Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	Marcus Papirius Justus <papirius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:00:23 -0500

Heck ... I wish I could just "shudder"! I'm downright apopleptic! As it is
now, with my large internet presence, I'm getting 30+ bits of spam a day
and can count on being sent 3-5 copies of a virus as well. And that's not
being on any newsgroups!!

mpj


At 02:01 AM 24/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Salvete Omnes:
>
>Good point, Marce Papiri. And, I shudder at the "amount" of spam we might
>get.........which defeats the purpose of our communications being more
>organized.
>
>Valete,
>Pompeia Cornelia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:28:48 EST

Salve,

Echoing Sorer Pompeia Cornelia, Lucius Sulla Felix' suggestion is a pregnant
idea, one that is positive.

Vale,

L. Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	nramos@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:12:50 -0000

Salve, Marcus Marcius Rex!

WIth all due respect to a distinguished Senator, I would make a couple
of observations here - as a private citizen, and not as a magistrate
of Nova Roma.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Marc " <RexMarcius@a...> wrote:
> Salve Censor Sulla!
>
> First: This issue concerns a new and very welcome member of my Gens.
> Therefore, believe me, you will receive what you deserve for your
> actions, may they have happened within or outside your gens.
>

At the risk of sounding a bit fractious, if there was some sort of
problem outside our Gens, you have every right to bring it before the
magistrates. If it happened within our Gens - you have absolutely no
rights over our Pater Familias. This thinly veiled threat ill becomes
a Senator and a Quirite - and if you refer to events that happened
within our Gens, you are treading on very thin ice. Just as our Pater
has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of your Gens, you
have no right to intervene in ours.

Remember also, that in every affair, there are three sides to the
story; that believed by one party to be true, that believed by the
other party to be true, and what really happened.

> Second: With regard to your lex proposal. A lot there seems unclear
> to me.
>
> What else would you consider inadmissible evidence if ever a trial
> were to be held in a Nova Roma court or comitia? Would a witness
> report about what happened in an AIM chat be admissible without
> consent of the other person involved? Would any e-mail outside an
> official list be admissible without consent. Should any criminal or
> treasonous person be able to withhold evidence by simply refusing to
> give consent? Or should this only concern third persons? I am
> confused...and also it seems that this lex would at present protect
> not so much the gentes but one person (who might that
> be?)....Therefore, I fear that the timing and way you put this
"idea"
> forward smacks a little bit of a Nixonian effort to conceal
something
> by introducing a lex that makes it impossible to use something which
> obviously concerns YOU.
>

This part Sulla can answer better - but I can offer something that may
make you think about this. Suppose you were to discuss something in
private with someone, and you wished it to remain private for WHATEVER
reason. In a normal conversation, that is assured by simply requesting
it (sometimes). In an AIM chat, that may not be possible. Also,
consider that there is no "chain of evidence" rule or procedure here
in Nova Roma. Who is to say that IM records cannot be distorted or
altered to "prove" a particular point? If you know anything at all
about evidentiary procedure, you will understand what I'm talking
about.


> Please feel free to present "admissible" evidence that proves
> otherwise.
>
> Before that affair is behind us, I am against such a lex. After the
> conclusion we might talk again about this "idea".
>
> Marcus Marcius Rex
> Paterfamilias Gens Marcia
> Senator

Again, Senator Marcius, I hold you in the utmost respect. None of this
is intended to impugn your character or your Gens. I, however, have
witnessed some of this turmoil and from your signals in this matter, I
think you may not have all the information regarding this problem.
Bringing up this issue so hastily and in such an aggressive manner may
result in a great amount of embarassment later on, if your position is
shown to be erroneous.

Iuppiter Nos Protegas, et Optime Vale

Marius Cornelius Scipio

>
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave Citizens of Nova Roma
> >
> > Many of you have some idea of the disorder that has happened in
the
> Gens
> > Cornelia. While I will not elaborate on it since it is an
internal
> Gens
> > issue, I believe that the resolution of this situation can benefit
> all
> > of Nova Roma. To that end, I would like to have our Noble Consuls
> or
> > Praetors to promulgate a law stating that ANY IM conversation(s)
> cannot
> > be admitted as evidence or as a means of starting an
> investigation. Or,
> > if they are to be used as evidence, written consents of all
parties
> must
> > be included. I believe that if this written down into law, the
> > situation that created disorder in my Gens would never have
> happened.
> > And, given that it has happened in my Gens, this can be a problem
> that
> > might affect any other Gens in Nova Roma! With that in mind, I
> > respectfully submit this request.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > Censor of Nova Roma

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	"Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:17:49 -0800

Salvete Senator Marce Marci et Quirites,

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc [mailto:RexMarcius@--------]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:44 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Law Idea


Salve Censor Sulla!

First: This issue concerns a new and very welcome member of my Gens.
Therefore, believe me, you will receive what you deserve for your
actions, may they have happened within or outside your gens.

OFS: As was elegantly stated recently, there has been *a lot* of
misunderstanding on what people 'intend' as opposed to what they
actually say. So, noble Senator; I a mere privatus humbly request
that you clarify the statement "you will receive what you deserve
for your actions." Now to me, that sounds like a threat and has
all sorts of threatening undercurrents to it. What *exactly* do
you believe that Censor Sulla DESERVES?

Let's look at the next statement: 'may they have happened within
our outside your gens' -does this indicate that you have taken it
on yourself to make your own determinations on how Paterfamilias
*should* be exercised in another gens? Do you believe yourself,
as a senator to have the further authority to 'infer' or 'dictate'
how intra-gens matters should be resolved? Please clarify for me.
I certainly HOPE that you are not intimating here that Paterfamilias
is a public and non-sacrosanct affair?

Second: With regard to your lex proposal. A lot there seems unclear
to me.

What else would you consider inadmissible evidence if ever a trial
were to be held in a Nova Roma court or comitia?

OFS: And this, I think is perhaps were we could stop and have perhaps
a productive discussion, as this really begs a larger issue doesn't
of "what are considered *legal* Nova Roma communications venues'; with
*legal* in this case being that body of communications which may
be subject to Nova Roma's 'municipal' system. Do we want phone conversations
taped? Perhaps rooms bugged? Perhaps only things said on the NR list?
Maybe ANY list with a "NR" affiliation? Or, perhaps it will also
cover e-mail, in-person communications. When does talking with another
Nova Roman pass the purveyance of 'friends talking' into the realm
of 'official communications?' If cives get together for a dinner, does
there have to be an 'on the record' and 'off the record' discussion?

With all due respect Senator, most certainly you can see that these
are all significant issues. Unlike our recent Tribunal fiasco, we are
NOW talking about legal issues that DO in fact touch us all *at this
very moment.* Just because you may not personally respect or "like"
Censor Sulla or where he's coming from, or even the circumstances
surrounding
the proposal of his Lex, certainly you can at least see the dangerous
implications when certain communications channels are not well-defined.

But then again, as you have suddenly adopted Livia out of the blue,
after her personal, AND internal conflicts within Gens Cornelia, then
one couldn't *really* expect you to be fully objective on the matter
then, could one?

Would a witness
report about what happened in an AIM chat be admissible without
consent of the other person involved?

OFS: Again, a significant legal question. This in my personal
view, is similar to the laws in my particular micronation concerning
wiretapping and single-party recording of phone calls. This means
that in many cases, if one side of the conversation records
a conversation without the other party's knowledge, then it
may not be admissible in court. I have no idea how they do it
over in Germany.

Would any e-mail outside an
official list be admissible without consent. Should any criminal or
treasonous person be able to withhold evidence by simply refusing to
give consent?

OFS: Senator, you are taking this to an extreme and well outside
the constraints of what is suggested in the proposed Lex. The proposed
Lex/IDEA *simply* mentions AIM conversations, which could easily be
classified, or extended as 'phone' or 'private' conversations. Let's stick
with the premise. Personally, if I have a chat with someone on AIM,
ICQ, Yahoo, private e-mail, phone, in person..etc. with another
civus, I consider this to be 'private communication.' Now if you're
going to stretch this out to cover a wide array of communications
then fine, but let's keep it in context.


Or should this only concern third persons?
I am
confused...

OFS: I humbly submit Senator that you might not be as
confused as you purport to be. It seems to be more of
an issue of perhaps the 'new pater' trying to snub
the 'old pater.'

and also it seems that this lex would at present protect
not so much the gentes but one person (who might that
be?)....

OFS: Senator, what would you say if you and I had a conversation,
which I recorded, transferred into a "*.wav" file and submitted
it to the main list? We are really talking the same thing
here. The REAL issue is the communications venue, what
is ACTUALLY protected and what constitutes OFFICIAL Nova
Roma communications, and what DOES NOT. I submit that the
classification of *public* versus *private* conversations
IS a *very* clear cut example of something that actually
does affect us all.

Therefore, I fear that the timing and way you put this "idea"
forward smacks a little bit of a Nixonian effort to conceal something
by introducing a lex that makes it impossible to use something which
obviously concerns YOU.

OFS: NIXONIAN? Mixing macronational metaphors of which you are
not even a part of sir? Oh, let us not even get *started*
down that road. I submit that as you are in no
way capable of unbiased analysis in regards to the proposed idea
for a Lex, that perhaps you might be so good as to table
yourself from the discussion?

Perhaps, on another note, you might also consider what happened
within gens Cornelia...which I submit to you and everyone else
was an *internal,* intra-gens conflicts and has nothing to
do with NR at large, other than an unfortunate situation of a filia
who was asked to jump ship due to internal reasons. Perhaps
Senator, since you have now adopted her, you might one day have
your OWN reasons to be concerned with what communication channels
are regarded as 'official,' and which are regarded as 'private.'

Please feel free to present "admissible" evidence that proves
otherwise.

Before that affair is behind us, I am against such a lex. After the
conclusion we might talk again about this "idea".

OFS: Perhaps Senator, you could further expound on your timetable
or decision process as to when this might be 'concluded.' Would you
be in 'favor' of such a Lex if say a certain filia had done the same
thing to you? Or perhaps, you would just like to table it enough
to peruse perhaps private chat records to suit your own ends.
One has to wonder....

Bene valete,
-Oppius Flaccus Severus, Privatus et Civus de Nova Roma


Marcus Marcius Rex
Paterfamilias Gens Marcia
Senator

<snippage>
Get 3 CDs for ONLY $9.99!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide?
From:	djester6@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:22 EST

In a message dated 1/24/01 6:31:15 AM Central Standard Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:

<< If mob rule = democracy in your mind, then I think you're quite wrong.
There
is a significant difference between the state bowing for every whim of the
people and between the state listening and acting upon important concerns of
the people.
>>

Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any dictionary. A pure
democracy is a form of government where the greatest majority have sway over
the government. And understand, it is not just sway, but unchecked sway. No
deciding executive decision (Parliament and executive officer), no
limitations on the kind and number of laws created. This is what a democracy
is. Simply, regardless of the idea, because the majority of the nation or
culture accepts it, then it is valid. I'm sure we all remember the old catch
phrase our mothers used to tell us, " if all your friends jumped off a
bridge, would you?" Pure democracy essentially is this, and for the most
part, in terms of modern western culture, the same notion is accepted: a
concept or idea is only valid if a great number of people agree on it. This
is not acceptable. Some would say I am going to an extreme, but one cannot
stay in the middle of the road for ever until you get knocked to one side.

Vale

Lugus Brigantius

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:40:05 EST

Oh, it goes on and on. Doesn't it. We need to use constraints. Yet, bearing
in mind that each is entitled to their own opinions, without hostile attacks.
Not that I saw true hostility in this posting, rather an opinion stated.
Onward.

Vale,

L. Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Sulla's Law Idea
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:43:13 EST

In a message dated 1/24/2001 1:27:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, SFP55 writes:

Salvete Senator and citizens..
While I thank the Censor for bringing to our attention the potential for
injury through this medium, this problem must be solved by more then one
quick fix and without infringing on the rights of the people. In this case
using slow and deliberate research is the only way to proceed. My colleague
and I will take this under advisement
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Praetor Urbanus >>

Subject:	[novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:48:59 -0600 (CST)

EX DOMO CURATORIS ARANEUM

I. Antonius Gryllus Graecus is appointed scriba and given charge of
the Religio Romana and the Calendar sections of the site.

II. Oppius Flaccus Severus is appointed scriba and will, together
with myself, keep the Tabularium updated as new edicts are issued.

III. Marcus Arminius Maior is appointed scriba and given charge of the
historical archives. He has been researching the events of 2752
and 2753, as seen on the mailing lists, and will be preparing
summaries of our historical events.

IV. Discussion of plans for the site and assignment of projects to the
Curator and Scribae shall take place on the mailing list
NovaRomaWebSites@-------- All who are interested in the
future directions of all of Nova Roma's web sites, or interested
in volunteering to work on the main site, are encouraged to
subscribe.

M. Octavius Germanicus, Curator
XXIV Ianuarius MMDCCLIV

---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Removal of Signature
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:01:37 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus Amicus Dignitatis omnibus Civibus S.P.D.

I wish to reply to the following:

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:58:39 EST
From: cassius622@--------
Subject: Re: Removal of Signature

Labienus writes:

I have decided, after a great deal of thought, to remove my name from
the list of signatories to the statement of the Amici Dignitatis. I
am not doing this because I disagree in any way with that document.

Cassius respondit:
Although I disagree with most all of the Amici Dignitatis Statement
for a variety of reasons, I understand that many originally signed
that document out of concern for Nova Roma. There is little doubt
that you will continue to pursue Virtue and noble goals in other
ways, so this is simply a change rather than a Great Ending.

Formosanus respondit:
I am very alarmed that you should disagree with *most* of such a
purely innocuous document, Cassi. It affirms simply basic matters of
political decency and an open society. I here reproduce it to remind
everyone of its real content (less the parts relating only to the
programming during the past election):
_______________________
We, the Amici Dignitatis, gather in the Dignitas Forum, joining in
free association, to promote the principles of democratic process in
Nova Roma. We recognize:

1) that the sovereignty of our Res publica rests solely with the
People who form it;
2) that the government of Nova Roma and all of its associated
sodalitates, lists, and fora are to be free and open to all citizens;
3) that the actions of all government agencies, officials, and
magistrates of Nova Roma are to be made on behalf of all its citizens
and therefore are accountable to the people of Nova Roma assembled in
Comitia;
4) that each and every citizen, and every applicant for
citizenship, enjoy certain individual rights without any exception,
and that these rights are to be guaranteed and protected under the
laws of Nova Roma, and that among these is the right of redress
before the people assembled in Comitia; and
5) that beyond the laws of our Res publica the dignitas of each
individual is entitled to the same degree of respect and civility
commonly afforded all citizens within our civitas.
________________________

Is there anything in that which should be objectionable to anyone?
(Except perhaps for insipidity and triteness - hardly for
revolutionary fervour!) It calls for an open society in which the
dignitas of every civis is respected and protected by the laws and
the People rule. No more and no less.


Labienus:
Unfortunately, I have come to believe that the Amici Dignitatis will
never be allowed to become what I hoped it would become; to wit, a
neutral forum separate from those who initiated it and dedicated to
in-depth discussions of Nova Roma's government. The reasons for this
belief are many and varied, and the fault lies with no one person or
group.

Formosanus respondit:
We had all wished this to be so, I think. However, the Statement
despite its innocuousness, was not perceived as a neutral statement
of the principles of decent government, because there were so many
who wished to defend indecent government, and thus all the
signatories were branded as partisans. Which from their point of view
was fair enough.

I think that this was a mistake of judgement on our part. We should
have recognised that there was a moral divide in our commonwealth so
deep that it was not feasible to gather the overwhelming majority
around a statement of good principles. We are a society where things
are more black and white.

Or perhaps it would have worked if we had distinguished the Amici
from the real Reform Movement in some way. It was a difficult
situation. But at least the Amici made the need for reform more
public, and that was a good thing. Consciousness-raising is not to be
despised.


Cassius:
Your prediction seems sound, and I believe you are right that this is
not the fault of any one person or group. While created by good
people and dedicated to noble goals, the Amici Dignitatis and it's
Statement were born a child of anger rather than a manifestation of
Concordia or optimism.

Formosanus respondit:
Anger? Nay, say "righteous indignation". We saw Marius assailed. We
saw a spirit of meanness and arrogance. We saw quasi-legal
proceedings of doubtful legality. And neither Senate nor Tribune nor
other magistrate put a stop to it. Indeed, the whole Establishment
and whole system became implicated in deeds of a despicable nature,
and that repeatedly. (Not, I hasten to add, every person in the
Establishment, but far too many, and some of them in the highest
positions of trust.) And there was no guarantee that the same sort of
thing might not happen to any innocent civis - nor is there yet.

As human beings with normal moral judgement, who could not be
indignant at seeing that? And as citizens in a free state, how could
we refrain from trying to do something about it? Which we did with
perfect legality.


The catalyst of the formation of the Amici was anger and resentment
over perceived wrongs. And, as so often happens in things created
from a dispute, the vision of the Amici has continued to contain a
part of that anger. It is this anger that I personally have rejected
most, and even though this anger is held by people I often respect I
cannot share it.

Formosanus respondit:
Yes, as a founder of NR you, perhaps naturally, tend to think that
it is "fundamentally all right" even when its authorities are acting
abominably. "It will pass" you can tell yourself, "Nova Roma is not
*fundamentally* like that." Fortunately the State also contains
people who can judge it not with the leniency of an indulgent father,
but for what it is. And last year it showed itself pretty bad.

When the Amici Dignitatis group was first formed, I spoke out that
Virtue should stand for itself, not merely exist to "be against"
something else. I suggested other alternatives to the Statement, in
both it's first and second versions. The one that seemed the most
respectable to me was the thought of creating a Virtue Sodalitas,
where people could pledge to conduct *themselves* with noble virtues
and courtesy, rather than signing a document demanding those things
in others.

Formosanus respondit:
*We* had done nothing to torment a defenceless citizen in legally
doubtful ways and never constituted a moral problem. The
Powers-that-Be at that time *had*. However, the Statement implies
that it is binding upon its signatories as well as any other part of
the State - it is a Statement for all of us.

Perhaps such things will come in the future. In the meantime, I hope
that Concord will continue to grow among us, and that we can all
retain our personal sense of Virtue and Romanitas even while we share
our community with others.

Formosanus respondit:
"Concord" used as a means of stiffling constructive dissent and
currents of reform is not true Concord. Let us have Freedom and
Iustitia first, and Concord will come of itself.

Let me note, before sounding too negative, that since those
unfortunate events we have changed magistrates, and the composition
of the Senate has been significantly altered. This gives us a chance
for a partially new start. Our new tribunes have been doing well,
Consul Vedius has chosen to be legislatively active and to put his
legislation before the relatively egalitarian Comitia Populi Tributa,
and you, Cassi, have promised us a bill of rights.

The Amici Dignitatis has catalysed a great part of that. I think
that it should be praised for this, not treated as a matter for
reproach or suspicion so that good people like Labienus and Livia who
agree with the Statement feel that they must withdraw their
signatures.

A lot of necessary change is still before us before the Dignitas of
every civis will be respected as it should be, and we still have a
lot of work and fighting to do.

I am proud to have been a part of the Amici Dignitatis movement.


Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, CANDIDATUS AEDILICIUS
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius    
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:07:19 -0800 (PST)

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
wrote:

<snipped>

> To that end, I would like to have our
> Noble Consuls or
> Praetors to promulgate a law stating that ANY IM
> conversation(s) cannot
> be admitted as evidence or as a means of starting an
> investigation. Or,
> if they are to be used as evidence, written consents
> of all parties must
> be included.

<snipped>

Salve:

Without going into details (I understand your
reluctance), I wonder if REASONS for your request
could be provided. It seems unusual to me that
someone who is considering an investigation would
ignore evidence.

Let me give you a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL example: I
am in a position of authority over you send you an
email calling you every kind of heinous beast that has
ever walked the earth, or tell you that in exchange
for money/sex/other things I will do something in NR
(or even *TO* NR). If I were an investigator (and I
have been one on several occasions), I would expect
that kind of information to be available. Such
conversations could harm the Republic, were treason
involved. [I stress here than I am not accusing
Consul Sulla or anyone of his gens of any of these
things, but am speaking hypothetically to make a point
of how far this COULD go.]

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:01:56 -0000

Salvete,

> Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any dictionary.
A pure
> democracy is a form of government where the greatest majority have
sway over
> the government. And understand, it is not just sway, but unchecked
sway. No
> deciding executive decision (Parliament and executive officer), no
> limitations on the kind and number of laws created. This is what a
democracy
> is. Simply, regardless of the idea, because the majority of the
nation or
> culture accepts it, then it is valid. I'm sure we all remember the
old catch
> phrase our mothers used to tell us, " if all your friends jumped
off a
> bridge, would you?" Pure democracy essentially is this, and for the
most
> part, in terms of modern western culture, the same notion is
accepted: a
> concept or idea is only valid if a great number of people agree on
it. This
> is not acceptable. Some would say I am going to an extreme, but
one cannot
> stay in the middle of the road for ever until you get knocked to
one side.

But that is an ancient democracy. Britain is called a democracy.
And only the various ministers or lords vote on issues. The only
democratic bit about it is that the people vote in those ministers.

Although ancient countries may have been democratic in that way, but
I do not know of a single country today that is.

Valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	"Marc " <RexMarcius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:11:00 -0000

Salve Oppi Flacce!

You requested a few clarifications and I will gladly give them to you
and all others who care to read this.

--- In novaroma@--------, "Oppius Flaccus" <oppiusflaccus@y...>
wrote:
> Salvete Senator Marce Marci et Quirites,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M--------[m--------o:RexM--------us@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:44 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: Law Idea
>
>
> Salve Censor Sulla!
>
> First: This issue concerns a new and very welcome member of my Gens.
> Therefore, believe me, you will receive what you deserve for your
> actions, may they have happened within or outside your gens.
>
> OFS: As was elegantly stated recently, there has been *a lot* of
> misunderstanding on what people 'intend' as opposed to what they
> actually say. So, noble Senator; I a mere privatus humbly request
> that you clarify the statement "you will receive what you deserve
> for your actions." Now to me, that sounds like a threat and has
> all sorts of threatening undercurrents to it. What *exactly* do
> you believe that Censor Sulla DESERVES?

Well, my dear Oppi, in the absence of publicly presented evidence or
even statements of what happened I can only say that: If Sulla did a
righteous and just thing with my new daughter his dignitas will
certainly grow.

If what the contents of this "secret" AIM Conversation concerned
plans by Sulla to bring Nova Roma to new heights, he will rightly be
honoured for this.

If on the other hand, our esteemed Censor used his paterfamilias
power in a way that could also be labelled abuse, he will also
receive what he deserves, at least in the form of public criticism.

But as far as I can guess (here is talk about an investigation!!!!!),
the content of the AIM conversation did NOT only concern the gens
Cornelia....but Nova Roma in general. Therefore, not only the honor
of my daughter who was expelled by Sulla (yet unexplained to the
public) is a matter for dicussion but also the content of this
conversation, that obviously needs to be hidden now!


>
> Let's look at the next statement: 'may they have happened within
> our outside your gens' -does this indicate that you have taken it
> on yourself to make your own determinations on how Paterfamilias
> *should* be exercised in another gens? Do you believe yourself,
> as a senator to have the further authority to 'infer' or 'dictate'
> how intra-gens matters should be resolved? Please clarify for me.
> I certainly HOPE that you are not intimating here that Paterfamilias
> is a public and non-sacrosanct affair?
>

Do you really think that in Roma antiqua actions of patres familiae
were NEVER questioned or criticised? Do you believe that fathers that
rape and hit their children should be spared in Nova Roma? (For the
record: No, this is NOT what I want to infer Sulla did!) The right to
a family life is also a human right, but every right can be abused
and, therefore, sometimes the public must not remain quiet. I demand
an apology or at least an explanation for the shame that has been put
on my daughter by her former paterfamilias.


> Second: With regard to your lex proposal. A lot there seems unclear
> to me.
>
> What else would you consider inadmissible evidence if ever a trial
> were to be held in a Nova Roma court or comitia?
>
> OFS: And this, I think is perhaps were we could stop and have
perhaps
> a productive discussion, as this really begs a larger issue doesn't
> of "what are considered *legal* Nova Roma communications venues';
with
> *legal* in this case being that body of communications which may
> be subject to Nova Roma's 'municipal' system. Do we want phone
conversations
> taped? Perhaps rooms bugged? Perhaps only things said on the NR
list?
> Maybe ANY list with a "NR" affiliation? Or, perhaps it will also
> cover e-mail, in-person communications. When does talking with
another
> Nova Roman pass the purveyance of 'friends talking' into the realm
> of 'official communications?' If cives get together for a dinner,
does
> there have to be an 'on the record' and 'off the record' discussion?
>
> With all due respect Senator, most certainly you can see that these
> are all significant issues. Unlike our recent Tribunal fiasco, we
are
> NOW talking about legal issues that DO in fact touch us all *at this
> very moment.* Just because you may not personally respect or "like"
> Censor Sulla or where he's coming from, or even the circumstances
> surrounding
> the proposal of his Lex, certainly you can at least see the
dangerous
> implications when certain communications channels are not well-
defined.
>

Well, my dear Oppi, why do you think I asked these questions? Now to
to explain it to you: Just to show, that the lex idea of our Censor,
serves but one purpose: To cover that very situation he is in now.
And that I find unacceptable.

> But then again, as you have suddenly adopted Livia out of the blue,
> after her personal, AND internal conflicts within Gens Cornelia,
then
> one couldn't *really* expect you to be fully objective on the matter
> then, could one?

You obviously misunderstood me, but I forgive you, it happens
frequently here on the list. I pledged to Senator and Censor Sulla
that I would judge him by the actions he sets from the beginning of
the year onwards and forget about the past. And I pledged to him that
I would criticise him again, if I saw the need for it. My adoption of
Livia is a great honour for me and it was out of the blue only
because she was expelled by Sulla. Many, many gentes I am sure would
have (and indeed have) asked her to join them. That she became a
Marcia only gives me more incentive to hold true to my pledge.

>
> Would a witness
> report about what happened in an AIM chat be admissible without
> consent of the other person involved?
>
> OFS: Again, a significant legal question. This in my personal
> view, is similar to the laws in my particular micronation concerning
> wiretapping and single-party recording of phone calls. This means
> that in many cases, if one side of the conversation records
> a conversation without the other party's knowledge, then it
> may not be admissible in court. I have no idea how they do it
> over in Germany.
>

FYI: It is illegal in Austria to tap a phone or a conversation
without a judge's order, but, depending on the crime overheard, it is
nonetheless admissible in a criminal court. FYI I taught criminal law
at university and for training purposes also a short time as a public
prosecutor in a county court. So I know a little bit about these
things.

> Would any e-mail outside an
> official list be admissible without consent. Should any criminal or
> treasonous person be able to withhold evidence by simply refusing to
> give consent?
>
> OFS: Senator, you are taking this to an extreme and well outside
> the constraints of what is suggested in the proposed Lex. The
proposed
> Lex/IDEA *simply* mentions AIM conversations, which could easily be
> classified, or extended as 'phone' or 'private' conversations.
Let's stick
> with the premise. Personally, if I have a chat with someone on AIM,
> ICQ, Yahoo, private e-mail, phone, in person..etc. with another
> civus, I consider this to be 'private communication.' Now if you're
> going to stretch this out to cover a wide array of communications
> then fine, but let's keep it in context.
>
>

Now here is my point: Sulla wants a lex specifically covering his own
tracks. Do not distract from this. I mentioned all the other modes of
communication (and there are many ways) to show that all points to a
situation where he wants to get rid of the "Investigation" by making
something "inadmissible" which obviously conecerns him (and not only
gens Cornelia internally). At least that is the image that I got.

If only someone else had proposed this, e.g. my daughter, everything
would be different.


> Or should this only concern third persons?
> I am
> confused...
>
> OFS: I humbly submit Senator that you might not be as
> confused as you purport to be. It seems to be more of
> an issue of perhaps the 'new pater' trying to snub
> the 'old pater.'
>
> and also it seems that this lex would at present protect
> not so much the gentes but one person (who might that
> be?)....
>
> OFS: Senator, what would you say if you and I had a conversation,
> which I recorded, transferred into a "*.wav" file and submitted
> it to the main list? We are really talking the same thing
> here. The REAL issue is the communications venue, what
> is ACTUALLY protected and what constitutes OFFICIAL Nova
> Roma communications, and what DOES NOT. I submit that the
> classification of *public* versus *private* conversations
> IS a *very* clear cut example of something that actually
> does affect us all.
>
The main question for me is not, whether it should be legal or
illegal, but whether it should be admissible. Suppose (for the
record: not what I believe) the converstaion was about the stealing
of the Nova Roma trade mark, or the murder of Consul Germanicus. THIS
concerns us all. And just because it was an AIM chat, it should not
be admissible in court or even lead to an "investigation"?


> Therefore, I fear that the timing and way you put this "idea"
> forward smacks a little bit of a Nixonian effort to conceal
something
> by introducing a lex that makes it impossible to use something which
> obviously concerns YOU.
>
> OFS: NIXONIAN? Mixing macronational metaphors of which you are
> not even a part of sir? Oh, let us not even get *started*
> down that road. I submit that as you are in no
> way capable of unbiased analysis in regards to the proposed idea
> for a Lex, that perhaps you might be so good as to table
> yourself from the discussion?
>

Well Sir, I shall not do so, if you forgive me.

> Perhaps, on another note, you might also consider what happened
> within gens Cornelia...which I submit to you and everyone else
> was an *internal,* intra-gens conflicts and has nothing to
> do with NR at large, other than an unfortunate situation of a filia
> who was asked to jump ship due to internal reasons. Perhaps
> Senator, since you have now adopted her, you might one day have
> your OWN reasons to be concerned with what communication channels
> are regarded as 'official,' and which are regarded as 'private.'
>

Well I hope you are not biased against me now ;-)

> Please feel free to present "admissible" evidence that proves
> otherwise.
>
> Before that affair is behind us, I am against such a lex. After the
> conclusion we might talk again about this "idea".
>
> OFS: Perhaps Senator, you could further expound on your timetable
> or decision process as to when this might be 'concluded.' Would you
> be in 'favor' of such a Lex if say a certain filia had done the same
> thing to you? Or perhaps, you would just like to table it enough
> to peruse perhaps private chat records to suit your own ends.
> One has to wonder....
>

Well, then let the magistrates responsible for the "investigation"
make a public statement. Then we can talk further about timetables.
An please do not wonder about me, you can have all the information
you want, by simply asking.:-)

> Bene valete,
> -Oppius Flaccus Severus, Privatus et Civus de Nova Roma
>
>


Marcus Marcius Rex
Paterfamilias Gens Marcia
Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Who is to decide?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:23:00 -0200

djester6@-------- wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/24/01 6:31:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:
>
> << If mob rule = democracy in your mind, then I think you're quite wrong.
> There
> is a significant difference between the state bowing for every whim of the
> people and between the state listening and acting upon important concerns of
> the people.
> >>
>
> Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any dictionary. A pure
> democracy is a form of government where the greatest majority have sway over
> the government. And understand, it is not just sway, but unchecked sway. No
> deciding executive decision (Parliament and executive officer), no
> limitations on the kind and number of laws created. This is what a democracy
> is. Simply, regardless of the idea, because the majority of the nation or
> culture accepts it, then it is valid. I'm sure we all remember the old catch
> phrase our mothers used to tell us, " if all your friends jumped off a
> bridge, would you?" Pure democracy essentially is this, and for the most
> part, in terms of modern western culture, the same notion is accepted: a
> concept or idea is only valid if a great number of people agree on it. This
> is not acceptable. Some would say I am going to an extreme, but one cannot
> stay in the middle of the road for ever until you get knocked to one side.
>
> Vale
>
> Lugus Brigantius

Salve,

It seems to me that you put under the same category all forms of
democracy, which you should not.
Direct democracy (Greek Democracy) is just what you describe, resulting
in some famous
absurds like the destruction of Mytilene? (on Lesbos) where the assembly
first decided the destruction, then 2 days later not to destroy and
tried to send a ship in order to stop it (she arrived to late).
Modern democracies are representative democracies, with elected
representatives that have to decide on their own mind, taking into
account their electors opinions, but not necessarely. When in a
representative democracy the reprensentatives begin governing
by the polls instead of their own opinion we fall back to the first,
bad, democracy.
Roman Democracy is a 3rd one, at least following Polibius: the
"representatives" don t have to hear their electors, they have regalian
rights, but can be put on trial by other representatives. The
reprensentatives can NOT edict laws, they can only propose laws to the
people which has the end decision. On the other hand contrarly to
Athens, the people can NOT propose laws, or denounce any magistrate,
they have to wait for a magistrate to do this. That is a mixed
democracy.

Michel.

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] EDICTUM CURATORIS ARANEUM
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:02:21 -0500

Salvete;

Congratulations to the newly-appointed scribae! I know you all and am
confident that you will do an outstanding job in your new role. Our web site
is our #1 public face to the world; it's good to see it's in such good
hands.

And cool! Another list to subscribe to... ;-)

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:26:16 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Smith" <JSmithCSA@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Law Idea


> --- Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > To that end, I would like to have our
> > Noble Consuls or
> > Praetors to promulgate a law stating that ANY IM
> > conversation(s) cannot
> > be admitted as evidence or as a means of starting an
> > investigation. Or,
> > if they are to be used as evidence, written consents
> > of all parties must
> > be included.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Salve:
>
> Without going into details (I understand your
> reluctance), I wonder if REASONS for your request
> could be provided. It seems unusual to me that
> someone who is considering an investigation would
> ignore evidence.

Ave,

The best person to provide the reasons would be Livia Marcia (Cornelia)
Aurelia and another party which upon my honor I do not disclose. I
hesistate to bring up this matter since I am not directly involved....only
peripherally. If she would like to share that information, then it would be
completely OK with me. So, unfortuantely, upon my honor, I cannot divulge
that information. I do hope you would understand.

> Let me give you a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL example: I
> am in a position of authority over you send you an
> email calling you every kind of heinous beast that has
> ever walked the earth, or tell you that in exchange
> for money/sex/other things I will do something in NR
> (or even *TO* NR). If I were an investigator (and I
> have been one on several occasions), I would expect
> that kind of information to be available. Such
> conversations could harm the Republic, were treason
> involved. [I stress here than I am not accusing
> Consul Sulla or anyone of his gens of any of these
> things, but am speaking hypothetically to make a point
> of how far this COULD go.]

Well there are laws in place if it violates the Lex Fabia and if it violates
macronational laws. The Constitution of NR does cover some of this.
However, certain incidents have occurred that are technically not covered
under any exisiting law in NR. With that in mind I have offered my idea.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> L Aetius Dalmaticus
>
> =====
> LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
> HQ USAREUR/7A
> CMR 420, BOX 2839
> APO AE 09063-2839
>
> "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Censorial Edict - Scribe appointment
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:22:47 -0800

Ave Citizens of Nova Roma

I am publishing this edict appointing Oppius Flaccus Severus as my
Censor scribe. His purpose will be to assist me in the creation of the
Censor Handbook. This handbook will cover all duties that the Censors
must accomplish from routine communication with citizens, processing
citizenship applications, to conducting Censor Nota hearings. Also, the
Censor handbook will list various edicts and laws governing the
Censorship position as well as various letters for specific purposes.

Once this information is compiled Oppius Flaccus would be responsible
for maintaining it and publishing it for the People of Nova Roma to see.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor of Nova Roma

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:59:47 -0700

Salvete, Omnes,All

It occurs to me that I STILL do not have a complete picture
of what's been happening behind the scenes for some time
now. All I know, DEFINITIVELY, is that I was accused to
have contributed willingly to something which I neither
consented to nor knew about. Understanding the correct
context for the rest of the details which I have learned
since Monday, are predicated on knowing other parts of the
issue which remain blind to me.

While I thought initially that I could support this idea, I
don't think I still have the full story and therefore
neither support nor stand against it.

At this time I simply want to be quiet in the public arena,
be allowed time to grieve privately for my losses, rebuild
where I will, and settle into membership of my new gens. I
look to my paterfamilias Marcus Marcius Rex, and my true
amici on the Senate, to watch out for me.

Livia Marcia Aurelia



"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:

> The best person to provide the reasons would be Livia
> Marcia (Cornelia)
> Aurelia and another party which upon my honor I do not
> disclose. I
> hesistate to bring up this matter since I am not directly
> involved....only
> peripherally. If she would like to share that
> information, then it would be
> completely OK with me. So, unfortuantely, upon my honor,
> I cannot divulge
> that information. I do hope you would understand.


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:13:51 US/Central

Salvete

I hesitate to continue this thread, as this has come up so often on this list.
However, I'm going to do it anyway.

> Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any dictionary.

Even if Draco didn't, I did. According to dictionary.com, a democracy is:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a
community.

Also according to dictionary.com, a republic is (among other things), "a
political system governed by the people or their representatives [syn:
democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy]"

Do notice that democracy is listed as a synonym for repbulic. The two terms
are extremely expansive, and their definitions overlap to a large degree. Like
the terms justice or freedom, you will seldom find two people who entirely
agree on what they mean. To define democracy as mob rule is to confine
yourself to an extremely narrow definition of the word. If you do this, you
must understand that others will not necessarily use the word as you do, and
that their usage is just as valid as yours, if not moreso.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] We do need a newsgroup, not a mailing list
From:	"Marcus Darius Ursus" <marcus_darius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:55:59 -0700

Salvete,

A compromise is in order perhaps? Maintain the mailing list, and have it
send the messages automatically to the new newsgroup. Those who wish to
receive Nova Roma messages through their e-mail accounts can stay on the
mailing list. Those who wish to pick it up in newsgroups can do so using
whichever newsgroup program they choose.

I would suggest selecting a moderator rather than a password... This way
prospective citizens could get a look at the way our micronation works
before signing up for citizenship.


Marcus Darius Ursus
Paterfamilias Daria
Legatus for the Regio of Athabasca
Provincia of Canada Occidentalis
--------------------------
marcus_darius@--------
Bellerophon@--------
ICQ: 83821138

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Law Idea
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:17:59 -0000

It seems as though Livia is the one is the injured party. Arraigned,
tried, convicted and "punished" -- and she doesn't know what it's
about. And she is being named as the reason for this one of Sulla's
legal ideas before the populous of Nova Roma, citizen and peregrini,
to the detriment of her image. Her dignitas is unscathed. She has
attacked no one. If there was soem sort of tranmitting of IM copies
it seems to have been for the use of a Nova Roma investigation, which
sounds official. If it is official then Nova Roma magistrates are
involved and I thought they had the trust of the citizens of Nova
Roma. But Livia suffered. (For being a good citizen???) Maybe this
whole thing should be buried so she can have some peace.

Caius Aelius Ericius.


--- In novaroma@--------, gmvick32@u... wrote:
> Salvete, Omnes,All
>
> It occurs to me that I STILL do not have a complete picture
> of what's been happening behind the scenes for some time
> now. All I know, DEFINITIVELY, is that I was accused to
> have contributed willingly to something which I neither
> consented to nor knew about. Understanding the correct
> context for the rest of the details which I have learned
> since Monday, are predicated on knowing other parts of the
> issue which remain blind to me.
>
> While I thought initially that I could support this idea, I
> don't think I still have the full story and therefore
> neither support nor stand against it.
>
> At this time I simply want to be quiet in the public arena,
> be allowed time to grieve privately for my losses, rebuild
> where I will, and settle into membership of my new gens. I
> look to my paterfamilias Marcus Marcius Rex, and my true
> amici on the Senate, to watch out for me.
>
> Livia Marcia Aurelia
>
>
>
> "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
>
> > The best person to provide the reasons would be Livia
> > Marcia (Cornelia)
> > Aurelia and another party which upon my honor I do not
> > disclose. I
> > hesistate to bring up this matter since I am not directly
> > involved....only
> > peripherally. If she would like to share that
> > information, then it would be
> > completely OK with me. So, unfortuantely, upon my honor,
> > I cannot divulge
> > that information. I do hope you would understand.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	[novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:22:24 +0100

Salve,

> In a democracy, the simple majority rules. So, if the majority wish to
> lynch a person based on his characteristics, then it would be legal to
> do so. That, in essence, is mob rule.

There are laws to prevent that.

> A republic has laws that state that the person cannot be lynched,
> regardless of what the majority wishes...

Why can't a republic be a democracy? That's an Americanocentric view of
yours. Look at my title for a similar example of reasoning.

> However, there must be people to defend the constitution and the
> republic
> in order for it to live.

Vale,
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:32:20 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> Salvete
>
> I hesitate to continue this thread, as this has come up so often on
this list.
> However, I'm going to do it anyway.
>
> > Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any
dictionary.
>
> Even if Draco didn't, I did. According to dictionary.com, a
democracy is:
> 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through
elected
> representatives.
> 2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
> 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political
power.
> 4. Majority rule.
> 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual
within a
> community.
>
> Also according to dictionary.com, a republic is (among other
things), "a
> political system governed by the people or their representatives
[syn:
> democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy]"
>
> Do notice that democracy is listed as a synonym for repbulic. The
two terms
> are extremely expansive, and their definitions overlap to a large
degree. Like
> the terms justice or freedom, you will seldom find two people who
entirely
> agree on what they mean. To define democracy as mob rule is to
confine
> yourself to an extremely narrow definition of the word. If you do
this, you
> must understand that others will not necessarily use the word as you
do, and
> that their usage is just as valid as yours, if not moreso.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus

Salvete

The terms Democarcy and Republic have been popularly misused to the
point that they no longer mean anmything other than "a form of
goverment that I people consider good". The definition for republic
contained "[ant: autocracy]", yet most would consider the People's
REPUBLIC of China and the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran to be very
autocratic. The eastern area of Germany was known as the German
DEMOCRATIC Republic, but it hardly met the traditional definition of a
Democarcy.

Because the meaning of democracy has been watered down so badly, I
tend to ignore the term as a meaningless feelgood term unless the
person using it takes the time to define what he means by "Democarcy",
and limit my use to it's traditional meaning of direct rule by the
people.

Valte
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:38:05 -0800

Ave

Respectfully, Livia, you and I both know that your post below is a bit
misleading. Especially given the posts and conversations you and I have
had since this past weekend. Especially in light of your recent (less
than 12 hours old) post sent to your new Pater and myself. Your post
here is going to confuse everyone further. So, I suggest to properly
inform the People you repast the message you sent to M. Marcius Rex and
myself to the Main list so that everyone might be able to judge for
themselves.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


gmvick32@-------- wrote:

> Salvete, Omnes,All
>
> It occurs to me that I STILL do not have a complete picture
> of what's been happening behind the scenes for some time
> now. All I know, DEFINITIVELY, is that I was accused to
> have contributed willingly to something which I neither
> consented to nor knew about. Understanding the correct
> context for the rest of the details which I have learned
> since Monday, are predicated on knowing other parts of the
> issue which remain blind to me.
>
> While I thought initially that I could support this idea, I
> don't think I still have the full story and therefore
> neither support nor stand against it.
>
> At this time I simply want to be quiet in the public arena,
> be allowed time to grieve privately for my losses, rebuild
> where I will, and settle into membership of my new gens. I
> look to my paterfamilias Marcus Marcius Rex, and my true
> amici on the Senate, to watch out for me.
>
> Livia Marcia Aurelia
>
> "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
>
> > The best person to provide the reasons would be Livia
> > Marcia (Cornelia)
> > Aurelia and another party which upon my honor I do not
> > disclose. I
> > hesistate to bring up this matter since I am not directly
> > involved....only
> > peripherally. If she would like to share that
> > information, then it would be
> > completely OK with me. So, unfortuantely, upon my honor,
> > I cannot divulge
> > that information. I do hope you would understand.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Basilica News
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:43:58 -0200

Salvete,

I am setting up database on Roman (antique) Magistrates, and would need
somebody
to test it.
It just in order to see if anybody else can access it, but any
suggestion
is welcome.

try:

http:200.183.94.23:8080/magistrates2.php

It s experimental and on my home computer, so for the moment no 24h
access etc.

M' Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:54:18 -0200

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> > Salvete
> >
> > I hesitate to continue this thread, as this has come up so often on
> this list.
> > However, I'm going to do it anyway.
> >
> > > Draco, I would only ask you to look up democracy in any
> dictionary.
> >
> > Even if Draco didn't, I did. According to dictionary.com, a
> democracy is:
> > 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through
> elected
> > representatives.
> > 2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
> > 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political
> power.
> > 4. Majority rule.
> > 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual
> within a
> > community.
> >
> > Also according to dictionary.com, a republic is (among other
> things), "a
> > political system governed by the people or their representatives
> [syn:
> > democracy, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy]"
> >
> > Do notice that democracy is listed as a synonym for repbulic. The
> two terms
> > are extremely expansive, and their definitions overlap to a large
> degree. Like
> > the terms justice or freedom, you will seldom find two people who
> entirely
> > agree on what they mean. To define democracy as mob rule is to
> confine
> > yourself to an extremely narrow definition of the word. If you do
> this, you
> > must understand that others will not necessarily use the word as you
> do, and
> > that their usage is just as valid as yours, if not moreso.
> >
> > Valete
> > T Labienus Fortunatus
>
> Salvete
>
> The terms Democarcy and Republic have been popularly misused to the
> point that they no longer mean anmything other than "a form of
> goverment that I people consider good". The definition for republic
> contained "[ant: autocracy]", yet most would consider the People's
> REPUBLIC of China and the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran to be very
> autocratic.

No they are not, in both cases the leaders don t nominate themselves
(auto-)
that s exactly the definition of a Republic : No automatic/divine right
to become the leader. The leader is choosen by some way be it
democratic, oligarchic or any other way (say public concurse).

> The eastern area of Germany was known as the German
> DEMOCRATIC Republic, but it hardly met the traditional definition of a
> Democarcy.

Again yes it was DEMOCRATIC in the sense ploutocratic : dictature of the
proletariate.

>
> Because the meaning of democracy has been watered down so badly, I
> tend to ignore the term as a meaningless feelgood term unless the
> person using it takes the time to define what he means by "Democarcy",
> and limit my use to it's traditional meaning of direct rule by the
> people.

That was traditional until the foundation of the USA and shortly after
the french revolution, that s over 200 years old. Today democracy seems
to mean mostly "representative democracy" meaning the origin of power
lies with the people,
even if by some indirect means the top leader is not the most
voted/wanted guy
(like in China or the USA).

Manius Villius Limitanus.

>
> Valte
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Platner and Ashby Dic. of Rome available on the Perseus web site
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:05:08 EST

Salvete Citizens FYI

The Perseus Project is pleased to announce the addition of Samuel Ball
Platner and Thomas Ashby's 1928 edition of "A Topographical Dictionary of
Ancient Rome" to the Classics collection.

Platner and Ashby's "A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome" is one of
the primary sources for the study of Roman Topography. Since the
dictionary documents the state of our understanding of the topography of
Rome as of 1928, some material is understandably now out-of-date. But, the
wealth of information contained in the dictionary, including references to
scholarship and primary source materials (for example, CIL inscriptions
and ancient authors) still makes Platner and Ashby a valuable introductory
resource for studying the growth and development of Rome from a literary,
historical, and archaeological perspective.

Images from the Perseus Roman image catalog are in the process of being
linked to the dictionary entries. Currently, images are only available for
larger topographical topics (i.e. Campus Martius). In addition, the
dictionary will eventually be linked to maps of Rome.

Some quick links:

1. sample entry - Campus Martius

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054&q

uery=head%3D%23323"

2. main text
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054

3. table of contents

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0054&l

ayout=&loc=preface&query=toc

If you encounter any problems with the text please let us know. Email a
detailed message to webmaster@--------

Thank You,
Robert Chavez
Perseus Project

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <drusus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:11:06 -0000

>
> That was traditional until the foundation of the USA and shortly
after
> the french revolution, that s over 200 years old. Today democracy
seems
> to mean mostly "representative democracy" meaning the origin of
power
> lies with the people,
> even if by some indirect means the top leader is not the most
> voted/wanted guy
> (like in China or the USA).
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus.
>
> >
> > Valte
> > Lucius Sicinius Drusus

I only ment to give a few examples of how democarcy and republic can
mean different things to different people, and that is why I tend to
ignore the words, unless the person using them states what his
definitation is.
As for the USA's selection of a President, that system is modeled on
the Roman method of selecting the Consul. In both cases the Person who
carries the State or Centuary recives the vote.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:22:54 -0600

S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
>
> Why can't a republic be a democracy? That's an Americanocentric view of
> yours. Look at my title for a similar example of reasoning.
>
>
> Vale,
> Draco

I am guessing because they are two different things:


Republic: Roman Definition, "a system of government in which both the
people and
their rulers are subject to law".

Republic: as defined by Aristotle (The Greek), Livy (Roman), and
Harington (British
Statesman), "a government of laws and not of men."

Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts
and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit
suicide."
(I can vouch for this since I was in a democratic car club which
basically fell)

Many people think that the United States is a democracy, which is false:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 ~ The United States shall
guarantee to
every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall
protect
each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or
of the executive
(when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor,
gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others,
and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."

About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves
oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is
flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer
willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be
subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government
assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in
fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."

And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than
wars or tyrants."

Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	[novaroma] Classification
From:	"Jeroen Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:11:05 +0100

Salve quoque,

> Salve,
>
> <Replies begin PVS>
>
> I've never said that it's "us" versus "them". I'm afraid you're mistaking
me
> with someone else, or perhaps you might think that all Amici are basically
> clones of each other.
>
> PVS: I am not mistaking you for anyone. Your post, in which you,
> personally, classified the elected officials according to whether or not
> they were AD, along with your commentary on what you feel that reflects
> about the people's opinion of the AD, stands by itself. I would not say
> that all AD are clones at all. I do believe there are those who signed the
> Statement as just that, a statement of principals. Then there are others,
> yourself among them, who appear to treat the AD as nothing more than a
> political party. Those who "tote the party line" do, indeed, sound
similar,
> although clone is not the word I would have chosen.

People can agree on certain topics, as you well know. But this didn't make
us a party, although I understand we were sometimes viewed thusly. What I do
not understand, however, is that all doom prophets claim the chaos of the AD
when we have internal disagreements, and say we are disorganized, poorly
misled souls (not litterally said that way, 'fcourse), and then those very
same people claim the AD are a party when we are in agreement. To use the
running gag of the past few days: you can't have it both ways. To return to
your initial argument: I didn't classify the election results according to
AD/non-AD just to make such statement.

>
> > You cannot have it both ways.
>
> Popular phrase here lately.
>
> PVS: True statement. You (anyone really, this hardly impacts you alone)
> cannot, from one side of your mouth claim the AD is a neutral forum for
> discussions and then, from the other side of your mouth proclaim the
success
> of the AD members as elected officials in the political arena. Either the
> AD is a neutral group or it is the political party you make it out to be.
> Truthfully, the reality probably lies somewhere between those two ideas,
but
> as I pointed out before.......you, personally, have claimed both. You
> cannot have it both ways.

The DignitasForum is neutral. No one there is denied access to anything. The
AD on itself is not. But tell me if wanting simple, people-involving good
politics with some ethical backgrounds is a major extreme political
statement? I daresay it is not. Any other opinion signatories to the
Statement hold is absolutely their own and not to be associated with the AD
as such.

>
> > If you truly see the AD as simply a
> > philosophical group that should not be brought into political parties
and
> > factions (as the Statement itself implies), perhaps you should refrain
> from
> > classifying votes based on whether the elected are AD or not. Unless you
> do
> > so, you will remain part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>
> I didn't classify these votes. Octavius tried to point out that the AD as
a
> whole didn't do too well, and I responded. Of what "problem" am I a part
> then? This is an accusation I don't really understand, and certainly not
on
> a personal level.
>
> PVS: I am afraid you are in error here. In archived message number
18139,
> you classified the elections according to AD affiliation. You did so in
> response to a general comment by Germanicus as to what he saw as a lack of
> support for the AD. Perhaps it was my use of the term classification that
> caused your confusion. The problem I see you as a part of is that of
trying
> to break down our res publica into "us versus them", AD or not, etc. That
> you cannot see where you own statements in this regard can be seen as
> divisive worries me.

If merely talking about how the AD fared in the elections is a divisive
posting, I wonder what's going to come next. It's not "us versus them", but
the group I am part of was in some sort of way attacked, and I simply
responded.

> Is this a personal attack? By no means. I do not know you personally,
and
> therefore can judge only your words here in the forum. Your words, in this
> case, concern me and serve as further evidence of a polarization that some
> here seem bent on fostering in Nova Roma. That your voice is not raised
in
> Concordia, but instead is raised in counting votes by AD affiliation or
not
> was the basis for my original commentary. I hope this clarifies where I am
> coming from for you.

It does, but I think it's an overreaction.

Vale,
Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:55:09 -0200

"C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
>
> S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
> >
> > Why can't a republic be a democracy? That's an Americanocentric view of
> > yours. Look at my title for a similar example of reasoning.
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> > Draco
>

Salvete,

> I am guessing because they are two different things:
>
> Republic: Roman Definition, "a system of government in which both the
> people and
> their rulers are subject to law".
>

How can you manage to find so many false citations !

Res Publica : Roman definition: Public affairs = State affairs as
opposed to Private affairs. There is nothing else in the latin name.

> Republic: as defined by Aristotle (The Greek), Livy (Roman), and
> Harington (British
> Statesman), "a government of laws and not of men."
>

That Aristotle definition of what we usually traduce "Democracy" in
greek isonomia : same laws., in opposition to monarchy/tirany.

I don t know what were Livy s terms and don t know Harrington.

> Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
> exhausts
> and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit
> suicide."
> (I can vouch for this since I was in a democratic car club which
> basically fell)
>
> Many people think that the United States is a democracy, which is false:
> U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 ~ The United States shall
> guarantee to
> every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall
> protect
> each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or
> of the executive
> (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
>
> About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor,
> gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others,
> and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
>

Again this is untrue this is what Plato wrote about ploutocraty the evil
conjugate of democracy=isonomia just like

> About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves
> oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is
> flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer
> willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be
> subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government
> assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in
> fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."
>
> And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than
> wars or tyrants."
>
> Cordially,
> C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	[novaroma] Democracy and Republic: no opposition!
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:24:33 +0100

Salvete omnes,


Despite the definition of Fortunatus' e-dictionary on democracy and
republic, I personally see the following oppositions:

democracy versus tyranny
republic versus monarchy


For example, Belgium is a democratic monarchy. The various sources C. Citius
Cattus cites (what an alleteration :)) apply to the situation in Belgium,
despite the fact it is °not° a republic.


Cattus:
<<Republic: Roman Definition, "a system of government in which both the
people and their rulers are subject to law".>>

Draco:
This applies to my own country, a democratic monarchy.

Cattus:
<<Republic: as defined by Aristotle (The Greek), Livy (Roman), and Harington
(British Statesman), "a government of laws and not of men.">>

Draco:
No country in the world is not governed by men (or women)! But if you mean
laws rather than arbitrary whims, then this also applies for my country, a
democratic monarchy.

Cattus:
<<Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit
suicide." (I can vouch for this since I was in a democratic car club which
basically fell).>>

Draco:
I'm yet to see the fall of Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK, France, Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Finland, Iceland, Luxemburg, Switzerland
and many others as democratic systems, which are sometimes republics and
sometimes monarchies. I think it was Plato who also pointed out the
fallibility of democracy, °but° also said that any other system is equally
vulnerable. Democracy as we know it today is much mure advantegeous for
everyone than any other system, and democracy is °°not°° opposed to
republic, as Fortunatus pointed out. Democracitc republics exist, too.

Cattus:
<<Many people think that the United States is a democracy, which is false:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 ~ The United States shall guarantee
to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall
protect
each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of
the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic
violence.>>

Draco:
It does not say that the US isn't democratic, it merely says it's a
republic, which is not the same.

Cattus:
<<About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor,
gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the
offices among the remaining citizens equally.">>

Draco:
As I said before, he also wrote things about the downfall of oligarchy and
tyranny.

Cattus:
<<About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves oppressed
by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by others. Fired with
evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit to control, but demand
that everything be subject to their authority. The invariable result is that
government assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in fact
the most execrable thing, mob rule.">>
<<And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than wars
or tyrants.">>

Draco:
Both of these men were probably referring to Athenian democracy, which I in
no way wish to see recreated. Polybius and Seneca didn't have the slightest
notion of what democracies mean today.


Vale bene!
Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Basilica News
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:29:58 EST

Salvete,

I just tried it 2X and received a negative response, not found, etc. I tried
btwn 12:15 pm and 12:25 PST. I printed out your message and input according
to your direction to the web.

Vale,

L. Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:51:01 -0800 (PST)

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:

I'm not addressing the contents of this post, but must
say that the subject is the best I've read in a
loooooooong time!

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Democracy and Republic: no opposition!
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:13:52 -0600

Draco, I believe you to be basing all of your insights on what you see
and hear in the textbooks and the media. Considering the fact that the
United
States has had suxh growth over the past two centuries and many people
seem to immigrate
to it, then I have faith that what the Founding Fathers said was true.
IF a democracy
and a republic were the same, then why is there NO mention of a
democracy in the United
States Constitution? If there is no opposition, then WHY were the U.S.
Founding Fathers
adamantly opposed to creating a democratic system and were unanimous in
giving this nation a republic as its political system?


"
Both of these men were probably referring to Athenian democracy, which I
in
no way wish to see recreated. Polybius and Seneca didn't have the
slightest
notion of what democracies mean today."

If we cannot base our points on precedents, then what is the point of
studying these
classical cultures? What would be the point of Nova Roma then? We
study it because
we want to know how to apply what worked to our culture of to-day and
how to avoid the
past mistakes, a la Greek democracy. I have a good friend that has a
doctrine in political
science, and I believe his words and mine mean something.

Cordially,
C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:18:46 -0200

Seems "somebody" (my daughter who wanted to play) hit send before I
finished.

Michel Loos wrote:
>
> "C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
> >
> > S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
> > >
> > > Why can't a republic be a democracy? That's an Americanocentric view of
> > > yours. Look at my title for a similar example of reasoning.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > Draco
> >
>
> Salvete,
>
> > I am guessing because they are two different things:
> >
> > Republic: Roman Definition, "a system of government in which both the
> > people and
> > their rulers are subject to law".
> >
>
> How can you manage to find so many false citations !
>
> Res Publica : Roman definition: Public affairs = State affairs as
> opposed to Private affairs. There is nothing else in the latin name.
>
> > Republic: as defined by Aristotle (The Greek), Livy (Roman), and
> > Harington (British
> > Statesman), "a government of laws and not of men."
> >
>
> That Aristotle definition of what we usually traduce "Democracy" in
> greek isonomia : same laws., in opposition to monarchy/tirany.
>
> I don t know what were Livy s terms and don t know Harrington.
>

Thats what I was checking while leting my computer without surveillance
and I just can t find to what you are refeering.
Is it the intial lines of Livy after the expulsiuons of the kings:
"
It is of a Rome henceforth free that I am to write the history--her
civil administration and the conduct of her wars, her annually elected
magistrates,
the authority of her laws supreme over all her
citizens."
This continues with
"The tyranny of the last king made this liberty all the more welcome,"

Clearly showing the opposition with tiranny/monarchy (and nowhere does
it speak of
"Republic")


> Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
> > exhausts
> > and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit
> > suicide."
> > (I can vouch for this since I was in a democratic car club which
> > basically fell)
> >
> > Many people think that the United States is a democracy, which is false:
> > U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 ~ The United States shall
> > guarantee to
> > every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall
> > protect
> > each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or
> > of the executive
> > (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
> >
> > About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor,
> > gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others,
> > and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
> >
>
> Again this is untrue this is what Plato wrote about ploutocraty the evil
> conjugate of democracy=isonomia just like
>

Of course not ploutocraty(government by the riches Plato's opposite to
aristocraty) I didn t find the word
ouchlocraty?.
It s from the part of the Republic where Plato defines Monarchy as the
best but tiranny as the worst government and ends up with democraty as
worst of the good but its opposite (described by this citation) as the
best of the evil governments.

> > About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves
> > oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is
> > flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer
> > willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be
> > subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government
> > assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in
> > fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."

About what ?

> >
> > And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than
> > wars or tyrants."

No Seneca at hand, but this one could be true just the date is wrong
Senaca the older is born in B.C and as far as I know his History of Rome
is lost
the Seneca we all know wrote around 63AD under Nero's Rule (he was his
praeceptor)
any wonder he could have written that?

Manius Villius Limitanus

> >
> > Cordially,
> > C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Basilica News
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:25:10 -0200

tekwkp@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>
> I just tried it 2X and received a negative response, not found, etc. I tried
> btwn 12:15 pm and 12:25 PST. I printed out your message and input according
> to your direction to the web.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Cornelius Drusus

Thanks for this answer.

I mistyped the address:
http://200.183.94.23:8080/magistrates2.php

can you try again (and ask for a detail since I got 2 hits on the first
page)

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Law Idea
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:46:07 -0700

Respectfully, Sulla, I decline your suggestion. Continue on
with the pursuit of your law -- just do it without me at
this time. That's all I ask. I thought I could do it right
now, but I'm not big enough.

The only action I have left to me at this time is not to
willingly make myself a political tool for you or anyone
else to manipulate. I MUST be allowed to have private time
with this, to absorb my lessons and my shame, and to sort
out my friends from those who would hurt me.

I have been doing my best to be reasonable, collect
information from all sides, and take full consideration of
what's being said -- and considering that I am most wronged
here, that's something I expect to be respected for. I have
been willing to come to a state of at least partial amicita
with you, specifically. I will not accept as the price of
that amicita that I have to share every shred of this
incident with every Nova Roman.

If anybody comes to me for information and has a genuine
need for more information, I will freely and accurately
share what I know. If there are ever any specific and
concrete charges provided to me that I need to address, I
will unflinchingly address them no matter the cost to me.
Otherwise, I will give only the most essential information
to the broadest audience, out of the motivation of
protecting first and foremost myself and my gens, Marcia.

Remember, Sulla, that you chose to both accuse me and remove
me from your gens in the course of a single conversation,
and remember also that I have never had the benefit of
actually SEEING any of said charges that I am reported to
have contributed to.

The people of Nova Roma do not need every discussion in this
farce dragged in front of them. If you forward on to
ANYBODY any part of the email that I sent to Rex and copied
you on, I will consider that a breach of honor on your
part. Everybody's honor has been damaged enough, we don't
need to keep taking it further. Do not give me cause to
regret placing the faith of that email in you, especially
when our faith in each other has been so severally strained.

The discussion has now gone internal to gens Marcia. Sorry,
but I've been asked to believe (not from you, but from
others) that gens Cornelia is having internal discussions on
the subject, without knowledge of the specifics of those
discussions since I'm no longer in gens Cornelia by your
decision.

Identically, the conversation I copied you on has extended
inside gens Marcia. I will now protect the nature of those
discussions. Just as you would want me to keep the
discussion specific to gens Cornelia. If there's anything
I've learned from this, it's specifically NOT to repeat
potentially sensitive conversations with gens members to
anyone else. A huge SHAME ON ME for ever having done so,
and eternal shame on me if I ever do so again.

Livia Marcia Aurelia


Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Ave
>
> Respectfully, Livia, you and I both know that your post
> below is a bit
> misleading. Especially given the posts and conversations
> you and I have
> had since this past weekend. Especially in light of your
> recent (less
> than 12 hours old) post sent to your new Pater and
> myself. Your post
> here is going to confuse everyone further. So, I suggest
> to properly
> inform the People you repast the message you sent to M.
> Marcius Rex and
> myself to the Main list so that everyone might be able to
> judge for
> themselves.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > Salvete, Omnes,All
> >
> > It occurs to me that I STILL do not have a complete
> picture
> > of what's been happening behind the scenes for some time
>
> > now. All I know, DEFINITIVELY, is that I was accused to
>
> > have contributed willingly to something which I neither
> > consented to nor knew about. Understanding the correct
> > context for the rest of the details which I have learned
>
> > since Monday, are predicated on knowing other parts of
> the
> > issue which remain blind to me.
> >
> > While I thought initially that I could support this
> idea, I
> > don't think I still have the full story and therefore
> > neither support nor stand against it.
> >
> > At this time I simply want to be quiet in the public
> arena,
> > be allowed time to grieve privately for my losses,
> rebuild
> > where I will, and settle into membership of my new
> gens. I
> > look to my paterfamilias Marcus Marcius Rex, and my true
>
> > amici on the Senate, to watch out for me.
> >
> > Livia Marcia Aurelia
> >
> > "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> >
> > > The best person to provide the reasons would be Livia
> > > Marcia (Cornelia)
> > > Aurelia and another party which upon my honor I do not
>
> > > disclose. I
> > > hesistate to bring up this matter since I am not
> directly
> > > involved....only
> > > peripherally. If she would like to share that
> > > information, then it would be
> > > completely OK with me. So, unfortuantely, upon my
> honor,
> > > I cannot divulge
> > > that information. I do hope you would understand.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor

www.


>


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Democracy and Republic: no opposition!
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:40:29 -0200

"C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
>
> Draco, I believe you to be basing all of your insights on what you see
> and hear in the textbooks and the media. Considering the fact that the
> United
> States has had suxh growth over the past two centuries and many people
> seem to immigrate
> to it, then I have faith that what the Founding Fathers said was true.
> IF a democracy
> and a republic were the same, then why is there NO mention of a
> democracy in the United
> States Constitution? If there is no opposition, then WHY were the U.S.
> Founding Fathers
> adamantly opposed to creating a democratic system and were unanimous in
> giving this nation a republic as its political system?

All of this seems so absurd that perhaps in "US english" the meaning are
different
then in rest of the world.
The USA have a democratic system : representative democraty which the
founding fathers invented and today is called simply democraty in
opposition to "direct democracy" which was called democracy by the
ancients, in an ancient/greek democracy the magistrates are taken by
lot, in a modern democracy they are elected by all the people, this we
owe to the founding fathers of the USA.

The sense of democraty has changed a lot since Antiquity just as the
sense of republic which was just as I already stated : State Affairs
with no meaning on the form of goverment. The Res Publica Romanorum was
first a monarchy, then a republic and finally an empire, but in all that
time it was the Res Publicae.

Republic is a word that remained with the same sense since the middle
ages : government without a King/Emperor/etc. Venice was a Republic for
as long as it existed as an independent state, so were o lot of cities,
but they were no democracies just oligogarchies few had the right to
vote.



>
> "
> Both of these men were probably referring to Athenian democracy, which I
> in
> no way wish to see recreated. Polybius and Seneca didn't have the
> slightest
> notion of what democracies mean today."
>
> If we cannot base our points on precedents, then what is the point of
> studying these
> classical cultures? What would be the point of Nova Roma then? We
> study it because
> we want to know how to apply what worked to our culture of to-day and
> how to avoid the
> past mistakes, a la Greek democracy. I have a good friend that has a
> doctrine in political
> science, and I believe his words and mine mean something.
>
> Cordially,
> C. Citius Cattus

Subject:	[novaroma] Cui custodes ipso custodes?
From:	nramos@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:20:52 -0000

Ave Quirites!
Marius Cornelius Scipio stands before the Curia Hostilia:

I have been somewhat appalled at the readiness of those who ignore a
lot of the facts of the "recent problem" of the Cornelli to savage
Sulla because he tried to suggest that it might be a good idea to
protect the privacy of ANY cives of Nova Roma, where private
conversations might be concerned. If in fact there is an ongoing
investigation, why is it that our magistrates have not announced
anything about it? As Curule Aedile, I have not heard anything from
our Consules, Praetores, etc. regarding any such investigation. And I
thought one of my functions was to assist the Praetores with any such
matters (if I am mistaken in this, my apologies to you all, cives).

I also have something that I want to state once and for all - I am a
very strong believer in the idea that privatus rebus - private
things,
are not, and should not, be the concern of the State. If State laws
are being broken, then the magistrates have every right to intervene;
otherwise, I do not favor compulsory tapping/taping of conversations,
DNA testing, etc. That route presumes that EVERY cives is GUILTY of
something - we just don't know what yet. It goes against every right
and every concept of Dignitas, Veritas, Amor et Concordia that was
ever espoused in the Res Publica Romana. We are trying to re-create
the best of the old Res Publica, and meld it with the best of our
Modern Res Publica; and we start by trying to institute a police
state
complete with thought police and persecutions? If this is the
consensus of this Urbs, then I think I had better leave. I for one do
not believe in making the State the absolute power over the lives of
it's cives by hiding behind the so-called "good of the whole".

It is shameful to me that many cives in this forum do not come here
to help build our Urbs; they come here to engage in personal attacks,
in factionalism, in petty squabbling - the very things that helped
destroy the old Res Publica in the first place!!! I am here because I
want to learn about Roma Antiqua, I want to rescue those things that
made Her the "Lux Mundi" of Her centuries, because I want to share my
passion for all things Roman with others of like mind. I am not here
to listen to the petty squabbles of would-be
dictators/autocrats/socialists/etc. and to their endless name-calling
and abuse. We are trying to build Nova Roma - please stop trying to
destroy Her!

If we are cives who wish to elevate Nova Roma - let us work together
to do so. If we are here to attack each other and become
laughingstocks for the casual observer - then Vale! I for one intend
to work as Curule Aedile, with my Collegas, with the Tribunii, with
the Consules and the Censors, with the Patres et Matres Conscriptii
of
the Senate, and every other cives who so cares to do so, for the good
of Nova Roma. If I make mistakes, I will apologize for them and make
amends, but I have had well enough with the backbiting, the
innuendos,
and the intriguing I have seen since before the Elections! We have
joined this polites VOLUNTARILY, and I hope with the idea of doing
something good! Let us now endeavour to do so.

Vale, et Iuppiter nos protegas!

Marius Cornelius Scipio

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Basilica News
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:31:04 EST

I'll be glad to! Some of those Web addresses can be a pain in the neck, miss
one thing and it's a no go, as you know. It's a worthwhile task to do, here
about. We're having a windy storm. Get back to you soon!

Vale!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Democracy and Republic: no opposition!
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:21:08 +0100

Salve!

My (hopefully) last few words on the subject.

> Draco, I believe you to be basing all of your insights on what you see
> and hear in the textbooks and the media.

I don't really know what's this supposed to mean, as there's no proof for
that claim. But I assure you that I am a long way from being indoctrinated
or brainwashed. FYI, I have no cable tv and rarely watch tv, and I'm no
great reader. So much for my brainwashing. I like to prefer to think that my
thoughts are based on critical (self-)examination and scepticism, not the
opinions of someone else.

> Considering the fact that the
> United
> States has had suxh growth over the past two centuries and many people
> seem to immigrate
> to it, then I have faith that what the Founding Fathers said was true.

Countries change, and so must laws. With all due respect to your Founding
Fathers, but even a traditional society like Rome changed °quite° a bit in
two centuries, while they still honoured °their° founding fathers. People
immigrated to the US not because of the Founding Fathers, but because they
thought they'd have a better life there. It has only partially to do with
the political system. Besides, when the second large immigration wave hit
America, the political and legal system had been changed already.

> IF a democracy
> and a republic were the same, then why is there NO mention of a
> democracy in the United
> States Constitution? If there is no opposition, then WHY were the U.S.
> Founding Fathers
> adamantly opposed to creating a democratic system and were unanimous in
> giving this nation a republic as its political system?

Were they so adamantly opposed to democracy? Prove me. Even if they were, as
said in my above paragraph, the US has gone through some changes since the
18th century. Democracy and republic are °not necessarily° the same, but
they °can° be the same.

> If we cannot base our points on precedents, then what is the point of
> studying these
> classical cultures? What would be the point of Nova Roma then? We
> study it because
> we want to know how to apply what worked to our culture of to-day and
> how to avoid the
> past mistakes, a la Greek democracy. I have a good friend that has a
> doctrine in political
> science, and I believe his words and mine mean something.

More than likely. But I'm not into a dèmokratia Hèllenika, as I said before,
and I admit it was a mistake. But not every democracy is an Athenian one,
just like not every republic is a Soviet one. You can of course base
arguments on precedents, but political precedents should always be viewed in
their proper context.

Vale bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
Legatus Galliae Borealis,
Procurator Galliae,
Scriba Aedilis Plebis,
Coryphaeus Sodalitatis Musarum,
Musaeus Collegii Eratus,
Musaeus Collegii Uraniae
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
Novaromain? Parlez-vous français? Cliquez ici!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_GalliaBelgicaF
Nieuwromein? Spreekt u Nederlands? Klik hier!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NRGallia_BelgicaBataviaD
Novaroman? Interested in philosophy? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Philosophy
Novaroman? Interested in politics? Click here!:
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_DignitasForum

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Basilica News
From:	tekwkp@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:12:47 EST

I tried again, and struck out! I will cool it and try again in an hour or so.
Maybe there is a telecomunications problem. It took me some time to retrieve
an E-card from someone i know living in Dallas. Will advise.

Lentulus Cornelius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:15:45 -0700

Salvete:

In my opinion, the meaning of the words "Democracy" and
"Republic" only begins to be addressed by the use of regular
and political science dictionaries. We can go deeper.

I think this particular thread of discussion is a very
useful one. We have not only to consider the evolution of
"Democracy" vs. "Republic" through the course of several
thousand years, but through it's implementations in
different societies. So yes....."Democracy" and "Republic"
meant something different to the Greeks and Romans than to
the 21st century, and in our own time has been stretched for
propaganda and ideology to governments as diverse as the
United States, China, East Germany, etc.

Saying that is all well and good......now here's the
concrete thing I can give to those interested in this topic.

There is a book, called "Democracy: History, Theory,
Practice", by Sanford Lakoff. Please read it. The section
on how the Roman Republic ebbed and flowed in its
relationship towards Athenian democracy is especially
pithy. You'll get to start at the beginning of democracy
and go all the way to the modern world. It's quite
informative, and I think we can then see that evolution of
the ideas isn't as simple as stating they are watered down,
meaningless, feel-good terms.

Livia Marcia Aurelia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	djester6@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:18:14 EST

In a message dated 1/25/01 1:02:59 AM Central Standard Time,
marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- writes:

<< But that is an ancient democracy. Britain is called a democracy.
And only the various ministers or lords vote on issues. The only
democratic bit about it is that the people vote in those ministers.

Although ancient countries may have been democratic in that way, but
I do not know of a single country today that is.
>>

so too is America called a democracy, but in true essence, it is a Republic.
but, i am not talking about historical references here. i am talking in terms
of concepts, outside of historical context. yes, things can be taken out
their historical context in an effort to objectively define them. democracy
in it's most literal term is a rule by the masses (sounds familiar to
Marxism?), and that is what makes it so dangerous. It says that the rights of
the individual outweigh the needs or wants of the group. Refer to Atlas
Shrugged by Ayn Rand to examine this in a deeper effort.

Vale,

Lugus Brigantius

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Cui custodes ipso custodes?
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:24:18 -0700

Salve, dear Scipio:

You haven't heard anything about it since they are trying
not to do anything with the charges as submitted. I believe
the magistrates don't want to have to pursue the
investigation. I know the investigation is not ABOUT me,
it's about others, and you and I know the same information
on that. Beyond that, I'm in the dark as much as you are
about the nature of it. I don't think it serves anybody to
know more right now.

Otherwise, well stated and I agree with the rest of your
sentiments. I will try to do my part to live up to them.

Livia Marcia Aurelia

nramos@-------- wrote:

> Ave Quirites!
> Marius Cornelius Scipio stands before the Curia Hostilia:
>
> I have been somewhat appalled at the readiness of those
> who ignore a
> lot of the facts of the "recent problem" of the Cornelli
> to savage
> Sulla because he tried to suggest that it might be a good
> idea to
> protect the privacy of ANY cives of Nova Roma, where
> private
> conversations might be concerned. If in fact there is an
> ongoing
> investigation, why is it that our magistrates have not
> announced
> anything about it? As Curule Aedile, I have not heard
> anything from
> our Consules, Praetores, etc. regarding any such
> investigation. And I
> thought one of my functions was to assist the Praetores
> with any such
> matters (if I am mistaken in this, my apologies to you
> all, cives).
>


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