Metallica's James Hetfield comes out for Marin rock museum

[Jimmy]

ProPilot wrote:

I was deeply sadded when I tried to access one of my favorite trails from San Rafael and discovered a 10 foot high metal fence blocking the only access from where I live. I am a lifelong Marin resident and I have been using the easment in dispute since I was 14. Once I learned that James Hetfield of Metallica built the fence I became a former Metallica fan. For "not trying to **** anyone off" he has created quite a bit of controversy.
Hetfield is quite skilled at manipulating the press to serve his needs. When someone spray painted "shame" on the solid sheet metal fence, Hetfield called it vandalism. I don't belive a word he says. As far as I am concerned James Hetfield is just another typical southern californian. I would prefer if he went back to L.A. and did not return.

An ode to ProPilot:

I am a lifelong Marin resident. I recently went to a field that I used to play in when I was 8 yrs old, but ProPilot had built a house there and was living in it. Once I found out that it was ProPilot's house I became a former ProPilot fan.

ProPilot is quite skilled at manipulating the press to serve his needs. I spray painted SHAME on ProPilot's house and he called it vandalism.

Why did ProPilot have to build a house in MY FIELD. He's just another typical human. I wish he would just go back to living in a cave.

[Jimmy]

Napster Poodle wrote:

If you had any clue of the layout of the property, you'd see that the area in question is far away from any private structures. Your moronic rage about intruding on someone's land shows you are uninformed. Still reliving the glory days when Metallica inspired you to get your first camaro? How many tech support jobs have you worked in the last 8 years since getting laid off from circuit city.
Finally, I actually do allow public access through my land... right down the street from Hetfields... as do all my neighbors. Don't forget to tell your kids about how you voluntarily deposited money into Hetfield's kid's trust fund.
Signed,
Sean Penn
<quoted text>

Sean --

I'd suggest that you offer a nice price to buy out Mr. Hetfield's land and donate it to the county, but I understand you are about to go through a tough divorce and lose a mighty chunk of you assets ...

Oh, wait, what day is it ... Tuesday? What? The divorce is off again??? I guess that means we'll see you warming up you favorite barstool and drowning your sorrows at the Peso!!!

Hahaha!! Liberal nitwit.

[Jimmy]

A Peaceful Resolution wrote:

It raises an interesting question: Should a wealthy celebrity be able to buy a 5% slice of land that was previously public access and effectively eliminate a major recreational thoroughfare, especially if the newly private land isn't consequential to the privacy of the celebrity?

5. Both sides work towards a resolution. Hetfield gets positive PR out of it, and polishes his image.
<quoted text>

I like your attitude, but there are two flaws in your idea:

1. It was never publicly owned land. Therefore, it can't be considered "newly private land."

2. It doesn't really polish his image. Most people in this country overwhelmingly support the not-so-new concept of private land ownership. You wingnuts are in the minority - why should he care? You are literally surrounded by truly public open-space but you demand more.

You are no different than he is ... well, except that he can afford to buy a nice piece of private property in Marin ... and you clearly can't.

[Sean Stan]

Snark Attack wrote:

I used to work with a guy who walked into Metallica's practice studio in San Rafael thinking that it was a music shop. He sat down to test the drums. The band came out of the back room ready to kick his asz. Luckily for him he escaped unharmed.

Megadeth would have jammed with him

[A Peaceful Resolution]

Jimmy - I get that you are stuck in the us vs. them mindset that Metallica fostered. Private vs. Public. Since the area is several hundred acres away from his residence, don't you think there is an amendable resolution?

The weird thing is that Hetfield states that he is a libertarian. I run with libertarians - they tend to be into openness, not greed.

I bike passed his property Sunday and saw that the houses on both sides of Hetfields have recently put their house up for sale.

Maybe they are scared that a recently recovered alcholic, who owns guns, enjoys hunting animals, whose art exhibits anger issues, and who voted for Bush, is hiding out at the end up hyper-liberal sleepy hollow.

You'd think he'd not want to publicize his publicity?

Jimmy wrote:

<quoted text>
I like your attitude, but there are two flaws in your idea:
1. It was never publicly owned land. Therefore, it can't be considered "newly private land."
2. It doesn't really polish his image. Most people in this country overwhelmingly support the not-so-new concept of private land ownership. You wingnuts are in the minority - why should he care? You are literally surrounded by truly public open-space but you demand more.
You are no different than he is ... well, except that he can afford to buy a nice piece of private property in Marin ... and you clearly can't.

[Lalala]

Hetfield is awsome:))

[Jimmy]

A Peaceful Resolution wrote:

I run with libertarians - they tend to be into openness, not greed.
I bike passed his property Sunday and saw that the houses on both sides of Hetfields have recently put their house up for sale.
Maybe they are scared that a recently recovered alcholic, who owns guns, enjoys hunting animals, whose art exhibits anger issues, and who voted for Bush, is hiding out at the end up hyper-liberal sleepy hollow.
You'd think he'd not want to publicize his publicity?
<quoted text>

As a proclaimed libertarian you should know that the predominant tenet of that ideology is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. In keeping with that ideal, Mr. Hetfield (and anyone for that matter) should be afforded the right to FREELY CHOOSE whether or not he wants UNINVITED GUESTS on HIS LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY.

As a fellow Libertarian, I respect your right to do with any property YOU OWN as you see fit. If you choose to buy a large plot of former ranch property and open it up to the public, you are welcome to do so.

The problem with people such as yourself is that while you claim to celebrate an individuals RIGHT TO CHOOSE, in practice, you only do so when it doesn't conflict with your own ideas.

Regarding neighboring homes: Have you heard? There's been some trouble in the US economy/real estate market in the past year. You are overreaching more than a bit.

You are not a Libertarian.

[Sean Stan]

Lalala wrote:

Shut up sean stan you're gay

beauty queen you!

[Weston]

I love your music and i dont blame you for buliding your fence I just hope you can work it out with the county and keep on Rocking!

[A Peaceful Resolution]

I didn't say I was a libertarian, I run with libertarians.

There are no other houses for sale within those neighborhoods.

You don't live in the area, and therefore preach about libertarian ideals of isolationism. That works in Arizona.

Don't conservatives, liberals and libertarians all struggle over whose right it is to choose each other's rights?

This is a case of greed of an overpaid psuedo-celebrity who enjoys shooting innocent animals and has mental instability exhibited in battles with alcohol. I think there are places for people like that: The Desert.

Save up enough money to move out of San Francisco and you'll realize there is more to life than your teenage rage music inspired ideals.

Rock on...

Jimmy wrote:

<quoted text>
As a proclaimed libertarian you should know that the predominant tenet of that ideology is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. In keeping with that ideal, Mr. Hetfield (and anyone for that matter) should be afforded the right to FREELY CHOOSE whether or not he wants UNINVITED GUESTS on HIS LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY.
As a fellow Libertarian, I respect your right to do with any property YOU OWN as you see fit. If you choose to buy a large plot of former ranch property and open it up to the public, you are welcome to do so.
The problem with people such as yourself is that while you claim to celebrate an individuals RIGHT TO CHOOSE, in practice, you only do so when it doesn't conflict with your own ideas.
Regarding neighboring homes: Have you heard? There's been some trouble in the US economy/real estate market in the past year. You are overreaching more than a bit.
You are not a Libertarian.

[Jimmy]

1. Perhaps you should express yourself more clearly ... are you saying that you literally run with libertarians or you figuratively run with libertarians. I had assumed the latter.

2. I live down the street. I stand by my statement. You are over-reaching.

3. I've never said that I even like Mr. Hetfield's music. I simply support his right to keep your whiny a-s-s off of his legally purchased property.

4. I could buy & sell you 3 times over.

Your ignorance speaks volumes.

A Peaceful Resolution wrote:

I didn't say I was a libertarian, I run with libertarians.
There are no other houses for sale within those neighborhoods.
You don't live in the area, and therefore preach about libertarian ideals of isolationism. That works in Arizona.
Don't conservatives, liberals and libertarians all struggle over whose right it is to choose each other's rights?
This is a case of greed of an overpaid psuedo-celebrity who enjoys shooting innocent animals and has mental instability exhibited in battles with alcohol. I think there are places for people like that: The Desert.
Save up enough money to move out of San Francisco and you'll realize there is more to life than your teenage rage music inspired ideals.
Rock on...
<quoted text>