[cortesoft]

This seems completely backwards... if someone says to do something but doesn't give a reason, then the ONLY thing to base your decision on whether to listen is their reputation and your trust in them.

If someone I trust tells me to trust them, I will.

[_nalply]

First, I decided I am going to avoid atop. Even if Rachel would be wrong, it doesn't hurt not to use some specific software I don't depend on.

> If someone I trust tells me to trust them, I will.

Huh? When I trust someone, then I trust already and there's no need being told to trust. When I don't trust someone, then I run away when being told to trust. Hell, if someone tells me to trust them, it's a red flag and I drop the trust.

[wlonkly]

I think it's "If someone I already trust says 'trust me on this one', I will."

[cortesoft]

Your believe seems to hinge on the idea that there are zero situations where someone could need you to trust them but don't have the ability to tell you why.

I think there ARE some situations like that, especially when the conversation is public like this. It is pretty easy to think of a lot of good reasons why Rachel can't explain why you need to trust them in this situation. I think saying, "I can't tell you why, please trust me" is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone you trust to say, and I would absolutely listen to them if they say that.