more Guardian *...

[Graham]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1739254,00.html

He's a right Charlie

Mr Sheen is the latest celebrity to confuse fact and fiction

Marina Hyde
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian

Pay attention, civilians. Actor Charlie Sheen has been focusing his mind on the official explanation for 9/11. And you know what? He's not buying it. "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life," the Hotshots Part Deux star told a US radio station this week, "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

Article continues
You're insane. Next.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory."

But it is George Bush's assertion that he saw the first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Centre before any footage of it had been released that tells Charlie he's on to something. "I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," he continued in a manner which in no way suggests he once had a monstrous coke problem. "It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."

Mmm. For many celebrities, conspiracy theories are the VIP rooms of history. Sure, you'll have your Earl Warrens and your senate investigations patrolling the velvet rope, but if you know the right people, and have access to enormous quantities of self-regard, you can get through to the inner sanctum where they tell you It's All A Big Lie.

Frankly, with dentistry as expensive as yours, you simply can't afford to let The Man stamp his jackboot down on your face, and so it is that when faced with the inquiry "did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?", you find yourself thinking: "God, I mean ... do any of us? Like, he had to have people, you know? At least an agent and a publicist."

Anyway, back to Charlie. "It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles," he blathers on, "it seems like the worm is turning."

It's hard to be sure who's in his circles, but you'd have to think there'd be a seat in the Sheen kitchen cabinet for Spike Lee, who last year told CNN he suspected the Bush administration had blown up the levees in New Orleans.

"Remember the film Chinatown?" he began promisingly, "where they flooded the LA basin ... I believe that it's not too far-fetched to think that, look, we got a bunch of poor black people here. We got to save these other neighbourhoods. What we got to do, dump this in this ward, boom. I believe it. I don't put anything past the US government."

Also taking a position round the table comes this column's beloved Tom Cruise, who famously dismisses psychiatry as a big conspiracy. Which is a little like a dehydrated man claiming water is a conspiracy. And completing the quartet is Michael Jackson, who not only claims all his recent legal bother was a vast plot against him, but was taped espousing the oldest conspiracy of all: it's the Jews! And they're targeting people in the, um, entertainment industry. "They [the Jews] suck them like leeches," he whined in a telephone call played to a courtroom last year. "I'm so tired of it. They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."

Michael? You're wanted back on Planet Earth. Well, in a way.

So lonely? He must be

Ever since he cemented his eco-warrior credentials by advertising a huge gas-guzzling Jaguar, the world has wondered: what's the next inspired idea Sting's going to have? The wait is over. He's opening a lapdancing club.

God knows there are times we've all thought, "Sod the rainforest: let's go to Spearmint Rhino," but few of us have been committed enough to raise the money to stick in the bank's knickers and open one up.

Happily, Sting is all set to do just that by bringing a branch of the Forty Deuce chain of strip clubs to Manhattan, where the local press reports he is famous for insisting lapdancers keep their clothes on while performing for him. Which is not at all the sort of preposterous affectation you'd expect from the old boy.

Of course, it wasn't long ago that Sting was publicly berating Middle East leaders for failing to heed the message in his song Desert Rose, so it'll be nice to have a ready-made entertainment emporium to whisk delegations off to after any summits he's planning.

[mason-free party]

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

I URGE YOU TO TELEPHONE THIS MEDIA WHORE BITCH AND PUT HER RIGHT,...
Guardian Unlimited, the Guardian's network of websites, is based at:
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER
United Kingdom
Tel: 020-7278 2332


_________________

[Andrew Johnson]

I e-mailed this response to her (Marina.Hyde@guardian.co.uk):

Dear Ms Hyde,

I read this article on the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1739254,00.html) tonight and was very surprised at the standard of research that it contained. I have on many an occasion been relatively impressed with a number of articles in the Guardian, but this one was very disappointing indeed. I was especially surprised that you seemed to just use the article as a vehicle for apparently disparaging a number of celebrities, following a "discussion" of Sheen's "incredible" statements.

It seems you had not researched many - if any - of the facts of which Charlie Sheen spoke. I am a member of a group called Scholar's for 9-11 Truth (www.st911.org) - a non partisan group of academics and students who are questioning the official story of 9-11 - using scientific data and analysis. I have advised all main UK news media outlets of our group's formation early this year and for your perusal, I include one of our press releases below. Sadly, there has been a news media blackout regarding our group's formation. For example, I have contacted the BBC repeatedly and asked them to include a news bulletin about our group (which includes Professor Morgan Reynolds who served in the 2000 Bush Administration for 16 months). The BBC have ignored my requests, despite me supplying the facts and data to show how important our group is. Since they have ignored and marginalized my position, I am starting legal action against them for being in breach of their charter and refusing to correct this breach.

I think there is a very strong need for you to withdraw or rewrite your article as the statements you make regarding the truth of what Charlie Sheen said can not be substantiated when the facts are considered carefully.

As members of the Scholar's group, we are acutely aware of the esteem in which the official story of 9/11 is held by most people. This, of course, has resulted in statements of ridicule and a denial of our credibility being made, in articles and reports similar to yours, on repeated occasions. However, as Scholar's, we know that the facts and evidence are on our side and that the mainstream media will, sooner or later, have to correct the mistakes made in articles like yours. Many of us are also quite well versed in the way the media spin machine works and we are seeking exposure of our (generally unpopular) research through other channels. However, why not change our minds - perhaps you can write a balanced article about our ST911 group (I will gladly give you more information or an interview)?

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson
Scholars For 9-11 Truth (www.st911.org)
British 9-11 Truth Campaign (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/)

[Enclosed - ST911 Press Release]

[Justin]

Nice one, Andrew. It's certainly turning out to be a frantic few days,

Justin

[paul wright]

Nice conflation of 9/11, JFK and Michael Jacksons' "jew" remarks
The Sting stuff was editorialised out of the hard copy it was so patently irrelevant
Might it be a good idea to address the press through their letter columns as a multi-signatured organisational response to this type of obfuscation
I submitted a number of letters on 911 to the Guardian around about 2002 and of course not a one of them was published
However, one or two serious letters, penned by various physicians as a group, questioning the manner of David Kelly's demise did make it through to the letters page
And many leftist letters signed by a number of organisation members get published with a fair frequency
I don't think it's worth attacking Marina Hyde's mailbox as an individual
She'll just delete it after all
It would perhaps be better to publish the text of a response to this kind of scurrilousness here, invite members to agree a signature and suggest amendments via PM, and then post it with Chair, Secretary, Treasurer signatures topping the list of signatories, plus David and Annie's MI5 Whistleblowers credentials In this particular case I'm sure we could have obtained Charlie's agreement
I think that may carry more weight

[andrewwatson]

Good suggestion.

I have just showed LC2 to my partner who has hitherto been unconvinced - I think this has changed that although there was the usual reaction of ''I can't believe that anyone could do that to their own people''. Funny that for four years we had no trouble believing that a bunch of Arabs could .

[paul wright]

[Andrew Johnson]

DH,

Re the Joint letter - That's a great suggestion - I will pass it on to Annie.

Cheers

[Pikey]

Your letter Andrew, as usual tremendously positive and creative 911 truth campaigning.

Here is my contribution inspired by your contribution:-

[Andrew Johnson]

Pikey,

That's top. I like it. I think we are more likely to have an effect if we firmly challenge people, like you have done, than if we simply just say things like "shame on you" etc.

So, she will have some e-mail and calls to think about tomorrow morning....

[brian]

A glaring irony is the fact that from Guardian reports on September 11 and surrounding issues alone, the official narrative can clearly be seen to be false. Not one of the Guardians journalists have made the effort to connect the dots, or at least publish their effort to do so.

Well done with the emails.

[paul wright]

Just one more point. We are now a kind of constitutionalised organisation rather than a loose connection of individuals and should start to realise our power as such
If at the next STW rally we continue to be denied a platform, then our banners need to be at the front of the dais rather than with a stall at the perimeter, demanding a voice collectively
The smartass liberal intellectuals whose only vocation is to sneer have held their vantage far too long
To break through that gate that they keep, we need to vent some real wrath on them
They are a major obstacle, and while not wanting to divert attention from the real targets, we need to break their power

[SmashySmash]

[xmasdale]

Yeah!

Take a leaf out of Walter Wolfgang's book. Speak truth and provoke conspicuous supression of it by the gatekeepers.

Noel

[frankie]

[quote="Graham"]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1739254,00.html

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

Here's the email I just sent them:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am losing all respect for the Guardian. For the editor to allow such a poor quality story is very sad.

Marina Hyde failed to mention or debate any of the facts that Charlie Sheen has raised. Instead, she chose to make a personal attack. What a childish, spiteful and foolish writer.

Her philosophy seems to be that she will only believe something if she likes the person who is saying it. Conversely, if she personally does not like someone, she will dismiss whatever they say.

For the Guardian to publish such nonsense just brings the paper into disrepute.

The Guardian should run another article, this time debating the facts. Possibly explaining how three buildings collapsed in their own footprints - just like controlled demolition.

Possibly explaining how a paper passport was found at Ground Zero, while the black boxes were destroyed.

Or the NORAD stand down. Or why jets weren't called up from Andrews Airbase a few miles away from the Twin Towers. Or how about the Security Service allowing George Bush to stay in a classroom full of children after they knew that 'America was under attack'. Or the documentation showing that the American Administration needed a 'New Pearl Harbour'.

Of course, all of this would take some explaining, and Marina Hyde is obviously not up for that - she would rather attack Charlie Sheen on a personal level. It is laughable.

Marina Hyde's article is not worthy of the Guardian that I once respected.

Shame on the Guardian.

Yours faithfully,

[Spectre]

Who is Marina Hyde anyway? She looks like a bemused teenager on her column photo. Perhaps she is ...

Is this the best the dear old Grauniad can muster these days.

I now remember why I switched to The Independent all those years ago and see no real reason to return, if this gimcrack journalism is the best they can offer. They need to offer Maureen Dowd a job! She'd show them what to do ...

[paul wright]

[Spectre]

[is]

Dont know if this has been posted elsewhere - it's 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.

[frankie]

[
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

-------------------------
Here's her email:

Marina.Hyde@guardian.co.uk

[paul wright]

She's a pure media whore, and typically disregards the substantial material we know she's received
This is a properly constituted organisation now and probably shouldn't generally be engaging as an assemblage of disparate individuals pushing squabbles with individual journalists
At the very least, Marina, to give her the smallest smidgeon of credit, broke through the almost complete media blackout to introduce the subject, albeit in a derisory and dissembling manner
Many of the brighter media whores have known about the evidence for a long while now, and have most likely read the info and seen the movies
They're constrained in their output by the enslaved editorialistion
We know how big the story is, and so do some of them
They're enslaved by jobsworth * as some here might be in their daily activities. I don't hide my opinions but as to actually integrating them into my daily practice, I know I fall far short
I might email the bitch praising her for at least mentioning the topic, which 99.99% of the gutter rag fails to do

[Ben]

World war
Media whore
Please the press in Belgium...

Sorry guys, thought I was on the Morrissey forum there.

Still, same message applies. What a brazen load of old * from that Guardian no-hoper.

[blackcat]

Last Saturday she referred to Charlie Sheen again under the heading "The Charlie and Denise Show gets ugly". I can't find it on the web but it was part of her column headed by the "Crimes against Costner" headline. I have the piece of * in my hand so will type some of it for your edification.

[Spectre]

She is one to add to the List of the Shameful when we finally compose it. When the truth has finally emerged - then we MUST remind the world of all of these destructive little egomaniacs who - instead of following the route of say a Woodward and a Bernstein - would rather drag a once great broadsheet down to the level of Hello magazine, and deal with sleaze, tittle tattle and innuendo rather than journalism.

I think you are all wasting valuable time and energy even bothering with her (and so - by default am I). She sounds a nasty piece of work and she probably is ...

[Jane]

[blackcat]

[Graham]

I have seen many a forum debate on what is acceptable, the general consensus being that whilst most word are allowed in context, the C word is generally found to be most offensive by both sides. Is there a swear filter on the board software that could be used?

[Jane]

Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: The vile "c" word

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

[paul wright]

The c word's not something to get worked up about
I occasionally drop it into conversation myself amongst friends, though not when Jane's present obviously
It carries a pertinent force when used rarely, becomes ugly when used frequently - this is the sole usage here that I know of
Its angry common usage divorces it from what it originally referred to
Poonani would be a more mellifluous term for the female sexual organ

[Spectre]

I don't agree with sensorship either and couldn't abide Mary Whitehouse (and loved Pink Floyd's lampooning her on Animals), however, I do exercise self-censorship when considering what words to use on this or any other forum. Keep it clean folks is a comment you often hear used by moderators. I think we can all express ourselves very capably without the need to resort to any 'f', 'c', or 's' expletives myself. I am no prude - but I also see no need to spout forth in language which might offend the sensibilities of others on this site.

The 9/11 criminals may well be a bunch of c**ts, b**tards, sh**es and f**kers ... we all know that - but we can keep those words for our own private converations off-board I think.