Oh Please, somebody stop this.....!

[Ruth]

I like OPs!!! But they're fools - they can't help it, they 'run' with their 'programing'. But this is "not right". This ding-a-ling needs to go.... God Bless his cotton socks - but enough!

What we really need now, is people who think, not people who "react" (insert program etc ...).

What is WRONG with people today???

Terrorism threat more immediate than climate change: PM
September 28, 2007 - 10:26AM
Source: ABC

Australia under threat: A counter-terrorism exercise before the APEC meeting
Photo: Supplied
Prime Minister John Howard says terrorism is a more immediate security threat than climate change, but both are major issues facing Australia.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has rejected Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty's view that global warming is the greatest challenge to Australia's national security, instead naming terrorism as the key threat.

Mr Howard told Southern Cross Radio he does not automatically agree with Mr Keelty's assessment of the scale of threat posed by climate change.

"They're both big issues," he said.

"I think terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are far more immediate threats to Australia than the mass movement of people in China as a result of water storage and water shortage.

"But both of them are important, and I don't think that it's a question of an either or.

"They're both big challenges and they're both things that we should worry about."

Yes, yada, yada .... what a load of of.... (fill in the blanks!)

http://www.bigpond.com/news/breaking/content/20070928/2045948.asp

 

[mudrabbit]

I like OPs!!! But they're fools - they can't help it, they 'run' with their 'programing'. But this is "not right". This ding-a-ling needs to go.... God Bless his cotton socks - but enough!

What we really need now, is people who think, not people who "react" (insert program etc ...).

What is WRONG with people today???

Well, it's hard to say who's an OP and who's not. Lots of times it may just be programmed people who don't know any better.

As for running with programs.... Don't we all? And since almost ALL of us are reaction machines, I think it's prudent to just go with the thought that everyone has a soul at some level of evolution, rather than designate "OP" status just because they show some idiocy.

Many souled individuals (I suspect) are programmed to perpetuate this idiocy.

As for what is wrong with people? Plenty! Fully souled or not fully souled.

 

[Ruth]

Well, it's hard to say who's an OP and who's not. Lots of times it may just be programmed people who don't know any better.

As for running with programs.... Don't we all? And since almost ALL of us are reaction machines, I think it's prudent to just go with the thought that everyone has a soul at some level of evolution, rather than designate "OP" status just because they show some idiocy.

No, more likely to show idiocy. And there's nothing wrong with that, only its sometimes annoying!! Non OPs should know better, but OPs shouldn't be expected to know better but they can be 'diverted'...

BTW:

OPs: Programmed to 'behave' in a human form - to 'fit in' as in to take part in society, etc, etc. Follow the 'program'

Non-OPs: Programmed to emotionally react in order to provide 'food' for 4D STS. Otherwise: Why are we here?

There's a difference: Non-OPs are 4D STS batteries.

I've never been one of these people who think that Ops are a problem - they've been a part of our reality for millenia. Just because they don't have the 'ability' to have functioning higher centers (chakras).... And can we 'tell' who does? No. Hmm, THAT's probably why its hard to 'tell them a part', but it's no big issue.

You gotta know your psychopaths, your reality, and your 3rd and 4th density STS, first. What's the big deal with OPs anyway? They don't even rate, and you know that.

 

[Novelis]

No, more likely to show idiocy.

As for running with programs.... Don't we all? And since almost ALL of us are reaction machines, I think it's prudent to just go with the thought that everyone has a soul at some level of evolution, rather than designate "OP" status just because they show some idiocy.

A machine cannot designate who is a machine and who isn't. Why, aren't the best OP's the ones that can emulate souled people almost perfectly?

I think it's dubious, even pointless when someone looks at an individual acting "idiotically" and says: "Oh, must be an OP."

Firstly, none of us have the tools to discern this, so why even assume? On top of that, by identifying who is probably an OP, one is implying that they have gathered the knowledge to determine this in the first place, when in reality, what you think you know could just be an emulation of real knowledge.

I don't see any reason to think that I, myself am not an OP, since everything I do a mechanical, so what makes YOU so certain?

I'm not saying you ARE certain, just saying that any rationalizations that I've encountered are totally subjective. Like, "Deep down I KNOW..."

Non OPs should know better, but OPs shouldn't be expected to know better but they can be 'diverted'...

Don't see why non OP's "should" really; don't souled individuals have a huge variety of lesson profiles? Maybe not knowing better is exactly what one "should" be doing...?

OPs: Programmed to 'behave' in a human form - to 'fit in' as in to take part in society, etc, etc. Follow the 'program'

Non-OPs: Programmed to emotionally react in order to provide 'food' for 4D STS. Otherwise: Why are we here?

There's a difference: Non-OPs are 4D STS batteries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all entities that live in the STS hierarchy of command are food. Don't OP's also provide food for 4D STS? I thought souled people are the "gourmet cuisine" while OP's are like Big-Macs... OSIT.

 

[mudrabbit]

To state that someone is an OP would imply that the person making the statement has definite knowledge concerning how to tell the difference.

Ruth, what knowledge do you hold that makes you so certain that specific people are OPs, and not desperately confused individuals with a severe lack of knowledge? And why haven't you shared it with us?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

No, more likely to show idiocy.

Do you have data to support this statement? There are many different kinds of idiocy, and there can be many different types of intelligence, and many types of "souls" on different levels. The hypothesis about OPS is the same as the hypothesis about souls - we understand the concept of OPS only as well as we understand souls and what is "soul qualities" - but how well, if at all, do we know what "soul qualities" are? It is an open question at this point as far as I know. You seem a little eager to draw a clear line between yourself and OPS, and support it with assumptions about "their" intelligence, and "their" usefulness to 4D. Why is that?

OPs: Programmed to 'behave' in a human form - to 'fit in' as in to take part in society, etc, etc. Follow the 'program'
Non-OPs: Programmed to emotionally react in order to provide 'food' for 4D STS.

Sez who?

I've never been one of these people who think that Ops are a problem - they've been a part of our reality for millenia.

"They"? What makes you think you are not an OP?

Just because they don't have the 'ability' to have functioning higher centers (chakras).... And can we 'tell' who does? No. Hmm, THAT's probably why its hard to 'tell them a part', but it's no big issue.

But if it's so hard to tell them apart, are you not contradicting yourself by so quickly labeling someone an OP based on their understanding (which may not even be their true understanding but a publically stated lie - even though it doesn't matter in this case). In other words, you label someone an OP with NO data at all to support this, and you even admit that you cannot know who has the higher centers. This contradiction further tells me that you are eager to subjectively separate yourself from OPS. Why?

You gotta know your psychopaths, your reality, and your 3rd and 4th density STS, first. What's the big deal with OPs anyway?

There seem to be 2 "big deals" here. One is the big deal with OPS in terms of the objective global consequences as a result of their existance - which is still a theory and work in progress to understand. The other big deal is your subjective big deal which is causing you to "OP spot" and make assumptions and refer to them as "they", meaning, that you are certain you are NOT one - even if in the same breath you say you have no way of actually knowing. Strange.

 

[anart]

I think it's dubious, even pointless when someone looks at an individual acting "idiotically" and says: "Oh, must be an OP."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all entities that live in the STS hierarchy of command are food. Don't OP's also provide food for 4D STS?

Yes, this is my understanding as well. Seems we've covered these basic understandings so many times that I'm rather surprised we're at it again.

 

[Russ]

Well the C's said that OPs don't have empathy, they can't feel for another. If thats true then it is pretty easy to tell if you have a soul, but you can't really prove it to anyone else, and you can't tell if someone is telling the truth or not if they say they have one:

020713:
Q: (L) I would say that the chief thing they are saying
is that the really good ones - you could never tell
except by long observation. The one key we
discovered from studying psychopaths was that their
actions do not match their words. But what if that is a
symptom of just being weak and having no will? (A)
How can I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you ever hurt for another?
Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These
soulless humans simply don't care what happens to
another person. If another person is in pain or misery,
they don't know how to care.
A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of
"food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also
masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem
to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are
simply to retain control.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Seems we've covered these basic understandings so many times that I'm rather surprised we're at it again.

I agree. There can be much confusion on the subject of OPs and how to spot them. I admit I did had my part in this confusion awhile back, but I realized that it is really not worth my time to play "Spot the OPs" game.

For those who are new to this subject of OPs, you can use the Search button. Type in "Organic Portals," not "OPs" (otherwise it won't work). There is a great deal have been covered on this subject.

There is a QFG article on Organic Portals:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/organic_portals.htm

Here are few (not all) of threads on the subject:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5208

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2726

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=592

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=457

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3080

for what it is worth.

 

[anart]

If thats true then it is pretty easy to tell if you have a soul, but you can't really prove it to anyone else, and you can't tell if someone is telling the truth or not if they say they have one:

Another interesting aspect of that is that if one cannot feel empathy, then they cannot know they are 'missing' anything. It simply doesn't exist in their personal experience, so how can they be 'missing' something that doesn't exist? They understand the word, but not what it really means, so they can say, even to themselves, of course I feel empathy - but having never really felt it, they have no idea. Just something to consider.

 

[ArdVan]

Another interesting aspect of that is that if one cannot feel empathy, then they cannot know they are 'missing' anything. It simply doesn't exist in their personal experience, so how can they be 'missing' something that doesn't exist? They understand the word, but not what it really means, so they can say, even to themselves, of course I feel empathy - but having never really felt it, they have no idea. Just something to consider.

This is maybe a little of topic but I'm speculating here a little:
Maybe they think empathy as an idea of confirmation or acknowledging what happened to someone else. But they never see themselves in place of another person. The read or hear what happened to A and say yes, this happened to A. If you say: can you see what happens to you if you do the same, they of course will say yes, but in their mind they won't see themselves in place of A, they will still see A only and maybe even think that A didn't do it right. Because their mind seems to shutdown if it has to put itself outside itself. Because with empathy you are for a moment no longer you, but another person (A in this case), you are outside yourself.

So empathy is the ability to put yourself in other's shoes, and they can not, they can not learn from history or from others. They may only learn if it happens to themselves, if it is painful enough for their predator ego and if they are smart enough (which IMO has to include the ability of deferred/delayed gratification). But if they do something seemingly empathic, it's never empathy, it's learned behavior or risk assessment.

- I have to do it, because all those silly people around me do it, and they get angry if I don't do it.
- How are my chances to do something I WANT/NEED now (get away with something)?