[ARCHIVE][EMAIL] OpAphid Emails

Cu_Roi · Post by **Cu_Roi** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:24 am

ARCHIVE ONLY/NO DISCUSSION

To discuss these emails, please go here:

Use ScreenCaptures to Prove Authenticity
To learn how to make a screecap, go here.

My most recent message:

gtrichar · Post by **gtrichar** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:13 am

Based mostly on the last line, I sent my theory to OpAphid:

"To protect something... are we just supposed to keep quiet? I.e. like not divulging a secret?"

OpAphid replied: "That would be one aspect."

I'm trying to imagine what other aspects there could be.

surrealisticpill · Post by **surrealisticpill** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:19 am

-------------------------------------
So keeping the secret (of the ceremony?) and making sure it happens are both aspects of what we are being asked to do.

*Edited to include screenshot

shifty · Post by **shifty** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:23 am

From: OpAphid
Sent: October 22, 2006, 09:01 PM
Subject: Question regarding the Voicemail:
Message: Except in this case.

shifty132 wrote:

> I was wondering if the last two lines were "Except in this case. And then wait for further instruction." or if it was "Accept in this case and then wait for futher instruction."
>
> Thanks.

Posted this in another thread, but it just confirms that the line was indeed "Except."

gtrichar · Post by **gtrichar** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:14 am

OpAphid wrote:

> Yet silence can say as much as speech... so to speak.
>
> gtrichar wrote:
>
> > Then are we also to *do* nothing? To wait until the correct course of action becomes clear, to avoid making a mistake?
> >
> > OpAphid wrote:
> >
> > > That would be one aspect.
> > >
> > > gtrichar wrote:
> > >
> > > > To protect something... are we just supposed to keep quiet? I.e. like not divulging a secret?

surrealisticpill · Post by **surrealisticpill** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:14 am

*Edited to include screenshot

MaxZyrix · Post by **MaxZyrix** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:48 pm

This is what I've got:

I also sent this one:

It was read, but I never got an answer.

Luv2Luvem · Post by **Luv2Luvem** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:40 pm

I can't get the screencap to work so i'm just posting. The bold is the answer to my question.

Of course that is a component.

davishl wrote:

> Hello, I messaged you earlier but many people are saying that their messages got lost. I apologise if this is a duplicate, as I know you are probably flooded with messages. My question is if my instructions are to protect the order?

Cu_Roi · Post by **Cu_Roi** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:22 pm

MaxZyrix wrote:OK, this is what I've gotten by asking Aphid directly:

What situation could that be?

Cu_Roi · Post by **Cu_Roi** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:25 pm

TheChessboardWoman wrote:These are replies I've gotten from her :

Those willing to protect in actions, rather than words, will always be deemed worthy.

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

> If we protect Denderah from those trying to open it's secrets - like Cassie, Daniel, and Greystoke - Will we have furthered the proof of our worthiness?

--

Interesting comparison.

Not an entirely accurate one, but it certainly would not hurt for one to fear such actions from us.

After all, we tend to overestimate with our fears. Only those who act in arrogance underestimate the consequences of their actions.

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

> When you say "FAIR GAME" is it the same FAIR GAME LAW as in Scientology?

--

Aren't the two quite similar? Analysis is what tells you whether something is a danger or a threat.

Right now you're supposed to be deciphering an instruction to deal with potentially one or both.

TheChessboardWoman wrote:

> Are we looking for a danger, or a threat?
>
> OpAphid wrote:
>
> > Wrong path.
> >
> > Wrong third party.
> >
> > No one has put the pieces together yet to anticipate what might happen next. What your test might be.
> >
> > The test WILL happen. But what happens when no one is prepared?
> >
> >
> >
> > TheChessboardWoman wrote:
> >
> > > It wasn't really my view, I was repeating what everyone was saying in the chat, so, obviously, our collective view is narrow.
> > >
> > > Is it important that at this time Bree had her 'first date' and all her sneaking out was going on?
> > >
> > > OpAphid wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your view is a tad narrow. Perhaps involve a third party.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > TheChessboardWoman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The video addressed to Bree that you sen[t] her?
> > > > >
> > > > > OpAphid wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Both apply in a way. But what has a greater tie to the message in question that you do not understand?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TheChessboardWoman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you tell us to look at the disclosure from the not-so-distant past and the events surrounding it, do you mean Bree's disclosure about lying to Daniel (and subsequently protecting the Order) about the fake ceremony?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or do you mean the 'Disclosure' video of yours?

EDIT - Fixed a tag

Cu_Roi · Post by **Cu_Roi** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:28 pm

brandoblues wrote:Here we are, the proceedings shall begin

Message to opahid:

cluechaser wrote:

For whats its worth, ive set a topic in the forums

no more secret club, i said my peace to the participants, hopefully they will follow it.

ill no longer worry about anything but what is the task at hand. i love the puzzles but without my peers help they become more dificult with the distractions.

game on!

Opahid reply:

There is great meaning to uncover, some of which has not been found at this time.

However, with another important test close at hand, it might be best to figure out what is being asked of you.

------------------------------------------------------

ME: i really dont have a question at this time, we have the quotes, but no primer, unless we dissect everything from day one. which is alot.

OPAHID: Do not consider them quotes. Take the message as the message without reading into anything else.

surrealisticpill · Post by **surrealisticpill** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:55 am

[/img]

Sfonzarelli · Post by **Sfonzarelli** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:32 am

I'm so excited! OpAphid responded to me!

Unfortunately, due to my super-secret line of work, our e-mail correspondances had to go through severe editing in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

This is what I had originally had said

I hope you find that Illuminating!

taiya · Post by **taiya** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:53 am

Here was my response to a message asking if I understood what the voicemail was telling me to do correctly.

shifty · Post by **shifty** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:15 am

For those who thought we heard something at the end of the "DO GO TO GOD" video: