[Bell Historians] New poll for bellhistorians

[R.J.Johnston]

I think he is on the list: in any case I will forward it - with thanks for 
the sympathetic appreciation of pour attempts to be consistent.

John, who does virtually all of the work (and still works full time for a 
living as well!), is in no position to check the bona fides of anybody who 
might send an email to him and certainly is in no position to check things 
out with others. Hence the decision to be consistent in relying on a 
single type of source - we are not 'experts' (whatever that might mean in 
this context).

On the number of bells in a tower, we have discussed this at length 
several times, on the basis of what has been said to us (we DO listen, but 
very rarely is what we hear anything like unanimous), and then come to 
decisions, which we make clear.

Thanks

RON


On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Andrew Wilby wrote:

> MessageJust voted and, well yes, the result so far are just what you would expect from members of this list. In no way could they be regarded as a valid representative sample of the exercise!
> 
> The problem is of course that Dove is not really a technical document. 
> It is a commercial product to some considerable extent.
> 
> The compilers therefore have to be wary of the feelings and views of their customers.
> 
> If you weren't plugged in to the technical side of ringing and the Tenor weight at your local tower was changed on the 
> say-so of some Anorak you'd never heard of without any reference to your local parish I think you might be a little put out by it. 
> Therefore I think I can understand the compilers position.
> It would be an enormous task for them to enter into correspondence with every tower where an alteration is deemed necessary and obviously not on.
> 
> Whether or not it might be possible for members of this list to create a consultative mechanisim to deal with alterations in bulk and assist John Baldwin I don't know? 
> [Probably not! It would not be surprising to find that most on this list may be strong on the past but not so good at constructing the future. If you think about it, compiling Dove is about constructing the future. (Fighting talk! Someone prove me wrong:-)]
> 
> On the subject of classification of 12's etc with incidentals and extras it would be most helpful if the compilers could revert to the old standard which made perfect sense to the practitioners on these numbers and stop inflicting this nonsense on us.
> A 12 with an extra treble and flat 6th is a 12 with a light 10....... not a 13 or a 14. 
> 
> I say that even though I'm the only one daft enough to have been persuaded to call a peal of Yorkshire 14 at St Margarets Leicester!
> 
> I would copy this to John Baldwin if I had his address to hand. Perhaps he is getting this correspondence?
> 
> Andrew
>