[r-t] Norwich Axioms

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> 1) They appear to suffer from the same problem with singles in Grandsire
> as the current Decisions. Am I reading this correctly?

Err, not sure. What's the problem with singles? Just that it's one call
which affects multiple changes? I guess this is simply nomenclature, isn't
it. It seems to me that a Grandsire single is really two calls for the price
of one, but I can't see why collections of "technical" calls can't be
grouped together and given a single name for practical calling purposes. No
worries.

> They appear to continue to exclude things like Dixon's. This also accords
> with your summary description yesterday of a method being composed of
> round blocks, I believe.

Yes, dixonoids are clearly something different to methods as we know them.
They're rule-based constructions, not round-blocks. It just means they go in
a different category. No-one would have a problem with that, surely?

> Does this mean that you (Mark Davies) agree with the Council in implicitly
> deprecating such methods?

No, absolutely not. As I said in my last mail, I think anything like this
should be recorded and catalogued, and awarded the same status in that
respect as any other type of ringing.

> Does this mean you agree with the Council's behavior in using a pocket
> veto to keep this peal out of the Council's records, since it included an
> extent of something you don't consider a method?

No no and no again! The peal was true, it's a peal. It's maybe not a peal of
methods-as-we-know-them, but all I'd do would be to describe any dixonoids
or other non-methods it contains in a separate category, as explained above
and before.

> Also, Mark, I have a formatting suggestion.

Yes, it's pretty rubbish isn't it. I'll probably ditch the "revision" idea
at some point and just put the axioms up on their own.

Graham writes,

> How would you describe Brain Price's 5090 Cambridge S Major when rotated
> then?

Hmm, well it's clearly the same composition, but I agree you'd have to
describe the two changes at the end a bit differently if you rang any other
rotation. Calling it One-Spliced Cambridge would be fine by me - I don't
really see why you can't start a new method wherever you want in spliced.
Yeah, that's quite good isn't it. Why should we only be allowed to have the 
discontinuity at the end of the peal?

MBD