[Dragaera] Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object

[Philip Hart]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Davdi Silverrock wrote:

> On 11/17/06, Philip Hart wrote:
> >
> >
> > They like his style.
>
> Unlikely.  A smartass is really only amusing to those not the target
> of the smartassery.

Vlad can I think turn it on and off as appropriate.


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

Eh, fine then.

JFTR a scenario I envision is: the subundersecretary for scheduling notes
the Iorich request a block of time to try a Duke's murder sub orbis.  She
sees that the Duke was a Jhereg so calls up the House rep and says, Do you
guys care about this one? and he replies, Nah, do the usual once-over
easy - in the unlikely event anybody on the council cares we'll sort it
out ourselves if he doesn't trip on his tongue.  And thanks for asking,
but don't bother next time - we'll let you know if we ever want a
real trial.


> > 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.

I can think of many ways T could have been seen as difficult despite
earning acceptably.  V presumably knew he could get away with his act.


>
> >  V would be dead if they cared.
>
> Well, yes, that's what I keep saying.

Guess I missed that.  So as it's unlikely anybody cares, it seems
natural that they'd play the trial for laughs and spare the cell.


> >
> > 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.

I imagine attracting Imperial attention is frowned on.


> > > > 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?

I wrote "if the matter is trivial", which I believe means "is generally
considered to be trivial".  Far from hair-splitting, it's the nub of the
argument.

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

No.