OK Go on Net Neutrality

[HardOCP News]

If you didn’t like the band OK Go before today, their stance on net neutrality will definitely win you over.

Let me tell you why I take this so seriously, and so personally. I've spent a decade working in the music industry, a business in which the big guys block out the rest of us. Creativity and innovation take a distant back seat to money, and everyone loses, even the big guys themselves. They have insulated themselves from change for so long, they've dug their own grave.

 

[MavericK]

I like OK Go well enough, though I do think it's funny how he talks about all the "bland, uninspired" music that gets played on the radio. Funny, I kind of felt like a lot of OK Go's music was fairly bland and uninspired. And what do you know, it gets played all the time on the radio.

But I like to see artists supporting net neutrality just the same.

 

[Apocrypha]

Their music might be bland and uninspired, that's your taste. But their videos are def. the most unique ones I've seen.

 

[PyroHoltz]

Their music might be bland and uninspired, that's your taste. But their videos are def. the most unique ones I've seen.

Agreed, although I don't feel their music is all that bland. I have to admit, their creativity when it comes to entertainment via music videos is, impressive to say the least.

 

[PyroHoltz]

Great to see bands sticking up for what the believe in.

 

[piscian18]

I like OK Go well enough, though I do think it's funny how he talks about all the "bland, uninspired" music that gets played on the radio. Funny, I kind of felt like a lot of OK Go's music was fairly bland and uninspired. And what do you know, it gets played all the time on the radio.

But I like to see artists supporting net neutrality just the same.

Agreed. They seem like of this glamrock/pop rehash that started with a couple radio friendly white stripes songs and then creating a popularity stream for bands like the hives, vines, Franz Ferdinand, Ok go, (new) Weezer and several others. Not bad music by any means just all comes off as generic radio friendly yawn stuff to me. Ok yeah I just checked they're on a major label no clue what this "woe as me the independent artist" stuff is.

 

[TheWeazmeister]

Just because you are on a major label now doesn't mean you always were, or that you particularly liked the whole process. Sometimes, even if you hate the game, you still have to play it.

 

[xanas3712]

Net neutrality is insane. As if we need the government putting it's hand in more things. Let customers choose the kind of internet we want by allocating our dollars towards those services that provide what we want. Stealing our money via taxation to support a "neutral net" is counterproductive.

We only ensure future censorship and special favors in the future by doing this. What next, some special interest groups demand free internet service because it's a "right"? (notably, one of those kinds of "rights" that is always supported by theft from others) It happens elsewhere in the world. We don't need more of that.

It's also interesting how the small guys always think the big guys are bland and uninspired. Admittedly, I know the big guys are very much protectionist. I have no love for the corporatist RIAA and their pushing of perpetual monopolies and licensing restrictions and all other assorted garbage. I certainly believe that stuff does hurt many artists as well. Unfortunately, we will have it as long as we keep up a huge state that wants to grant special favors to everyone in order to gain votes.

 

[MavericK]

I do agree with you guys that their videos are interesting, but it's more regarding the creativity in making a fun video with very little budget than any sort of epic, show-stopping entertainment piece.

 

[fattypants]

Net neutrality is insane. As if we need the government putting it's hand in more things. Let customers choose the kind of internet we want by allocating our dollars towards those services that provide what we want.

Perhaps you live in a city where you have dozens of ISPs to choose from, but that is not the case where I live. There are two reasonable choices if you want internet here, and we don't even have to wait for the government to screw us...the ISPs are already doing it. The "free market" here is anything but free.

The government isn't pushing to have internet monitoring devices installed; they're pushing for regulation. The government does a fine job of heavily regulating garbage, sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and roads. If you are comfortable with the government making laws regulating those, I don't see how the internet should be any different.

 

[gathagan]

Perhaps you live in a city where you have dozens of ISPs to choose from, but that is not the case where I live. There are two reasonable choices if you want internet here, and we don't even have to wait for the government to screw us...the ISPs are already doing it. The "free market" here is anything but free.

The government isn't pushing to have internet monitoring devices installed; they're pushing for regulation. The government does a fine job of heavily regulating garbage, sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and roads. If you are comfortable with the government making laws regulating those, I don't see how the internet should be any different.

The examples you use are largely occurring at the state or municipal level, not federal.
The farther away you get from the consumers, the less chance you have that regulations are effective at addressing local situations.

The farther you away you get from the consumers, the larger the chance is that influence peddling and lobbying have a greater impact on the decision making than the consumer's needs.

Giving a federal agency the kind of regulatory power that the FCC seeks is a recipe for disaster and does little to bring about actual net neutrality.

 

[Notleh]

its neither positive or negative...its nuetral...

 

[xanas3712]

Perhaps you live in a city where you have dozens of ISPs to choose from, but that is not the case where I live. There are two reasonable choices if you want internet here, and we don't even have to wait for the government to screw us...the ISPs are already doing it. The "free market" here is anything but free.

I'd be the first to admit the free market isn't in existence in ISPs, but not for the reasons you state. The industry is already over-regulated, subsidized, etc.

We need to let consumers decide how much and what kind of internet they want. We need to let ISPs stand or fail based on their ability to convince you that you want their service. If you hate your ISPs, don't use the internet, coordinate with other customers to try to draw in competitors, etc. If entrepreneurs see money to be made from your area they will bring about new services. But you won't get anything new or anything better if you destroy the ability for network providers to distinguish their services and decide on the best way to expand based on customer desires.

The government has no way of knowing what customers need, because it has no profit/loss system. ISPs that don't meet customer needs fail. ISPs that meet customer needs best succeed.

The choice of whether or not to purchase a service or product, such as internet service, is one you feel benefits you more than the money you could be spending elsewhere or you wouldn't be doing it. Stop looking at the government as a way to make things better for yourself. It's nothing more than forced theft to take from others to subsidize ISP service or provide more than you are willing to pay for yourself.

The government isn't pushing to have internet monitoring devices installed; they're pushing for regulation. The government does a fine job of heavily regulating garbage, sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and roads. If you are comfortable with the government making laws regulating those, I don't see how the internet should be any different.

The government does a horrible job. Why do you hear people complaining of power outages, roads that seem to take months to repair that you know shouldn't take more than a week? Why do you know about "bridges to nowhere" and make-work projects? And what about those utilities? Are you familiar with water shortages causing rationing? The very cause is the lack of ability for utilities to allocate resources properly through the price system, making the necessary changes in price to manage the scarce resource.

Garbage is the same problems, in some areas government handles it well, but the costs are hidden from you. Do you know how much you pay when it does well? But what about when it doesn't? I know I've had times that garbage has stacked up for over a week without dumpsters being taken. That is a huge health hazard.

If government regulation of these essential services is great, then one wonders about the huge problems present in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela after he enacted further price controls designed to help people with lower prices and better service. Instead, a huge exporter of oil can't even manage to power it's own cities...? How is that? Of course he blames it on the greedy energy companies, but is that the true fault?

If regulation leads to great things why the problems with BP in the gulf? Why did the government actually incentivize drilling in deeper water by lowering the royalties to drill there? Any sane human being who cultivated the oceans and had proper ownership rights would have charged them more to drill out there rather than less. The government is a poor steward of everything it manages, because it has no ability to allocate resources through price, and it's a 3rd party to any deal. Asking the government to come into the internet is asking for it to manage poorly as it did with the oceans. It's asking for the FTC to sue people more for blogging about things that they "don't have scientific evidence for" (which is FTC code for not agreeing with government-paid experts). Censorship is what we'll really get out of the government. And a great deal for special interest voting blocks who might want some free goodies paid for out of more taxes.

 

[Derangel]

I'd be the first to admit the free market isn't in existence in ISPs, but not for the reasons you state. The industry is already over-regulated, subsidized, etc.

We need to let consumers decide how much and what kind of internet they want. We need to let ISPs stand or fail based on their ability to convince you that you want their service. If you hate your ISPs, don't use the internet, coordinate with other customers to try to draw in competitors, etc. If entrepreneurs see money to be made from your area they will bring about new services. But you won't get anything new or anything better if you destroy the ability for network providers to distinguish their services and decide on the best way to expand based on customer desires.

The government has no way of knowing what customers need, because it has no profit/loss system. ISPs that don't meet customer needs fail. ISPs that meet customer needs best succeed.

The choice of whether or not to purchase a service or product, such as internet service, is one you feel benefits you more than the money you could be spending elsewhere or you wouldn't be doing it. Stop looking at the government as a way to make things better for yourself. It's nothing more than forced theft to take from others to subsidize ISP service or provide more than you are willing to pay for yourself.

Great idea in a fantasy universe. The free market will NEVER work for ISPs. Telecom companies have a strangle-hold on the market and they will never let it go. They have their fingers in state and local governments already. Why do you think monopolies go unchallenged even when the service is terrible? There is no way for competitors to come in without approval from a city to lay down lines and ISP companies simply don't want that. I'm lucky to have two good options for internet locally, but for miles around here most towns have the choice of Charter or nothing. In towns without Charter its a smaller local company that has a monopoly. Heck even one of the big cities in this state is stuck with Charter monopoly. Not only has the free market failed, like you said, it never existed in the first place and it simply will never exist due to the companies and kind of money involved. When consumers have no choice there is no way for a free market to form and work.

Now I'm not saying I want everything government controlled, but something needs to happen. These insane monopolies are one of the reasons the network infrastructure of this country is such total shit.

 

[LittleMeEgo]

The free market will NEVER work for ISPs.

What proof do you have of that very broad statement? Why can't a free people (not local governments) lay down their own wires/fiber for Internet? Why must there be a government-granted monopoly which destroys consumer choice and consumer power which creates the very problem Net Neutrality is trying to solve? This is a local government issue and if we need a small peaceful revolution on the local level to end the duopoly, then that is what is needed.

Why do you think monopolies go unchallenged even when the service is terrible?

Because people are failing to mobilize against the duopoly on a local level. People like you and me.

Now I'm not saying I want everything government controlled, but something needs to happen.

There's a saying.. The failures of government usually bring outcries for more government. That's what Net Neutrality is.

Consumer choice is a far more powerful force than a federal law mandating some sort of Internet neutrality. The very reason some law is supposedly needed is because the market isn't allowing consumer choice. The problem right now is that the market isn't allowed to function due to local government-granted monopolies.

The FCC is the very last entity that should have regulatory powers over the Internet! In any case, Net Neutrality is mostly corporatist fear mongering propaganda.It is a one size fits all approach and I think that is very flawed. The problem has been blown way out of proportion, so far.

 

[Derangel]

What proof do you have of that very broad statement? Why can't a free people (not local governments) lay down their own wires/fiber for Internet? Why must there be a government-granted monopoly which destroys consumer choice and consumer power which creates the very problem Net Neutrality is trying to solve? This is a local government issue and if we need a small peaceful revolution on the local level to end the duopoly, then that is what is needed.



Because people are failing to mobilize against the duopoly on a local level. People like you and me.



There's a saying.. The failures of government usually bring outcries for more government. That's what Net Neutrality is.

Consumer choice is a far more powerful force than a federal law mandating some sort of Internet neutrality. The very reason some law is supposedly needed is because the market isn't allowing consumer choice. The problem right now is that the market isn't allowed to function due to local government-granted monopolies.

The FCC is the very last entity that should have regulatory powers over the Internet! In any case, Net Neutrality is mostly corporatist fear mongering propaganda.It is a one size fits all approach and I think that is very flawed. The problem has been blown way out of proportion, so far.

My proof is already stated. Its all in how the ISPs and local governments operate. People can't lay their own cable because A. The handful of people that know how to properly do it work for the ISPs or other companies and B. It requires digging up city owned land. Also, its bloody expensive. Example: A fibre optic cable was cut recently. Its probably only going to require a few miles of new cable to fix it, but the cost to the morons that cut it will likely be at least 20-30 thousand dollars due to all the digging they have to do. Now imagine that across even a small city. We're talking millions of dollars. Who is going to front that cost? Can't ask the city if you want people to do it without control. Can't go to the ISPs because they'll want total control over the city by themselves.

Which brings us to, people mobilizing does nothing when there is no where to turn. What is getting rid of one company going to do when another will take its place and do the same thing as the last one?

As I said, I'm not saying I want government regulation here. However there aren't exactly many viable options. Too many people want one extreme or the other. Extremist tactics are never good.

 

[LittleMeEgo]

With regards to the Washington Post article.. It's populist propaganda.

The Internet was never neutral, and it never will be, no matter what. People in the NYC have better Internet service than people in North Dakota. The Internet is inherently unfair. But more importantly, the Internet is defined as "A network of interconnected networks." Net Neutrality erodes that because it starts to manage the Internet as a single network. It erodes the autonomous nature of the Internet and forces (by action of threatened police violence) some of that authority to the federal government.

 

[LittleMeEgo]

People can't lay their own cable because A. The handful of people that know how to properly do it work for the ISPs or other companies

People can learn new skills. It's a basic human trait. This also applies to digging holes to lay cable. You make it sound like it's impossible for anyone but the cable/telco's to lay cable.

B. It requires digging up city owned land.

Anyone can file a permit request. Still it's just humans solving problems but you make it sound like it's some sort of super human achievement but that's just not true. The duopoly isn't about super human people doing superhuman things. The duopoly is about corporations partnering with government for their own benefit.

Also, its bloody expensive. Example: A fibre optic cable was cut recently. Its probably only going to require a few miles of new cable to fix it, but the cost to the morons that cut it will likely be at least 20-30 thousand dollars due to all the digging they have to do. Now imagine that across even a small city. We're talking millions of dollars. Who is going to front that cost?

So by your logic how can Intel/AMD/etc build multi-billion dollar manufacturing facilities? It's expensive so therefore only a government monopoly could do it? There is this thing called "supply and demand." As long as people are willing to pay for Internet, the laying of cables can be paid for.

Which brings us to, people mobilizing does nothing when there is no where to turn.

We have each other. We can do it. Humans have achieved great things throughout history and you make it sound like the duopoly is a necessary evil, and I'm telling you it isn't. For decades people have been willing to sacrifice some freedom for security, and now the problems from doing that are becoming apparent. End the duopoly.

What is getting rid of one company going to do when another will take its place and do the same thing as the last one?

There's a huge difference between a monopoly and a free market. Huge difference!

As I said, I'm not saying I want government regulation here. However there aren't exactly many viable options. Too many people want one extreme or the other. Extremist tactics are never good.

Ending the duopoly might initially be a little painful as things reorganize but a free market can function, especially if we consider wiring our own communities outside of both corporations and government.

There's a market demand for Internet and it's not that much different from any other product or service you and I buy. The 3d video card market isn't much different or hard drives or keyboards. Supply and demand.

 

[keenan]

The Internet was never neutral, and it never will be, no matter what. People in the NYC have better Internet service than people in North Dakota. The Internet is inherently unfair.

This is totally orthogonal to the type of neutrality being discussed.

There is no free market. The choice is either regulating, or completely dissolving the existing companies and mandating the separation of infrastructure and services. Regulating is the easier choice, and maybe it will work. If not, more drastic action is required.

 

[fattypants]

The Internet was never neutral, and it never will be, no matter what. People in the NYC have better Internet service than people in North Dakota. The Internet is inherently unfair. But more importantly, the Internet is defined as "A network of interconnected networks." Net Neutrality erodes that because it starts to manage the Internet as a single network. It erodes the autonomous nature of the Internet and forces (by action of threatened police violence) some of that authority to the federal government.

I think you are addressing a point that nobody is arguing, unless you're just trying to erode, corrupt, or confuse the meaning of net neutrality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

 

[LittleMeEgo]

This is totally orthogonal to the type of neutrality being discussed..

Yes and no. Yes the actual intent of NN isn't trying to change universal law that life isn't fair. But no, there are many people who believe, just by the name "Net Neutrality" that the Internet can be made truly fair and unbiased. So it's important to say what I said outright so that less technically knowledgeable people understand that the Internet can't really be neutral.

There is no free market. The choice is either regulating, or completely dissolving the existing companies and mandating the separation of infrastructure and services. Regulating is the easier choice, and maybe it will work. If not, more drastic action is required

Well that's hopeful. But if it doesn't work the law is in place and laws are very difficult to remove. We still have the disaster that is Social Security. We still have a vast array of federal laws and agencies that are no longer needed and waste many billions of dollars. So I say to you and everyone here that once NN is enacted, it will be nearly impossible to remove.

My predictions.. NN will have unforeseen provisions that will assist domestic spying, tax the Internet in some way, empower the FCC do have more authority than NN advocates really want, will help big Internet companies (like Google/Facebook and many other content providers) in various ways. Also the bill will have many 'riders' that will be completely unrelated to NN but waste taxpayer money.

All we have right now is populist propaganda. We have seen no real bill and we certainly don't know what is the final bill. It's all speculation and Utopian promises by politicians. The devil is in the details and that's what think NN will become.

 

[keenan]

Yes and no. Yes the actual intent of NN isn't trying to change universal law that life isn't fair. But no, there are many people who believe, just by the name "Net Neutrality" that the Internet can be made truly fair and unbiased. So it's important to say what I said outright so that less technically knowledgeable people understand that the Internet can't really be neutral.

What you said outright isn't really relevant to the discussion. If you don't believe neutrality is attainable, at least frame your argument in a way that makes sense.

Well that's hopeful. But if it doesn't work the law is in place and laws are very difficult to remove. We still have the disaster that is Social Security. We still have a vast array of federal laws and agencies that are no longer needed and waste many billions of dollars. So I say to you and everyone here that once NN is enacted, it will be nearly impossible to remove.

Personally I would much rather go straight to the regulated infrastructure and unregulated services model. This is used successfully for all other kinds of infrastructure in various jurisdictions around the world, and I think it would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately I don't see that happening as sorely as it is needed. NN is a compromise, and one that will hopefully level the playing field. You're going to have to do better than 'rah rah big government is bad'.

My predictions.. NN will have unforeseen provisions that will assist domestic spying, tax the Internet in some way,

How? This is marketplace regulation. Its scope doesn't go there.

empower the FCC do have more authority than NN advocates really want,

The FCC doesn't want 'more authority', and I give them enough credit to realize how futile exercising 'authority' over the internet would be. And do tell how they're going to sneak this in after saying publicly many times that they don't want this, and how any kind of Internet 'authority' would require a lot of infrastructure changes. Nobody wants that, including the regulator.

will help big Internet companies (like Google/Facebook and many other content providers) in various ways.

Great, if they're helped and it's not at the consumer's expense, that's awesome. If you think there going to abuse NN to further anti-consumer goals, I'd like to hear how.

Also the bill will have many 'riders' that will be completely unrelated to NN but waste taxpayer money.

I hear this is typical of US politics, it's not really anything about NN in particular.

All we have right now is populist propaganda. We have seen no real bill and we certainly don't know what is the final bill. It's all speculation and Utopian promises by politicians. The devil is in the details and that's what think NN will become.

Perhaps, but I don't think that should stop us from speaking out about how we think it should work. It's hard to imagine the market being worse off than it is now.

 

[GHarris]

I suppose I must be very ignorant. To me, net neutrality means that ISPs have to send you all kinds of internet content at the same speed and latency - namely, the best speed and latency they can provide you with for the price while still making a profit. No traffic shaping, no prioritizing certain types of data or certain websites.

So what does local monopolies, and talk of governments censoring stuff, have to do with anything? Even in a big free market this BS would still be shovelled and only government is in a position to put a stop to it. Ensure that all traffic must be treated equally, with legislation, and it's job done. End of issue, end of discussion.

I suppose I must be very ignorant.

(I am not saying that everything internet-related that ISPs and government try to do is perfect, but they are entirely separate issues to me)

 

[Sprkslfly]

Just because you are on a major label now doesn't mean you always were, or that you particularly liked the whole process. Sometimes, even if you hate the game, you still have to play it.

Sigged for truth!

 

[Sprkslfly]

Net neutrality is insane. As if we need the government putting it's hand in more things. Let customers choose the kind of internet we want by allocating our dollars towards those services that provide what we want. Stealing our money via taxation to support a "neutral net" is counterproductive.

Perhaps you live in a city where you have dozens of ISPs to choose from, but that is not the case where I live. There are two reasonable choices if you want internet here, and we don't even have to wait for the government to screw us...the ISPs are already doing it. The "free market" here is anything but free.

The government isn't pushing to have internet monitoring devices installed; they're pushing for regulation. The government does a fine job of heavily regulating garbage, sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and roads. If you are comfortable with the government making laws regulating those, I don't see how the internet should be any different.

The examples you use are largely occurring at the state or municipal level, not federal.
The farther away you get from the consumers, the less chance you have that regulations are effective at addressing local situations.

The farther you away you get from the consumers, the larger the chance is that influence peddling and lobbying have a greater impact on the decision making than the consumer's needs.

Giving a federal agency the kind of regulatory power that the FCC seeks is a recipe for disaster and does little to bring about actual net neutrality.

But that's gath's point (at least how I read into it). It's still government regulation.

How much easier has it been for "federal level" companies to buy out/or into local companies/local governments so that they effectively "buy"pass the ability to have choices at the local level. Charter/Time Warner/et al have done this already, and that's WHY we have no more than 2 choices (cable or dsl) in alot of major areas, as it stands. Much less some apartment complexes being bought by whatever cable/satellite company was the highest bidder -so that you can't even use someone else IF another option exists locally.

If this could be done at a Federal level, then it'd be a step in the right direction, with the end goal hoping to end the local monopolizations.

As it stands, and has been historically...(with rare exception) it's up for "sale."
No, the consumer didn't even HAVE a chance to vote with their wallet.
The decision was already made.

 

[Sprkslfly]

I'd be the first to admit the free market isn't in existence in ISPs.... The industry is already over-regulated, subsidized, etc.

To some degree, albeit not effectively, and not in the right areas.
(I slung cable and did HSI installs for Charter in Tx for several years...so you're not alone)

We need to let consumers decide how much and what kind of internet they want. We need to let ISPs stand or fail based on their ability to convince you that you want their service. If you hate your ISPs, don't use the internet, coordinate with other customers to try to draw in competitors, etc. If entrepreneurs see money to be made from your area they will bring about new services. But you won't get anything new or anything better if you destroy the ability for network providers to distinguish their services and decide on the best way to expand based on customer desires.

"If you hate your ISPs, don't use the internet..."

How on earth does that help improve choices or options???
And what average internet user the hell really has the time to try and present his/her case to other ISPs, much less would be heard "seriously" by any ISP of caliber, as anything more than a nice "humor break" to their day.
It'd take somewhat near the power of a "lobbyist group", petitions, or the like to get the level of attention merited to warrant any tier 1 or 2 ISP's attention.

The government has no way of knowing what customers need, because it has no profit/loss system. ISPs that don't meet customer needs fail. ISPs that meet customer needs best succeed.

False. We have a ton of ISP's that don't cater to their customers. They simply have a captive audience. That's why there even IS a debate about net neutrality. Our choices are already limited. Now you want to allow the further crippling of those choices (and packets of those people) even further??

The choice of whether or not to purchase a service or product, such as internet service, is one you feel benefits you more than the money you could be spending elsewhere or you wouldn't be doing it. Stop looking at the government as a way to make things better for yourself. It's nothing more than forced theft to take from others to subsidize ISP service or provide more than you are willing to pay for yourself.

The government is supposed to be there to make the choices fair for everyone so we have an even playing field. NOT to hold one above the other (I'm not going into the obvious and glaring issues already there)

The government does a horrible job. Why do you hear people complaining of power outages, roads that seem to take months to repair that you know shouldn't take more than a week? Why do you know about "bridges to nowhere" and make-work projects? And what about those utilities? Are you familiar with water shortages causing rationing? The very cause is the lack of ability for utilities to allocate resources properly through the price system, making the necessary changes in price to manage the scarce resource.

Local governments in most of the cases you cite above. But again, it's easier for Federal level companies to buy those...as previously stated in my prior post.

problems present in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela

/dismissed because we're discussing USA here...WhoTH cares in this context.

<....BP irrelevance snipped...>The government is a poor steward of everything it manages, because it has no ability to allocate resources through price, and it's a 3rd party to any deal.

Nope. That's due to lobbying/gravy issuing favoritism payoffs. If our Gov't operated as intended, we'd have none of this. (and I knoooooow you're dying to scream "that's my point!!" lol -but can you see where I'm coming from (and people like me)?

I do agree with alot of your points on mis-management and such...and you provide some good points...but we're talking about the larger picture. (+respect to you)

If the FCC is allowed to put this on the right path...then perhaps we don't arrive at the BS lobbist's doors to start with!!

IMO, the FCC's done far more good than our "Gov't" (at least as we collectively interpret that term these days) *sigh*

What a situation to try and "upright" we have in our country.
Viva la Revolution!
-thought I'd open that can just for kicks. lol ;p [J/K]

 

[LeninGHOLA]

its neither positive or negative...its nuetral...

Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral?