Sheen and Shayler in the Grauny

[Annie]

Hi everyone

Worth having a look at the comments pages of Saturday's Guardian (1 April). Marina Hyde revisits the Sheen subject, and is now having fun at Dave S and the rest of us for defending him! Enjoy the read.

Regards

Annie

[freddie]

This piece is worst than the first. Not only is it distinctly unfunny, every point is twisted into a film or TV reference. We all need to email this writer and send a slightly modified letter to the editor.

The first piece was bad, and I emailed her, but this piece is a total waste of half a page and imho offers the reader absolutely nothing - no joy, no info.

Please, anyone writing to her, don't use bad language as it allows her to print it, making us look like idiots. We just need to register our anger at this piece and most importantly (I think) iare the letters to the editor - he/she signed off on this piece of rubbish, and needs to be pulled up for that descision.

[is]

I posted this earlier in another thread ("more guardian *") , but seems it would be more at home here:
_____________________________________________________________

Hydes response. Apparently she got 'hundreds' of emails, but only saw fit to mention the abusive ones.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
It was meant to be fun ...

How Charlie Sheen has taken the shine off my week

Marina Hyde
Saturday April 1, 2006
The Guardian


These are dark times for Lost in Showbiz. I am distressed to the point of requiring constant medication by a week that began last Saturday on these pages, in a column addressing the actor Charlie Sheen's espousal of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and has ended mired in hundreds of furious emails - including a trenchant exchange with David Shayler - and, perhaps most upsettingly, a verified document headed "Charlie Sheen Statement to the London Guardian".

Article continues

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
It is difficult to imagine a situation I could take more seriously.
Frankly, I had no idea Charlie was such an assiduous reader of the column (and might even find his interest slightly hot if he still looked like the drug addict he played in the 1986 classic Ferris Bueller's Day Off). Indeed, had I known what a gifted ironist he was - and, in retrospect, after Hot Shots! Part Deux, who could have doubted it? - it goes without saying I would have thought twice before daring to crack out the usual lame jokes about forming a kitchen cabinet of celebrity conspiracy theorists, which would also include Michael Jackson (It's the Jews!) and Tom Cruise.

Too late now. Charlie has issued a formal rebuttal, and though I haven't quite the strength to print it here, I am deeply chastened. Come to think of it, the entire episode has the flavour of the aforementioned scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, where his character poses a variety of searching questions to Ferris's repressed and disgruntled sister Jeanie, leading her to open her mind and get over herself and her cynicism. It's like he's doing that to me! Only over the internet, and we don't end up kissing afterwards and getting told off by Jeanie's mother.

Rebuke instead comes from a new army of web readers.

"You stupid whore," reasons one. "Do you believe everything the president tells you?"

But of course I do. He is Charlie's dad, after all. And while Charlie may exhibit the filial ingratitude common among second-generation Hollywood progeny, I happen to think Jed Bartlet's multiple sclerosis diagnosis has not affected his ability to make sage decisions on behalf of the American people one iota.

But to compound matters, and in a development that on Tuesday forced the switch from Xanax to Klonopin, it appears the former MI5 officer David Shayler does not share my view. Having established that David's email account had not been hijacked by a particularly earnest 15-year-old, it seemed appropriate to remind him that the comments appeared in a column that might be kindly described as a few jokes about celebrities on a Saturday, and taking them this seriously seemed faintly unworthy of him.

"Respectfully," David replied, "we might be laughing at the column if it were actually funny." Hardly an original point, baby, but continue. "Your defence that it is all a bit of fun was one practised in the 80s in defence of racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-Irish jokes by a variety of bigots and psychopaths masquerading as legitimate columnists."

Mmm. But tell me, did you like the Britney Spears piece any better? Seriously, though, I am disappointed to find David stopping shy of comparing a facetious showbiz column to the Holocaust, and have told him so (it didn't seem the occasion to wonder about MI5 recruitment standards).

"If you're going to take the piss out of anyone," his advice concludes, "surely it should be Tony Blair."

Well. I haven't exactly given the PM the widest of berths in writings elsewhere in the paper, but David's line of argument does provide an opportunity to make one thing clear.

This column has not been especially opaque on the matter up to this point, but for the benefit of any new and confused readers, it does have a vague constitution underpinning it. And as far as truths that Lost in Showbiz holds to be self-evident, there is none more vital than its belief in the separation of powers between political activism and celebrity.

To its view, they are discrete career choices - a fork in the road, if you like - that are best left on both sides to the experts, of which there are many. This does not, of course, apply to our beloved Clooney and his thoughtful artistic engagements with such matters, but to occurrences such as the star of Two and a Half Men looking up at the World Trade Centre on the morning of 9/11, reckoning it looks as if the towers were brought down in a controlled explosion, and getting his views heard all over the shop simply because he was once in the Brat Pack. In fact, Charlie's views on politics add as much to the debate as would Aung San Suu Kyi saying: "Apologies, I'll not be banging on about democracy for a bit, on account of I've got a 22-episode sitcom to film for NBC."

It is with enormous regret that anyone who cannot handle this is hereby banned from reading the column, and reminded that emails cannot be answered personally, even when they contain such enticing subject headers as "you naive bitch".

Remember, truthseekers: you have a choice.

Or ... DO YOU?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1744446,00.html



Despite the tone of this 'response' (which still fails to make any mention of the actual SUBSTANCE of what is being alleged against the Bush administration with regards to 911, and just seems to defend her position by saying 'Hey, im mocking celbrities. Thats what I do!') I think we should be pleased that her cage has been rattled enough to actually provoke a response.

Its a shame shes taken her email link off this article (probably a wise move after last time). If anyones still got the link, post it up so we can continue emailing her demanding that to clear her name she should use her influence to get the Guardian to full cover the claims of 911 truth seekers in an objective and fair way. Thats the kind of media attention we need, after all.

[Annie]

I agree with Freddie. If we insult her, we just give her more ammunition to use against us, and makes the campaign look undignified. Let's just keep hitting these people with the facts. After all, there are enough to keep us going for a long, long time.

We shall also be coordinating a formal response on behalf of the campign,

Regards

Annie

[Jane]

. A closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure is injected or implied, which is oriented around ‘no feedback.’ The closed system refuses to be modified except by perceived leadership approval or executive order.
"I really hope you don’t actually believe that could be TRUE!"
"That question has already been answered."
"The issue is self-evident; let’s move on."

Lost in Showbiz

It was meant to be fun ...

How Charlie Sheen has taken the shine off my week

Marina Hyde
Saturday April 1, 2006
The Guardian
These are dark times for Lost in Showbiz. I am distressed to the point of requiring constant medication by a week that began last Saturday on these pages, in a column addressing the actor Charlie Sheen's espousal of a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and has ended mired in hundreds of furious emails - including a trenchant exchange with David Shayler - and, perhaps most upsettingly, a verified document headed "Charlie Sheen Statement to the London Guardian".

"It is difficult to imagine a situation I could take more seriously".

Like maybe this drugged-up actor, or ex-drugged-up actor (I'm not clear what she's saying), this trivial, empty-headed "showbiz" type is actually capable of deep thought, beyond the blinkers that most of us view "reality" behind...and has noticed something going on that frankly, Marina just can't even bare to think about ....so she just makes fun of and trivialises the whole idea that 9/11 may have been an "inside job" and rubbishes this man and anyone who supports his views...because, er, she's not someone who can't think things out for herself...or dos she mean she herself don't have a trivial "showbiz" mentality and embraces absurd "conspiracy theories"? Oh dear, what does she mean and what is she really saying here?!!

leading her to open her mind and get over herself and her cynicism. It's like he's doing that to me!

Telling words dear, and all your own!

[Garrett Cooke]

marina.hyde@guardian.co.uk is the email address. It worked last time. I will be sending another.

Garrett

[Jane]

Thanks for supplying Marina's email address, Garrett, I will certainly be using it!

And please anyone who is thinking of emailing this journalist - or anyone about anything for that matter - write the email at a time when you are calm, sober and not feeling too angry (I know the latter can be hard with all we have to cope with!) and then read it back and reflect before firing it off - as Freddie and Annie have said - don't swear or use insults - this just reflects badly on the sending and really upon our whole movement - and ensures that even if there had been any "chance" that at least some of our vital message might be "heard" all that will be "heard" is the insult!

I know I have sent at least one "peevish" sounding posting to this board in the past (not directed at anyone on it, but just feeling totally "naffed off" with the state of things and letting it show!!). I nearly did it again recently after watching a totally biased News report about Norman Kemble...saying I was so "fed up" with it all I wanted to kill myself ... I just read it back before posting and reflected - No, Jane, you are just very tired, have got home late, not eaten much and had one larger too many on an empty stomach ...you want something to eat and then some sleep...! So I deleted the posting! Imagine if I were to send an email like that out to a jounalist, MP, etc, mentioning our group at the same time - the damage this kind of thing causes...so folks, "Reflect" before clicking on "send" or posting in the letter bos for that matter!

[Pikey]

The following e mail sent tonight:-

[Dr Hemp]

Has anyone ever contacted Greg Dyke? He has always seemed to me a man of great integrity and he absolutely hates Bliar and Nu Labour. I remember hearing an interview with him on Radio 4 last year; he was absolutely scathing about Bliar and the Hutton Whitewash, etc., He basically felt that he had been unjustly sacked for political reasons because the BBC dared to question the Government’s justification for going to war and he felt that the original BBC story that caused all the controversy was broadly correct and accurate.

[ian neal]

I don't believe anyone has contacted greg dyke and I agree we should

One route is via Brentford FC

gdyke@brentfordfc.co.uk