Ah, at last an answer to the age old question, "What happens when you cross
a double-naught legal eagle with a double-naught philosopher?"!
O.k., let us, for the moment, assume that all of the above is something
other than yet another inadvertently humorous exercise in serial
self-immolation.......just because we can.
First, Orvis isn't LEGALLY responsible for anything......not because they
didn't write the law (hey, the Nurnberg defense is still passé, ainna?), but
because there isn't anything for them to be responsible FOR. Neither Orvis
nor any of its agents has been accused of doing anything illegal.
Whether or not Orvis bears any MORAL responsibility for what occurred in the
situation described is impossible to determine definitively without more
information. If, as the careful reader is left to suppose, this was an
incident notable for its rarity then Orvis has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, if there is any real basis for Dentry's not so subtle
insinuation (which, as even the casual observer can hardly miss, is
undeniably the case) then Orvis has a lot to answer for.
See how simple these things are when viewed as something other than fuel for
yet another futile attempt at self-justification?
Wolfgang
still, the boy IS funny.