Cultural Jet Lag and Phoning it in


These are two problems I see facing me as classroom teacher. I am living among nice people who suffer cultural jet lag and attempting to teach students who are often just phoning it in.

As much as I, or anyone in education likes the idea of using media and technology is pursuit of allotted tasks driven by system orientated education, I can only subscribe to the idea that in all sectors of education, students will have virtual and actual contact which range in quality, experiences and culture. Most will have has exposure to a hit and miss experience of media and technology as a classroom resource and a few will have encountered learning about media and technology itself. I’d guess that the latter would be down to an on-the-ball library and/or librarian in the majority of those instances.

The one inescapable fact is that media and technology socialises society. Our society is made up of people who are unique, yet share cultures among other things. Inside an era of profound social change, the ‘masses’ are increasingly seeing themselves as important enough to take on (and maintain) individual identities online. A decade ago, the Internet was really only about institutions, governments and brands. Today we’re each engrossed in our devices and connections which makes the Internet so big, it carries vast amounts of information though its layers at such a pace, we no longer wait to sit at a desk or even stop in the street to ‘check in’.

Even if children have access to digital media and technology in school — and the teacher knows how has time to blend it into the allotted tasks demanded by the curriculum. The vastness of the Internet and the mediums it supports: news; video; radio; videogames; photography; art; automated-systems and so on has separated us emotionally from the natural world. Imagine delivering the same new’s to three hundred people in row – and half have heard it moments before from someone else. The more we reproduce information and predicable behaviours in response, the less invested and interested we become. I’d argue that in classrooms, plenty of kids are suffering from cultural jet lag — and often simply ‘phoning it in‘ when it comes for formal education. I’m not at all anti-technology or media, but I am against the kind of blind assumptions made by people who claim kids are simply “growing up digital” as though there is not a pre-existing demand by children to live with parents who can’t leave their phone on a table for five-minutes without tapping it.

This resource is something I’ve used to provoke group-discussion among students in an effort to provoke and gauge their critical understanding of media (as a literacy) and it’s socialising effects on them.

The new ton-up boys.

In the 1950s the post-war youth discovered motorcycles while their parents were getting into cars. Hire Purchase allowed young-people to emulate The Wild Ones, get into a leather jacket and race between cafes — pulling the legendary ¨ton up¨. Kids had mobility, kids had a sub-culture and kids railed against the society that had put them in the saddle.

Mobility these days isn’t about cars or motorbikes. Recent figures show kids are not buying them for all sorts of reasons — and the kind of youth-clubs created such as the 59 club are nostalgic cultural history. Today’s ton up boys have gadgets. Its a sort of middle aged crisis — where youthful ambitions and sub-culture affinities can be revisited from the tethered fantasy of the home or office. Anyone can get on social media and do a ton-up. They can impress others (if others know little about EdTech culture) as they flash past making noise. Ultimately, this sub-culture online is a choice. I know its got all sorts of names which sound clever, but a lot of what happens is purely about entertainment, showing off and increasing your own credibility — which also means making others invisible.

Sure you can Tweet your way to the ton-up and become a recognised name in the cafe-scene, but this doesn’t represent any measurable impact in the bigger challenge itself — shifting culture and helping people teach and learn better. Most people don’t go to these cafes online, nor their manifested events in the real world. Most people are working to help others and not do a ton-up and ride over the dumb saps on the side of their road. Success in EdTech means creating meaningful work-packages for people who want to do a great job. It seems that people are more being acknowledged for doing a ton-up down the information super highway than they are for struggling though the reality of current culture and demands.


Videogames and Australians

It would be incorrect to assume Australians have responded to the phenomenon of videogames in the same way other nations have. In a sense today’s contemporary gameplay is a global network of servers and players whom preference certain games or genres. However, despite the ease of access to international information about videogames, childhood, parenting and school, very little information is based on national evidence and is not one single progression of discussion, study or debate – but a multitude which often have little in common aside from the term videogames.

I argue that videogames are essentially grouped into three periods of study and interest. Each period of study has seen increasing diversity and technological advancements of videogames and gameplay. I make a point of also separating videogames and gameplay because they evoke quite different conceptions and emotional reactions in both adults and children.

The first period is pre-2001. I realise that between the mid 1970s and 2002 videogames made many technological and cultural advances, but in terms of study, this period was concerned mostly with what games are, what play is and the effects of video games on society. It followed a long tradition of viewing media with suspicion and conducting experiments with small groups of participants to try and guage how playing certain games (mostly violent and sexualised) altered the behaviour of the sample subjects. As numerous scholars have argued, the methods used to do this are suspect and they made many assumptions, demonised and simplified games to the point of being little more than an erant-interactive film. Despite the claims from clinical science, it has not been shown to lead to real-life violence in any predictable way.

The second period is between 2001 and 2009. This is essentially because this period of scholarly interest and research began to look more deeply at the assumptions being made about videogames. In the literature, you will find many respected media, sociology, game and educational academics began to write about and discuss new dimensions of games and critically appraise the ongoing claims about aggressive and habitual behaviour in real-life. People like Marc Prensky, Jasper Juul, James Gee, Henry Jenkins and James Seeley Brown expanded the field of research (and potential research) well beyond the realms of science, economics and mathematics. This era also is the foundation of the majority of ongoing debate about videogames in popular culture. It plays out in newspaper, magazines, television and websites on a daily basis.

The essential question is usually: Are videogames bad for childhood development (and therefore society) and what should be done about it.

The answers probably lie in the third period of research and study of videogames, which can best be described as beginning. In Australia and prior to 2008, videogames were treated in national studies as a leisure activity. In that regard a videogame was treated like a trip to the movies, playing a game of soccer, listening to music or reading a book. It was not treated as a media-text with unique properties. It was not investigated in the public domain in association with or in preference to the kind of media-choices that families take in their stride in 2014. Most significantly, it was not treated as a form of literature nor something which was used in education or the workplace.

We therefore know very little about videogames and Australians right now. We have seen reports of statistics, but these often focus on simple demographics and size of the market. This is unsurprising given the close association some scholars now have with the games industry — and how secretive the game industry is about their data and their customers players.

In 2008 we knew that most parents were not overly concerned about aggression, violence or so called addictive qualities of video games. We also know that those parents with children aged 12 and over we considered to be the first generation of children to have grow up with access to video games and that over half had played video games as a child and continued to do so using a computer. Again, no specific details on the type of computer or game and even less about consoles and handhelds.

We can’t compare todays figures with older figures because there have been significant revisions to how videogames have been classified and how questions have been asked at the national level. For example, videogames are now considered part of children’s ‘screen-time’ use, but as most parents know — that use varies as does children’s access and the type of games they can play at any given available time. No data is being collected on the use of screen time or games in education, despite the billions of dollars of educational technology funding lavished on teachers and school systems since (weirdly) 2008.

What we do know is that the media presents videogames in ways intended to gain the attention of parents: either as customers or to perpetuate the same ‘media effects’ panic which has been rolling though popular media since the 1930s. We do know that all children and the vast proportion of adults play video games of one sort or another in the home, where as the vast majority of teachers and students (identity switch) do not. It strikes me as bizarre that some teachers are now expressing new interest in game-based-learning as though our culture has not already embraced it as media entertainment and used it to make sense of the world from the inside out for a very long time.

Videogames are a prolific and much enjoyed form of media entertainment in Australia. Despite ongoing media panic, Australians have not had the level of negative emotional reaction to videogames as might have occurred in other nations. We can’t assume that data and facts from PEW (American Life) can be generalised to Australia in the way the Aussie Dollar is a bit like the US Dollar.

We don’t need to hide from teaching and studying games, and games don’t have any excuses to make. The fact that Australians are highly likely to engage with complex, computational problem solving from pre-school onwards despite un-ambitious and media-conservative educators and narrow media ownership whos dislike of games is obvious — is quite remarkable.

So if anyone questions why you’d want to use videogames in school or home it is fair to say that as a media-text we see far more value in them than media reports broadly admit and far less danger than they claim.

Who the heck is Ralf Baer?

One of the numerous misconceptions people have about techology is the power of Internet. Few realise store fronts and downloadable content (DLC) were available via home video consoles in the late 70s well before Tim Berner’s Lee tuned it into a static book by coming up with a few data-transfer protocols. Even by 2005, there was more access to the Internet via games consoles than computers or mobile phone. In fact many researchers at the time, described consoles as a place rather than a device. In terms of game-engineering, turning on static text and images in a window was a simple task in comparison to global networking of game play and user subscriptions.

Today, Internet users take store-fronts and e-commerce for granted. Everyone just assumes you can buy anything online and where it’s made from data, delivery is instant. One problem with educations quaint depictions of media literacy (sorry, I mean DIGITAL literacy) is that they are parochial and significantly under-estimates the sophistication and complexity of games when it comes to micro-transactions, DLC and motivation to spend real money on virtual goods.

In children, especially younger children the line between a ‘real toy’ and a ‘virtual toy’ is at best a dinner conversation for adults. In addition, I’m going to start using the term Home Entertainment Video Gaming Console (HEVGC) more, partly to honour the brilliance of Ralf H. Baer’s ‘Odessey’ and to remind myself of the deep legacy in the world of online entertainment that can be attributed – not to Tim Berners Lee, but to Baer and some madcap rivalry in the mid 70s.

In fact, it was because of Baer we now have Smart-TVs and home computers and access to the Internet on more than computers. Up until then, everyone assumed computers were for Universities and big industry. It was his brilliant idea to make standard TV sets display games (and therefore act as computer monitors). It was also his idea to patent it, and licence it to Magnavox (a one time giant of home electronics). It is thanks to Baer that society saw another use for TV-sets, and decades on have voted with their feet away from consuming television, as TV-set manufacturers and content producers did to film, radio and magazines. Now TV-sets were dialogic –  able to inform media and is continually informed by the previous media work. It is, if you like, the spawn-point of remediation itself – the reason Lord of the Rings influenced more than print-readers. Baer turned play into reading – and I think needs much more cultural credit that he ever gets.

The problem now is that games can become “skinner boxes”, which is the term used to describe games which plead for micropayments. As games engineers came up with better ways to get users to buy and download content, now they are just as adept at offering free or what look almost free games – then slug parents for items. Some games should not be tarred with the brush I’d slap Activision or Zanga with willingly. Some actually make make in-game micro-gets part of the overall culture of the games. Team Fortress for example occupies my 8 year old for hours when it comes to earning, trading and negotiating keys for unlock-able crates. It’s amazing how many cars he’ll wash for the equivalent of Mars Bar in an economic sense. It’s also a great way for me to talk to him about gaming – how they work, what to expect and how to avoid getting ripped off.

I’ve also come to realise that micro-payment management is a parenting skill that generally becomes critical after your kids has gone ape with the credit card that has attached itself to their parents mobile phone. The debate rages over the ethics, legality and morality of opt-out micropayment games … but be assured, because it works, because it’s worth billions (not millions) there will be newer and more frustrating traps for the unaware. Micro-transactions are not however unique to games – plenty of short-cuts (life hacks) appear to be on offer online; from getting tickets to a show earlier; getting the answers to a term paper or discounts of luxury goods. I don’t think Ralf Baer saw much of this when he called up every TV-set maker in America with his revolutionary idea about box that could play tennis (sort of) – and that really is my point – the dangerous experts out there, whom tell parents especially what the future will be – actually can’t see much past a year or so. Most of them live in the near past, hoping you’re behind them as they amaze audiences with their knowledge. Nope, parents needs bottom-line help in mediating, regulating and managing games. Games are part of electronic media (and pre-date most other forms) – yet most parents know relatively little about how they work.

Blip – thanks for your payment.

Advice from PC Gamer: Item stores that sell objects that affect your in-game performance are risky. If a game sells guns/cars that can’t be earned any other way then treat that as a big alarm bell. Even if those items can be earned through progress, it helps to favour games with good matchmaking services and large player bases, which can smooth out balance issues.

Why Cultural Literature has to include games

One of my frustrations with educational leadership is the behavioral preference to only remediate media which has an obvious chain back through their own career. Not only that, but the type of device and materials believed to be transformative are exactly the things which are observed and engaged with at formulaic educational conferences with known peers and edutainers.

Even a casual eye on Twitter reveals: leaders who issue emotive rhetorical statements (and rarely bother to respond to anyone they don’t already know); would-be-leaders aspiring to be in the actual leaders field of vision and independent operators who canvas the crowd with buzzword-theories in order to meet the leaders (to earn contracts).

This market, which orbits a particular leadership preference and viewpoint doesn’t help move ‘what could be used’ forward at all. It doesn’t take media for what it is and consider how best to use it. Instead, we see and hear subjective terms such as “integrator” and “integration” – into the curriculum. After a couple of decades, this cycle has worn a well trodden path around leadership belief. Leaders like to build hotel-like receptions, buy IWBs, mount big TVs on the wall – and tell everyone how they are going to be BYOD soon. In Russia, leaders have been pumping oxygen into nuclear submarines since the end of the cold war, simply to keep them afloat as the cost of actually decommissioning is economically prohibitive.

Cultural literature, which includes digital-objects cannot ignore the largest segment of media that children use – and honestly say that their strategy for techno-pedagocial-content based learning is using ‘the best’ research or ‘best’ theory – if really they are talking about three things: Blooms; SAMR and TPACK. There are numerous theories that exist beyond this comfortable technological garden being created which simply doesn’t reflect the extent of today’s cultural literature. If they did, they’d be talking about new faculties, not new iFads.

The tether fantasy

Reading some ambitious theory about how kids come to play Minecraft by Christopher Goetz in “Tether and Accretions: Fantasy as Form in Videogames”. One of his key ideas is that games allow players to explore the darker and scarier side of existence, while maintaining a tether to the home or home base. This allows exploration as a kind of oscillation between binaries (good/bad, safety/peril) from the perceptual safety of the home. It’s a great read and goes someway to highlight the appeal of Minecraft in the home, and why, as a cultural object, school based Minecraft tends to not allow students to move away from home base at quite the depth and ambition as they do at home. It really supports the argument that games are a part of literary culture, and parents play a vital role in children’s understanding of the world though media.

It also signals reasons so many people are exploring new forms of media and relationships from home, yet at work, they tend to less motivated. He says the digital fantasy a provides a “reliable, infinitely repeatable source of pleasure”. He also asserts “tether fantasy encourages us to consider everyday routines as creative acts permeated by a playful impulse: as we leave one site of adult identity for the next —whether it is bed, the cubicle at work, a car, or home—”. Certainly most people engage in this kind of activity via twitter for example. In addition he says it can be used to both engage and withdraw for the world and the power invested in these objects enables you to go beyond what is normally possible. I’ve said several times that I see twitter as sandbox game, and this article opened some new doors for me.

It’s a great theory, not least as it deal with the progressive autotelic narrative of building and venturing further from home base in a really interesting way.

Teaching for change?

There is one thing that matters if you’re interesting in using game-media in teaching.

Cross-cultural traction (game culture and edu-culture) involves creating partnerships with parents and community as central to developing culturally relevant teaching strategies. Because both cultures have rules, which can’t be seen its a BIG mistake to think educational culture is the dominant or even a significant driver. But if that’s the reality-bubble office-chair minders in eLearning want to believe (we decide what happens), who am I to argue. Let’s have a morning tea and talk about Fabucon next week.

Game-media in the classroom has NOTHING to do with level-ups, epic wins or being fun being the opposite of depression – that’s entertainment. Entertainment is not going to save the world, but it will clearly get you attention and photo-ops with the glamorous at Cannes.

Teaching for change is a lot harder, because it means accepting high-context-cultures and ACCEPTING that at this point ed-tech is low-context-culture in realms beyond Fabucon. Media richness doesn’t mean “video” verse “text” it means culture. I watched my kids play Minecraft this weeked (raining) and at no point do I see them getting anywhere close to the same richness in the way the use computers at school – nor from what the hype-vendors and brand-aligners pass off as reality at Fabucon.

Learning from empty shopping carts

Inside the excited micro-world of education online, there’s an orgy of imperfect messages. It strives to get people to listen to the messages and be more willing to abandon the truth.

If you were to travel back in time, to the late 1980s, the way the todays edtech reality is presented mirrors the way retail marketing went from “local” to “mega-stores”, such as Athena, Tower Records, HMV and so on. Students learn locally (a truth) and yet so much effort and attention is paid to out of town mega-malls which are un-reachable by the vast majority of people who want to learn. The fact we have phones and computers, which connect to the internet does not create a new reality that online learning is accessible. I am amazed that people obsess over ‘abandonment’ rates in MOOCs – completely ignorant of how little engagement there is with the piled high shelves of ‘proper’ information (and systems).

The truth is, that our hand held glass screens do not give us the same presence, they do not make the truth more findable, but building mega-stores to entice in new-shoppers has been a resounding success (for now). The web is a grave-yard of abandoned carts.

People have rushed to become ‘brands’ where high ‘footfall’ no longer matters, just clicks and followers. The online eduworld entices, engages, informs, teases and invites. It’s shop front presents enticing offers that this new futures is available and affordable.

What’s more, because ‘everyone’ is (or should) be doing it – then it provides the social-proof needed to get others to behave similarly.

Next we needed events – and edumedia provides on  daily basis. Even better, as these are rarely local, we don’t need to worry at all about building and permanent spaces at all. Edulandia is full of singage and signposting, it has shelves full of stock piles of information, carefully presented to create flow-behaviour from first sight to next purchase.

The problem is local-availability. Is what is being sold ‘close enough’ to the truth, and close enough to our-truth – or is it on the opposite side of town, too far to get to and too difficult to return.

My argument is this, while a privileged few in education seem to spend most of their days at conferences and debating the future and endlessly shopping around the pixel-mega-stores self-styled gurus have concocted – these people will not improve educational spaces or outcomes for students one iota tomorrow than they have in the last ten years.

The smarter people inside learning communities are learning from abandoned shopping carts – they are looking at powerful online tools, which provide a great deal of intelligence as to these flows of information, as used by real people, not sales-people. However, this is not the purpose of the PLN at all, a PLN is a shopping mall.

Sadly, there are millions of educational-websites (stores) which have been packed full of information (shelf-stocking). I am sure all this information is quality and relevant in some context. The truth is that while 95% of educational effort goes into to making ‘stock’, 95% of it also never leaves the shelf because it lacks “flow”. Few store owners appear to understand localised SEO, market intelligence and user-flows sufficiently to realize that their mega-store has no customers and plenty of abandoned shopping carts. The best solution – don’t look at the data.

Consider this, the action of one person or a group pushing information online around a ‘new’ initiative almost always succeeds in burying the visibility of another. Even worse, they probably won’t even know it. It’s mind blowing how little effort goes into managing this – and now much goes into one group trying to dominate others for that ‘home-page’ spot – believing that Google pays more attention to Home-pages than anything else (the 90’s called, they want their meta-tags back).

Working out where learners stop (or don’t even start) online cannot reasonably be measured in “likes”, “clicks” or “follows” – this is the measurement of the attention-economy. It serves those building edu-mega-stores well, as you’ll buy into the idioms – but the truth is, these are yet to be proven to make any significant difference to learners. But I suspect that’s not the point anymore. Commercialization of education was necessary to sell brands (and products) and it seems few are willing to abandon their addiction.

Enjoy the ISTE Mega-Mall. I’m sure the shelves will be piled higher and deeper this year.

BYOD (build your own demise)

Our technological gadgets and one-click culture has not simply created a perception that we cannot live any other way. There’s a sense of power and potential abandonment which appears highly addictive to some teachers.

“And it’s done consciously to trap children from infancy and then to turn them into consumer addicts” according to Noam Chomsky talking about Democracy and Education in the 21st Century and Beyond.

The kind of change I once saw as important has turned into something I find quite disgusting and facile. While I was hoping for ‘maker networks’, we have ended up with websites where the “best keynote” can be bought online like bubble-gum cards.

This makes is doubly depressing, as I actually like and respect them – but I hate the way education is being conducted as a brand-value enabler. As Stephen Downes pointed out, education is expensive, and brands can’t hope to profit from commercialising it. I actually don’t think that’s the plan, as building brand value is better achieved by using teachers as ‘trusted’ signals to families. The effect is what Chomsky is talking about – brands profit in the broadest sense. In addition, they use brand-endorsement (the teacher) who in their own right (bit part player) makes personal profit to some degree. The big picture is that these sub-branded teachers provide the brand unfettered access to their preferred demographic – which they are systematically creating in the attention-economy cycle.

BYOD being the first iteration of ‘free choice’, but predicably, BYOD will be a choice of those the brands enabled, using largely public money. Brands don’t care about equity and social inclusion, but will, when it suits their profile, be seen to sponsor it. This isn’t the change I was hoping for, so clearly I’m on the side which thinks commercialising and branding classrooms is un-ethical. It appears the opposite to what is happening in grass roots projects which create infrastructure social solutions such as tool libraries, youth off the street type innovation.

Brands win because brands are organised. A killer signal they have used is to tell ‘society’ that being un-organised is the way to create change and become an internet mega-star. Yes, be dis-organised, abandon formal education, leave associations and drink the red cordial.

Major cultural changes happen at the societal level, but regardless of origins, require sustainable organisation of some form, else people are simply a sign of the butterfly effect.

Associations and Guilds have changed society radically in the past, yet are decidedly ‘un-cool’ these days if one is to believe the edu-social-media signals.

An association of artists, architects, designers, and industrialists in Germany, created the Werkbund (1907-1934). It famously enabled a radical change almost every aspect of society whether the people noticed at the time, or not. Where as it might be ‘cheap’ for a government to encourage BYOD, teachers teaching teachers and so forth, it’s dangerous to assume this approach to education in leading to ‘improvement’ and improving the life changes of students at all levels.

Education is no more designed to use the ‘butterfly’ effect as Parliament is to ‘crowd source’ policy. But Associations can be a real pain for governments and brands alike – as they tend to be expert-networks, not simply excitable-networks.

For instance, Game of Thrones S03E09 contained the ‘red wedding scene’. Those who read this type of book didn’t take to Twitter to abuse HBO because HBO apparently killed off characters and ruined everything. It’s a similar story in education. Not understanding the narrative, leads to brain-missing signals to society.

Currently, mega-brands such as Apple and Google are central to re-shaping sections of every society rich enough to afford them.  A significant strategy, little examined is the way mega-brands target ‘educators’ and use them to promote their brand (products and services) to families – via children whom have little choice or say in the matter.

Once educators tended only to buy into one type of device (PC) and one type of software (Windows/Office). Apple always promoted education as part of it’s sales message, a successful strategy for ‘micro-computers’ in the 1980s. To get into the home (the were the money lies) generate ‘fear’ in the minds of parents that without this ‘new technology’ their children will not succeed in life.

Professional teaching associations have been ‘demoted’ though base-less rhetoric about ‘personal learning networks’ as a new phenomenon. The idea of like-minded people from particular ‘trades’ is nothing new, but has become a persuasive argument to suggest “if you don’t pay us persistent-attention, you are no longer relevant”.

The result, sadly for me, is that many leaders support and advocate the ‘brandification’ of education. This is overtly obvious among those private schools which have also adopted a tactic of proving their ‘quality and innovative-nature’ upon sub-brandification. This is no more sophisticated than basic brand endorsement marketing.

My argument is that social-edu-media is awash with conference images and ‘tweets’ endorsing ‘brandification’ – where being associated with a brand is central to teacher identity. I really don’t understand this at all as an educator – but my design background tells me this makes perfect sense.

However, since Rudd handed over $3billion to educational leaders in 2007 (now exhausted), it appears to be the same people, the same message, the same brands and the same problems being promoted via edu-social-media. This, despite technology, society and the economy being radically different.

I’m celebrating 12 months of giving up two things this week – smoking and edu-conferences. I have been into individual schools, classes and helped some associations. I think there’s merit in saying “free and independent educator” well above any brand-based descriptor. Brands have value, nothing they give is ever free. Education has value, and last time I checked most kids went to a free school not a rich north shore private with globe trotting brand-managers.

The impact of brandification is clear – kids use brand names to describe objects. These brands penetrate the family. The fact the brands make huge profits, avoid tax, farm personal data which they sell and routinely ‘drop’ the privacy ball seems to be of little concern. Educators are one of societies most trusted institutions – by fostering brand-value as ‘educational’ families tend to ‘deny’ and ‘ignore’ the darker agenda of profit, power and control of information and ideas.

I guess this has been the argument of the open movement for decades, but right now it seems that the worlds edu-social-leaders are addicted to brands and off their face with mutual gratification.

There’s never been a better time to get a post-graduate degree in Education and detox brandification.

So where’s the Imgur?

I get the impression, plenty of educator types use Twitter and Facebook. I am kind of wondering why Imgur is not mentioned much. Some of you might hang out on the Reddit boards, so will know what I mean. There are places which drive traffic at speeds and volumes that will rip your eyes out, yet seem to never get mentioned, yet I’m pretty sure if you’re a high-school teacher or in higher-education, you’re students will probably think IS the Internet – and makes a pretty simple way to ‘blog’ – daddy-oh.

Its just old people that use websites isn’t it?