| Oct 19 - 09:31:35 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1  |
| Regarding the Remaining Homeless. | Started by: JamaicanMob_Marley on Jun 23, '09 21:51 |
|
Marley, choosing not to waste time liting and puffing, speaks It's like this! With all respects due to the date set forth by Godmother Aurora, regarding the unsponsered. The Supreme Court will be holstering their guns and alwaying extended time for those remaining homeless to find shelter. This only goes for The Supreme Court and it's members. We will not take part in the slaughtering of anymore unsponsered. For those who choose to break this rule, from my clan, they will be dealt with accordingly, regardless of status. That is all. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Dude, you were as jumpy at the gun as I was! LOL> |
|
| Reply by: Skitzo at Jun 23, '09 21:54 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Well said Marley... well said. Skitzo, perhaps you should shut the fuck up and show some respect for a NewYork CrewLeader? |
|
| Reply by: Gaius at Jun 24, '09 02:21 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Wise Decision sir, I agree the homeless deserves more chances but I have to tell you they had like 5 days which is enough for them. |
|
| Reply by: Silvio at Jun 24, '09 07:14 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
These individuals have had an extremely lengthy period to find shelter. To the point, where if they haven't arisen from their slumbers in that time, you have to seriously question the likelihood of them succeeding in any new organization anyway. Similarly, those who have surfaced and still have not found sponsorship after this amount of time, must not be trying very hard or at all. After a certain point we have to be honest with ourselves, these are either maverick mobsters out for themselves or more likely too lazy to succeed anyway. Should we be going to such lengths to save these people? Obviously your decision for your own crew is entirely up to you, but the homeless walking our streets are afforded enough protection already without taking this course of action and I hope it is not one that will be mirrored by other organizations. ~T~ |
|
| Reply by: Tallien at Jun 24, '09 07:47 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Like I said this is only enforced on The Supreme Court. It doesn't have any affect on others of this community. If you choose to shoot them, by all means shoot them. Afterall, it's your right too, but no one from my family will be shooting them. If we only save 5 souls, it was well worth it other than picking off the harmless. There will be plenty to be had in the coming weeks, no need in jumping the gun, literally. But Tallien I don't think a week or so is an extremely lengthy period, unless you plan on dieing in the second week. But this rule doesn't affect any others. So enjoy your fest on the lost souls. |
|
| Reply by: JamaicanMob_Marley at Jun 24, '09 08:39 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Contradict yourself much? I know recent events have likely led you to this decision. But you're not really kidding this community with these actions. You may not think your previous stance on this issue was popular, or the politically correct view on the matter, but coming out here now with this speech is...well, interesting. Your crew, your rules. Further, I don't think this rule will save five souls. I don't think this rule will save one soul. I think, perhaps, if you would have truly believed in this rule, and initiated it before Godmother Aurora's clock ran out, then you may have saved some souls. Now, it's just a pointless exercise. Again, your crew, your rules. |
|
| Reply by: WillHayes at Jun 24, '09 10:23 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Well I like to see a leader try to make things right by telling us his family will not touch any unsponsoreds, however, one leader unfortunately won't stop those vultures from learking around looking for innocent gangsters to wack. Good Effort Mr. Marley. |
|
| Reply by: Nadia at Jun 24, '09 11:35 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
|
| Reply by: don-revie at Jun 24, '09 12:03 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
JamaicanMob_Marley with the up most respect sir, if you wanted to tell your family about the rules they will be following regarding the homeless, then surely this speach would have been more suited to your head quaters rather than the streets? |
|
| Reply by: Rufus at Jun 24, '09 14:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Since you ended your statement with a question mark, I'll assume you are asking me a question Rufus. Though I don't have to answer to you, I will because you were very respectful. I decided to post this in the streets, so that if any of my family is cought slaying the unsponsered like the others, I'll be notified promptly by the other leaders of this community that happen to notices. Honestly I would have rather did it within my walls, but the W/S's would have gone unseen and I can't have mine not following my orders. This is all |
|
| Reply by: JamaicanMob_Marley at Jun 24, '09 14:28 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I like your idea JMM. I respect you for coming to the streets and informing all us other leaders and fellow people about the non slaughtering of homeless protection rule that still holds on your family. It takes a good leader to come to the streets and announce that they wish to still put more protection out for the homeless and state that if their members are caught shooting them then they will be punished. I personally wouldn't put a rule like this on my family simply because I have to agree with the Godmother's and Godfather. The homeless were given 10 days and then after that they are taking advantage of this. If they went inactive then im sure their Ex leaders would of killed them for going inactive anyways, but still I respect you for telling everyone else that your family is still willing to give the homeless more protection. |
|
| Reply by: Death-Knight at Jun 24, '09 15:38 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Well done Mr Marley. It was a brave step for you to take out here and a decision that I feel reflects your fine qualities. I dont really understand why so many people have picked holes in your move. I think they are trying to justify the vulger slaughter of innocents to themselves. Still any effort is a good effort. Well done :) |
|
| Reply by: Tempah at Jun 24, '09 15:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Thank you sir for taking the time to respond about my comment and I would like to add after hearing your reply I now see why it was justified. |
|
| Reply by: Rufus at Jun 25, '09 12:45 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
The Supreme Court will now join the the slaughtering of the homeless! |
|
| Reply by: JamaicanMob_Marley at Jun 25, '09 21:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
It's your prerogative of course, but I'm a bit confused why you would jump from trying to save souls to slaughtering the homeless. I believe your initial decision put your family at a disadvantage, but nonetheless it improved your public image. If that was your intent, then the sudden switch in policy shattered that. How can you be saving souls if you're busy slaughtering them? Have you decided that there has been enough time now for the homeless to find shelter? I realize it's not my place to know the ins and outs of your decision-making process (and I don't care to know), but I thought I'd express my confusion regardless. |
|
| Reply by: Matt_Haas at Jun 26, '09 11:05 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
What ever Marley says is TSCOSP law. |
|
| Reply by: shottakaz at Jun 26, '09 11:45 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1  |
Minimum $20,000