I'd be interested to know the viewpoint of Mr Beyemistic and others on Planet Paranoia on the ruling out of Aberdeen's valid equaliser v the scum. Had that valid goal been allowed to stand, as it should have been, then sellik's already slim hopes of winning the league would have been blown away. How does this type of decision fit with the great Hun Conspiracy theory?

I'd like to think that was that very same decision made in a Rangers match, in Rangers favour, this forum would be overrun by (more than normal) foaming at the mouth Tims harping on about Masons, orangemen etc.etc doing all they can to help Rangers win the league.

So, would Beyemistic and his followers accept that these decisions are not made solely in favour of Rangers and that sellik get their fair share ? Just that we don't go on about it as much as they do, therefore not highlighting as much the dodgy decisions that go their way. Basically because we were not born with the huge chip on our shoulder, so we're more balanced.

It's called Old Firm bias. The blue huns get just as many dodgy decisions in their favour against the diddies as the green huns do. This is why you are despised.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzz

It's funny, that smiley is exactly the way I imagine you look.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzpppfffffffffffffffff. Yawn, Yawn, Yawn

...and here's your answer.

The odd decision which seems to favour Celtic will be used as a smokescreen by huns/diddys to further their agenda of maintaining the status quo. In this way their grand 'old firm' delusion is strengthened and in the case of diddys, they gild themselves with the idea that 'sectarianism' is nothing to do with them.

Of course, in the final analysis, the huns will always get preferential treatment from the authorities - 'twas ever thus.

Another penalty got them out of a wee tight spot today I see

Just watched it and what a joke decision

Compare and contrast with the reaction we got from the Tims after the Andy Davis incident at Tynecastle a few years back

That game yesterday should have finished 1-1

FACT

End of

ZZZZZZZZZ paranoia
Any one over the age of 4 looking through this forum would immediately come to the conclusion that it is the Huns who are always going on about paranoia and conspiracies and not Tims!
Don't Huns have any better banter than zzzzzzzzz paranoiaaaa and conspiracies zzzzzzzzz jesussss
Ps please stop calling celtic selik it's no big and it's not clever, it just makes you sound like one of those scarf wearing pint sharing fannies up byers road
sorry mate the dons wus robbed! just like st Johnston with another swan dive from Danny(thetranny)cousin

Also Diamond should be taken to task over his comments about the referee.

Celtic representatives have been carpeted for far less, so in order to maintain any semblance of fairness there should be action taken against Mr. Diamond.

Oh but what about the perfectly good goal samaras had chopped off in the 2nd half which would have made the game safe and we would have had a comfortable win.

NOW DONT COMMENT UNTIL YOU SEE THE GAME AND KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT

ARSEHOLES!!!!

FACT= your a clown

.

Get a life ya fukin loser zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz p a ra n o iaaa zzzzzz

Obviously it was biased refereeing our favour to keep the mighty Aberdeen underfoot, where they should be.

The powers that be want us to win the league, as they always have.

Meanwhile, while Rangers are struggling to score against a 1st Division side, they're handed a penalty kick. Hmm.

To sit in your little ivory tower and come out with the shite you do definately takes a lack of balls.

Do you forget all the screaming women and kids blown up by terroist bombs on both sides of the fence, you disrespectful b*****d. Both sides need to fuckin` grow up!

All you do is fuel the fire you ignorant c**t!

Hardly "handed" a penalty. It was a penalty. You'd have to be one of the more "Rabid" tims not to see it.

So, basically, there we have it. Beyemistic and his wee pals have cemented what we already know. It's blinkers on when sellik get a decision, because overall the Hun conpiracy will ensure that Rangers get more decisions than poor wee downtrodden Timmy. Must be bitter sweet for them when they get all these decisions, because while it's great to get a decision such as the one on Sat to keep alive their slim title hopes, it really doesn't fit with the agenda, does it ?

Sweep Sweep Sweep......under the carpet......there you go.

It`s not really about football for Mr Beyemystic. His agenda is a different one.

Indeed. I think you can catch him most nights of the week rattling a collection can in the likes of the Brazen Head, Hoops bar, Bairds and other bars of that ilk full of the scum and dregs of society...

Another week, another biased refereeing decision hands Celtic 2 points. What's new?

Rangers will be the moral champions this season, regardless of the final league table.

Agreed

Erm, forgive me here, but ahem, isn't that an almost perfect description of almost all of your posts? I mean, every one of your posts give me a mental image of an ostrich with it's head in the sand !!

Self analysis at it's best!

The honorary hun pipes up.

They seem to be hurtin' this week.

What's this doing hiding away on the OF section!?

Surely yet another instance of one of the OF being gifted points by the men in black is of interest to ALL of the SPL???

And for Beymystic to talk about the 'odd decision' going for Celtic is somewhat bizarre given the 6 points gifted to them in successive weeks against the REAL powerhouse teams of P&B - Falkirk and Saints.

That's 8 points from just those three games - hardly the 'odd decision'.

That's exactly the point I make. Sellik get, at the very least, their fair share of dodgy decisions. But Beyemystic, the archetypal ostrich, refuses to see balance, because then his life's work on the great Hun Conspiracy is blown out of the water and shown up for what it is - a myth.

Timmy, in general, is only happy to debate these types of decisions when they're given in favour of Rangers, because they think it proves their paranoia is well founded, which everyone but them knows it isn't.

So no-one is going to take note of the fact that Samaras had a second, perfectly legitimate goal chalked off that would have put us 2-0 up?

If the referee had got every decision right, we'd have won 2-1, so all this shite you lot are spewing about referees handing us the game yesterday is completely blinkered.

I haven’t seen either incident on television yet so I’ll reserve judgement until I do. One thing though, handball or not, it was unbelievable that we allowed Diamond in with such a chance in injurytime.

Nearly fell over after reading this...Are you feeling OK HB?

I nearly fell over as well.

1. I think you'll find that league wins constitute 3 points these days.

2.

Sweep.....sweep....sweep.....dodge......deflect

Well spotted Sherlock.

I think you'll find league draws constitute 1 point these days and I think you'll also find that 3 minus 1 equals 2.

If you are going to try and be smart, at least err, be smart!

Oh I see. So in a game we were already winning, we were handed an extra two points by the referee, meaning we got 5 for that one?

Awesome

Did you buy a new spade at lunchtime?

No, in a game you were winning the opposition were denied a last minute equaliser meaning you gained 3 points rather than 1.

I'd just hide and pretend you hadn't contributed to this thread if I were you

Taken to task for what exactly numbnuts??? Telling the truth???

Right. So according to you, the referee incorrectly denied Aberdeen a last-gasp goal (which he did) which therefore allowed Celtic to walk off with 3 points instead of 1. That much I get of your point.

So why no indignation that we also had a legitimate goal chalked off earlier in the second half? Sounds to me that the referee's errors had no real effect on the outcome of the game, as we would have won had he got everything right.

So how exactly is that handing Celtic an extra 2 points?

It's taken a while, but I'm glad you now understand that 3 minus 1 = 2.

As to your other incident that didn't even merit a mention in The Herald's report or The Scotsman's, or indeed The Telegraph's or The Times'. All of them mentioned how fortunate Celtic were that the referee blundered. No doubt, they aren't Celtic minded.

You're not seriously telling me it didn't happen because the Scottish media didn't report it, are you?

And despite your cheeky demeanour, I was saying what I was saying based on how you said what you said; namely that the referee handed Celtic 2 points, when in fact, as we were leading, we already had them in our hands. If the referee did in fact screw Aberdeen, he merely ensure we kept them in our hands.

Woo, pedantry!

Ah, revert to the paranoia card. Quelle surprise. I have heard no one but you (even a couple of Celtic fans at work who were at the game) mention this incident as an injustice or as an incorrect decision.

As I have said before it is impossible to get a Celtic fan to admit the ref has bailed them out. That was never evidenced more than after Falkirk were screwed royally by Underhill.



Mmm... sure you were, sure you were. Quality backtracking.

Och, I'm gonna get no change out of you, am I? That wasn't backtracking, that was highlighting that we were arguing different things.

And stop using the tired Old Firm cliches on me. I am not being paranoid by saying that they didn't report that Samaras' offside goal was actually goal, I am simpy saying that it is a hugely more interesting story to report that Aberdeen had a last minute one chalked off. Or maybe they all missed it, who knows.

And the other one you used was that I considered it an injustice - never said that. What I actually said was that it didn't matter in the final outcome as we won the game.

I don't care how we do it, as long as we win it.

We're not really though. It was a game Celtic would have drawn but for a bad refereeing decision. It isn't unreasonable to say that both at Westfield and Love Street the last time Celtic would also have drawn those games, but for awful refereeing decisions.

It's not an exact science (who is to say Celtic wouldn't have scored later winners had their goals not happened for example) but it is galling for the opposition.

I will have a look at the Samaras "goal" this evening. If it is a bad decision, I will admit it tomorrow.

The point is, it happens. All people want is for Celtic fans to say "Whew, yep, ref dug us out of a hole there". This is something to a man they refuse to do. Why?

I'd be interested to know If you could get a life

Oh, OK then, but only if you go first. Do you have a middle parting ? There, There, my son...

Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Out of interest, does anyone know why the BBC haven't put the highlights for this game up on the website? They usually have all the SPL games on there yet for some reason Celtic Vs Aberdeen isn't there?

I should point out, Bosch, that I haven't had a chance to see it online, I'm actually basing this on what I saw at the stadium so there's every possibility I could be wrong as well, and if I am, I shall admit it tomorrow as well.

There's usually one game (normally The Gers or the Tims) that doesn't appear till Tuesday or Wednesday for some reason.

If he ever became a Platinum member, he should change his name to this.

Splendid, well done Ted (In a Father Dougall voice)

Ok, da, I get it. Because I whooshed you with a great big whoosh, you're just going to keep whooshing me in the hope that your many unwarranted whooshes equal my one warranted one . Good try

Why don't you whoosh this when you get back from school ? Or during your IT lesson ?

I think it is obvious it was just a one-off decision to distract everyone from the great hun conspiracy!



Why can't you all just go and support your local teams? I don't care how pish you say they are, it doesn't get much worse than supporting Dumbarton, so no excuses!

Highlights on the Beeb didn't show either of Samaras' disallowed goals.

Ach well, we won, that's enough for me. Bring on the dark side!

Are you sure they happened? Couple of sherbets before the game was it?

Well, I was there, I saw them, and they got a brief mention in the Daily Record the following day.

The first was definately offside, the second I don't think it was. Anyway, I've had this argument. Back to my essay