[Bell Historians] New poll for bellhistorians

David Bryant david at b...
Thu Sep 2 00:39:36 BST 2004

> Pupils in Year 9 at secondary school would be expected to spot that the
> above, due to its wording, is a biased or leading queation. Please don't
> insult this learned group by posting such tosh.

I am not insulting this 'learned group'. I am simply sick of the attitude of
the Dove compilers. First they ask for evidence for my suggested changes, so
I provide it. Then they ask me to consult the locals. As I see it, the
situation is black and white. If an exact weight is not known for a tenor,
or the exact weight given is clearly wrong, then the only sensible thing to
do is to estimate it based on the dimensions of the bell, not guess it based
on bugger-all. If the Dove compilers will not accept this then I'm not going
to bother to send them additions and corrections (which I often do) in
future. I know wthis is a view shared by many others.

And as for Ron Dove changing a tenor weight back, provided that the weight
he had changed it to had been estimated using technical data I see no reason
at all why he should have done so. The attitude of many ringers - it's never
been out of the tower and we think it's a ton so how can you know better, is
exactly what I object against. If the local ringers can provide solid
evidence to back up their assetion then fair enough. If not, then I see no
reason to give what they say any credence.


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list