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]

Ave!

The Senate as supreme policy making body, per the Constitution, is the
appropriate body to make this determination since you have chosen to
deviate from past practice and have been unable to reach accommodation with
your praetorian colleague.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>

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

Salve

"Can you clarify what link. The form with the Nova Roman flag on it and two radio buttons with tax and donate?"

That's it exactly and of course that's what I used. Hopefully the money goes somewhere useful? If not let me know and I will get payapl to pull it back.

Gaius Claudius

C. Petronius Dexter  L.Sullae salutem,

> 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....

 
Stop kidding.
This mail is on the 28 February and was not a decision it was my opinion. It is not a result on a discussion between the praetors. Nothing followed this email. The ball was in my ground according to Aeternia.
 
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]

Dexter Sullae sal.,
 

> The Senate as supreme policy making body, per the Constitution, is the
>W appropriate body to make this determination since you have chosen to
> deviate from past practice

 
I follow the SC.
What means "internal" in your dictionary?
If past practice was wrong it is good to deviate them to the right.
 
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]

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextro sal.

What part of I do not agree with you, did you not understand? I have been
pretty adamant on the defending of the Ludi being on the FH..

Dexter at this point, we should move forward to presenting our positions to
the Senate as I have done, who knows the odds may be in your favor.

Because this right now has gone from ridiculous to an indescribable word..

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Dexter Caesari sal.

> So you are incorrect.

 
Not at all.
We did not take any decision after this exchange of mails.
 
As said Aeternia in her last mail :
"I stand my ground about the FH and the Ludi it should be allowed to be posted there, on that note ball is in Dexter's court.."
 
So we did not take any decision.
 
You post as proof my position not a decision.
"The ball is in Dexter's court".
 
But you issue a SC.
Why?
Because the SC founding the FH is followed?
Because "internal" is understood as "internal".
 
I knew that my colleague does not take any decision without your advice, she always ask your advice, and more than necessary put your name in CC. 
 
But now you want to use even the Senate against my position which is right and follows the SC and the term "internal".
 
What a shame!
 
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]

Aeternia Dextro sal.

Nice spin, clever... I could almost say the same for you, as to who you
always go to advice, but I'm not that petty...

I don't always ask Caesar on everything you know, if I feel it should
include Consular input then yes I do. To make sure you and I are covering
our bases..

The ball was in your court to see reason and offer a compromise or be
willing to hear one, instead of your usual position "I think this and
therefore it will be done".


Think what you will Dexter, you knew I'd disagreed with you from the
beginning..

Vale,
Aeternia


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

Ave!

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Dexter L.Sullae salutem,
>
>
> > 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....
>
> Stop kidding.
>

I'm not kidding. Seriously I AM NOT KIDDING! I saw the email from Caesar
that was posted on the ML.

> This mail is on the 28 February and was not a decision it was my opinion.
> It is not a result on a discussion between the praetors. Nothing followed
> this email. The ball was in my ground according to Aeternia.
>

So, wait are you saying that your colleague could have ignored your opinion
and posted all the contents of the Ludi as they happened on the FH list
since it was just a discussion on email?

Vale,

Sulla

>
>
> 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]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal,

The taxe rate voted is $42,00

You posted
On Monday:

>Class 1 rate - $43.94

Today:

>Class 1 rate - $44.02

I paid on the 10 March $42,00. Once again I respected what I voted. Did you issue a new SC for amending the Class 1 rate - $44,02?

No, indeed.
You only need a new SC to modify the decision of the other magistrates, not yours.

Optime vale.

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

Ave!

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dexter Sullae sal.,
>
>
> > The Senate as supreme policy making body, per the Constitution, is the
> >W appropriate body to make this determination since you have chosen to
> > deviate from past practice
>
> I follow the SC.
> What means "internal" in your dictionary?
>

The Ludi have never been JUST internal events. They have always
supersecded the actual organization. Some of the chats had even been
posted on the Back alley and jokes spawned from it. The Ludi are not just
internal...think of a Venn Diagram...given the religious implications that
are also included one would think that we would want to expose everyone in
the world to the joy that is the Ludi.

At this point I think the CP needs to step in as well and determine the
religious implications of the Ludi. Are they JUST internal for our eyes
only? Or is there a greater role for the Ludi than just for it to be
limited to such a degree?

> If past practice was wrong it is good to deviate them to the right.
>

That is now up to debate and I think that also the decision of the CP
should be sought as well.

Vale,

Sulla

>
>
> 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]
>
>
>

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

Caesar Dextro sal.
 
I provided the recalculated rates as a convience so people didn't have to work them out. If you read the Senatus consultum again you will find that payment of the transaction fee is required. Therefore to save everyone trying to figure it out for themselves, I calculated it and posted the rates. They allow for 2.9% + 30 cents as a fee deducated from any amount sent to any person for those living in the USA and 3.9% + 30 cents deducated from any amount sent for those living outside of the US. They are constant fees charged regardless of the amount. So, the rates below take account of that. As it stands if you sent only $42.00 and didn't cover the transaction fee, well read the SC. It is quite clear.
 
Optime vale

From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal,

The taxe rate voted is $42,00

You posted
On Monday:

>Class 1 rate - $43.94

Today:

>Class 1 rate - $44.02

I paid on the 10 March $42,00. Once again I respected what I voted. Did you issue a new SC for amending the Class 1 rate - $44,02?

No, indeed.
You only need a new SC to modify the decision of the other magistrates, not yours.

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]

Cn. Caesar C. Petronio sal.
 
The management of the forum is transferred to the praetors. The praetors couldn't find common ground on one issue. Therefore the matter can be decided by the Senate. Your position as praetor in respect of FH is akin to that of a building manager. You don't own the building, the Senate does as it created it. As the owner the Senate can re-design the building if it so chooses. Next year you cease to be the manager Two new managers take over the FH building. The issue may resurface with the new managers. Therefore we will ask the owners, the Senate, what they think.
 
Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:52 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
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.

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

Caesar Dextro sal.
 
Dexter, for the umpteenth time, I don't agree with keeping the ludi off the FH. I think it counter productive. You don't. Fine. However it is my right to try to resolve a clear issue. If you think that you and your colleague can compromise and make putting the matter to the vote in the Senate redundant, then you have enough time left. If on the other hand you don't want to seek a compromise, then I will ask the Senate as the creators and owners of Forum hospitum to make a decision one way or another. then we will all know where we stand. Also to be clear I don't have to seek your permision or your colleagues to do this. An impasse was evident. I made a decision to clear up the disagreement over the ludi being on FH, one way or another.
 
Optime vale 

From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:17 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
Dexter Caesari sal.

> So you are incorrect.

 
Not at all.
We did not take any decision after this exchange of mails. 

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

Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Yes, the original SC was clear on this point. What, however, might *not* have as clear is the way in which Paypal handles transaction fees. I know ...I got caught, too, though I have since made a payment that should cover the original, plus the second transaction made by subsequent payment.

When you use Paypal to purchase something, or make a payment, the fee Paypal deducts for its services is deducted from the amount it pays to the recipient. So, if you pay $10.00 for something, or even send that amount to a friend, (though that is handled differently, I think), you make a payment to PayPal of $10. The person to whom you sent the money, however gets $10 minus the transacting fee.

What the Senate did was to set the tax, then add in the amount which Paypal would take out of the payment for its transaction fee. I assume a "merchant" or organization can set up the receipt of payments so that this is possible, otherwise there would be a different fee for the higher amount. At any rate, when I specified the amount of tax payment I made, that was the amount that shoed on my copy of the transaction. It was only later that I realized that I, the purchassser, wouldn't, during the normal course of a transaction, even see that fee.

I hope I'm making myself at least minimally clear. Essentially, this is similar to the difference between buying something with free (to me) shipping, and having to pay postage. Free shipping isn't free ...but I don't pay it. In the past, apparently, NR has paid the transaction fees, but, given the number of people making payments to NR, those fees mount up, and this would be especially true with this new tax structure, since those fees are determined by the amount of the transaction, and there is not a single fee for every transaction, no matter the $ amount.

Valete!
C. Maria Caeca

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

 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal.,
 

> Negotiation and compromise only work if both parties are open to it.

 
That is true.
 

> One, Dexter, is not clearly.

 
The problem is that Aeternia has no position nor own advice, she thinks like you.
It was the same case for the first praetorial edict. She wanted only copy yours. She has no advice. She is expecting the Games of Apollo. Because she thinks that her duty is to play.
She has no advice.
And people may watch that in the Senate voting reports.
She always votes as you want.
 
So, you are forced to issue a SC on a moderation well done and which understood the word "internal" in its just meaning. Because you took last year the decision to do not follow the SC founding the FH, unless to follow it as you like. But you had the right to do it, because you were praetor.
 
After the "one Dexter is not clearly" you seem to think that I am alone to do a compromise. But who has to do a compromise. The one who follow the SC and respect the word "internal" or the one who has no advice except yours?
 
If a compromise must be, it must by the one who does not want to follow the SC in its words. I have no compromise to do, I just respect the law.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

Caesar Dextro sal.
 
Given what Aeternia has written neither of you seem to want to compromise and that too is fine. I am not expecting you to be the one to give in Dexter. If both of you could find an acceptable middle ground that satisfied you both, then that would be good. I think it seems clear that isn't going t happen. Ok, let us just resolve this one way or another. Something tells me this won't be the only year it comes up and having the ludi on FH one year and not the next and then back to FH is not productive. If the Senate agrees with you then there will be no Ludi. If it agrees with Aeternia then there will. We will all have our opinions.
 
In fact tonight I will ammend the draft Senatus consultum to have two versions for the vote. One that permits the ludi and one that doesn't. Then there will be a clear answer one way or the other.
 
Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal.,
 

> Negotiation and compromise only work if both parties are open to it.

 
That is true.
 

> One, Dexter, is not clearly.

 
The problem is that Aeternia has no position nor own advice, she thinks like you.
It was the same case for the first praetorial edict. She wanted only copy yours. She has no advice. She is expecting the Games of Apollo. Because she thinks that her duty is to play.
She has no advice.
And people may watch that in the Senate voting reports.
She always votes as you want.
 
So, you are forced to issue a SC on a moderation well done and which understood the word "internal" in its just meaning. Because you took last year the decision to do not follow the SC founding the FH, unless to follow it as you like. But you had the right to do it, because you were praetor.
 
After the "one Dexter is not clearly" you seem to think that I am alone to do a compromise. But who has to do a compromise. The one who follow the SC and respect the word "internal" or the one who has no advice except yours?
 
If a compromise must be, it must by the one who does not want to follow the SC in its words. I have no compromise to do, I just respect the law.
 
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]

Salvete,

I have not mentioned the Ludi Apollinares at all on the Praetores list. So
the person who is thinking of Apollo is not me.

I have presented my position to the Senate, I suggest you do the same..

Feel free to continue bullying me colleague, I'm not taking your bait.

Let the Senate decide, as I said I will abide by their decision..

Valete,
Aeternia


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

Ave!

I think the CP should also have a role in this process, unless of course
the religious aspects just are not that important? No one...let alone our
Pontifex Maximus has even discussed this as a religious issue. Is it not
also a religious issue?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salvete,
>
> I have not mentioned the Ludi Apollinares at all on the Praetores list. So
> the person who is thinking of Apollo is not me.
>
> I have presented my position to the Senate, I suggest you do the same..
>
> Feel free to continue bullying me colleague, I'm not taking your bait.
>
> Let the Senate decide, as I said I will abide by their decision..
>
> Valete,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salvete omnes

Despite my best efforts to pay the correct amount, it seems that I too have underpaid.

I was under the impression that if I asked Paypal to send 42 USD to the Treasury, they would render that amount to them, and charge me whatever that entire transaction cost. I did actually try to read through the assortment of information available from Paypal, and concluded that I had probably paid the amount I intended to pay. They certainly mentioned the word "free" at several points.

But I was wrong. Not only was I wrong, but I have also been trying to advise my citizens in Britannia and Hibernia, and it seems that I have now given them two sets of incorrect advice.

I am now sending them a further clarification.

I am now sending an additional amount to the Treasury. However, I do not think I shall ever be able to calculate the precise amount I should pay, which should include the Paypal transaction charge necessary to pay the Paypal transaction charge. It hardly seems worth the bother of trying to work out all those fractions, so I shall send a more generous amount, which the treasury officials are welcome to split between taxes and a donation, if indeed that is possible.

I know that everyone has been trying their best to clarify the correct amounts. We now seem to have settled on the best way of indicating the amount to be paid, so hopefully this formula will be applied in future years and this will no longer be an issue.

Valete omnes
Crispus

I suppose that explains why my taxes aren't marked as paid and my citizenship status hasn't been upgraded yet. Perhaps not having a link on the main Nova Roma page that says "Pay your taxes here" that sends them to the wrong address would have been a good idea.

Gaius Quinctius Flamininus



________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] 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]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Ave!

This is a learning experience for all of us. While we are trying to be
more professional and streamlined in this process there are going to be
some bumps on the way. I hope that this will be the last update needed in
regards to the tax payment.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <
jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salvete omnes
>
> Despite my best efforts to pay the correct amount, it seems that I too
> have underpaid.
>
> I was under the impression that if I asked Paypal to send 42 USD to the
> Treasury, they would render that amount to them, and charge me whatever
> that entire transaction cost. I did actually try to read through the
> assortment of information available from Paypal, and concluded that I had
> probably paid the amount I intended to pay. They certainly mentioned the
> word "free" at several points.
>
> But I was wrong. Not only was I wrong, but I have also been trying to
> advise my citizens in Britannia and Hibernia, and it seems that I have now
> given them two sets of incorrect advice.
>
> I am now sending them a further clarification.
>
> I am now sending an additional amount to the Treasury. However, I do not
> think I shall ever be able to calculate the precise amount I should pay,
> which should include the Paypal transaction charge necessary to pay the
> Paypal transaction charge. It hardly seems worth the bother of trying to
> work out all those fractions, so I shall send a more generous amount, which
> the treasury officials are welcome to split between taxes and a donation,
> if indeed that is possible.
>
> I know that everyone has been trying their best to clarify the correct
> amounts. We now seem to have settled on the best way of indicating the
> amount to be paid, so hopefully this formula will be applied in future
> years and this will no longer be an issue.
>
> Valete omnes
> Crispus
>
>
>

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

Ave!

Uh your taxes are paid. I got it on my database.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:19 PM, William Dowie <swjagatai@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I suppose that explains why my taxes aren't marked as paid and my
> citizenship status hasn't been upgraded yet. Perhaps not having a link on
> the main Nova Roma page that says "Pay your taxes here" that sends them to
> the wrong address would have been a good idea.
>
> Gaius Quinctius Flamininus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] 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]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Caesar Crispo sal.
 
The last set of consolidated rates do appear to result in NR getting the amount it requires. As to the amount you require, leave it to me and Sulla to calculate. I will email you when I calculate it. Sadly there is nothing free on PayPal.
 
Optime vale

From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <jbshr1pwa@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:09 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 
Salvete omnes

Despite my best efforts to pay the correct amount, it seems that I too have underpaid.

I was under the impression that if I asked Paypal to send 42 USD to the Treasury, they would render that amount to them, and charge me whatever that entire transaction cost. I did actually try to read through the assortment of information available from Paypal, and concluded that I had probably paid the amount I intended to pay. They certainly mentioned the word "free" at several points.

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

Caesar Flaminino sal
 
The address was NOT wrong. After Axenrothe mentioned this I investigated. PayPal sends out a confirmation email to seller and buyer. The one to Nova Roma is programmed to go to consuls AT novaroma.org. The payment however most certainly does go to payments AT novaroma.org. It has been tested and confirned by the CFO that funds sent by that form on the main page and the same link on the tax page to that form work fine. Tax money sent via that form arrives with the CFO.
 
Optime vale 

From: William Dowie <swjagatai@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 
I suppose that explains why my taxes aren't marked as paid and my citizenship status hasn't been upgraded yet. Perhaps not having a link on the main Nova Roma page that says "Pay your taxes here" that sends them to the wrong address would have been a good idea.

Gaius Quinctius Flamininus


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

C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
 

>>> LJA: 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."<<<
 
Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others. I gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you may read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions are mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an opinion. I am free.
 
There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH moderation. It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision. 
 
Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision, for this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
 
The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I thought that.
But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the help of the Senate. ROFL.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.

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

Ave!

Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell was
the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud
<jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
>
> >>> LJA: 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."<<<
>
> Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others. I
> gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you may
> read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One
> month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions are
> mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an
> opinion. I am free.
>
> There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH moderation.
> It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the
> praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the
> consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this
> mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision.
>
> Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The
> cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision, for
> this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am
> great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am
> elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
>
> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> thought that.
> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the help
> of the Senate. ROFL.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V 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]

Ave!

Based on this email....it looks like Praetor Dexter is backtracking. So,
instead of waiting for his response I have a question for the magistrates
involved in the private correspondence:

Curule Aedile C. Caeca- Based on your information of the correspondence Do
you believe that Praetor Dexter would have exercised his Veto power
(intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?

Praetor Aeternia, - Based on your information of the correspondence that
you had with your colleague - Do you believe that your colleague would have
exercised his Veto Power (intercssio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH
list?

Consul Caesar - Based on your observations and interactions with Praetor G.
Petronius - Do you think that he would have exercised his Veto Power
(intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?

So, based on these answers - is the Praetor backtracking to save face? Why?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell
> was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
>>
>> >>> LJA: 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."<<<
>>
>> Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others. I
>> gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you may
>> read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One
>> month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions are
>> mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an
>> opinion. I am free.
>>
>> There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH moderation.
>> It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the
>> praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the
>> consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this
>> mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision.
>>
>> Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The
>> cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision, for
>> this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am
>> great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am
>> elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
>>
>> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
>> thought that.
>> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
>> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
>> help of the Senate. ROFL.
>>
>> Optime vale.
>>
>> C. Petronius Dexter
>> Arcoiali scribebat
>> a. d. V 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]

Aeternia Sullae sal.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if he did...

Vale,
Aeternia

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Based on this email....it looks like Praetor Dexter is backtracking. So,
> instead of waiting for his response I have a question for the magistrates
> involved in the private correspondence:
>
> Curule Aedile C. Caeca- Based on your information of the correspondence Do
> you believe that Praetor Dexter would have exercised his Veto power
> (intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?
>
> Praetor Aeternia, - Based on your information of the correspondence that
> you had with your colleague - Do you believe that your colleague would have
> exercised his Veto Power (intercssio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH
> list?
>
> Consul Caesar - Based on your observations and interactions with Praetor G.
> Petronius - Do you think that he would have exercised his Veto Power
> (intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?
>
> So, based on these answers - is the Praetor backtracking to save face?
> Why?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell
> > was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jean-François Arnoud <
> jfarnoud94@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
> >>
> >> >>> LJA: 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."<<<
> >>
> >> Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others.
> I
> >> gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you
> may
> >> read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One
> >> month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions
> are
> >> mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an
> >> opinion. I am free.
> >>
> >> There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH
> moderation.
> >> It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the
> >> praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the
> >> consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this
> >> mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision.
> >>
> >> Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The
> >> cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision,
> for
> >> this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am
> >> great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am
> >> elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
> >>
> >> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> >> thought that.
> >> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> >> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
> >> help of the Senate. ROFL.
> >>
> >> Optime vale.
> >>
> >> C. Petronius Dexter
> >> Arcoiali scribebat
> >> a. d. V 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]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"


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

Caesar Sullae sal.
 
Yes amice I do. I think he would have either vetoed the attempt, or moderated those that did post about the ludi on FH or both. I think Dexter is annoyed it ended up with the Senate. As to his motives, other than being programmed naturally to respond like this, I haven't a clue if he is backtracking. I have read virtually no cogent arguments to keep the ludi off FH. I therefore conclude that this is an ego issue fnow or Dexter more than anything.
 
Optime vale
 
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Ave!

Based on this email....it looks like Praetor Dexter is backtracking. So,
instead of waiting for his response I have a question for the magistrates
involved in the private correspondence:

<snip>

Consul Caesar - Based on your observations and interactions with Praetor G.
Petronius - Do you think that he would have exercised his Veto Power
(intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?

So, based on these answers - is the Praetor backtracking to save face?  Why?

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell
> was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
>>
>> >>> LJA: 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."<<<
>>
>> Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others. I
>> gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you may
>> read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One
>> month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions are
>> mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an
>> opinion. I am free.
>>
>> There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH moderation.
>> It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the
>> praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the
>> consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this
>> mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision.
>>
>> Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The
>> cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision, for
>> this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am
>> great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am
>> elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
>>
>> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
>> thought that.
>> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
>> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
>> help of the Senate. ROFL.
>>
>> Optime vale.
>>
>> C. Petronius Dexter
>> Arcoiali scribebat
>> a. d. V 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]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Salve,

<snip>


The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I

> thought that.
> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the help
> of the Senate. ROFL.
>

Aeternia- This is not your usual tone of writing, ghost writer striking
again eh? Hey why don't we talk about who helped you write the Moderation
Edict that's now in force? Remember that discussion on the Praetores list,
how I insist on writing my own Edicts and that also goes for my own posts..

Nicely done..

>
>

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Ave!

I understand, and I came to the conclusion that he was backtracking based
on this sentence: "Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my
position again. The cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not
take a decision, for this time."

It really is a puzzling sentence in his post because if true then why did
the Ludi NOT go on the FH list? Unless of course the Praetor is being
deliberately obtuse in avoiding the implication of throwing down the
gauntlet. Either way, I'm glad that this issue is going to be resolved one
way or another in the Senate.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Caesar Sullae sal.
>
> Yes amice I do. I think he would have either vetoed the attempt, or
> moderated those that did post about the ludi on FH or both. I think Dexter
> is annoyed it ended up with the Senate. As to his motives, other than being
> programmed naturally to respond like this, I haven't a clue if he is
> backtracking. I have read virtually no cogent arguments to keep the ludi
> off FH. I therefore conclude that this is an ego issue fnow or Dexter more
> than anything.
>
> Optime vale
>
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 -
> 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)
>
>
> Ave!
>
> Based on this email....it looks like Praetor Dexter is backtracking. So,
> instead of waiting for his response I have a question for the magistrates
> involved in the private correspondence:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Consul Caesar - Based on your observations and interactions with Praetor G.
> Petronius - Do you think that he would have exercised his Veto Power
> (intercessio) if the Ludi began to appear on the FH list?
>
> So, based on these answers - is the Praetor backtracking to save face?
> Why?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell
> > was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Jean-Fran�ois Arnoud <
> jfarnoud94@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> C. Petronius Juliae Aquilae salutem,
> >>
> >> >>> LJA: 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."<<<
> >>
> >> Of course it was not a private mail, it was one mail among some others.
> I
> >> gave in that mail my opinion. And now this mail is public. :o) As you
> may
> >> read it, it is absolutely honest, just my opinion on a such subject. One
> >> month ago. As you know I have opinion on every subject, and my opinions
> are
> >> mine. I do not need to have the consul each time in CC to express an
> >> opinion. I am free.
> >>
> >> There, in this mail, as praetor, I give my position on the FH
> moderation.
> >> It is my duty. The advice of the consul is off topic, he is not the
> >> praetor. The advice of Aeternia... oups, she has not, the advice of the
> >> consul given by Aeternia was added in an answer, but at the end of this
> >> mailing exchange we, the both praetores, did not take any decision.
> >>
> >> Since this day, I used the praetores list to give my position again. The
> >> cohors know my opinion. We had a debatte, we did not take a decision,
> for
> >> this time. I am not interested in letters forwarded to the consul, I am
> >> great enough to have my own opinion and I believe that this year I am
> >> elected praetor by the people to fulfill my duties.
> >>
> >> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> >> thought that.
> >> But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> >> Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
> >> help of the Senate. ROFL.
> >>
> >> Optime vale.
> >>
> >> C. Petronius Dexter
> >> Arcoiali scribebat
> >> a. d. V 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]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Ave!

I was wondering that too.....but I wasnt going to mention it....but wow the
differences are just so glaring. Who is authoring this?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve,
>
> <snip>
>
>
> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> > thought that.
> > But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> > Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
> help
> > of the Senate. ROFL.
> >
>
> Aeternia- This is not your usual tone of writing, ghost writer striking
> again eh? Hey why don't we talk about who helped you write the Moderation
> Edict that's now in force? Remember that discussion on the Praetores list,
> how I insist on writing my own Edicts and that also goes for my own posts..
>
> Nicely done..
>
> >
> >
>
> Vale bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

>>> I provided the recalculated rates as a convience so people didn't have to work them out. If you read the Senatus consultum again you will find that payment of the transaction fee is required.

In the SC there is mention about transaction fees. I had no transaction fees on my receipt. So not knowing its amount, I paid my $42,00. As last year I paid my $25,00.

Your transaction fee is changing each day, I presume. Unless it was not the same on Monday and on Thuesday. Once again it is "une usine à gaz". You do not like the simple things.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Caesar Dextro sal.
 
They are not my fees Dexter, they are PayPal's. If you didn't work out the fee, oh well. As to it changing, I updated it when it was clear that the first amount didn't cover their fees. Think of it in a positive light, that now the work is done for everyone, including you. So now you know what you should have paid, but obviously didn't.
 
I could say that with you, once again it is Dexter's ego that has driven this debate ;) It got a bit brusied so Dexter came out bruising. That's ok Dexter, we understand.
 
Optime vale
 
 

From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees


 
C. Petronius Cn. Caesari salutem,

>>> I provided the recalculated rates as a convience so people didn't have to work them out. If you read the Senatus consultum again you will find that payment of the transaction fee is required.

In the SC there is mention about transaction fees. I had no transaction fees on my receipt. So not knowing its amount, I paid my $42,00. As last year I paid my $25,00.

Your transaction fee is changing each day, I presume. Unless it was not the same on Monday and on Thuesday. Once again it is "une usine à gaz". You do not like the simple things.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.


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

C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,

> Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?

May you ask easier? With all those not.. not... I do not understand the meaning of your question.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal.,

> I could say that with you, once again it is Dexter's ego that has driven this debate ;) It got a bit brusied so Dexter came out bruising. That's ok Dexter, we understand.

I think that is funny...

So, I have to pay $2,02 more. But it is not possible to pay a such little amount with paypal.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Ave!

Ok let me rephrase it for you, Praetor. You claim there was no decision in
regards to the matter. So, then the previous status quo should have
remained - which was established - thus the Ludi should have been POSTED on
the FH list. Yet it was not. So, why was the Ludi NOT posted on the FH
list?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
>
> > Again I am going to ask....so there was no decision so, why in the hell
> was the Ludi NOT put on the FH if there was no impediment?
>
> May you ask easier? With all those not.. not... I do not understand the
> meaning of your question.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
>


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

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal,

> So now you know what you should have paid, but obviously didn't.

Ok. But as I have to pay $2,02 and that is not possible by Paypal, I want my money ($42,00) back, before I pay again my $44,02.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Ave,

It is possible. Caesar just sent a payment for 1 dollar - NR got .67 cents
of that.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari sal.,
>
>
> > I could say that with you, once again it is Dexter's ego that has driven
> this debate ;) It got a bit brusied so Dexter came out bruising. That's ok
> Dexter, we understand.
>
> I think that is funny...
>
> So, I have to pay $2,02 more. But it is not possible to pay a such little
> amount with paypal.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
>


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

Caeca Sullae sal!

I have no idea what the Praetor would have done, had I continued to post
Ludi posts on the FH. I chose to take a conservative route during the Ludi
Novi Romani, because this issue was, so far as I knew a matter of praetorian
discussion, and I believed that it would be resolved before the next Ludi.

Vale!
C. Maria Caeca
Curule Aedile

C. Petronius L. Sullae sal.,

> It is possible. Caesar just sent a payment for 1 dollar - NR got .67 cents of that.

Ok, I will try.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Salvete Iterum,

To explain my rationale further.. There was a discussion on the Praetores
list, where my colleague did tell two scribes (one being the Curule Aedile)
that if posts on the Ludi would continue further, they would be moderated
most likely.

How I see it if my colleague was willing to moderate people, then he would
also veto if the choice was possible...

I apologize to all members of this list, because I wish this discussion
would just simply end,.... And I am sure they are beyond tired of seeing us
post.

Valete bene,
Aeternia


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

Ave!

So, let me get this straight, there was no decision made, BUT your
colleague already gave warning of pending moderation if Ludi posts
continued? But if there was no decision made why was he threatening
moderation? Something sounds amiss?

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salvete Iterum,
>
> To explain my rationale further.. There was a discussion on the Praetores
> list, where my colleague did tell two scribes (one being the Curule Aedile)
> that if posts on the Ludi would continue further, they would be moderated
> most likely.
>
> How I see it if my colleague was willing to moderate people, then he would
> also veto if the choice was possible...
>
> I apologize to all members of this list, because I wish this discussion
> would just simply end,.... And I am sure they are beyond tired of seeing us
> post.
>
> Valete bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

C. Petronius L. Sullae sal.,

>>> It is possible. Caesar just sent a payment for 1 dollar - NR got .67 cents of that.<<<

So, had he to pay $1,67? :o)

Well, it is ok. My $2,02 are gone! you may get them.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

Ave!

LOL no he just sent 1 dollar and paypal took .33 cents. :)

Ok I will be checking it this evening.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae sal.,
>
> >>> It is possible. Caesar just sent a payment for 1 dollar - NR got .67
> cents of that.<<<
>
> So, had he to pay $1,67? :o)
>
> Well, it is ok. My $2,02 are gone! you may get them.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.
>
>
>


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

C. Maria Caeca Curule Aedile omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I will answer this, since, as curule Aedile, seeing that the games were
posted was, ultimately, my responsibility. I said recently that I had no
idea whether the Praetor would veto posts, or moderate them. So, let me
back track, just a bit. I had posted something pertaining to the Ludi, an
announcement of a quiz, I think, before the Ludi opened, and at that time,
the Praetor made his position clear on our cohors list, and no, I don't know
the date, although if I am required to, I can find the post and provide it,
as well as a copy of my post concerning this issue. The Praetrix also made
her view on this matter known. I had to decide how to handle the situation,
and I chose to do as I have found wise, in all aspects of my life. I chose
to accept what I had thought was a compromise, and post the opening, the
opening rituals and remarks, and let the decision be finalized. Yes, I
could have forced the issue, but I felt that doing so would accomplish very
little, and could be disruptive. So, perhaps, if blame is being assigned,
then I shall take my fair share.

To address another issue, yes, I did see posts from both the Praetor and the
Praetrix on the discussion list, however, I assumed that there were
additional, ongoing discussions between the Praetor and Praetrix.

Valete!
C. Maria Caeca

C. Petronius Quiritibus omnibus salutem,

>>> I will answer this, since, as curule Aedile, seeing that the games were posted was, ultimately, my responsibility. I said recently that I had no idea whether the Praetor would veto posts, or moderate them.<<<

You had no idea on that, because we did not decide anything on that. The exchange of mails, in which was the mail mine that Caesar published, was at the end of February and at the beginning of March the Ludi Novi Romani came. You, and the scribae and Lentulus posted on the FH.

We, both praetores, did not decide what way to follow, I did not moderate neither veto you nor those who posted the Ludi on the FH.

What I noticed? Only on the ML we had comments. None comments by the guests. They did not care our games.

It was the evidence that I wanted to give you, all the cohors and my colleague, that it was definitely not necessary to forward those posts on the FH.

But, a sudden SC was put as Item in the next Senate meeting. I know that item is not put by chance. It is something against the choice, the tasks and the duty of the praetores to manage and moderate the publica fora under their reponsibility.

It is a possibility given by the balance of power.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Praetori Salutem!

Yes, I did post a few things on the FH, however, when you announced on the Praetor's list that Ludi posts could be moderated, and stated your position, I refrained from doing so, except for the opening, the opening ritual, the Magistrates' comments, and, I believe, the closing and closing ritual. True Lentulus posted his Certamen Latinum, which you did not moderate, but by the time he started doing so, the Ludi had been going on for a couple of days, so I felt it inadvisable to suddenly change and begin posting again.

And yes, I knew that there was not a collegial decision, so I did what I thought best. I had no desire to create a conflict of interest between the Praetura and the Aedilicia, at least until a final decision had been made. When it is, depending on what that decision is, I will have another decision to make.

Vale!
C. Maria Caeca

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

C. Dexter Cn. Caesari salutem,
 

> Yes amice I do. I think he would have either vetoed the attempt, or moderated those that did post about the ludi on FH > or both.

 
So you propose a SC on  a "would"...
 

> I think Dexter is annoyed it ended up with the Senate.

 
Lol. You think what you want, but it is only what you think. You are not in my mind.
 

> As to his motives, other than being programmed naturally to respond like this, I haven't a clue if he is backtracking.

 
No, I am not backtracking.
 

> I have read virtually no cogent arguments to keep the ludi off FH.

 
Really? You do not read, you answer. I may say many arguments. Those I sent you in a mail that you published. But also the experience of the last Ludi Novi Romani with guests absolutely silent.
 

> I therefore conclude that this is an ego issue fnow or Dexter more than anything.

 
You are not Sherlock Holmes nor Sigmund Freud...
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

Salve

I know there are other ways to pay on paypal besides the standard services that doesn't cost as much. Being a registered non profit you might want to pop them an email and inquire about it.

Vale

Gaius Claudius

Salve et Salvete,

Welcome back. We have not met before, however I hope that you will
continue to be in good health. May you be successful in your endevours. :)

Vale et Valete,

Ti. Valeria Celeris

Salve,

Sounds interesting. If you start this in either of the groups mentioned. I would definatly be interested in joining in.

Vale,

Ti. Valeria Celeris

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Yehya" <yehya_61@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>

C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
 

>>> So, let me get this straight, there was no decision made, BUT your

colleague already gave warning of pending moderation if Ludi posts
continued?  But if there was no decision made why was he threatening
moderation?  Something sounds amiss? <<<
 
Lol. I would like to read this threat.
May you ask her in which mail or post I threatened a moderation or a veto about the Ludi posted on the FH. I actually think that you (Sulla, Caesar, Aeternia) are making a movie on me.
 
I just recopied the "Warning" (it is not a threat) written in the Home page of the FH for discussion. By error, I sent it into the FH, instead of create the topic, as I wanted in order to have a debate, between us in the praetores list. I deleted the message in the FH, I left it in the praetores list for the discussion. I copied the Warning in order to have a debate between us. We did not take a decision. I threatened nobody more than the text of the warning. This text is on the FH home page.
 
For evidence, I give you the content of my post:
 
------------------------------------------------------
C. Dexter Corneliae Aeterniae omnique cohorti salutem,

(Oups! I posted it in the forum hospitum by error. Lol.
But it is not a problem, it is the warning that I wanted to send you.)

I recall you the warning written on the home page of the forum hospitum.

"WARNING: Discussion of any matters internal to Nova Roma, such as Nova Roman
politics and issues, is not permitted. Failure to abide by this prohibition
could result in warnings or moderation or revocation of membership of this
list."

Please, the messages about the Ludi Novi Romani have not to be posted on this
list. This is an internal matter of Nova Roma and its posting is not permitted.

I do not want to revoke you from the list, but it is not because you are
moderators of this list and not under moderation than you may post this sort of
internal messages.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
X Kalendas Martias Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
------------------------------------------------------------
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

In a message dated 3/27/2012 3:02:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.woolwine@... writes:

No one...let alone our
Pontifex Maximus has even discussed this as a religious issue. Is it not
also a religious issue?
Q. Fabius Maximus Pontifice SPD
Actually I did. Unless we believe that the Gods would be insulted by
allowing non citizens seeing the Games, which I have never seen any reference to
in my 23 years of study, I see no problem. However, this is my learned
opinion and not that of my Colleagues in the College.

Valete




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

Salve Dexter,

This is the post in question actually.

When you say oh wonderous colleague...

and I quote you...

"I do not want to revoke you from the list, but it is not because you are
moderators of this list and not under moderation than you may post this
sort of
internal messages."

That can be implied and percieved as a threat no matter how subtle it may
be...

A movie of you? No I don't think so...

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

In a message dated 3/27/2012 2:39:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

When you use Paypal to purchase something, or make a payment, the fee
Paypal deducts for its services is deducted from the amount it pays to the
recipient. So, if you pay $10.00 for something, or even send that amount to a
friend, (though that is handled differently, I think), you make a payment to
PayPal of $10. The person to whom you sent the money, however gets $10
minus the transacting fee.

OUT if you sent 100.00 or less you weren't charged. This changed last
January.

Paypal now charges a carrying fee. For any amount. It varies between
3%-20%

So when you pay 42.00 you'd have to add a carrying fee. That's to cover
costs. Since the Senate did not include the carrying fee in its projections
it comes out of NR's pocket as lost revenue.

Q. Fabius Maximus




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

Caesar Maximo sal.

The Senate did include the fee and made it a requirement it be covered – it is in the Senatus consultum Maxime.

Optime vale


From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 8:56 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees




In a message dated 3/27/2012 2:39:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mailto:c.mariacaeca%40gmail.com writes:

When you use Paypal to purchase something, or make a payment, the fee
Paypal deducts for its services is deducted from the amount it pays to the
recipient. So, if you pay $10.00 for something, or even send that amount to a
friend, (though that is handled differently, I think), you make a payment to
PayPal of $10. The person to whom you sent the money, however gets $10
minus the transacting fee.

OUT if you sent 100.00 or less you weren't charged. This changed last
January.

Paypal now charges a carrying fee. For any amount. It varies between
3%-20%

So when you pay 42.00 you'd have to add a carrying fee. That's to cover
costs. Since the Senate did not include the carrying fee in its projections
it comes out of NR's pocket as lost revenue.

Q. Fabius Maximus

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


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

Caesar Dextro sal

Well if the guests were silent that is all the more reason to try harder to involve them. Naturally with your well thought out plan, they will be perpetually silent, or silenced. Parochially squashing participation, which is what I firmly believe should be encouraged on all levels in FH, in positive activities is a good thing. You prefer to peer down from the praetorial ivory tower at the guests. I prefer we engaged them on every level that is positive we can, and the ludi fits that category for me.

For you, adopting as you are the role of Ebenezer Scrooge, it is a case of “bah humbug!” As I have said you may well convince the Senate to join you in your praetorial office feeding one coal on the fire per day and making the guests read of the exploits of that noted pillar of rectitude Cato Uticensis. One can only wait for you to utter on the fate of the guests "If they'd rather die they better do it now and decrease the surplus population." You need a big fat roast goose to munch on and improve your disposition and reaction. Maybe you are suffering from low blood sugar and need to eat.

Whatever the case you won’t alter your opinion and your colleague won’t alter hers, so I am going to ask the Senate to resolve it one way or another. In which case this issue will be settled. The very fact you try to portray it as no issue, when you and your colleague don’t agree, in fact fundamentally disagree, and everyone at the time of the ludi has to try to predict whether they will get moderated by you depending on what they post, is hardly a stable or beneficial situation.

Optime vale

From: Jean-François Arnoud
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 7:17 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


C. Dexter Cn. Caesari salutem,

> Yes amice I do. I think he would have either vetoed the attempt, or moderated those that did post about the ludi on FH > or both.

So you propose a SC on a "would"...

> I think Dexter is annoyed it ended up with the Senate.

Lol. You think what you want, but it is only what you think. You are not in my mind.




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

Caesar Dextro sal.

<lol> “Parochially squashing participation, which is what I firmly believe should be encouraged on all levels in FH, in positive activities is a good thing” should be “Parochially squashing participation, which is what I firmly believe should be encouraged on all levels in FH, in positive activities is not a good thing.” You may however prefer the first version ;)

Optime vale


From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:17 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


Caesar Dextro sal

Well if the guests were silent that is all the more reason to try harder to involve them. Naturally with your well thought out plan, they will be perpetually silent, or silenced. Parochially squashing participation, which is what I firmly believe should be encouraged on all levels in FH, in positive activities is a good thing. You prefer to peer down from the praetorial ivory tower at the guests. I prefer we engaged them on every level that is positive we can, and the ludi fits that category for me.




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

Salvete!

I come to you as a tribune to inform the main issues currently discussed in the session of Senate. I made a compilation of most of the emails so far, with the first lines of opinion expressed by each senator. Sorry for the long email, I will try to send the resumes every day until the debate period ends, so the emails will be smaller.

[CnIC] Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
[CPD] Gaius Petronius Dexter
[LCSF] Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
[CTV] Gaius Tullius Valerianus
[TIS] Titus Iulius Sabinus
[TCP] Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
[CPL] Gaius Popillius Laenas
[SCVIA] Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia
[QFM] Quintus Fabius Maximus

---

[CnIC] "I call the Senate to order. This formal meeting of the Senate in session is commenced. Tribunes have a standing right to speak and there is no requirement in this session to ask permission first. In respect of item II, the SENATUS CONSULTUM DE RATIONE SENATUS MMDCCLXV defines who can be subscribed to the Senate list (another magistrate etc.) but Gaius Claudius Axenrothus does not fall into that category so a list has been created at http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/cnic2765/. Members who wish to question him can subscribe to it."

ITEM I: SC Converting capite censi to assidui
[CnIC] "The process is currently covered by a consular edictum. This is too temporary in nature and the edictum may end up getting missed and not renewed next year and thereafter. The process needs to be set into a Senatus consultum."

ITEM II: SC Senate reprimand of Aula Tullia Scholastica
[CnIC] "I will keep my initial comments on this brief as I am sure members are fully aware of the issue and my position. I will summarize it. A statement was made by Aula Tullia Scholastica, senator and censor, on this list which so drastically conflicts with the email she sent to Gaius Claudius Axenrothus that a reasonable person could only conclude she lied in her response to my post. A lie to one member of the Senate on the Senate list is a lie to all. (...)"
[CPD] "It was not a statement, you requested her to answer to a beginning of research on private mailing between Scholastica and Axenrothus. And for this affair you used the Senate list as your discretion. (...)"
[CnIC] "It was a statement. In English it is correct to say that she made a statement. That is not a legal statement, but a statement as in an account of her position on the matter. (...)"
[LCSF] "You do realize, Praetor, that ever message our man hating Censor posted in the Senate in which she insulted Claudius, I forwarded to him.  He is willing to testify because Scholastica, our man hating Censor, thought that she could get away with insulting Claudius with no retribution.  All I can say is actions have consequences. (...)"
[CnIC] "Axenrothus has replied as below. [Axenrothus: I have no desire to charge Scholastica or bring her to trial, nor do I personally want or desire an apology of any kind. I hold her no ill will nor will I take any action for her further defaming my character in first denying sending me the email and then claiming I altered it in some way (as I understand she has done) as well as charging me with misogyny for disagreeing with her. I freely dismiss all she says about me from consideration as, given its source, it has no validity. (...)]"
[CTV] "The issue before us regarding A. Tullia Scholastica is not about her alleged actions in e-mailing Axenrothus about alleged misogyny in NR, but whether or not she lied to the Senate about it, whether it would be an actionable offense of some kind if she did, and what action should be taken. (...)"
[LCSF] "If Scholasica claims the email that was sent was edited, altered or any other way changed she could always produce the original email with headers and such to confirm upon scrutiny the information.  The problem is at this point the burden is on a CENSOR to prove because her stories (yes stories) do not pass muster and thus is accused of lying, and conduct unbecoming a magistrate of Nova Roma."
[TIS] "No, I do not agree. If Scholastica is accused, who accused  her need to prove. This is the way of the  law whatever the law is, ancient or modern."
[LCSF] "He has.  He has sent a copy of the email.  What else do you wish him to provide?"
[CPD] "I think that some are thinking here that they do not need to follow the way modern nor ancient. It is not their problem. It is not their problem to propose a SC against a magistrate, a censor, in activity. They do not care to be cruel, they are thinking that they have the majority in this House and they may propose the SC they want with the confidence that the Senate will vote what they want. I am waiting for a SC decreeing that the Earth is flat."
[LCSF] "Dexter, I guess lying to the Senate is acceptable to you then. Good to know - where do you draw the line?  Embezzlement?  Theft? Assualt?  What is the point that you think is sufficient for the Senate to reprimand misconduct amongst its members?"
[CPD] " No. It is not acceptable.  You were wrong. You make quick thinking. This member as you say is our Censor. She is protected by her magistracy."
[LCSF] "She is not protected from Senatorial reprimand. Lest you forget I was reprimanded and I held office.  That position holds no water, amice."
[CnIC] "Let me address a few points my colleague made and some other points that have been commented on. On the matter of the general principle of who has to prove what in this sort of situation, innocent until proven guilty is a principle that was born in the criminal arena. You can find its application however, if not overtly expressed, in such areas as industrial relations. I am comfortable proceeding from the basis that the Senate has to be satisfied that the email was sent by Scholastica to Axenrothus. That is fair. (...)"

ITEM III: New or returning citizens tax
[CnIC] "There will be cases where a new or returning citizen has not yet been assigned to a century. This sets the rate for new citizens joining within the preceding 12 months from the date they wish to pay the tax at the lowest rate, class 5. For returning citizens who have reclaimed their citizenship but not yet been assigned a century, then the process is the same as for converting the capite censi to assidui."

ITEM IV: SC FH internal affairs meaning
[CnIC] "There has been a division of opinion between the praetors as to whether the Senatus consultum that established Forum Hospitum permits discussion of and participation in the ludi, by non-citizens on the Forum Hospitum list. I could, as I said before, have derived the meaning as per the Senatus conultum on deriving meaning, but as there is no immediate urgency I prefer to put it to the Senate to vote on an amendment that settles this question. I believe that the ludi should be discussed and participated in by non-citizens as it helps the general purpose of the list, the promotion of Nova Roma. The draft Senatus consultum reflects that and closes off loopholes."
[CPD] "Because, in hidden words you speak on a praetor's affair, I prefer first before a vote, to explain the point of view I defended. But, the SC was not followed, because the Ludi was shared by our guests, last year and for those last Ludi Novi Romani. I know that the law, or here a SC, is never followed as Roman did and NR magistrates follow the laws or not according to the "meanings" that they like. (...)"
[CnIC] "The purpose of the foundation of Forum Hospitum was to be a list for guests who were considering joining Nova Roma. The purpose of preventing discussion of internal matters was to prevent the discussion of negative matters. The ludi are a positive matter. I see no reason at all why the ludi should not be posted to the Forum Hospitum and non-citizens allowed to take part. I do believe that encouraging people to join Nova Roma but letting them participate in the ludi helps us. I think it is pretty straight forward in that respect. I think not permitting them is overly rigid and counter productive."
[TCP] "I respectfully request that the SC under consideration to clarify what may be seen/said  on the  Forum Hospitum be changed to simply abolish the Forum Hospitum and return our guests and potential citizens to the Forum Romanum where they have always belonged. We have too many ()*^*^(^(^)&)( list as it is. The Forum Hospitum list serves absolutely no purpose what so ever."
[CPL] "I agree with mi amice, Paulinus."
[CnIC] "Actually amice it does serve a purpose. It ensures that potential citizens aren’t deluged with political issues and the rather unique Nova Roman debating style before they even understand what the place is about. To most people considering citizenship it takes some time to acclimate to the ways of Nova Roma. To an outsider the Forum often looked like a insane asylum in the middle of a riot. People just went elsewhere. How do you even begin to explain some of the “issues” in a way that makes sense? Added to which we would end up with the gaggle of RPR back in.(...)"
[LCSF] "I agree with Caesar.  NR has been much more peaceful since non citizens do not have the ability to just cause trouble.  Do we all remember Anna?  How about Maior?  That is enough reason alone to keep the status quo that works very well despite the limitations and hiccups we have with the Ludi that will be resolved in this session."
[TCP] "Anna was a citizen and then was not. I actually had dinner with her and a number of Nova Romans some years ago and we all lived to tell the tail. With respect, the Forum Hospitum was not created by the Senate it was approved by the Senate because a Consul asked us to do so. I can not as a Senator add to the agenda only a Consul is given that privilege. (...)"
[TIS] "I fully support that. Division in various lists has not any productive consequence. For two or three former members who were not moderated and insulted NR, the decision to split us (citizens, non citizens) it seems for me now, a wrong one."
[SCVIA] "Already I know not many if any are looking forward to discussing the FH & The Ludi any further.  Although if I understood correctly each of the Praetors are to present their Points of View, so I am bringing my point of the reasoning for the stance I have chosen. I'll try to keep this tangible, consistent, and to the points at hand. Whatever reason created the existence of the FH (and yes I know there are many variables) the SC that supports it  needs more definition, to what is considered "internal" so that situations like the one that occurred yesterday and for future Praetors will not have to face such indecision during their terms. (...)"
[CTV] "I was not a fan of the idea of a FH when it was introduced. Like many others, I felt we have too many lists as it is, and I did not like the idea of keeping potential citizens from finding out what NR is really like - I want people joining NR to have an informed opinion. But I must admit, I may have been wrong. The FH has been, on the whole, beneficial for NR, so far. None of this is what we are debating, but since the issue was raised, I wanted to mention that while I used to think the FH should be abolished, I have come around to appreciate what it has done for NR. (...)"
[CPD] "You have 2 different opinions in one message. I presume that to observe and not participate is frustrating. Frustration is not the solution. And as "internal affairs" are not allowed to the FH, I do not understand this desire to frustrate the possible future citizens in making them the witnesses of our games. The best is to have our games for all the citizens. The ML is enough."
[CTV] "My apologies if what I wrote confused you. What I meant was that I would not have a problem with allowing noncitizens to participate in the Ludi, but I can think of a good reason to reserve participation for citizens, i.e. that participation would then, in theory, become an incentive for noncitizens to seek citizenship. (...)"
[QFM] "I have to agree with the Illustrious Tullius.  While I am loath to go against the PM, I have to admit that the games would interest me as a potential recruit, and so would be a good thing. Cannot you not Praetor, allow the Games to be published on the FH site?  I'd rather you decide to do it, rather then have the Senate compel you, it is an important distinction."
[CPD] "I know. But, it is also a deal to see if this Senate is a toy in the hands of Cn. Caesar. This kind of thing, (moderation, warning...) was in discussion on
the praetores list, as it would be usual. It is our task.(...)"
[LCSF] "Correction it is in the HANDS OF THE SENATE....not in the hands of Caesar.  We all get to decide, since you and your colleague are unable to reach a compromise."

--
V.A. Regilla

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

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

Salve

"So, if you pay $10.00 for something, or even send that amount to a
friend, (though that is handled differently, I think), you make a payment to PayPal of $10. The person to whom you sent the money, however gets $10 minus the transacting fee."

When sending money to a friend as opposed to buying good or services you do pay a fee but it is smaller and you have the option of the sender or the recipient paying it. So I could send you $100, pay the fee myself, and you would receive the $100. This was the option I was suggesting you look into as I don't know if it applies in this case.

Vale

Gaius Claudius

M. Caninus C. Dextro S.P.D.

I believe any reasonable person would understand from the amount of debate here that the SC is actually not clear in its intent. 

The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "internal". 

Let us take a real world example from a well known organization based in Switzerland:

This is a political organization that advances its cause by staging large athletic contests around the world every couple of years. The games are viewed by millions, or perhaps billions, of people on television, often free of charge. The games are definitely public as anyone can view the games by paying for a ticket, paying to watch on satellite or cable television or viewing portions that are offered for free on some television channels. The games are public.

However, there are many things this organization does that are very private - internal matters - that may be kept from public view. Issues such as sponsor and vendor selection, debate and voting on which cities might host the games, portions of executive board meetings, as well as much of the communications between staff members, are all clearly internal matters that are open only to members of the organization and may be further restricted by a need to know. 

The games put on by Nova Roma are not that much different in their scope of public versus internal matters than the games put on by the International Olympic Committee. 

The games themselves are public.

Discussions about how the games are actually staged and what goes on behind the scenes are internal matters.

The games should be broadcast as a public event that shows the world some of the best of Nova Roma while keeping the FH active and interesting for potential new citizens. 

All of the behind the scenes issues are internal matters that can be kept off the FH if that is the will of the people and the Senate.

But I believe we all know that the actual intent of the Senate when the SC was passed was to create an expedient method of keeping trolls and negative publicity off the public fora. The ludi are in no way negative publicity and in the unlikely event that someone starts a flame war over issues arising from the ludi, I believe the moderators of the FH are quite capable of handling the problem. 

Optime vale et valete,
 
M. Pompeius Caninus
America Boreoccidentalis
Vivat Nova Roma!




________________________________
From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:42 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
C. Petronius L. Sullae salutem,
 

>>> So, let me get this straight, there was no decision made, BUT your

colleague already gave warning of pending moderation if Ludi posts
continued?  But if there was no decision made why was he threatening
moderation?  Something sounds amiss? <<<
 
Lol. I would like to read this threat.
May you ask her in which mail or post I threatened a moderation or a veto about the Ludi posted on the FH. I actually think that you (Sulla, Caesar, Aeternia) are making a movie on me.
 
I just recopied the "Warning" (it is not a threat) written in the Home page of the FH for discussion. By error, I sent it into the FH, instead of create the topic, as I wanted in order to have a debate, between us in the praetores list. I deleted the message in the FH, I left it in the praetores list for the discussion. I copied the Warning in order to have a debate between us. We did not take a decision. I threatened nobody more than the text of the warning. This text is on the FH home page.
 
For evidence, I give you the content of my post:
 
------------------------------------------------------
C. Dexter Corneliae Aeterniae omnique cohorti salutem,

(Oups! I posted it in the forum hospitum by error. Lol.
But it is not a problem, it is the warning that I wanted to send you.)

I recall you the warning written on the home page of the forum hospitum.

"WARNING: Discussion of any matters internal to Nova Roma, such as Nova Roman
politics and issues, is not permitted. Failure to abide by this prohibition
could result in warnings or moderation or revocation of membership of this
list."

Please, the messages about the Ludi Novi Romani have not to be posted on this
list. This is an internal matter of Nova Roma and its posting is not permitted.

I do not want to revoke you from the list, but it is not because you are
moderators of this list and not under moderation than you may post this sort of
internal messages.

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
X Kalendas Martias Cn. Caesare C. Tullio coss.
----------------------------------------------------------
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. V Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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




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

Salvete, Could someone please translate these in to Latin for me. I am using them as folder labelsat the Roman library at Box.com The Greek Way, On War, On Roman Provinces, On Medicine, On Sports, For any Roman who has not joined and would like to please drop me a noteto that effect. Right now we have only 12 members. I also need someone to work with me who knows Latin. (obviously) Valete, Ti. Galerius Paulinus

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

Iulia Aeternia omnibusque sal,


It is a very troubled paranoid person who consistently misinterprets "tone" and "intent." It is your tone you project on others Aeternia.
Just because you connive behind other's backs, you think other's do the same thing. You refuse to own any culpability for the situation, any situation. Blaming other's for one's own failure is the cowards way out.

You take what is done in all businesses and governments and try to vilify it. Most politicians do not write their own edicts, and those whose first language is not English recognize that legal documents should be as professional as possible. But you wouldn't know about that. It is your ego and you own high opinion of your compositions that would never allow you to delegate any tasks – but know a tenet of strong management professionalism is to delegate. An inability delegate is a sign of micro-management, despite your denial of this.

Grow up Aeternia, grow a real backbone, get a reality check and stand on your own two feet. You are not fooling anyone, people see right through you even if they are afraid to say it because of your "connections" or vindictive nature, if you don't respond it is not because of some self perceived noble cause but because you just don't know what to say.

You do yourself a disservice with this behavior, those who you are dependent on do you a disservice because rather than allowing you to develop your potential they find are more valuable as a tool and those so called friends who "have your ear' have only their self interest in mind.
That is why you are here where you are and why you made those ridiculous, paranoid and unfounded comments about productive citizens.

Your behavior shows you cannot and will not respect others opinions and if anyone disagrees with you, you become the bully and will not only have your friends bully and gang up on them but will make incredibly paranoid attacks, keeping them vague to avoid a possible charge of culmany.
As if there is not already proof of my opinion during the elections, but you continue to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Relax, you are never on my mind unless it is in a professional way.

You have what it take Aeternia, shed those chains and stand on your own two feet and you'll do fine. Don't and you'll continue to find yourself in the midst of overblown dirt storms, the choice is yours.

As for tone, I am calm, a bit disconcerted because you were really beginning to impress me, but not angry or any other negative tone, I am too old to expend that sort of energy.


Vale, et Valete optime

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> <snip>
>
>
> The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> > thought that.
> > But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> > Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the help
> > of the Senate. ROFL.
> >
>
> Aeternia- This is not your usual tone of writing, ghost writer striking
> again eh? Hey why don't we talk about who helped you write the Moderation
> Edict that's now in force? Remember that discussion on the Praetores list,
> how I insist on writing my own Edicts and that also goes for my own posts..
>
> Nicely done..
>
>
> >
> >
>
> Vale bene,
> Aeternia
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Iulia Quiritibusque, S.P.D.

Sulla said no one brought up the religious aspects of Nova Roma.

Wrong. I brought it up I the past couple of days (before Fabius Maximas) and it got summarily shot down. Look it up.
Is the Senate going to issue an SC regarding the religious aspects of the Ludi?

In order to effectively oversee religious significance we would have to have the right to make suggestion regarding ritual, and aspects such as hand gestures, pompa etc. so they adhere to public religious practices.
Right now we are pretty eclectic with a Roman flavor rather than Roman with an eclectic aspect.

There is no question in my mind of the religious significance.

Valete optime

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave!
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Jean-François Arnoud
> <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Dexter Sullae sal.,
> >
> >
> > > The Senate as supreme policy making body, per the Constitution, is the
> > >W appropriate body to make this determination since you have chosen to
> > > deviate from past practice
> >
> > I follow the SC.
> > What means "internal" in your dictionary?
> >
>
> The Ludi have never been JUST internal events. They have always
> supersecded the actual organization. Some of the chats had even been
> posted on the Back alley and jokes spawned from it. The Ludi are not just
> internal...think of a Venn Diagram...given the religious implications that
> are also included one would think that we would want to expose everyone in
> the world to the joy that is the Ludi.
>
> At this point I think the CP needs to step in as well and determine the
> religious implications of the Ludi. Are they JUST internal for our eyes
> only? Or is there a greater role for the Ludi than just for it to be
> limited to such a degree?
>
>
> > If past practice was wrong it is good to deviate them to the right.
> >
>
> That is now up to debate and I think that also the decision of the CP
> should be sought as well.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Iulia Sullae Quiritibusque salutem


Oh this is rich. This from the person who has been responsible for more people leaving NR than anyone in her history. Anyone can easily flip through or search the past threads of the forum and find Sulla in the midst of a tempest, stirring it from the sideline like a sad clown saying and doing anything to keep the conversation stirred but saying little of value.
I dare say Sulla might also be the one citizen who has been threatened most with some sort of infraction of the law. Heck he even rose from the dead after disappearing without communication for a very long time. I think there was talk about some sort of communication in some obscure place.
And there is this posted yesterday:
[LCSF]" Lest you forget I was reprimanded and I held office."
Yes, a reprimand that was taken off public record in 2010 by Picinus et Sabinus coss.
In a professional manner. You were afforded professionalism, but you fail at giving others the same.
Here is the reprimand that was on record for 11 years, from 1999 to 2010, and although formal reprimand was taken off your public record, you appear to not have changed:

Senatus Consultum XXXII: Reprimand of Lucius Cornelius Sulla
11:57 am Wednesday March 3, 1999
Lucius Cornelius Sulla:
You are being issued this formal reprimand by the Nova Roma Senate for the violation of your Magistrate's Oath:

You have not broken any NR laws and therefore cannot be convicted of a specific violation except the violation of the above oath.

You did, DELIBERATELY, and WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION, BREAK IN, ELECTRONICALLY, TO THE SENATE'S BE-SEEN BOARD and DID IT AGAIN DELIBERATELY ( AGAINST THE WARNING SIGN POSTED thereon), proceeded to read the material contained there.

Having accomplished that YOU THEN PROVIDED THE URL TO OTHER(S) in Nova Roma TO VISIT AND THEN CRITICIZE to visit and then criticize what they saw there, KNOWNING FULL WELL THAT THIS URL WAS A PRIVATE means for the Senate to work out their problems and solutions in privacy.

YOU WERE THEN CONFRONTED BY A SENATOR and asked what you were doing LIED TWICE BEFORE ADMITTING YOUR ACTIONS.

In reading the Magistrates Oath, it is noted:

--That in "upholding the honor of Nova Roma" YOU HAVE FAILED AS A LIAR AND AN ELECTRONIC BURGLAR;

--That in "acting always in the best interest of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma", YOU HAVE TRODDEN OVER THAT PART OF THE OATH TOTALLY, DELIBERATLY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT;

--That in "Doing Honor to the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings" YOU HAVE DISHONORED YOURSELF BEFORE THE GODS AND GODDESSED OF ROME AND SHOWN THEM DISRESPECT, UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT;

--That in "pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and Private life" YOU HAVE FAILED THROUGGH DELIBERATE LIES AND DECEITS;

--That in "swearing to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of your elected office" YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE MAGISTRATES ELECTED OVER YOU AND HAVE SHOW TO ALL OTHER MAGISTRATES THAT YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED;

--That in "the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people" YOU HAVE DISGRACED BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND YOURSELF BY YOUR ACTIOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ROMAN GODS OR THE ROMA PEOPLE.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_on_Reprimand_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla


Things may have not changed much, remove the plank from your eye own eye before accusing others.

You were reprimanded for being:

a LIAR,

a BURGLAR/THIEF,

a DELIBERATE OATH BREAKER,

with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT,

SHOWN DISRESPECT,

UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT TOWARDS OUR GODS,

FAILURE TO PURSUE VIRTUES THROUGH LIES AND DECEIT,

VIOLATES OTHERS TRUST,

UNTRUSTWORTHY,

DISGRACED HIS OFFICE and whose

ACTIONS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ROMAN GODS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE .

Wow a liar, a thief, a deliberate oath breaker, contempt of our Gods, failure to pursue virtues through lies and deceit, violates others trusts, untrustworthy, disgraced his office, our Gods and the Roman people – you can't make this stuff up!

Maybe we should look closer at who might have tried to interfere with elections and our wiki. Maybe this is why we are hearing no more about it, a possible cover-up? Who knows and maybe we will never know.

This is full disclosure Sulla, transparent (as are your motives, always) just like you like it – now own it for yourself.
With a history like yours it is a wonder you can hold any position much less be on the board.
You were awarded a forgiveness but maybe because of your old guilt or inability to change you can't afford the same to others, projecting your own failures on others.
But wait, you are protected, by your friends – so you are held to a different standard than the rest of the Nova Romans, or so it seems.

It is comforting for our fellow citizens to know that if they have a difference of opinion they are sure to have Sulla go into full henpecking gossiping evil clown mode and attack them with exaggerations, insinuations and accusations. Talk about rewriting history! Like a Nagging wife who lists transgressions ad nauseum but never her own.
At least we know what to expect.

But who this is the person we entrust with our finances?
This is the person who threatened to sue the Respublica and to put Nova Roma and her officers, his fellow senate members and friends in financial jeopardy. In addition to the reprimand above. In addition to the tons of posts in the archives where he continues his machinations – and will continue.
Yes he cares about Nova Roma as long as it suits his needs and he gets his way.

> 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.

Then, my friend, you bring up Gaulterus intercession because a citizen made a complaint against me, which I own, I unintentionally sent my political endorsements via special mail and it was suggested that I post a public apology and I did so.
Mea culpa, mea culpa. We are all human and make mistakes and through our mistakes we should learn, you have not learned obviously. In order to make sure I do not do this again, I will refrain from sending emails on my iphone because the type is small (we have no app so no mobile site) and my eyes are old.
There was no reprimand or any mention of it.
Gaulterus, yours and Aeternia's close friend, was brought in because Caesar recused himself due to conflict of interest.

But there is no way you can compare that small incident compared to yours, and to all the conflict your regularly cause. *laughs* You never really do think of the consequences of your actions do you? They are impulsive and not well thought out sometimes – except when you are conniving and planning someone's destruction because they dared to disagree with you or your friends.

As far as Scholastica's pending troubles and possible trial - if this was the macro world and someone in his position spoke as he does here he might cause a mistrial. Sulla cares little about justice he enjoys the thrill of causing the illusion of a mountain from a molehills while making the mountains of his own making into molehills. And name-calling.

Name calling is dirty Sulla. And you were reprimanded as a LIAR, UNTRUSTWORTHY, THIEF AND VOW BREAKER so you should recuse yourself from this investigation. Remove that plank from your own eye first,

Sulla's mantra of Scholastica, Maior, Annia, Livia and whomever his victim du jour is, appears very obsessive, but hey maybe they affect him so personally that has post traumatic stress disorder and he is helpless because they rule his psyche. I don't know but it looks like it.


Here's the hole you dug for yourself Sulla - I think your clown car and foolish posts will fit with more than enough room to stretch out.

Remove the plank from your own eye.

I said my peace.


Vale, et valete optime

Julia

P.S. Tone: Maybe we should add a "tone' field like in Live Journal for Sulla and Aeternia. My tone right now, and through most of this email is calm and intently serious with a touch of humor at the incredulous nature of Sulla's posts and insinuations esp. with knowledge of his own transgressions. Look it up folks, might take you several months to find all his shenanigans.

Salve Axenrothe


Here are more groups where you might find a discussion to suit you:

Collegium Clius
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegiumClius

Scriptorium Scolasticum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Scriptorium_Scholasticum/

Sodalitas Virtutis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SodalitasVirtutis/messages


Regarding your salutations.

When you address an entire group, it is polite and correct to say "salvete" which is plural of salve. "Valete" is the plural of vale and so you would use valete for saying farewell to the group.

Using "Salve" indicates you only wish to speak to one person, and not using the person's name, no on knows who you are talking to, so you may get less interaction then desired:

"When we call someone by name, we use a form of the name called the "vocative". Here are the basic rules for making a vocative:
If a name ends in "-ius", then the vocative ends in "-i". "Tullius" becomes "Tulli".
If a name ends in "-us", then the vocative ends in "-e". "Marcus" becomes "Marce".
All other names do not change at all. "Felix" stays "Felix", "Marca" stays "Marca" and so on.

It is a good idea in general to use the cognomen (the last part of the name).
To say hello to Marcus Lucretius Agricola you would write "Salve Agricola!".
To say hello to Aulus Apollonius Cordus you would write "Salve Corde!".
To say hello to Gaius Equitius Cato you would write "Salve Cato!".
Only if you are very close friends indeed with these people you could write:
"Salvé Marce!"
"Salve Aule!"
"Salve Gai!"
"Salvete Omnes!" Hello Everyone!
(Grammar note: "Salvete!" is the plural of "Salve!" and "Omnes" is the plural of "omnis", meaning "all" or "every".) "

Vale optime,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Radakia" <radakia_dalzaak@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> Sounds interesting. If you start this in either of the groups mentioned. I would definatly be interested in joining in.
>
> Vale,
>
> Ti. Valeria Celeris
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Yehya" <yehya_61@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia L.Iuliae Aquilae Omnibusque sal.

Connive? I am capable of conniving? You and my colleague seem quite under
the impression, I'm completely incompetent and live in the land known as
"naive" so for me to be conniving would require some set of skills.
Please make up your mind Julia, this back and forth that you do is well a
little confusing.

You don't like the fact that I do my own work, well I apologize for having
a strong work ethic. But you will not see me asking you to write something
for me, you don't like the fact I point out you write Dexter's posts and
Edicts. Here is something, stop writing them for him, he is beyond capable
I know he is. He can stand on his two feet, he does not need for you to
hold his hand..

My backbone is actually quite stronger than yours Julia,unlike you I
actually do have the audacity to disagree with Dexter. And if anyone is
vindictive it is not me, for I have not once stooped to insulting him as
others supposedly have. I have stuck to the issues, I have posted my stance
towards the Senate, and will abide by whatever the outcome, is that not the
responsible thing to do? But if you'd like for me to go into "demanding
princess" mode trust me it can be arranged, however I find that childish
and quite unproductive so I will not if that is alright with you.

But I do stand on my own, because in regards to your Governorship.. If it
were my personal choice I would have voted "No", yet I did not. I decided
to remain objective and give you a chance, instead of my own personal
feelings. I hope I will not come to regret that and should have just
listened to my original instincts. On that note, the ball is indeed in
your court to prove my doubts wrong....

I am here at the road I am at because of my hard work, I work extremely
hard for this organization. You don't like that tough, Dexter doesn't like
that tough, criticize me all you want, belittle me all you want, but my
work for Nova Roma will not swagger. You can either come to terms with
this or not, that choice is up to you.

Dexter is a public magistrate, he is a public figure, he is subject to
criticism more than the usual average citizen. And he has said some
things that have been left open wide for criticism, if he cannot handle the
criticism why did he sign up for the job? I am not Dexter's spouse nor his
mother, he does not need me to hold his hand. If the roles were reversed
Julia, you'd be saying the same thing about me would you not?

If anyone is the bully here, you should take a look in the mirror and so
should Gaius Petronius Dexter, look at what you say whenever I disagree
with the two of you. You cannot stay on points or to the topics at hand
without hurling some form of insults towards me, you can deny all you want
but it's all over the main list since December. So again I say to you
"bullying" take a hard look in the mirror.

So forgive me if I decide not to take a play from your handbooks, I prefer
the higher road.

And yes I am quite calm, I am beginning to become quite used to these
occurring. It's called I am gaining experience.

Valete bene,
Aeternia


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

Ave!

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:45 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia Aeternia omnibusque sal,
>
> It is a very troubled paranoid person who consistently misinterprets
> "tone" and "intent." It is your tone you project on others Aeternia.
>

Really? Most of my students that I teach, and by MOST I mean well over 80%
confuse the two (and the average age of my students that I teach are 45
years old - we are not talking kids here, but working adults). Tone
influences intent. While some might use them interchangebly - and
incorrectly, there is a sort of venn diagram connection between the two.
One could say that anyone who trys to separate tone and intent as if they
are not related might be more of a troubled person - one might go so far as
to suggest a possible sociopathic tendencies.

Vale,

Sulla

> Just because you connive behind other's backs, you think other's do the
> same thing. You refuse to own any culpability for the situation, any
> situation. Blaming other's for one's own failure is the cowards way out.
>
> You take what is done in all businesses and governments and try to vilify
> it. Most politicians do not write their own edicts, and those whose first
> language is not English recognize that legal documents should be as
> professional as possible. But you wouldn't know about that. It is your ego
> and you own high opinion of your compositions that would never allow you to
> delegate any tasks � but know a tenet of strong management professionalism
> is to delegate. An inability delegate is a sign of micro-management,
> despite your denial of this.
>
> Grow up Aeternia, grow a real backbone, get a reality check and stand on
> your own two feet. You are not fooling anyone, people see right through you
> even if they are afraid to say it because of your "connections" or
> vindictive nature, if you don't respond it is not because of some self
> perceived noble cause but because you just don't know what to say.
>
> You do yourself a disservice with this behavior, those who you are
> dependent on do you a disservice because rather than allowing you to
> develop your potential they find are more valuable as a tool and those so
> called friends who "have your ear' have only their self interest in mind.
> That is why you are here where you are and why you made those ridiculous,
> paranoid and unfounded comments about productive citizens.
>
> Your behavior shows you cannot and will not respect others opinions and if
> anyone disagrees with you, you become the bully and will not only have your
> friends bully and gang up on them but will make incredibly paranoid
> attacks, keeping them vague to avoid a possible charge of culmany.
> As if there is not already proof of my opinion during the elections, but
> you continue to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> Relax, you are never on my mind unless it is in a professional way.
>
> You have what it take Aeternia, shed those chains and stand on your own
> two feet and you'll do fine. Don't and you'll continue to find yourself in
> the midst of overblown dirt storms, the choice is yours.
>
> As for tone, I am calm, a bit disconcerted because you were really
> beginning to impress me, but not angry or any other negative tone, I am too
> old to expend that sort of energy.
>
> Vale, et Valete optime
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > The consul has to do his duties, not the duty of Aeternia... unless I
> > > thought that.
> > > But, I was wrong, the consul proposed a SC on the FH.
> > > Aeternia needs the help of her boss. Why not? And more, they need the
> help
> > > of the Senate. ROFL.
> > >
> >
> > Aeternia- This is not your usual tone of writing, ghost writer striking
> > again eh? Hey why don't we talk about who helped you write the Moderation
> > Edict that's now in force? Remember that discussion on the Praetores
> list,
> > how I insist on writing my own Edicts and that also goes for my own
> posts..
> >
> > Nicely done..
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Vale bene,
> > Aeternia
>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

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

Ave!

Quite some misrepsenting there Iulia. ;)

I have no problem bringing up a 12 or is it 13 year old oath. LOL Since
that is all you got and since then I won election for every office I ran
for....until last year. And I now hold, dear me...probably the most
powerful position in Nova Roma - CFO.

So let me ask you and the people of Nova Roma - had even 1/10 of the
charges you try to claim as accurate.....how am I trusted with the duties
and responsibility of being Chief Financial Officer of Nova Roma?

Thanks for the laugh......so early after waking up.....ROFL hahahhahahahaha

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:49 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Iulia Sullae Quiritibusque salutem
>
> Oh this is rich. This from the person who has been responsible for more
> people leaving NR than anyone in her history. Anyone can easily flip
> through or search the past threads of the forum and find Sulla in the midst
> of a tempest, stirring it from the sideline like a sad clown saying and
> doing anything to keep the conversation stirred but saying little of value.
> I dare say Sulla might also be the one citizen who has been threatened
> most with some sort of infraction of the law. Heck he even rose from the
> dead after disappearing without communication for a very long time. I think
> there was talk about some sort of communication in some obscure place.
> And there is this posted yesterday:
> [LCSF]" Lest you forget I was reprimanded and I held office."
> Yes, a reprimand that was taken off public record in 2010 by Picinus et
> Sabinus coss.
> In a professional manner. You were afforded professionalism, but you fail
> at giving others the same.
> Here is the reprimand that was on record for 11 years, from 1999 to 2010,
> and although formal reprimand was taken off your public record, you appear
> to not have changed:
>
> Senatus Consultum XXXII: Reprimand of Lucius Cornelius Sulla
> 11:57 am Wednesday March 3, 1999
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla:
> You are being issued this formal reprimand by the Nova Roma Senate for the
> violation of your Magistrate's Oath:
>
> You have not broken any NR laws and therefore cannot be convicted of a
> specific violation except the violation of the above oath.
>
> You did, DELIBERATELY, and WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION, BREAK IN,
> ELECTRONICALLY, TO THE SENATE'S BE-SEEN BOARD and DID IT AGAIN DELIBERATELY
> ( AGAINST THE WARNING SIGN POSTED thereon), proceeded to read the material
> contained there.
>
> Having accomplished that YOU THEN PROVIDED THE URL TO OTHER(S) in Nova
> Roma TO VISIT AND THEN CRITICIZE to visit and then criticize what they saw
> there, KNOWNING FULL WELL THAT THIS URL WAS A PRIVATE means for the Senate
> to work out their problems and solutions in privacy.
>
> YOU WERE THEN CONFRONTED BY A SENATOR and asked what you were doing LIED
> TWICE BEFORE ADMITTING YOUR ACTIONS.
>
> In reading the Magistrates Oath, it is noted:
>
> --That in "upholding the honor of Nova Roma" YOU HAVE FAILED AS A LIAR AND
> AN ELECTRONIC BURGLAR;
>
> --That in "acting always in the best interest of the people and the Senate
> of Nova Roma", YOU HAVE TRODDEN OVER THAT PART OF THE OATH TOTALLY,
> DELIBERATLY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT;
>
> --That in "Doing Honor to the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public
> dealings" YOU HAVE DISHONORED YOURSELF BEFORE THE GODS AND GODDESSED OF
> ROME AND SHOWN THEM DISRESPECT, UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT;
>
> --That in "pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and Private life" YOU
> HAVE FAILED THROUGGH DELIBERATE LIES AND DECEITS;
>
> --That in "swearing to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of
> your elected office" YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE MAGISTRATES ELECTED
> OVER YOU AND HAVE SHOW TO ALL OTHER MAGISTRATES THAT YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED;
>
> --That in "the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people" YOU
> HAVE DISGRACED BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND YOURSELF BY YOUR ACTIOS WHICH ARE
> OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ROMAN GODS OR THE ROMA PEOPLE.
>
>
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_on_Reprimand_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla
>
> Things may have not changed much, remove the plank from your eye own eye
> before accusing others.
>
> You were reprimanded for being:
>
> a LIAR,
>
> a BURGLAR/THIEF,
>
> a DELIBERATE OATH BREAKER,
>
> with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT,
>
> SHOWN DISRESPECT,
>
> UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT TOWARDS OUR GODS,
>
> FAILURE TO PURSUE VIRTUES THROUGH LIES AND DECEIT,
>
> VIOLATES OTHERS TRUST,
>
> UNTRUSTWORTHY,
>
> DISGRACED HIS OFFICE and whose
>
> ACTIONS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ROMAN GODS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE .
>
> Wow a liar, a thief, a deliberate oath breaker, contempt of our Gods,
> failure to pursue virtues through lies and deceit, violates others trusts,
> untrustworthy, disgraced his office, our Gods and the Roman people � you
> can't make this stuff up!
>
> Maybe we should look closer at who might have tried to interfere with
> elections and our wiki. Maybe this is why we are hearing no more about it,
> a possible cover-up? Who knows and maybe we will never know.
>
> This is full disclosure Sulla, transparent (as are your motives, always)
> just like you like it � now own it for yourself.
> With a history like yours it is a wonder you can hold any position much
> less be on the board.
> You were awarded a forgiveness but maybe because of your old guilt or
> inability to change you can't afford the same to others, projecting your
> own failures on others.
> But wait, you are protected, by your friends � so you are held to a
> different standard than the rest of the Nova Romans, or so it seems.
>
> It is comforting for our fellow citizens to know that if they have a
> difference of opinion they are sure to have Sulla go into full henpecking
> gossiping evil clown mode and attack them with exaggerations, insinuations
> and accusations. Talk about rewriting history! Like a Nagging wife who
> lists transgressions ad nauseum but never her own.
> At least we know what to expect.
>
> But who this is the person we entrust with our finances?
> This is the person who threatened to sue the Respublica and to put Nova
> Roma and her officers, his fellow senate members and friends in financial
> jeopardy. In addition to the reprimand above. In addition to the tons of
> posts in the archives where he continues his machinations � and will
> continue.
> Yes he cares about Nova Roma as long as it suits his needs and he gets his
> way.
>
> > 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.
>
> Then, my friend, you bring up Gaulterus intercession because a citizen
> made a complaint against me, which I own, I unintentionally sent my
> political endorsements via special mail and it was suggested that I post a
> public apology and I did so.
> Mea culpa, mea culpa. We are all human and make mistakes and through our
> mistakes we should learn, you have not learned obviously. In order to make
> sure I do not do this again, I will refrain from sending emails on my
> iphone because the type is small (we have no app so no mobile site) and my
> eyes are old.
> There was no reprimand or any mention of it.
> Gaulterus, yours and Aeternia's close friend, was brought in because
> Caesar recused himself due to conflict of interest.
>
> But there is no way you can compare that small incident compared to yours,
> and to all the conflict your regularly cause. *laughs* You never really do
> think of the consequences of your actions do you? They are impulsive and
> not well thought out sometimes � except when you are conniving and planning
> someone's destruction because they dared to disagree with you or your
> friends.
>
> As far as Scholastica's pending troubles and possible trial - if this was
> the macro world and someone in his position spoke as he does here he might
> cause a mistrial. Sulla cares little about justice he enjoys the thrill of
> causing the illusion of a mountain from a molehills while making the
> mountains of his own making into molehills. And name-calling.
>
> Name calling is dirty Sulla. And you were reprimanded as a LIAR,
> UNTRUSTWORTHY, THIEF AND VOW BREAKER so you should recuse yourself from
> this investigation. Remove that plank from your own eye first,
>
> Sulla's mantra of Scholastica, Maior, Annia, Livia and whomever his victim
> du jour is, appears very obsessive, but hey maybe they affect him so
> personally that has post traumatic stress disorder and he is helpless
> because they rule his psyche. I don't know but it looks like it.
>
> Here's the hole you dug for yourself Sulla - I think your clown car and
> foolish posts will fit with more than enough room to stretch out.
>
> Remove the plank from your own eye.
>
> I said my peace.
>
> Vale, et valete optime
>
> Julia
>
> P.S. Tone: Maybe we should add a "tone' field like in Live Journal for
> Sulla and Aeternia. My tone right now, and through most of this email is
> calm and intently serious with a touch of humor at the incredulous nature
> of Sulla's posts and insinuations esp. with knowledge of his own
> transgressions. Look it up folks, might take you several months to find all
> his shenanigans.
>
>
>

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

Ave!

Iulia, you forgot to include that I have been accused of being a
mysnognist, a homophobe, Nova Roma's casanova, that I drive away the most
Nova Romans... oh that I am a pedophile... LOL if you are going to list
everything then list it all... that I am a racist, a bigot, that I try to
convert people to Judaism in Nova Roma, (against Jewish Religious law no
less), that I am a closet Cultor, that I want to be dictator, that I want
to be rex, that I am perfidious, I think that is it from the top of my
head.

Do you really think I am going to run away from my past. I logged into the
Senate list back in 1999, viewed the senate archives, while I was
Praetor.....I told Vedius at the time Yo I liked what you said in the
senate and was reprimanded for viewing the senate. I was told to do a
ritual for forgiveness, I did back in 1999. It was done. If I recall my
most mortal adversary, Piscinus had it removed. You forgot to list that
too. ;)

Vale,

Sulla



On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave!
>
> Quite some misrepsenting there Iulia. ;)
>
> I have no problem bringing up a 12 or is it 13 year old oath. LOL Since
> that is all you got and since then I won election for every office I ran
> for....until last year. And I now hold, dear me...probably the most
> powerful position in Nova Roma - CFO.
>
> So let me ask you and the people of Nova Roma - had even 1/10 of the
> charges you try to claim as accurate.....how am I trusted with the duties
> and responsibility of being Chief Financial Officer of Nova Roma?
>
> Thanks for the laugh......so early after waking up.....ROFL hahahhahahahaha
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:49 AM, luciaiuliaaquila <
> luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Iulia Sullae Quiritibusque salutem
>>
>> Oh this is rich. This from the person who has been responsible for more
>> people leaving NR than anyone in her history. Anyone can easily flip
>> through or search the past threads of the forum and find Sulla in the midst
>> of a tempest, stirring it from the sideline like a sad clown saying and
>> doing anything to keep the conversation stirred but saying little of value.
>> I dare say Sulla might also be the one citizen who has been threatened
>> most with some sort of infraction of the law. Heck he even rose from the
>> dead after disappearing without communication for a very long time. I think
>> there was talk about some sort of communication in some obscure place.
>> And there is this posted yesterday:
>> [LCSF]" Lest you forget I was reprimanded and I held office."
>> Yes, a reprimand that was taken off public record in 2010 by Picinus et
>> Sabinus coss.
>> In a professional manner. You were afforded professionalism, but you fail
>> at giving others the same.
>> Here is the reprimand that was on record for 11 years, from 1999 to 2010,
>> and although formal reprimand was taken off your public record, you appear
>> to not have changed:
>>
>> Senatus Consultum XXXII: Reprimand of Lucius Cornelius Sulla
>> 11:57 am Wednesday March 3, 1999
>> Lucius Cornelius Sulla:
>> You are being issued this formal reprimand by the Nova Roma Senate for
>> the violation of your Magistrate's Oath:
>>
>> You have not broken any NR laws and therefore cannot be convicted of a
>> specific violation except the violation of the above oath.
>>
>> You did, DELIBERATELY, and WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION, BREAK IN,
>> ELECTRONICALLY, TO THE SENATE'S BE-SEEN BOARD and DID IT AGAIN DELIBERATELY
>> ( AGAINST THE WARNING SIGN POSTED thereon), proceeded to read the material
>> contained there.
>>
>> Having accomplished that YOU THEN PROVIDED THE URL TO OTHER(S) in Nova
>> Roma TO VISIT AND THEN CRITICIZE to visit and then criticize what they saw
>> there, KNOWNING FULL WELL THAT THIS URL WAS A PRIVATE means for the Senate
>> to work out their problems and solutions in privacy.
>>
>> YOU WERE THEN CONFRONTED BY A SENATOR and asked what you were doing LIED
>> TWICE BEFORE ADMITTING YOUR ACTIONS.
>>
>> In reading the Magistrates Oath, it is noted:
>>
>> --That in "upholding the honor of Nova Roma" YOU HAVE FAILED AS A LIAR
>> AND AN ELECTRONIC BURGLAR;
>>
>> --That in "acting always in the best interest of the people and the
>> Senate of Nova Roma", YOU HAVE TRODDEN OVER THAT PART OF THE OATH TOTALLY,
>> DELIBERATLY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT;
>>
>> --That in "Doing Honor to the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public
>> dealings" YOU HAVE DISHONORED YOURSELF BEFORE THE GODS AND GODDESSED OF
>> ROME AND SHOWN THEM DISRESPECT, UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT;
>>
>> --That in "pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and Private life" YOU
>> HAVE FAILED THROUGGH DELIBERATE LIES AND DECEITS;
>>
>> --That in "swearing to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of
>> your elected office" YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE MAGISTRATES ELECTED
>> OVER YOU AND HAVE SHOW TO ALL OTHER MAGISTRATES THAT YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED;
>>
>> --That in "the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people"
>> YOU HAVE DISGRACED BOTH YOUR OFFICE AND YOURSELF BY YOUR ACTIOS WHICH ARE
>> OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ROMAN GODS OR THE ROMA PEOPLE.
>>
>>
>> http://novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_on_Reprimand_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla
>>
>> Things may have not changed much, remove the plank from your eye own eye
>> before accusing others.
>>
>> You were reprimanded for being:
>>
>> a LIAR,
>>
>> a BURGLAR/THIEF,
>>
>> a DELIBERATE OATH BREAKER,
>>
>> with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT,
>>
>> SHOWN DISRESPECT,
>>
>> UNTRUTHS AND CONTEMPT TOWARDS OUR GODS,
>>
>> FAILURE TO PURSUE VIRTUES THROUGH LIES AND DECEIT,
>>
>> VIOLATES OTHERS TRUST,
>>
>> UNTRUSTWORTHY,
>>
>> DISGRACED HIS OFFICE and whose
>>
>> ACTIONS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ROMAN GODS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE .
>>
>> Wow a liar, a thief, a deliberate oath breaker, contempt of our Gods,
>> failure to pursue virtues through lies and deceit, violates others trusts,
>> untrustworthy, disgraced his office, our Gods and the Roman people � you
>> can't make this stuff up!
>>
>> Maybe we should look closer at who might have tried to interfere with
>> elections and our wiki. Maybe this is why we are hearing no more about it,
>> a possible cover-up? Who knows and maybe we will never know.
>>
>> This is full disclosure Sulla, transparent (as are your motives, always)
>> just like you like it � now own it for yourself.
>> With a history like yours it is a wonder you can hold any position much
>> less be on the board.
>> You were awarded a forgiveness but maybe because of your old guilt or
>> inability to change you can't afford the same to others, projecting your
>> own failures on others.
>> But wait, you are protected, by your friends � so you are held to a
>> different standard than the rest of the Nova Romans, or so it seems.
>>
>> It is comforting for our fellow citizens to know that if they have a
>> difference of opinion they are sure to have Sulla go into full henpecking
>> gossiping evil clown mode and attack them with exaggerations, insinuations
>> and accusations. Talk about rewriting history! Like a Nagging wife who
>> lists transgressions ad nauseum but never her own.
>> At least we know what to expect.
>>
>> But who this is the person we entrust with our finances?
>> This is the person who threatened to sue the Respublica and to put Nova
>> Roma and her officers, his fellow senate members and friends in financial
>> jeopardy. In addition to the reprimand above. In addition to the tons of
>> posts in the archives where he continues his machinations � and will
>> continue.
>> Yes he cares about Nova Roma as long as it suits his needs and he gets
>> his way.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Then, my friend, you bring up Gaulterus intercession because a citizen
>> made a complaint against me, which I own, I unintentionally sent my
>> political endorsements via special mail and it was suggested that I post a
>> public apology and I did so.
>> Mea culpa, mea culpa. We are all human and make mistakes and through our
>> mistakes we should learn, you have not learned obviously. In order to make
>> sure I do not do this again, I will refrain from sending emails on my
>> iphone because the type is small (we have no app so no mobile site) and my
>> eyes are old.
>> There was no reprimand or any mention of it.
>> Gaulterus, yours and Aeternia's close friend, was brought in because
>> Caesar recused himself due to conflict of interest.
>>
>> But there is no way you can compare that small incident compared to
>> yours, and to all the conflict your regularly cause. *laughs* You never
>> really do think of the consequences of your actions do you? They are
>> impulsive and not well thought out sometimes � except when you are
>> conniving and planning someone's destruction because they dared to disagree
>> with you or your friends.
>>
>> As far as Scholastica's pending troubles and possible trial - if this was
>> the macro world and someone in his position spoke as he does here he might
>> cause a mistrial. Sulla cares little about justice he enjoys the thrill of
>> causing the illusion of a mountain from a molehills while making the
>> mountains of his own making into molehills. And name-calling.
>>
>> Name calling is dirty Sulla. And you were reprimanded as a LIAR,
>> UNTRUSTWORTHY, THIEF AND VOW BREAKER so you should recuse yourself from
>> this investigation. Remove that plank from your own eye first,
>>
>> Sulla's mantra of Scholastica, Maior, Annia, Livia and whomever his
>> victim du jour is, appears very obsessive, but hey maybe they affect him so
>> personally that has post traumatic stress disorder and he is helpless
>> because they rule his psyche. I don't know but it looks like it.
>>
>> Here's the hole you dug for yourself Sulla - I think your clown car and
>> foolish posts will fit with more than enough room to stretch out.
>>
>> Remove the plank from your own eye.
>>
>> I said my peace.
>>
>> Vale, et valete optime
>>
>> Julia
>>
>> P.S. Tone: Maybe we should add a "tone' field like in Live Journal for
>> Sulla and Aeternia. My tone right now, and through most of this email is
>> calm and intently serious with a touch of humor at the incredulous nature
>> of Sulla's posts and insinuations esp. with knowledge of his own
>> transgressions. Look it up folks, might take you several months to find all
>> his shenanigans.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

Salve Aeternia



Calm down now, you really sound upset, so upset you are once again confusing issues

>Connive? I am capable of conniving? You and my colleague seem quite under

the impression, I'm completely incompetent and live in the land known as
"naive" so for me to be conniving would require some set of skills. >snipped< My backbone is actually quite stronger than yours Julia,unlike you I
actually do have the audacity to disagree with Dexter

Can't speak for YOUR colleague, because unlike you I stand on my own, *laughs* and Petronius and I disagree on many things, we just deal with it like adults and don't need another to fight out battles for us.
I never said you were naïve, you said it.
I am not surprised that you admit to being confused.

> You don't like the fact that I do my own work,

Never said that either, nor did that enter my mind, sounds like you have been talking to yourself – that's the mirror you turn a blind eye to.

> Here is something, stop writing them for him,

How about using that backbone and state clearly what you are accusing me of. I have never written private email or forum post for anyone, sounds like maybe you might a sock puppet since you know so much about it.
It is proper protocol to correct a foreign speaker's edicts. They are his own words, I correct them in the same fashion as Fabius Maximas and I did recently in the CP. Get a grip and stop seeing things that are not there *laughs*
You really whip yourself in a frenzy based on assumptions.

> I have not once stooped to insulting him as

others supposedly have.

Are you kidding? You descended into petty insults – you need to read and own what you said. You are a bully.
Your backbone crumbles more with each word:)

> I have stuck to the issues, I have posted my stance

towards the Senate, and will abide by whatever the outcome, is that not the
responsible thing to do? I have stuck to the issues,

Seems to me that is exactly what you did not do, you complained to all who would listen and took it out of the magistracy – inappropriate and shameful. You are a Praetrix of Nova Roma. Shades of Maior in a passive aggressive manner – at least she spoke her peace in public instead of whispering behind closed doors. Wait, I am wrong , she did that as well as I understand it, but then that was Maior.

> But if you'd like for me to go into "demanding

princess" mode trust me it can be arranged,
There ya go, now we're seeing those true colors I had hoped would remain in check. I had such high hopes for you.

>.. If it

were my personal choice I would have voted "No", yet I did not

There you have it, an admission!
Here you are admitting that your vote for me in the governorship was not your choice, whose was it?
You are under the influence of someone or more. Your statements were vindictive drivel. I find that people who keep telling people they are a "princess" just wish they were to elevate their low self esteem.

> I am here at the road I am at because of my hard work, I work extremely

hard for this organization. You don't like that tough,
I never thought or said that – I like and appreciated your hard work, it is this petty drivel you engage in and codependency that concerns me, and no I do not dislike it – not for me to like or not. But as a citizen I am concerned.
Again erroneous assumptions as assumptions tend to be.

>? I am not Dexter's spouse nor his

mother, he does not need me to hold his hand. If the roles were reversed
Julia, you'd be saying the same thing about me would you not?

*laughs* huh? I'd doubt that, I base my concerns on facts. Also it is not applicable because I would not have taken this route. Are you insinuating something between Petronius and I ? No need to answer that it would be wrong if you said anything but friends who rarely speak in private because we have full macro lives. Micro lives that incorporate Romanitas and Roman interests.

> You cannot stay on points or to the topics at hand

without hurling some form of insults towards me, you can deny all you want
but it's all over the main list since December

You really want to go there? When I get back I shall accommodate you, from the first time, s a candidate you brought internal stuff to a public venue, esp. at a time we were being written about negatively, you esp. were not written about in a favorable light – further exposing Nova Roma to the threat of more negative press and then you continue to insult and accuse, with both you and your buddy bullying me. Lots of untrue accusations. Anyone could look it up – the proof is on the ml and in the aedilician cohors
I stated the facts; I can't help it if the mirror I held up to you forced you to see the truth in yourself. They are facts, facts are not bullying. But rather than defend yourself, or admit you were wrong, you set your bully friends on me so you would appear hurt dejected
and wounded and garner sympathy.

> And yes I am quite calm, I am beginning to become quite used to these

occurring. It's called I am gaining experience.

You continually refuse to admit any culpability on your part in this fiasco. You are just as responsible as Petronius.
*laughs* right, you're calm. And yes, I agree you are confused. I think you should check the direction of your "high road"


Vale bene

Julia

Salve Julia,

No I'm not naived or confused, I see things with utter clarity much to your
chagrin..

I decided to give you a chance, if I had voted no, you would most likely
find something wrong with that decision as well. So what you are telling
me is I should have voted no for you? Okay next time I'll do that, sorry
for wanting to look past personal feelings and give you a chance.

Continue to believe your own version of truth Julia, I'm sorry but I
disagree with Dexter...

Caesar, Sulla, and anyone has a right to voice their opinions, they are
disagreeing with my colleague, I think that is what is grating you. Are
you saying they cannot disagree with him? Are you saying no one can
disagree with Dexter, his opinion is final no if's, and's, or but's??? I
thought this was Republican Rome not Medieval Europe, Dexter is not King.
He is a Praetor of Nova Roma, the Vice President of the corporation, as
much as it pains him the Consuls are our bosses in the scheme of things, he
and I have superiors we must answer to. That's a dose of something called
reality..

I will abide by what the Senate decides to do, they are highest decision
making Office in Nova Roma. I will follow the Law and respect their
decision, again my apologies if you don't happen to like it.

Yes I am calm Julia, this happens quite a bit. My backbone has been
accustomed to the hits.

Vale bene,
Aeternia


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

Salve Julia

"When you address an entire group, it is polite and correct to say "salvete" which is plural of salve. "Valete" is the plural of vale and so you would use valete for saying farewell to the group.

Using "Salve" indicates you only wish to speak to one person, and not using the person's name, no on knows who you are talking to, so you may get less interaction then desired:

"When we call someone by name, we use a form of the name called the "vocative".
Here are the basic rules for making a vocative:
If a name ends in "-ius", then the vocative ends in "-i". "Tullius" becomes "Tulli".
If a name ends in "-us", then the vocative ends in "-e". "Marcus" becomes "Marce".
All other names do not change at all. "Felix" stays "Felix", "Marca" stays "Marca" and so on.

It is a good idea in general to use the cognomen (the last part of the name).
To say hello to Marcus Lucretius Agricola you would write "Salve Agricola!".
To say hello to Aulus Apollonius Cordus you would write "Salve Corde!".
To say hello to Gaius Equitius Cato you would write "Salve Cato!".
Only if you are very close friends indeed with these people you could write:
"Salvé Marce!"
"Salve Aule!"
"Salve Gai!"
"Salvete Omnes!" Hello Everyone!
(Grammar note: "Salvete!" is the plural of "Salve!" and "Omnes" is the plural of "omnis", meaning "all" or "every".) "

Vale optime,

Julia"

Thank you that is very helpful. In your case is "Julia" a cognomen? Would I say "Salve Julia" as a proper greeting? How do I tell what is the cognomen when only one name is signed at the end? I am guessing luciaiuliaaquila is lucia iulia aquila and the iulia is Julia?

I appreciate the guidance as I do want to learn the correct manners

Vale

Gaius Claudius

Salve

"Sounds interesting. If you start this in either of the groups mentioned. I would definatly be interested in joining in."

I was thinking of trying it in the book club and maybe cross posting the invite to the FH. I was going to start with Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods" from the "Tusculan Disputations" but I am open to trying anything anyone else recommends instead

Vale

Gaius Claudius

Caninus Claudio omnibusque S.P.D.

"On the Nature of the Gods" sounds like a good place to start.

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




________________________________
From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:24 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Classical Reading Group


 

Salve

"Sounds interesting. If you start this in either of the groups mentioned. I would definatly be interested in joining in."

I was thinking of trying it in the book club and maybe cross posting the invite to the FH. I was going to start with Cicero's "On the Nature of the Gods" from the "Tusculan Disputations" but I am open to trying anything anyone else recommends instead

Vale

Gaius Claudius




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

Salve Yehya,

Are you from the Latin language group; what's the name? I believe there's three groups: 1) Nova Roma... 2) Latinitatis..? and 3) ??

Please let me know because I have a question about the (I think its called) Latinitatis.

Gratias tibi ago,

Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:18 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Classical Reading Group


 


Salve Julia

"When you address an entire group, it is polite and correct to say "salvete" which is plural of salve. "Valete" is the plural of vale and so you would use valete for saying farewell to the group.

Using "Salve" indicates you only wish to speak to one person, and not using the person's name, no on knows who you are talking to, so you may get less interaction then desired:

"When we call someone by name, we use a form of the name called the "vocative".
Here are the basic rules for making a vocative:
If a name ends in "-ius", then the vocative ends in "-i". "Tullius" becomes "Tulli".
If a name ends in "-us", then the vocative ends in "-e". "Marcus" becomes "Marce".
All other names do not change at all. "Felix" stays "Felix", "Marca" stays "Marca" and so on.

It is a good idea in general to use the cognomen (the last part of the name).
To say hello to Marcus Lucretius Agricola you would write "Salve Agricola!".
To say hello to Aulus Apollonius Cordus you would write "Salve Corde!".
To say hello to Gaius Equitius Cato you would write "Salve Cato!".
Only if you are very close friends indeed with these people you could write:
"Salvé Marce!"
"Salve Aule!"
"Salve Gai!"
"Salvete Omnes!" Hello Everyone!
(Grammar note: "Salvete!" is the plural of "Salve!" and "Omnes" is the plural of "omnis", meaning "all" or "every".) "

Vale optime,

Julia"

Thank you that is very helpful. In your case is "Julia" a cognomen? Would I say "Salve Julia" as a proper greeting? How do I tell what is the cognomen when only one name is signed at the end? I am guessing luciaiuliaaquila is lucia iulia aquila and the iulia is Julia?

I appreciate the guidance as I do want to learn the correct manners

Vale

Gaius Claudius




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

Salve Marci

Not in the Latin language group. I would love to learn to read Latin but I doubt I have the time to commit. And then at best I would probably need to translate it, mentally, into English and probably not as good as a translation I could buy. But just to know some of the terms and phrases I come across would be wonderful

Plenty of Latin speakers here though I am sure one can help on the group question. I am just learning my way around

Vale

Gaius Claudius

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Yehya,
>
> Are you from the Latin language group; what's the name? I believe there's three groups: 1) Nova Roma... 2) Latinitatis..? and 3) ??
>
> Please let me know because I have a question about the (I think its called) Latinitatis.
>
> Gratias tibi ago,
>
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Yehya <yehya_61@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:18 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Classical Reading Group
>
>
>  
>
>
> Salve Julia
>
> "When you address an entire group, it is polite and correct to say "salvete" which is plural of salve. "Valete" is the plural of vale and so you would use valete for saying farewell to the group.
>
> Using "Salve" indicates you only wish to speak to one person, and not using the person's name, no on knows who you are talking to, so you may get less interaction then desired:
>
> "When we call someone by name, we use a form of the name called the "vocative".
> Here are the basic rules for making a vocative:
> If a name ends in "-ius", then the vocative ends in "-i". "Tullius" becomes "Tulli".
> If a name ends in "-us", then the vocative ends in "-e". "Marcus" becomes "Marce".
> All other names do not change at all. "Felix" stays "Felix", "Marca" stays "Marca" and so on.
>
> It is a good idea in general to use the cognomen (the last part of the name).
> To say hello to Marcus Lucretius Agricola you would write "Salve Agricola!".
> To say hello to Aulus Apollonius Cordus you would write "Salve Corde!".
> To say hello to Gaius Equitius Cato you would write "Salve Cato!".
> Only if you are very close friends indeed with these people you could write:
> "Salvé Marce!"
> "Salve Aule!"
> "Salve Gai!"
> "Salvete Omnes!" Hello Everyone!
> (Grammar note: "Salvete!" is the plural of "Salve!" and "Omnes" is the plural of "omnis", meaning "all" or "every".) "
>
> Vale optime,
>
> Julia"
>
> Thank you that is very helpful. In your case is "Julia" a cognomen? Would I say "Salve Julia" as a proper greeting? How do I tell what is the cognomen when only one name is signed at the end? I am guessing luciaiuliaaquila is lucia iulia aquila and the iulia is Julia?
>
> I appreciate the guidance as I do want to learn the correct manners
>
> Vale
>
> Gaius Claudius
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete Omnes!

I have started the group which can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaRomaBookClub/message/181

Valete

C. Claudius Axenrothus

C. Petronius M. Canino salutem,
 
I have no time enough now to make a long answer to your mail. I have to go to my job, here it is 6:17 a. m.
 
My position is clear. For the publicity of the Games for the guests we must need our Website. Wiki pages may permitt many things for that.
 
The FH is a forum under my responsibility as praetor. The SC founding it does not allow that guests and citizens may openly speak in that forum internal affairs. It is mostly in the objective to prevent the struggle that knew the ML before the building of the FH.
 
I am no stubborn, I only make my praetor's duty so that I have to prevent any troubles in the FH and I respect the law.
 
The law is hard, but it is the law.
 
I expect from citizens a following of Roman virtues more than all that tempest in a cup. If you do not understand that some people act behind and tempt to use the Senate for their wishes, then I beg you to read more Roman books of History. :o)
 
The Games have all their publicity for all, guests, citizens, even curious not unscribed in any forum, in our Web site. A part of our taxes is used to manage this website. The website is the better place for the games and all the aspects of our city. It is the a great ground of the promotion of everything which make that we are Nova Roman.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.






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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

C. Petronius Ti. Paulino salutem,

My Latin proposals.

The Greek Way. De Graecitate.
On War.  De bello.
On Roman Provinces. De provinciis Romanis.
On Medicine. De arte medendi. De medicina.
On Sports. De exercitationibus. De arte gymnica (more Greek).

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.


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

Salve,
Where do I find these games?

Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
C. Petronius M. Canino salutem,
 
I have no time enough now to make a long answer to your mail. I have to go to my job, here it is 6:17 a. m.
 
My position is clear. For the publicity of the Games for the guests we must need our Website. Wiki pages may permitt many things for that.
 
The FH is a forum under my responsibility as praetor. The SC founding it does not allow that guests and citizens may openly speak in that forum internal affairs. It is mostly in the objective to prevent the struggle that knew the ML before the building of the FH.
 
I am no stubborn, I only make my praetor's duty so that I have to prevent any troubles in the FH and I respect the law.
 
The law is hard, but it is the law.
 
I expect from citizens a following of Roman virtues more than all that tempest in a cup. If you do not understand that some people act behind and tempt to use the Senate for their wishes, then I beg you to read more Roman books of History. :o)
 
The Games have all their publicity for all, guests, citizens, even curious not unscribed in any forum, in our Web site. A part of our taxes is used to manage this website. The website is the better place for the games and all the aspects of our city. It is the a great ground of the promotion of everything which make that we are Nova Roman.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

[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]

Ave!
 
Ask to the aediles. They are the charge to promote the Games. If I do not fail, you must have may things, reports of many for many years. I rermember, as a great memory, the reports on the Website of the Games given by the Aedilis Albucius.
 
But in the labyrinth of our Web... perhaps ask the aediles to make that more cleaver.
 
Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat a. d. IV Kal. Apr. MMDCCLXV



________________________________
De : Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
À : "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyé le : Jeudi 29 mars 2012 6h28
Objet : GAMES - Re: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)

Salve,
Where do I find these games?

Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
C. Petronius M. Canino salutem,
 
I have no time enough now to make a long answer to your mail. I have to go to my job, here it is 6:17 a. m.
 
My position is clear. For the publicity of the Games for the guests we must need our Website. Wiki pages may permitt many things for that.
 
The FH is a forum under my responsibility as praetor. The SC founding it does not allow that guests and citizens may openly speak in that forum internal affairs. It is mostly in the objective to prevent the struggle that knew the ML before the building of the FH.
 
I am no stubborn, I only make my praetor's duty so that I have to prevent any troubles in the FH and I respect the law.
 
The law is hard, but it is the law.
 
I expect from citizens a following of Roman virtues more than all that tempest in a cup. If you do not understand that some people act behind and tempt to use the Senate for their wishes, then I beg you to read more Roman books of History. :o)
 
The Games have all their publicity for all, guests, citizens, even curious not unscribed in any forum, in our Web site. A part of our taxes is used to manage this website. The website is the better place for the games and all the aspects of our city. It is the a great ground of the promotion of everything which make that we are Nova Roman.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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




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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Salvete Praetor, et al, Thank you very much. I would like to encourage everybody to take a stroll through the Roman Libraryat box.net. Just drop me your email and I will add you to the site. I would also like to ask everybody to join us at the Nova Roma Book Club as we as starting a newand exciting discussion on some Roman works. NovaRomaBookClub-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Valete, Ti. Galerius Paulinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: jfarnoud94@...
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:26:42 +0100
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Latin please




























C. Petronius Ti. Paulino salutem,



My Latin proposals.



The Greek Way. De Graecitate.

On War. De bello.

On Roman Provinces. De provinciis Romanis.

On Medicine. De arte medendi. De medicina.

On Sports. De exercitationibus. De arte gymnica (more Greek).



Optime vale.



C. Petronius Dexter

Arcoiali scribebat

a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.



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


















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

M. Caninus C. Petronio sal:

I hope I understand your position. You simply wish to follow the law for the good of Nova Roma as it was written in the SC by the Senate. Since you are a reasonable person and a member of the Senate, I expect you would welcome any reconsideration of an SC that affects prospective citizens given our current low number of registered citizens and our even lower number of assidui. I am sure you can demonstrate the need for a strict reading of the law as you discuss the matter with the rest of the Senate. But perhaps I have too much faith in the Senate. It seems from your posts that there may be some manipulation of the Senate. I do hope that is not the case. Each Senator should be able to vote based on their own reasoning and not because someone commands them to vote yes or no. 

Praetor, I am the creator and author of a few of the Nova Roma wiki pages. I must disagree with you on this point. Wiki pages do not provide a satisfactory experience for prospective citizens. Allowing discussion of the ludi on the FH provides interaction between citizens and prospective citizens during our festivals. Wiki pages offer no interaction between citizens and non-citizens. I can certainly understand the need to ban many topics from discussion on the FH. Moderation can be a good thing. However, banning discussion of ludi related topics does not seem to advance the image, reputation or status of Nova Roma in any way. Further, offering full participation in the ludi as a benefit of citizenship (or "membership") in Nova Roma is a rather poor method of enticing citizens to pay their taxes. We might get five additional people in a given year to pay taxes with such a benefit. I strongly believe that allowing non-citizens and probationary citizens to
fully participate in the ludi through the FH is in the best interest of Nova Roma and will result in far more additional tax paying citizens.

I do hope you have a good day, Praetor. 


M. Pompeius Caninus
America Boreoccidentalis
Vivat Nova Roma!




________________________________
From: Jean-François Arnoud <jfarnoud94@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: Re : [Nova-Roma] Re: CALL TO CONVENE THE SENATE - 25MAR12 - 31MAR12 (AMENDMENT #1)


 
C. Petronius M. Canino salutem,
 
I have no time enough now to make a long answer to your mail. I have to go to my job, here it is 6:17 a. m.
 
My position is clear. For the publicity of the Games for the guests we must need our Website. Wiki pages may permitt many things for that.
 
The FH is a forum under my responsibility as praetor. The SC founding it does not allow that guests and citizens may openly speak in that forum internal affairs. It is mostly in the objective to prevent the struggle that knew the ML before the building of the FH.
 
I am no stubborn, I only make my praetor's duty so that I have to prevent any troubles in the FH and I respect the law.
 
The law is hard, but it is the law.
 
I expect from citizens a following of Roman virtues more than all that tempest in a cup. If you do not understand that some people act behind and tempt to use the Senate for their wishes, then I beg you to read more Roman books of History. :o)
 
The Games have all their publicity for all, guests, citizens, even curious not unscribed in any forum, in our Web site. A part of our taxes is used to manage this website. The website is the better place for the games and all the aspects of our city. It is the a great ground of the promotion of everything which make that we are Nova Roman.
 
Optime vale.
 
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. IV Kalendas Apriles MMDCCLXV aVc.

[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]

Salve!

Can you check mine?  I sent a payment on March 6 using the link on the NovaRoma Web site via paypal and it was sent to the address of Consuls@....  I paid $9.00 US. 


Vale!
C. Laelius Silvanus



________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Amended Annual Tax rates - including transaction fees

Ave!

Uh your taxes are paid. I got it on my database.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:19 PM, William Dowie <swjagatai@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I suppose that explains why my taxes aren't marked as paid and my
> citizenship status hasn't been upgraded yet. Perhaps not having a link on
> the main Nova Roma page that says "Pay your taxes here" that sends them to
> the wrong address would have been a good idea.
>
> Gaius Quinctius Flamininus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] 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]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Lentulus Aeliae Corvae s. p. d.

Congrats again for this bronze medal, I think all of your fellow contestants know how hard it was to earn it! And thank you for your words of appreciation! I can't wait to receive your first fully Latin letter from you, written by you in your own words!

It's people like you who can breath life into Latin, believed to be dead by so many, but you and I, and some fellow Nova Romans, know that it's alive :)

Vale!



--- Sab 17/3/12, reddragon25@... <reddragon25@...> ha scritto:

Da: reddragon25@... <reddragon25@...>
Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Re:] LUDI NOVI ROMANI: Certamen Latinum - FINAL RESULTS
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Sabato 17 marzo 2012, 22:20
















 













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 years…..



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]



























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