or to join or start a new Discussion

151 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

Celtic 'bloggers'

Been funny watching the nonsense from these guys over the past few weeks as it has erupted into all out Civil War.

It's what happens when a bunch of self-important fantasists appoint themselves as mouthpieces.

CQN seem to be bearing the brunt of it with all out attacks from Mad Phil, the anonymous John James and the wrong James Forrest (you've probably not heard of him but he's the main contributor on the Celtic Blog...they have another guy called Joe something but he just mainly seems to misunderstand everything and write rubbish...he'd last about ten minutes on here).

CQN used a fairly innocuous phrase about Celtic forming wagons in a circle. That seemed to get the others annoyed. Might be more to it.

Wee James, who likes to educate some people and boast about beating up guys in chip shops, has taken to going on cqn and calling the guy on there a parody. James basically writes obscurely about things and has sources at Celtic. Unimpeachable sources by the way who call him up and tell him whenever Scott McKenna is at Celtic Park to sign his new 5 year contract.
When he's not doing that he's commenting on how brilliant Phil is.

Phil claims to have great and reliable sources at Shirebrook, Ibrox and Celtic Park. He like to call people by obscure nicknames like General Ashley, the Serious Professional, the Conceyancing Consigliere and the South Africa based criminal. It's good that he protects their identities like that.

He's very good at predicting stuff after it has happened.

John James has a bit of a chequered history and likes to create an air of mystery around himself. He claims that the smsm steal his work. He also says that Phil has made up his sources...that they actually dont exist and that he just makes up his stories. He's probably not completely stupid.

They seem to be getting more and more irate every day.

They do have something in common though....seems that none of them ever call Rangers Rangers....I suspect it might get in the way of them milking their little gigs.

You're probably not that interested. Finished the last season of Bosch so was a bit fed up.

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by NNH (U10730)
posted 49 seconds ago
I'm going to need to tell my IT department who Fraser Forster is btw,
----------------------------------------------------------------------

He is a nobody in footballing terms these days so you might struggle.

comment by NNH (U10730)

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Will caveat the email by saying "Linked to Leah Totton"

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Some guy, played in goals for a bit then signed a 5 year deal on 75k a week and started chucking them in and has been seen in years

Looks a bit like one of the Adams family.

Hope that helps the IT department NNH.

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

May or may not have got back together with the bird from the apprentice;

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/518222/frasers-glove-match-with-ex/

comment by Magnum (U16400)

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Alfredo Morelos, Trailblazer (U8325)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fook aff Hamish you were found oot
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen - if you guys want to make stuff up about folks then that's fine.

Maybe you really do just want to drive the Rangers posters off here.

I cant really think why else you would repeatedly accuse someone of something when they had already provided a link which 100% backs up what they said as the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok...I was going to let this go but as you keep dragging it up...your link 'proves' fack all and backs nothing up 100%. It's just a link so stop kidding that it supports anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you clicked on the link?

It shows that article comes up on the second page of the search when you google 'fraser forsters girlfriend' which is exactly what I said I did.

So I am getting pelters it seems for clicking on page 2 of a google search return?

Its absolutely mental tbh.

And I dont really understand why I would supposedly make something as bizarre as that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you made up the point that it was 'proof' and supported you 100%
I was actually believing you until you started claiming you had proved something when you clearly hadnt.

You understand what proof is. I know you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

it is 100% proof that if you search what I did you come up with that article pretty quickly.

That is the long and the short of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not though is it.

It doesn't prove anything.

If you say that's what you did then I'm inclined to believe it. But you can't claim proof.

We know you like accuracy so it's important.

However, it's not espionage we're doing here so I'm not that bothered.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's definitive proof, but it does posit a compelling argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt me that claimed it was proof or backed him up 100%

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Alfredo Morelos, Trailblazer (U8325)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fook aff Hamish you were found oot
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen - if you guys want to make stuff up about folks then that's fine.

Maybe you really do just want to drive the Rangers posters off here.

I cant really think why else you would repeatedly accuse someone of something when they had already provided a link which 100% backs up what they said as the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok...I was going to let this go but as you keep dragging it up...your link 'proves' fack all and backs nothing up 100%. It's just a link so stop kidding that it supports anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you clicked on the link?

It shows that article comes up on the second page of the search when you google 'fraser forsters girlfriend' which is exactly what I said I did.

So I am getting pelters it seems for clicking on page 2 of a google search return?

Its absolutely mental tbh.

And I dont really understand why I would supposedly make something as bizarre as that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you made up the point that it was 'proof' and supported you 100%
I was actually believing you until you started claiming you had proved something when you clearly hadnt.

You understand what proof is. I know you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

it is 100% proof that if you search what I did you come up with that article pretty quickly.

That is the long and the short of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not though is it.

It doesn't prove anything.

If you say that's what you did then I'm inclined to believe it. But you can't claim proof.

We know you like accuracy so it's important.

However, it's not espionage we're doing here so I'm not that bothered.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's definitive proof, but it does posit a compelling argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt me that claimed it was proof or backed him up 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite like these big long things

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Team leaked for tonight

https://twitter.com/Joker___87/status/1164216426921627654?s=08

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 1 minute ago
Team leaked for tonight

https://twitter.com/Joker___87/status/1164216426921627654?s=08
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Magnum (U16400)

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Alfredo Morelos, Trailblazer (U8325)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fook aff Hamish you were found oot
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen - if you guys want to make stuff up about folks then that's fine.

Maybe you really do just want to drive the Rangers posters off here.

I cant really think why else you would repeatedly accuse someone of something when they had already provided a link which 100% backs up what they said as the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok...I was going to let this go but as you keep dragging it up...your link 'proves' fack all and backs nothing up 100%. It's just a link so stop kidding that it supports anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you clicked on the link?

It shows that article comes up on the second page of the search when you google 'fraser forsters girlfriend' which is exactly what I said I did.

So I am getting pelters it seems for clicking on page 2 of a google search return?

Its absolutely mental tbh.

And I dont really understand why I would supposedly make something as bizarre as that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you made up the point that it was 'proof' and supported you 100%
I was actually believing you until you started claiming you had proved something when you clearly hadnt.

You understand what proof is. I know you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

it is 100% proof that if you search what I did you come up with that article pretty quickly.

That is the long and the short of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not though is it.

It doesn't prove anything.

If you say that's what you did then I'm inclined to believe it. But you can't claim proof.

We know you like accuracy so it's important.

However, it's not espionage we're doing here so I'm not that bothered.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's definitive proof, but it does posit a compelling argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt me that claimed it was proof or backed him up 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite like these big long things
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the first time you've said that

posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago

comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Zachsda(The Ulcer Gazelle) (U1850)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Alfredo Morelos, Trailblazer (U8325)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fook aff Hamish you were found oot
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen - if you guys want to make stuff up about folks then that's fine.

Maybe you really do just want to drive the Rangers posters off here.

I cant really think why else you would repeatedly accuse someone of something when they had already provided a link which 100% backs up what they said as the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok...I was going to let this go but as you keep dragging it up...your link 'proves' fack all and backs nothing up 100%. It's just a link so stop kidding that it supports anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you clicked on the link?

It shows that article comes up on the second page of the search when you google 'fraser forsters girlfriend' which is exactly what I said I did.

So I am getting pelters it seems for clicking on page 2 of a google search return?

Its absolutely mental tbh.

And I dont really understand why I would supposedly make something as bizarre as that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you made up the point that it was 'proof' and supported you 100%
I was actually believing you until you started claiming you had proved something when you clearly hadnt.

You understand what proof is. I know you do
----------------------------------------------------------------------

it is 100% proof that if you search what I did you come up with that article pretty quickly.

That is the long and the short of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not though is it.

It doesn't prove anything.

If you say that's what you did then I'm inclined to believe it. But you can't claim proof.

We know you like accuracy so it's important.

However, it's not espionage we're doing here so I'm not that bothered.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's definitive proof, but it does posit a compelling argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasnt me that claimed it was proof or backed him up 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I quite like these big long things
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the first time you've said that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was kinda expecting some coont to type that

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article Ranking79/500
Article Views1219
Average Time(mins)1.65
Total Time(mins)1828.22