[Bell Historians] Re: A trawl through the archive

[Susan & Christopher Dalton]

> 
> [True, but it also means that we don't have collective bargaining power
> with, e.g. English Heritage.

[Does anybody? It sometimes seems to me that even the Government is
frightened of them!]

> It also means that there is unlikely to be any
> possibility of a journal for longer bell history articles, in the style of
> journals such as the many dedicated to various aspects of archaeology. I
> can't honestly see the RW doing anything along these lines, as I don't
> think it would generate enough interest to be worth their while. It would
> be interesting to know what the editor and board think].
>
[Before going any further down the dedicated journal route (the CCCBR
Library wanted to do it, you'll remember, but some of us feared that that
would merely provide a vehicle for under-researched articles by certain
member(s) of the library committee), I really think it would be worth
finding out the answer to that question. Robert Lewis has always seemed to
me to be 100% supportive, which is surely a good start. But they would need
to be well-written and engaging articles/papers of the DLC kind (if I may
say so).

I was a bit sorry to note how great is the gulf between numbers of members
of the Bell Historians (alias Lock-nuts-and washers) list and the change
ringing one, but I guess we can take heart in that 192 is a lot more people
than would have been the case even 5 years ago. DJB rules OK... C D ]