Oh, so the time period has to correspond with what suits your narrative?Wiseguy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:23 pmThere's a problem if you have to refer to figures from the 1960s to make a point. Big difference from 1989 and 2006.B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:12 pm How do you gauge accuracy on membership totals, especially with a group like Buffalo? The FBI's knowledge on different groups varies based on sources specific to those groups. Their knowledge, while impressive, isn't one size fits all and having comprehensive membership info on other groups doesn't always translate to another group, especially one like Buffalo that looks to have had a huge number of members unaccounted for by the FBI during a period when the FBI was accumulating an incredible amount of info on families across the US. You also won't see any argument from me about activity level -- when I say "member", I mean simply membership in the organization and nothing more.
I'm approaching this topic in good faith with an open mind based on historic and current information that has come to light -- please avoid the "you guys" talk, as it is condescending and my opinions aren't part of a hive mind on this topic or any other. That said, I've made my point about discrepancies between the membership total mentioned by Magaddino and the FBI's ability to identify or even estimate membership during that period and I don't see the point in continuing to hammer on the same points given the tone of the discussion.
See B was very respectful, and clear, when he stated in the 60’s ‘the FBI was accumulating an incredible amount of info on families across the US’ and yet you still can’t argue the point. Because it doesn’t suit. The only problem ‘there is’, is your inability to stay on point when faced with a position you’re unable to combat.
Want to know the amusing irony. We’re not trying to ‘come up with ways to explain Violi’s comments’, you are.
We’re simply adjusting our perspective based on new information directly from an Underboss of a family. You’re the one jumping through hoops to explain it away to fit your narrative. Amusing.
Easy, I’ll gladly admit I was wrong.
I’m not trying to pursue a narrative or Im not a fanboy (contrary to what you may like to think), I simply want to know the truth, and imo the weight of this new evidence suggests an active Buffalo family.
If I’m wrong, so be it, I’ll be the first one to admit.
Unlike you, I have an open mind and don’t purport to know more than perhaps I should. So in five years time I’ll happy give you your due. I doubt it will be the same if I’m proven right.