sarcophagi
offering a new life beyond the grave. The Roman goddess Minerva
probably derived from the Etruscan goddess Menrva, and was later
modelled on Greek Pallas Athena. Menrva was the Etruscan version of
Athena, and depicted similarly (with helm, spear, and shield). Like
Athena, Menrva was born from the head of a god, in her case Tinia, and
she is part of a triad with Tinia and Uni. Minerva sprang fully armed
from the head of Iuppiter, whose head had been split open with
Vulcan's axe.

Valete bene,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87845 From: Robin Marquardt Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: a.d. XIV Kal. Apr.
Ave Minerva!

Tiberius Marcius Quadra


________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:23 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] a.d. XIV Kal. Apr.


 
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XIV Kalendas Aprilis; hic dies nefastus publicus est.

"After a one day interval, the rites of Minerva are performed,
Which take their name from the sequence of five days.
The first day is bloodless, and sword fights are unlawful,
Because Minerva was born on that very day.
The next four are celebrated with gladiatorial shows,
The warlike goddess delights in naked swords.
Pray now you boys and tender girls to Pallas:
He who can truly please Pallas, is learned.
Pleasing Pallas let girls learn to card wool,
And how to unwind the full distaff.
She shows how to draw the shuttle through the firm
Warp, and close up loose threads with the comb.
Worship her, you who remove stains from damaged clothes,
Worship her, you who ready bronze cauldrons for fleeces.
If Pallas frowns, no one could make good shoes,
Even if he were more skilled than Tychius:
And even if he were cleverer with his hands
Than Epeus once was, he'll be useless if Pallas is angry.
You too who drive away ills with Apollo's art,
Bring a few gifts of your own for the goddess:
And don't scorn her, you schoolmasters, a tribe
So often cheated of its pay: she attracts new pupils:
Nor you engravers, and painters with encaustics,
Nor you who carve the stone with a skilful hand.
She's the goddess of a thousand things: and song for sure:
If I'm worthy may she be a friend to my endeavours.
Where the Caelian Hill slopes down to the plain,
At the point where the street's almost, but not quite, level,
You can see the little shrine of Minerva Capta,
Which the goddess first occupied on her birthday.
The source of the name is doubtful: we speak of
`Capital' ingenuity: the goddess is herself ingenious.
Or is it because, motherless, she leapt, with a shield
From the crown of her father's head (caput)?
Or because she came to us as a `captive' from the conquest
Of Falerii? This, an ancient inscription claims.
Or because her law ordains `capital' punishment
For receiving things stolen from that place?
By whatever logic your title's derived, Pallas,
Shield our leaders with your aegis forever." - Ovid, Fasti III

"I begin to sing of Pallas Athena, the glorious goddess, bright-eyed,
inventive, unbending of heart, pure virgin, saviour of cities,
courageous, Tritogeneia. From his awful head wise Zeus himself bare
her arrayed in warlike arms of flashing gold, and awe seized all the
gods as they gazed. But Athena sprang quickly from the immortal head
and stood before Zeus who holds the aegis, shaking a sharp spear:
great Olympos began to reel horribly at the might of the grey-eyed
goddess, and earth round about cried fearfully, and the sea was moved
and tossed with dark waves, while foam burst forth suddenly: the
bright Son of Hyperion [the Sun] stopped his swift-footed horses a
long while, until the maiden Pallas Athena had stripped the heavenly
armour from her immortal shoulders. And wise Zeus was glad. Hail to
you, daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis!" - Homeric Hymn 29 to
Athena

"Da, Diva, veniam si te non pecudum fibris, non sanguine fuso, quaero
nec arcanis numen coniecto sub extis. Dies admoniet et forti
sacrificare deae, quod est illa nata Minerva die. Pallada nunc oremus.
Qui bene placavit Pallada, doctus erit. Nec quisquam invita Pallade
faciet bene licet antiquo manibus conlatus Epeo sit prior, irata
Pallade mancus erit. Vos quoque, Phoeba morbos qui pellitis arte,
munera de vestris pauca referte deae. Nec vos, turba fere censu
fraudante, magistri, spernite; discipulos attrahit illa novos.
Mille dea est operum. Si mereramus, studiis adsit amica nostris.
Domina haec domii sodalitatisque patrona, te hoc sacrificio obmovendo
precamus uti sies volens propitius nobis domi familiaeque nostris;
harumce rerum ergo, macte hoc sacrificio. Sulis Minerva Belisama,
Medica, Sollertissima, Pallas, Athena, Propugnatrix, sive quo alio
nomine appelari volveris, aegida semper super nos extende." - Prayer
to Minerva, N. Moravius Vado

(Grant, Goddess, pardon, if I seek you not with the bodies of slain
beasts, nor with blood poured forth, nor divine heaven's will from the
secrets of their entrails. This day reminds us to sacrifice to the
strong goddess, for today is Minerva's birthday. Let us pray now to
Pallas, for whosoever wins Pallas' favour shall be learned. No one,
though more cunning in handiwork than old Epeus, can do well; he shall
be helpless, if Pallas be displeased with him. You too, who banish
sickness by Phoebus' art, bring from your earnings a few gifts to the
goddess. Schoolmasters, do not spurn her either, nor cheat her of
your earnings: she will bring you new students. She is the goddess of
a thousand works. May she be friendly to our pursuits, if we deserve
it. Lady, protectress of these households and this fellowship, in
making this offering to you we pray that you be propitious toward us
and our families; because of these things, be honoured by this
sacrifice).

Today we celebrate a festival of Minerva, the "Greater" Quinquatrus.
Ovid says that this festival was celebrated in commemoration of the
birthday of Minerva; but according to Festus it was sacred to Minerva
because her temple on the Aventine was consecrated on that day. The
temple stood outside the pomerium, and the exact year of its
construction is unknown, though it is first mentioned during the time
of the Second Punic War (218-202 B.C.). In keeping with the Roman
custom of temples serving purposes other than those specifically
religious, the Aventine temple was used as the headquarters of a
writer's and actor's guild.

Sacrifices were offered to Minerva, the goddess of war as well as
wisdom, arts and crafts, dyeing, science and trade, and patroness of
trumpet players. She was also the patroness of scholars and
pedagogues, who enjoyed a holiday at this time, with the pupils giving
their pedagogues gifts, dedicated to Minerva, at the close of the
festival. We see her depicted in art with Iuno and Iuppiter on the
Great Arch of Trajan, and she frequently appears on sarcophagi
offering a new life beyond the grave. The Roman goddess Minerva
probably derived from the Etruscan goddess Menrva, and was later
modelled on Greek Pallas Athena. Menrva was the Etruscan version of
Athena, and depicted similarly (with helm, spear, and shield). Like
Athena, Menrva was born from the head of a god, in her case Tinia, and
she is part of a triad with Tinia and Uni. Minerva sprang fully armed
from the head of Iuppiter, whose head had been split open with
Vulcan's axe.

Valete bene,

Cato




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87846 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-19
Subject: Re: Morality, Virtue, & Mos Maiorum
Salve,

"Sadly I'm with very little time at the moment."

Sadly indeed as you make many good points

"Plato also stipulated the existence of the absolutes including the moral ones without the need of a supreme creator, so it can be argued for the existence of good without having religion in the mixture ;)"

I don't discount the existence of a Creator, although my religion is more deist then theist, but consider that moral absolutes can be established without recourse to religion. This would create a public morality that laves religion as a matter of individual conscience.

"I agree with you on how social conducts are incorporated in the moral code of the societies. I would also like to stress the fact that usually the behaviors take a lot of time to be incorporated in the moral code of the society but after they are there it is almost impossible to remove them even if change to have a negative effect. More since in ancient times there weren't that much competition between societies (they weren't much difference from their immediate neighbors) not only the behaviors that promote the competitively of the society were incorporated as also were neutral or negative ones."

Agreed, not all "moral" behaviors are necessarily "good". Some are a matter of long established custom without recourse to reason.

"Is there a Good and an Evil? Absolutes equal to all mankind? I would say no unless the ones that would lead to the survival or extinction of our specie."

Which leads back to my original point that moral actions lead to social cohesion and immoral ones to social anarchy on the assumption that social cohesion is (or was) required for species survival. Is there an individual morality independent of social morality? I would say no, with qualifications, in that our actions, moral or otherwise, are judged in relation to others and our effect on society.

"Does this mean that I consider everything valid or all moral codes to be equals? No, one thing is to say in the conceptual way how the moral codes may have developed other thing is to accept that because they have the same principle behind all are equally valid."

Agreed. I don't disparage any but neither do I hold them all the same in either cause or effect.

"One of the reasons I have joined NR is because I consider us to be the heirs of what was made in ancient Greece and Roma. And I feel we, in the so called Western world, are losing our cultural identity and what makes us different from the rest of the world and we do need to return to our cultural roots and rediscover ourselves once more. That doesn't mean we need to convert and impose our ways to the rest of the world but we should esteem and struggle for our own ways. One of the aspects of the difference is the concept of citizen with the inherit obligations and rights."

YES!!! I don't seek to impose ancient Roman virtues on anyone but to publicize them as an alternative to the current method of thinking that one is either religious or immoral. Rome had an underlying, unifying, system of public and private morality and virtue that worked across multiple belief systems and is sadly misunderstood and lacking today in the Western world. This more than any reason is why I joined as well.

"I love very much the books "The History of Government" by S. E. Finer that describes the several ways of government of different societies from ancient times to more recent, sadly he died before ending the books so the more modern ones are lacking. But these books are somewhat boring because without counting with the ancient Greece and Rome almost every society and type of the government are slightly variations of the same absolute ruler (not so absolute due to practical reasons) and subjects. When the concept of citizenship appears it is a fresh innovation and that only happen around page 300 of the first book! And sadly disappears soon enough. Nevertheless I strongly recommend these books."

Thank you I am always in search of intelligent reading matter

Vale

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87847 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-20
Subject: a.d. XIII Kal. Apr.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XIII Kalendas Aprilis; haec dies comitialis est.

"He abolished the common bath for both sexes. He reformed the morals
of the matrons and young nobles which were growing lax. He separated
the sacred rites of Serapis from the miscellaneous ceremonies of the
Pelusia." - Prudentius, writing of Marcus Aurelius AD 176

"Nam et sacris quibusdam per lauacrum initiantur, Isidis
alicuius aut Mithrae; ipsos etiam deos suos. Lauationibus efferunt.
ceterum uillas domos templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlatae aquae
expiant passim . Certe ludis Apollinaribus et Pelusiis tinguuntur
idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere
praesumunt. Item penes ueteres quisque se homicidio infecerat
purgatrices aquas explorabat." - Tertullian, "de Baptismo" ch. V

Today is the second day of the Quinquatrus in honor of Mars and
Minerva.

In Egypt, it was celebrated as the Pelusia, in honor of the goddesss
Isis, who caused the Nile River to begin its annual inundation.
Apparently (from Tertullian's writings) there was a ceremony very
similiar to baptism in which adherents of Isis dipped themselves in
the waters of the Nile.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87848 From: Marcus Prometheus Date: 2012-03-20
Subject: Effects of ancient weapons on flesh and bone, with and without steel
William James Dowie <http://www.facebook.com/wdowie>
Hmmm, I was not surprised to see the vast difference in the quality of
riveted mail over butted links, but I am a little surprised at how little
damage was caused by blows from the back of the blade.
Visualizza traduzione <http://www.facebook.com/#>
*Viking Weapon Test
Cuts<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c&feature=share>
*
www.youtube.com
We used sharp replica Viking-age weapons against an animal (pig) carcass to
judge the effects of these weapons on flesh and bone, and to assess the
protective ability of steel mail...
**




* Bene Valete
*Marcus Prometheus.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87849 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-21
Subject: a.d. XII Kal. Apr.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante dem XII Kalendas Aprilis; haec dies comitialis est.


"But when Zeus ordered Pluto to send up the Maid, Pluto gave her a
seed of a pomegranate to eat, in order that she might not tarry long
with her mother. Not foreseeing the consequence, she swallowed it;
and because Ascalaphus, son of Acheron and Gorgyra, bore witness
against her, Demeter laid a heavy rock on him in Hades. But
Persephone was compelled to remain a third of every year with Pluto
and the rest of the time with the gods." - Apollodorus, Library and
Epitrome 1.5.3

"When the fighting was now taking place by sanctuaries and houses, and
in the narrow lanes, between detached bodies in different parts of the
town, Pyrrhus left by himself was wounded in the head. It is said that
his death was caused by a blow from a tile thrown by a woman. The
Argives however declare that it was not a woman who killed him but
Demeter in the likeness of a woman. This is what the Argives
themselves relate about his end, and Lyceas, the guide for the
neighborhood, has written a poem which confirms the story. They have a
sanctuary of Demeter, built at the command of the oracle, on the spot
where Pyrrhus died, and in it Pyrrhus is buried." - Pausanius,
Description of Greece 1.13.8

"I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess --of her and
her trim-ankled daughter whom Aidoneus rapt away, given to him by
all-seeing Zeus the loud-thunderer. Apart from Demeter, lady of the
golden sword and glorious fruits, she was playing with the
deep-bosomed daughters of Oceanus and gathering flowers over a soft
meadow, roses and crocuses and beautiful violets, irises also and
hyacinths and the narcissus, which Earth made to grow at the will of
Zeus and to please the Host of Many, to be a snare for the bloom-like
girl --- a marvellous, radiant flower. It was a thing of awe whether
for deathless gods or mortal men to see: from its root grew a hundred
blooms and it smelled most sweetly, so that all wide heaven above and
the whole earth and the sea's salt swell laughed for joy. And the girl
was amazed and reached out with both hands to take the lovely toy; but
the wide-pathed earth yawned there in the plain of Nysa, and the lord,
Host of Many, with his immortal horses sprang out upon her --the Son
of Cronos, He who has many names.

He caught her up reluctant on his golden car and bare her away
lamenting. Then she cried out shrilly with her voice, calling upon her
father, the Son of Cronos, who is most high and excellent. But no one,
either of the deathless gods or of mortal men, heard her voice, nor
yet the olive-trees bearing rich fruit: only tender-hearted Hecate,
bright-coiffed, the daughter of Persaeus, heard the girl from her
cave, and the lord Helios, Hyperion's bright son, as she cried to her
father, the Son of Cronos. But he was sitting aloof, apart from the
gods, in his temple where many pray, and receiving sweet offerings
from mortal men. So he, that son of Cronos, of many names, who is
Ruler of Many and Host of Many, was bearing her away by leave of Zeus
on his immortal chariot --- his own brother's child and all unwilling.

And so long as she, the goddess, yet beheld earth and starry heaven
and the strong-flowing sea where fishes shoal, and the rays of the
sun, and still hoped to see her dear mother and the tribes of the
eternal gods, so long hope calmed her great heart for all her trouble
... and the heights of the mountains and the depths of the sea rang
with her immortal voice: and her queenly mother heard her." - Homer,
Hymn to Demeter 1-35

"O Hail to Haides' bright-crowned queen,
Maiden of Elysium.
Beloved daughter of the earth,
Mighty is your justice.
All the world will mourn your passing,
And cheer at your return.
Alalai, alalai, alalai, ie Kore!
Alalai, alalai, alalai, ie Kore!

Bringer of the season's change,
Demeter of growing grain,
Awful goddess, raging one,
All will know your sorrow.
Lady of the Mysteries,
Mother of fair Kore,
Alalai, alalai, alalai, ie Demeter!
Alalai, alalai, alalai, ie Demeter!" - Carey Oxler, Song of Eleusis
(A.D. 2003)


Today is the festival of Demeter, the Greek earth goddess par
excellence, who brings forth the fruits of the earth, particularly the
various grains. She taught mankind the art of sowing and ploughing so
they could end their nomadic existence. As such, Demeter was also the
goddess of planned society. She was very popular with the rural
population. As a fertility goddess she is sometimes identified with
Rhea and Gaia. Demeter is a daughter of Cronus and Rhea and sister of
Zeus by whom she became the mother of Persephone. When Persephone was
abducted by Hades, lord of the underworld, Demeter wandered the earth
in search of her lost child. During this time the earth brought forth
no grain. Finally Zeus sent Hermes to the underworld, ordering Hades
to restore Persephone to her mother. However, before she left, Hades
gave her a pomegranate (a common fertility symbol). When she ate from
it, she was bound to spend a third of the year with her husband in the
infernal regions. Only when her daughter is with her, Demeter lets
things grow (summer). The dying and blossoming of nature was thus
connected with Demeter.

In the Eleusinian mysteries, Demeter and Persephone were especially
venerated. When she was looking for her daughter, in the shape of an
old woman called Doso, she was welcomed by Celeus, the king of Eleusis
(in Attica). He requested her to nurse his sons Demophon and
Triptolemus '. To reward his hospitality she intended to make the boy
Demophon immortal by placing him each night in the hearth, to burn his
mortal nature away. The spell was broken one night because Metanira,
the wife of Celeus, walked in on her while she was performing this
ritual. Demeter taught the other son, Triptolemus, the principles of
agriculture, who, in turn, taught others this art. In Demeter's honor
as a goddess of marriage, women in Athens, and other centers in
Greece, celebrated the feast of Thesmophoria (from her epithet
Thesmophoros, "she of the regular customs"). Throughout Classical
times members of all social strata came from all parts of the
Mediterranean world to be initiated in and celebrate her Mysteries at
Eleusis.

In ancient art, Demeter was often portrayed (sitting) as a solemn
woman, often wearing a wreath of braided ears of corn. Well-known is
the statue made by Knidos (mid forth century BCE). Her usual symbolic
attributes are the fruits of the earth and the torch, the latter
presumably referring to her search for Persephone. Her sacred animals
were the snake (an earth-creature) and the pig (another symbol of
fertility). Some of her epithets include Auxesia, Deo, Chloe, and
Sito, and she was adopted by the Romans yunder the name Ceres. Ceres
had a temple on the Aventine Hill, were she was worshipped together
with Liber and Libera.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87850 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-22
Subject: a.d. XI Kal. Apr.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XI Kalendas Aprilis; hic dies nefastus est.

"In 1820, while excavations were proceeding near the western corner
of the Palatine an altar was discovered, of archaic type, inscribed
with the following dedication: 'Sacred to a Divinity, whether male or
female. Caius Sextius Calvinus, son of Caius, praetor, has restored
this altar by decree of the Senate.' Nibby and Mommsen believe
Calvinus to be the magistrate mentioned twice by Cicero as a
candidate against Glaucias in the contest for the praetorship of 125
B.C. They also identify the altar as a restoration of the one raised
behind the Temple of Vesta, in the 'lower New Street,' in memory of
the mysterious voice announcing the invasion of the Gauls, in the
stillness of the night, and warning the citizens to strengthen the
walls of their city. The voice was attributed to a local Genius, whom
the people named Aius Loquens or Locutius. As a rule, the priests
refrained from mentioning in public prayers the name and sex of new
and slightly known divinities, especially of local Genii, to which
they objected for two reasons: first, because there was danger of
vitiating the ceremony by a false invocation; secondly, because it
was prudent not to reveal the true name of these tutelary gods to the
enemy of the commonwealth, lest in case of war or siege he could
force them to abandon the defence of that special place, by
mysterious and violent rites. The formula si deus si dea, 'whether
god or goddess,' is a consequence of this superstition; its use is
not uncommon on ancient altars; Servius describes a shield dedicated
on the Capitol to the Genius of Rome, with the inscription:GENIO
URBIS ROMAE SIVE MAS SIVE FEMINA, 'to the tutelary Genius of the city
of Rome, whether masculine or feminine.'

On the 20th of September, 1890, the workmen employed in the
construction of the main sewer on the left bank of the Tiber, between
the Ponte S. Angelo and the church of S. Giovanni dei Fiorentini,
found a mediaeval wall, built of materials collected at random from
the neighboring ruins. Among them were fragments of one or more
inscriptions which described the celebrations of the Ludi Saeculares
under the Empire. By the end of the day, seventeen pieces had been
recovered, seven of which belonged to the records of the games
celebrated under Augustus, in the year 17 B.C., the others to those
celebrated under Septimius Severus and Caracalla, in the year 204
A.D. Later researches led to the discovery of ninety-six other
fragments, making a total of one hundred and thirteen, of which eight
are of the time of Augustus, two of the time of Domitian, and the
rest date from Severus.

The fragments of the year 17 B.C., fitted together, make a block
three metres high, containing one hundred and sixty-eight minutely
inscribed lines. This monument, now exhibited in the Baths of
Diocletian, was in the form of a square pillar enclosed by a
projecting frame, with base and capital of the Tuscan order, and it
measured, when entire, four metres in height. I believe that there is
no inscription among the thirty thousand collected in volume vi. of
the "Corpus" which makes a more profound impression on the mind, or
appeals more to the imagination than this official report of a state
ceremony which took place over nineteen hundred years ago, and was
attended by the most illustrious men of the age.

The origin of the saecular games seems to be this: In the early days
of Rome the northwest section of the Campus Martius, bordering on the
Tiber, was conspicuous for traces of volcanic activity. There was a
pool here called Tarentum or Terentum, fed by hot sulphur springs,
the efficiency of which is attested by the cure of Volesus, the
Sabine, and his family, described by Valerius Maximus. Heavy vapors
hung over the springs, and tongues of flame were seen issuing from
the cracks of the earth. The locality became known by the name of the
fiery field (campus ignifer), and its relationship with the infernal
realms was soon an established fact in folk-lore. An altar to the
infernal gods was erected on the borders of the pool, and games were
held periodically in honor of Dis and Proserpina, the victims being a
black bull and a black cow. Tradition attributed this arrangement of
time and ceremony to Volesus himself, who, grateful for the recovery
of his three children, offered sacrifices to Dis and Proserpina,
spread lectisternia, or reclining couches, for the gods, with tables
and viands before them, and celebrated games for three nights, one
for each child which had been restored to health. In the republican
epoch they were called Ludi Tarentini, from the name of the pool, and
were celebrated for the purpose of averting from the state the
recurrence of some great calamity by which it had been afflicted.
These calamities being contingencies which no man could foresee, it
is evident that the celebration of the Ludi Tarentini was in no way
connected with definite cycles of time, such as the saeculum." -
Rodolfo Lanciani, "Pagan and Christian Rome" ch. II, pp. 72-75

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87853 From: Cato Date: 2012-03-23
Subject: a.d. X Kal. Apr. - THE TUBILUSTRIUM
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est a.d. XI Kalendas Aprilis; hic dies nefastus publicus est.

"The last day of the five exhorts us to purify
The tuneful trumpets, and sacrifice to the mighty god.
Now you can turn your face to the Sun and say:
`He touched the fleece of the Phrixian Ram yesterday'.
The seeds having been parched, by a wicked stepmother's
Guile, the corn did not sprout in the usual way.
They sent to the oracle, to find by sure prophecy,
What cure the Delphic god would prescribe for sterility.
But tarnished like the seed, the messenger brought news
That the oracle sought the death of Helle and young Phrixus:
And when citizens, season, and Ino herself compelled
The reluctant king to obey that evil order,
Phrixus and his sister, brows covered with sacred bands,
Stood together before the altar, bemoaning their mutual fate.
Their mother saw them, as she hovered by chance in the air,
And, stunned, she beat her naked breasts with her hand:
Then, with the clouds as her companions, she leapt down
Into serpent-born Thebes, and snatched away her children:
And so that they could flee a ram, shining and golden,
Was brought, and it carried them over the wide ocean.
They say the sister held too weakly to the left-hand horn,
And so gave her own name to the waters below.
Her brother almost died with her, trying to help her
As she fell, stretching out his hands as far as he could.
He wept at losing her, his friend in their twin danger,
Not knowing she was now wedded to a sea-green god.
Reaching the shore the Ram was raised as a constellation,
While his golden fleece was carried to the halls of Colchis." - Ovid,
Fasti III

Today is the celebration of the Tubilustrium. The month of March was
the traditional start of the campaign season, and the Tubilustrium was
a ceremony to make the army fit for war. It was held on March 23, the
last day of the Greater Quinquatrus (the festival of Mars and
Minerva), and it occurred again on May 23. The sacred trumpets (tubae)
were originally war trumpets, but later they were used for ceremonial
occasions. It is not clear if the army was involved, or if it was
merely a ceremony to purify the trumpets used in summoning the
assembly on the following day. The ceremony was held in Rome in a
building called the Hall of the Shoemakers (atrium sutorium) and
involved the sacrifice of a ewe lamb. Romans who did not attend the
ceremony would be reminded of the occasion by seeing the Salii dancing
through the streets of the city.

Here you can listen to David Lovrien's "TUBILUSTRIUM":

http://www.lovebirdmusic.com/audio/brass/tubilustrium.mp3

The day is also dedicated to the god Vulcan, god of fire, especially
destructive fire, and craftsmanship. His forge is located beneath
Mount Etna. It is here that he, together with his helpers, forges
weapons for gods and heroes. Vulcanus is closely associated with Bona
Dea with whom he shared the Volcanalia, observed on August 23. This
festival took place during the height of the Mediterranean drought and
the period of highest risk of fire. On the banks of the river Tiber,
fires were lighted on which living fish were sacrificed. His temples
were usually located outside the cities, due to the dangerous nature
of fire. In 215 B.C. his temple on the Circus Flaminius was
inaugurated. In Ostia he was the chief god as the protector against
fire in the grain storages. He is identified with the Greek
Hephaestus.

Ovid mentions the story of Phrixus, who was the prince who was saved
on the point of sacrifice by a magical flying ram. Phrixus escaped
together with his sister Helle on the animal's back. Helle became
dizzy and fell into the sea (giving her name to the Hellespont). But
Phrixus fetched up in Colchis on the mysterious periphery of the
heroic world. Here he sacrificed the ram to Zeus, and hung the ram's
golden fleece in the sacred grove of Ares, god of war. This became the
object of the famous quest by Jason and the Argonauts.



Valete bene!

Cato

http://www.lovebirdmusic.com/audio/brass/tubilustrium.mp3
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87854 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Taxes
Salve!

OK, I must admit to not liking taxes but they are a necessary evil at times. I looked over this here:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV

but admit to being still a little confused as to what my rate is. Can someone help me out here? Is the paypal account still valid? I don't want to send my money off to the wrong group.

Vale!

G. Claudius Axenrothus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87855 From: M. Pompeius Caninus Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Re: Taxes
Caninus Axenrotho omnibusque sal.

You are a new citizen and it appears that for some reason you have not yet been assigned to a tribe or a century. So, since you live in the USA and only have basic citizenship century points, your tax rate would be at the Class 5 rate of $9.00 for the current year. If you have any questions about taxes you can contact the CFO - Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Vale bene!
 
M. Pompeius Caninus
America Boreoccidentalis
Vivat Nova Roma!




________________________________
From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Taxes


 
Salve!

OK, I must admit to not liking taxes but they are a necessary evil at times. I looked over this here:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV

but admit to being still a little confused as to what my rate is. Can someone help me out here? Is the paypal account still valid? I don't want to send my money off to the wrong group.

Vale!

G. Claudius Axenrothus




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87856 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: Re: Taxes
Ave!

I do know for a fact that Claudius is in Class V.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM, M. Pompeius Caninus
<m.pompeius@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caninus Axenrotho omnibusque sal.
>
> You are a new citizen and it appears that for some reason you have not yet
> been assigned to a tribe or a century. So, since you live in the USA and
> only have basic citizenship century points, your tax rate would be at the
> Class 5 rate of $9.00 for the current year. If you have any questions about
> taxes you can contact the CFO - Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Vale bene!
>
> M. Pompeius Caninus
> America Boreoccidentalis
> Vivat Nova Roma!
>
> ________________________________
> From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 1:40 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Taxes
>
>
>
>
> Salve!
>
> OK, I must admit to not liking taxes but they are a necessary evil at
> times. I looked over this here:
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV
>
> but admit to being still a little confused as to what my rate is. Can
> someone help me out here? Is the paypal account still valid? I don't want
> to send my money off to the wrong group.
>
> Vale!
>
> G. Claudius Axenrothus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87857 From: Denise D. Date: 2012-03-24
Subject: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Salvete!

CALL TO CONVENE A FORMAL MEETING OF THE SENATE IN SESSION – 25TH MAR. – 31ST MAR. 2012
 
 
SCHEDULE:
 
12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period commences.
11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 30-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period commences.
11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 03-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
 
 
AGENDA:
 
I.  Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to assidui status. (Debate & vote)
 
II. Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica. (Debate & vote)
 
III. Annual tax rate for a new citizen unassigned to a century. (Debate & vote)
 
IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
 
 
ATTACHMENTS:
 
Nil currently. Proposed Senatus consulta required for both items to be put to the vote will be presented in final form no less than 24 hours before commencement of voting.
 
 
NOTES:
 
A. Current tribunes to have standing right to speak at any time during this session. No prior permission required.
B. Mountain time = GMT - 7 / CET - 8
C. Presiding magistrate: Cn. Iulius Caesar.
D. Publication of the voting results should not be on the 6th April, but between 12:00 AM on the 4th April and 11:59 PM on the 5th April. Tribunician session final report can continue after close of session.
E. Due to limited time period available for the session, optional voting hour timeframe around sunset/sunrise either on CET or Mountain time dispensed with.
 
--
V.A. Regilla

Tribuna Plebis
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87858 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia s.d,

> IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)

This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?

Valete optime

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Denise D." <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> CALL TO CONVENE A FORMAL MEETING OF THE SENATE IN SESSION â€" 25TH MAR. â€" 31ST MAR. 2012
>  
>  
> SCHEDULE:
>  
> 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period commences.
> 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 30-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
> 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period commences.
> 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 03-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
> 23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
>  
>  
> AGENDA:
>  
> I.  Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to assidui status. (Debate & vote)
>  
> II. Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica. (Debate & vote)
>  
> III. Annual tax rate for a new citizen unassigned to a century. (Debate & vote)
>  
> IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
>  
>  
> ATTACHMENTS:
>  
> Nil currently. Proposed Senatus consulta required for both items to be put to the vote will be presented in final form no less than 24 hours before commencement of voting.
>  
>  
> NOTES:
>  
> A. Current tribunes to have standing right to speak at any time during this session. No prior permission required.
> B. Mountain time = GMT - 7 / CET - 8
> C. Presiding magistrate: Cn. Iulius Caesar.
> D. Publication of the voting results should not be on the 6th April, but between 12:00 AM on the 4th April and 11:59 PM on the 5th April. Tribunician session final report can continue after close of session.
> E. Due to limited time period available for the session, optional voting hour timeframe around sunset/sunrise either on CET or Mountain time dispensed with.
>  
> --
> V.A. Regilla
>
> Tribuna Plebis
> Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
> Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87859 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iulia sal.

The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and has oversight via Senatus consultum.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia s.d,

> IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)

This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?

Valete optime

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87860 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari cos. salutem

> The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter.

On such a matter as this? Our Praetores are both very capable of making the decisions the Senate entrusted then with. I have to say that somehow I feel that this would have never sat well with neither you or Marinus as Praetores and i hope it does not with our current Praetores. Theirs is an executive and legal magistrate and to entrust them with administration of the FH is to do just that - trust that they will administrate and apply law as defined by praetoria postesta, praetorium imperium and praetorium ius.

This, in my opinion, is micro-management and the senate has bigger fish to fry. This should be left in the hands of our very capable praetores.

>The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and has oversight via Senatus consultum.

Then leave it in the hands of our Praetores because it is under their purview.
If the Senate so embraces the "the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter" then they should administer and manage it themselves. What article IV indicates is a lack of trust in the Praetores to do their job. it appears as if saying, "yes, on paper this is under your purview but at anytime we can undermine you." It could very well be perceived like that. Maybe someone didn't like the way the Praetores were doing their job and asked for intercession rather than addressing the Praetores themselves.

Optime vale consobrine,

Julia





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Iulia sal.
>
> The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and has oversight via Senatus consultum.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia s.d,
>
> > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
>
> This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
>
> Valete optime
>
> Julia
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87861 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a difference of opinion over whether the phrase ‘internal affairs” includes the ludi or not. It isn’t clearly defined and it needs to be. This needs to be decided by clarifying the Senatus consultum by amendment. That way there won’t be time wasted on this issue in the future. That way there will be consistency of application, rather than relying on praetorial edictum year to year.

Day to day administration of FH is the responsibility of the praetors. Fixing an omission/error/oversight/doubt in the enabling Senatus consultum that created Forum Hospitum is the responsibility of the Senate. Once that is done the praetors can continue to administer the list on the day to day basis.

Section IV is included to ensure that future praetors do not accidentally or deliberately try to exploit a process of approval to delay messages. It makes sense to clarify such matters in order to prevent future problems.

Optime vale


From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Caesari cos. salutem

> The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter.

On such a matter as this? Our Praetores are both very capable of making the decisions the Senate entrusted then with. I have to say that somehow I feel that this would have never sat well with neither you or Marinus as Praetores and i hope it does not with our current Praetores. Theirs is an executive and legal magistrate and to entrust them with administration of the FH is to do just that - trust that they will administrate and apply law as defined by praetoria postesta, praetorium imperium and praetorium ius.

This, in my opinion, is micro-management and the senate has bigger fish to fry. This should be left in the hands of our very capable praetores.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87862 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari sal,

Thank you so much for taking time out of your Sunday morning to field my questions, Consul.

> The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a difference of opinion over whether the phrase ‘internal affairs” includes the ludi or not. It isn’t clearly defined and it needs to be.

Just the fact that it needs to be defined clearly gives a hint that in the course of the Ludi information regarding internal affairs may very well leak. Inclusion of a little controversy would not only spice them up a bit but make them look more like Nova Roma. Blanket inclusion of the Ludi on the FH will make OUR Ludi susceptible to censorship and may very well stifle the creativity and veritas of our future Ludi.

I see no reason why selected excerpts and perhaps a version of a game or two be offered but those on the FH should not be allowed to compete with our citizens. Those competing as citizens have earned that opportunity and, personally, I would rather see a citizen win rather than a stranger from the FH who are unknown to most. It lacks fairness.

>That way there won’t be time wasted on this issue in the future...That way there will be consistency of application, rather than relying on praetorial edictum year to year.

The yearly praetorial edictum is a very valuable legal document. And because it is yearly it is flexible enough to be pertinent to the current state of the ML and so the praetores can manage it thusly. The people entrusted our praetores to do so. This is not a waste of time, it is the purview of the Praetores.

> Section IV is included to ensure that future praetors do not accidentally or deliberately try to exploit a process of approval to delay messages. It makes sense to clarify such matters in order to prevent future problems.

I think it might be a little paranoid to think someone could deliberately exploit the message approval process because there are so many of us in the praetura of varied degrees of differences in our politics and we watchdog each other.
I have been in the praetura for a few years now and I have never ever seen what you describe. Only one year was a travesty made of the praetura and that was an open attack against the people because of the lack of self discipline, logic and reason on the part of said praetrix, and yes she was someone's tool. But that was hardly private. And i resigned because of it, and also because I was about to attempt to moderate said praetrix so that last was self preservation *laughs*.

Otherwise i have been proud to be a part of the praetura and found those others serving with me considerate, prudent and fair. Had they not been I would have said something. If I saw something that concerned me, I spoke up, just as I do so today;)

What makes more sense to me, for this year, is to clarify the process for applicants for membership to the ML. Which our praetores did nicely. So now, simply, if they are not already a citizen ann applicant is denied. Period. No more waiting endlessly in the pending members section until the apply and get approved by the censura. Clear, concise and reasonable. I do hope the Senate listens to our praetores.

Again thank you for being available to discuss these issues.

Optime vale,

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Iuliae sal.
>
> The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a difference of opinion over whether the phrase ‘internal affairs” includes the ludi or not. It isn’t clearly defined and it needs to be. This needs to be decided by clarifying the Senatus consultum by amendment. That way there won’t be time wasted on this issue in the future. That way there will be consistency of application, rather than relying on praetorial edictum year to year.
>
> Day to day administration of FH is the responsibility of the praetors. Fixing an omission/error/oversight/doubt in the enabling Senatus consultum that created Forum Hospitum is the responsibility of the Senate. Once that is done the praetors can continue to administer the list on the day to day basis.
>
> Section IV is included to ensure that future praetors do not accidentally or deliberately try to exploit a process of approval to delay messages. It makes sense to clarify such matters in order to prevent future problems.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:11 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia Caesari cos. salutem
>
> > The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter.
>
> On such a matter as this? Our Praetores are both very capable of making the decisions the Senate entrusted then with. I have to say that somehow I feel that this would have never sat well with neither you or Marinus as Praetores and i hope it does not with our current Praetores. Theirs is an executive and legal magistrate and to entrust them with administration of the FH is to do just that - trust that they will administrate and apply law as defined by praetoria postesta, praetorium imperium and praetorium ius.
>
> This, in my opinion, is micro-management and the senate has bigger fish to fry. This should be left in the hands of our very capable praetores.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87863 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: New on the NR Wiki et Temple/Sanctuary on FB
Iulia Quiritibus S.P.D.

Updated pages on the wiki:

http://novaroma.org/nr/Flora
and
http://novaroma.org/nr/Floralia

There will be more as time permits, I have a lot of excellent subject matter to be posted. And when I figure out how to post images, since the instructions are vague (to me)I shall also post some lovely images.

I have closed Aedes Venus Genetrix (aka Temple of Venus) and the Mystic Sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia on meetup because it was not meeting internet needs and our local Temple meets regularly and we have found a few excellent alternative methods to announce our rituals, workshops and meetings.
The new internet venue for the Temples are on facebook and so far they are well received and easily negotiated. I have already moved many interesting teaching aids and discussions (in documents).
Please read group descriptions as they have different (but compatible and sometimes crossover) objectives.
It is open to all.

Aedes Venus Genetrix:

https://www.facebook.com/aedesvenusgenetrix

Mystic Sanctuary of Fortunae Primigenia:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/MysticSanctuary/

Feel free to ask any questions.



L. Julia Aquila
Securum in tenebris me facit esse Venus
Sacerdos Veneris Genetricis
Pontifex Novæ Romæ
Sacerdos Prima A.Æ
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87864 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

There seems to be a disagreement in the two Praetors opinion, so....the
Senate is going to issue their say to try to help reach an accommodation.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia s.d,
>
> > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> participation in the ludi.� (Debate & vote)
>
> This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
>
> Valete optime
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Denise D." <aemilia.regilla@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete!
> >
> > CALL TO CONVENE A FORMAL MEETING OF THE SENATE IN SESSION ��" 25TH MAR.
> ��" 31ST MAR. 2012
> > �
> > �
> > SCHEDULE:
> > �
>
> > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period
> commences.
> > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 30-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
> > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period
> commences.
> > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 03-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
> > 23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to
> close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
> > �
> > �
> > AGENDA:
> > �
> > I.� � Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to
> assidui� status.� (Debate & vote)
> > �
> > II.� Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica.� (Debate & vote)
> > �
> > III. Annual tax rate for a new citizen� unassigned to a
> century.� (Debate & vote)
> > �
> > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> participation in the ludi.� (Debate & vote)
> > �
> > �
> > ATTACHMENTS:
> > �
>
> > Nil currently. Proposed Senatus consulta required for both items to be
> put to the vote will be presented in final form no less than 24 hours
> before commencement of voting.
> > �
> > �
> > NOTES:
> > �
>
> > A. Current tribunes to have standing right to speak at any time during
> this session. No prior permission required.
> > B. Mountain time = GMT - 7 / CET - 8
> > C. Presiding magistrate: Cn. Iulius Caesar.
> > D. Publication of the voting results should not be on the 6th April, but
> between 12:00 AM on the 4th April and 11:59 PM on the 5th April.
> Tribunician session final report can continue after close of session.
> > E. Due to limited time period available for the session, optional voting
> hour timeframe around sunset/sunrise either on CET or Mountain time
> dispensed with.
> > �
>
> > --
> > V.A. Regilla
> >
> > Tribuna Plebis
> > Legata Pro Praetore� Provinciae� Argentinae
> > Legata Pro Praetore� Provinciae� Brasiliae
>
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87865 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

I think we have to be realistic here. Information will “leak” regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To try to prevent leaks is futile. The purpose of the prohibition on discussion of internal affairs was always intended to be negative internal affairs. As a Nova Roman list it has no obligation to turn itself into a self-flagellating list. Preventing outburst from ex-citizens, current citizens all with an axe to grind, regardless of whatever “political” persuasion is not conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum.

As to whether selected excerpts or not should be allowed, or the full program and participation, my preference is for full participation. If people are keen to do so, I don’t think keeping it to citizens only advances the goal of encouraging people to move to citizenship. It is not as though a deluge of non-citizens will drown out the citizen participation. That of course is my personal preference, and the Senate may opt for a different view.

The Forum was created by Senatus consultum, by the Senate, and the Senate can re-shape that if they wish. The purpose was to prevent negative discussion of internal affairs, but due to loose wording that has been seen to mean also including preventing discussion of the ludi. I don’t believe that was the intention of the Senate so we will ask them and see. As much as the praetorial edict is a useful function, so is consular referral to the Senate to decide an issue that the Senate created. I personally voted for the creation of Forum Hospitum and I never foresaw this as an issue, but it has become so. Therefore what the Senate created the Senate can decide if it wishes to fix.

As to paranoid, no. It simply recognizes in the past this has been a method of interdicting comments from reaching a list, to leave them sitting on hold. It just prevents a previous course of action being re-employed again in the future. Prevention is better than cure.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:27 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Caesari sal,

Thank you so much for taking time out of your Sunday morning to field my questions, Consul.

> The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a difference of opinion over whether the phrase ‘internal affairs” includes the ludi or not. It isn’t clearly defined and it needs to be.

Just the fact that it needs to be defined clearly gives a hint that in the course of the Ludi information regarding internal affairs may very well leak. Inclusion of a little controversy would not only spice them up a bit but make them look more like Nova Roma. Blanket inclusion of the Ludi on the FH will make OUR Ludi susceptible to censorship and may very well stifle the creativity and veritas of our future Ludi.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87866 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal

Correction: “persuasion is not conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum” should be “persuasion is conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum”, but you probably would have guessed that :)

Optime vale


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:36 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Caesar Iuliae sal.

I think we have to be realistic here. Information will “leak” regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To try to prevent leaks is futile. The purpose of the prohibition on discussion of internal affairs was always intended to be negative internal affairs. As a Nova Roman list it has no obligation to turn itself into a self-flagellating list. Preventing outburst from ex-citizens, current citizens all with an axe to grind, regardless of whatever “political” persuasion is not conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87867 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

> The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.

It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.

Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.

But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?

The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.

For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may to promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?

So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87868 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

But were the Ludi's posted on the FH list last year?

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
>
> > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
>
> It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
> but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to
> use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
>
> Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to
> permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
>
> But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not respect
> the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more
> interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may enroll
> chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the
> taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the FH?
> But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen if
> someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
>
> The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
>
> For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay
> for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may to
> promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
>
> So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87869 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Salve et Salvete,

Yes they were, every single one of them.


Vale et Valete,
Aeternia

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave!
>
> But were the Ludi's posted on the FH list last year?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> >
> > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> >
> > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
> > but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want
> to
> > use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> >
> > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to
> > permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> >
> > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not respect
> > the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more
> > interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> enroll
> > chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the
> > taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> FH?
> > But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen
> if
> > someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> >
> > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> >
> > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay
> > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may
> to
> > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> >
> > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87870 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Praetor C. Petronio Dextro Omnibusque in Senatu
S.P.D.

No Dexter I'm afraid you cannot simply "do what you want"...

If it is the will the Senate then we as Praetors must abide by their
decision, this started with a SC I agree it should be addressed with a
SC..

I do not agree that the FH should be restricted of Ludi participation, it's
a great opportunity for those who are sitting in the wings to see one of
the great aspects of Nova Roma. Plus we now have teenagers on the FH, it
would get them involved in Nova Roma in a positive way, if people do decide
to cause trouble on the FH during the Ludi..

There is thing known as "moderation".

I will address this matter more in the upcoming days..

Valete Optime,
Aeternia


>
>
>
>
> --
> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87871 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Salve et Salvete,

I apologize, my greeting is completely askewered. (To put that mildly)...

Did not mean to use "the Senate" address, I was reviewing Senate mail
before typing out this post...


The error was completely mine...


Vale et Valete bene,
Aeternia


>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
>>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87872 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

Then this is precisely why the Senate should issue its advice to settle the
matter since this year our Preator has essentially deviated from
established tradition.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Belle Morte Statia <
syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> Salve et Salvete,
>
> Yes they were, every single one of them.
>
>
> Vale et Valete,
> Aeternia
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> robert.woolwine@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > But were the Ludi's posted on the FH list last year?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> >
> > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > >
> > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > >
> > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> ambiguity
> > > but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would
> want
> > to
> > > use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > >
> > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC
> to
> > > permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it
> is
> > > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > >
> > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> respect
> > > the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more
> > > interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> > enroll
> > > chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the
> > > taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> > FH?
> > > But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen
> > if
> > > someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > >
> > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > >
> > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> > > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we
> pay
> > > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we
> may
> > to
> > > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > >
> > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> > > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87873 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 14.49
Salvete FYI Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus
To: explorator@yahoogroups.com; BRITARCH@...
From: rogueclassicist@...
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:39:03 -0400
Subject: [Explorator] explorator 14.49




























================================================================

explorator 14.49 March 25, 2012

================================================================

Editor's note: Most urls should be active for at least eight

hours from the time of publication.



For your computer's protection, Explorator is sent in plain text

and NEVER has attachments. Be suspicious of any Explorator which

arrives otherwise!!!



================================================================

================================================================

Thanks to Arthur Shippee, Dave Sowdon, Donna Hurst, Jennifer Cosham,

Patrick Swan, Don Buck, A. Landreau, Edward Rockstein,

Laval Hunsucker, June Samaras, Hernan Astudillo, Kurt Theis,

Wendy van Duivenvoorde, John McMahon, Barnea Selavan,

Joseph Lauer, Mike Ruggeri, Richard Campbell, Richard C. Griffiths,

Bob Heuman, Rick Pettigrew,and Ross W. Sargent for headses upses

this week (as always hoping I have left no one out).

================================================================

EARLY HUMANS

================================================================

Why our ancestors started walking around on two feet:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-reveals-ancestors-bipedal-power.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/team-sheds-light-upright-walking-000212560.html



The importance of sediba:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-of-our-kind

http://io9.com/5894866/why-australopithecus-sediba-could-rewrite-our-evolutionary-history



They might know where the original Peking Man fossils are:



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/22/report-from-former-u-s-marine-hints-at-whereabouts-of-long-lost-peking-man-fossils/

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/22/are-the-lost-peking-man-fossils-buried-under-a-parking-lot-in-china/

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/discovery/ancient-fossil-could-be-buried-under-car-park-1.1262480



Top ten hominid fantasy finds:



http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/03/top-ten-hominid-fantasy-finds/



Cooking turned humans into an invasive species?:



http://io9.com/5895119/how-cooking-turned-humans-into-an-invasive-species

================================================================

AFRICA

================================================================

On the DNA front, Madagascar was apparently founded by women (not

sure that's an accurate headline):



http://news.discovery.com/history/madagascar-women-120320.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-indonesian-eves-colonised-madagascar-years.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/indonesian-eves-colonised-madagascar-1-200-years-ago-004901696.html

================================================================

ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND EGYPT

================================================================

Combining assorted satellite methods has revealed a pile of sites in Syria:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=satellites-expose-8000-years-lost-civilization

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-archaeologist-satellite-images-early-human.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17436400

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/20/satellites-spy-thousands-ancient-human-settlements/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0320/Satellites-identify-thousands-of-small-hills-as-ancient-human-settlements

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/243160-Satellites-reveal-thousands-of-ancient-human-settlements

http://www.livescience.com/19153-ancient-settlements-satellites-surveys.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/12/1115472109



A proposed redating of the Meidum cemetery:



http://en.naukawpolsce.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_naukapl.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=szablon.depesza&dz=archeology&dep=388729&data=&lang=EN&_CheckSum=-1851997953



Plans to open six tombs on the Giza Plateau:



http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/37069/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/Six-Old-Kingdom-tombs-to-be-opened-at-Giza-Plateau.aspx



Earliest known horse bit turns up at Tel-Haror:



http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/03/20/archaeologists-discover-earliest-known-metal-bit/



The Israel MFA ponders Israel's greatest archaeological finds:



http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/IsraelExperience/Greatest-archeological-finds-in-Israel-15-Mar-2012.htm



A reporter spent a week digging at KhirbetQeiyafa:



http://www.freep.com/article/20120318/FEATURES07/203180306/



Archaeologists return to Iraq:



http://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149231682/-archaeologists-revisit-iraq

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/march-2012/article/troops-leave-archaeologists-return-as-hope-for-iraqs-cultural-relics-and-tourism-industry-grow



Pondering the purpose of some ancient figurines from Israel:



http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/apotropaic-guardians-ancient-symbols-divine-icons-or-children%E2%80%99s-toys/



Pondering the question of the existence of Israel in ancient times:



http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march172012/ancient-israel-ae.php



Followup to Harvard's revival of an Egyptology program:



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/23/egyptologist-manuelian/



A Bethesda woman returned a number of objects (prehistoric) to Saudi

Arabia:



http://www.gazette.net/article/20120321/NEWS/703219502/1007/bethesda-woman-returns-to-saudi-arabia-with-prehistoric-artifacts&template=gazette



Some followup opinions to the Oded Golan trial:



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burleigh-bible-ossuary-forgery-20120325,0,2491331.story

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/fle368021.shtml

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-cleared-of-forging-jesus-brothers-burial-box-relic-7567034.html



Latest TAU microarchaeology lab newsletter:



http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/LCM%20Mar%2012.pdf



Review of Joyce Tyldesley, *Tutankhamen*:



http://www.nj.com/entertainment/arts/index.ssf/2012/03/tutankhamen_the_search_for_an.html



Review of Elaine Pagels, *Revelations*:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/books/revelations-by-elaine-pagels.html



More on Gobelki Tepe as 'cosmopolitan centre':



http://www.livescience.com/19085-world-oldest-temple-tools-pilgrimage.html



Egyptology News Blog:



http://egyptology.blogspot.com/



Egyptology Blog:



http://www.egyptologyblog.co.uk/



Dr Leen Ritmeyer's Blog:



http://blog.ritmeyer.com/



Paleojudaica:



http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/



Persepolis Fortification Archives:



http://persepolistablets.blogspot.com/

================================================================

ANCIENT GREECE AND ROME (AND CLASSICS)

================================================================

That diet-of-gladiators is making the rounds again from some

reason:



http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/23/did-gladiators-in-rome-observe-kosher-laws-video/



Bronze Age settlement from Thasos (article in Greek):



http://www.tovima.gr/culture/article/?aid=449532#.T2r65p2iYpg.email



Back in the day, Greece apparently pondered buying back the

Elgin Marbles:



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaymq4bBR2mc2M-cSUvqnDpCVE7w?docId=CNG.68eb0d745951ee8e2437a64149a8832f.41



A fly-though of the latest version of Rome Reborn:



http://vimeo.com/32038695



Some photos from Hadrian's Villa:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-firpo/postcard-from-the-villa-adriana_b_1363853.html



Boris Johnson spins the Olympic Torch origins story:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9153631/Boris-Johnson-gives-lesson-on-Olympic-flame-history.html



James Romm ponders Alexander the Great's death:



http://www.historytoday.com/james-romm/who-killed-alexander-great



The Boston MFA acquires a huge statue of Juno:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279650134903754.html



More on returns to Greece from the Getty:



http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=54098



Review of A.M. Juster (trans), *The Elegies of Tibullus*:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/25/tibullus-elegies-review



I think we mentioned these Roman burial urns from near

St Albans:



http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/9600246.Roman_mysteries_uncovered_in_Chippenham/r/



Latest reviews from BMCR:



http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/recent.html



Visit our blog:



http://rogueclassicism.com/

================================================================

EUROPE AND THE UK (+ Ireland)

================================================================

A survey reveals a cluster of cairns and sites in Caithness:



http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Survey-reveals-cluster-of-ancient-cairns-20032012.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-17463275



A 14th century silver seal found by a metal detectorist is garnering some

interest:



http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Silver-Lincolnshire-field-sparks-British-Museum/story-15534605-detail/story.html



The Cutty Sark has reopened five years after that fire:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/21/cutty-sark-gallery-long-john-silver-figureheads



Archaeologists have started excavating a mass grave which dates to

the Thirty Years' War near Lutzen:



http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20120324-41541.html



Chemical analysis of some of Nelson's sailor's has been used

to reconstruct their diet:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-archaeologists-reconstruct-diet-nelson-navy.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/w-ard032312.php



On traditions helping folks in Medieval Iceland:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-conservatism-iceland-catastrophe.html

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1186



Plans to save the ruins of Quarr Abbey:



http://iwcp.co.uk/news/news/abbey-launches-community-plan-43587.aspx



Remains of some Franciscan monks (maybe) found during road

construction at St Andrews:



http://news.stv.tv/scotland/tayside/301295-franciscan-monk-remains-unearthed-at-roadworks-site/



Venice is apparently still sinking:



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321172208.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-venice-hasnt.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57401506/city-of-venice-still-sinking-study-says/



The Viking Mice invasion:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-viking-journey-mice-men.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/03/20/viking_mice_invaded_the_north_atlantic_like_crazy_too.html



More on that early-Christian-buried-in-her-bed find:



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/pictures/120321-anglo-saxon-treasure-christian-burial-gold-cross-cambridge/



Another 'sound effects' study, this time on a very old stone structure

from Malta:



http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/march-2012/article/ancient-builders-created-monumental-structures-that-altered-sound-and-mind-say-researchers



What lies beneath the Mound of Down:



http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/unearthing-the-mystery-of-what-lies-beneath-the-ancient-mound-of-down-16132883.html



Building a monastery medieval-style:



http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,822375,00.html



Review of Ian Mortimer, *The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan

England*:



http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2012/03/time-travellers-guide-elizabethan-england



Archaeology in Europe Blog:



http://archaeology-in-europe.blogspot.com/



================================================================

ASIA AND THE SOUTH PACIFIC

================================================================

Australia's megafauna were hunted to extinction according to

fecal evidence:



http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/humans-killed-australia039s-big-beasts/story-e6frea83-1226307827470

http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/568301/s/1db64116/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Cearth0Cearthnews0C916210A70CHuman0Ehunting0Ecaused0Eextinction0Eof0Emegafauna0Bhtml/story01.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-hunters-climate-giant-beasts-yearsago.html



A Buddha statue is the latest thing to get a CAT scan:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/buddha-goes-to-the-hospital-medical-scans-reveal-rare-documents-inside-17th-century-sculpture/2012/03/22/gIQADq96TS_story.html



East Asian Archaeology:



http://eastasiablog.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/east-asian-archaeology-cultural-heritage-%E2%80%93-2052010/



Southeast Asian Archaeology Newsblog:



http://www.southeastasianarchaeology.com/



New Zealand Archaeology eNews:



http://www.nzarchaeology.org/netsubnews.htm

================================================================

NORTH AMERICA

================================================================

Earliest trace of human presence in Ohio:



http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Butchered+sloth+bone+lends+more+evidence+early+North+American/6332457/story.html

http://www.canada.com/Butchered+sloth+bone+lends+more+evidence+early+North+American+settlement/6332336/story.html



Settling the dispute over Drake's 1579 landfall in California:



http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20215163/calif-bay-be-named-explorers-landing-place



Assorted interesting finds from Dritt Mansion:



http://www.ydr.com/history/ci_20215927/archeology-revealed-unusual-finds-at-dritt-mansion



Finds from various periods from a dig at Luke Air Force

Base (Arizona):



http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20120323/NEWS09/703239915/archeologists-unearth-artifacts-at-luke-afb



Monitor v Virginia:



http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-11/metro/31143362_1_confederate-ship-virginia-ironclads-face-of-naval-warfare



Some old trolley tracks turn up in Hendersonville:



http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20120318/ARTICLES/120319790

================================================================

CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

================================================================

That gold crown given to Queen Victoria might not have been

made by the Incas after all:



http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=54289



Latest theory on the demise of the Mayans:



http://news.yahoo.com/did-belief-gods-lead-mayan-demise-223407714.html

http://news.discovery.com/history/mayans-gods-120322.html



Mike Ruggeri's Ancient Americas Breaking News:



http://web.mac.com/michaelruggeri



Ancient MesoAmerica News:



http://ancient-mesoamerica-news-updates.blogspot.com/

================================================================

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

================================================================

Latest video news from the Archaeology Channel:



http://www.archaeologychannel.org/



The latest Shroud of Turin claim, just in time for Easter:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9162459/Mystery-solved-Turin-Shroud-linked-to-Resurrection-of-Christ.html



One of my alma maters just acquired an interesting bit of equipment which

will be useful for archaeological research, I suspect:



http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/692531--mcmaster-opens-new-archeology-lab



A previously-unknown Mozart composition turns up in Austria:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17490070

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/24/lost-mozart-work-found/



Latest in the Odyssey Marine thing (I thought this was already done):



http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2012/03/21/actualidad/1332354607_623738.html



Famous sunken ancient cities:



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/318530/20120323/sunken-city-atlantis-cities-mediterranean-world-around.htm



Prominent French families are hurling accusations about a missing Monet:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/arts/design/prominent-french-families-battle-over-a-missing-monet.html



Plans to resume the search for Amelia Earhart:



http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/316862/20120321/amelia-earhart-search-news-conference-hillary-clinton.htm

http://news.discovery.com/history/amelia-earhart-search-resumes-120320.html

http://news.discovery.com/history/a-small-broken-cosmetic-glass-jar-fragments-of-rouge-from-a-womans-compact-buttons-parts-of-a-pocket-knife-that-was-beat.html



More on the possible find of the Battle of Anghiari:



http://www.france24.com/en/20120312-art-experts-found-lost-da-vinci-mural-palazzio-vecchio-florence-italy-leonardo



Ancient folk apparently knew how to sustain a fishery:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-ancient-civilizations-reveal-ways-fisheries.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/su-acr031612.php



On 'runner's high' and the evolution of exercise:



http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-runner-high-evolution.html



A (free) GIS webinar is coming up next week:



http://www.gisuser.com/content/view/26233/2/



Review of *The Papers of Thomas A. Edison*:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-seventh-volume-of-thomas-edisons-papers.html



http://www.ancientdigger.com/

================================================================

TOURISTY THINGS

================================================================

Belize:



http://www.thespec.com/living/travel/article/690410--mayan-ruins-in-belize-stand-alone-with-prehistory



Arqua:



http://www.travelagentcentral.com/newscred?guid=68b539a01c655e433975619a24981dad



Jerusalem:



http://www.jpost.com/Travel/AroundIsrael/Article.aspx?id=262962



Baghdad:



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/20/world/meast/baghdad-architecture/index.html



Volubilis:



http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=54310

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/mar/20/bc-ml--travel-trip-morocco-remains-of-rome1462/

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Morocco-s-Roman-ruins-Stunning-with-few-tourists-3420978.php

================================================================

BLOGS

================================================================

About.com Archaeology:



http://archaeology.about.com/



Archaeology Briefs:



http://archaeologybriefs.blogspot.com/



Taygete Atlantis excavations blogs aggregator:



http://planet.atlantides.org/taygete/



Time Machine:



http://heatherpringle.wordpress.com/

================================================================

CRIME BEAT

================================================================

Warnings of organized looting to come in Syria:



http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/march-2012/article/leaked-government-memo-warns-of-organized-looting-in-syria



Another antiquities dealer gets his comeuppance:



http://agourahills.patch.com/articles/antiquities-dealer-gets-home-detention-fines-for-illegally-dealing-in-indian-artifacts



A pair of diggers arrested for digging into some Native American mounds:



http://www.sunherald.com/2012/03/19/3827306/2-arrested-for-digging-into-indian.html



Looting Matters:



http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/



Illicit Cultural Property:



http://illicit-cultural-property.blogspot.com/



Safe Corner:



http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/

================================================================

NUMISMATICA

================================================================

A huge Roman hoard from Bath:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9161483/Hoard-of-30000-silver-Roman-coins-discovered-in-Bath.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/318404/20120323/roman-coins-largest-collection-britain-beau-street.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-17480016

http://news.discovery.com/history/roman-coins-120323.html

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/318404/20120323/roman-coins-largest-collection-britain-beau-street.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/30000-roman-silver-coins-found-at-work-site-in-bath/1

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/03/23/Hoard-of-Roman-coins-unearthed-in-England/UPI-80201332520356/



Big bucks for an Augustus Aureus:



http://news.coinupdate.com/gold-aureus-of-famed-first-emperor-augustus-1277/



A hoard of 300 years b.p. Indian gold coins from near Sandur:



http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/300-year-old-gold-coins-found-near-Bellary/articleshow/12396234.cms



More on that 'Year One' shekel sale:



http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=54100



Latest e-Sylum:



http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v15n12.html



... and the one that should appear later today:



http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v15n13.html



Ancient Coin Collecting:



http://ancientcoincollecting.blogspot.com/



Ancient Coins:



http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/



Coin Week:



http://www.coinweek.com/



================================================================

EXHIBITIONS, AUCTIONS, AND MUSEUM-RELATED

================================================================

Hajj:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/mar/19/british-museum-hajj-pilgrimage-propaganda



Alexander the Great:



http://wentworth-courier.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/ancient-treasures-on-the-way-for-alexander-the-great-exhibition/



Klimt:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/arts/design/neue-galerie-to-celebrate-klimts-birthday.html



The Louvre has put DaVinci's Saint Anne on display:



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/23/louvre-unveils-da-vincis-last-masterpiece/



Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/nyregion/a-review-of-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness-at-yale-university.html



A couple of interesting exhibitions at Yale:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/arts/design/making-history-and-remembering-shakespeare-at-yale.html



Top ten (by attendance) museums:



http://www.agi.it/english-version/people/elenco-notizie/201203232245-spe-ren1108-no_italian_museum_in_world_s_top_ten



Some observations from the European Fine Art Fair:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/arts/24iht-melikian24.html



Goings-ons at the Motown Historical Museum:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/arts/design/motown-piano-restored-postcard-books-film-on-lynd-ward.html



Economy problems are affecting all sorts of arts-related programs in Europe:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/world/europe/the-euro-crisis-is-hurting-cultural-groups.html?ref=arts



Check out our Twitter hashtage for more ancient exhibition reviews:



http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23classicalexhibit

================================================================

PERFORMANCES AND THEATRE-RELATED

================================================================

The Thomanerchor of Leipzig celebrates its 800th birthday:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/mar/21/oldest-choir-800-year-anniversary

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/21/worlds-oldest-choir-celebrates-800-years-of-singing-in-harmony/



Notre Dame:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/arts/music/notre-dame-franz-schmidts-opera-at-carnegie-hall.html



Check out our Twitter hashtag for Ancient Drama reviews:



http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23ancientdrama



... and for Sword and Sandal flicks:



http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23swordandsandal

================================================================

OBITUARIES

================================================================

Brian Shefton:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/art-obituaries/9153928/Professor-Brian-Shefton.html

================================================================

PODCASTS

================================================================

The Book and the Spade:



http://www.radioscribe.com/bknspade.htm



Stone Pages Archaeology News:



http://news.stonepages.com/



Archaeologica Audio News:



http://www.archaeologychannel.org/AudioNews.asp



Naked Archaeology Podcast:



http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/archaeology/

================================================================

EXPLORATOR is a weekly newsletter representing the fruits of

the labours of 'media research division' of The Atrium. Various

on-line news and magazine sources are scoured for news of the

ancient world (broadly construed: practically anything relating

to archaeology or history prior to about 1700 or so is fair

game) and every Sunday they are delivered to your mailbox free of

charge!

================================================================

Useful Addresses

================================================================

Past issues of Explorator are available on the web via our

Yahoo site:



http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Explorator/



To subscribe to Explorator, send a blank email message to:



Explorator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



To unsubscribe, send a blank email message to:



Explorator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



To send a 'heads up' to the editor or contact him for other

reasons:



rogueclassicist@...

================================================================

Explorator is Copyright (c) 2012 David Meadows. Feel free to

distribute these listings via email to your pals, students,

teachers, etc., but please include this copyright notice. These

links are not to be posted to any website by any means (whether

by direct posting or snagging from a usenet group or some other

email source) without my express written permission. I think it

is only right that I be made aware of public fora which are

making use of content gathered in Explorator. Thanks!

================================================================



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


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87874 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Ludi Question
Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87875 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Cn. Caesar C. Petronio sal,

Of course it has a flaw. A self-evident one. There is absolutely no
advantage to be gained by restricting the ludi this way. I highly doubt if
this interpretation you, and it is only you as a praetor who has interpreted
it this way, cleave to of not permitting the ludi to be discussed or
participated in on FH had been clearly expressed in the Senatus consultum
that created FH, that it would have been passed by the Senate.

I saw no politics in the ludi, this year or last. I think you are clutching
at straws here. In any case since FH is moderated posts can be pre-screened
so if there is anything mixed in it can be dealt with then. As for what I
want, I want non-citizens to have a chance to participate in the ludi.

"The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period." It is
precisely because of your rather restrictive interpretation that I am
putting this matter to the Senate. We could simply wait for you to leave
office and hope next year's praetors take a more enlightened view. This year
your colleague does, but you don't and as we operate in Nova Roma on the
basis of collegiate magistracies then this is an impasse. I will ask the
Senate to resolve it one way or the other. You never know, they may agree
with you, in which case the matter will be settled to your satisfaction.

No Dexter I don't need to write a Senatus consultum for the posting of the
ludi on the website, that is unless you dream up a reason why it shouldn't
happen ;)

FH is well moderated and always has been. The moderation is not the issue,
which is simply do we or don't we permit non-citizens to participate in the
ludi and to read about them and comment on them on FH. I say yes. Your
colleague says yes. You and possibly others say no. As issues go this is a
small matter, and my proposal is to let the Senate resolve it.

Optime vale


-----Original Message-----
From: petronius_dexter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
(AMENDMENT #1)

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

> The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.

It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to
use the FH for other purposes that it was created.

Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to
permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political.
Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly
clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity
stunt on future possible new citizens.
The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87876 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Salve Pauline,

I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)
But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87877 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question




























Salve Pauline,



I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)

But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.



Vale bene,



Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

>

>

> Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus

>

>

>

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

>


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87878 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave Sulla

Gratias tibi.

So it was a Praetor of Nova Roma who brought this to the Consul?

I find myself disappointed.

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> There seems to be a disagreement in the two Praetors opinion, so....the
> Senate is going to issue their say to try to help reach an accommodation.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Iulia s.d,
> >
> > > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> > participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
> >
> > This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
> >
> > Valete optime
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Denise D." <aemilia.regilla@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salvete!
> > >
> > > CALL TO CONVENE A FORMAL MEETING OF THE SENATE IN SESSION â€" 25TH MAR.
> > â€" 31ST MAR. 2012
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > SCHEDULE:
> > > Â
> >
> > > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period
> > commences.
> > > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 30-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
> > > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period
> > commences.
> > > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 03-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
> > > 23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to
> > close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > AGENDA:
> > > Â
> > > I.  Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to
> > assidui status. (Debate & vote)
> > > Â
> > > II. Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica. (Debate & vote)
> > > Â
> > > III. Annual tax rate for a new citizen unassigned to a
> > century. (Debate & vote)
> > > Â
> > > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> > participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > ATTACHMENTS:
> > > Â
> >
> > > Nil currently. Proposed Senatus consulta required for both items to be
> > put to the vote will be presented in final form no less than 24 hours
> > before commencement of voting.
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > NOTES:
> > > Â
> >
> > > A. Current tribunes to have standing right to speak at any time during
> > this session. No prior permission required.
> > > B. Mountain time = GMT - 7 / CET - 8
> > > C. Presiding magistrate: Cn. Iulius Caesar.
> > > D. Publication of the voting results should not be on the 6th April, but
> > between 12:00 AM on the 4th April and 11:59 PM on the 5th April.
> > Tribunician session final report can continue after close of session.
> > > E. Due to limited time period available for the session, optional voting
> > hour timeframe around sunset/sunrise either on CET or Mountain time
> > dispensed with.
> > > Â
> >
> > > --
> > > V.A. Regilla
> > >
> > > Tribuna Plebis
> > > Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
> > > Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae
> >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87879 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

I was involved in an email exchange between the praetors and others when it first arose. I was already well aware of the issue.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:50 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Ave Sulla

Gratias tibi.

So it was a Praetor of Nova Roma who brought this to the Consul?

I find myself disappointed.

Vale bene,

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87880 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Caesar Iuliae sal,

Or, people who are not citizens may wonder why one year they could participate, and the next they cannot and on and on. Maybe they would consider that we can’t get our ducks in a row and that keeping them out is rather silly. I would tend to agree with that. I also highly doubt that the ludi is the only selling point we have. People can be citizens, not pay taxes and still participate in the ludi. Why not let non-citizens do the same? I see absolutely no benefit to excluding people. Maybe I have missed some huge benefit, but I don’t see it. So far the only other tangible reason is that the Senatus consultum has been interpreted that way. Well, let’s ask the Senate what it thinks, since the Senate created FH.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:47 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question


Salve Pauline,

I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)
But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.

Vale bene,

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87881 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

No, that is not how I understand. The way I understand it was that both
praetors disagree. The Consul then stepped in stating that since there is
no adequate resolution for both praetors then it now behooves the Senate to
decide the matter.

Personally, I think Praetor Dexter has gone way to far in his
interpretation. So, if you want to blame a Praetor, I would kinda look
toward the one who has deviated from tradition.

Vale,

Sulla



On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave Sulla
>
> Gratias tibi.
>
> So it was a Praetor of Nova Roma who brought this to the Consul?
>
> I find myself disappointed.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > There seems to be a disagreement in the two Praetors opinion, so....the
> > Senate is going to issue their say to try to help reach an accommodation.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:58 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Iulia s.d,
> > >
> > > > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> > > participation in the ludi.� (Debate & vote)
> > >
> > > This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
> > >
> > > Valete optime
> > >
> > > Julia
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Denise D." <aemilia.regilla@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salvete!
> > > >
> > > > CALL TO CONVENE A FORMAL MEETING OF THE SENATE IN SESSION ��" 25TH
> MAR.
> > > ��" 31ST MAR. 2012
> > > > �
> > > > �
> > > > SCHEDULE:
> > > > �
> > >
> > > > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 25-MAR-2012 : Call to order. Debate period
> > > commences.
> > > > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 30-MAR-2012 : Debate period ends.
> > > > 12:00 AM MOUNTAIN TIME 31-MAR-2012 : Call to vote. Voting period
> > > commences.
> > > > 11:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 03-APR-2012 : Voting period ends.
> > > > 23:59 PM MOUNTAIN TIME 07-APR-2012 : Calculation of votes and call to
> > > close to be issued after end voting and before this time.
> > > > �
> > > > �
> > > > AGENDA:
> > > > �
> > > > I.� � Method of converting citizens from capite censi status to
> > > assidui� status.� (Debate & vote)
> > > > �
> > > > II.� Recent statements of Aula Tullia Scholastica.� (Debate & vote)
> > > > �
> > > > III. Annual tax rate for a new citizen� unassigned to a
> > > century.� (Debate & vote)
> > > > �
> > > > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> > > participation in the ludi.� (Debate & vote)
> > > > �
> > > > �
> > > > ATTACHMENTS:
> > > > �
> > >
> > > > Nil currently. Proposed Senatus consulta required for both items to
> be
> > > put to the vote will be presented in final form no less than 24 hours
> > > before commencement of voting.
> > > > �
> > > > �
> > > > NOTES:
> > > > �
> > >
> > > > A. Current tribunes to have standing right to speak at any time
> during
> > > this session. No prior permission required.
> > > > B. Mountain time = GMT - 7 / CET - 8
> > > > C. Presiding magistrate: Cn. Iulius Caesar.
> > > > D. Publication of the voting results should not be on the 6th April,
> but
> > > between 12:00 AM on the 4th April and 11:59 PM on the 5th April.
> > > Tribunician session final report can continue after close of session.
> > > > E. Due to limited time period available for the session, optional
> voting
> > > hour timeframe around sunset/sunrise either on CET or Mountain time
> > > dispensed with.
> > > > �
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > V.A. Regilla
> > > >
> > > > Tribuna Plebis
> > > > Legata Pro Praetore� Provinciae� Argentinae
> > > > Legata Pro Praetore� Provinciae� Brasiliae
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87882 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Salve Pauline,

Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?

I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of discussions to post when we miss the obvious.

Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise, getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.

Aw c'mon now!

This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek to undermine each other? Bah!

The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending it to the Senate.

Vale bene

Julia





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve Pauline,
>
>
>
> I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)
>
> But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.
>
>
>
> Vale bene,
>
>
>
> Julia
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87883 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Ave!

Blame Dexter he has violated from established Tradition. Last year the
Ludi was posted on the FH. This year he has totally disregarded that.
Don't blame both praetors blame the one who has caused the tempest in a
teacup.

Personally I think we should have every segement of the Ludi posted on the
NR lists and the FH lists....heck, even on the Back Alley if anyone found
it of interest.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve Pauline,
>
> Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?
>
> I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of
> discussions to post when we miss the obvious.
>
> Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise,
> getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more
> honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a
> Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.
>
> Aw c'mon now!
>
> This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek
> to undermine each other? Bah!
>
> The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending it
> to the Senate.
>
> Vale bene
>
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Pauline,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)
> >
> > But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily
> living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we
> have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and
> participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more
> taxes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale bene,
> >
> >
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times
> were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and
> were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87884 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Caesar Iuliae sal.

One praetor wants the ludi permitted on FH, the other doesn’t. The one that doesn’t is immovable and there is no compromise. He has stated such. Fine. Then I will ask the Senate to resolve it one way or the other. There is nothing to be gained by allowing this stalemate to drag out. The Senate created FH and has every right to amend its own Senatus consultum. At the end one praetor’s view is likely to succeed and the other’s fail, but there will be resolution.

Optime vale


From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:03 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question


Salve Pauline,

Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?

I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of discussions to post when we miss the obvious.

Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise, getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.

Aw c'mon now!

This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek to undermine each other? Bah!

The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending it to the Senate.

Vale bene

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87885 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Salve Julia, In fact I have called on the Consul to allow the Senate an up or down vote onabolishing the Forum Hospitum altogether. I am for returning our guests and potentialcitizens to the Forum Romanum where I believe they belong. Vale PaulinusTo: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:03:45 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question




























Salve Pauline,



Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?



I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of discussions to post when we miss the obvious.



Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise, getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.



Aw c'mon now!



This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek to undermine each other? Bah!



The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending it to the Senate.



Vale bene



Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:

>

>

> Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

> From: luciaiuliaaquila@...

> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000

> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Salve Pauline,

>

>

>

> I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)

>

> But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.

>

>

>

> Vale bene,

>

>

>

> Julia

>

>

>

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87886 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari cos. Salutem

You know just a few one more thoughts here.
If passed Article IV is an example of over legislation in an area where it is not needed. This is my perception that it is such overkill. Naturally I will respect the decision of the senate.

I might be totally off base, wrong maybe but I do hope this conversation makes our citizens think and pay attention to what is transpires in Nova Roma, and apparently since I took a brief recess, it has. Good.

If the Senate intervenes because "there's a flaw in the law" then I suspected there may be a "fly in the soup."
I was right. I now learn that a citizen, a praetor, brought this to the Consul. And there may be another fly or so in that soup applying their influence. It smacks of manipulation from behind and below rather than being upfront and forthright.

The Ludi are Roman Religious Festivals for the benefit and entertainment of the Roman people. Also for the Gods because they are their feast days made sacred to the specific God/ess as a fulfillment of a vow.
It for the Roman people to build camaraderie, not for selfish reasons – for the Gods, for the Nova Romans, not just for a select few.

These are the PRAETORES.

The Praetores of OUR Respublica.

As Praetores before them it is up to them to interpret the law on items under their purview. And to work it out.

Again, if this occurred while you or Marinus were Praetores there would have been fireworks.

The ML is under the purview of both Praetores, will you interfere there as well for something as equally significant?

Whether by SC or normal Senate sessions the law is the law. We have some laws that should have priority over this. By being overly flexible in the interpretation of this law you are placing restrictions on the powers of the Praetores to use their judgment in application of the law - to enable them to use reasonable and judicial flexibility that is within their purview.

This is not the only Law with Flaws and it certainly is not the most important. Sometimes, it is better for our children to tell them to work it out on their own, they learn well by experience. If it was someone I mentor I would have counseled in that manner.

> I think we have to be realistic here. Information will “leak” >regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To >try to prevent leaks is futile.<snipped> to the purpose of Forum >Hospitum.

The point is not if RPR or whomever see what is on the list - they already do. The point was that we do not want to run potential citizens off before they meet some kinder Nova Romans - or so we say.
That is the point.

> As to paranoid,<snipped>Prevention is better than cure.

But it is a non-problem now, the people who have done this are gone, should it occur again, than after their term is up, bring them up on charges. That is also how Nova Roman law works. We need protection, but we also need some trust, particularly in our Magistrates.


Optime vale

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Iuliae sal.
>
> I think we have to be realistic here. Information will “leak” regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To try to prevent leaks is futile. The purpose of the prohibition on discussion of internal affairs was always intended to be negative internal affairs. As a Nova Roman list it has no obligation to turn itself into a self-flagellating list. Preventing outburst from ex-citizens, current citizens all with an axe to grind, regardless of whatever “political” persuasion is not conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum.
>
> As to whether selected excerpts or not should be allowed, or the full program and participation, my preference is for full participation. If people are keen to do so, I don’t think keeping it to citizens only advances the goal of encouraging people to move to citizenship. It is not as though a deluge of non-citizens will drown out the citizen participation. That of course is my personal preference, and the Senate may opt for a different view.
>
> The Forum was created by Senatus consultum, by the Senate, and the Senate can re-shape that if they wish. The purpose was to prevent negative discussion of internal affairs, but due to loose wording that has been seen to mean also including preventing discussion of the ludi. I don’t believe that was the intention of the Senate so we will ask them and see. As much as the praetorial edict is a useful function, so is consular referral to the Senate to decide an issue that the Senate created. I personally voted for the creation of Forum Hospitum and I never foresaw this as an issue, but it has become so. Therefore what the Senate created the Senate can decide if it wishes to fix.
>
> As to paranoid, no. It simply recognizes in the past this has been a method of interdicting comments from reaching a list, to leave them sitting on hold. It just prevents a previous course of action being re-employed again in the future. Prevention is better than cure.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:27 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia Caesari sal,
>
> Thank you so much for taking time out of your Sunday morning to field my questions, Consul.
>
> > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a difference of opinion over whether the phrase ‘internal affairs” includes the ludi or not. It isn’t clearly defined and it needs to be.
>
> Just the fact that it needs to be defined clearly gives a hint that in the course of the Ludi information regarding internal affairs may very well leak. Inclusion of a little controversy would not only spice them up a bit but make them look more like Nova Roma. Blanket inclusion of the Ludi on the FH will make OUR Ludi susceptible to censorship and may very well stifle the creativity and veritas of our future Ludi.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87887 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

When the magistrates are THEMSELVES at an impasse it behooves the higher
ranking magistrates and senate to step in and resolve the issue.

This is exactly what is happening.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:45 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia Caesari cos. Salutem
>
> You know just a few one more thoughts here.
> If passed Article IV is an example of over legislation in an area where it
> is not needed. This is my perception that it is such overkill. Naturally I
> will respect the decision of the senate.
>
> I might be totally off base, wrong maybe but I do hope this conversation
> makes our citizens think and pay attention to what is transpires in Nova
> Roma, and apparently since I took a brief recess, it has. Good.
>
> If the Senate intervenes because "there's a flaw in the law" then I
> suspected there may be a "fly in the soup."
> I was right. I now learn that a citizen, a praetor, brought this to the
> Consul. And there may be another fly or so in that soup applying their
> influence. It smacks of manipulation from behind and below rather than
> being upfront and forthright.
>
> The Ludi are Roman Religious Festivals for the benefit and entertainment
> of the Roman people. Also for the Gods because they are their feast days
> made sacred to the specific God/ess as a fulfillment of a vow.
> It for the Roman people to build camaraderie, not for selfish reasons �
> for the Gods, for the Nova Romans, not just for a select few.
>
> These are the PRAETORES.
>
> The Praetores of OUR Respublica.
>
> As Praetores before them it is up to them to interpret the law on items
> under their purview. And to work it out.
>
> Again, if this occurred while you or Marinus were Praetores there would
> have been fireworks.
>
> The ML is under the purview of both Praetores, will you interfere there as
> well for something as equally significant?
>
> Whether by SC or normal Senate sessions the law is the law. We have some
> laws that should have priority over this. By being overly flexible in the
> interpretation of this law you are placing restrictions on the powers of
> the Praetores to use their judgment in application of the law - to enable
> them to use reasonable and judicial flexibility that is within their
> purview.
>
> This is not the only Law with Flaws and it certainly is not the most
> important. Sometimes, it is better for our children to tell them to work it
> out on their own, they learn well by experience. If it was someone I mentor
> I would have counseled in that manner.
>
> > I think we have to be realistic here. Information will ���leak��
> >regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To >try to
> prevent leaks is futile.<snipped> to the purpose of Forum >Hospitum.
>
> The point is not if RPR or whomever see what is on the list - they already
> do. The point was that we do not want to run potential citizens off before
> they meet some kinder Nova Romans - or so we say.
> That is the point.
>
> > As to paranoid,<snipped>Prevention is better than cure.
>
> But it is a non-problem now, the people who have done this are gone,
> should it occur again, than after their term is up, bring them up on
> charges. That is also how Nova Roman law works. We need protection, but we
> also need some trust, particularly in our Magistrates.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar Iuliae sal.
> >
> > I think we have to be realistic here. Information will ���leak��
> regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To try to
> prevent leaks is futile. The purpose of the prohibition on discussion of
> internal affairs was always intended to be negative internal affairs. As a
> Nova Roman list it has no obligation to turn itself into a
> self-flagellating list. Preventing outburst from ex-citizens, current
> citizens all with an axe to grind, regardless of whatever ���political��
> persuasion is not conducive to the purpose of Forum Hospitum.
> >
> > As to whether selected excerpts or not should be allowed, or the full
> program and participation, my preference is for full participation. If
> people are keen to do so, I don���t think keeping it to citizens only
> advances the goal of encouraging people to move to citizenship. It is not
> as though a deluge of non-citizens will drown out the citizen
> participation. That of course is my personal preference, and the Senate may
> opt for a different view.
> >
> > The Forum was created by Senatus consultum, by the Senate, and the
> Senate can re-shape that if they wish. The purpose was to prevent negative
> discussion of internal affairs, but due to loose wording that has been seen
> to mean also including preventing discussion of the ludi. I don���t believe
> that was the intention of the Senate so we will ask them and see. As much
> as the praetorial edict is a useful function, so is consular referral to
> the Senate to decide an issue that the Senate created. I personally voted
> for the creation of Forum Hospitum and I never foresaw this as an issue,
> but it has become so. Therefore what the Senate created the Senate can
> decide if it wishes to fix.
> >
> > As to paranoid, no. It simply recognizes in the past this has been a
> method of interdicting comments from reaching a list, to leave them sitting
> on hold. It just prevents a previous course of action being re-employed
> again in the future. Prevention is better than cure.
> >
> > Optime vale
> >
> > From: luciaiuliaaquila
> > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:27 AM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> (AMENDMENT #1)
> >
> >
> > Iulia Caesari sal,
> >
> > Thank you so much for taking time out of your Sunday morning to field my
> questions, Consul.
> >
> > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it. There is a
> difference of opinion over whether the phrase ������internal affairs�����
> includes the ludi or not. It isn������t clearly defined and it needs to be.
>
> >
> > Just the fact that it needs to be defined clearly gives a hint that in
> the course of the Ludi information regarding internal affairs may very well
> leak. Inclusion of a little controversy would not only spice them up a bit
> but make them look more like Nova Roma. Blanket inclusion of the Ludi on
> the FH will make OUR Ludi susceptible to censorship and may very well
> stifle the creativity and veritas of our future Ludi.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87888 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

I am afraid I cannot on any level construct a huge issue of principle out of this. This is very simple. We have two praetors. We have an issue. Neither can agree, and one certainly will not budge. It would be silly to have the ludi permitted one year under one set of praetors and banned the next. Therefore since the Senate created FH I will ask the Senate to resolve it.

As to the ludi, we don’t have to be so parochial do we? The ancient ludi were open to all who wanted to attend. Not every participant was a citizen. The best we can advance for keeping it under lock and key to citizens only is a possible tax benefit, which really doesn’t fly (for me).

As for Marinus and myself, well I like to think I would have picked a bigger hill to die on than this one. I am glad you support the praetors. The problem is they are in an impasse and I will ask the Senate to break the log jam. This isn’t rocket science, nor unusual, nor the end of Nova Roman civilization as we know it. Maybe your view and Dexter’s will prevail in the Senate. who knows, but we have a resolution.

Optime vale


From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:45 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Caesari cos. Salutem

You know just a few one more thoughts here.
If passed Article IV is an example of over legislation in an area where it is not needed. This is my perception that it is such overkill. Naturally I will respect the decision of the senate.

I might be totally off base, wrong maybe but I do hope this conversation makes our citizens think and pay attention to what is transpires in Nova Roma, and apparently since I took a brief recess, it has. Good.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87889 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari cos. Petroni omnibusque S.P.D.


> The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity

Agreed.

> some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to use the FH for other >purposes that it was created. > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change >the SC to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political

Wow, I thought we were getting over this sort of backstabbing – we should look to the games to bring us together in camaraderie then, rather than peregrinatores.

Praetores, please work this out amongst yourselves, you have willing scribes who will help. I know it can be done.

> Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity stunt on future possible new citizens

No more legislation is needed; this can be brought to a compromise. As a promo giving them all the candy in their baskets before they pay for it is not wise, they must pay before they play – and by pay I mean become citizens. I can't say for sure but from what I have been reading on this and other threads today that some contemplation on motives should be applied here by those involved.

> But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not respect the difference >between citizenship and guestship you will give no more interest for an application to the >citizenship. If a no-citizen may enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why >we will pay the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the FH? But >you know that the Games are a political affair.

Agreed. A well written synopsis of the games, an excerpt will suffice and tantalize – thus we keep our internal affairs, abide by the law and do some promo as well.

> The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.

Simple, that's the law.


Optime vale

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
>
> > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
>
> It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
>
> Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
>
> But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
>
> The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
>
> For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may to promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
>
> So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87890 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

The Praetors have failed to reach consensus. You asking them to revisit
when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
his idol...should logically tell you there is NO compromise with him. So,
the Senate is doing its duty to resolve the issue.

Talk to your boss, Iulia.....He created this tempset in a teacup. Now it
will get resolved one way or another swiftly.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia Caesari cos. Petroni omnibusque S.P.D.
>
>
> > The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
>
> Agreed.
>
> > some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to
> use the FH for other >purposes that it was created. > Then, as these
> magistrates are your friends, you want to change >the SC to permitt these
> purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political
>
> Wow, I thought we were getting over this sort of backstabbing � we should
> look to the games to bring us together in camaraderie then, rather than
> peregrinatores.
>
> Praetores, please work this out amongst yourselves, you have willing
> scribes who will help. I know it can be done.
>
>
> > Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly
> clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity
> stunt on future possible new citizens
>
> No more legislation is needed; this can be brought to a compromise. As a
> promo giving them all the candy in their baskets before they pay for it is
> not wise, they must pay before they play � and by pay I mean become
> citizens. I can't say for sure but from what I have been reading on this
> and other threads today that some contemplation on motives should be
> applied here by those involved.
>
>
> > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> respect the difference >between citizenship and guestship you will give no
> more interest for an application to the >citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why >we will pay
> the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> FH? But >you know that the Games are a political affair.
>
> Agreed. A well written synopsis of the games, an excerpt will suffice and
> tantalize � thus we keep our internal affairs, abide by the law and do some
> promo as well.
>
>
> > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
>
> Simple, that's the law.
>
> Optime vale
>
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> >
> > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> >
> > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games,
> would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> >
> > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC
> to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> >
> > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no
> more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay
> the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen
> if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> >
> > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> >
> > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay
> for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may to
> promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> >
> > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> >
> > Optime vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87891 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave , aw c'mon, Sulla!

One time does not a tradition make. We did a lot of things last year we have never done before;)and just by doing so does not make it a credible tradition.

Vale bene

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> Then this is precisely why the Senate should issue its advice to settle the
> matter since this year our Preator has essentially deviated from
> established tradition.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Belle Morte Statia <
> syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve et Salvete,
> >
> > Yes they were, every single one of them.
> >
> >
> > Vale et Valete,
> > Aeternia
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > robert.woolwine@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > But were the Ludi's posted on the FH list last year?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > > >
> > > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > > >
> > > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> > ambiguity
> > > > but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would
> > want
> > > to
> > > > use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > > >
> > > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC
> > to
> > > > permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > > > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it
> > is
> > > > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > > > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > > >
> > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > respect
> > > > the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no more
> > > > interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> > > enroll
> > > > chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay the
> > > > taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> > > FH?
> > > > But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen
> > > if
> > > > someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > > >
> > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > > >
> > > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> > > > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we
> > pay
> > > > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we
> > may
> > > to
> > > > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > > >
> > > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> > > > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > > > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87892 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

Considering the list only came into being last year....its still
precedent. Dexter has chosen on his own whim to deviate from that. So who
is the determinate body for establishing guidelines when the two praetors
cannot reach consensus..OH YEAH THE SENATE! <g>

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave , aw c'mon, Sulla!
>
> One time does not a tradition make. We did a lot of things last year we
> have never done before;)and just by doing so does not make it a credible
> tradition.
>
> Vale bene
>
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > Then this is precisely why the Senate should issue its advice to settle
> the
> > matter since this year our Preator has essentially deviated from
> > established tradition.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Belle Morte Statia <
> > syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Salve et Salvete,
> > >
> > > Yes they were, every single one of them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale et Valete,
> > > Aeternia
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Robert Woolwine <
> > > robert.woolwine@...
>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ave!
> > > >
> > > > But were the Ludi's posted on the FH list last year?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...
>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > > > >
> > > > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> > > ambiguity
> > > > > but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change
> the SC
> > > to
> > > > > permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > > > > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while
> it
> > > is
> > > > > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a
> sort of
> > > > > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > > > >
> > > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > > respect
> > > > > the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no
> more
> > > > > interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> > > > enroll
> > > > > chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will
> pay the
> > > > > taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on
> the
> > > > FH?
> > > > > But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will
> happen
> > > > if
> > > > > someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > > > >
> > > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH.
> Period.
> > > > >
> > > > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on
> the
> > > > > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and
> we
> > > pay
> > > > > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull,
> we
> > > may
> > > > to
> > > > > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to
> respect and
> > > > > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > > > > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Optime vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87893 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Salve Pauline,

You got something there. The more i watch this play out today the more I like it. But I have to give it some thought. *laughs* Not that is matters what I think.

All this time wasted on this, a shame, we could have been working on other projects.

I blame no one btw, blame is counterproductive, they just need to pull it together and behave like ... oh heck every word I try to insert has some caveat! *laughs* Maybe just try a little professionalism and compromise, each wants what they want and they're sticking to it.

Vale bene

Julia


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Julia, In fact I have called on the Consul to allow the Senate an up or down vote onabolishing the Forum Hospitum altogether. I am for returning our guests and potentialcitizens to the Forum Romanum where I believe they belong. Vale PaulinusTo: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:03:45 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve Pauline,
>
>
>
> Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?
>
>
>
> I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of discussions to post when we miss the obvious.
>
>
>
> Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise, getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.
>
>
>
> Aw c'mon now!
>
>
>
> This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek to undermine each other? Bah!
>
>
>
> The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending it to the Senate.
>
>
>
> Vale bene
>
>
>
> Julia
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> > From: luciaiuliaaquila@
>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000
>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Salve Pauline,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in here:)
>
> >
>
> > But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more taxes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Vale bene,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Julia
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87894 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Ludi Question
Ave!

Lest we forget the moment we remove the FH we will be graced with the
presence of Anna and Maior again. And, then we will go back to remembering
why the FH list was created in the first place. Nope, sorry this set up has
worked great NR has had far less disruptions since this policy has been
adopted. There is no positive gain for us to turn the clock back.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:21 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve Pauline,
>
> You got something there. The more i watch this play out today the more I
> like it. But I have to give it some thought. *laughs* Not that is matters
> what I think.
>
> All this time wasted on this, a shame, we could have been working on other
> projects.
>
> I blame no one btw, blame is counterproductive, they just need to pull it
> together and behave like ... oh heck every word I try to insert has some
> caveat! *laughs* Maybe just try a little professionalism and compromise,
> each wants what they want and they're sticking to it.
>
>
> Vale bene
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salve Julia, In fact I have called on the Consul to allow the Senate an
> up or down vote onabolishing the Forum Hospitum altogether. I am for
> returning our guests and potentialcitizens to the Forum Romanum where I
> believe they belong. Vale PaulinusTo: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: luciaiuliaaquila@...
>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:03:45 +0000
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Pauline,
> >
> >
> >
> > Then you agree with me that only excerpts should be allowed on the FH?
> >
> >
> >
> > I wish the praetores had brought this to the ML. We try to think of
> discussions to post when we miss the obvious.
> >
> >
> >
> > Surely bringing the discussion to the forum and coming to a compromise,
> getting input from the lowly citizens who are privatus is much more
> honorable than a couple of folks going over the other's head - esp. a
> Praetor of the Nova Roma Respublica.
> >
> >
> >
> > Aw c'mon now!
> >
> >
> >
> > This whole affair is disconcerting. How can we foster trust when we seek
> to undermine each other? Bah!
> >
> >
> >
> > The Consuls could have discussed it with both praetors without sending
> it to the Senate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale bene
> >
> >
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Salve Julia, I agree. it is why I asked the question. Vale Paulinus
> >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > From: luciaiuliaaquila@
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:47:06 +0000
> >
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ludi Question
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Salve Pauline,
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I am not Petronius but this is a good place as any to jump back in
> here:)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But they did not have a FH. And we do not have markets for their daily
> living needs to enrich our coffers. Ludi is one of the few incentives we
> have to offer right now and a desire to view it in it's entirety and
> participate may give us a chance to welcome new members and collect more
> taxes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Vale bene,
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Julia
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher
> <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman
> times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the
> Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87895 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari sal,

You are not listening to me. My solution is a compromise, different from Petronius.

Lock the two of them in a room until they come out with a solution, so to speak. I think they both won't budge.

Parochial? The Ludi? Naw. We surely could not be accused of being parochial, if you mean relating to the religio. We're hard pressed to get any interest in it online. As for scope, as an incentive to actively participate if one is a citizen we will increase our citizenship - widening our scope. As, I think you pointed out, its already posted on the wiki - how much wider can it get?

If we want to survive as a corporation and as a Respublica - we needs funds and populace and so we need public relations and promotion and this is one flight we should have boarded a while ago.
Naturally we stand more to gain from each citizen, each citizen enriches us in unique and in some no so unique ways, rising stars but we also need the salt of the earth and each is vastly more than his or her yearly tax - so let's table that type of rhetoric.

> As for Marinus and myself, well I like to think I would have picked > a bigger hill to die on than this one.

Darn Straight! And there is no thinking about it. It would ever have come to this.

>I am glad you support the praetors.

Of course I do. They are both capable of coming to a solution on their own.

Vale optime

Julia



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Iuliae sal.
>
> I am afraid I cannot on any level construct a huge issue of principle out of this. This is very simple. We have two praetors. We have an issue. Neither can agree, and one certainly will not budge. It would be silly to have the ludi permitted one year under one set of praetors and banned the next. Therefore since the Senate created FH I will ask the Senate to resolve it.
>
> As to the ludi, we don’t have to be so parochial do we? The ancient ludi were open to all who wanted to attend. Not every participant was a citizen. The best we can advance for keeping it under lock and key to citizens only is a possible tax benefit, which really doesn’t fly (for me).
>
> As for Marinus and myself, well I like to think I would have picked a bigger hill to die on than this one. I am glad you support the praetors. The problem is they are in an impasse and I will ask the Senate to break the log jam. This isn’t rocket science, nor unusual, nor the end of Nova Roman civilization as we know it. Maybe your view and Dexter’s will prevail in the Senate. who knows, but we have a resolution.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 2:45 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia Caesari cos. Salutem
>
> You know just a few one more thoughts here.
> If passed Article IV is an example of over legislation in an area where it is not needed. This is my perception that it is such overkill. Naturally I will respect the decision of the senate.
>
> I might be totally off base, wrong maybe but I do hope this conversation makes our citizens think and pay attention to what is transpires in Nova Roma, and apparently since I took a brief recess, it has. Good.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87896 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question
C. Petronius Ti. Galerio salutem,
 
Your question is not relevant with the problem we are talking about.
But as you seem to prefer to ask questions off topic, if you will permitt, censor, may you send me the list of NR Gaul citizens for accomplishing the mission that the Senate gave me as I requested since the 4 March and without any answer of you. May be are you searching the NR Gaulish citizens in Roman times? Give me, please, the list of the current ones.  
 
Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VIII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.



________________________________
De : Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>
À : Nova-Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 20h50
Objet : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question


Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit.  In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi  and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus

                         

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87897 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

I am listening to you, but you aren’t praetor and there is no point my ordering them by edictum to negotiate. That would be silly. Negotiation and compromise only work if both parties are open to it. One, Dexter, is not clearly. So whatever you think amica it isn’t the issue, it really comes down to whether Dexter wants to step into the room. It is his mindset that matters in such a proposal, not yours or mine.

Well they can take the opportunity if they wish, so the praetors can always re-explore the issue between now and when I put the item to the vote in the Senate. If both praetors come inform the Senate they have reached resolution, I will let voting members of the Senate decide whether they feel comfortable not resolving it by Senatus consultum and trusting to any such compromise, in which case they can vote the Senatus consultum down, or whether despite such a resolution they still wish to resolve it by Senatus consultum. In such an event I too will make a choice as to how I vote, but before we even get to that stage all we have is an empty room or at best one with only one praetor likely willing to go in. Maybe even Aeternia doesn’t want to. To date there has been no resolution and compromise, so I will ask the Senate to deal it out, one way or the other.

I will not withdraw the proposed Senatus consultum from the agenda now just because you think that eventually lack of food and water in that room will convince them to compromise. I see only one praetor – so far, Dexter, unwilling to compromise, clearly expressed in his own words. However if you think there is hope well, let them have at it. I will not withdraw the item without letting the Senate decide if it wishes to prevent such a situation from re-occurring and having to re-visit it anyway. So it will go to the vote either with the information of a compromise, or with the information that there is no change in the impasse.

Optime vale


From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:40 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Caesari sal,

You are not listening to me. My solution is a compromise, different from Petronius.

Lock the two of them in a room until they come out with a solution, so to speak. I think they both won't budge.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87898 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave Sulla,

*laughs* You should know by now no one is my boss.
And, in truth, I have communicated more with you in private in the past month than with Petronius, whom I have not had a private email from in the past few weeks!

So are you my boss?

My info comes from our lovely forum.

> when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> his idol

No I hadn't know this until now, see, our forum is chock full of information. Which Praetore? C'mon don't give half info, not fair.
I thought it was our Cato, cos. who greatly admired Cato Uticensus, and he is quite stubborn, but I like him too.
You're quite stubborn and tend to exaggerate but i like you too:) Caesar is stubborn as well, and I like him too.

It might be tough, being stubborn and locking horns, but this can lead to good compromise. If it is a compromise that is sought rather a hard line decision in either pole.

Talkatchalater bossman,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> The Praetors have failed to reach consensus. You asking them to revisit
> when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> his idol...should logically tell you there is NO compromise with him. So,
> the Senate is doing its duty to resolve the issue.
>
> Talk to your boss, Iulia.....He created this tempset in a teacup. Now it
> will get resolved one way or another swiftly.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Iulia Caesari cos. Petroni omnibusque S.P.D.
> >
> >
> > > The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to
> > use the FH for other >purposes that it was created. > Then, as these
> > magistrates are your friends, you want to change >the SC to permitt these
> > purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political
> >
> > Wow, I thought we were getting over this sort of backstabbing – we should
> > look to the games to bring us together in camaraderie then, rather than
> > peregrinatores.
> >
> > Praetores, please work this out amongst yourselves, you have willing
> > scribes who will help. I know it can be done.
> >
> >
> > > Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly
> > clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity
> > stunt on future possible new citizens
> >
> > No more legislation is needed; this can be brought to a compromise. As a
> > promo giving them all the candy in their baskets before they pay for it is
> > not wise, they must pay before they play – and by pay I mean become
> > citizens. I can't say for sure but from what I have been reading on this
> > and other threads today that some contemplation on motives should be
> > applied here by those involved.
> >
> >
> > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > respect the difference >between citizenship and guestship you will give no
> > more interest for an application to the >citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why >we will pay
> > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> > FH? But >you know that the Games are a political affair.
> >
> > Agreed. A well written synopsis of the games, an excerpt will suffice and
> > tantalize – thus we keep our internal affairs, abide by the law and do some
> > promo as well.
> >
> >
> > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> >
> > Simple, that's the law.
> >
> > Optime vale
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > >
> > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > >
> > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> > ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games,
> > would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > >
> > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC
> > to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > >
> > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give no
> > more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen may
> > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will pay
> > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on the
> > FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will happen
> > if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > >
> > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > >
> > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on the
> > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we pay
> > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we may to
> > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > >
> > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect and
> > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > >
> > > Optime vale.
> > >
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87899 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Caesari sal

Maybe these long drawn to conversations will give them pause.

It would give it to me, but I am not the Praetor, but if I was I would double my efforts, triple them, to come to an agreement and to preserve the dignity of the praetura.
I would expect that of any Praetor
And yes that goes for both current Praetores.

Optime vale,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar" <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar Iuliae sal.
>
> I am listening to you, but you aren’t praetor and there is no point my ordering them by edictum to negotiate. That would be silly. Negotiation and compromise only work if both parties are open to it. One, Dexter, is not clearly. So whatever you think amica it isn’t the issue, it really comes down to whether Dexter wants to step into the room. It is his mindset that matters in such a proposal, not yours or mine.
>
> Well they can take the opportunity if they wish, so the praetors can always re-explore the issue between now and when I put the item to the vote in the Senate. If both praetors come inform the Senate they have reached resolution, I will let voting members of the Senate decide whether they feel comfortable not resolving it by Senatus consultum and trusting to any such compromise, in which case they can vote the Senatus consultum down, or whether despite such a resolution they still wish to resolve it by Senatus consultum. In such an event I too will make a choice as to how I vote, but before we even get to that stage all we have is an empty room or at best one with only one praetor likely willing to go in. Maybe even Aeternia doesn’t want to. To date there has been no resolution and compromise, so I will ask the Senate to deal it out, one way or the other.
>
> I will not withdraw the proposed Senatus consultum from the agenda now just because you think that eventually lack of food and water in that room will convince them to compromise. I see only one praetor â€" so far, Dexter, unwilling to compromise, clearly expressed in his own words. However if you think there is hope well, let them have at it. I will not withdraw the item without letting the Senate decide if it wishes to prevent such a situation from re-occurring and having to re-visit it anyway. So it will go to the vote either with the information of a compromise, or with the information that there is no change in the impasse.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:40 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia Caesari sal,
>
> You are not listening to me. My solution is a compromise, different from Petronius.
>
> Lock the two of them in a room until they come out with a solution, so to speak. I think they both won't budge.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87900 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave Sulla,
>
> *laughs* You should know by now no one is my boss.
>
You were appointed his scribe therefore he is your boss regardless if that
is not how you choose to look at it. He can fire you too.


> And, in truth, I have communicated more with you in private in the past
> month than with Petronius, whom I have not had a private email from in the
> past few weeks!
>

LOL well that is telling ;) If I had employees I would be in near constant
contact with them. But, I have always preferred to do my own work. :)


>
> So are you my boss?
>
Did I promulgate an edict appointing you as my scribe? ;) I could if you
wanted the extra work...but I would be in contact with you far more than
Dexter, it seems lol. :)


>
> My info comes from our lovely forum.
>
As does most of mine. But I am sure the Pretorian list is entertaining as
all get up. ;)

Vale,

Sulla



>
>
> > when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> > his idol
>
> No I hadn't know this until now, see, our forum is chock full of
> information. Which Praetore? C'mon don't give half info, not fair.
> I thought it was our Cato, cos. who greatly admired Cato Uticensus, and he
> is quite stubborn, but I like him too.
> You're quite stubborn and tend to exaggerate but i like you too:) Caesar
> is stubborn as well, and I like him too.
>
> It might be tough, being stubborn and locking horns, but this can lead to
> good compromise. If it is a compromise that is sought rather a hard line
> decision in either pole.
>
> Talkatchalater bossman,
>
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > The Praetors have failed to reach consensus. You asking them to revisit
> > when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> > his idol...should logically tell you there is NO compromise with him. So,
> > the Senate is doing its duty to resolve the issue.
> >
> > Talk to your boss, Iulia.....He created this tempset in a teacup. Now it
> > will get resolved one way or another swiftly.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Iulia Caesari cos. Petroni omnibusque S.P.D.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > > some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want
> to
> > > use the FH for other >purposes that it was created. > Then, as these
> > > magistrates are your friends, you want to change >the SC to permitt
> these
> > > purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political
> > >
> > > Wow, I thought we were getting over this sort of backstabbing � we
> should
> > > look to the games to bring us together in camaraderie then, rather than
> > > peregrinatores.
> > >
> > > Praetores, please work this out amongst yourselves, you have willing
> > > scribes who will help. I know it can be done.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> perfectly
> > > clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity
> > > stunt on future possible new citizens
> > >
> > > No more legislation is needed; this can be brought to a compromise. As
> a
> > > promo giving them all the candy in their baskets before they pay for
> it is
> > > not wise, they must pay before they play � and by pay I mean become
> > > citizens. I can't say for sure but from what I have been reading on
> this
> > > and other threads today that some contemplation on motives should be
> > > applied here by those involved.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > > respect the difference >between citizenship and guestship you will
> give no
> > > more interest for an application to the >citizenship. If a no-citizen
> may
> > > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why >we
> will pay
> > > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on
> the
> > > FH? But >you know that the Games are a political affair.
> > >
> > > Agreed. A well written synopsis of the games, an excerpt will suffice
> and
> > > tantalize � thus we keep our internal affairs, abide by the law and do
> some
> > > promo as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > >
> > > Simple, that's the law.
> > >
> > > Optime vale
> > >
> > > Julia
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > > >
> > > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > > >
> > > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> > > ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games,
> > > would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > > >
> > > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the
> SC
> > > to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it
> is
> > > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > > >
> > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > > respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give
> no
> > > more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen
> may
> > > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will
> pay
> > > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on
> the
> > > FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will
> happen
> > > if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > > >
> > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > > >
> > > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on
> the
> > > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we
> pay
> > > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we
> may to
> > > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > > >
> > > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect
> and
> > > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale.
> > > >
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87901 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question
Salve Petronius Dexter, Praetor, My apologies for not sending the list sooner. It is now on its way. If any other governor needs the list for their province please ask and I will send it along. Again my apologies Vale Ti. Galerius PaulinusCensor
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: jfarnoud94@...
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:42:54 +0100
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question




























C. Petronius Ti. Galerio salutem,



Your question is not relevant with the problem we are talking about.

But as you seem to prefer to ask questions off topic, if you will permitt, censor, may you send me the list of NR Gaul citizens for accomplishing the mission that the Senate gave me as I requested since the 4 March and without any answer of you. May be are you searching the NR Gaulish citizens in Roman times? Give me, please, the list of the current ones.



Optime vale.



C. Petronius Dexter

Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VIII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.



________________________________

De : Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>

� : Nova-Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>

Envoy� le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 20h50

Objet : [Nova-Roma] Ludi Question



Salve Petronius Dexter, A question if you will permit. In Roman times were there people, not Roman citizens, who were in town during the Ludi and were they permitted to see the games? Vale Ti. Galerius Paulinus







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



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



Yahoo! Groups Links



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


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87902 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.

Well let’s see if in six days they can take this molehill and level it. Compromise will mean both sides giving a bit. How much each side gives up is always the issue, but it cannot be realistically the expectation that either of them abandon their views totally. If both want to try then they can. If even one doesn’t and just demands total victory (their right if they wish) that is fine too. The Senate will resolve it in that case.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Caesari sal

Maybe these long drawn to conversations will give them pause.

It would give it to me, but I am not the Praetor, but if I was I would double my efforts, triple them, to come to an agreement and to preserve the dignity of the praetura.
I would expect that of any Praetor
And yes that goes for both current Praetores.

Optime vale,

Julia



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87903 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
C. Petronius L. Sullae sal,

> No, that is not how I understand. The way I understand it was that both praetors disagree.

I never gave my advice on that in another place than in the praetor list. I wonder how the consul knew that it may have a discussion on the FH moderation and before that the praetores may have a complete discussion on it, he issues a SC.

The SC founding the FH is clear. But as the term "internal affairs" is "internal affairs" and I prefer to follow the SC, the consul prefers to make a new SC in order to give a turn to the discussion as he likes.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87904 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
 
The SC was clear enough.
I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
 
The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?
 
ASC of the last meeting give the English dictionary as arbiter. In an English dictionary I read "internal affairs" as I understand it. And as you read the same meaning, and because this meaning does not please you, you are forced to amend the SC, id est to suggest your wishes as a clearer meaning.
 
You act as a tyran.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesari C. Tullio coss.
 

________________________________
De : Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
À : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Envoyé le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 16h26
Objet : Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)

Caesar Iulia sal.

The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and has oversight via Senatus consultum.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)

 
Iulia s.d,

> IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)

This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?

Valete optime

Julia




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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87905 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
*laughs* I mean Ave Sulla

Naw i have to laugh again. I do hope most know we are pulling each others legs by now and this conversation is pretty much in jest.

But still...

>> You were appointed his scribe therefore he is your boss regardless if that
> is not how you choose to look at it. He can fire you too.

Hmmm, let me see if i remember that comvo from a few weeks ago on the ml, does that make him my dominus?
Yes, that is true, he can fire me, yup, he can;)

> LOL well that is telling ;) If I had employees I would be in near constant
> contact with them. But, I have always preferred to do my own work. :)

*laughs* no need to do work in private, we communicate via our mailing lists in the cohorts.

> Did I promulgate an edict appointing you as my scribe? ;) I could if you
> wanted the extra work...but I would be in contact with you far more than
> Dexter, it seems lol. :)

Haha - that just might be the straw that breaks this camel's back, I think I have enough with the praetura, the censura, the CP etc. Oh and i am my own boss in my Provincia but wait a moment The Senate is the boss of me!:) But anyway I am so wonderful i need little direction ~ just kidding.

> As does most of mine. But I am sure the Pretorian list is entertaining as
> all get up. ;

Actually, it really is going smoothly, I had no idea anything was going on but i don't involve myself in offline natter. I pretty much stick to my work and projects.

Which reminds me, did you find out anything more about posting images on the wiki? Or who I can ask?

Have a good one,

Vale

Julia






--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Ave Sulla,
> >
> > *laughs* You should know by now no one is my boss.
> >
> You were appointed his scribe therefore he is your boss regardless if that
> is not how you choose to look at it. He can fire you too.
>
>
> > And, in truth, I have communicated more with you in private in the past
> > month than with Petronius, whom I have not had a private email from in the
> > past few weeks!
> >
>
> LOL well that is telling ;) If I had employees I would be in near constant
> contact with them. But, I have always preferred to do my own work. :)
>
>
> >
> > So are you my boss?
> >
> Did I promulgate an edict appointing you as my scribe? ;) I could if you
> wanted the extra work...but I would be in contact with you far more than
> Dexter, it seems lol. :)
>
>
> >
> > My info comes from our lovely forum.
> >
> As does most of mine. But I am sure the Pretorian list is entertaining as
> all get up. ;)
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> > > his idol
> >
> > No I hadn't know this until now, see, our forum is chock full of
> > information. Which Praetore? C'mon don't give half info, not fair.
> > I thought it was our Cato, cos. who greatly admired Cato Uticensus, and he
> > is quite stubborn, but I like him too.
> > You're quite stubborn and tend to exaggerate but i like you too:) Caesar
> > is stubborn as well, and I like him too.
> >
> > It might be tough, being stubborn and locking horns, but this can lead to
> > good compromise. If it is a compromise that is sought rather a hard line
> > decision in either pole.
> >
> > Talkatchalater bossman,
> >
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave!
> > >
> > > The Praetors have failed to reach consensus. You asking them to revisit
> > > when you know at least one of them has flat out called Cato Uticensus as
> > > his idol...should logically tell you there is NO compromise with him. So,
> > > the Senate is doing its duty to resolve the issue.
> > >
> > > Talk to your boss, Iulia.....He created this tempset in a teacup. Now it
> > > will get resolved one way or another swiftly.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> > > luciaiuliaaquila@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iulia Caesari cos. Petroni omnibusque S.P.D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > > some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want
> > to
> > > > use the FH for other >purposes that it was created. > Then, as these
> > > > magistrates are your friends, you want to change >the SC to permitt
> > these
> > > > purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political
> > > >
> > > > Wow, I thought we were getting over this sort of backstabbing – we
> > should
> > > > look to the games to bring us together in camaraderie then, rather than
> > > > peregrinatores.
> > > >
> > > > Praetores, please work this out amongst yourselves, you have willing
> > > > scribes who will help. I know it can be done.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is
> > perfectly
> > > > clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity
> > > > stunt on future possible new citizens
> > > >
> > > > No more legislation is needed; this can be brought to a compromise. As
> > a
> > > > promo giving them all the candy in their baskets before they pay for
> > it is
> > > > not wise, they must pay before they play – and by pay I mean become
> > > > citizens. I can't say for sure but from what I have been reading on
> > this
> > > > and other threads today that some contemplation on motives should be
> > > > applied here by those involved.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > > > respect the difference >between citizenship and guestship you will
> > give no
> > > > more interest for an application to the >citizenship. If a no-citizen
> > may
> > > > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why >we
> > will pay
> > > > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on
> > the
> > > > FH? But >you know that the Games are a political affair.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. A well written synopsis of the games, an excerpt will suffice
> > and
> > > > tantalize – thus we keep our internal affairs, abide by the law and do
> > some
> > > > promo as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Simple, that's the law.
> > > >
> > > > Optime vale
> > > >
> > > > Julia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> > > > >
> > > > > > The original Senatus consultum clearly has a flaw in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have
> > > > ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games,
> > > > would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the
> > SC
> > > > to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is
> > > > political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it
> > is
> > > > perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of
> > > > publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.
> > > > >
> > > > > But making that you do not promote the citizenship. If you do not
> > > > respect the difference between citizenship and guestship you will give
> > no
> > > > more interest for an application to the citizenship. If a no-citizen
> > may
> > > > enroll chariot at the races, may participate to the Games, why we will
> > pay
> > > > the taxes? You think that only political affairs may be not allowed on
> > the
> > > > FH? But you know that the Games are a political affair. What we will
> > happen
> > > > if someone no-citizens make troubles on the FH because of the Games?
> > > > >
> > > > > The internal affairs of Nova Roma are not allowed on the FH. Period.
> > > > >
> > > > > For more information, the reportings of the Games are available on
> > the
> > > > Wiki pages, everybody, citizens and no-citizens may read them, and we
> > pay
> > > > for it. We pay taxes for this web site. This web site is usefull, we
> > may to
> > > > promote it more. Do you need to write a SC for that?
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the FH is well moderated now and, as praetor, I want to respect
> > and
> > > > follow the SC by which this FH was created and clear enough on the
> > > > "internal affairs" not allowed to be discussed on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Optime vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > > a. d. VIII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87906 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Dextro sal.

Check you emails Dexter. February 28th 2012 you sent an email outlining your position on this matter. Your colleague, myself and my colleague and both censors were on the circulation list. You initiated the email. Yours was the first, then your colleague replied in which she stated she opposed your view.

So you are incorrect. You did give advice about your views other than on the praetorial list. Your memory is slipping. When you have found it, please post a correction here to your statement you never discussed it elsewhere. I knew about it because you told me Dexter, as your colleague told me in that email thread what her view was.

Optime vale


From: petronius_dexter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:14 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


C. Petronius L. Sullae sal,

> No, that is not how I understand. The way I understand it was that both praetors disagree.

I never gave my advice on that in another place than in the praetor list. I wonder how the consul knew that it may have a discussion on the FH moderation and before that the praetores may have a complete discussion on it, he issues a SC.

The SC founding the FH is clear. But as the term "internal affairs" is "internal affairs" and I prefer to follow the SC, the consul prefers to make a new SC in order to give a turn to the discussion as he likes.

Optime vale.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87907 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal., 
> I think we have to be realistic here.
 
You are not.
You are wanting to amend a SC which made no problem.
 
> Information will “leak” regardless. Nova Roma resembles a Swiss cheese in that respect. To try to prevent leaks is futile. > The purpose of the prohibition on discussion of internal affairs was always intended to be negative internal affairs.
 
Why? Do you trully believe that only "negative" affairs need the creation of a such forum? And you really believe that negative affairs are not subject to "leaks"? You develop a bad idea, here.
 
You are wrong.
The SC was not for negative internal affairs. It is only the forum of the guests.
Do you need a English dictionary to know what guest means?
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87908 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Caesar Dextro sal.

Don’t be ridiculous Dexter. You wrote on the 28th February to the censors and consuls and your colleague and included an explanation of your position. She replied with her position. Neither of you were willing to budge and you yourself included me in the discussion so you can hardly complain when I give it to the Senate to resolve, or can you? Probably. Have you forgotten that email?? You wrote to me <lol>.

If I was going to be a tyrant you can be sure I’d pick a better issue than this.

Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

The SC was clear enough.
I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.

The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?

ASC of the last meeting give the English dictionary as arbiter. In an English dictionary I read "internal affairs" as I understand it. And as you read the same meaning, and because this meaning does not please you, you are forced to amend the SC, id est to suggest your wishes as a clearer meaning.

You act as a tyran.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesari C. Tullio coss.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87909 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Iulia Petronio Caesari sal.


> I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
>  
> The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?

As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked out, so this came as a surprise to me.

So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?
That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to work through it.

Vale, et valete bene

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
>  
> The SC was clear enough.
> I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
>  
> The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?
>  
> ASC of the last meeting give the English dictionary as arbiter. In an English dictionary I read "internal affairs" as I understand it. And as you read the same meaning, and because this meaning does not please you, you are forced to amend the SC, id est to suggest your wishes as a clearer meaning.
>  
> You act as a tyran.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesari C. Tullio coss.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> De : Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> À : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Envoyé le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 16h26
> Objet : Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
> Caesar Iulia sal.
>
> The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and has oversight via Senatus consultum.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>  
> Iulia s.d,
>
> > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
>
> This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
>
> Valete optime
>
> Julia
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87910 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Ave!

WHAT..Notorious CAE is acting as a tyrant...I thought that was my job!
Damn it! I have to go into overdrive now! Iulia you're fired! ;) hehehhe

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
>
> The SC was clear enough.
> I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no
> call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
>
> The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?
>
> ASC of the last meeting give the English dictionary as arbiter. In an
> English dictionary I read "internal affairs" as I understand it. And as you
> read the same meaning, and because this meaning does not please you, you
> are forced to amend the SC, id est to suggest your wishes as a clearer
> meaning.
>
> You act as a tyran.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesari C. Tullio coss.
>
>
> ________________________________
> De : Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> � : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Envoy� le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 16h26
> Objet : Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Caesar Iulia sal.
>
> The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving
> the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and
> clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is
> under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and
> has oversight via Senatus consultum.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Iulia s.d,
>
> > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> participation in the ludi.� (Debate & vote)
>
> This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
>
> Valete optime
>
> Julia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87911 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
Ave Sulla,

> Damn it! I have to go into overdrive now! Iulia you're fired! ;) hehehhe

You have my blessing, I am going to sit outside with a cold drink and do something simple like herd the wild bunnies in my yard.*laughs*

Vale

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> WHAT..Notorious CAE is acting as a tyrant...I thought that was my job!
> Damn it! I have to go into overdrive now! Iulia you're fired! ;) hehehhe
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jean-François Arnoud
> <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
> >
> > The SC was clear enough.
> > I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no
> > call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
> >
> > The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?
> >
> > ASC of the last meeting give the English dictionary as arbiter. In an
> > English dictionary I read "internal affairs" as I understand it. And as you
> > read the same meaning, and because this meaning does not please you, you
> > are forced to amend the SC, id est to suggest your wishes as a clearer
> > meaning.
> >
> > You act as a tyran.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat a. d. VII Kal. Apr. Cn. Caesari C. Tullio coss.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > De : Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > À : Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Envoyé le : Dimanche 25 mars 2012 16h26
> > Objet : Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> > (AMENDMENT #1)
> >
> >
> > Caesar Iulia sal.
> >
> > The Senate established Forum Hospitum by Senatus consultum. I am giving
> > the Senate the opportunity to amend that Senatus consultum if it wishes and
> > clarify this matter. The day to day administration of Forum Hospitum is
> > under the purview of the Praetors but the Senate decreed its creation and
> > has oversight via Senatus consultum.
> >
> > Optime vale
> >
> > From: luciaiuliaaquila
> > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 7:58 AM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> > (AMENDMENT #1)
> >
> >
> > Iulia s.d,
> >
> > > IV. Amendment - Forum Hospitum re. permitting discussion and
> > participation in the ludi. (Debate & vote)
> >
> > This is the purview of the Praetores? What is going on here?
> >
> > Valete optime
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87912 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Caesar Iuliae sal.

Look Dexter wrote to me, the censors, my colleague, his colleague in email on the 28th February. He explained his view. Neither he nor his colleague would budge. What is it you don’t get amica? I already knew what he thought! He told me himself!!! Since then – nearly a month ago – nothing has changed. They still don't agree.

Ok. Fine. I will ask the Senate to deal with it. That apparently is tyrannical <lol>.

Optime vale

From: luciaiuliaaquila
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Iulia Petronio Caesari sal.

> I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky.
>
> The why this sudden SC asking to be amended?

As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked out, so this came as a surprise to me.

So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?
That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to work through it.

Vale, et valete bene

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87913 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
 
> As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked out, so this came as a surprise to me.
 
To me too.
 
> So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?

Yes, I discovered that in reading the call of convene this morning.
 
> That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to work through it.

 I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".
 
 But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain always the majority of the Senate voters.
 
I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne. 
 
Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write anything in English...
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87914 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Ave

Ok, Consul can you please post the email that Dexter sent to you and the
censors in regards to the Ludi, then post the other Praetor's response to
the ML and then you post your email stating that this was going to go to
the Senate.

Then we can see if Dexter is following the footsteps of Scholastica and
LYING to the Citizens of Nova Roma?

Thank you!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
>
>
> > As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked
> out, so this came as a surprise to me.
>
> To me too.
>
>
> > So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?
>
> Yes, I discovered that in reading the call of convene this morning.
>
>
> > That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to
> work through it.
>
> I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not
> leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the
> praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not
> clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".
>
> But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes
> another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the
> Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain
> always the majority of the Senate voters.
>
> I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne.
>
> Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write
> anything in English...
>
> Optime vale.
>
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87915 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Caesar Dextro sal.

Throne? Absurd. I can’t wait until you are consul <lol>. Not only that you now call the Senate pawns? Why don’t you post that on the Senate list? I also see you are off to bed without addressing the fact I knew the praetors did not agree on February 28th. You confirmed it in an email to me. I conclude the only thing you are upset about is that the Senate will resolve it one way or the other and your view might not be theirs and then you will have to let non-citizens participate. If you invested more time in arguing your case on the Senate list instead of claiming I am a tyrant and want a throne <lol> all because I sent a matter which the praetors cannot agree on to the Senate, then your view might carry the day.

Honestly Dexter, you really get very agitated over nothing, especially a nothing you brought to my attention. You need to go and reflect on some of the things you have said, which don’t reflect a very balanced approach.

Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:51 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,

> As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked out, so this came as a surprise to me.

To me too.

> So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?

Yes, I discovered that in reading the call of convene this morning.

> That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to work through it.

I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".

But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain always the majority of the Senate voters.

I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne.

Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write anything in English...

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87916 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Ave

Did Dexter just call us in the Senate pawns? Seriously? LOL oh it will be
hilarious when he is Consul.....if he ever gets elected!
ROFLMAO........everyone should start stocking up on Popcorn and booze for
that year!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesar Dextro sal.
>
> Throne? Absurd. I can�t wait until you are consul <lol>. Not only that you
> now call the Senate pawns? Why don�t you post that on the Senate list? I
> also see you are off to bed without addressing the fact I knew the praetors
> did not agree on February 28th. You confirmed it in an email to me. I
> conclude the only thing you are upset about is that the Senate will resolve
> it one way or the other and your view might not be theirs and then you will
> have to let non-citizens participate. If you invested more time in arguing
> your case on the Senate list instead of claiming I am a tyrant and want a
> throne <lol> all because I sent a matter which the praetors cannot agree on
> to the Senate, then your view might carry the day.
>
> Honestly Dexter, you really get very agitated over nothing, especially a
> nothing you brought to my attention. You need to go and reflect on some of
> the things you have said, which don�t reflect a very balanced approach.
>
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:51 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
> 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
>
> > As i stated before to Sulla, the cohorts is peaceful, issues are worked
> out, so this came as a surprise to me.
>
> To me too.
>
> > So it was a surprise to Petronius as well?
>
> Yes, I discovered that in reading the call of convene this morning.
>
> > That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to
> work through it.
>
> I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not
> leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the
> praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not
> clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".
>
> But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes
> another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the
> Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain
> always the majority of the Senate voters.
>
> I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne.
>
> Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write
> anything in English...
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87917 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Salve amice

I will wait to see if Dexter ignores that fact and caries on harping on
about how all is sweetness and light in the praetura and golly gosh me how
did the consul know all this (implication being his colleague went behind
his back when in fact he told me what he thought)? I will also wait to see
if Dexter denies sending me that email. At that point I will feel free,
either way, to publish his email.

Vale bene
Caesar

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Woolwine
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)

Ave

Ok, Consul can you please post the email that Dexter sent to you and the
censors in regards to the Ludi, then post the other Praetor's response to
the ML and then you post your email stating that this was going to go to
the Senate.

Then we can see if Dexter is following the footsteps of Scholastica and
LYING to the Citizens of Nova Roma?

Thank you!

Vale,

Sulla
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87918 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

Well it seems the Praetors last year had no problem getting along...in most
years the Praetors did not have serious issues (ironic that the problem
children in the praetors were: Scholastica, Cato...now Dexter and
Aeternia) lol.....Since Dexter has already stated his intent to run for
Consul next year....man....its going to be hilarious to see how he can get
whatever he wants done in the senate after insulting ALL of
them.....Seriously, Dexter needs to stop taking lessons from
Scholastica.....Wow..just wow.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve amice
>
> I will wait to see if Dexter ignores that fact and caries on harping on
> about how all is sweetness and light in the praetura and golly gosh me how
> did the consul know all this (implication being his colleague went behind
> his back when in fact he told me what he thought)? I will also wait to see
> if Dexter denies sending me that email. At that point I will feel free,
> either way, to publish his email.
>
> Vale bene
> Caesar
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:58 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
> 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
> Ave
>
> Ok, Consul can you please post the email that Dexter sent to you and the
> censors in regards to the Ludi, then post the other Praetor's response to
> the ML and then you post your email stating that this was going to go to
> the Senate.
>
> Then we can see if Dexter is following the footsteps of Scholastica and
> LYING to the Citizens of Nova Roma?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87919 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro Omnibusque S.P.D.


This should not surprise you Dexter at all, when the private thread was in
circulation, both Praetors could not come to a agreement. The Consul then
in that private e-mail thread, told both of us that this would be handled
in the next Senate session as a Agenda item for the Senate to decide on.


Vale Optime,
Aeternia


>
>
>
> > That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to
> work through it.
>
> I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not
> leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the
> praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not
> clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".
>
> But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes
> another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the
> Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain
> always the majority of the Senate voters.
>
> I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne.
>
> Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write
> anything in English...
>
> Optime vale.
>
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87920 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Salve et Salvete,

Big correction...

After reviewing the E-mail of the private thread in question...

The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point.

I see no problem in deriving meaning for it would clear up issues now and
also for the future.

Vale et Valete bene,

>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > That is not sitting well. They should both be given an opportunity to
>> work through it.
>>
>> I think that Caesar needs that the Senate issues his wishes, he did not
>> leave the praetores make their job. And without asking anything to the
>> praetors in exercise he put by himself an Item on the SC that he judged not
>> clear enough. For him "internal" does not mean "internal".
>>
>> But the consul does not make a SC only about the praetors, he makes
>> another about the censor Scholastica. He has a great influence in the
>> Senate and he pushes his pawns with the confidence that he will obtain
>> always the majority of the Senate voters.
>>
>> I am just waiting for the SC in which he will beg the throne.
>>
>> Oups! It is time for me to go to the bed! I need a lot of time to write
>> anything in English...
>>
>> Optime vale.
>>
>>
>> C. Petronius Dexter
>> Arcoiali scribebat
>> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum"
>



--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87921 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Aeterniae sal.

Correct. I said to the praetors, my colleague and censors on Feb 26th on an
email thread about ludi speeches:

"Exactly what is the position of the praetura over posting regarding the
ludi on FH? Did this get sorted out?"

I wanted to know since I wanted to know if there was going to be an issue
over my posting to the FH my opening remarks Caeca had requested.

Then on Feb 27th I said to the same circulation list:

"As to the Ludi posting on FH - I will (if I have to) dervive the meaning of
the SC on FH (if I have to) to state that discussion of internal issues to
NR means negative issues."

In other words that the phrase "internal affairs" did not include the ludi,
so discussion and participation could not be blocked on that basis. I gave
both of you fair warning I might intervene and nothing changed regarding
resolving it, so I did. Apparently now that comes as a surprise, when
clearly it shouldn't.

The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter would
have got upset. There is no immediate need to derive the meaning and we
could afford the time for the Senate to review it. I felt both of you would
then have an opportunity to convince the Senate. If I had have derived
meaning then it would not have been Dexter's. So this was an attempt to
resolve but in a manner that lessened the chance he would get upset <lol>.
It appears he got upset anyway.

Regardless, I think it the fairest way to deal with it.

Optime valete


-----Original Message-----
From: Belle Morte Statia
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:36 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)

Salve et Salvete,

Big correction...

After reviewing the E-mail of the private thread in question...

The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point.

I see no problem in deriving meaning for it would clear up issues now and
also for the future.

Vale et Valete bene,

>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87922 From: Denise D. Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Transation fee
Salvete!



The Paypal transaction fee to NR payments is 2,9% + $0,30 ?

Bene valete!
 
--
V.A. Regilla

Tribuna Plebis
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87923 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
C. Maria Caeca, Aedilis Curulis Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Since this is, essentially, a Praetorian issue, and does not have any effect on what I do in the Aedilicia, I was going to refrain from comment. However, having read the following, I think I must.

It has no flaw on it. The term "internal affairs" does not have ambiguity but some magistrates, whose the duty is only to manage games, would want to use the FH for other purposes that it was created.

Then, as these magistrates are your friends, you want to change the SC to permitt these purposes and their innuendos. Of course all that is political. Under the wrong excuse to make the SC more clear, while it is perfectly clear, you want to permit the using of the Games as a sort of publicity stunt on future possible new citizens.

Yes, I have a vested interest in the Ludi ...I'd better. May I remind the Praetor that, before the FH existed, the Ludi were fully available to all on the main list, whether they were citizens or guests. Yes, I did lobby for the inclusion of Ludi posts on the FH, when this Praetorian policy was first announced on the Praetores list. However, I said at that time that I would abide by the decisions of the Praetors, and I have done so. I have absolutely no interest in sabotaging the FH, in which I also have a vested interest, since I have been a moderator of that list since very shortly after its creation. I am *not* trying to use the Ludi to score political points ..why would I, since I won't be running for any Curule office in NR, thus don't *need* political points?

I do, however, understand the points you and Julia have made, and I think they have some merit, though I doubt very seriously that being able to participate in the Ludi would convince anyone to become a tax paying citizen. I think those who do do so because they want to invest in the long term, broad vision of what Nova Roma is trying to do, and support, tangibly, what we could become. As to whether the Senate should address this issue ...well, I have absolutely no say in that, but, if one considers the SC that created the FH as a founding document, then that document must be as clear and specific as it can be, and if definitions are needed, then they should be included, and the only way to alter an SC, so far as I know, is to amend it via another SC. I think this is important for another reason, as well. The FH is the first NR forum founded by the Senate of Nova Roma. Our other groups were founded, and some are still owned, by individuals, either for the specific purpose they serve, or became "public property" at least in terms of all practical matters, after they were set up. If NR ever decides to found other official fora, then this founding document may well be the model, and if it is to be so used, it must be as transparent as it can be made.

Valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87924 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Transation fee
Ave

I am not sure what the transaction fee is. But last year's on average was
about 55 cents. So, I would estimate that it is very close to that.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Denise D. <aemilia.regilla@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salvete!
>
> The Paypal transaction fee to NR payments is 2,9% + $0,30 ?
>
> Bene valete!
>
> --
> V.A. Regilla
>
> Tribuna Plebis
> Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
> Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87925 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: Transation fee
Caesar Regillae sal.

Transaction costs for payments made outside of the USA into Nova Roma are:

3.9% + $0.30 USD

This is based on a maximum of $3000 USD being received by NR in any one month. So take you payment, work out what 3.9% is and add on the 30 cents and that should cover it.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-xborder-fees-outside

Citizens paying from inside the USA (domestic rate) should calculate based on:

2.9% + $0.30

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/merchant_fees

I will update the Wiki with this information.

Optime vale

From: Denise D.
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:13 PM
To: mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Transation fee


Salvete!

The Paypal transaction fee to NR payments is 2,9% + $0,30 ?

Bene valete!

--
V.A. Regilla

Tribuna Plebis
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Argentinae
Legata Pro Praetore Provinciae Brasiliae

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





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87926 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Tax rates including transaction fees
Cn. Caesar sal.

I have updated the tax page of the Wiki. The rates for the classes including the transaction fee are:

For payments by citizens who are residents of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 2.9% + 30 cents):

Class 1 rate - $43.52
Class 2 rate - $35.29
Class 3 rate - $26.03
Class 4 rate - $17.80
Class 5 rate - $ 9.56

For payments by citizens living OUTSIDE of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 3.9% + 30 cents):

Class 1 rate - $43.94
Class 2 rate - $35.63
Class 3 rate - $26.28
Class 4 rate - $17.96
Class 5 rate - $ 9.65

Optime valete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87927 From: QFabiusMaxmi@aol.com Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: RE publicizing the games.
In a message dated 3/25/2012 4:36:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
syrenslullaby@... writes:

The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point.

I see no problem in deriving meaning for it would clear up issues now and
also for the future.
Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Conscript Fathers.
Salvete
Broad strokes here: One Praetor wants to "broadcast" the Games on the
Hospitality list, while the other doesn't, or has a Praetor already allowed the
"broadcast" to occur, in defiance of a SC?

If this is true I'm sure I'm not the only Senator here scratching his
head. If this is a case of "i" not dotted and "t" not crossed we do allow
wiggle room. If the Praetor wants to do something that requires a edict his
colleague has the right to veto it. And there it dies. The Senate does
not even come into it. If the Praetor in question wants to defy the SC then
again it is his right as a curule magistrate to do so. If we have to
change our advice to the Consul every time a Praetor or other curule magistrate
doesn't like a SC, we are not going to get a lot done here.

The argument that the Games should be a tax benefit holds no water.
Unless they are Munui to the dead, Nova Roma cannot tax any people for wanting
to honor her Gods. (The Romans did tax the Munius.) That would certainly
violate any pact we have with Them.

I cannot see any good reason to continue this argument. Allow the Games
to be "seen" on the Hospitality and be finished with it.

Do we not have better things to do with our time?

Valete



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87928 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,


> Considering the list only came into being last year....its still
> precedent.

Last year I was not a member of the guests list.

> Dexter has chosen on his own whim to deviate from that.

I deviate from nothing, I just apply the SC by which the guests forum was created. As a praetor it is the least thing exspected. It is not my fault if the former praetor Cn. Caesar was not enough English reader to understand what "internal" means.

I know that he permitted to his friend the former aedilis curulis Cornelia Aeternia to make the guests list her play ground but this precedent was to be stopped.

> So who is the determinate body for establishing guidelines when the two praetors cannot reach consensus..OH YEAH THE SENATE!

How may you say that there is not consensus. You know the advice of Cornelia Aerternia? I did not. Do not say me that she also do not know the meaning of "internal"...

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87929 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-25
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

I know emails were exchanged. This is why I asked them to be posted in
their entirety to see if you are following in the footsteps of Scholastica
and lying or not. Scholastica is NOT a role model anyone should be
emulating, Praetor. One reprimand is enough.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
>
> > Considering the list only came into being last year....its still
> > precedent.
>
> Last year I was not a member of the guests list.
>
> > Dexter has chosen on his own whim to deviate from that.
>
> I deviate from nothing, I just apply the SC by which the guests forum was
> created. As a praetor it is the least thing exspected. It is not my fault
> if the former praetor Cn. Caesar was not enough English reader to
> understand what "internal" means.
>
> I know that he permitted to his friend the former aedilis curulis Cornelia
> Aeternia to make the guests list her play ground but this precedent was to
> be stopped.
>
>
> > So who is the determinate body for establishing guidelines when the two
> praetors cannot reach consensus..OH YEAH THE SENATE!
>
> How may you say that there is not consensus. You know the advice of
> Cornelia Aerternia? I did not. Do not say me that she also do not know the
> meaning of "internal"...
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87930 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: RE publicizing the games.
C. Petronius Q. Maximo salutem,

> Broad strokes here: One Praetor wants to "broadcast" the Games on the Hospitality list, while the other doesn't, or has a Praetor already allowed the "broadcast" to occur, in defiance of a SC?

Not at all. My position is the guests as the citizens may follow the Games on our wiki pages.

My question is not only on a braodcast it is on the right to the guests to participate to the Games. May they or not?

May they play with a chariot being not unscribed in a factio? Non-citizens may they send answer to the historical Quizz, mostly when questions are on Nova Roma politics? May the non-citizens engage gladiators or participate to the Latin quizz? To be short, may they participate to the Games? They do not. So, why post the Games on the FH is necessary? It will be frustrating for them.

For publicity of the games, we have the Web Site.

> If this is true I'm sure I'm not the only Senator here scratching his head. If this is a case of "i" not dotted and "t" not crossed we do allow wiggle room. If the Praetor wants to do something that requires a edict his colleague has the right to veto it.

My position is simple. I follow the SC which created the Guests Forum. And I read "internal" as my English dictionary give me the definition of this adjective.

> And there it dies. The Senate does not even come into it.

I completely agree with you. Let's the preators make their job, as they are elected by the people. And as you know "Vox populi, vox deorum" "The voice of the people is the vox of the gods". Even if some consul does not agreed the votes of the Quirites and search to use the Senate as a weapon against the people choices.

> If the Praetor in question wants to defy the SC then again it is his right as a curule magistrate to do so.<

I will not defy the SC. I will respect the Senate vote but I will defend my position before the vote. I am senator too and I such respect the vote of my colleagues as I respect the vote of the people.

But, as praetor, I do not like that the Senate issues a SC on a no problem in the moderation of the FH. If my gestion of it issued a problem which need a decree of the Senate, I will be ok to discuss on it. But this decree of the Senate came from beside the scene with allegations and false suppositions. It is a sneaky proposal of SC, but I guess that beside the scene some write private mails, who in front of me are kindly persons. It is political.

And if the private mails are suddenly published you have the Item against Scholastica, I do not have the private mails sent to the consul for his sneaky proposal of SC on the FH, but I will be very happy to read them.

> If we have to change our advice to the Consul every time a Praetor or other curule magistrate doesn't like a SC, we are not going to get a lot done here.

The SC is a weapon for the Consul. The senators seem to vote without reading anything, at least without comments. They are tired, I suppose. Who of them is speaking on the Items posted by the consul? They vote when the consul call to vote.

I am very amazed by the lethargy of our Senate. But as many senators, and more the voters in the Senate, are thinking that Nova Roma must reborn they seem to follow Caesar who have a project of a new game.

>>> The argument that the Games should be a tax benefit holds no water. Unless they are Munui to the dead, Nova Roma cannot tax any people for wanting to honor her Gods. (The Romans did tax the Munius.) That would certainly violate any pact we have with Them.<<<

I agree. The benefit of forwarding the internal posts on the FH is void.

> I cannot see any good reason to continue this argument. Allow the Games to be "seen" on the Hospitality and be finished with it.

The Games may be "ssen" on the Wiki pages of our web site. It is a good thing to promote its reading.

> Do we not have better things to do with our time?

The SC become less interesting mont after month...

I suggested a Latin version of the oath of office to the consuls which is the same for the male and female magistrates with no need to know the Latin declension for writing the magistracy hold by the person taking the oath. As the current Latin version is used, but never was officialy agreed, I wanted to suggest it as a possible Item interesting to vote on in the Senate, but I think that the consul have better things to do with our time...

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87931 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
C. Petronius Corneliae Aeterniae salutem,

>>> This should not surprise you Dexter at all, when the private thread was in circulation, both Praetors could not come to a agreement. The Consul then in that private e-mail thread, told both of us that this would be handled in the next Senate session as a Agenda item for the Senate to decide on. <<<

I do not know what private mails you are speaking on. The last one was about a message of Maria Caeca on the Juno Covella ritual. It was on the very beginning of March. We never had a private discussion on the FH moderation with the consul.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87932 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Caesar Dextro sal,

Maybe this will refresh your memory then? Dated the 28th February.

Optime vale

-------------------------------------
C. Petronius vobis omnibus,

My position about the games is that the games are internal fun and religious things. I think too that citizenry must say something more than to be just a guest or a curious. We have to make the difference if we want to make the citizenry something to ask and to want.

More now the prices to be an assiduus will be expensive for the members of the first class. I am not Romulus who killed his brother, who trespassed the virtual walls of Rome, but I agree with him that we must make the citizenship something more than the guest status.

Perhaps am I wrong, perhaps do I seem rigid or making something "counterproductive" in wanting this difference but I would prefer to have games as a true occasion to be between us Nova Romans. And FH was created to give the curious on Roman things to have discussions with NR citizens. Our internal affairs are not the subjects of the FH.

The guests may know the opening speechs, the comments and the results of the games in reading wiki pages allowed to the Games. I am not against the fact that we make know to our guests that now are beginning the Games Novi Romani and to invite them to read the wiki pages of the games.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat pridie Kal. Mart. Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

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




From: petronius_dexter
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:31 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


C. Petronius Corneliae Aeterniae salutem,

>>> This should not surprise you Dexter at all, when the private thread was in circulation, both Praetors could not come to a agreement. The Consul then in that private e-mail thread, told both of us that this would be handled in the next Senate session as a Agenda item for the Senate to decide on. <<<

I do not know what private mails you are speaking on. The last one was about a message of Maria Caeca on the Juno Covella ritual. It was on the very beginning of March. We never had a private discussion on the FH moderation with the consul.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87933 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Ave!

Damning!

Do we need another agenda item for another reprimand? Seriously, this
farce is damn pathetic...Dexter claims no email - no recollection and here
we have the email....So, either there is some senility, extreme
forgetfulness or outright lying going on....so do we need another reprimand
to join the one that is being discussed about Scholastica's?

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesar Dextro sal,
>
> Maybe this will refresh your memory then? Dated the 28th February.
>
> Optime vale
>
> -------------------------------------
> C. Petronius vobis omnibus,
>
> My position about the games is that the games are internal fun and
> religious things. I think too that citizenry must say something more than
> to be just a guest or a curious. We have to make the difference if we want
> to make the citizenry something to ask and to want.
>
> More now the prices to be an assiduus will be expensive for the members of
> the first class. I am not Romulus who killed his brother, who trespassed
> the virtual walls of Rome, but I agree with him that we must make the
> citizenship something more than the guest status.
>
> Perhaps am I wrong, perhaps do I seem rigid or making something
> "counterproductive" in wanting this difference but I would prefer to have
> games as a true occasion to be between us Nova Romans. And FH was created
> to give the curious on Roman things to have discussions with NR citizens.
> Our internal affairs are not the subjects of the FH.
>
> The guests may know the opening speechs, the comments and the results of
> the games in reading wiki pages allowed to the Games. I am not against the
> fact that we make know to our guests that now are beginning the Games Novi
> Romani and to invite them to read the wiki pages of the games.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat pridie Kal. Mart. Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> From: petronius_dexter
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 10:31 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
> 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> C. Petronius Corneliae Aeterniae salutem,
>
> >>> This should not surprise you Dexter at all, when the private thread
> was in circulation, both Praetors could not come to a agreement. The Consul
> then in that private e-mail thread, told both of us that this would be
> handled in the next Senate session as a Agenda item for the Senate to
> decide on. <<<
>
> I do not know what private mails you are speaking on. The last one was
> about a message of Maria Caeca on the Juno Covella ritual. It was on the
> very beginning of March. We never had a private discussion on the FH
> moderation with the consul.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VII Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87934 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: RE publicizing the games.
Caesar Maximo sal.

There is no point having games on Hospitum one year and not the other. Let us clear up the matter. In such cases, to me at least, it makes more sense to make a decision on the wording and resolve the issue. Of course we could just have our current impasse but it also my right to bring it to the Senate since the praetors can’t agree, then I will ask the Senate to decide what it wants the wording to mean – since the Senate enacted the Senatus consultum that created Forum Hospitum - and just fix the wretched wording. What would have taken a short time to debate on the Senate list has become the usual brouhaha because Dexter is annoyed at what he sees as something sneaky. I have been aware the praetors didn’t agree since late February. That’s hardly sneaky. I also said I would intervene if necessary. Then I was simply doing to derive the meaning and have dione with it, but I thought to be fair to both praetors they could each put their point to the Senate and have an equal chance to convince the Senate as to which approach was best. So I asked the Senate to resolve the matter.

Done deal, then we can all get on with something else.

Optime vale.

From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:23 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] RE publicizing the games.


In a message dated 3/25/2012 4:36:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mailto:syrenslullaby%40gmail.com writes:

The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point.

I see no problem in deriving meaning for it would clear up issues now and
also for the future.
Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Conscript Fathers.
Salvete
Broad strokes here: One Praetor wants to "broadcast" the Games on the
Hospitality list, while the other doesn't, or has a Praetor already allowed the
"broadcast" to occur, in defiance of a SC?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87935 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D.

Reprimand?

Dexter feels the Ludi should not be presented on the FH...
I feel that the Ludi should be presented on the FH...

If we had bigger numbers, yes I'd probably understand more the reasons of
Dexter wanting to keep the Ludi "exclusive" to the ML.. However we do not
have that luxury, we need every positive fragment to be displayed at this
point..

The Ludi is one the better aspects of NR, it's positive, it can used to as
a way to promote in a positive manner..

Neither Praetor will be swayed from their points of view...

The Consul was aware of that and made a decision for it to brought to the
Senate..

It's actually that simple, for this issue to reach catastrophic heights I
am quite surprised.. Certainly there are other issues that need more
serious addressing.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia



>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>


--


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87936 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MA
Ave!

I suggest reprimand because he has acted as if no such email ever existed!

the Consul has since forwarded the email.

Thus the email existed...unless Dexter did not create said email....if he
did.....IF Dexter did....then we are left with three reasons for his
denial...much like Scholastica.

Either he is senile
Either he has extreme forgetfulness
Or he lied to the Citizens of Nova Roma

If it is #3 and he lied......then yeah I think after the entire Scholastica
episode that is going on.....Dexter should be the next one to possibly get
a reprimand. Many of the same issues exist in the text of her hopefully
soon to be reprimand that would be just as applicable in this case.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Belle Morte Statia <
syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D.
>
> Reprimand?
>
> Dexter feels the Ludi should not be presented on the FH...
> I feel that the Ludi should be presented on the FH...
>
> If we had bigger numbers, yes I'd probably understand more the reasons of
> Dexter wanting to keep the Ludi "exclusive" to the ML.. However we do not
> have that luxury, we need every positive fragment to be displayed at this
> point..
>
> The Ludi is one the better aspects of NR, it's positive, it can used to as
> a way to promote in a positive manner..
>
> Neither Praetor will be swayed from their points of view...
>
> The Consul was aware of that and made a decision for it to brought to the
> Senate..
>
> It's actually that simple, for this issue to reach catastrophic heights I
> am quite surprised.. Certainly there are other issues that need more
> serious addressing.
>
> Vale Optime,
> Aeternia
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87937 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Aeterniae sal.

As your colleague has – and I am being charitable here – had extreme memory failure, can you confirm that email from him I recently posted was the one you received, sent to me, my colleague, you and the censors by Dexter?

As to the place it has reached, Dexter has obviously fallen into a raging snit because he thinks the Senate may vote to have the ludi on FH and he of course adamantly opposes that. So we have been treated to an afternoon of Dexter insisting he never wrote when he did and pulling his pants on his head in a huge paddy. Of course, it never seems to occur to him that all he has to do is argue his case to the Senate. He might convince them. Oh no, its easier to have some huge drama with accusations of tyranny and thrones. Absurd, but this is the sort of response you get when you disagree with Dexter, but then you would know that already.

Optime vale

From: Belle Morte Statia
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:40 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D.

Reprimand?

Dexter feels the Ludi should not be presented on the FH...
I feel that the Ludi should be presented on the FH...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87938 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Aeternia Caesari sal.

I do also have the same e-mail, timestamped Tuesday February 28 2012 9:58
p.m.

Vale Optime,
Aeternia



On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesar Aeterniae sal.
>
> As your colleague has � and I am being charitable here � had extreme
> memory failure, can you confirm that email from him I recently posted was
> the one you received, sent to me, my colleague, you and the censors by
> Dexter?
>
> As to the place it has reached, Dexter has obviously fallen into a raging
> snit because he thinks the Senate may vote to have the ludi on FH and he of
> course adamantly opposes that. So we have been treated to an afternoon of
> Dexter insisting he never wrote when he did and pulling his pants on his
> head in a huge paddy. Of course, it never seems to occur to him that all he
> has to do is argue his case to the Senate. He might convince them. Oh no,
> its easier to have some huge drama with accusations of tyranny and thrones.
> Absurd, but this is the sort of response you get when you disagree with
> Dexter, but then you would know that already.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: Belle Morte Statia
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:40 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
> 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D.
>
> Reprimand?
>
> Dexter feels the Ludi should not be presented on the FH...
> I feel that the Ludi should be presented on the FH...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87939 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro L. Cornelio Sullae Omnibusque
S.P.D.

My playground? Nothing I will say will make you reconsider such a
statement. So I will not even bother doing so.

Yes I did present the Ludi on the FH, and you know what it delivered
results.. I managed to get new citizens involved in Nova Roma, a great deal
of the Aedilician Cohors of 2764 was staffed thanks to the FH. People
liked what they saw and got involved, you don't like that, not my issue.
Dexter if you did not approve of my actions regarding the Ludi and it being
on the FH, you, any other Senator ,or Magistrate surely could have spoken
up. Yet you did not, so for you to be upset about it now as some delayed
response baffles me..

Listen, I understand your reasonings for wanting to keep the Ludi off the
FH, I just do not agree with them, on that we're just on opposite sides of
the spectrum.

Valete bene,
Aeternia


>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87940 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Iulia Praetoribus Consulibus Censoribus Quiritibus Omnibusque S.P.D



LCS: Well it seems the Praetors last year had no problem getting along..<snipped> after insulting ALL of
them..

Oh c'mon Gaulterus disappeared, *laughs* now you always get on others for rewriting history – seems you got caught up in the moment. And not all of the Praetores got along Albucius and Marinus for example but they worked it out, and to use your term, those disagreements were…"epic." But I learned a lot.
As for insulting Novi Romani, I think you might just have the largest portfolio;) – and I have seen that most are professional enough to move past it and work together to serve the Respublica.



CMC: I doubt very seriously that being able to participate in
the Ludi would convince anyone to become a tax paying citizen.

QFM: The argument that the Games should be a tax benefit holds no water.

Who said that? Sometimes it is like game telephone around here.
We are talking about "value added incentive" to become a citizen.
In many internet forums there are different levels of participation, the most basic are free, limited access and full feature. For example we would have non citizen (free), capite censi (limited access) and assidui (full feature). We already have a system in place to build upon, for example:
Non-citizens have access to the FH, can view select or excerpt of Ludi but not participate and have no rights as citizens
Capite Censi access to ML, FH, can vote but cannot hold office or be a scribe, can participate in ludi
Assidui access to ML, FH etc, can vote, hold office and be a scribe and can participate in the ludi

The tier will encourage those non-citizens to get their citizenship if they so desire to have those benefits. If we simply give them everything then there will be no incentive whatsoever to be citizens and we will be expending energy for nothing rather than for the benefit of NR.
This is a model credible NPs use such as NPT and NPR.
With the cooperation of the moderators and citizens to encourage citizenship and explain the benefits than it will be successful, but if we wax negative and apply negative connotations than we are defeating ourselves.

As for taxes, dues, memberships fees etc. let's not get all holier than thou when they are mentioned. They are funds that are needed and those fees are how we support the day to day operations of the business of Nova Roma, or they should, when we are not busy hoarding them because we either can't agree what to do with them or are afraid to do anything with them.

GPD: I never gave my advice on that in another place than in the praetor list. I
wonder how the consul knew that it may have a discussion on the FH moderation
and before that the praetores may have a complete discussion on it, he issues a
SC.

GPD: The SC was clear enough.
I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to
the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky

GIC: Check you emails Dexter. February 28th 2012 you sent an email outlining your
position on this matter. Your colleague, myself and my colleague and both
censors were on the circulation list. You initiated the email. Yours was the
first, then your colleague replied in which she stated she opposed your view.

GIC: Dexter. You wrote on the 28th February to the censors and
consuls and your colleague and included an explanation of your position. She
replied with her position. Neither of you were willing to budge and you yourself
included me in the discussion so you can hardly complain when I give it to the
Senate to resolve, or can you?

Petronius has every right to complain esp. when he was not told of the intent to propose an SCU beforehand (see my comments below before responding si placet). Both parties must be told not just one, even if they are friends.



GIC: Look Dexter wrote to me, the censors, my colleague, his colleague in email on
the 28th February. He explained his view. Neither he nor his colleague would
budge. What is it you don’t get amica?

Oh, I get it, I may have to abide by it but I do not have to like it. However trying to brand an honorable man as a liar is very serious, if not overly dramatic at this point. So I am trying to sort this out.


GIC: I gave
both of you fair warning I might intervene and nothing changed regarding
resolving it,

Not in my opinion you didn't – not with a lapse of over three weeks, this lacked follow through and seems like an excuse after the fact. This statement sounds like a father dealing with unruly children – treat people like children and they may behave that way – self fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, I think the crux lies in this statement:


GIC: The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter would
have got upset.

Caesar this is a day in the sunshine compared to some of your missives of verbal destruction, I do not think for one moment, esp. in this instance, that you would hold back because someone would be upset.


GIC: >I already knew what he thought! He told
>me himself!!! Since then â€" nearly a month ago â€" nothing has changed. They
>still don't agree.


That was nearly a month ago.
The email conversation between Aeternia and Petronius involved the Consuls and the Censors and therefore was not private, as someone suggested, but a "circulation list" as Caesar so aptly defined it.
I think here, too, there is a failure to communicate regarding one's perception of "private".
I do not see a "circulation list" of this type as private, it is however, "privileged." It was not "private." It was "privileged."

So far, I see where the Praetores stated their view but I have not seen any follow up from anyone stating intent to propose an SC.
That was wrong.
There was a lapse of about 24 days between the now infamous email conversation of February 28th and the announcement to convene the senate and to propose the SC in question.


Aeternia: The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point

That is not informing of intent to intervene, but it is leaving it open ended and subject to follow up with both praetores, not just one. And only after both praetores discussed the issue within those three weeks – which apparently did not happen.
Not discussing the issue is on both praetores .

No one, according to the information here in the forum, had the common decency to inform Praetor Petronius at any time in that long lapse of over three weeks, of the intent to intervene or of the senate agenda before it was posted to the senate.
This is wrong.
This is one of the reasons why this very action could be seen as favoritism.
I expect more professionalism than has been demonstrated in this incident.

More could have been done to mediate within those three weeks; this would have been the first step in intervention.

Or, and this would be my preference, if I was in the position to do so, to counsel both Praetores to behave as Praetores of Nova Roma and follow protocol as in our laws, for example:

The Praetor Maior issues and edict.
The Praetrix veto's it.
Over and done.

Follow the law! That is what we have them for! That may take longer, there will be an increase of activity on the ML and citizens would learn the proper protocol and even if things got uncomfortable, the dignity of the Praetores and its magistracy would be upheld by going through the process.

At this point I am so over this he said, she said, puerile nonsense and request that our Praetores act with dignity and honor and administer their work as Praetors of Nova Roma according to the protocol we have in the laws. Then the praetores will have an opportunity to demonstrate another virtue, exlempa, and educate us all.
Rather than talking about virtues, exercise them.

Optime vale, et valete

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87941 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:24 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia Praetoribus Consulibus Censoribus Quiritibus Omnibusque S.P.D
>
> LCS: Well it seems the Praetors last year had no problem getting
> along..<snipped> after insulting ALL of
> them..
>
> Oh c'mon Gaulterus disappeared, *laughs* now you always get on others for
> rewriting history � seems you got caught up in the moment. And not all of
> the Praetores got along Albucius and Marinus for example but they worked it
> out, and to use your term, those disagreements were�"epic." But I learned a
> lot.
> As for insulting Novi Romani, I think you might just have the largest
> portfolio;) � and I have seen that most are professional enough to move
> past it and work together to serve the Respublica.
>

Snipping the rest because it doesnt concern me,this part is in response to
me.

I do not know about you, but I was in contact with Gualterus for most of
the year every few weeks. Also, if you look back he voted in all but 1
senate session, if I recall correctly. On top of that he conducted the
investigation against you at the end of the year? Yeah that sounds like
someone who disappeared.

What I find interesting is that the precedent established last year...you
have no problem tossing away, yet you never complained about it when it was
conducted last year...you or your boss Dexter did not complain once. Now
you do? I find that interesting.

Vale,

Sulla


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87942 From: Belle Morte Statia Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L. Iuliae Aquilae Omnibusque S.P.D.

I'm going to snip some of this for brevity, please see my comments below....




> So far, I see where the Praetores stated their view but I have not seen
> any follow up from anyone stating intent to propose an SC.
> That was wrong.
> There was a lapse of about 24 days between the now infamous email
> conversation of February 28th and the announcement to convene the senate
> and to propose the SC in question.
>
> Aeternia: The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding
> the FH, if
>
> it came to such a point
>
> That is not informing of intent to intervene, but it is leaving it open
> ended and subject to follow up with both praetores, not just one. And only
> after both praetores discussed the issue within those three weeks � which
> apparently did not happen.
> Not discussing the issue is on both praetores .
>

Aeternia- Dexter and I did discuss it, many times, and the same result.
Neither one of us could come to an agreement. I know when a issue is moot
Julia, my colleague and I are both stubborn people , I'm not going to spend
every day wrangling it out with Dexter. Nothing would get done and
therefore being the most redundant thing ever. Deep down inside I'm pretty
sure Dexter feels the same way. I am not surprised Caesar decided to do a
SC on this, has anyone noticed the pattern the Senior Consul uses when it
comes to "defining something internal" usually a SC somehow comes along
with that.

>
> No one, according to the information here in the forum, had the common
> decency to inform Praetor Petronius at any time in that long lapse of over
> three weeks, of the intent to intervene or of the senate agenda before it
> was posted to the senate.
> This is wrong.
> This is one of the reasons why this very action could be seen as
> favoritism.
> I expect more professionalism than has been demonstrated in this incident.
>
> More could have been done to mediate within those three weeks; this would
> have been the first step in intervention.
>

Aeternia- The Senate being able to vote the final outcome is the
mediation....

>
> Or, and this would be my preference, if I was in the position to do so, to
> counsel both Praetores to behave as Praetores of Nova Roma and follow
> protocol as in our laws, for example:
>

Aeternia- If anyone would like to be counsel the Praetors it should be
someone who was a Praetor. Honestly, this is the only real issue Dexter
and I have completely disagreed with.. We are not kids, and neither is
anyone here on the ML.. Think about it....

>
>
>
> At this point I am so over this he said, she said, puerile nonsense and
> request that our Praetores act with dignity and honor and administer their
> work as Praetors of Nova Roma according to the protocol we have in the
> laws. Then the praetores will have an opportunity to demonstrate another
> virtue, exlempa, and educate us all.
> Rather than talking about virtues, exercise them.
>

Aeternia - Oh I am excercising virtue, I am not running all over the forum
having a tantrum. I am quite calm, if the Senate decides that the FH
should see the Ludi, I will abide, if the Senate decides that the FH should
not... Again I will abide by their decision..

That's following the law..

Vale bene,
Aeternia

>
> Optime vale, et valete
>
> Julia
>
>
>




--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87943 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Caesar Iuliae sal.
 
"GIC: The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter would
have got upset.

Caesar this is a day in the sunshine compared to some of your missives of verbal destruction, I do not think for one moment, esp. in this instance, that you would hold back because someone would be upset."
 
CnIC: I'll grant you the day in the sunshine ;) however it is true that I chose this way as the fairer. Had I derived the meaning, and it would not have been Dexter's, and dealt with it that way there would still have been complaints. Possibly even more. Nothing has changed in three weeks and both praetors get a day in the sun of the Senate to argue their positions. Resolution one way or another. As I said, if they can reach a compromise, well I believe that the Senate would certainly take note of that, but I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. I'd go blue most likely.
 
Oh, Gaulterus did not disappear. He always responded to my emails as his colleague and gchat. The simple fact was that it was a quiet year for the praetors.
 
Optime vale
 

From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
Iulia Praetoribus Consulibus Censoribus Quiritibus Omnibusque S.P.D

LCS: Well it seems the Praetors last year had no problem getting along..<snipped> after insulting ALL of
them..

Oh c'mon Gaulterus disappeared, *laughs* now you always get on others for rewriting history – seems you got caught up in the moment. And not all of the Praetores got along Albucius and Marinus for example but they worked it out, and to use your term, those disagreements were…"epic." But I learned a lot.
As for insulting Novi Romani, I think you might just have the largest portfolio;) – and I have seen that most are professional enough to move past it and work together to serve the Respublica.

CMC: I doubt very seriously that being able to participate in
the Ludi would convince anyone to become a tax paying citizen.

QFM: The argument that the Games should be a tax benefit holds no water.

Who said that? Sometimes it is like game telephone around here.
We are talking about "value added incentive" to become a citizen.
In many internet forums there are different levels of participation, the most basic are free, limited access and full feature. For example we would have non citizen (free), capite censi (limited access) and assidui (full feature). We already have a system in place to build upon, for example:
Non-citizens have access to the FH, can view select or excerpt of Ludi but not participate and have no rights as citizens
Capite Censi access to ML, FH, can vote but cannot hold office or be a scribe, can participate in ludi
Assidui access to ML, FH etc, can vote, hold office and be a scribe and can participate in the ludi

The tier will encourage those non-citizens to get their citizenship if they so desire to have those benefits. If we simply give them everything then there will be no incentive whatsoever to be citizens and we will be expending energy for nothing rather than for the benefit of NR.
This is a model credible NPs use such as NPT and NPR.
With the cooperation of the moderators and citizens to encourage citizenship and explain the benefits than it will be successful, but if we wax negative and apply negative connotations than we are defeating ourselves.

As for taxes, dues, memberships fees etc. let's not get all holier than thou when they are mentioned. They are funds that are needed and those fees are how we support the day to day operations of the business of Nova Roma, or they should, when we are not busy hoarding them because we either can't agree what to do with them or are afraid to do anything with them.

GPD: I never gave my advice on that in another place than in the praetor list. I
wonder how the consul knew that it may have a discussion on the FH moderation
and before that the praetores may have a complete discussion on it, he issues a
SC.

GPD: The SC was clear enough.
I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no call to
the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky

GIC: Check you emails Dexter. February 28th 2012 you sent an email outlining your
position on this matter. Your colleague, myself and my colleague and both
censors were on the circulation list. You initiated the email. Yours was the
first, then your colleague replied in which she stated she opposed your view.

GIC: Dexter. You wrote on the 28th February to the censors and
consuls and your colleague and included an explanation of your position. She
replied with her position. Neither of you were willing to budge and you yourself
included me in the discussion so you can hardly complain when I give it to the
Senate to resolve, or can you?

Petronius has every right to complain esp. when he was not told of the intent to propose an SCU beforehand (see my comments below before responding si placet). Both parties must be told not just one, even if they are friends.

GIC: Look Dexter wrote to me, the censors, my colleague, his colleague in email on
the 28th February. He explained his view. Neither he nor his colleague would
budge. What is it you don’t get amica?

Oh, I get it, I may have to abide by it but I do not have to like it. However trying to brand an honorable man as a liar is very serious, if not overly dramatic at this point. So I am trying to sort this out.

GIC: I gave
both of you fair warning I might intervene and nothing changed regarding
resolving it,

Not in my opinion you didn't – not with a lapse of over three weeks, this lacked follow through and seems like an excuse after the fact. This statement sounds like a father dealing with unruly children – treat people like children and they may behave that way – self fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, I think the crux lies in this statement:

GIC: The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter would
have got upset.

Caesar this is a day in the sunshine compared to some of your missives of verbal destruction, I do not think for one moment, esp. in this instance, that you would hold back because someone would be upset.

GIC: >I already knew what he thought! He told
>me himself!!! Since then â€" nearly a month ago â€" nothing has changed. They
>still don't agree.

That was nearly a month ago.
The email conversation between Aeternia and Petronius involved the Consuls and the Censors and therefore was not private, as someone suggested, but a "circulation list" as Caesar so aptly defined it.
I think here, too, there is a failure to communicate regarding one's perception of "private".
I do not see a "circulation list" of this type as private, it is however, "privileged." It was not "private." It was "privileged."

So far, I see where the Praetores stated their view but I have not seen any follow up from anyone stating intent to propose an SC.
That was wrong.
There was a lapse of about 24 days between the now infamous email conversation of February 28th and the announcement to convene the senate and to propose the SC in question.

Aeternia: The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding the FH, if
it came to such a point

That is not informing of intent to intervene, but it is leaving it open ended and subject to follow up with both praetores, not just one. And only after both praetores discussed the issue within those three weeks – which apparently did not happen.
Not discussing the issue is on both praetores .

No one, according to the information here in the forum, had the common decency to inform Praetor Petronius at any time in that long lapse of over three weeks, of the intent to intervene or of the senate agenda before it was posted to the senate.
This is wrong.
This is one of the reasons why this very action could be seen as favoritism.
I expect more professionalism than has been demonstrated in this incident.

More could have been done to mediate within those three weeks; this would have been the first step in intervention.

Or, and this would be my preference, if I was in the position to do so, to counsel both Praetores to behave as Praetores of Nova Roma and follow protocol as in our laws, for example:

The Praetor Maior issues and edict.
The Praetrix veto's it.
Over and done.

Follow the law! That is what we have them for! That may take longer, there will be an increase of activity on the ML and citizens would learn the proper protocol and even if things got uncomfortable, the dignity of the Praetores and its magistracy would be upheld by going through the process.

At this point I am so over this he said, she said, puerile nonsense and request that our Praetores act with dignity and honor and administer their work as Praetors of Nova Roma according to the protocol we have in the laws. Then the praetores will have an opportunity to demonstrate another virtue, exlempa, and educate us all.
Rather than talking about virtues, exercise them.

Optime vale, et valete

Julia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87944 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave Caesar,

I think Iulia holds to the erroneous belief that Gualterus disappeared
because otherwise she would have to accept the fact that he had to
investigate a complaint about her.

Iulia, you need to stop digging that hole you're in. You are looking more
foolish each post.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesar Iuliae sal.
>
>
> "GIC: The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter
> would
> have got upset.
>
> Caesar this is a day in the sunshine compared to some of your missives of
> verbal destruction, I do not think for one moment, esp. in this instance,
> that you would hold back because someone would be upset."
>
> CnIC: I'll grant you the day in the sunshine ;) however it is true that I
> chose this way as the fairer. Had I derived the meaning, and it would not
> have been Dexter's, and dealt with it that way there would still have been
> complaints. Possibly even more. Nothing has changed in three weeks and both
> praetors get a day in the sun of the Senate to argue their positions.
> Resolution one way or another. As I said, if they can reach a compromise,
> well I believe that the Senate would certainly take note of that, but I am
> not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. I'd go blue most likely.
>
> Oh, Gaulterus did not disappear. He always responded to my emails as his
> colleague and gchat. The simple fact was that it was a quiet year for the
> praetors.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> From: luciaiuliaaquila <luciaiuliaaquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
> (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
>
> Iulia Praetoribus Consulibus Censoribus Quiritibus Omnibusque S.P.D
>
> LCS: Well it seems the Praetors last year had no problem getting
> along..<snipped> after insulting ALL of
> them..
>
> Oh c'mon Gaulterus disappeared, *laughs* now you always get on others for
> rewriting history � seems you got caught up in the moment. And not all of
> the Praetores got along Albucius and Marinus for example but they worked it
> out, and to use your term, those disagreements were�"epic." But I learned a
> lot.
> As for insulting Novi Romani, I think you might just have the largest
> portfolio;) � and I have seen that most are professional enough to move
> past it and work together to serve the Respublica.
>
> CMC: I doubt very seriously that being able to participate in
> the Ludi would convince anyone to become a tax paying citizen.
>
> QFM: The argument that the Games should be a tax benefit holds no water.
>
> Who said that? Sometimes it is like game telephone around here.
> We are talking about "value added incentive" to become a citizen.
> In many internet forums there are different levels of participation, the
> most basic are free, limited access and full feature. For example we would
> have non citizen (free), capite censi (limited access) and assidui (full
> feature). We already have a system in place to build upon, for example:
> Non-citizens have access to the FH, can view select or excerpt of Ludi but
> not participate and have no rights as citizens
> Capite Censi access to ML, FH, can vote but cannot hold office or be a
> scribe, can participate in ludi
> Assidui access to ML, FH etc, can vote, hold office and be a scribe and
> can participate in the ludi
>
> The tier will encourage those non-citizens to get their citizenship if
> they so desire to have those benefits. If we simply give them everything
> then there will be no incentive whatsoever to be citizens and we will be
> expending energy for nothing rather than for the benefit of NR.
> This is a model credible NPs use such as NPT and NPR.
> With the cooperation of the moderators and citizens to encourage
> citizenship and explain the benefits than it will be successful, but if we
> wax negative and apply negative connotations than we are defeating
> ourselves.
>
> As for taxes, dues, memberships fees etc. let's not get all holier than
> thou when they are mentioned. They are funds that are needed and those fees
> are how we support the day to day operations of the business of Nova Roma,
> or they should, when we are not busy hoarding them because we either can't
> agree what to do with them or are afraid to do anything with them.
>
> GPD: I never gave my advice on that in another place than in the praetor
> list. I
> wonder how the consul knew that it may have a discussion on the FH
> moderation
> and before that the praetores may have a complete discussion on it, he
> issues a
> SC.
>
> GPD: The SC was clear enough.
> I wonder why you need to amend it. Nobody complains. No provocatio, no
> call to
> the people. Nothing. No clouds in the sky
>
> GIC: Check you emails Dexter. February 28th 2012 you sent an email
> outlining your
> position on this matter. Your colleague, myself and my colleague and both
> censors were on the circulation list. You initiated the email. Yours was
> the
> first, then your colleague replied in which she stated she opposed your
> view.
>
> GIC: Dexter. You wrote on the 28th February to the censors and
> consuls and your colleague and included an explanation of your position.
> She
> replied with her position. Neither of you were willing to budge and you
> yourself
> included me in the discussion so you can hardly complain when I give it to
> the
> Senate to resolve, or can you?
>
> Petronius has every right to complain esp. when he was not told of the
> intent to propose an SCU beforehand (see my comments below before
> responding si placet). Both parties must be told not just one, even if they
> are friends.
>
> GIC: Look Dexter wrote to me, the censors, my colleague, his colleague in
> email on
> the 28th February. He explained his view. Neither he nor his colleague
> would
> budge. What is it you don���t get amica?
>
> Oh, I get it, I may have to abide by it but I do not have to like it.
> However trying to brand an honorable man as a liar is very serious, if not
> overly dramatic at this point. So I am trying to sort this out.
>
> GIC: I gave
> both of you fair warning I might intervene and nothing changed regarding
> resolving it,
>
> Not in my opinion you didn't � not with a lapse of over three weeks, this
> lacked follow through and seems like an excuse after the fact. This
> statement sounds like a father dealing with unruly children � treat people
> like children and they may behave that way � self fulfilling prophecy.
> Anyway, I think the crux lies in this statement:
>
> GIC: The reason I decided not to go that route is that I suspected Dexter
> would
> have got upset.
>
> Caesar this is a day in the sunshine compared to some of your missives of
> verbal destruction, I do not think for one moment, esp. in this instance,
> that you would hold back because someone would be upset.
>
> GIC: >I already knew what he thought! He told
> >me himself!!! Since then ��" nearly a month ago ��" nothing has changed.
> They
> >still don't agree.
>
> That was nearly a month ago.
> The email conversation between Aeternia and Petronius involved the Consuls
> and the Censors and therefore was not private, as someone suggested, but a
> "circulation list" as Caesar so aptly defined it.
> I think here, too, there is a failure to communicate regarding one's
> perception of "private".
> I do not see a "circulation list" of this type as private, it is however,
> "privileged." It was not "private." It was "privileged."
>
> So far, I see where the Praetores stated their view but I have not seen
> any follow up from anyone stating intent to propose an SC.
> That was wrong.
> There was a lapse of about 24 days between the now infamous email
> conversation of February 28th and the announcement to convene the senate
> and to propose the SC in question.
>
> Aeternia: The Consul did speak of deriving the meaning of the SC regarding
> the FH, if
> it came to such a point
>
> That is not informing of intent to intervene, but it is leaving it open
> ended and subject to follow up with both praetores, not just one. And only
> after both praetores discussed the issue within those three weeks � which
> apparently did not happen.
> Not discussing the issue is on both praetores .
>
> No one, according to the information here in the forum, had the common
> decency to inform Praetor Petronius at any time in that long lapse of over
> three weeks, of the intent to intervene or of the senate agenda before it
> was posted to the senate.
> This is wrong.
> This is one of the reasons why this very action could be seen as
> favoritism.
> I expect more professionalism than has been demonstrated in this incident.
>
> More could have been done to mediate within those three weeks; this would
> have been the first step in intervention.
>
> Or, and this would be my preference, if I was in the position to do so, to
> counsel both Praetores to behave as Praetores of Nova Roma and follow
> protocol as in our laws, for example:
>
> The Praetor Maior issues and edict.
> The Praetrix veto's it.
> Over and done.
>
> Follow the law! That is what we have them for! That may take longer, there
> will be an increase of activity on the ML and citizens would learn the
> proper protocol and even if things got uncomfortable, the dignity of the
> Praetores and its magistracy would be upheld by going through the process.
>
> At this point I am so over this he said, she said, puerile nonsense and
> request that our Praetores act with dignity and honor and administer their
> work as Praetors of Nova Roma according to the protocol we have in the
> laws. Then the praetores will have an opportunity to demonstrate another
> virtue, exlempa, and educate us all.
> Rather than talking about virtues, exercise them.
>
> Optime vale, et valete
>
> Julia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87945 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave


No Sulla, it was because he was not here. Not present. I can only speak for myself but I am not the only one who expressed such sentiments.

Keep your jester cap to yourself. Your behavior is indicative of one who has nothing of value to add to the conversation so you use the strategy of acting the fool to deflect away from logical and reasonable conversation.

You dig the hole for those you defend by your behavior, by your insincere treatment of the situation and devaluing the comments of others you cast aspersions on the intentions of those you defend.

And, my friend, when you get like this you are best ignored.

So have at, knock yourself out.

Vale bene

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87946 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
Ave!

And you have just had two people who state he wasnt inactive. At best he
was a quiet subdued presence. I musta hit a mark mentioning your
investigation. But hey if you are going to try to re-write history, much
like Scholastica the truth is the truth.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave
>
> No Sulla, it was because he was not here. Not present. I can only speak
> for myself but I am not the only one who expressed such sentiments.
>
> Keep your jester cap to yourself. Your behavior is indicative of one who
> has nothing of value to add to the conversation so you use the strategy of
> acting the fool to deflect away from logical and reasonable conversation.
>
> You dig the hole for those you defend by your behavior, by your insincere
> treatment of the situation and devaluing the comments of others you cast
> aspersions on the intentions of those you defend.
>
> And, my friend, when you get like this you are best ignored.
>
> So have at, knock yourself out.
>
> Vale bene
>
> Julia
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87947 From: Steven "Venator" Robinson Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Venator lives, and has healed...
Salve Cn. Caesar et Avete Omnes;

Appropriate post for re-emerging I think...tax payment for both Marca
Annia Megas and me will be tendered by mid-April.

Been through a lot, incredible lows and redeeming highs.

The highs only now...

M Annia has overcome PTSD and is going back to work for the 1st time
in over 14 years. She received a job offer from the US Navy to work
as an engineer at Patuxent River NAS, Maryland. There were some
negotiations: salary, moving expenses, career track and some other,
which ended well. Today they confirmed her start date, which is in
late August. By summer's end, we will be relocating to that area.
There is the usual security check and other paperwork to be completed
beforehand, plus they realize the difficulty of uprooting, especially
from someplace you've been for 16 years.

We now have three babies in the family...our great nephew Parker Ian
will be 2 in June, great niece Zoey Elizabeth is now 6 months old and
great niece Naomi Lucia is 2 months old. I will performing my niece
Sarah's (Naomi's mom) wedding in November.

I too, have overcome my service related, delayed stress reaction
(things were long suppressed because my wife needed me strong and
cheerful). I have been accepted to our alma mater (Norwich University
in Vermont) as a nontraditional, long distance student to complete the
bachelor's degree I sought unsuccessfully from 1975 - 1979. Should I
be successful, I will graduate in December, 33 years after leaving.

There are over 600 emails in the inbox, so I know I missed a lot.

But not as much as I have missed my fellow Nova Romans who have
befriended me over the years. I very much turn inward when hurting,
very much like my dad...been just over 2 years since losing him. BUT,
there were no regrets between us, so while there is a lingering
sadness, there is no grief.

Looking fore-ward again.

Valete - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87948 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Classical Reading Group
Salve!

Is there any interest in forming a classical reading group? What I had in mind was posting a segment of one of the classical writers daily for discussion and working through the book as a group. There are enough available in open source, from Cicero to Virgil and more at each end, that we could do so without any copy right infringements. I enjoy reading the classics but I think discussing what I read with others who have more knowledge than I would be great.

Does something like this exist already and I missed it? Is there any interest and is there a better venue than this? My preference would be a place non citizens could contribute as well but I don't want to step on any toes. I was also thinking of a slow pace so if someone missed a few days or a week they could catch right up. If it doesn't exist I would be willing to do the posting and get things going.

Vale!

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87949 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-26
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
C. Maria Caeca C. Claudio Axenrothus omnibusque S. P. D.

Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point out. Your prenomen is Gaius. Now, one would think that the abbreviation of Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't. For phonetic reasons that I forget, it is spelled Gaius, but, in correspondence, it is abbreviated as C. That's why I sign myself C. Maria Caeca, even though my full Roman name is Gaia Maria Caeca.

Now ...to your question. I think the idea is great, but we don't need a new list. This would be a perfect thing to do in the Muserum, since it is the sodalitas dedicated to all the arts. True, that is where those of us who write share our work, but it is also the perfect place to do the kinds of readings you suggest, since by discussing Latin literature, we are appreciating it. You can join that sodalitas and subscribe to the group by sending an email to:

ForTheMuses-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

the other place where your suggestion might be very appropriate and very welcome is the Nova Roma Book Club. You can join that list by sending a blank email to:

NovaRomaBookClub-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Whichever you decide, I look forward to participating in this project!

Vale et valete bene!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87950 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
Salvete , This is what I call a "teachable moment". So can someone explain why it is written as a "C" and not "G" Thanks Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: c.mariacaeca@...
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:09:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Classical Reading Group




























C. Maria Caeca C. Claudio Axenrothus omnibusque S. P. D.



Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point out. Your prenomen is Gaius. Now, one would think that the abbreviation of Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't. For phonetic reasons that I forget, it is spelled Gaius, but, in correspondence, it is abbreviated as C. That's why I sign myself C. Maria Caeca, even though my full Roman name is Gaia Maria Caeca.



Now ...to your question. I think the idea is great, but we don't need a new list. This would be a perfect thing to do in the Muserum, since it is the sodalitas dedicated to all the arts. True, that is where those of us who write share our work, but it is also the perfect place to do the kinds of readings you suggest, since by discussing Latin literature, we are appreciating it. You can join that sodalitas and subscribe to the group by sending an email to:



ForTheMuses-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



the other place where your suggestion might be very appropriate and very welcome is the Nova Roma Book Club. You can join that list by sending a blank email to:



NovaRomaBookClub-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



Whichever you decide, I look forward to participating in this project!



Vale et valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca



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


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87951 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
C. Petronius Quiritibus salutem,

> Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point out. Your prenomen is Gaius. Now, one would think that the abbreviation of Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't.

The letter "G" did not existed when the praenomina Gaius and Gnaeus were noted by the abbreviation C and CN.

The sound "c" was noted by the letter K and Q. The letter "C" noted mostly the sound G.

Then, it had an alphabetical reform but the tradition to write Caeso with the abbreviation K and Gaius with C remaint.

Optime vale

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87952 From: Bruno Zani Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
A. Liburnius Mariae Cacae,  Galerio Paulino  quiritibusque omnibus salutem.
 
It seems that in ancient times, the Roman alphabet dropped the letter "K" altogether finding that the sound "K" was no longer used, except as an abbreviation of "Kalendae". The alphabet then run A, B, G, etc... paralleling the Greek "alpha, beta, gamma, etc.... Names like Caius and Cnaeus where consequently written and pronounced with a G and shortened to G. and Gn. 
 
In the year 519 a.U.c. (our 234 B.C.) the senate  noticed that the letter G represented two separate sounds: the original "G" and also its volatile cousin, the "K", which had become again fashionable. The names Caius and Cnaeus were again pronounced "Kaius" and "Knaeus", as an example.
 
One "modernist" faction adopted the introduction of the new letter "C", which also relegated the old "G" to its current place in the alphabet , while a "traditionalist" faction refused to change the spelling of their names to reflect their actual pronunciation and insisted on using the "G".
 
 A similar split happened in the times of Cicero and Caesar when the populist branch of the "Claudia" gens changed the spelling to "Clodia" to reflect the actual pronunciation, while the conservative faction maintained the origin spelling.
 
Valete optime
ALH
From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>
To: Nova-Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".


Salvete , This is what I call a "teachable moment".  So can someone explain why it is written as a "C" and not "G" Thanks Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: c.mariacaeca@...
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:09:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Classical Reading Group






















 


   
     
     
      C. Maria Caeca C. Claudio Axenrothus omnibusque S. P. D.



Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point out.  Your prenomen is Gaius.  Now, one would think that the abbreviation of Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't.  For phonetic reasons that I forget, it is spelled Gaius, but, in correspondence, it is abbreviated as C.  That's why I sign myself C. Maria Caeca, even though my full Roman name is Gaia Maria Caeca.



Now ...to your question.  I think the idea is great, but we don't need a new list.  This would be a perfect thing to do in the Muserum, since it is the sodalitas dedicated to all the arts.  True, that is where those of us who write share our work, but it is also the perfect place to do the kinds of readings you suggest, since by discussing Latin literature, we are appreciating it.  You can join that sodalitas and subscribe to the group by sending an email to:



ForTheMuses-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 



the other place where your suggestion might be very appropriate and very welcome is the Nova Roma Book Club.  You can join that list by sending a blank email to:



NovaRomaBookClub-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



Whichever you decide, I look forward to participating in this project!



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]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87953 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group/"teachable moment".
Collegae Ti. Galerio Paulino A. Tullia Scholastica S.P. D.

> Salvete , This is what I call a "teachable moment". So can someone explain
> why it is written as a "C" and not "G" Thanks Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus

C and G are the voiceless and voiced forms of the velar mute (sometimes
called 'guttural.' Originally these were both written with the same letter,
C. In turn, C replaced K (which as an initial letter has perhaps one-fifth
of a page in the OLD), and K all but disappeared in Latin. In writing,
then, there was no distinction between the sounds of g and k / c. G was
formed from C, perhaps to distinguish these sounds. The C was retained in
the abbreviations for Gaïus (three syllables) and Gnaeus, even though the
names themselves were written with that new upstart letter, G.

Vale.



> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: c.mariacaeca@...
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:09:59 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Classical Reading Group
>
>
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibusque S. P. D.
>
>
>
> Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point
> out. Your praenomen is Gaius. Now, one would think that the abbreviation of
> Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't. For phonetic reasons that I forget, it is
> spelled Gaius, but, in correspondence, it is abbreviated as C. That's why I
> sign myself C. Maria Caeca, even though my full Roman name is Gaia Maria
> Caeca.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87954 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
Salve

Before I answer to your question, there is a minor thing I'd like to point out. Your prenomen is Gaius. Now, one would think that the abbreviation of Gaius would be G. but ...it isn't. For phonetic reasons that I forget, it is spelled Gaius, but, in correspondence, it is abbreviated as C. That's why I sign myself C. Maria Caeca, even though my full Roman name is Gaia Maria Caeca."

Interesting and thank you. So would the proper pronunciation be with the harder "C" sound or the softer "G" sound? I have heard it tending towards one and the other at times. Somewhere between goat and cat.

"Now ...to your question. I think the idea is great, but we don't need a new list. This would be a perfect thing to do in the Muserum, since it is the sodalitas dedicated to all the arts. True, that is where those of us who write share our work, but it is also the perfect place to do the kinds of readings you suggest, since by discussing Latin literature, we are appreciating it."

I wasn't suggesting a new list just trying to find the proper place for it. Is the Muserum open to non citizens? If not would the FH be the proper place for something like this? I had joined the book list but there hasn't been a post there since February so I didn't know how active it is.

(As an aside this is one reason I prefer a regular message board format with multiple sections over these yahoo lists as projects like this could simply be in a separate section)

Vale

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87955 From: C. Maria Caeca Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Classical Reading Group
C. Maria Caeca C. Claudio Axenrotho omnibusque Salutem plurimam dicit:

Both groups I have suggested are open to citizens and non-citizens. Activity on such groups does not necessarily equate to group membership, no more than an inactive forum discussion indicates that it is no longer valid. True, the book list has been quiet, and so has the Muserum, for that matter, and both could use an infusion. This kind of topic could generate excellent participation on both lists, or you could post to the FH, where such discussions would also be quite welcome. It is, of course, entirely your choice.

Vale et valete!
C. Maria Caeca

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87956 From: Arthur Waite Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Requesting Permission to Start Meetup
A. Iulius Paterculus omnibus potissimumque civibus Novae Britaniae s.p.d.
   Would it be all right to start a local Meetup for Nova Romans in Northeastern Connecticut? It seems our province has been a little inactive and it might help encourage a bit more face to face interaction. Since most of you are probably too busy to respond to this minor request, I'll take 20 days without a response as tacit approval.
   This is mainly cross-posted to the main list because it seems the Nova Britania list is not checked often, but if anyone from another province has advice on in-person activities, particularly on a buget, please feel free to write.
   I appologize for not including a Latin translation with this message.
     Valete

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87957 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Cn. Iulius Caesar sal.
 
The tax rates including transaction fees released earlier were out by a couple of cents. The amended ones are shown below and also on the Wiki at http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV. Refer to the Wiki for all questions that you may have relating to which rate you should pay.
 
Optime valete
 
--------------------
 
 
TAX RATES FOR 2765 A.U.C. (2012) BY CLASSES (INCLUDING TRANSACTION FEE)
 
For payments by citizens who are residents of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 2.9% + 30 cents):
* Class 1 rate - $43.57
* Class 2 rate - $35.34
* Class 3 rate - $26.06
* Class 4 rate - $17.82
* Class 5 rate - $ 9.58
For payments by citizens living OUTSIDE of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 3.9% + 30 cents):
* Class 1 rate - $44.02
* Class 2 rate - $35.70
* Class 3 rate - $26.33
* Class 4 rate - $18.01
* Class 5 rate - $ 9.68

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87958 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Caesar sal.
 
The link had a period included in error, which means it won't work. Use the one below.
 
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV
 
Optime valete

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova Roma Forum <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: NR Group <novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 
Cn. Iulius Caesar sal.
 
The tax rates including transaction fees released earlier were out by a couple of cents. The amended ones are shown below and also on the Wiki at http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Tax_rate_MMDCCLXV. Refer to the Wiki for all questions that you may have relating to which rate you should pay.
 
Optime valete
 
--------------------
 
 
TAX RATES FOR 2765 A.U.C. (2012) BY CLASSES (INCLUDING TRANSACTION FEE)
 
For payments by citizens who are residents of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 2.9% + 30 cents):
* Class 1 rate - $43.57
* Class 2 rate - $35.34
* Class 3 rate - $26.06
* Class 4 rate - $17.82
* Class 5 rate - $ 9.58
For payments by citizens living OUTSIDE of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 3.9% + 30 cents):
* Class 1 rate - $44.02
* Class 2 rate - $35.70
* Class 3 rate - $26.33
* Class 4 rate - $18.01
* Class 5 rate - $ 9.68

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




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87959 From: Yehya Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Salve

The paypal link on the main page sends payments to consul@novaroma this one uses payments@novaroma. do they both go to the same place?

Vale

Gaius Claudius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87960 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Ave!

Please do NOT use the consul@....

I do not have access to that link.

Only use payments@... or funding@....

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Yehya <yehya_61@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Salve
>
> The paypal link on the main page sends payments to consul@novaroma this
> one uses payments@novaroma. do they both go to the same place?
>
> Vale
>
> Gaius Claudius
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87961 From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
Salve Axenrothe
 
Can you clarify what link. The form with the Nova Roman flag on it and two radio buttons with tax and donate?
 
Vale bene
Caesar

From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 


Salve

The paypal link on the main page sends payments to consul@novaroma this one uses payments@novaroma. do they both go to the same place?

Vale

Gaius Claudius




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87962 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees
C. Petronius Dexter Cn. Julio Caesari salutem,

> The tax rates including transaction fees

> For payments by citizens living OUTSIDE of the USA (including the PayPal transaction fee [mandatory] at 3.9% + 30 cents):
> * Class 1 rate - $44.02

I did not see on my Paypal transaction the 2,02$. (transaction fee mandatory). I paid 42,00$ nothing else, except the fact that I have the amount converted in Euros as information.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 87963 From: Jean-François Arnoud Date: 2012-03-27
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,
 
 
That is a copy of my position, that is not the result of a discussion with my colleague between us as praetors. You knew my position, as the other receivers of the letter. It is not the problem.
 
The problem is why this SC proposed as Item?
 
My position does not please you? Ok.
 
But, you are not a praetor. Do you think that the Senate must change its SC? But in the SC founding the FH it is precisely said that the management and the moderation of this new forum is transferred to the praetors.
 
As praetor I understand "internal" as "internal", I do my duty. Why do you intervene in the moderation made by the praetors with a SC? Because when something does not please you you need a Senatus consultum?
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

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