In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 31):

My opinion is that your post has helped to prove that "say (or speak) one's piece" and "say one's peace" are two different things, to be used in particular context, but that the former has a broader meaning and is more correct, grammatically.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 32):

But, in fact, both mean to state an opinion. Were one to keep the opinion to oneself, that would mean the mind is in unrest. A restless mind is not at peace, ergo, speaking one's peace is grammatical correct. Speaking one's piece is the uneducated mass's bastardized, pasteurized simplification of the complex concept--that you support it is troubling. It's worse than AP style writing, where grammatical decisions are made on typographical conservation and maintaining the sixth-grade reading level status quo.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 33):

I can point to grammarians who side with the "speak one's piece" argument.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 34):

I can point to laundry baskets, but that doesn't mean they are correct.

If we reduce the argument to where we poke our fingers, the matter may soon get smelly.

Nevertheless, the grammarian would be weighing an opinion on the idiom and only "speaking her peace."

Factually, the origin of the idiom isn't known. Were we to find the origination, we would find the absolute truth. Since we don't have that information, we can only infer by intent. By the judge's definition, a person would spew his "pieces" anytime he spoke. I'm less messy and cynical. Certainly, not everything spoken is peaceful or tidy, or even worthwhile. The core for me is the philosophical nature of communicating.

I'm unwavering--even when faced with grammarians who were poked--that a person who expressed a view has said his "peace."

We both might be wrong and really need to say our peas, or forever hold our pees.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 35):

I have said my piece.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 36):

Just trying to get your goad.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 37):

Mayhaps you were trying to goad his goat down the road a fur piece.

A fur peace, thank you very much.

In reply to Randy Oldman (msg # 39):

Jest don't let the goat wander off into ol' man McGillicuddy's fields, else he'll be shot on site.

In reply to Jake Richardson (msg # 40):

I always liked Archie Bunker's "groin-acologist"

...anyone leaving?

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 42):

The four PCs out near the ridge with Travis Sunday should make a public post in Ch14 as to his disposition. It can be speech, narrative or whatever but should indicate the PC's intention.

Feel free to discuss here, too, if desired . . . but an in-game post is requested.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 43):

It has been two weeks RL, as of today, that the PCs have been talking near the ridge. Because the Judge is okay with conversation going on as long as the players desire, this is simply a reminder that the advancement of the plot is in the purview of the players at this time--at least until any other time-based actions would occur if indeed the PCs talk long enough. The Judge will intervene if that scenario occurs, at the appropriate time. Otherwise, it is up to the PCs to advance things.

The advancement should be stated as action when the PCs are ready (whether that action is "go back to the room and go to sleep" or "lock and load and approach X" or "pull my hogleg and blow out my brains" (or whatever). I should note that the Judge will require an action statement from each PC--no single PC will be able to speak for any other's actual action. That includes "going rogue" (if anyone decides to do that), because other PCs will have the opportunity to react to any given PC action.

Another reminder that the Judge won't proceed until all PCs post a statement of action (it can be a confirming reply to another PC who might be stating a plan) once the conversation at the ridge is complete.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 45):

I'm done.

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 46):

Except that you didn't say what Travis is doing. So far, the closest thing to an action statement has been JEB's intention to go to the Beehive.

Will be hooking up a new computer tomorrow. Hopefully the transition will be seamless, but if I disappear for a short while, it will be because of technical difficulties . . .

on autopilot until game tomorrow.

Unless he sees Rasmin or Moreno

In reply to Travis Sunday (msg # 49):

The judge needs to know whether the players expect a judge-instigated incident to occur at the Beehive, or if the players had intentions of doing something in particular--beyond having a drink--upon their return to the saloon.

In-game or OOC, either way the judge requires some direction from the players in that regard.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 50):

ENS is just waiting for his irish coffee... and to see if they actually have absinthe! A couple folks seem to be absent... too much St Paddy's weekend perhaps?

I was in a group that got kicked out of the Denver parade!

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 50):

JEB is hoping for a quiet evening so he can turn in for the night.

I guess the Judge is just a little puzzled why the men returned to the Beehive, if they had nothing in mind to do other than have a drink and then turn in. We could have skipped right to the turning in.

Although not everyone has replied, so far it seems that the PCs didn't have anything in particular in mind, and so a Judge advancement is in order. I will wait a day for the stragglers.

I have sent out my annual invitations to those who play the NCAA men's brackets. The usuals should have received an invitation.

If anyone who declined in years past wants to play, just let me know.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 54):

I'll be signing in for the picks sometime tomorrow.

In reply to Judge Messalen (msg # 53):

Advance away.  I went to the Beehive because there was a potential discussion to be had.