Is Anyone Else Getting Fed Up With The Conspiracy Nonsense?

"What gives you the right to say I don't have the right"?

Sorry but I really didn't know how to respond to that..

My post was asking what gave you the right to tell others they are delusional just because you don't agree with their posts.

 

Being a this and that is deeply insulting to some lad

 

theres a picture I saw a while ago of him getting blatantly fouled. It was 100% a penalty.

 

Whatever mate. We've been warned to stop the arguing.

Let's wait and see if this SFA ruling stands after the appeal. Actually, who amongst the doubting Tims thinks the SFA will uphold this?

 

I've also see am angle witch shows he could easily have stayed on his feet but that's for another thread.

 

Indeed it's undoubtedly a penalty and that photo was conclusive evidence.

 

We're arguing?
I thought we were getting on quite well.

 

You started the debate off by ridiculing those who don't agree with your point of view by calling them delusional. So how you can say that is a bit hypocritical.

 

The doubting Tims have constantly ridiculed the FACTS put to them and that's sign number 1 of someone with no answers to the questions. Ridicule me personally all you want, call me delusional ffs I'm a grown man, I can deal with insults and a bit of banter but to ridicule the FACTS just makes you look like you have zero answers to the argument.

 

i am not defending the rangers conspiracy because I believe that to be nonsense. But I am simply pointing out the celtic conspiracy really is nothing special and it is hard not to belittle football conspiracies when everyone seems to have one. If it isnt celtic it is rangers. If it isnt rangers it is hearts.

And at much as I put it in a light hearted way, the rangers conspiracy at the moment does have a bit more oomph to it seeing as they are banned from signing players in a season in which they are surely going to lose all their talent. Having a dodgy penalty given against you five minutes after scoring an offside goal doesnt really measure up at the moment.

As I said earlier, maybe all of us who dont see it are "delusional". Maybe every other team who has their conspiracies are deluded and ours is actually true. But then again Im pretty sure that is exactly what those hearts and rangers fans who support their conspiracies would say about our own.

 

I am not ridiculing you, if you were to search how many times ive posted in this thread it will now come to 2.
All i am saying is its a bit odd to call them the FACTS when these facts are highly subjective and different views can be taken.

In my own opinion there might be something to this whole conspiracy theory but to be honest i really don't spend too much time worrying about it.

 

How does this "Rangers Conspiracy" have more "oomph"? They cheated, have been punished and if the SFA hadn't punished them they would've been completely * themselves. They have to be seen to punish them as people above them are watching. Hardly a "conspiracy" being punished for wrong doing, is it?

 

Conspiracy is the wrong word to use. Institutional bias is more accurate. Most of the referees have come from the "establishment"...most of the "establishment" prefers Rangers to Celtic, and so the referees grew up seeing us as diving cheats, soft, and overrated, while Rangers stood for what was good and pure. When it comes to a split-second decision, that will stick with you.

Look at American Football for a more short-term example-the Oakland Raiders had a reputation as thugs, so they got more penalties called against them. Not necessarily because they were dirtier, because that's how they were perceived. Referees were predisposed to see certain things a certain way.

There's no sinister Masonic conspiracy or anything like that, but I don't think its unreasonable to say that Celtic have been victimized over the years by an aggregation of biases against us.

 

I'm not saying you are ridiculing me, I'm saying that the doubters ridicule the facts so as to weaken the argument without providing counter evidence. If you read back there's plenty of FACTS that aren't subjective at all. I can't be arsed listing them but were talking everything from Farry to Dallas. Facts.

 

Without getting into a "who has the best conspiracy" discussion, you must admit it is rather silly when you have celtic fans screaming conspiracy at the SFA because they have recently suffered some dodgy decisions and constantly moan about a media bias against their club. At the exact same time you have Rangers fans claiming the SFA are killing their club and are thinking of ways to stand up to them, while a few months previous their club refused to talk to the BBC. And then you have Hearts whose chairman has regularly been fined for claiming the SFA are corrupt towards previously said clubs, and have had a blanket ban on the media in the past!

 

.Lets not forget this decision was reached by an independant panel who are not direct employees of the SFA. They are scrambling for their jobs as they know the eyes of the footballing world are staring at them.

 

There is one fundamental difference in the examples you use. Proof. As far as the SFA is concerned, Celtic have proven their case in the past. At least twice. As for the media, they are now admitting that they favoured the huns. The succulent lamb brigade are dispersing and admitting their actions. That is not heresay, its not paranoia, its not conspiratorial its proven and admitted.

 

This has nothing to with any conspiracy

It's about pure incompetence

The refs were just pish poor and NL has not been complaining about
agendas but only the bad calls.
They were big calls and I'd rather have a passionate manager
Fighting our corner than the unemotional Mowbray standing with his folded arms
Or Strach with his sarcastic comments.

 

As pod said and has already been said countless times in this thread, the difference is proof. You can say any team or fans on the planet complain about "conspiracies". It doesn't make our complaints any less valid. There's absolutely no reasoning behind that argument. When you provide some actual proof of wrongdoing being proven to have been commited against another Scottish club by the SFA/SPL/SFL (and no, correctly punishing a club for cheating does not count ffs) then I'll give that argument credence.

 

Been away for a couple of hours and nobody has disputed any of the facts that has been posted.

Shock horror. Like talking to a bunch of Hugh Keevins' on here.