policyBy Jim Logan

There appears to me to be a lack of differentiation made, either by lack of data, or possibly false data or in some cases,  a purposeful obfuscation and clouding of issues, on the true nature of Policy as expressed in Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters.

For whatever reason the confusions exist or are spread,  the actual stable data relative to Policy itself, are expressed and are the stable data.  Of course, ANY stable data (and as described in Policy itself, based squarely on Axiom 54 of the Scientology Axioms) are subject to review.  If they aren’t then they have the possibility of becoming an idée fixe preventing a present time view of things and a sane response to things viewed.

All manner of “stimulus-response” can occur when robotic actions, “automaticities” are the order of the day. Idiotic interpretations or applications can make a dog’s breakfast of things.  I’ve seen it personally, and witnessed the idiocies and idiots, that sitting atop a pyramid of “power” would order and execute some of the stupidest things one could imagine, all the while claiming to be acting as high-priests of knowledge on what Hubbard really meant or wanted, since they were privy to his “advices”, and had that hidden data line.  Or worse, they just plain couldn’t see the failures in their wake, or the destruction in their path, deaf, dumb and blind by their own lies and dishonesties.

I’m reminded of Data Series 11, THE SITUATION, and paraphrasing it, that it can be rough when some people with lots of authority, whether by position or popularity, get mired into situations, don’t seem to be able to accurately label, isolate or correctly identify or target and bat madly at unimportant dust motes and/or each other, and just mire in more deeply.

This can be so far a departure from rationality that those with fixed ideas and madness can defy the most accurate solutions.  But THAT is just part of the situation, isn’t it.

LRH actually says in one of the basic policies on communications and policy:

16. Differentiate amongst purposes, subpurposes, senior policy, routine policy, directives, momentary orders and advice. All policy does not have equal value. Policy can’t exist down to the details of getting it into effect. That requires orders and advice. The policy of “Get the job done!” is very senior to a policy relating to the expenditure of ballpoints. A martinet is only one who insists on following policy down to idiot level, using policy for how to shine shoes or bite fingernails.

Further, he says:

25…Almost all current trouble is occurring because of departures from policy yesterday or from causes never before experienced by the group. Policy is group experience. Followed, the group advances. Abandoned, the group falls away. Only Scientologists dare become fiends about following policy for only Scientologists know enough to erase it when it no longer applies. But drop a policy as if one were letting go the only piece of wood in the ocean-once gone there may be no rescue to hand. To demand that unimportant “policy” be followed slavishly or to use it to balk org purposes is another way of dying. For it makes people fight major policy and fighting that they have disasters.

LRH sums it up beautifully here:

“ A group is only a collection of different people without policy to agree upon. For policies are the points of agreement which make the group into a True Group and an irresistible force. Using policy intelligently is the only way a group can ever advance. No policy at all or noncompliance with major policy is the basis of every upset that will be reported to you whether the fact is stated or not. Purposes and major policy are very safe roads. Leaving them leads to too many quicksand pits for anyone to be mild about departures from policy.” 

All quotes excerpted from HCO PL 13 March 1965, Issue II, THE COMM-MEMBER SYSTEM, Comm Policies Section.

18 thoughts on “The nature of policy

  1. Jim,
    thanks for the quotes. They are great and make a lot of sense, of course.

    But what is the suggestion, actually?
    I think the recent turmoil which came up comes not so much from a departure from policy but people recognizing that some stuff within the materials (i.e. LRH writings and lectures) was responsible for lots of the troubles the church was facing. As it were, some aspects of Scientology were destructive for the whole system at the time of its implementation.

    Of course, Scientology was not a perfect system, but a workable one.
    We can look from all the different angles – in the end what we are facing now is a dead church and a field of independent practitioners who are trying to make the best of the situation.

    My view of LRH is positive. He was a genius. He had stuff to handle. There has been some counter intention from the get go. He established the Organization as a church. Was it his best choice? I don’t know – at least it gave him the opportunity to make further development of the technology and people where free to practice auditing under the protection of religious freedom.

    However at whatever the church was supposed to be or to accomplish, we have a new situation here.
    Nowadays you can use the technologies of DN and SCN as a “personal trainer” or you start a club for “self-realization” and there you go.
    You can choose different models for the “org” you run. It wasn’t that easy in the 50’s.

    I am only saying this, because we have all the technology here. All LRH came up with (the most part of it at least) is accessible on the internet.

    Before we look at what ideal scene we would like to have for Scientology, the better question (IMO) would be, what would I like to see happening in the world.

    If people have purpose, they will come up with (or adapt) good policy.

    I can not see, at this moment, that a centralized Scientology will be beneficial for the purposes of a better world.
    Maybe one day it will. But not at this moment. We are – many of us – still sitting in the losses we faced: lost families, lost friends, lost havingness, lost dreams.

    Scientology Zero is the concept in SCN that the vicinity is never so dangerous as some chaos merchants would like us to believe.
    The “urgency”, the “stats before the world is over”, the “clear the planet before it’s to late” was used as a button up to a point where Scientology has over-expanded. And this aggressive approach was partly responsible for the demise of the organization.

    It’s not only for the policy why the org collapsed.

    Hurry, hurry… although the axioms and the core principals of Scientology say that there is a perfect randomity for any action.

    Scientology will survive into the future because people like you are on-purpose – helping their fellows with the application of Scientology, with training and a well founded advice.
    Not because of policy alone.

    And because of this purpose people will connect with each other to ensure training quality, qual actions and more.
    I am sure, it will grow in an organic way.
    And than new policy will be created out of experience or the functioning policy from the time of the church will be adopted where it fits.

    It is my viewpoint, of course.
    Thanks again for the quotes. At some point people and groups will use this data in order to leave a lot of “thunk” meant for a different organization behind.


    • SKM,
      I’ve read both of your comments here and I’m having trouble determining what it is you are saying specifically. I’ve gotten the idea that you’ve had some troubles, as you mention them as losses. I understand that. I understand loss, and I understand a person can get a failed purpose, with stops. I also understand that purposes can be revitalized, if you pour the coal on the purpose, rather than put attention on the stops, or the losses.

      I lost an entire life. My wife, our children, our future. She was stopped and taken to a prison, relentlessly pounded spiritually until she was broken, and then slowly died over the coming years.

      What did I do in response? You see some of it here, with this group, Milestone Two. But I can tell this, I didn’t and don’t Q&A with those who would stop, or those who are hung in the stops, and have lost sight of the purpose.

      You have a purpose. It is valid. Pour on the coals. If LRH’s policy can help you achieve it, use it. It’s a long game SKM. Work to win. Win.

      I am.


      • I hear you Jim.
        My purpose is to help people towards a higher understanding of themselves and their inner nature.
        Scientology is a vital tool to achieve this.
        The church went off the rails because of some ingredients in its culture (those were not based on the very foundation of the tech – as stated in my previous posts).
        I don’t want the church anymore and I don’t want a new one based on Scientology.
        I am saying, we should grow up.

        Different groups emerging today will come together for the benefit of delivery. That’s the inevitable future of Scientology delivery.

        MilestoneTwo can be a vital platform or association for that purpose.
        It already helped me to connect and meet with other Scientologists.

        You say: ” But I can tell this, I didn’t and don’t Q&A with those who would stop, or those who are hung in the stops, and have lost sight of the purpose.”
        You mean one purpose? Or a series of purposes?
        I am sure some of our purposes match beautifully.

        This site says: “Milestone Two is a community of people who want to see that the LRH aims for Scientology are met. ”
        Or is it: “Milestone Two is a community of people who want to see Scientology’s aims for the world are met. ”
        Are we doing it for Ron? Or are we using his technology to make our postulates come true?

        I am born in a Catholic family, you know, and they are praying to Jesus. And I am asking them, why are they doing it? He never asked us to do it and he himself prayed and advised his disciples to pray to God, the Heavenly Father. That’s why I am a rebel, you see? I prefer to learn some of his great teachings but refuse to pray to him. He wanted me to get in contact with my inner nature and wanted me to spread this experience. Such was his mission. I grew over the tradition (pray to Jesus) and found his teachings and lessons extremely useful. Same with other traditions.
        LRH insisted on the “tradition” that any practitioner has to be part of the HASI (later other organizations for that purpose) and the others have been called “offbeats” or even worse as you know.
        We broke with this tradition. You, Ingrid, I and all the other independents.
        We broke with this “tradition” not because LRH was always wrong. We broke with this “tradition” because it is not workable in real life. People want to use freely what they have learned.
        And there are many other “traditions” within the Scientology system of little value (going after blown students, handling of ARC breaks with confessionals – because “it is all because of O/Ws” – although technology knows better, it became part of the “tradition”. It’s “common knowledge” now.

        And look at the losses from the past. The most of them because of some “tradition” which was not really based on the core principles of Scientology. Yours, mine and of the many people I spoke to.

        The cultivation of tradition – not based on the fundamentals of Scientology – was the demise of the Church. We will find more about it by further inspection. And I am sure, like in a one on one session, we will leave many of group-case behind us.

        The purpose for a better world is valid.
        Compassion and Competence is achievable for the one who seeks to live with the truth.
        Man can be free.
        And we can help our fellow Men.

      • SKM,
        Having and following a basic purpose is an utterly simple formula for life. That is, living mate. I’m not about to define your purpose for any of your Dynamics. You do that. With a purpose you have a game, you’ll find barriers. Get too hung in the barriers and you’ll lose sight of the purpose. The game becomes handling the barriers, not achieving the purpose.

        Milestone Two has a constructive purpose. Look around , and I dare say you’ll see more tearing down, than building up in other purposes. I’d rather construct, than destruct. Besides, the ACTUAL cycle of action involves “cease creating”. So, let’s take the CofS as an example.

        You can try and destroy the Church of Scientology, attack it, vilify the people who are there, ALL of them, and spend your time in a constant finding fault with any and all efforts by others, and generalize your destruction to anything “Church”. Now one is embroiled in a destructive purpose that rather than follow the ACTUAL cycle of action, follows a cycle guaranteed to cause a persistence of that which they seek to destroy.

        This makes no sense to me. Rather than center my activities on destroying something, I’m working with others who seek to construct something, to create. In fact, by pointing out what policy really says, with the policy itself so one can see FOR oneself, and not with some vague allusion to what “everybody knows” (a propaganda trick of old and apparently still used), then one has the chance to AS-IS. In the long run, as-ising will satisfy the Actual Cycle of Action, as the entire thing is a creation. You see? (I recommend a look at this material in Fundamentals of Thought if you don’t. Work it out for yourself. )

        Milestone Two is a constructive idea. You can participate in its creation, or not. You can participate in the destructive purposes of other sites, there’s a few around. It’s entirely up to you.

      • Hello Jim, you say:

        “Now one is embroiled in a destructive purpose that rather than follow the ACTUAL cycle of action, follows a cycle guaranteed to cause a persistence of that which they seek to destroy.

        This makes no sense to me. Rather than center my activities on destroying something, I’m working with others who seek to construct something, to create. “

        Yeah, you are right here along the concept as described by LRH in the lecture “What is wrong with the MEST universe” (PDCs).
        That’s why I never was “after psychs” while still in the church – I thought my time is much better invested with Applied Scholastics projects than with CCHR.

        But this is not what I was talking about. You know, the church is off the rails and I don’t want to have a new one. Why? Because LRH decided to establish the church while he was faced with no other model at this time. He was, so to speak, forced by the circumstances to do it (the pressure from the APA was the biggest one).
        Let’s take a look at it. Let’s see it for what it was that he made this decision (partially looking at this will at least partially bring about as-isness).
        Today we can have so many different models we could choose – depending on the country you live.
        No church needed, see?

        I am not interested in destroying the church. I am out of the church. I don’t support it anymore because they don’t want me to be free.
        Scientology should be for free use.

        It may be I don’t understand the purposes of MilestoneTwo very good.
        Is it a kind of crusade? A Scientology conquest to get anyone on the OrgBd?
        A final authority for Standard Tech (because the RTC didn’t make it)?
        Is it just a platform to help people to connect with each other?
        Questions, you see?

        I only say I am no friend of “Tradition”.
        And of the implementation of defense-tactics.

        I am very much in the same frame of mind about the whole thing as 3 month ago:

        Scientology will survive not because of policy but because of intention.
        LRHs intention was strong enough to get the tech together (despite any reason for him to give up along the way). We got it now. This was his gift.
        You want something like HASI, going after me, because I am auditing without certificate or membership?
        I hope not! 🙂

        All best,

      • SKM,
        MS2 has a published statement on its main website clearly defining its purpose. Have you read this? If not, please do. If so, what aspect of it don’t you get? Perhaps if I had a specific point to address, from you regarding that public statement, this could be clarified.

        As it is now, I’m seeing that your questions seem to be answered by the MS2 documents, and they are freely available. You can of course not read them, not go to the site, and not have any part of MS2. It’s your choice. You have that power, mate.

      • Jim,

        I will look.
        I was a little bit confused by the PR regarding MS2 two weeks ago (iScientology.org).
        I don’t want to speak about it openly. And not at all at this time.

        I wish you all well.

  2. Great post Jim. SKM, currently in the field there is an idea being perpetuated that the organization of Scientology carries the seeds of it’s own destruction-Poppycock! As a Tech terminal I have studied alot of admin tech and the fundamentals are very sane and survival. It doesn’t take alot to see that a good deal of the planet is in turmoil and poverty-there is alot of suppression on this planet and Ron had the confront to see it and deal with it and to give us tech to survive it.
    In the wrong hands,ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, even the beautiful F/N. The ” 3 swing F/N” has destroyed lives.
    Is it the person applying or is it the tech itself that is at fault? Before a person can honestly answer that, they need to study the material, wordclear it, get checked out on it-go out and apply it ,then get crammed on it for any misapplications and possibly get audited in the area for any charge, O/Ws etc.
    You wouldn’t look at all the failed marriages and decide that marriage doesn’t work, would you?

    • “As a Tech terminal I have studied alot of admin tech and the fundamentals are very sane and survival. “
      Ingrid, you are right. The fundamentals of Scientology are very pro-survival.

      And yes, a sociopath lacking any compassion will even pervert the definition of an F/N to introvert PCs – but if the system was perfect, there would be no SP on the top of the organization.
      I don’t know, maybe it’s unreal to see or to acknowledge, but what I see is, that LRH was since the release of Dianetics in a defense mode of his discoveries (and I know it was partially not otherwise possible to protect the tech and its further development).
      However, because of this lots of this defense-mode became a part of the writings and it went down the line through the 60s, 70s and 80’s.
      Per LRH we are not even allowed to practice Scientology outside the church – and not first since the inception of the RTC but it has a much older tradition (see HCOB 590728 “OUR GOALS”).

      If you really want to have a “one” group, you will definitely end up in the same frame as the church before. It is not possible to monopolize a powerful knowledge and technology like Scientology and hope that it somehow will clear the whole planet.

      Dedicated groups? Yes!
      A religious crusade? Please…

      We are not in the 50’s anymore. The world is full of people looking for answers, spiritual seekers, truth seekers. We can use LRHs legacy and give them a hand – without a new “one organization”.

      “You wouldn’t look at all the failed marriages and decide that marriage doesn’t work, would you?”
      No, I wouldn’t – but it’s different with monopolized wisdom. Wisdom is something to share. If no one is allowed to share it, it is not wisdom.

    • Gee, Jim,SKM & Ingrid,
      You have all certainly said a few mouthfuls here. From my perspective, I see all your points made, though not equally clearly..

      Surely, though, the one HUGE, HUGE, outpoint facing the future of Scientology dissemination and delivery, is, there is an equally HUGE, HUGE empty space, where there needs to to be a ” physical ” intake / introduction / orientation point! Bluntly, speaking, Orgs, missions, and div 6 type set ups, a la Dror Centre, where Joe & Joanne Public can get a comm course, and other basic entry level grounding.

      Thanks to the destructive work being done by those convincing the field, that “they” know better, effectiverly D /A ‘ing every thing “Hubbard or Scn, or Org based”, this is just tantamount to knocking out the stable datums that held scns “together”
      That’s in the plot though, of course, …divide & conquer!

      I think that the core problem — a lack of cohesion — will be addressed only through PROPER, ACCEPTABLE, SANE LEADERSHIP. Not authoritarian command!

      So now we see “THE David” on the retreat, the last thing we need, is to see a repeat of the mafia mentality taking charge, from whence ever it may arise.

      Make no mistake, If Simon Bolivar, or a Demon (DM) believed that Force was the only solution, they failed, and so did our founder (where he did!) only because they “failed”
      to implement (or continue to implement, in LRH’s case) their “policies” using that one indispensable commodity …………………………A—R—C.

      And as we are reminded, from sages past, and hopefully, our own mothers, fathers and grandparents, true nurturing and compassionate development, is made possible only through those other two main commodities;— caring & …………..L—O—V—E.

      I see Lana, as being someone who possesses these essential leadership qualities
      by the bucketful, and this, IMHO, is the key reason she is being attacked. She doesn’t
      have the “bully” valence deemed “necessary” to shudder people into propitiative submission.

      For God’s sake! Can’t we just grow up? So we can THEN start to move UP????????

      ML, Calvin.

  3. This was a good one Jim.

    I guess we can get so caught up in the “trendiness” of finding fault in certain policies that we can forget what policy actually is.

    I use the datum “Any policy is better than no policy” probably too much, but I think it is a good way to look at policy. What can I do here to handle this area, that while probably not perfect will put some order in and let everyone involved know what to do? I’m not advocating wholesale alteration of LRH Admin Tech. I’m just saying, to me, “policy” is something you use to run your business, or life. You dont like the soap being soggy so you buy a soap dish and say “honey, lets keep the soap in the soap dish from now on, ok?” “Golly, I think we just made policy, honey”. In a business you say “OK: New orders get printed out and go here in this basket so they can be shipped the same day”. Then if that ever doesnt happen you say: “OK: New orders get printed out and go here in this basket so they can be shipped the same day”. And maybe check for MU’s or something.

    So, in a group you align it to the admin scale and use policy to make things run. If a policy is obviously outdated, not needed or obsolete I think we should not use it. I dont think KSW meant we have to blindly follow every policy like mindless idiots. I’ve seen plenty of that in the Church, but I suspect LRH wouldnt be too happy with that type of behavior.

  4. Jim, thanks for bringing up the subject of Admin and Policy here.

    I start seeing now how some Scientologists do not really get what Admin is all about. And I am impressed that those Scientologists were also very high on the (admin) Org Board of Scientology International !!!!! Many exclamation points. But this is Planet Earth, I guess, and anything goes. As long as one is a good dog to the boss you can climb up the ladder.

    On the other hand I see Tech terminals (like you or Ingrid or Chris Black) who know more of and appreciate policy more than those ex-es who ruled to some degree large portions of the Scientology world. That, at least, is a relief. You cannot do Scientology without some form of groups, some form of policy. Any policy is better than no policy, we know that.

    I am not a fanatic of admin… Through the application of the 7 div org board I put in ASHO’s CF a huge project of 150 volunteers and then John Axel came along on a mission and he got them up to 250! And you know what? He kept the Org Board and John Axel, because he was John Axel (the man who had been with LRH so long) he put my name as the founder of that Org Board, hahaha! Not to brag about it but a CMO Int mission to do that in the basement of ASHO was something I still remember.

    And the project went fine and the thousands of files got done. Only because 250 people were able to work together in an organised way. There was a HAS in the CF project, oh yes. Hahaha. There was an E/O and probably there were stats and there was Div 4 obviously (the filers etc.) and the whole thing. It was a recruitment and regging pool for ASHO recruiters and regges. My captain used to call it “Theo’s Underground”.

    But I had been left alone down there and did the whole org board myself… I used to pick up the phone and do the Reception function, div 1… the whole thing…

    What I want to say is that those 150 or 250 was enough of a Task Force to complete the target. The only thing that Miscavige has is that structure and the remnants of a Tech resembling that of LRH. But the structure goes stronger and stronger (or weaker and weaker, depending how you are viewing it. Are you viewing buildings and lines of discipline and control or are you viewing OTs made).

    I repeat, I am not a fanatic of Admin. But it is a necessity so that one person can recognise and meet the counter effort of the environment. The definition of rationality. The ability to recognise and meet the counter effort of the environment. How is one person out there (ok in some cases with 5 or 6 more people next to him) able to do that? They cannot.

    I refuse to have gone crazy before I kick the bucket this life time. This is my right. The right to my sanity. And I am gonna stay sane as long as I even whisper it to my team mates that Admin is the path. And the org board is the key. LRH didn’t spend his life over org boards for nothing. He wanted to teach us something. He said that was the best vehicle he could find. And I don’t just believe him, I have seen it work.

    • Outstanding commentary Theo, And BTW, its no co-incidence that your 150 / 250
      org board was utilized as originated / organized by you., After all, we do, by our actions,
      serve to build, OR destroy a worthwhile purpose.
      Per a contrasting analogy, a car for example, would certainly have difficulty in transporting anyone, anywhere, if the gearbox was solidly jammed in –“reverse” gear!! ….. Ie Mighty Midget’s “Super Powered Rocket Ride to Unprecedented Global Expansion” …( meaning ONLY: expansion: of HIS real estate empire!)….. un-frigg’n believable!!

      • Hahaha, thanks Calvin! I really appreciate your understanding here. To the uninformed, quoting from Org Board and Livingness for example would sound fanatic (lol!). Why? Because they don’t have that same Q that the informed about it do.

        However, org board and livingness lays out with examples the whole flow of the awareness characteristics of the org board. Which by the way, are the same awareness characteristics of the Bridge levels.

        However, the uninformed will throw in there all the invals and dub-ins they can and make the whole thing a mess if there is no one to keep the line. This is why I became some time ago frustrated with Marty Rathbun. We don’t need “authorities” anymore. Each one can be an authority in his own.

        My efforts will be from now on in my life to unite the Scientologists in an org board worldwide and so big so we can do a much better job. And your kind words give me a lot of support as I feel I am back in the basement of ASHO…. hahaha, almost excommunicated here in Greece, missing my friends and people we could talk on so many subjects theta-wise.

        Back then at ASHO, an OT thing happened. ED Int one day, after i was running the project with the org board in my mind, and well before we had any volunteers to amount to anything, well… ED Int, Guillaume, issued a caper and said that whoever works at the ASHO CF will be getting the Briefing Course. hahaha. The place then got packed. But I already had the org board in mind instead of just filing… I had the vision and ED Int came and paved the way….

        Here and now, we don’t have an ED Int, lol…. hahaha that’s a joke. We do have people though all around the globe, and if we don’t utilise them now they will be lost. Go to Marty’s and see how many Scientologists are ready to throw the baby out together with the bathwater. They see a kind of leader in Marty, oh yes, he has been playing it a leader of sorts in his own way, so they follow him and support him till all “fanatics” are eradicated. After the New Tech of DM, we now have the What Tech? of Marty who just started undoing the whole edifice of LRH in the name of Freedom of Speech and Transcendentalism.

        Marty can be a PR and nothing more. He can be tampering with the Tech. That’s Div 7, Dept 21 Source. Marty does not belong to that Department and as a matter of fact he screwed up that Department badly when under or next to DM. So Marty has no saying on that because he has not understood Source. Source is no God…. Source IS Source. And LRH is the best Source I have found up to now on this planet.

        When LRH left the post of ED Worldwide he left behind him 100 people who would take over HIS hat. Now that’s a figure to give you an idea of how big Source can be. Not that he would play it God… but one man would not and could not replace him. We have the same situation here and now.

        I don’t want to be tiring to people, I am not Source of course… LRH had a unique way to say things with great meaning without tiring people. I guess we have to reissue some study orders, lol… like Org Board and Livingness is a must. Scientology is a discipline, it’s not a walk in the park…. It takes some doingness and that doingness at least in my viewpoint better be by many as otherwise the game is lost. LRH did know that so he gave us a Tech and a chance to get hatted in it so we can play the game better. Admin is an essential part of that very Tech.

  5. This is a highly charged subject to me. As an ex SO member who’s job it was to get Class V orgs and missions to be more on policy I was always surprised to see how badly and misapplied it was at AOLA, ASHO CC Int and other PAC SO orgs. Forget out tech, out admin was the biggest violation of LRH that ever existed. And where admin is out tech is never going in. I could write volumes on this but will keep it short. For me its the WHY for so many things wrong today. Its not the actual tech or admin thats bad its the misapplication of the admin that throws all else out the window.

    • Most policy never applied, especially some very key policies. That was my experience when on staff at 2 SO orgs & 1 Cl V org.

      • Sofia and DivSixer,
        Taking Sofia’s remark, I agree, and especially THE key policy, which is deliver good results with training and auditing. THAT is THE key policy. ALL else is secondary. In fact, MS2 is founded on this key policy. It is about delivering and getting the incredible results attainable with LRH’s Scientology. Straight LRH. No chasers.

What is your view?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s