To be even more Clear…

The last blog post sparked discussions in many arenas. Instead of addressing the points on each channel, I think it’s better to address them right here. I’m not covering new territory, this is clarification.

  • What I have experienced from the Tech in Scientology has been very workable. I have seen very little that didn’t work on me. I am very thankful for all my gains in Scientology.
  • I have personally seen examples of Tech not working on others or having a negative effect on others – even when they got, as far as I can see, Standard Tech.
  • I see inconsistencies in the Tech and I believe it to be overly complex. I believe there must be a simpler method of addressing the problems of the simplest of sources; You.
  • I believe in the free will of man and that the free market will decide what works. Hence, I advocate Open Source Scientology (both connotations).
  • I think the validity of any Tech can be shown scientifically – and it should. But absence of scientific evidence does not counter the workability of a Tech. Beyond that, your personal gain is for you to validate. Anything can work. Scientology very often does.
  • I see much good in the Admin policies from LRH. But destructive policies should be rooted out. This obviously goes for anything destructive in Ethics or Tech as well. Keep the good, reject the bad.
  • I see much good in Scientology Ethics – as long as it is kept as a personal tool for improvement and not as a tool of force applied to others.
  • I see flaws in Hubbard. I see genius in Hubbard. I see that many have serious issues separating the man from his work. Newton’s work is not invalidated by the man being seriously flawed.
  • To those claiming “Isene is slowly waking up from Scientology”, I can only say this: I am quite awake and has been for some time – having objected to stupidity and abuses while in the church. I will however not enter the daze of negativity where anything bad about Scientology is treated as gospel. Differentiation is the key.
  • As for the discussions sparked by the last blog post, I didn’t think I would see the day when ESMB would out-rabid WWP.
  • The “all good” or “all bad” are equal signs of insanity.

And this pretty much concludes an era of blogging for me. I will let this blog simmer down. I will let my IT blog wither. And I will erect a new blog merging all my fields of interest – Scientology and exploration of free will, IT and consumer rights, patent and copyright abolishment, philosophy and logic, art and music, mathematics and quantum mechanics, programming and HP calculators, nature and beauty.

Stay tuned. You will be invited over to my new home for a housewarming party.

  1. 2010-06-24 at 08:49

    I can’t wait to your new blog. 🙂

  2. TheProphet
    2010-06-24 at 09:20

    “Out-rabbid”? 🙂

    • 2010-06-24 at 09:23

      Yeah, you know; When someone is a rabid critic… I’ll correct the typo, though.

      • TheProphet
        2010-06-24 at 12:21

        Ah ok, thanks!

        You are obviously more awake than most. It’s a bit sad to see such generalizing ad hominems though.

        • 2010-06-24 at 13:50

          A sentence starting with “To those claiming…” would hardly qualify for the adHom hall of fame 😉

          • TheProphet
            2010-06-24 at 14:11

            I was referring to calling people “rabid” as an ad hom. Probably justified, but still an ad hom.

            • 2010-06-24 at 15:52

              Then you need to clear adHom as a concept. “Rabid” refers here to over-representation.

            • Anonymous
              2014-02-20 at 04:19

              You are an insane person attacking the best help that has hit this planet ….to destroy a great help vehicle…is supressive……somewhere there is a being, find that thing dear and absolutely do not contact me, ever, work your own plan B as maybe without that you will become, the fly on my arm, the starving baby in America, the murdered girl in India, or just lonely in space….for a half of eternity, no god no heaven, no earth, just alone in the dark and in pain….will see. Feelin for you but much more for the world from your supression……..knock it off………….get a life…..

              • 2014-02-20 at 14:00

                Woooha 😛

              • 2014-02-21 at 03:57

                AND when I put “anonymous” on my messages to you, would you please keep them that way?~!~?~! LOL. God I wish I felt that much energy tonight! Even dark energy…

  3. 2010-06-24 at 10:20

    I found some tech to work too and other didn’t. I never did OT Levels, but they seemed to work for some and not for others. This always intrigued me and I wondered about the true elements of what made something work.

    I found those elements hidden in Axioms and previously applied in Buddhism, but they have been a matter of hit and miss in auditing as well as in later Buddhism. Those elements have a lot to do with the person who applies the knowledge.

    I feel that overall knowledge has been on the track of simplification, and it can be simplified further so it can be applied with more workability. I can see where Geir is going, and I wish Geir my very best. He has my support.


  4. 2010-06-24 at 13:58

    Note: I pick up reactions now and then on other channels. I prefer to comment on it here as it reaches the people who read the original post more directly.

    Someone had the idea that: “Geir just realised (unconsciously) wath will happend if he continue on the path his mind (with the help of the critics) are going. So he simply closes his blog.”

    The usual speculation as to intent is usual.

    And no, that is certainly not the reason why this blog will be left fading. Geir is collecting channels into one blog that will accommodate for all kinds of things most interesting to Geir. Art needs more space. Carping criticism gets less. Life needs to be more amazing. Stay tuned.

  5. 2010-06-24 at 16:44


    Your sanity is appreciated. You have pulled-in a few rabid, LRH-hating folks, yes. But, you have also pulled-in people like myself, who are low on the Bridge, have had wins, were shocked when we found out the truth about DM and even when we found out some negative reports on LRH.

    As an OTVIII, naturally you are going to have guys like me being rather intent on knowing if the tech works or not. Perhaps guys like me need to fully think for ourselves at this point, but, in the church we are basically “trained” to look up to OTVIII’s as if they have the Universal secrets of life.

    I look forward to anything further you want to share. I hope you can construct it in such a way as to “bore” the rabid LRH-haters right out the door. 🙂


  6. Steven
    2010-06-24 at 16:53

    “I see genius in Hubbard.”

    I defy anyone outside of a mind poisoned by Scientology to agree with you on that point.

    Hubbard was as far from a genius in the real sense as it’s possible to get. Anything remotely approaching the periphery of “genius” was misappropriated from other sources. I defy you, Geir, to show me a moment of pure, unadulterated Hubbard genius. No such thing exists IMHO. He was a charlatan of the very highest order. The only thing Hubbard possessed, that he was exceptional at, was stealing other people’s work and hawking it out as his own.

    Sorry, but the truth hurts.

    • 2010-06-24 at 17:42

      The usual line…

      Did you ever really study anything Hubbard wrote, or have you just picked up a party line here and there?

      Study the Axioms, the Factors, the Logics. Then study the Data Series. See if you can find any genius in any of that. My list is far longer, though, so do not hesitate to come back for more. However, I expect you to be wholly defiant in admitting any genius in anything Hubbard wrote, ever. You may find it very disturbing were you ever to admit there was anything brilliant in what Hubbard wrote.

      • El Diablo
        2010-06-25 at 09:07

        I have read a lot of his material – although from an outsiders perspective – and I don’t think he was a genius. I come to this opinion because I feel there’s a level of intellectual dishonesty in his work – and that he takes as “self-evident” (i.e. axiomatic) propositions which I feel are more his own opinion than true axioms.

        His belief in the “self evident” priciples he advocates could alternatively be interpretted through the lense of his own personal history, personality and the social/political/historical context in which they were formulated. In other words, they are not essential “truths” but products of his personal construction of reality as shaped by the before-mentioned.

        I also find that there is a lack of critical analysis of his own ideas…no exploration or analysis of possible refutations…and rather than being a collection of rigourous philosophical analysis, his work becomes an exercise in persuasion.

        Now, perhaps if he is a “genius”, it is in his ability to transform conjecture into apparent “knowledge”…and convince his audience that one’s subjective construction of reality is “truth” in an objective sense.

        That being said, I still quite like your approach and attitude concerning Scientology and it’s future practice (even if I personally do not subscribe to it) and want you to know that my philosophical objections to the work of LRH does not imply any less respect for you and others who take another stance.

        • 2010-06-25 at 09:16

          A respectful post.

          I can see your point regarding the lack of critical analysis of Hubbard’s work – although he does point out the readers responsibility in this.

          I believe it is possible to read most anything from any author, starting with a preconceived negative idea and come out at the other end discrediting any genius therein. The opposite is obviously also possible.

          • El Diablo
            2010-06-25 at 09:45

            Not to mention that “genius” is such a contentious term! 😉

            Anyhow, I know you don’t allow public discussion of upper level material, but if you’re so inclined I do extend an open invitation to discuss the philosophy of the “Hubbard-verse” (via email if you like, since it would involve upper level material).

            Anyhow, I do like meaty philosophical discussions, but it’s rather rare to find people who aren’t either in the “it’s total bunk, so it doesn’t merit discussion”, or “LRH is above reproach so your criticism are offensive” camp.

            If not, that’s cool too. Anyhow, you have a good one. 🙂

            • Nick
              2010-07-22 at 05:55

              Is it possible to have a brief email dialog with you. I’ve done upper levels some time ago. No longer in the CofS, but really like to talk frankly about what I during Clear and OT III.

        • Ackerland
          2010-06-25 at 11:55

          I have read Dianetics, I am completely through so I think I have earned the right to voice my opinion about the “genious” of Hubbard.

          I also find that there is a lack of critical analysis of his own ideas…no exploration or analysis of possible refutations…and rather than being a collection of rigourous philosophical analysis, his work becomes an exercise in persuasion.

          This is a really good statement. That’s actually how I felt pretty much the whole book over.
          He is very good at creating an “us vs. them” feeling that is not grounded in rationality, I even caught me feeling it a couple of times. Like you supporting a football team but once you’re in, it probably goes much deeper.
          Reading Dianetics I have to say Hubbard has relatively few logical contradictions in it (even though there are some) if you are working off his “axioms”. He certainly was not stupid. Anyone stupid couldn’t have written anything as coherent as he did.
          I personally think it is rather his model of the human mind that is oversimplified and flawed. This model is so fundamental to the beliefs and practices that a flaw in his model at that level would bring into question most of the practices in the church.
          This does not invalidate the tech from the “data series” though, as I have not read the applicable books of his.

          I have personally seen examples of Tech not working on others or having a negative effect on others – even when they got, as far as I can see, Standard Tech.

          An incredibly honest assertion if this is what happened, and this among the abuse is one of the reasons why I am opposed to the Scientology organisation, as well as some independent Scientologists who refuse to open their eyes to anything like this. For instance, Uwe Stuckenbrock died from multiple sclerosis, which can be treated (though not cured) and people with it have only a slightly decreased life expectancy. He did not got medical help because a great many illnesses are deemed “psychosomatic”. And besides, he “pulled it in”. This is a very dangerous part of the tech.

        • 2010-06-25 at 22:02

          I will add that I threw Newton in there somewhat to provoke and partly to prove a point. You see, the Newton-comparison has already been debated over at and passionately so – hence I knew the reaction would come. Now the reaction has always been a perceived comparison between Hubbard and Newton or against Hubbard’s work and Newton’s work, whereas I do not make those comparisons. My point is rather that any man’s work must be tested on its own merits, on its own workability and not by scrutinizing the character of the creator. It is more honest and direct and scientifically correct to test the solution or product directly rather than engaging in adHom-ing the source or speculating as to his or her intent. Beyond that, there is little comparison between Hubbard and Newton or their respective work.

          • El Diablo
            2010-06-26 at 03:19

            My point is rather that any man’s work must be tested on its own merits, on its own workability and not by scrutinizing the character of the creator. It is more honest and direct and scientifically correct to test the solution or product directly rather than engaging in adHom-ing the source or speculating as to his or her intent.

            While I understand your point here – and I agree that the character of the author should not be the determinant of the one’s appraisal – I do have some issue with using this approach to the exclusion of others.

            Firstly, this is an analytical choice. I come from a history & philosophy background, so preforming such a contextless analysis (at least in my opinion) is limiting. “Workability” might be fine for looking at the practice of Scientology (or Scientology-inspired techniques/approaches)…but this is only one aspect of LRH’s work.

            Also, if one were to look at Newton this way, it would undermine a fair appraisal of the significance of his work. Sure we still use the equations, but we do so knowing that they hold up only in certain circumstances…they have limits in their application. Does this diminish their value?

            Now if we’re to look at the historical context, we see that they represent a paradigmatic shift from a purely mechanized universe, to one in which unseen forces (i.e. momentum, gravity) are at play. This is highly significant – and even though the workability of Newtonian physics is limited to certain cases in modern physics, the significance of this paradigm for subsequent developments in physics cannot be overstated!

            As I said before of Hubbard’s work, practical application is only one aspect – there is the underlying philosophy (which at it’s base is metaphysical, and epistemic – and building on that the more contentious moral philosophy – i.e. ethics)…which are the underlying principles upon which practice is based. To properly understand practice, it seems necessary to look at these underlying principles. And to do that fairly, one should not discount the socio-historical context in which they were developed, nor those aspects of the author which contribute to their form.

            And I’d argue that the author’s intent is likewise important because it gives us some idea of what exactly we’re looking at. As I wrote earlier, as a rigorous philosophical exercise, LRH’s work has some serious flaws, but as a piece of persuasive writing – arguing the case for his particular construction of reality, it could be seen as extremely clever. Perhaps in current times – given subsequent developments in science – it’s less persuasive, but in the context of the time it was first published, I imagine it would have had great appeal.

            Anyhow, these are just a few thoughts on this. Not to say that your prefered analysis is wrong per se, just that like with all forms of analysis/appraisal their form will neccessarily constrain what they can tell you about the work in question. In short, it can give you only one piece of the puzzle! 🙂

            • 2010-06-26 at 07:13

              An author’s intent can only be guessed through the products he create. But to guess at his intentions, a close examination of the products is needed, and then the products themselves should be measured against consistency, logic and also workability and hence no guessing of the author’s intent is needed.

              • El Diablo
                2010-06-26 at 09:40

                I think you’re right to see “intent” as a (or maybe the most) difficult & problematic thing to assess. You’ll have to excuse my analytical bias, which does tend towards the academic. I suppose my interests are broader and more removed from the actual practice of LRH’s methods than someone who identifies as a Scientologist. I have quite a “thing” for historical controversies, so the kind of answers I’m looking to find beg quite different questions.

                What I do see in LRH’s work are unrealistic expectations regarding what dianetics can achieve – and the certainty that if applied exactly as he intended that they will always produce beneficial results. My personal suspicion is that those who benefit are neccesarily self-selecting, hence the disparity between the few control studies that exist and annecdotal evidence.

                What will be interesting will be a study of LRH’s methods disentangled from the heirarchy of the CoS, since it’s difficult to see their effects are by themself, and what is occurring because of context in which it’s delivered. I think because the aims of your assessment are quite focused, you’re quite right to want a empirical framework to be employed.

                I do think a wider analytical net will need to be cast when it comes to the more philosophical end of things, but against well defined outcome criteria, I do think the effectiveness of applying the methods themselves can be assessed on an empirical basis.

                Hope that clarifies what I was saying…and I’m not misinterpretting the position you’re arguing. 🙂

              • 2010-06-26 at 15:27

                Very clear. And I agree that there are unrealistic expectations sold in DMSMH.

  7. 2010-06-24 at 18:17


    If you can allow yourself to be wrong about anything after you have given an opinion and then had to take it back, you will have come a very long way.

    You are far more interested in being right and making extremely generalized statements than in helping anyone or learning anything.

    To those who have spent years studying Hubbard, your comments stand out like a big red flag, as somebody who picked up the entirety of his opinion from the internet or from rumors and gossip.

    You used the word “Charlatan”. Well….pot/kettle/black

    • Lucien
      2014-02-20 at 04:22


  8. Mark A. Baker
    2010-06-24 at 18:18

    Finally a point of disagreement, Geir!

    I don’t think the esmb response has been all that “rabid”. Especially in light of what the board was like two years ago. 😉

    Most of the responses there I interpret as generally “favorable”, although often expressed with a measure of condescension correlating to the posters own animus with regard to the Co$. This may well be resulting from a confusion over the logical nature of your argument as opposed to the more “impassioned” appeals commonly found on scientology forums.

    I think you underestimate your positive impact. 🙂

    • 2010-06-24 at 18:26

      Ah, but that may not be disagreement after all. You see, my point is that WWP was less rabid – something I think is remarkable 😉

      • Mark A. Baker
        2010-06-24 at 19:09

        Yes, you are certainly correct there. THAT is remarkable.

        • 2010-06-24 at 19:37

          If it wasn’t for the fact that my interest in forum discussions is taking a nose dive, I could see myself writing something on WWP. With the latest on ESMB – that one even less.

  9. 2010-06-24 at 19:38


    I’ll miss this blog and I can understand why you are letting it go. You are more rational and relaxed than several who post here and the fanaticism can be a drain. It can drag one down a few notches, as that is the general purpose of rumors and gossip. That may not be the only reason you are letting it go but I’m sure it plays a role.

    In closing, i think you ought to write a book or two regarding everything you want to share/communicate to the world.

    I will buy it if you do.

    Please do let me know when your new project is put together. I’m sure you will make a general announcement via the other sites, such as Marty’s, but you can always get hold of me (the real me), via Steve Hall or Dan Koon.

    Take care and thank you for communicating! It has helped.


    • 2010-06-24 at 20:07


      Me moving on to create a new blog is a natural evolution. It will be a blog complete with all my interests, and not just one about Scientology or one about IT. I am a whole, not an IT guy, a Scientologist, an artist, a writer… I will post the opening of Isene’s Blog in the not too distant future.

  10. dave
    2010-06-24 at 22:52

    Hi Geir,

    In your recent posts I feel you haven’t really covered a question which I believe to be very impontant:

    Did Hubbard weave manipulation techniques into the Tech in order to be able to control people?

    I believe the answer to this question is yes and I also believe this insight is needed (for any organized form of Scientology) to really separate the good from the bad in the Tech.

    I´d be curious to know what your current opinion is towards a statement such as this.


  11. 2010-06-25 at 00:55

    I am watching your evolution with interest. I have several active blogs and have toyed with the idea of merging them, but decided that each was a conversation with a different group of readers and the readers for the most part do not have intersecting interests.

    My non-scientology blogs have had over 500,000 visitors between them and they have continued even as my interests changed from a corporate existence to a post-corporate lifestyle deeply involved in the arts.

    My scientology blogs have separate and specific purposes and I cannot even imagine consolidating them into a single blog.

    Since you are creating a new community, you can set the parameters any way you want and those joining in will be making a fresh start just as you will be.

    I wish you well. We seem to write about the same things with a similar viewpoint and you are saying things that still need to be said.

    When you surface in your new incarnation, I will post links so my readers can find you. Good luck!

    • 2010-06-25 at 05:14

      Thanks. I appreciate it, and I will cross-link.

  12. Theo Sismanides
    2010-06-25 at 07:09

    Geir, your ideas and initiative to do something new are welcome. As Scientologists having a tech on Admin I hope we can have something bigger. I am also interested in programming on the iPhone. I would like to be able to connect up with someone who can do that and create a new section in my business. Maybe we can achieve many more things than just discuss about things. We can use the Admin Tech.

  13. 2010-06-25 at 09:53

    One may criticize Hubbard and look for proofs for his “axioms” and not find them in his materials. That is perfectly alright.

    Because any such materials from Hubbard, or any other author, may lead you to examine your own experience and, thus, discover your own “axioms” with your own proofs. That is perfectly alright too.

    Because… learning is not necessarily “writing on a blank slate.” Learning can also be “removing dust from a diamond” as say the ancient texts of the East.


  14. 2010-06-25 at 11:23

    Some time ago I watched a movie called the “Celestine Prophecy.” It is a story of a number of people who are working with 12 discovered “insights.” The insights are listed here:

    In one of the final scenes, a group of them are walking together, on a bit of a rescue mission. They walk past a group of soldiers with machine guns. The soldiers do not see them, even though they are in plain view. Then one of them grasps the reality of the soldiers and leaves the shared reality. At that moment they all are viewable by the soldiers.

    I had often seen a new reality forming along my way. Rather like Plato’s cave. For me it boiled down to simplicities. The auditing technology, used well and faithfully, can and does result in new awareness and even transcendence. All of the rest of it was simply efforts to protect it. The problem with that is that in protecting it, one creates the reality one is protecting it from.

    New realities, new civilizations, new lives are created by creating them. Not by fighting what apparently prevents them from happening. That is a trap. My reality of what you are now doing is that you are moving on to create your new reality. And I know you are well on your way, and so am I.

    Again, thank you for being fluid and flexible and for creating in the now that is always and forever what truly matters.

    An old Irish saying for you:

    “May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be ever at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. And until we meet again, May God hold you in the hollow of his hand.”

    • 2010-06-25 at 11:37

      Brilliant. Your post boosted my motivation to write something along the lines of imposing one’s own reality on the consensus reality – how that is done and the importance of communication skills.

    • 2010-06-25 at 17:18


      This is very good and very valid.

      That said, if a child is pinned under a burning car, the ethical thing to do is to rescue that child by getting a few large men to help lift it off. You wouldn’t simply postulate a new reality. You would not simply transcend. You would address and give attention to the problem at hand. Once fully confronted and handled, you could get back to transcending.

      I guess the above serves as an analogy for what Marty and Mike are doing to take down Miscavige.

      Sometimes you have to fall into the “trap” of protecting things or there is no freedom/transcendence to be had. It falls under the categories of ethics and responsibility.

      The trick is to know what we are actually responsible for handling, yet not allowing ourselves to obsess on ONLY the handling. Otherwise, you are correct… we will just be doing a lot of fighting, protecting and validating of the problem, rather than transcending or postulating new realities.

      I think it’s the price one pays for living in a physical universe. You definitely have to protect things once in a while. The price of freedom…constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back. There is no other price.


      • Maria
        2010-06-26 at 10:02

        I understand your point about the child under the burning car. But even the act of getting some big men to lift that car still requires the creation of a reality. You have to be there, participating in that reality, to experience that reality. You have to arrive at that time and space and participate. To do that you must create the reality so you can participate.

        If you were not participating in that reality, then you would not have encountered the burning child in the car. And the more people not participating in that reality, the less possibility of a reality of children in a burning car in the first place.

        Should you go seeking children in burning cars so you can save them? If you do that, are you not then creating children in burning cars so you can save them?

        But I get your point.

  15. Valkov
    2010-06-26 at 08:14

    Here are a few lines from Russell Salamon’s awesome poem called “I Would Make Simpler Things”:

    To tell you to sing

    is silly,

    you have never stopped singing.

    To tell you something you

    don’t already know is hard

    for in your giant laughter

    strides open

    and the road you carry

    you lay before you.

  16. isiologia
    2011-07-01 at 18:13

    Well i think that Hubbard was god then he god bad to get money , he enturbulated the bridge to put the religion at the end of it, the dictonomies are change no religion , and then at the final hubbard analisis change religion , what is true for you is true for you but if you are in agreement with us you have to change you reality and be true wit us because we are the real deal if you are not true with us , in agreement with us you are not doiing the teck rigth , the so called gains of hubbard were in reality , loosses as we can see, the por guy died crazy, and if we belibe his bridge we will be crazy , to cahnge our reality simply to make the so call gains are not gains after all, reality is not agreement , actualy is issnees , what is is regardles , the axioms are corrupted for lack of reflexion that is key in understanding any subjet.

  17. Lucien
    2014-02-20 at 04:26

    SP oh, for the layman, supressive person, one who supresses other people and things that help

  18. Nicholas Jordan
    2019-06-09 at 16:18

    I was fully and completely aware of not only how some of Hubbard’s work would be insufficient for Total Release though provides an if not ideal then KSW standard by which participation can occur for those who have this interest; This was at the time of Wichita as I remember it though have not clearly detailed Time; Place; Form; & Event;

    In this work or participation thereof there are «influences» ( to use the term from esoterics ) that are or can occur with no strong binding to events ( actions ) in the physical-plane [ MEST in Scn nomenclature for non-participants ] ◘ To create a reality so you can participate is not set in destiny in any prior pre-planned way though ( i forgot what Hubbard calls it ) can and does have action potentials which are imperfect in the flaws of execution

    In 1977 at PAC WUS I found myself set to be Reg at ASHO-f but could not fathom why during check of the Ashtray Drill it had not occurred to the twin that you could actually levitate the Glass which for all that matters was the Heavy Glass Ashtray specified in the HCOB Technical Bulletin setting out how to approach the matter; Later I would go BI after a negroid upper management hits my buttons on lets say Southern Culture; This went to caved-in potentially with mass bothering me to the extent that I reported to ED at Melrose that I needed to get on the meter; Sitting down I promptly set it to the student practical that it was R/S’s on Grandma; She called the item and reports that it ^is^ Grandma

    4 Decades later I am yet still today facing the same risk; Yet this time it is with someone whom is ACTUALLY doing what is claimed on the Phoenix Lectures Advanced Material though for me I find nothing «advanced» about it •• it just seems so natural and what I am that I fit in to the discussion which is tantamount to Audit someone in another state

    When we remove the bounds of time; General principals and nature of the thing replaces specifics of Time; Place; Form; and Event; This so totally blows most people away that they get stuck on the Oh wow;

    That is a trap; A Theta Trap;

    Dont do it

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: