[Dragaera] Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object

[Davdi Silverrock]

On 11/17/06, Philip Hart wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Davdi Silverrock wrote:
>
> > On 11/16/06, Philip Hart wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Umm, do we know any of the stuff you're using as premise?  Maybe the
> > > Jhereg really didn't want Vlad put away;
> >
> > Why should they care?  He's just a punk n00b, and an Easterner to boot.
>
> They like his style.

Unlikely.  A smartass is really only amusing to those not the target
of the smartassery.

> They don't want the Empire to mess with their people.

Eh, possibly.

> T was a pain in the keister.

T was a pain in *Vlad's* keister.  As long as T was paying his dues up
the line, the Organization would have no reason to bother him, or wish
him any harm.  And the investigators certainly have no experience of
pain from T.

>  V would be dead if they cared.

Well, yes, that's what I keep saying.

>
> Really, I suspect that Vlad getting rounded up indicates that he was
> a bit sloppy - probably the Jhereg said, Well, if he can talk his way
> out fine, he'll have learned his lesson.

I doubt they cared about him either, as long as he kept the cash
flowing up the line.

>
>
> > > maybe she just likes Vlad and doesn't care about the matter.
> >
> > Well, perhaps.
> >
> > "Oh!  This Easterner is so *cute*.
>
> Note who she sleeps with (beside the Orb).

Well, yes.  Facetiousness aside, that's why I suggested it.

>
> > Jhereg inquisitors!  Yoo-hoo!  I would *really* appreciate it
> > if the Easterner didn't die.  Thank you *so* much."
>
> Was this not Iorich attorneys?

I could be wrong, but I think it is reasonable to infer that the
primary investigators of the death of a noble of a particular House
would be other nobles of that House. I also think it's reasonable to
infer that even a junior Iorich attorney would know that the suspect
was playing verbal games, and get tough with the suspect for doing so.

If they wanted to really dig out the truth, that's when the Jhereg
nobles go to the expense of hiring an experienced Iorich attorney who
knows his business in witness and suspect direct- and
cross-examination.

>
>
> > > And it's not apathy if the matter is trivial.
> >
> > But that's practically the definition of apathy - considering
> > something to be trivial.
>
> Not according to my dictionary, which has as first meaning "Lack of
> interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general
> importance or appeal"
>

Hair splitting.  If one "lacks interest or concern" about something,
does it not follow that one considers it to be trivial?

And is it not the case that murder is usually considered to be a
"matter of general importance or appeal"?