Rooster still hasn't acknowledged the fact that he now claims to be anti-"forum hearsay" and he claims to be against things with "no evidence." This is the same man that led a 30-page Buffalo argument based on his own, uncorroborated, never-proven "street talk" about how he claimed that the Buffalo crime family had an active hierarchy, was slowly rebuilding, 40+ made members, etc., despite the fact that anybody qualified to have a clue on the situation (Buffalo Mafia investigative journalists, FBI agents, former Buffalo rats, district attorneys, federal prosecutors) all agreed that Buffalo was dead.
So Rooster made it clear in the other thread that he disregards hard evidence at all costs. He'd rather go with his own "forum hearsay" - a.k.a. his own, uncorroborated street talk. But now that it's a new thread, and I'm posting something (which is backed up with evidence, by the way) that Rooster doesn't agree with, Rooster is calling me out for spreading "forum hearsay." This sort of evident hypocrisy is something that Rooster will blatantly ignore at all costs, even though I mentioned it before. This sort of blatant hypocrisy is what makes it so obvious that Rooster is flaming, and trying to make an argument out of something which very clearly doesn't matter to him.
According to Rooster, I'm spreading "forum hearsay" by posting things from Gang Land News - the most trusted and reliable mob news outlet on the web.
No, Rooster, "forum hearsay" is when somebody can spend 30 pages arguing something that has been blatantly disproven because of their own contrived "street knowledge."
Quit the incessant flaming.
SC didnt erase anything I posted.
Yes he did. Don't lie. It does nothing to help your case.
He actually reprimanded you if youd like to go back and review to gain some insight.
Rooster posted this, after SC's comment:
"I agree SC, you wont see me express my dislike for Nicky and his antics anymore nor will i feed into it and stoop to that level anymore."
SC deleted it, since it was clearly obvious that Rooster was so stubborn, and he just wanted to have the last comment so it looked like he won the argument.
Isn't that right, Rooster? Why did you try to lie about it? Or did you simply forget?
Im not flaming at all, just calling you out on something you know nothing about.
You are flaming by doing just that. Making sweeping comments about how I know "nothing about" the Gotti situation. I don't claim to have access to the upper-levels of the Gambino administration. But there has been nothing that has come out since Peter Gotti was lasted confirmed boss to suggest anything has changed.
So, how exactly am you "calling me out on something I know nothing about." I clearly posted evidence to back up my statement. So where is the "call-out?" How are you "calling me out?"
Stop misleading people on this forum with your own speculation and trying to expand on crime reporters articles as if they are your own.
Jesus Christ almighty.
As of 2015, Peter Gotti was the official boss of the Gambino crime family, but held no power - an agreed-upon concensus from Jerry Capeci's sources.
There is nothing to SUGGEST that anything has changed since then. Peter Gotti is still alive, Dom Cefalu is still active, Frank Cali is still active.
What did I say there that was incorrect? What did I say there that was trying to mislead people? What part of that comment was misleading? What part of that comment was spread "forum hearsay?"
NOTHING.
Quit flaming.
You dont know Peter Gotti is or isnt boss or if he does or doesnt hold power in the Gambinos.
No need to PM you in your inbox, it woulnt serve readers or posters any good. Stop pretending to know inner workings of a family is all Im saying.
This is coming from the person that claimed to know the inner working of a defunct crime family?
So it's okay when you claim to know the inner workings of a crime family (a family which has been confirmed defunct by every respectable source)
But when I "claim" to know the inner workings of a crime family - which I backed up with evidence - all of a sudden, I'm in the wrong?
Explain to me how that works.
If youd like to base your posts on others reports thats fine, just preface your posts with that statement, not generalizing speculation or the assertion you actually know something that hasnt been published and I wont have to call you out time and time again.
Here was the comment Rooster:
"We know that a few years ago he was the boss in title alone but held absolutely no real power in the family. There is nothing to suggest that's changed."
Nothing about that comment is misleading. We know that he was boss a few years ago with no real power. That is true and has been confirmed.
There is nothing to suggest that's changed. That is also true - I'm not saying it definitely HASN'T changed, but there is nothing to suggest that it HAS changed. Tell me Rooster, am I wrong?
And Rooster? If you don't like "forum hearsay" - which I have never spread - which did you try and convince people that, based on your uncorroborated word alone, Buffalo was still an active crime family. Do you see the hypocrisy? You are contradicting yourself in your claim to be anti-street talk, since there is 30 pages of you, on this very forum, spreading uncorrorborated, disproven street talk. But you see, when I mentioned this before, you failed to acknowledge that, and you instead kept playing the "moral crusader" card - which you accused me of playing in the Buffalo thread.
And you saying "Everyone agrees on some things" is blatant contradiction in itself.
Rooster, your stupidity knows no bounds.
I NEVER SAID "Everyone agrees on some things." THAT WAS AN EXCERPT FROM THE GANG LAND COLUMN.
Read the post again. I honestly don't see how you can fail to understand everything I post, yet other posters don't have trouble reading my comments at all. Two options: You're choosing to misunderstand my posts simply to flame (likely), or you're simply too stupid to read at a 3rd grade level (equally likely).
