Probably wise of you. You'd lose.



Geography card alert! Talk about not even bringing anything new to the table.



And I was the Chin's unknown third son. (See what I did there?)



99% of everything I need to know is available from public information in the form of the FBI, the press, etc. And that's where you get most of your information as well. And the FBI will always be more credible than internet posters.



So, you're going to use that as a blanket excuse to disagree with the feds whenever you please? By the same token, I could say that we should almost never believe internet posters considering how often they've been wrong.



You keep repeating this over and over again but what evidence, other than your own word, do you have to support this claim? My guess is absolutely nothing. It's just a way for you to pad the numbers in order to make the Outfit look bigger than it is.



LOL! And then you woke up.



Not if we go the the more credible FBI numbers and not the ones you pulled out of your ass.



Size isn't everything but it's a major factor, including what will stave off general attrition most directly. And nothing has killed off LCN families more than general attrition.



Lame excuse. The FBI hasn't bothered to do so because there isn't any difference between "members" and "soldiers" in the Outfit. That's something you have just made up. Again, if you can provide any evidence (other than your own word) to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it.



There really is no difference in structure today. Most of the things that made the Outfit different from the other families are long outdated and no longer apply. Read the Family Secrets indictment. The Outfit is structured the same way as the others. There is an administration in some form at the top, captains or "street bosses" below, each of whom head a crew of soldiers and associates.

Yes, it has become repetitive and annoying. But you should be blaming the bullshitters who keep coming out of the woodwork. Not me.

Ivy, Shut the fuck up and don't talk to me about Chicago again. understand.

Wait....so you're saying you don't have any evidence to back up your claims about the Outfit's structure or it's size? Didn't think so.

Take the hostility off the boards.

Ivy League, I apologize. I now see it your way. According to the official Chicago Crime Commission's report which was verified by the F.B.I IN 1997, the Outfit had between 700 and 1,200 Associates. Nothing else matters in determining the Structure of the Outfit or the manpower. All that matters is the Official Report that comes out from a verified Government agency. Correct? Isn't that what you've been preaching about on these threads every time somebody has an insight into something that you were never privy to? If the Oufit had downsized for one reason or another 10 years later in 2007 by an agreed upon 50% to 60%, then the number of made guys in 2007 would be about 30 and the number of Associates would be between 300 & 500.

It is your fault. He should be blaming you. You were distinctly told in the OP that your input wasn't desired in this thread. Yet you posted anyway. That's the problem with you, here and on the other forum. Can't you fucking exercise any self-restraint?

It's obvious at this point everyone on every mafia forum is aware of your opinion on the matter. Yet you persist in shoving the same posts down everyone's throat. Why? You think someone who disagreed with you the first 500 times you adressed him is going to magically agree with you the 501st?

Stop ruining every Chicago thread with your antics!

I don't regularly post here but have been reading the forums for quite a while.

The difference between elmwood and some of the more "fanboyish" Chi-Town posters is that he actually articulates and writes his posts in a manner which at least exudes plausibility. Nothing he claims is truly outrageous and his posts are at least consistent - which leads me to believe that he isn't just making things up as he goes along.

Ivy is an excellent poster and knows his stuff and I understand why it is difficult for him to accept elmwood's posts at face value. I don't take elmwood's posts as gospel either but they at least provide interesting insights and theories into the Outfit's operations, past and present - whether you want to entertain those options should be up to you personally.

Tyler Durden, He's had several months to shove his ONE Fed report down everyone's throat. I've only had less than one week. I guess I was trying to make up for lost time. I apologize. It was hard for me to read his stuff about Chicago all based upon one Feds Report. The lesson is that the Feds reports are conflicting and anyone can choose to believe which one suits their needs. I appreciate your comment and do not take it personally.

As I pointed out in another thread, the 70 member figure from the CCC in 1997 was an estimate and not specific figure like the more recent FBI figure. And if you take away the Outfit members who have died since 1997, it matches up with the 28-30 members cited in 2007. As for the associate estimates, those are obviously going to be much more flexible as the definition of an associate differs. However, considering the modern day Outfit's smaller core of made guys, a little over 100 associates is easier to believe than 700-1,200 or even half that.



You'd have a point if this thread hadn't strayed from the original topic. But elmwoodparker and I have been having the same debate in 3 or 4 different threads so it's not like I was the only one who "ruined" this thread.



What "one fed report" are you talking about? The Family Secrets case? I have more than that when it comes to the Outfit's current membership. I have two FBI officials in Chicago saying the same thing on that.

Are you fucking serious? That's your defense?

So let me get this straight: despite the fact that, by your own admission, you were having the same debate in 3 or 4 other threads, you had to have it again in this thread?
Couldn't you restrain yourself?
This thread might have "strayed from the original topic" but it didn't become a clusterfuck until you quoted elmwoodparker's post, knowing full well it was going to spark the same debate you had in 4 other thread.
You had to do it, you couldn't restrain yourself.

And then you post shit like this:

Why are you trying to bait him? Believe it or not, not everybody likes to furiously jerk off to their "debating" prowess every time they log onto a forum.

Believe it or not, some people, like myself, just like to read about things they have little knowledge of. Some people like elmwoodparker just like to share information about things they feel they have knowledge of, without being hassled from thread to thread like they're being audited by the IRS. This thread was adressed from the beginning to "Chicago guys", and you were not-so-subtly told that your input wasn't wanted by the OP. Yet you just had to come in anyway and stir some shit by "correcting" elmwoodparker.

It doesn't matter if he's "right" or "wrong". If you don't agree with him, you feel his "sources" are inadequate or whatever, that's your problem. Others may feel differently.

Show some fucking restraint for once in your life and stop ruining every Chicago thread.

maybe you need a little education as far as how an open forum operates. there is no "only so and so can post in this thread" crap that you seem to think is the case. we have a feature called PM (stands for private message ) where you can have a conversation with only a select few if you want to go that route.

Thank you for your input. I know how a forum operates. I know there was nothing preventing IvyLeague from posting in this thread. Nothing other than decency, that is.

The OP said: "Looking for the Chicago guys to weigh-in."
Coupled with: "If you have a theory based on an FBI report, get fucked and start another thread."

IvyLeague is not a Chicago guy, and is exactly a guy with "a theory based on an FBI report". So clearly the thread wasn't for him.

Sure, there's nothing expressly preventing him from posting. But why be a jerk about it? By his own admission IvyLeague was having the same debate in 4 other threads, so why start it here also? Anyone can see it's very disrespectful.

So, to sum up: unwanted opinion + redundant post + provoking another member= ruined thread = a dick move

Ivy you are only allowed one login name. FiveFelonies sounds tough though I will say that

Nicely said, FF.

You guys have to stop taking pot shots at each other here.

You're gonna start this shit too?? Warning - don't go that route!

Sorry I legitimately thought they were the same person given one only exists to support the other. I'll be nice.

I can imagine if theres an original Outfit guy reading these forums and i bet he's laughing his ass off

There's apparently loads of them not just reading but contributing

Yeah the Outfit right now is spendin more time on the internet than on the streets

Your from Europe right? You sound like you are smoking some bad dope...either that or your leather pants are too tight

I support him too. You know why? Because he actually provides evidence backing up his statements. I have yet to see any kind of evidence backing up your statements in regards to the Chicago outfit. Until then, you shouldn´t get so pissed when other posters are questioning your claims or finding them dubious.

^ ^ ^ Here's one of em...