Latest Q #4958: What is at Stake? Who has Control? SURPRISE WITNESS. Who was surprised? Who will be surprised? Use your logic…Q
(media.greatawakening.win)
NEW Q
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (109)
sorted by:
I definitely see both perspectives here's. Of course this is now getting in the area of semantics.
It might be easier to look into at the context its used.
In my opinion I look at trust, but verify more like taking a matter seriously but still being open to new information that could prove otherwise.
Like if someone is alleges sexual assault on someone else. You can take the accusation seriously while still wanting proof. Of course this is a different matter but I think there are similarities in how to process new information.
In this case I am not throwing out any of the statements made by Q I am just simply filing them away until something validates them. I like to remain open minded to all new information and opinions on it. It prevents getting too emotionally attached to a cause and saves headache long run imo.
True, especially when you put in the Russian context, I have studied a little bit of it and a lot of phrase are writing in a different order in general. For example while English you might say. There is a bear in the park. It might look more like. In park, bear. Language is so fascinating sometimes :)
This phrase was used to describe to Reagan how he should interact with the Soviets regarding nuclear power.
These are the same Soviets (historically) that are responsible for Operation Trust, BTW, and that very much relied on trusting people being fooled into thinking they were verifying. Which is how they were able to capture Reilly and Savinkov.
It might be good advice when dealing with public-facing international politics against an equal-level nuclear power.
Not really good advice for a research site. At all.