andrew at w...
Fri Apr 2 10:38:13 BST 2004
<In the last few months I have been asking a lot many ringers/antiquarians
which post 1896 rings they regard as ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC. Whist there are
differences (mainly depending where you live) certain towers are mentioned
time after time. I think this will be the basis of additions to Lists when
the time comes. George>
One would hope that an organisation such as Council for the Care of Churches would demonstrate a higher degree of professionalism in its approach than this!
This can hardly be described as a scientific method of sampling opinion and establishing factual criteria!
There is a problem in this amateur field.
Whilst we would respect the authority of your knowledge (self taught-self acquired and all the more admirable for that) when you cross over into the world of policy, setting guidelines and in effect legislating we can have justifiable reservations about your abilities and suitabilities in that respect.
If CCC is proposing to construct lists on the subjective basis of the opinions of a few contacts of the likes of Bliss and Dawson then you should be held to ridicule and branded as very dangerous people :)... is that a smilie??
This is "our" CCC we are talking about. It clearly needs to import of some people with other skill-sets to its ranks to provide balance and offer help with strategy.
If nothing else, the CCC has screwed up on its presentational tactics so far. Congratulations on hitting the front page of RW and starting a war.
Someone appears Blissfully naive in these areas and to no-ones benefit.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
More information about the Bell-historians