706
Before and after
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
706 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
5466 readers
1137 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So get at least a little money but lose the property, or let the property burn down out of spite so nobody gets it. You'd still own the land it's on, right? Decisions, decisions...
I guess it depends on if you have enough resources to rebuild or not. I don't think insurance existed back then.
The first option is bad but at least some of your stuff is saved. It depends on if anything was irreplaceable, but then you got to pay this ass clown rent.
The second one is when no one wins, but if you have resources then just rebuild. If you have nothing then sell a plot of land for cheap, but still have nothing from the fire.
Yeah, saving your stuff from the building is a pretty big motivator since he's only buying the property, not everything in it. I'm sure he got a lot of takers.
he did become the richest man in rome off it, so it would seem so.