For Cradle to Cradle book group: do the assigned readings before you come to class on the date listed; enter your reading homework for these three questions here (remember to enter useful comments on your topic page, as well). 

2/28 3/14 3/28 4/11 4/25
Intro, Ch 1 (p. 44) Ch 2 & 3 (p. 91) Ch 4 (p. 117) and post responses for Ch1-4 Ch 5 (p. 156) Ch 6 (p. 186) and post responses for Ch 4-6
  1. Explain how one idea in the reading relates to other topics already covered in class or something you learned elsewhere (another class or life experience).
  2. List what you think are the three to five most important points made in the reading.
  3. Write a question to provoke discussion among others who read the same passage.

75 Responses to “Cradle to Cradle

  1. jocroce Says:

    1. This is eye-opening material for me. These guys are brilliant, and I love the historical perspective. They mentioned a lot about modeling our industry after nature: waste equals food, and so nothing really is wasted. This relates to what I know about biomimicry, especially Janine Benyus’s idea of “emulating the living world.” I think this is the only way for us to be completely sustainable.

    2. Main concepts:
    Being eco-efficient is doing more with less. They give the example of Henry Ford using the boxes they shipped cars in as the floorboards for those cars once they arrived at their destination.

    Eco-effectiveness is the right design from the beginning, it’s not being “less bad” but completely harmless or even beneficial. Products can be designed without any harm to the environment or people.

    I love the idea of a “product of service” and “eco-leasing.” A customer is buying only the service, not the materials that provide the service. After you are done, you send the product back to the manufacturer and they reuse the materials (only for technical products).

    3. Choose a product in your home, and redesign it knowing that waste does not exist. What is it made from, how is it made, and how much does it cost?

  2. 1. One idea that really stuck with me was that “efficiency isn’t much fun. In a world dominated by efficiency, […] beauty, creativity, fantasy, enjoyment, inspiration, and poetry would fall by the wayside.” I think that it is very important to recognize the importance of fun and aesthetics as well as not polluting or destroying ecosystems. A couple days ago I was planning what to plant in my garden bed. My dad suggested some flowers, but I said I didn’t want to because I would rather have more food and it’s just a waste if I don’t get anything out of it. Even as I was saying it, I realized how wrong I was. How can beauty ever be a waste? And at least in nature, all thing beautiful serve a purpose as well. I think that we all have to keep this in mind when trying to build a sustainable system. Things such as enjoyment and beauty can and must go hand-in-hand with sustainability and efficiency.

    2. The frightening bit about the off-gassing of almost everything in our houses is detrimental to our health made me go and open up my window (no, really, I did). I like that they brought up this issue of poor indoor air quality, because most people aren’t aware of this. Also, it was kind of scary that simply running can kill us, as the abrasion of the soles of our shoes releases toxic particles we will then breath in.

    A very interesting idea they put forth is that of two circles: the technical cycle and the biological cycle. They have nutrients for service and consumption, respectively, and it is essential that these circles do not overlap, and create “monstrous hybrids.”

    I like that they talk about how they have put systems into effect that really embody the cradle-to-cradle cycle of life for nutrients (both technical and consumable). It’s reassuring to know that things are changing for the better, unfortunately, they probably aren’t changing quickly enough.

    3. How can we, the individual, ever hope to change the system such that the concept of waste truly does not exist? How can we even begin?

  3. ep11 Says:

    1. An idea in the reading that they continually reinforce is the concept of “waste equals food”, and other topics are discussed from this point. Basically the idea that nature never really had the same process of “waste” and throwing that “away” as we do, rather it reuses everything every organism produces by making it useful to another. Their production of the book with infinitely recyclable material goes off of this, because they intended to show that our goods need to stop being made with materials that are going to end up in a landfill and take a very long time to decompose. At the first look this seems like a wonderful idea, a book that isn’t made of trees and can be recycled infinitely. But we need to make sure we look at the whole picture when we see ideas that sound good just by one compelling point. We never really questioned, for example, how much more energy it took to not only produce this book (which probably isn’t a standard production process) and how much more energy and fuel it took to transport and distribute its copies, the material being so much heavier for its size and length than other books. It’s hard to say whether the fact that it’s infinitely recyclable outweighs this downside, but the point is that we can’t always dive into potential solutions without carefully examining all sides. It reminds me of something discussed in my environmental science class today. Trash in some of New York City’s apartment buildings used to be incinerated at the spot, but the air pollution got so bad that they passed a law in the 70s that required them to stop using the incinerators and dispose of trash the way we’re used to today. The policy looked so good on paper, simply stating that incinerators would no longer be used, that they were too enthusiastic about passing it and didn’t quite foresee what they would need to do instead. So much trash that used to be incinerated now had to be disposed of in landfills, and the infrastructure down to the number of garbage trucks and workers needed to be heightened greatly, in addition to the fact that there would now be that much more waste to use energy to dispose of and take up more landfill space. I haven’t done too much research about it, but I would guess that in the end getting rid of the incinerators and their pollution was thought to have outweighed the negative alternative of bigger landfills, etc. The point is that we should make sure to take everything into perspective before rushing to approve of any proposal.
    2. Chapter five, “Respecting Diversity” highlights the idea that we are used to the concept of survival of the “fittest” rather than the “most fitting” saying that the fittest survive, but the most fitting to the specific environment thrive. The “fittest” route relies on a strategy of beating out competition, rather than working with it. They talk about methods of development in this way, giving the example of a generic building put up in different environments, insensitive to not only ecological aspects but the cultural diversity of the area. The design of the “fittest” ignores local resources as well. This point has also been referenced earlier in the book I think, but it is one of the book’s main points.
    Another point that stood out was the idea of “hybrids” of biological waste and more harmful substances. Products that otherwise could have been returned to nature but are contaminated. They give the example of a leather shoe, which though it used to be more naturally created with vegetable tanning, now is replaced with cheaper chromium tanning. This is not only potentially carcinogenic, but now has to be dumped in a landfill, when if it had been produced slightly differently, would not have been. The product was created with the idea that it would be cheaper to manufacture, but in examples like this of otherwise natural substances, it makes more sense to think about the long-run and avoid contamination in situations like these.
    The authors give five steps to eco-effectiveness in closing. These points clarify how the process can work to define and carry out objectives like what was done in redesigning Ford’s manufacturing facility. One part of these steps was creating a list of known problematic substances you’re dealing with, the “gray list”, ones that are not urgently known to be in need of a phase-out, and the positive list, ones that are known and preferred as healthy and safe. Step four goes on to put the list into action with this known information.
    After reading this, I wonder how we can apply these principles to our lives and share our thoughts with others? How can we begin a paradigm shift by making more eco-friendly ideas appealing and tangible to a wider variety of people?

  4. revolutionarybutgangster Says:

    With so much wrong in the world today, partially stemming from the very nature of how we as an organism on this Earth produce “things,” there is no doubt that our ways and practices must drastically be altered and remade in a serious way to prevent the further collapse of our civilization. William McD. and Michael B. are tremendous innovators toward this new direction. It is a very interesting coincidence that the more that we institute biomimicry, looking to nature for design, the more efficient our designs become. After reading Cradle to Cradle, I have began to depict and question every aspect of the ways in which things are made, for what purpose, and to what extent a new system is feasible. The limiting factor every time that i wrap my mind around this idea is the system of profit. As beautiful as this book is, with its enlightening research and development, toward which we can plausibly transform the ways in which we make things, is and sadly will always be limited to those with money seeking the cheapest materials to build this widget or that, to which the highest return in profit is possible. With enough awareness collectively, the consumer solely has the power, but until that point of mass awareness, the Wal-Mart effect is nothing but inevitable.
    William Clay Ford, jr.’s willingness and inspiration to seek out eco-effective thinking straying from the norm of auto makers was an exciting milestone, but how many years later and ford is still pumping out inefficient, outdated gas guzzlers?
    The 5 steps toward eco-effectiveness are well put, but sadly once again, with share holder profits and the pure pursuance of profit, any and all companies working within our monetary paradigm are limited by sheer competitive advantage, to out do’ing the competitor by any means necessary. If this book were a mandatory read for any student traveling through the public education system, the mass awareness could demand ethical/ environmental practices, but without education, sadly misinformation and ignorance runs the show.
    The cradle to cradle model is a tremendous tool and understanding to co create a regenerative future, but in my humble opinion, the inherent flaw of this model is working within the confines of an outdated economic model, set on unlimited/ infinite growth. Within a more relevant model, such as a “Resource-Based Economy” proposed by the lifelong works of industrial engineer and designer, 91yr old Jacque Fresco, of the Venus Project, the notion of a Cradle to Cradle design is excitingly inevitable. For anyone interested in further information on a Resource Based Economy, the Venus Project, or Jacque Fresco, than look into the Zeitgeist Movement, at ..
    Question: How can we create a sustainable/ regenerative design when our entire global monetary system is based on and thriving off of scarcity?

  5. jcrizer Says:

    1. Put it into action! Most of us would agree that if we could we would live without disrupting or damaging the earth’s natural ways. In the second half of the reading the authors give multiple examples of individuals and groups actively partaking in economies around the world while creating little or no disturbance to the surrounding environments and ultimately the world at large. So as we think of our future investments all of us must keep forefront the effects of our contribution. Do the elements surrounding my career threaten the well being of the planet and all it’s non-detrimental inhabitants? The task at hand is not easy! It is a fight! But we must remember as we fill the shoes of our forefathers, good and bad, that we must build our institutions as faithful children of Mother Nature and not fight her.

    2. 1. The authors had an intention for the readers to gain Awareness on complicated and overlooked issues surrounding every aspect of society. They talk about everything from mutant fish to the 4,000 plus chemicals that make up your TV.
    2. The second theme I got from the reading was inspiration/motivation. The writers gave clever thinkers like William Clay Ford Jr. recognition for environmentally responsible action.
    3. The transformation will not happen overnight. It will take success and failure for us to reach the standards of existence necessary. We must try and we must start now.

    3. How do we help the unaware or unwilling, or the trapped members of society reach a life leaves no trail of desecration?

  6. maddyv Says:

    one of the ideas from the book that jumped out at me as relating to what we talked about in class is the discussion in ch.4 of a sewage treatment system that involves the use of a series of small ponds with plants, animals, and microbes to process the waste into purified water. I remembered when we had discussed in class the couple who had designed and began implementing just this system, and how useful it is to use natural processes to return natural resources to nature. what a thought!

    from this section I got a lot of important ideas;

    1. The importance and benefit of separating the technosphere from the biosphere. the technosphere is made up of technical nutrients, or materials that can be used in the manufacturing of goods but have no proper place in nature. Then their are biological nutrients that can be safely absorbed and cultivated in nature. when the two are combined they become “monstrous hybrids” where neither material can be effectively separated and reused in the future.

    2.respect diversity; this means utilizing diverse local ideas, skills, and resources to produce products in a way that both addresses diverse needs of the people who purchase it, and brings benefit to the community in which it is produced within. this addresses the issue that a one-size fits all approach creates by recognizing that not all people and places are the same, and this should be a benefit not something to overcome.

    3.buissnesses can use a fractal tile approach to meeting their economic needs, the needs of their workers and costomers, and benefit the environment. by taking all these needs into equal value they work together to create mutual benefit for all the areas, often in creative environmentally beneficial projects that are financially lucrative and would not have been realized had all these things been valued. this provides stable industry with happy productive and safe workers, and a responsible committed attitude towards that environment.

    My question is this:

    how can we adapt the cradle-to-cradle philosophies into our own lives, and encourage this type of commercial development?

  7. duncan888 Says:

    Chapter Six is a portion of the reading that at least to my mind catalyzes or puts the authors ideas all together so it can fit into the “real world”. If there’s one or two criticisms I can realistically launch at the book the first would be a.) many of their ideas, while I respect their imaginations, seem somewhat ‘pie in the sky’ in a manner of speaking. I keep asking myself how realistic is all of this? I’m sure the authors are well rehearsed & familiar with such thoughts as mine. The example they cite is that the original advent of the automobile was deemed a caricature, or implausible novelty around the turn of the twentieth century, & look at how far the automobile along with its attendant manufacturing base, & urban infrastructure has taken us. While I agree with this, the far flung concepts of energy capture, hydro, wind, solar, etc. I simply just don’t believe that any combination thereof will scale to the energy demands of six point six billion (& growing) people around the world. It simply doesn’t seem plausible at all.

    On page 145, second paragraph, the authors ruminate on the soap manufacturer who have taken the excellent steps of making a product that fulfills the needs of Indian women that wash clothes down by the river & need a gentle product, the authors go further in asking is it possible to make a soap that meets the needs of the river? I love this line of reasoning, but I ask myself are we, as human beings, really intelligent enough to mimic “Mother Nature”? I have my doubts about this.

    On page 148, the authors mention the third “manifesto” which is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring which was an enormously influential book to say the least. They point out that extremism, if it neglects social, cultural & economic concerns can damage injure the whole deal & certainly alienate environmentalists from their primary objectives. This is something I touched on briefly in another thread. The ideas in this class, IF they are to go truly mainstream, have to appeal to everyone of all different cultures here in America & abroad, & people of all different strata. That is, in my opinion the only way to make progress or to win the game. If we don’t do this it will be forever a “us versus them” screaming match which will be fruitless.

    I am optimistic after reading this chapter, since the authors showcased how they met with the Ford Motor Company CEO & other high level managers, etc. to lead them by the hand & point out how they could make their decrepit, ancient, manufacturing facility modern, healthy, clean, well lit & economically productive since they addressed in VERY profound ways the needs & health of the employees, the immediate environment, & their bottom line with energy use & so forth. They mention the resistance to such changes, but they point out that such resistance only underscores the importance of what they were doing there to help the folks at Ford out.

    1.) One of the hallmarks of twentieth century industrial design is the mantra, which I think can be a bit glib, is “form follows function”. This arose from Germany, with the art school before the Second World War called the Bauhaus, and the Ulm School of Design which was enormously influential right up to this day with products such as those from Apple that can trace their DNA straight from the work of these people. The authors want to go a step further & say “form follows evolution”, which advocates a more holistic, kinder, custom tailored product that doesn’t attempt to force itself on EVERY single situation or need. This is powerful stuff & I think a valuable message.

    2.) Becoming free of known culprits-essentially advocates removal of design & manufacturing processes of very harmful materials. Instead of trying to ‘doctor up’ formulas by adding materials that make the bad stuff ‘less bad’, keep it simple by not putting the bad stuff into the product in the first place.

    3.) Follow informed personal preferences-sometimes in an imperfect world, we have to use our own best judgment & try to make use of materials that at least get us on the right track or direction, even if we’re not entirely sure if the stuff is benign. As the authors precisely point out-“dinner can’t wait, when dinner guests are coming over hungry” to figure out which foods are from genetically modified crops, etc.

    4.) Creating a “passive-positive” list-Involves getting down to ‘brass tacks’ & removing the worst offenders from the design process first, then moving down the list to the ‘grey list’, then to the ‘P list’ which stands for positive attributes.
    This process eventually moves all the incredibly bad elements out of the stream in a manner of speaking.

    5.) Activate the “positive list”-this is where all the positive attributes come into play, so for example if someone were designing a product they’d only use materials that can re-enter technical or biological cycles where they can be endlessly re-used, just like in nature!

    6.) Re-design or re-invent-this ultimate level is where the stuff we make can put back into the environment more than what it originally takes from it, before the cradle to cradle time line has reached its full course.

    Here’s my question to the class. How realistic do you think this stuff really is out in the real world? Do you think these fanciful ideas can be realized?

    Last, I wonder why there’s no mention of such things as products that DON’T have planned obsolescence built into them. For example I do most of my writing with a Parker 51 fountain pen that was manufactured in the 1950’s & it works as well today as it did back then, plus it’s a joy to write with. Why isn’t there greater emphasis on ideas such as this? Why not make things that aren’t thrown “away” or disposable?

  8. ep11 Says:

    A concept in the reading that stood out to me (and is probably the main concept of the book) was the idea that we need to change our system of producing and consuming things in a way that makes the former system obsolete. The new system would produce things in a “cradle to cradle” fashion rather than “cradle to grave”, and draw from nature’s design principles to create things that end up producing no waste because they can be cycled back through the system as a nutrient for something else (ideally as an infinite loop, not just like recycling). We discussed in class a few examples of groups using these ideas, such as Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives (ZERI), which links industries and allows the waste from the production of some products to be used to create other useful ones. The individuals and businesses who do this are a great start and a model for others to learn how to adopt similar strategies, but I feel like there can’t be widespread change until there is a collective shift in thinking in industries (which would probably require immense pressure from the public and mainstream society) from gaining profits being the highest objective to supporting the future of the environment that we live in, which is a necessity before anything else can exist.

    Three main points in the reading:
    1. Nature shouldn’t be seen as the enemy and an obstacle to production, our current system
    works against natural world and ignores nature’s design principles rather than using them to work
    with nature.
    2. Creating a new system that makes the other obsolete (a cradle to cradle system) is what is needed, rather than trying to be “less bad”, which will only slow down destruction and have the same end result.
    3. Foster diversity for its natural resilience, rather than creating widespread uniformity. Example could be utilizing local resources and knowledge rather than implementing a copy of something mass produced.

    Question: What can we concretely do now to create a shift in thinking locally or on a larger scale?

  9. duncan888 Says:

    There’s a person named Anne Leonard who is the author of a book named The Story of Stuff. She makes many of the same comparisons about the objects in our lives that the two authors of the text do. For example, Anne Leonard says that the process or manner in which we consume things in the world is a ‘linear system’ of extraction to consumption, & eventual disposal or throwing ‘away’. She underscores the point that since we live in a world of finite resources, we’re currently running up against multiple incidences of limits or boundaries which won’t be surpassed.

    The authors of Cradle to Cradle, communicate the message in a more academic tone of voice where Anne Leonard’s message is a tad “dumbed down” which I realize is intentional since she wants to make the very important message she has to give be as widely understood & available as possible. Using sustainability ‘tech-speak’ would be counter-productive to her objectives.

    The linear system Anne Leonard discusses is the following:

    1. extraction 2. production 3. distribution 4. consumption 5. disposal.

    Alternatively, Cradle to Cradle makes comparisons with the processes of the natural world of which we are a part of. The idea of non-linear cycles where nothing is thrown ‘away’ are in my estimation the ultimate goals of all the authors.

    Anne Leonard’s video is simple yet entertaining to view. Please watch it.

    The three to five most important points that the book makes are in my opinion the following:

    1. We need to look to nature as a role model. We are NOT separate from the world of living things even though our behavior & attitudes would indicate otherwise. We are not “smarter than”, etc. Mother Nature is the ultimate creator & hence role model. The cycles of creation, use, & breakdown are self sustaining & can easily be replenished ad-infinitum.

    2. We need to not just alter our ways of doing things (even though it might be a good start since we have to start somewhere), ultimately it won’t be good enough. Instead of “scaling the ladder we’re already on”, we need a paradigm shift or be standing even on the lowest rung of a whole new ladder. For example, if we create a new system whereupon we consume products that are cradle to cradle, rather than cradle to grave it would create an infinite loop.

    3. Being ‘less bad is no good’. I think a good example of this would be the Toyota Prius. It’s a great car & allows people to wear their green credentials on their sleeves so to speak, however the embedded energy used to create said vehicle is apparently quite high. All those batteries take a mountain of energy to create from what I’ve heard. if you’re stuck in suburbia I reckon a Toyota Prius is probably your best bet, but unfortunately it ultimately isn’t a very good solution since they still use finite fossil fuels that will inevitably be consumed or used up. It’s been said as efficiency increases, the more quickly the resources are consumed. In the case of a Prius, you’ll marvel at such wonderful gasoline mileage you’ll get that you might be tempted to drive everywhere along with everyone else.

    4. Design with intention & think about long term consequences. The authors mention the differences between eco-efficiency & eco-effectiviness. The latter is much more desirable since the example they give of office buildings that make use of natural sunlight, have rooftop gardens that help to protect the roofing material, actual living plants inside the building, fresh air all help to reduce their heating, maintenence & cooling bills. The much more common practice is to have a building hermetically sealed from the outside world which is heated & cooled electrically from most likely the power grid. This of course dramatically increases the carbon footprint of the building & simply isn’t living in accordance with Mother Nature. They’re also not nearly as pleasant to work in throughout the course of the day.

    5. Cultivate & respect diversity, NOT homogeneity. The best examples of strong, resilient systems in Mother Nature make excellent use of diversity with respect to living organisms. I think the Amazon rain forest would be an excellent example of this since there is an incredible abundance of flora & fauna that are all working naturally with each other in a self sustaining system that has been occurring for a very long time. I imagine a system this big has natural checks & balances & if one part goes out of synch there must be a self correcting system to bring things back into order or balance.

    Diversity not only creates strength & resilience but aesthetic interest as well. Homogeneity to my mind equals boredom & sameness which in the grand scheme of things probably isn’t natural at all.

    Last, I’d like to ask the class if they have any insight or clues about how we, as a mostly civilized, advanced society arrived at a point where we became so utterly divorced from the world of living things or ‘cycles’ in our quest to quench our own needs & wants?

    (I have my own hypothesis, but I’d appreciate hearing from a few others before advancing my own thoughts!)


  10. fernandotodde Says:

    1. I think it’s interesting that we as a society (the majority of us, I guess, probably not us in this class) consider the industrial revolution and all of its byproducts as “progress”. I definitely don’t see our world as a better place, in terms of equality (material goods, rights, etc) or preservation since the industrial revolution. Our vision of progress itself has been perverted, most likely because of the many special interest groups that seem to own every aspect of our society, from laws to opinions and apparently, even truth.

    2. Main points:
    a) It is possible to take only what is necessary, and use as little precious resources as possible. There is some obstacle in the majority’s consciousness that keeps them from taking this into consideration and actively changing their lifestyle and or habits in order to put pressure on their government to stop allowing corporations to use up all of the world’s resources.
    b) Recycling is not the answer, even though so many people are convinced it is. The real answer would be to revolutionize the entire way we produce, which would mean a shift in values.
    c) Perceived, planned/built obsolescence are conventions created by those who have the monopoly on production that encourages people to buy, dispose, and buy again. These ideals, if we can call them that, are deeply ingrained foundations that dictate our consuming habits.

    3. Will intelligent design be possible, even with so many forces working against it? What are some of the reasons it hasn’t been implemented yet?

  11. jcrizer Says:

    1. I remember Instructor Merrill telling the class on the first day that simply contributing ‘less’ to the problems of our planet is not enough to make the needed changes in our way of existence. No longer can we deny the infected system that inflicts such damage to life. We must transform the system, and it’s up to the inflicted to take action.
    The chapter, “Why Being ‘Less Bad’ is No Good” explains this idea of action over disengagement. The Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society are two examples used by the author to show active involvement. Also mentioned are numerous concerned intellectuals who have over time written about and protested against ignorant environmental destroyers. It’s inspirational to read about different people’s involvement on the mater.

    2. Three main points.
    • A lot of the first part of the book gives information about how and why humans have screwed up the earth. The Industrial Revolution proving to be the major reason.
    • Less Bad is No Good
    • Living examples of change and action for use of closed circuit production cycles.

    3. What are some ways to change wasteful cycles to closed circuit sustainable systems locally or nationally?

  12. maddyv Says:

    1. One idea that struck me from the reading as having a relationship from what we discussed in the class, was the idea of industry working with nature (taking examples from it) rather than against or in opposition to it. This is similar to the idea of taking design influence from nature to solve environmental issues that we discussed in class last week. Authors Mcdonough and Braungart argue that”If Humans are truly going to prosper, we will have to learn to imitate nature’s highly effective cradle to cradle system of nutrient flow and metabolism, in which the very concept of waste does not exist” (103-104).The example given is of ants, whose total biomass exceeds that of humans, and yet they produce no waste and leave the environment better after they die, than it was in their lifetime.

    2. The three concepts that I found most important in this section of reading are as follows (in no particular order):
    1)recycling of materials is actually downcycling. Materials are not designed to be efficiently reused or up-cycled, and therefore recycling is only a pergatory for materials that will still end up in a landfill.
    2)”Being less bad is no good”, this means that being “eco-efficient”, producing less waste, and slowing down destruction, not lessening it or putting a stop to it. Environmental degradation is still taking place at the same ammount just at a slower rate, this is not a viable solution to the problem. Working within the same old concept of industry, will not produce change.
    3)In order to be “eco-effective”, industry must draw on a complex range of values. Buildings can be harmonious with nature, increase worker productivity, decrease energy usage, and provide cleaner air by simply re-evaluating their old models of production and efficiency. This new model values nature, employees, and uses raw materials in a smarter way that enables them to be remade into new products without degradation.

    3.Question: If it is so simple and efficient to use intelligent industrial design to cease environmental degradation caused by industry and be more effiecient, why do we not see this shift on a wide scale?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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