Thoughts had plagued Maria for months on end. Deep thoughts, disturbing thoughts, thoughts that chilled her to the very core of her very being. Thoughts that sent shivers through every fiber.. Thoughts that woke her, startled her from her dreams, turned them to nightmares. She had tried to face these thoughts. She had tried to run from them. And it just hadn't worked. She hadn't been able to force the thoroughly "bothered" feeling away from her. Until today. Today, she had squashed the problem underneath her shoe, like a particularly irksome fly. Because she had taken the decision to face it head first and to speak up on the streets, to share her thoughts with the world, to gather their thoughts.

And so, it was with intent and purpose that Maria got dressed, tied up her hair, made up her face, pulled on her knee length black boots (perfect, incidentally, to wear whilst squashing irksome flies), jumped into her car and had it drive her right out onto the streets. Confidently, she ordered a black coffee from her favorite cafe, to go, and once she got it outside, she lit up a cigarette. Leaning up against the frame of her car, with one of her bodyguards stood menacingly to the side, she began to speak. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today with a question that I believe, truly, is crucial to our world, to our way of life, and to the way we conduct our business. I actually believe that it may be that our society has crept to the precipice of a seismic change, a change which could rock us all to our very cores. 

I cannot dress my fears up, though, in eloquent vocabulary. Doing so will not cushion the blow that opening this Pandora's box of worry may deliver. Plus, you all will get numb arses waiting for me to get to the point. 

So, here it is. Here is my question, here is what I wish to discuss:

Is our society in decline, and is our society in need of visionaries?

I mean - this brings about a whole range of other questions in itself.

What do we mean by societal decline? How do we define it? What are the hallmarks of societal decline? Is societal decline linked to the issue of our need of visionaries? Does a decline in society raise or lower our need for visionaries? And what indeed do we mean by visionaries? The Godfathers leading our world, the crew leaders influencing them, the loyal Dons, Consigs, Bosses, Capos and Made Men and Women who work tirelessly day in and day out for the betterment of those around them? Or the renegades, the individuals, the loose cannons who never quite seem to be able to find their fit, but never quite seem to look inwardly for the reason why? I mean, do we even need visionaries at all? Is PaulHeyman a visionary due to his rather snazzy spectacles?

These are the questions, ladies and gentlemen. And I'd like for us all to work together to answer them. 

I feel as though our futures depend on it.

Almost shaking in the relief of having these long plaguing thoughts voiced, Maria hops up onto the hood of her car, to make herself more comfortable while she hopes people will find their voices on this most crucial of topics. 

Following Maria's speech, Paul paused for a moment. It was an incredibly deep and thought-provoking question that had been posed by his Godmother; one that required a measured and considerate response. He stepped up to reply.

"I'd like to start, Maria, by confirming that my rather fetching spectacles do indeed make me rather a visionary. Without them? I struggle to see the wood from the trees. Certainly, until the opticians in the Suburbs opened we had absolutely no visionaries here."

He pulled a hip flask from his pocket, took a swig and continued.

"It's an interesting topic, in which I have put a lot of thought. Society constantly evolves; it must do so in order to adapt to changing conditions. As far as leadership goes, it is important that the leaders of this world have an image of society, a blueprint if you will. Without such a concept we have no direction or purpose." 

"However, I am of the opinion that visionaries do exist within our society. Indeed, each person who makes up our society is a visionary; that is, we all have our values and norms that we hold dear. The crux of the matter is that only a select few have the chance to realise their vision, if you will. The only bone of contention one may have is whether or not you like that vision, or their visions. When someone do not, it is only natural that they will decry a 'decline', since their values may not match those of the powers that be at that given time."

"In short, yes society absolutely needs visionaries to function. However, it is not in decline, as it is simply the realisation of a current vision. In order to change this, in the style of my good friend Guevara, you must rise up and take the chance."

Denam taps his foot as he gathers his thoughts. With such a vitally important topic, he takes extra time to choose his words carefully. After listening to Godfather Maria and Don Heyman, he sat down on the curb and gathered his thoughts. This was a subject he had been mulling around in his head for over a week, but still hadn't quite figured out the right way to say it. He had confidence in his eloquence, so rather than continue to recycle his thoughts he stands up and enters the discussion.

Contrary to Don Heyman's thoughts, I don't believe everyone is a visionary, as a matter of fact I'd contend that visionaries in our world are few and far between. Visionaries are defined by their, you guessed it, vision. Visionaries see what others don't, they are defined as an exception to the mediocrity surrounding them so I must contest considering all people to be in this group. The lack of visionaries does not throw our society into decline, however. The ancient city of Sparta ruled for 500 years without a single change in its laws because they had one magnificent visionary to lay it out for them (Lycurgus, for the history buffs). It isn't vital for a society to be revisited by visionaries for it to succeed; for Sparta won a flurry of wars and flourished for centuries without a single visionary gracing their legions.

As you may know, that Sparta is gone. It hasn't been for thousands of years. Do you know what killed the Spartans? Apathy. The Spartan way of life had no writing; they had every boy memorize the entire Spartan law before they could become a man. This education, though shockingly brutal, was the most effective the world had ever seen in preserving the founding principles of a society. The education began to suffer as the leaders became more occupied with accumulating wealth (the cardinal sin of the Spartan laws) than passing on Spartan principles to the next generation. And without any form of writing, all it takes is one bad generation to spoil all future ones. Eventually respect for the laws was eroded to such a degree that its merits (and the gains the Spartans had acquired for centuries) were wiped out by an invasion. Sparta was obliterated because it failed its duties to pass on principles from one generation to the next. Had they stayed true to the Spartan way of life, they would have not only quelled the invasion, but conquered its source.

The parallels draw themselves between Sparta and Our Thing. We have founding principles. We have Omerta, Sangue, Famiglia, and Onore. But this is not what we pass on to upcoming generations, is it? What we pass onto the next generation is the same thing that was passed to us; keep your head down and play nice with the other boys and girls. We promoted and authed mediocrity and thrived on it. The path we set ourselves on saved us from the embarrassment of being either difficult or great. And now that we've traveled so far along that path, we ask ourselves if we need visionaries? No. More than visionaries we need a renaissance; a return to the original principles of Our Thing.

Denam shakes his head, chuckling a bit to himself. He promised himself he wouldn't rant, but he simply couldn't help himself.

We are moving along this path with a momentum years in the making. The pessimist in me is certain that not only can it not be reversed, it can't be slowed or redirected either. The optimist in me, however, thinks that the set of leaders we have now has the capacity to do it. And what better legacy to leave behind than being the set of leaders responsible for saving La Cosa Nostra?

Denam knew he was a bit overzealous with his finale, but it seemed like a natural conclusion to his thoughts. He sat back down on the curb, content that he had adequately represented his thoughts.

"Errm... Weren't the Spartans also fierce warriors and insanely aggressive because of generation after generation of inbreeding? And wasn't that deemed to be more the reason for Spartan moral and military decline after they peaked more than anything else by most historians? I'm also quite happy to not be in a society that honestly values an insanely rigid structure over the lives of their own people or their own people's happiness. It just sounds moronic in concept to sacrifice the things most people die fighting for..."

"And as for a lack of visionaries... that's entirely subjective based upon your own definition of a visionary so if you don't see any, maybe that's because you don't want to or maybe it's because of preconceived notions. So, Maria, I'll say there are x number of visionaries and I shouldn't have to tell you that that's obviously too Few/Perfect! And no too many visionaries isn't an issue either so long as the society doesn't die because even the failed ones tend to lay down a path for others to learn from."

WhereWasI then throws a wrench in a seemingly random direction towards the person who looked like they were going to speak after him and went on his merry way.

If you wish to skip WhereWasI's history lesson, I suggest you skip this bit. This part is just for him.

The Spartans were fierce warriors, but they were not insanely aggressive. One of the laws Lycurgus provided was that the Spartans fight as few wars as possible and never long drawn-out wars too far away from their home. Even if there was "generation after generation" of inbreeding, the Spartans were the dominant force of Ancient Greece for over 400 years. If inbreeding was the cause of their decline, then it set in very very very slowly. From 7th century B.C. to 3rd century B.C., they were the supreme force of the land, defeating Athens (the next-largest force) and her allies in the Peloponnesian War and Persia (the largest foreign force) twice (though, that was in conjunction with other Grecian states). So after the inbreeding took place for 400 years (over twice as long as America has been a country, mind you), they still defeated the strongest military force outside themselves? They were not weakened by inbreeding; they were weakened by allowing Spartans to marry and breed with helots (their slaves). The only "insane aggression" Sparta displayed was directed towards democracies, because Spartans were oligarchic and monarchic and hated democracy. So while you may chalk that up to insanity, that's just them pursuing their political interests. And please don't try to pretend that this information has any bearing on my earlier analogy; I provided this information purely to educate you on Spartan history.

The parallels I drew were in reference to their decline due to failed education; I even included that their education was shockingly brutal. The purpose of the analogy is to draw analogical parallels, not actual parallels. By including the reference to Sparta I was not suggesting that we enforce Spartan law on the Mafia. I was suggesting that, analogically similar to Sparta, our decline is due to a failure of education. To assume that by drawing a parallel to something I was recommending that we accept it in its entirety is simply a logical fallacy. Please do not respond with the idea that I condone Spartan slavery, oligarchy, or oppression. I don't. I was using ancient Sparta as an example of a society ruined by poor education.

History and logic lesson over.

Visionaries are "a person with original ideas about what the future will or could be like". That is what a visionary is. To say it's not is just another logical fallacy. Plus, what's the purpose of using the word if we aren't even going to use it in the correct context or definition? Are you going to tell me that everyone has original ideas about the future will be like? I doubt that. I doubt that even most of our leaders have original ideas about what the future will or could be like. Most people just want to put their nose to the grind; and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that doing so excludes them, categorically, from being a visionary. And my whole point was that we don't need original ideas about the future; we need to reinstate the old ideas. I think looking for visionaries to solve our problems would only drift us farther from the real solution.

I will chalk their successes up to insanity. They also used to send their children out to the fight for their lives on their own at the age or like 8 or 10 without weapons in the wilderness usually intentionally in the direction of wolves. The things that make some people the best at what they do are generally things you should never want to happen to your children... and those guys intentionally forced their children into life or death situations at an early age to make them better fighters. Combine that and a long history of inbreeding causing increased aggression, lowered IQs and larger amounts of natural strength is their formula for how they gained their military might. So I think it's safe to assume comparing this thing to the Spartans is a bit of a ridiculous stretch.

On top of that you failed to institute who taught the laws of this thing and why. Simply stating omerta was taught doesn't actually explain what was being taught because you're speaking on a broad subject and one that actually evolved over time unlike the moronic Spartans' Code. Vagueness with a few historical facts doesn't make you correct because it's open to interpretation, it makes you incorrect for not being accurate enough.

And I'll say it again, who is and isn't a visionary is completely subjective dependent upon the viewer so this whole discussion is a moot point, and a logical fallacy. The same type of logical fallacy that would come from proclaiming a color is best because a lot of people say Red is their favorite color.

Are you going to tell me that everyone has original ideas about the future will be like?

Yes I am. An idea doesn't have to be free from matching or being based off of others to be an original thought in an individual mind. You might not like that some people feel the need to restate ideas you've heard before, but it turns out a lot of history's greatest inventors and thinkers were the type of people who felt the need to "reinvent the wheel" so they would have a better understanding of it for themselves. If you pay attention you also might be shocked by the originality of the way some people present old ideas. 

Most people just want to put their nose to the grind; and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that doing so excludes them, categorically, from being a visionary.

How does putting your nose to the grind stone disqualify you from being capable of original thought? A lot of the original thinkers in this thing's history also had a history of getting to the top which takes a good bit of putting your nose to the grinding-stone...

And my whole point was that we don't need original ideas about the future; we need to reinstate the old ideas. I think looking for visionaries to solve our problems would only drift us farther from the real solution.

This is honestly just the saddest thing I've ever heard and I'm guessing it comes from someone who now considers himself to be an older bloodline. Congratulations, you've taken on the role of the annoying pissant too stuck in the old ways to give any real thought to the current or the future. A nice safe, been done 1,000's of times before strategy. I hope you remember your first attempt at an original thought and the jackass that probably heckled you, because you've become the whiny, pessimistic jackass.

Just because you've given up on someone making a future look bright doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to be Captain Buzzkill for those who haven't.

Denam, with the risk of drifting away from the topic of discussion, I wouldn't entirely blame outbreeding for the decline of Sparta.
We have this misconception of Sparta, in comparison to Athens, being the beacon of standard and conservatism.
A society built on asceticism and civic virtue, thus immune to corruption and animosity unlike other Greek cities.
Which I dare to say is partially a myth.
The people of Sparta were just as capable as their Athenian counterparts when it came to treachery and double dealing, all in the name of self-interest.
Plutarch, a Greek historian, is a good source for debunking some of the idealized images that we have of Sparta.
His works about the lives of Agis, Cleomenes, Lysander and Agesilaos gives a very vivid picture of a "human" Sparta.

 

WhereWasI, since you have elected to steer this legitimately awesome subject into an argument founded on pettiness and ignorance of basic logic skills, I am going to put down each of these utterances and hope you have the dignity to not revisit them. I want this discussion to be about the decline of our world and the role of visionaries in that decline, not nagging with argumentative pettiness.

I will chalk their successes up to insanity. They also used to send their children out to the fight for their lives on their own at the age or like 8 or 10 without weapons in the wilderness usually intentionally in the direction of wolves... Combine that and a long history of inbreeding causing increased aggression, lowered IQs and larger amounts of natural strength is their formula for how they gained their military might. So I think it's safe to assume comparing this thing to the Spartans is a bit of a ridiculous stretch.

The comparison I drew was their success: "The ancient city of Sparta ruled for 500 years without a change in its laws". Did I condone those laws? No. Did I suggest that we implement them in our world? No. Did I even compare the content of those laws to ours? No. I referred to them as successful because Sparta ruled Greece for hundreds of years. What you have done here is called a Strawman's Fallacy; you have misrepresented my position to make it easier to attack. The purpose of bringing up Sparta's history was not to show how similar we are to them in culture, laws, or behaviors. It was as an analogy for a society failing due to poor education. You're welcome to challenge me on whether or not that decline was due to poor education or inbreeding, but if you're saying that their inbreeding caused both their success (by granting them "gains in military might") and their failure ("the cause for Spartan military and moral decline"), you'll have to excuse my unwillingness to accept such a contention.

On top of that you failed to institute who taught the laws of this thing and why. Simply stating omerta was taught doesn't actually explain what was being taught because you're speaking on a broad subject and one that actually evolved over time unlike the moronic Spartans' Code. Vagueness with a few historical facts doesn't make you correct because it's open to interpretation, it makes you incorrect for not being accurate enough.

I excluded that information because it is irrelevant who taught these things years ago and why they did it. I contended that a decline is occurring and that it is directly correlated to these things being taught less and less. It is irrelevant to this contention who started it and why they did so. Frankly, I don't know who started it years ago. The relationship I have observed is that the failure in teaching these things adequately has led to a decline in our society. You are welcome to refute the validity of that relationship, but I am not incorrect in my contention simply because I didn't include who started the teaching of Omerta, Sangue, Onore, and Famiglia, and why they did so. That information is irrelevant to the fact that I have observed a trend involving those two concepts. For instance, you wouldn't need to know the origin of every brand of cigarettes to understand a declining trend in sales. The trend has its own merits independent of information about the series.

I would also say that Omerta is not a broad subject; it is the code of silence in the mafia. If you broke your vow of Omerta, you would not be pleading to your Godfather that "Omerta is a broad subject," you'd be dead. That's because it's not broad, confusing, or subjective. If you break it, you're done. No fallacies committed here, but also no valid points against my argument.

And I'll say it again, who is and isn't a visionary is completely subjective dependent upon the viewer so this whole discussion is a moot point, and a logical fallacy. The same type of logical fallacy that would come from proclaiming a color is best because a lot of people say Red is their favorite color.

Saying it again does not make it true. This is a Fallacy of Ambiguity; you have used the ambiguity of language to further a point that would be invalid if the language were used in the correct context. The ambiguity in this discussion was your contention (as I have presented a precise definition for my terms, which you have refuted on the basis of subjectivity), so if it is a "moot point and a logical fallacy," it is you who has committed it. You appeal to ambiguity and subjectivity a lot, and it's frustrating because it erodes the entire purpose of an argument. If you can reduce interpretation of language to total subjectivity, then there is no longer any reason to argue. If you reduce "visionary" to whatever you want it to be, there's no longer any purpose in discussing who is or isn't a visionary. If you reduce "societal decline" to whatever you want it to be, there's no longer any purpose in discussing whether or not society is declining. By establishing this argument on subjectivity, you have destroyed the value of your own argument. Without any firm acceptance in definition of terms, arguments are universally both valid and invalid and totally relied upon interpretation of the terms used. So while you think your appeal has provided your argument support, what you have actually done is avoided the entire purpose of discussion: to reach conclusions. If you intend to come out to the Streets and debate, I would prefer you do so constructively instead of just trying to dismantle arguments by reducing them in their entirety to ambiguity in language.

Yes I am. An idea doesn't have to be free from matching or being based off of others to be an original thought in an individual mind. You might not like that some people feel the need to restate ideas you've heard before, but it turns out a lot of history's greatest inventors and thinkers were the type of people who felt the need to "reinvent the wheel" so they would have a better understanding of it for themselves. If you pay attention you also might be shocked by the originality of the way some people present old ideas. 

No, ideas do not have to be free from matching or based off of others to be original. However, considering everyone a "visionary" just because they are capable of original thought does absolutely no good for this discussion. Visionaries don't just produce original thoughts, they act or speak on them. You mention history's great inventors as support for your contention, but what it reveals is that your connotative definition of "visionary" which led you to mention "history's greatest inventors" betrays the fact that you consider visionaries to be people that did something with those ideas, not just conjured them in their minds. We don't hold inventors in high regard because of their ideas, we hold them in high regard for what they did (or made in this case). They take an idea and make it real. That is what makes them visionaries. Additionally, criticizing me or mentioning how I would feel about things has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of your or my arguments; including that I "might not like" or "be shocked" by certain information merely detracts from whatever futile points you were attempting to make.

How does putting your nose to the grind stone disqualify you from being capable of original thought? A lot of the original thinkers in this thing's history also had a history of getting to the top which takes a good bit of putting your nose to the grinding-stone...

This is another Straw Man Fallacy. You have used the phrase "capable of original thought," instead of the word "visionary" to misrepresent my argument. Putting your nose to the grindstone and doing what everyone else is doing instead of acting on original thoughts disqualifies you from being a visionary, not being "incapable of original thought". If you act on those ideas later in your career, you would, by definition, be a visionary. The qualifying element is not "being capable of original thought," it is acting on it. I said earlier in my argument that there's nothing wrong with putting your nose to the grindstone (as I spend most of my day there), as it is absolutely necessary. But if you do that instead of acting on original ideas, you are not a visionary in any sense of the word, and no appeal to ambiguity will change that.

This is honestly just the saddest thing I've ever heard and I'm guessing it comes from someone who now considers himself to be an older bloodline. Congratulations, you've taken on the role of the annoying pissant too stuck in the old ways to give any real thought to the current or the future. A nice safe, been done 1,000's of times before strategy. I hope you remember your first attempt at an original thought and the jackass that probably heckled you, because you've become the whiny, pessimistic jackass.

This actually features no arguments for or against me; it just a pure Ad Hominem attack. The fact that you find it "sad" neither supports nor rejects it. The fact that I consider myself an older bloodline neither supports nor rejects it. Calling me an "annoying pissant" neither supports nor rejects it. I don't think I need to continue with the rest of this, as it is pretty much entirely a personal attack on my character and features no semblance of an actual argument.

Out of generosity, however, I will argue with what little meaning this little bundle of absurdity had. My original point had two conclusions: a pessimistic conclusion and an optimistic conclusion. The fact that you have focused entirely on the pessimistic one and your inability to rise above attacks on character show poor listening and logic skills (in addition to the prevalent use of fallacies).

Just because you've given up on someone making a future look bright doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to be Captain Buzzkill for those who haven't.

Once again, this has no bearing on the argument. If I had given up, I wouldn't be in Our Thing. If I had given up, I wouldn't be in this discussion. If I had given up, I wouldn't take the time to generously educate you on proper logic and arguments.

I do hope someday you rise above the pettiness and fallacies and debate like a mature human being. I also hope my lessons here will help guide you reach better argument construction. Concluding what could have been a perfectly reasonable argument with ad hominem attacks only shows how indefensible your argument really was in the first place.

Barry heard the conversation drift off from a suitable analogy into a historical discussion of a long since dead society. He decided to circumvent such talk and instead focus back upon the topic at hand, as his man Denam was capably trying to do.

Actually, it is virtually impossible for everyone to be a visionary and in my experience those people who purport themselves to be such are typically just radical (read:wrong) in their thinking and believe that by solely possessing a different opinion to the rest of the world, they are some sort of pioneer for the future of Cosa Nostra. This is not the case.

Visionaries are rare in our thing, why? Because we have adapted and honed our business over generations and generations. I actually believe there are very few innovations left as we are doing things largely in the right way and those we can improve upon are not through lack of viable solutions. Things are developed and improved over time, usually in small strokes rather than large waves, as we learn, educate and progress through future generations.

I also don't believe we need a reversion to the days of yore, because to be honest members of our things are as worldly wise and knowledgeable as they have ever been. This is a generalisation of course, but the vast majority today actually understand far more about the Mafia than they did in days gone by. Is that descriptive of a society in decline or more indicative of one reaching the pinnacle of it's evolution? 

WhereWasI sighs,

"This was meant to be an exercise on just how much I could get away with in the streets, like kicking the tires before buying a car... but I can't simply ignore a CL actually believing this. I'll respond to both in due time but please, pick your golden age so I can point out its many flaws seeing as literally every age of the history of this thing has had flaws. Don't just say we know to go back to days gone by, pick those days or pick those things you want to bring back, please, or else this argument will take much longer than necessary."

Some people generally tend to get away with an awful lot in the streets; I'd put this down to the fact that those in the corridors of power don't usually give a flying fuck what said people think.

WhereWasI sighs,

"So Guevara, I'm seeing that as you believe said people aren't worth your time/effort... and yet you still come out to speak about them (and possibly to someone you believe is one of them based upon the given scenario)? Do you not see the contradiction between your actions and your words? Either that or I guess it'd take a hell of a lot of effort to go at someone for what little I said which would hint at a few over reactions to such a small statement, would it not?"

WhereWasI sighs again,

"Assuming I will never be told which period was so great... as is typical of the conversations with people who generally take that stance according to my family journals... I will go into the importance of looking towards the future as a society."

"First off, the reason no one ever picks an Era that we should be striving to recreate is because no such Era ever existed. They want to look back fondly onto a time when things were fresh for their bloodline and clearly can't see the damages they make for those of the younger bloodlines who are yet to discover some of the things this place has to offer but they never bring that era forward for people to hear about because others will have bad things to say about it. You generally sound like a persnickety old man with nothing better to do than complain to me when you do that because as previously stated, none of these people ever do anything but make vague stabs at 'back then was better than it is today.'"

"If today really does suck so much you have people gawking over the past, the only people you can blame are the Leaders... ironically enough... that's why I can't stand the thought of someone actually in a position to lead gawking over the past. If said people/times were what people wanted the things that defined those times/people never would have left. The fact is that there is no policy, thought, or person without flaws and each person has their own objective to institute whichever ones they think are least flawed."

"And now for a little change in perspective to approach the same issue. I'm not sure how many of you have ever won anything or done anything of value in your lives, but my guess is that if you have you've generally done it while working towards some ultimate future goal. If your goal is nothing more than to get a position of leadership so you can follow someone's lead from years past... what does that really say about your skills as a leader? It says you're one hell of a follower... but it definitely doesn't speak well on the leadership end of things."

"So looping back to are there visionaries? It depends on your perspective but I would definitely say there are at least a few people with their eyes to the future and how to change it. I doubt this speech was actually sincere based upon the wording..."

"As for whether they're needed or not, not everyone has gotten so sad they have to look to the past for the future so yes, I would say they'll always be in desperate need so long as there's still someone with their eyes focused ahead of them... even if not for their own sake..."

WhereWasI lightly taps Maria on the shoulder with a wrench on that note and heads back to the HQ under the assumption he'll never hear which Era is this great one that needs to be recreated.

I wasn't particularly talking on my own behalf, WhereWasI. As someone of my tender, tender age and a HQ with a mere 4 inhabitants I think it would be a little disingenuous and frankly disrespectful to some of the real giants on these streets for me to class myself on the number, despite the fact I seem to be viewed with at least a grudging modicum of respect by my Comrades in Brooklyn.

I was merely pointing out that being risky and outspoken seems to be something of a reoccurring fixture of your bloodline, but another reoccurring event is that nobody who's anybody ever seems particularly interested in taking the envelope you think you're pushing.

Of course, if you believe my two responses which took roughly 90 seconds out of my stroll down the road indicate an eagerness to hear what you've said, I'm more than happy for you to chalk this one up as a big old win!

I wasn't particularly talking on my own behalf, WhereWasI. As someone of my tender, tender age and a HQ with a mere 4 inhabitants I think it would be a little disingenuous and frankly disrespectful to some of the real giants on these streets for me to class myself on the number, despite the fact I seem to be viewed with at least a grudging modicum of respect by my Comrades in Brooklyn.

I was merely pointing out that being risky and outspoken seems to be something of a reoccurring fixture of your bloodline, but another reoccurring event is that nobody who's anybody ever seems particularly interested in taking the envelope you think you're pushing.

Of course, if you believe my two responses which took roughly 90 seconds out of my stroll down the road indicate an eagerness to hear what you've said, I'm more than happy for you to chalk this one up as a big old win!

"How about a friendly wager since you're so confident? 100 Credits says I can talk my way into a bold suit with the next 45 days."

Maria is a Godmother who's personal integrity and regard for our way of life is something I have respected massively, as have my bloodline going back for generations.

The fact that you would insult her intelligence and the ability of her Captains by implying the only requisite skill you'd need to receive auth is the ability to talk you way into it is pretty staggering to me.

Perhaps the bet will be irrelevant, I think my initial claim about nobody being concerned about what you've got to say may prove to be completely incorrect given the utter disdain you've treated your own district with.

Barry scratches his head after listening to WhereWasI. He assumed this was WhereWasI's aforementioned follow up, which was meant to be in his direction, but having actually heard the speech, Barry didn't have a fucking clue what to make of it.

Leaving aside whatever ridiculous nonsense you're alleging to have been doing earlier when making an idiot out of yourself, please do not suggest I am or have ever been "gawking over the past". Not only is that a baseless accusation seemingly conjured out of thin air, it is also completely contrary to what I said earlier in this exact conversation, where I explicitly stated we do not need a reversion to times gone by. 

I can't really determine how much of the rest of what you've said is directed at me, so I think I'll just step out at this point instead. I've said my piece on visionaries and you've responded with, well, a whole lot of nothing possibly aimed at me, possibly spoken to hear the sound of your own voice and possibly in some other sort of escapade that only you are privy to/care about. Whatever. I don't know and I don't really want to know; good luck to you. I would just ask that in future you leave me out of whatever meandering, word-vomit you're going to conjure up and attempt to apply to me. That way I don't need to waste my time listening to it and can leave you to enjoy your thigh-slappingly good ruses and social experiments in peace. 

That's not an answer. Will you put your money where your mouth is? If I'm half as pathetic as you say I am you'll take the bet because it's free money, but my guess is you're all talk because you know all to well what I can do.

I genuinely can't recall you're bloodline having done anything of note; as demonstrated by the fact you think gaining auth is a crowning achievement in and of itself it's not.

Anyway, no I won't be taking your bet because I do not see in what way you donning a bold suit changes the opinion of the vast majority of people when they see you've made an appearance; 'Oh look, it's Kuku's play partner'.