------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C53FBC.14B90B00 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I find it difficult to understand why there is all this correspondence on a=
subject with little relationship to bell history when there are hardly any=
messages at all on the bell restoration list!
As I told John in an off-list email yesterday, I have no problem with peopl=
e discussing matters like this, for several reasons:
1) It can actually often be considered as bell history - e.g. changing engi=
neering practices affecting bell hanging.
2) I think we would all wish to promote good maintenance practices, as it c=
ould well save interesting and historic bells / fittings from damage.
3) Many of those who are interested in bell history are also interested in =
(and actively involved with) practical bell maintenance.
4) This list contains quite a large number of people with considerable expe=
rtise when it comes to installing and maintaining bells. They can (and regu=
larly do) provide valuable advice to those requesting it.
5) Information can emerge which is of more direct interest to historians - =
e.g. the damage to Redcliffe 11th.
Yes, some of these things could be discussed on the bell restoration list, =
but they are not. I would guess that this is partly due to there being fewe=
r people on the list, partly due to the fact that this is the longer-establ=
ished and more active list, and partly due to the fact that several questio=
ns on that list have either gone unanswered or have had few responses.
I appreciate that not everybody will find all topics on this list interesti=
ng, in much the same way that most people don't find everything in the Ring=
ing World interesting. However, I hope that everyone will be able to accept=
that topics such as this are clearly of interest to quite a few people (he=
nce the number of messages), and not complain about them.
David ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C53FBC.14B90B00 Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I find it difficult to understand why there is all this correspondence=
on a=20
subject with little relationship to bell history when there are hardly any=
=20
messages at all on the bell restoration list!
As I told John in an off-l=
ist email=20
yesterday, I have no problem with people discussing matters like this, for=
=20
several reasons:
1) It can actually often b=
e=20
considered as bell history - e.g. changing engineering practices affecting =
bell=20
hanging.
2) I think we would all wi=
sh to=20
promote good maintenance practices, as it could well save interesting and=20
historic bells / fittings from damage.
3) Many of those who are i=
nterested=20
in bell history are also interested in (and actively=20
involved with) practical bell maintenance.
4) This list contains quit=
e a large=20
number of people with considerable expertise when it comes to installing an=
d=20
maintaining bells. They can (and regularly do) provide valuable advice=
to=20
those requesting it.
5) Information can emerge =
which is of=20
more direct interest to historians - e.g. the damage to Redcliffe=20
11th.
Yes, some of these things =
could be=20
discussed on the bell restoration list, but they are not. I would guess tha=
t=20
this is partly due to there being fewer people on the list, partly due to t=
he=20
fact that this is the longer-established and more active list, and partly d=
ue to=20
the fact that several questions on that list have either gone unanswered or=
have=20
had few responses.
I appreciate that not ever=
ybody will=20
find all topics on this list interesting, in much the same way that most pe=
ople=20
don't find everything in the Ringing World interesting. However, I hop=
e=20
that everyone will be able to accept that topics such as this are clearly o=
f=20
interest to quite a few people (hence the number of messages), and not comp=
lain=20
about them.
David
<=
/HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C53FBC.14B90B00--