Cases of Influential Similarity

I had been in the sofa room of the residence of Chapwill engaged in a logical argument with Sean when Mr. Kettle Colding interfered by his arrival. Accustomed as I was to perceiving the entrance of Chapwill, this greeting we received encouraged me to no agreement to the proclamations of my friend who indulged his focus upon the sofa.

“Why, Kettle!” I said. “You’ve commanded the involvement of specific cases… These have solutions?”

“The cases?”

"Did these?”

“All of them,” he said.

“Of course. Sean’s convincedness has attempted to disprove that theory.”

“There is no theory.”

“I have my own,” I said.

Sean’s concentration on the sofas was not disturbed, but he commenced to say, “Who has employed a policeman in the completion of a matter, and then attended the same employment to the failure to obtain a solution?”

Kettle bestowed his attention on Sean. He replied with apparent bewilderment. “Sean,” he said, “how is it possible that you know of my employment?”

“It is an obvious conclusion,” Sean said. “I was aware that you had been installed by Mr. Aaron Dry for the solution of a case that his circumstances seemed to require solved. But there is a Mr. Michael Harper of similar majestic influence whose situation is similarly upset if the case is not decided. I considered your malice while the topic of cases’ specific solutions was addressed and my conclusion followed. Mr. Dry, or perhaps Michael Harper, altered the task and conveyed the information to you that the solution should not be conceived, and that this failure to attain a solution was necessarily the employment.”

“If he is to succeed,” I said, “in the solution and the failure, the case should be solved by a method which entertains not an accomplishment of the task.”

“That is what I’ve attempted,” Kettle replied. “I was prepared to say, still, that there is no method.”

“Those preparations are futile,” Sean said. “A determination can be achieved which corresponds to the consideration of the method. I mean that there is a solution in the non-resignation of the situation.”

“I say! The capability of not succeeding is more apparent than necessary,” I said.

“And what does that indicate?” Kettle said.

“That success is of course appropriate,” I said. “A theory demonstrates that the conclusion of the case must arrive to allow the inconclusive idea to exist.”

Sean’s concern departed. “So explain, Kettle,” he said, “the circumstances of this event.”

“It was an event,” Kettle said, “of defamation.”

Replied the other, “Of course.”

“The defamer, I can not say who it is,” continued Kettle. “But I can say that the information he conferred—untrue as it may be—was displayed toward the disapproval of Michael Harper. Harper’s reaction professed no comfort at this. He indulged my assistance to the recognition of the encouragement of this mockery. Mr. Dry’s unawareness of my involvement suggested that he recruit his own detective. I represented reliance, as you said, to two majesties of similar influence. My reliability, if not disproved to Mr. Dry, would misconceive in the mind of Harper.”

“Because Aaron Dry, in suitable event, considered the anonymity of the defamer more beneficial than his discovery,” I said.

“Not Dry…” Sean replied. “It was Harper that enjoyed that reconsideration.”

“Yet, Sean,” Kettle said, bestowing his bewilderment again, “what indicated that? It is true, of course.”

“Remember, Kettle, that the solution of a case is in the non-resignation of the situation,” Sean said. “If it is assumed that when the defamation at Harper occurs Dry engages a policeman, why would he assure the disengagement and disapproval of a solution if he had involved the cop in the first place? He wouldn’t. However, if Harper is the slandered, it is a trouble if he does not contact a detective.”

“But this supposition would indicate of course that Harper incriminated himself,” I said. “I do not see what logical motive could provoke this expression.”

“However, there are motives,” he said. “These can be evaluated only from the content of the defamation. The activity itself of expressing disapproval may imply a slandered man who is above belittlement, though Mr. Colding’s necessary deployment could impede that recognition. Or the disapproval may include the assumption that the dominion of Harper is on a step of significance that would require the lower steps to proclaim some disagreement. A solution may be encouraged by these suggestions, but of course that is merely my theory.”