Please note: This is not a duplicate of my previous question, and in fact has a quite different premise.

Joe is just an average guy, aside from one passive superpower that Joe has had since he was a child and has grown up with.

He can't say, write or otherwise communicate any untrue information. At all. This includes information about fundamental physical laws, past events (even if he knows nothing else about the event) and even the future.

For the most part Joe gets around this by adding 'Well, as far as I know...' to the start of all his sentences (He's expressing what he knows, therefore it's not a lie), but he feels that he should be able to do more with this power to help humanity.

To clarify: If Joe tries to say anything that's untrue he becomes mute. Similarly with writing or miming, he loses the ability to communicate when attempting to communicate an untruth. If his words were to cause a paradox he would similarly become unable to speak (as something must become untrue at some point), but since people can still misinterpret Joe's statements he's very good at making up old-school prophetic drivel.

How can Joe best help society?

  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Dec 21 '15 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ Take it to chat please people ^ $\endgroup$ – Tim B Dec 23 '15 at 13:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Joe would be reduced to only two sentences. The only ones that are really true for him. "I don't know" and "I am". $\endgroup$ – Kii Jan 18 '16 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is Joe's superpower known? Is it verified? $\endgroup$ – user4239 Nov 4 '16 at 23:52

14 Answers 14


Joe should become the ultimate research assistant.

He can't say, write or otherwise communicate any untrue information. At all. This includes information about fundamental physical laws, past events (even if he knows nothing else about the event) and even the future.

There is no need to do actual research, etc. for complicated questions. Just have Joe try to read off a statement of the hypothetical situation. If he locks up, not true, if no problem then the hypothetical statement is true.

Presumably, Joe could simple refuse to comply saying, I am uncomfortable with this line of research or such-like.

The research need not necessarily be scientific in nature. I.e., Is the Arctic Circle a good/the best area to drill for oil is not really a scientific question, but clearly valuable. A terrorist threat could be quickly resolved. A murder case easily solved, etc.

In terms of improving the world, Joe should make his services available, but have his screeners give preferential access to questions that could improve the world / avoid damaging the world.

Note: Joe should also charge a hefty sum for his services of course to help filter out the unimportant questions, but as his goal is to help humanity, make much of his work pro bono. His fees will also be necessary to pay for his screeners, security guards, etc. that will be needed to engage in this lifestyle.

I have to wonder about predictive uses of Joe's gift. Knowing the future might prevent it from happening; e.g., knowing that the President will be assassinated and related followup investigation prevents the actual assassination. The movie, The Minority Report, certainly broaches this topic, but this is a much older question. Did the prophecy of Christ's betrayal foreordain Judas to betray Christ is an old theological question.

Based on some comments, it appears the form of the statement should become a series of possible statements with the followup questions being asked dependent upon Joe's actions e.g.:

  • There will be an attempt to kill the current President of the United States (POTUS).
  • There will be multiple attempts to kill the POTUS ...
  • There will be an attempt to kill the POTUS while he is still President.
  • There will be an attempt to kill the POTUS in 2016.
  • There will be an attempt to kill the POTUS in the first 1st quarter 2016 (etc. to get the exact timeline)
  • If only standard security measures are taken, the attempt be successful ..,
  • If only standard security measures are taken, the POTUS be injured ...
  • If only standard security measures are taken, others will be killed/injured?
  • If heightened security measures are taken ...
  • It is possible in some way to prevent ...

You may also need a possible series of question related to natural causes of death / injury.

I see other questions and comments related to predicting lottery outcomes or horse races. To me, this is one of the classes of statements Joe should refuse to work with. There is no net benefit to society and such questions would be disruptive as well as attract criminal influence. Many such lines of inquiry should be refused by Joe.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ as long as nothing he says becomes untrue, then he's fine for predicting the future. If anything that he says will, by it's saying, become untrue, (a paradox) he can't say it. So essentially he can only talk about things which are pre-ordained, or by his speaking about them force them into being. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Dec 21 '15 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ How would this work? If Joe doesn't know something he will say "as far as I know". So, if he reads something he hasn't validated he will automatically say "as far as I know" or "this is what this paper says" or something to that effect. If not, he simply can't read it. $\endgroup$ – Gorchestopher H Dec 21 '15 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ This is exactly what I was thinking. Have researchers give him lists of questions to answer and see what works. $\endgroup$ – James Dec 21 '15 at 16:59
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @JoeBloggs He could always say "If I hadn't been around to tell you this information, the terrorists would have blown up the White House tomorrow," or "If you do XYZ, you will thwart the terrorist attack on the White House tomorrow." $\endgroup$ – Daniel Dec 21 '15 at 19:19
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ He should always start his answer with "What I'm going to say will help humanity", and if he's unable to say that, he better refuse to say anything. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Nov 22 '17 at 22:59

20 questions becomes a really useful game.


Is the murderer male? Yes. Is the murderer her boyfriend? silence. Is the murderer one of her co-workers? Yes...

Is Jimmy Hoffa dead? Yes. Is he buried in Michigan? Yes...


Is the terrorist camp inside this large area? Yes. Is it in this smaller area? Yes. Is it in this grid section? silence...


Do gravitons exist? Yes...

The interesting part will be coming up with the right questions, since Joe wouldn't know anything about any of the stuff he's being asked, and all he can do is try to answer Yes to any question. If he can say yes, then it's true. If he can't say yes, then it's false.
The problem is if the answer is maybe (both yes and no) or neither, and so questions should be chosen to be as narrow as possible.

It could also be predictive:

Will the first number in the lotto be a 1? silence. Will it be a 2? silence. Will it be a 3? Yes...

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Will LazyBoy win the Royal Derby this year? $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Dec 21 '15 at 17:09
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ He could also just try to say both "yes" and "no" to every question. This eliminates the awkward silences, and, perhaps more importantly, any doubts that Joe might be lying by omission. $\endgroup$ – wchargin Dec 21 '15 at 21:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AndyD273 Great point! However, you could narrow in on the lottery numbers much more quickly. In the first number between 1 and 20? Yes. Is the first number between 1 and 10? Silence. Is the first number between 10 and 15? Yes. Etc. (And even if you didn't figure out that technique, the payoff would be worth it!!!) $\endgroup$ – BrettFromLA Dec 21 '15 at 22:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BrettFromLA And the location of the terrorist camp. You should aim to cut the space in half with every question. $\endgroup$ – Loren Pechtel Dec 21 '15 at 22:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think he should go "yes", "sometimes", "no" to every question. This will be faster and it will cleanly handle cases where a bad question was asked that doesn't have a yes/no answer. $\endgroup$ – Loren Pechtel Dec 22 '15 at 3:00

Joe can use his power to figure out how to best use his power.
Joe starts by trying to make the following statement:

If the optimal one thousand character, general strategy for best using my power to meet my definition of helping humanity, were written in English and converted to binary, the first digit would be 1.

If he is able to say it, he writes down 1, otherwise he writes 0. His next statement is:

If the optimal one thousand character, general strategy for best using my power to meet my definition of helping humanity, were written in English and converted to binary, the second digit would be 1.

And so on, until he has written out one thousand letters worth of binary data. Speaking quickly, it will take him most of a day to do this. At the end of this day, he will have a very short guide on how to best use his power. That guide will likely say something to the effect of "Here's how to quickly write a more detailed guide, do so then follow that guide".

Joe will follow the instructions of the new guide to write a longer guide, using a method described in the new guide that yields data much faster than the old method. It's possible that this longer guide will in turn contain an even more efficient way to write guides.

After potentially several rounds of iteration and several weeks of guide-writing, Joe will have used his power to write out a guide containing the objectively correct answer to this question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps null-terminated string. That way, if it's longer, he can write it out. $\endgroup$ – wizzwizz4 Jan 6 '17 at 21:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Imposing a character limit boundary seems like a good idea to me, otherwise the magic could filibuster (intentionally or otherwise) by generating an extremely convoluted legalistic document with lots of pointless (but grammatically correct) loops and details that are either confusing or irrelevant in the general case, thus an impedance to both writing and reading the document. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Amano Mar 26 '19 at 21:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Joe should also choose an encoding system in his statement so he knows how to decode the binary that comes out (since there are multiple ways to encode English text "in binary", and not all of them have been discovered by humans). If he chooses something really efficient, like "...were written in English, in an ASCII text file, and compressed using gzip with maximum compression, the first bit of the result file would be 1.", then he can get done pretty fast, and might even consider increasing the character limit to get more information. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Amano Mar 26 '19 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect. Let the universe tell you what to do! $\endgroup$ – bukwyrm Mar 27 '19 at 8:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JesseAmano "The magic could filibuster." I love Worldbuilding StackExchange. $\endgroup$ – hexamon Sep 16 '20 at 7:05

Sign Joe up with a StackExchange account!

Edit: I'm serious. Not just sucking up here. Joe can answer any question truthfully, so the challenge is to generate and prioritize the most important questions possible. The fact that we're all here discussing this is evidence that this is a solved problem!

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This belongs in the comments section, not as an answer.You can edit it to be an answer by giving some more details to fit the question. $\endgroup$ – AndyD273 Dec 21 '15 at 16:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Truthful" != "useful", though. $\endgroup$ – Kreiri Dec 21 '15 at 16:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Kreiri At least in Worldbuilding. I've spun many useful lies on this site. In some of the exchanges he might do ok, but he also would have to know something about what he's talking about to be really useful. For instance he might not know anything about programming, so while any answer he comes up with will be correct, if he doesn't know the information then he won't be able to even start an answer. In those situations the best he could do would be to confirm other answers. $\endgroup$ – AndyD273 Dec 21 '15 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ It'd be useful if Joe sticks to the top-voted unanswered questions in the network. $\endgroup$ – Ellesedil Dec 21 '15 at 23:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ He can't say the truth if he doesn't know the truth. He can't answer "what is the cube root of 125" unless he either knows the correct answer or all possible answers. $\endgroup$ – gnasher729 Dec 22 '15 at 13:21

His life and freedom would constantly be in danger. He could, without any help, discover and reveal highly classified state secrets, expose corruption, and find criminals anywhere--or wreak havoc on the intelligence community, endanger lives, and promote terrorism and hysteria.

He would be an extremely valuable intelligence asset to anyone who controls, tortures, or imprisons him. He would threaten anyone who was criminal or corrupt. EDIT: He could threaten anyone, corrupt or not.

He would probably ask himself this question all the time: "If I help this person, will it put my life in danger?"

He would be likely to guard his ability very carefully so as not to be discovered unless he wanted to be.

(edited) Depending on how his "gift"/curse works, it might be difficult for hime to say "As far as I know..." -- it would be up to the OP. Joe might say "I believe XYZ". Depending on his personality, would he leave himself in doubt about his answers? Whenever he has asked a question to himself in the past (which is likely often), he wouldn't be able to evade questions with "As far as I know." From a writing perspective, it would be difficult to imagine all the circumstances he might have asked himself some questions--it might be easier to avoid plot holes if he finds other ways of avoiding questions.

He might evade questions rather than provide conditionals, because if he made a mistake and suddenly went mute, he might give away information he hadn't intended. Even simple questions like "How are you?" could be met with something overly specific and useless, like "I'm here. How about you?" or with a question "Thanks for asking--I am trying to solve a problem--do you think you might help?" In awkward situations, he would probably avoid the topic altogether, by telling himself how beforehand. He would prepare. "I have a good chance of avoiding a tough relationship question by saying...".

If someone asks him a question point blank, he might say "That's a good question. Do you think so-and-so might have an answer?" (side-stepping whether or not he knows at all). He would likely get very good at this, so the OP might benefit by studying how people avoid questions and guide conversations.

Another possibility would be that he might mask his truth telling by making it appear he has some speech impediment. He would intentionally try to tell lies from time to time, just to make his speech seem more halting than it is, or do other things to cover it up.

He would know when he was going to die, and how. He only has to play twenty questions with himself a few times.

He would probably ask himself how to keep his gift a secret. Probably the best way would be to withdraw from society.

He might also hide his ability by working with someone else who can lie in his behalf--never answering a question directly.

He would ask of everyone he met, "Can I trust XYZ to keep my gift a secret?" and "Is this person someone I can trust?".

That said, he would likely end up in a network of deeply trusted friends who would protect him and his secret, while safely and secretly using the information he can get to save lives.

He would probably be corrupted by his own ability. The opportunities to get gain would be extremely tempting. He could play the stock market, among other things. He could just as easily become an evil supervillian corrupted by his own ability as a superhero.

He should not be a lawyer or in the legal profession, because that profession requires transparency and would expose his gift, putting him at risk. More likely, he would work indirectly for an intelligence agency which has guaranteed his safety and anonymity, and can be trusted to do so. Likely, he would work off-the-record, through other intelligence agents. He would try to be sure most of the CIA/FBI/whatever wouldn't even know he exists, and work hard to keep his existence out of any documents or records.

If he went public with his gift, most ordinary people would regard him as a super intelligent man who was somehow deluded or crazy. Criminals, governments, and others would look into him and regard him as a threat, especially if he started proving useful.

  • 9
    $\begingroup$ It's even worse than this. All he has to do is try to say "God exists" on television and succeed or fail and the result could range from Joe's murder to world war, depending on what happens. Suppose he succeeds in saying "God exists". Which god is that? Is it all one god? On top of that, some people will never believe that Joe only tells the truth, and there's likely to be conflict between Joe-believers and others, to put it mildly. Sure, he could say something scientific that then could be proved, but there will always be people who care nothing for "proof". $\endgroup$ – Todd Wilcox Dec 21 '15 at 21:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ His answer to that question would probably (truthfully) be: "If I answer that question, I will die--probably before I finish answering. Therefore, I decline to answer, and leave it to the world to discuss their beliefs." $\endgroup$ – Kimball Robinson Dec 21 '15 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ The way to protect himself is the same as my answer on another question: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/31869/… $\endgroup$ – Loren Pechtel Dec 21 '15 at 22:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This line seems incorrect to me: "He would not get away with saying "As far as I know," because he would likely already have tried "yes" or "no" under his breath, and thus "As far as I know" would be a lie, and he would become mute in the process of saying it." The fact that he'd already know if it is true or not has no bearing on making that statement inaccurate and, in fact, would only make it more accurate. "As far as I know, [insert true statement here]" isn't somehow a lie. $\endgroup$ – Ellesedil Dec 22 '15 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ I often use the response 'I'm here' or 'I'm alive!' when asked how I am. :D $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Dec 22 '15 at 9:19

Eris teaches us...

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

Thus, he should never be able to speak. He should quietly retire as a mute fisherman in the wilderness.

(To be serious though - such a superpower would realistically render someone mute indefinitely unless they add an endless list of qualifiers to everything they communicate or they are overwhelmingly precise about their communications.)

  • $\begingroup$ That statement is definitely false. Pi is 3.1415296..., the speed in light in vacuum is 299792458 m/s, plank's constant is what it is... Some things are true and some are not. There is a whole branch of mathematics called Boolean algebra that evaluates the truthfulness of statements. $\endgroup$ – ventsyv Dec 23 '15 at 3:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Even in your comment you show a falsity! Pi STARTS WITH 3.1415296 but it is not that. Nobody actually knows exactly what Pi is! There are some things that could be defined though, true. Again, if they were very specific about what they were asking and clarified all possible variations and misunderstandings, they could get answers out of him. The trick would be figuring out "is it wrong, or did I ask wrong?" Poor Joe just wants to fish and you won't let him. :( $\endgroup$ – Ethan The Brave Dec 23 '15 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ventsyv While I give you c and h, there are mathematical constructs where pi does not, in fact, equal 3.14159 etc. (Also, the usual pi does not have a 2 between the 5 and 9.) Google "L-2 metric" to get started. $\endgroup$ – No Name Nov 4 '17 at 16:54

Joe will not be an average guy, he'll be the richest person in the world. The obvious ways to make money are - gambling, the stock market and the lottery.

His ability to predict the roulette wheel is nothing compared to his ability to check the validity of theories that are not well understood.

For example he can determine the feasibility of cold fusion reactors and through a series of well crafted questions, he can develop a working one. That will usher humanity in a post scarcity world (once you have abundant, virtually free energy, everything else becomes extremely cheap). Joe being extremely rich can decide to give away power to the poor countries (India, Africa, etc) and thus eliminate world hunger.

He can probably develop an unified field theory, develop drugs to cure cancer, figure out how to build space elevators, be able to determine if certain planets are inhabited and if so on which one intelligent life exists...

The possibilities are truly limitless.

  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand, winning the lottery would ironically be less invasive to his life than being discovered as The Font Of All Truth. :) $\endgroup$ – Allen Gould Dec 22 '15 at 21:30

The alternative view: Joe should STFU

Imagine the annoyance: a super-powered know-it-all, who can always be relied upon to spoil everyone's fun. Nuclear physicists? Computer scientists? Mathematicians? Nobody is safe from the super-know-it-all. Nobody can make it their lives' work to make a stab at earning the key to the fundamental laws of reality anymore; because if anyone really wants to know, hell, if someone is just a wee bit curious, they can just walk up to old Joe and ask him.

What patronising twit wants to tell everyone the truth all the time anyway? That's not a superpower. Every idiot who can flap their mouth has that power. And they use it all the time. Seriously- super power? Are you kidding me? That's the bloody Daily Mail, mate.

It makes no difference, no difference at all, that Joe is always right.

No, in fact, you know what? That- that is the whole damn point.

Shut up Joe. Shut up. You want to help humanity? Then shut. The. Hell. Up.

[To clarify: the above is in no way an assault on the poster of the original question, or the other people answering; it is I believe, a valid reply to the question as phrased. Please accept the language as colourful, rather than offensive.].

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I wonder how much of the Daily Mail Joe would be able to read out loud... ;-D $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Dec 23 '15 at 12:13

How can Joe best help society?

Don't ask us - ask Joe!

By using self-dialog he can soon find the best and safest way to benefit himself and the world.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A late answer, but a good one! I ended up with Joe being used as an oracle that eventually dictated its own destruction. Kind of like Asimov’s ‘All the troubles of the world’ -but a touch less depressing.. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Sep 16 '20 at 16:42

For all we know, Moses, Jesus, and/or Mohammed could have been "Joe". Not everyone would necesarily beleive that Joe always tells the truth. Even though all of the verifiable things he says can be verified, verification, correlation, the scientific method, and other "objective" facts are disputed and disbeleived every day by people all over the world.

Certainly a religion would form around Joe fairly quickly, and those who consider "Joe-ism" to be blasphemous, false idolatry would be many. As other answers have noted, his life would be in danger. Believers would want to defend him. Countries other than the one he lives in would be very concerned about his use for intelligence. His country would want to use him for intelligence. If enough people believe that Joe can only tell the truth, wars over Joe would be conceivable.

Best case scenario, only a few people know and believe that Joe can only tell the truth, and he can best help the world just like any other person: vote, raise one or two wonderful children, teach, write books, song lyrics, or whatever. Worst case scenario, the best way for Joe to help the world is to either hide his blessing/curse or commit suicide.


If his oracular capabilities became known, it would be the end of his life as he knew it.

Human nature, or more precisely government nature being what it is, any and all superpowers would be after him with all their resources.

His reconnaissance capabilities are literally endless. He could replace all of the NSA for he only needs to be asked for the secret key of whomever big brother would like to know. If you have Joe in your possession, there are no more secrets to keep from you.

So Joe, if you read this, don't tell anyone!


Joe has to take over the world.

Sure it has been pointed out that Joe is in great danger, but that is exactly why he needs to be the danger.

Joe knows what’s best for humanity, he just needs to get in the most influential position possible.

Not president or King, he needs to become the single ruler of the world, and that way Joe can really use his power, and he wont have to worry about someone abducting him, or forcing him to answer anything.

Imagine how fast would Joe climb the ranks in politics, in the underworld, he is able to predict what his enemies will do, and find a solution that will destroy them, he will be considered a the greatest commander ever, and will be able to manipulate everyone around him as he knows exactly how they will react to whatever they say.

Funding will not be an issue after tales of Joe start spreading, and he can win the lottery for startup funds.

Joe needs to stay quiet, sure.

But he needs to lead humanity, into the next Golden age.


Joe should go into a law-based profession (lawyer, judge, detective).

If he cannot talk about past events that did not happen, then presumably this includes very recent history.

Therefore when a murder/ serious crime has occurred, the police could round up a group of suspects (family, partners, colleagues etc.), to which Joe could approach each and attempt to say 'this person committed/ did not commit the murder in question'. He could basically do a version of 20 questions to see if they were involved (this person has committed a crime, this person has committed a serious crime, this person did not kill the person in question, but helped to hide the evidence...) until he has worked out the extent of their guilt.

Either the killer would be unmasked (and he might've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling Joe!), or all of the top suspects would be proven innocent, so that the police could go about their work trying to solve the crime with a smaller suspect list using standard police work. Then when they have a suspect, they can call up Joe again to verify.

The police would still need to prove that the person committed the crime, as I'm guessing that Joe's testimony would not be enough for most courts, but it would save millions in public taxes for police time wasted pursuing the incorrect suspects, or courts putting innocent men to trial.

He could even moonlight by interviewing death row convicts to see if the right person is being executed, and try to prove them innocent if not.

I'm not sure what position would make the most benefit of Joe's ability (Chief of Police, Supreme Court Judge, Attorney General, small time detective etc.), but he could benefit humanity greatly by saving a great proportion of innocent people from an unjust fate, and getting terrible criminals off of the streets.

I'm guessing many more people would also be discouraged from committing serious crimes, when they hear of a new hot-shot detective/ lawyer in town who has a ~100% conviction/ case-win rate (he might not get them put away all the time, but it would be much higher than usual).

  • $\begingroup$ He should also try politics. $\endgroup$ – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Dec 21 '15 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Draco18s Not necessarily. Just because what he says is true doesn't mean that people need to believe him, so being a politician would mean that he is actually hindered, as he can only promise things he knows will happen. Within a law-based profession, the empirical truth is much more useful. After a handful of convictions, everyone would believe his 'hunches' of who the culprit is or isn't, and he would quickly become a hero. $\endgroup$ – Mike.C.Ford Dec 21 '15 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say he should be necessarily be running. He could be the mediator, "I'm sorry Candidate Stevens, but what you just said is patently false." $\endgroup$ – Draco18s no longer trusts SE Dec 21 '15 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Draco18s That would make more sense, but unless he is verifying statistics or facts, he would be pretty useless. And a lot of what politicians say is rhetoric and opinion. A lot of facts that politicians say are proven incorrect or dubious later on anyway, yet the publicity they gain from saying them end up helping their campaign more than the lie could ever hurt it. $\endgroup$ – Mike.C.Ford Dec 21 '15 at 16:47

the world has been getting better for thousands of years, due almost entirely to the advancement of scientific understanding and the technology made with it. unfortunately, both of those fields are advanced primarily by composing good questions rather than answering them accurately. that said, there are plenty of questions out there, and joe could spend a lot of time finding and answering them. the largest challenge joe would face is avoiding being abducted by an organization that wishes to leverage or eliminate his talent. in fact, finding and "neutralizing" the people who are on to him could become a large part of his life.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.