31 March 2015

Surprisingly I received a Statement of Accomplishment of this course

statement of accomplishment

7 Dec 2014

Well, we are at the end of our EDC MOOC and I have the feeling that I only scratched the surface of the issues.

I suppose I could have written a lot more about the extensive readings and video watching I’ve made along this course. Perhaps I’ll do it during this week-end or get enrolled in a next opportunity.

As I embrace a more utopian perspective of technology rather than a dystopian one, I got the feeling that a lot of peers were led to a lot more dystopian arguments, which surprised me, since we are all involved in one of the most recent phenomena  in learning mediated by technology and social media – MOOCs.

As we started by a dystopian perperspective in the first week, I wonder if that didn’t influence that trend?

I have produced a few artifacts along the course which is a habit for me in all MOOCs, even if they are not required in the scope of the proposed activities.

As I have enrolled in many MOOCs before, at a certain moment I decided to build a personal MOOC Space to create webpages for each of the MOOCs as a kind of ePortfolio. It has been useful because, now and then, I find some links useful to recall and get back to some of the ideas addressed in previous courses.

As Bill referred in his post, probably the main artifact of this course is really my EDC webpage in my MOOC Space –

My next artifact was the creation of a new shelf on Digital Cultures in my Livebinders. I’ve been using this tool for some years, with several thematic shelves, which I keep feeding mainly with academic articles and pubications  –

I made some Thinglinks (a tool I had used before) related to the issues we’ve addressed along the course.
The main one on Digital Cultures, linking to course bibliography and other Web searches:

Three other ones on sci-fi movies:
2001 Space Odissey –
Nolan’s Interstellar –
Several sci-fi movies –

Another Thinglink on Learning Theories and Pedagogues/Educators:

On one of the articles of the bibliography «Salvation or destruction: Metaphors of the Internet», I made this mindmap with some links related:

About the MOOCs and articles related I made a Powtoon –

Then I made in Photovisi some composed images that I gathered in a short video (trying a new tool – Kizoa) and submitted as my final artifact –

I had also made two animated GIFs with

EDCMOOC3 Participants’ Artifacts in Pinterest

The collection of videos, resources of EDCMOOC, for debate in Padlet

One last artifact about some of the topics addressed in EDCMOOC3

Another artifact in Powtoon Slides about Transhumanism


3 Dec 2014

A post in Stephen Downes’ Blog about philosophy and knowledge

«Knowledge as Recognition»


2 Dec 2014

Shots of Awe, a series of Jason Silva, a transhumanist perspective?

Humans 2.0


1 Dec 2014

Excellent talk about digital literacy and  data privacy with Audrey Waters and Kin Lane

28 Nov 2014

My last artifact –, a slideshow with previous images

Teacher Bot –


Billy Boyd blog  – with posts related to digital culture MOOC

Padlet with all the videos of EDCMOOC for discussion –

26 Nov 2014

An interview of physicist Michio Kaku «Transhumanism knowking on your door»

25 Nov 2014

Daniel Innerarity wrote this article «A Walled World – Innerarity A+Walled+World , where he speaks of the «ambiguity of the process of globalization, which combines opening and fragmentation, delimitation and closure».

He focus on opposits: national-foreigner; inside-outside; interior-exterior; friend-enemy; public-private, etc.

A few extracts of his article:

«We were so absorbed with celebrating the coming of an unlimited world, the open spaces of globalization, the indetermination of the internet, the freedoms of movement and communication, the new language of interdependence and soft power that we have been slow to recognize the flip side of this reality: a reterritorialized or even walled world, the fragmented space of multiculturalism,  protectionisms, the proliferation of gated communities, and physical barricades.»

«Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the construction of new walls has multiplied, as if it were a frenetic race to respond to a new lack of protection: between Mexico and the United States (in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), on the West Bank, between India and Pakistan, between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, between South Africa and Zimbabwe, between Spain and Morocco (encircling the cities of Ceuta and Melilla), between Thailand and Malaysia, etc.»

«Today’s walls do not indicate a strengthening of the nation- state of full late modernity; they are icons of its erosion. Like all hyperbole, they reveal perplexity, vulnerability, and instability at the very heart of what they are attempting to defend. They signal an incapacity to govern the powers freed by globalization. Resorting to the barrier and the blockade is a desperate attempt to remedy this ungovernability.»

«Walls are a psycho-sociological answer to the blurring of the distinction between the interior and the exterior, accompanied by other distinctions that have become problematic, like the difference between the army and the police, criminals and enemies, war and terrorism, legality and non-legality, public and private, self-interest and general interest.»

«With the image of the net, society stops being interpreted as a machine or an organism, as has habitual beginning with Hobbes’ Leviathan and continuing until the end of the twentieth century. It is no longer seen as a territorial body marked by clear boundaries. Nets do not know delimited spaces, but communicative connections, the infrastructural channeling of flows. That is why we should begin to think that boundaries are no longer where they once were, in that institutionalized place where one sovereignty ended and another began.»

«With an impervious national discourse, we lose sight of the fact that cultures and identities, far from being immutable, are historic in nature and are constantly transformed by the incorporation of new elements. We have to get used to cultural diversity by reducing the drama of its juxtaposition. We need to favor the circulation of people by relaxing the most static aspects of contiguity.»

24th Nov 2014

The course introduction for Week 4

«We now turn our attention to a rather different perspective on ‘being human’ in a digital age: the notion that ‘the human’ is a social category which is made, not a biological matter-of-fact with a set of characteristics that are universally apparent. Where the films and readings in week 3 emphasised that we need to keep a focus on what is valuable in human ways of being, the examples we will look at this week instead explore how ‘the human’ is a flexible category, one we can change and re-make in the interests of, for example, a fairer society, a better life, a richer culture, or perhaps merely personal gain. We are looking here at perspectives which work to re-define what constitutes ‘the human’ – for better or worse – and what that might mean for education. To summarise, where week 3 was concerned with approaches defined by humanism, week 4 will be focused on posthumanism and how this might help us think about education and technological change. 

Great choice of videos for this week.

Robbie, a great short video made out of free NASA material which «tell(s)the story of a sleepy robot that is telling its life story while operating on its last bits of battery juice.» – It’s a human narrative by a robot lost in space longing for its friends and planet Earth, nostalgic of its past. Much of the scenes are a travelling through the space station – the real non-gravity scenes we have seen in real videos.

Gumdrop is a delicious vacuum-cleaning robot actress playing in a casting interview, the dialog is so believable and natural that the robot seems just like a young woman candidate talking of her likesand dislikes.

True Skin is a fabulous short video where human and machine mingle, no boundaries between man and all the cyber parts that are implanted in the body and no bondaries between the real and virtual world. Life just ends shutting down the programme.

Regarding the readings suggested for this week I found the Stefan Herbrechter Interview (2013) very interesting and I selected the following extracts:

“critical posthumanism” as I understand it is the “ongoing deconstruction of humanism”, and not the idea that we have somehow left that humanist tradition behind or have managed to get rid of it.»

«posthumanity would be that utopian (or dystopian) vision that tries to anticipate a future (or describe a “present”) after “humanity” as we know it, e.g. “augmented” humans, cyborgs, artificial intelligence, networked intelligence, post-biological assemblages or chimerae, new species, tissue cultures etc.»

«posthumanism versus transhumanism: a posthumanist somehow thinks that either we’re living the end of “humanism” or the beginning of a time “after” humanism (the question would be which humanism are we talking about here: classical Greek and Roman humanism, Renaissance humanism, religious humanism, modern secular humanism»

«Transhumanists, on the other hand, are people who believe that new technologies (digitalisation and biotechnology) can actually help us to somehow become “more” human, or to fulfil our “potential”, e.g. by overcoming our mortality by getting rid of the body.»

«Cyborgisation, prosthesisation and posthumanism are virtually interchangeable.»

«Is there another way of organising our relationship with nonhuman animals, technology and the environment? All these fundamental political and ethical questions have now become quite urgent mainly because of the problem of sustainability (economic, ecological, political…).
Stefan Herbrechter website –

A documentary on Transhumanism


Defining Humanity, Professor Steve Fuller on the ambiguity of our notions of what is ‘human’.

23rd Nov 2014

The article «Occupying the Noosphere», by Michael Glassman, gives a definition of «noosphere» at the start of the article as «sphere of human thought».
«The noosphere is an emergent ‘space’ for development of autonomous project communities that allows human intellect to guide our perceptions of events and of the built environment, and to actually participate in defining and redefining these events and places over time.»

The concept dates back to philosopher Teilhard de Chardin and his book The Phenomenon of Man, who was influenced by Darwin and the idea of the evolution occurring in layers, first geological, then hydrosphere, then atmosphere, at last biosphere enveloping the planet. More recently the nooslhere is the membrane of thought, which the human intellect spreads through communicative media and cooperative activity.

Glassman says that the Internet is a platform capable of «extending human minds» beyond «traditional boundaries», that may lead to the creation of autonomous communities gathering around causes and he analyses the Occupy Movement and its expression in the Internet.
He recovers the concepts of «hot media» and «cool media» by Marshal McLuhan, to explain the «evolution of media technology towards collective platforms», contrasting them:
Hot Media
⦁ direct transmission of information to audience
⦁ centralized
⦁ static
⦁ power and imediacy limiting choice
⦁ consumer of information
Cool Media
⦁ inviting articipation to relate with information source
⦁ decentralized
⦁ often simple and obscure
⦁ producer of information (blogs, wikis, social networks…)

Glassman considers: «Because online communities are ongoing and dynamic, they are more likely to operate through cool media producing tools offered through the writable Web such as social networking sites, interactive blogs, and wikis.»

He relates the noosphere concept to Castell’s idea of «mass self-communication»:
«The mass self-communication made possible by the Internet is the critical first step in expanding public discourse and moving it past traditional material, spatial, and socio-cultural boundaries.»

Glassman considers:
«An important component of the noosphere is the nonlinear, ecological mode of development and evolution that corresponds to collective intellectual practice. This makes possible sustainability of autonomous project communities where experimentation and emergence are the logical models: the future of the future (is) in the present (McLuhan 1967). The noosphere is a collaborative space where actors engage in collective knowledge development processes. This model contradicts previous social movement models that emphasize heroism and individualism, where individuals claim ownership of the actions, in media spaces such as speeches and protest acts, and where protests are endangered when they lose leaders or critical symbols of dissent.»

Glassman concludes that: «The noosphere offers a new metaphor for effecive changing»…«The noosphere facilitates the development of online communities to create bottom-up solutions to problems and threats»

I’d like to watch these thoughts to be pervasive and contaminate people around the world and for that we need the overcome the digital divide.

In the same line of thought, when searching for more information on the concet pf «noosphere» I found this inspiring talk « How to Occupy the Noosphere: Ian MacKenzie at TEDxVictoria 2013» –

«An ardent filmmaker and media activist, Ian MacKenzie is dedicated to capturing and sharing glimpses of emerging human paradigms. MacKenzie’s most recent film, Occupy Love, explores the growing realization that the dominant systems of power are failing to provide us with health, happiness, or meaning. Ian feels the resulting crisis from the 2008 stock market crash has become a catalyst for a profound awakening.»
The website of the film «Occupy Love» –
Youtube channel of Fierce Love Films –


21st Nov 2014

A few static images created in Photovisi, suggested by the themes of the course on Human and Technology








20th Nov 2014

This is the 3rd week dedicated to Human vs. Technology. Four short videos were made available to comment, A Toyota ad and a short virtual reality film, immersive scenaries that put human in an unreal world. The short film World Builder has a great story.

Some resources on Posthuman theories of Fukuyama. An article from a Philosophy Encyclopedia on Learning theories and humanistic education philosophies.

A competition was open to submit an image on any of the topics addressed in the course.

After reading the article Humanistic Education from the Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, I have made another interactive image with learning theorists

I produced two posts on Francis Fukuyama’s article «Sorry, but your soul just died»


13 Nov 2014

The article «Massiveness+Openness=New Literacies of Participation?» focus on «MOOCs from a social communications and learning perspective rather than an instrumental or technologically centered approach.» It draws on the cMOOC model, the connectivist one.

As I’ve been an enthusiastic of MOOCs (this is my 21st MOOC), I’ve been reading about MOOCs for sometime. I re-visited the article «MOOCs:Striking the Right Balance between Facilitation and Self-Determination» (March 2014), which introduces an alternative taxonomy of MOOCs to the dual classification of cMOOCs (network-based) and xMOOCs (content-based), adding a third type of task-based MOOCs.


Some other MOOC classifications have emerged like this humorous one in Tony Bates blog « A review of MOOCs and their assessment tool»

Another interesting publication «The MOOC Model for Digital Practice» (2010), by A.McAuley, B. Stewart, G. Siemens and D. Cormier.

Based on the readings of this week I made this Powtoon


12 Nov 2014

The article «Assessing Writing in MOOCs: Automated Essay Scoring and Calibrated Peer Review» addresses automated assessing tools for MOOCs.

1. One of the systems is AES (Automated Essay Scoring), which one research concluded:

«machine evaluation of essays correlated more highly with human raters of those essays than the human raters correlated with other human raters. That is, machine evaluation is distinguishable from human evaluation because it is more consistent than human evaluation.»


«AES can detect and report about grammatical errors, word usage errors, sentence variety, style, text complexity, vocabulary, content alignment with existing texts, thesis statements, supporting ideas, conclusions, and irrelevant segments (Graesser & McNamera, 2012; Shermis et al., 2010).

AES is not yet able to assess complex novel metaphors, humor, or provincial slang (Graesser & McNamera, 2012). However, AES offers immediate, consistent feedback to students about important elements of their writing.»

The National Council of Teachers of English has a critical view of the system, considering:

«the restricted range of essays AES is used on, vagueness of most AES feedback, and the potential that students and teachers who know AES will be used may turn writing for a machine into a game of correcting surface features and getting the correct length of essay rather than participating in a writing and learning exercise»

2. The other system is CPR (Calibrated Peer Review), which was applied in a case study with successful results.

«Students who received feedback by the instructor in a traditional way did not improve their writing and critical reasoning from assignment to assignment, but students who responded to an identical writing prompt and worked though the CPR process did.»

However it still presents limitations :

«There are technical challenges for online courses with 150,000 students enrolled in them. Specifically for CPR, the basic system requirements (University of California, 2012) may not be sufficient for the load a large MOOC may generate.»

Comment: There’s much suspicion about automated assessment systems for extensive writings, but we have to recognize that semantic computing capacity has evolved, we have witnessed this evolution in search engines. And we have to recognize that human assessment can also present very different results. Two people assessing the same essay may introduce very subjective perspectives. For large scale assessments, like MOOCs, some automated (but reliable) system might be very useful. So, let’s wait and see!


11 Nov 2014

The second week of the course will continue «exploring how utopian and dystopian stories (or ‘discourses’) are shaping our understanding of what is happening now in the sphere of learning technology, and what might happen in the future, focusing especially on ‘metaphors’.

After reading one of the articles in the bibliography for this week: Salvation or destruction: Metaphors of the Internet, I made this mindmap with some links related:

«Metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action. Such actions will, of course, fit the metaphor. This will, in turn, reinforce the power of the metaphor to make experience coherent. In this sense metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies.» (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980)

9 Nov 2014

Following the discussions on Utopias and Dystopias I’ve posted on Sci-fi movies thread of discussion and highlighted one of the best pictures ever 2001:Space Odissey and decided to do some search about it. I’ve selected some links in this interactive image


7 Nov 2014

My new artifact – an interactive image with a collection of links related to digital culture


5 Nov 2014

I’ve been collecting bibliography on Digital Cultures in Livebinders which I’ve shared in course’s forum and Twitter.




Some comments were posted in the course forum, regarding:

1) Technological or Media Determinism, by Daniel Chandler

According to Chandler’s essay, technological determinism focuses on causality (cause and effect relationships), linked to reductionism, which aims to reduce complex whole to the effects of one part or parts over the rest. Parts are assumed to affect other parts in a linear manner. Mechanistic explanations don’t seem appropriate to apply to social phenomena.

In a networked world and all the connectivism we can hardly think in a linear way because we have to cover so many variables.

So, our perspectives need to be broader and more holistic trying to picture the whole, the complex and non-linear. The concept of technology must go beyond «tools, instruments, machines, techniques», and must be addressed in specific contexts. The debate over technology and society must bridge technological factors and socio-cultural factors.

There’s always a dimension of «unpredictable» consequences and fears, the technology seen as a threat to humans, that have inspired many movies like Odissey 2001, or literary works like George Orwell «1984» or the radio phenomena of War of the Worlds of Orson Wells.

Eventually, complexity systems frightens us (or fascinates us) because we have difficulty to grasp them, but they exist in nature and in society.

«Many argue that the pursuit of the technological imperative involves adopting an instrumental or technicist attitude, treating even people as a means to an end. The technological imperative is tipically argued to develop as technological systems become large, complex, interconnected and interdependent.»(Chandler)

An intervention of 2011, by Keri Facer on views of the role of technology in education – , I share Facer’s perspective on digital technology potential for learning.

2) Towards Non-Reductionist Methodology, by Lincoln Dahlberg

Dahlberg’s article refers many researchers of the Internet, which led me to revisit Manuel Castells.

In the section Towards Non-Reductionist Research is said:

«To avoid viewing media technologies as either autonomous ‘things’ or amorphous ‘no things’, it is important to view them as both constituted within and impacting upon social relations and cultural meanings (Sclove).»

«…we need to counter such determinism with a ‘theory of complexity’ that rejects determination in the sense of ‘a one-to-one correspondence between the causal agent and its effects’»(Menser&Aronowitz)

«Ideally, research would take into account the complex interplay between multiple intersecting and constituting elements. So, for example, research into Internet-democracy practices would want to explore the democratic possibilities afforded by the technical aspects of the medium, user motivations and intentions, and the social structuring of online communications and identities.» (Dahlberg)

The article Critical Theory of Technology, by Andrew Feenberg, « combines insights from philosophy of technology and constructivist technology studies. A framework is proposed for analyzing technologies and technological systems at several levels, a primary level at which natural objects and people are decontextualized to identify affordances, complemented by a secondary level of recontextualization in natural, technical and social environments. Technologies have distinctive features as such while also exhibiting biases derived from their place in society. The technical code is the rule under which technologies are realized in a social context with biases reflecting the unequal distribution of social power. Subordinate groups may challenge the technical code with impacts on design as technologies evolve.

3) On Bendito Machine animation

Bendito Machine animation fits in the features of Dystopian claims included in the table presented in the introduction of the topic of this week:

Utopian claims Dystopian claims
Information technologies based on electronic computation possess intrinsically democratizing properties (the Internet and/or worldwide web is an autonomous formation with ‘in-built’ democratic properties or dispositions). Information technologies possess intrinsically de-democratizing properties (the Internet and/or worldwide web is an autonomous formation with ‘in-built’ anti-democratic properties or dispositions).
Information technologies are intrinsically neutral, but inevitably lend themselves to democratizing global forces of information creation, transfer and dissemination. Information technologies are intrinsically neutral, but inevitably lend themselves to control by de-democratizing forces (hardware and software ‘ownership’ equals anti-democratic control).
Cyber-politics is essentially a pragmatic or instrumental task of maximizing public access to the hardware and software thought to exhaustively define the technology in question. Cyber-politics is essentially one of resisting and perverting the anti- democratic effects of the technology in question.


The «New Media» animation connects to the same vision and reminds «The war of the worlds» movie and its terrifying machines.

The tribe of Bendito is mostly a passive receiver of the technologies that appear and disappear, not contributing much to change or benefit the tribe.

In a way we are all dragged to be consumed consumers ( ).

I must confess I’m more of an utopian about (digital) technology, otherwise I wouldn’t be participating in this MOOC.

I believe in the affordances of digital technologies, but not to the point to be naïve or unaware of the abuse that certain powers may take from it. Video vigilance, Internet control… – as users we leave our tracks, we lose our privacy and we become prays of «big brother». But the abuses are also denounced (certainly, at the cost of a few courageous people that put their lives on limbo or at stake).

As a matter of fact, modern societies are dependent on technology and digital systems, e.g. taking money from ATM, paying IRS, using mobile phones (a nuisance in public spaces), working with intranet platforms in our jobs, learning with ICT, etc.

Social movements are promoted by digital technologies, as Manuel Castells addresses in the Brazilian conference about networks of indignation and hope – .

MacLuhan coined the expression «global village» at a time of TV dominance. The Internet is getting the «global village» closer and closer. The MOOCs are a good expression of connecting people from different continents – still an elite? Perhaps, but it’s a step further of joining communities of interest.

Perhaps we should revitalize the critical theories and critical pedagogy .

With the economic crisis, tensions between powers are more evident, the 1% ever wealthier and the 99% poorer, those who control capital and speculative financial transactions at the cost of many victims’ salaries, savings and unemployment.

Iceland President Ólafur Grímsson talks about the role of social media and democracy –

3 Nov 2014

The course started today –

The structure of the course is in the following table:

EDCMOOC Week Start date Resources, events and deadlines
Block 1: Utopias and Dystopias
1 – Looking to the past 3rd November 2014 Resources for Week 1Live video chat (Google + Hangout) with the course team – Friday 7th November, 5pm GMT.
2 – Looking to the future 10th November 2014 Resources for Week 2
Block 2: Being Human
3 – Reasserting the Human 17th November 2014 Resources for Week 3Image creation activity and competitionLive video chat (Google + Hangout) with the course team – Friday 21st November, 5pm GMT.
4 – Redefining the Human 24th November 2014 Resources for Week 4Begin work on your digital artefact assignment.Drop-in chat to discuss assignment (Google + Hangout) with Hamish and Christine – Wednesday 26th November, 8am GMT.Drop-in chat to discuss assignment (Google + Hangout) with Jen and Sian – Thursday 27th November, 4pm GMT.
5 – Assignment submission and evaluation 1st December 2014 Drop-in chat (Google + Hangout) with Jeremy and Hamish – Thursday 4th December, TBC.The assignment submission page will open at the beginning of Week 4.The deadline for the submission of your digital artefact is 23:00 on Wednesday 3rd DecemberThe deadline for evaluating the work of your peers is 23:00 on Wednesday 10th DecemberRemember, you must submit the artefact AND complete the evaluation to complete the course.

All weeks will follow a similar pattern in terms of course content:

  • Popular cultures: In our weekly ‘film festival’ we will watch and discuss a cluster of film clips which explore the week’s themes from within the context of popular and digital culture.
  • Ideas and interpretations: We will do some theory-related reading that further explores the key theme. In most weeks there will be one ‘core’ reading and one ‘advanced’ reading – do this one if you want to probe further into the theoretical dimensions of the topic. We recommend doing the advanced reading, but there is no requirement to do so.
  • Perspectives on education: We will consider particular views on how the week’s themes might be played out in discussions of education and e-learning.

Suggestions how to participate:

  • Contribute to the discussion forums.
  • Blog your responses to the topic, putting #edcmooc in the title. Submit your blog RSS feed so that your posts feed into our daily EDC MOOC News mashup (see below).
  • Create an image or other visual representation of your response to the topic and post it in a social media space. Tag it with #edcmooc.
  • Share your thoughts and links in Twitter, using the hashtag #edcmooc.

I’ve created a new livebinders for Digital Cultures to collect the bibliography of this course –

What do we mean by digital culture?

«Mark Deuze (2006) draws from Baumann (1999) to define two aspects of culture – the history or heritage of a group, which shapes its members’ lives and experiences, and the evolving performance of that heritage, which is never the same twice (p.73). Deuze suggests that digital culture shapes not only our online experiences and interactions, but also bleeds into offline life, because it so powerfully affects institutions, practices of information creation and sharing, and patterns of communication.

This definition deliberately doesn’t distinguish between the concepts of ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture which suggest that there are judgements of quality to be made about how we ‘perform’ culture. Such debates about quality do inform quite a lot of conversation around the value (or otherwise) of the web though, and whether we are being enriched or impoverished by the mass participation and self publishing that is driving this particular moment in the history of digital culture. Some of our readings will touch on these debates, and we’ll invite you to reflect on the implications for learning, teaching and education of these different positions.» (MOOC intro)

October 2014

In the scope of Coursera, the course eLearning & Digital Cultures is promoted by the Univ. of Edinburgh and starts on the 3rd November 2014.

This course will explore how digital cultures and learning cultures connect, and what this means for the ways in which we conduct education online. The course is not about how to ‘do’ e-learning; rather, it is an invitation to view online educational practices through a particular lens – that of popular and digital culture.

In Twitter at #edcmooc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s