[Bell Historians] Cornhill Article

Andrew Aspland aaspland at lHCcunIH0MhK1Sb8iJ9NNK54m3WzheqGCBSF8JFNW72suM2GDwW_dx4Z4ObmfL3E1HM_b7SCwCKOD0s.yahoo.invalid
Sat Oct 16 12:52:38 BST 2010

But this does not influence listing  - therefore rarity in itself is not justification for listing?

From: Richard Offen 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 12:18 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Cornhill Article


Probably my poor wording, but I'm sure most people will get the idea: the smaller the number of examples in existence of any given thing the more likely extinction becomes.



From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Aspland
Sent: Friday, 15 October 2010 6:15 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Cornhill Article


Confused by last paragraph, first column, page 1033:

"...the number of examples...must not influence whether one particular example is listed for preservation or not...The smaller the number [of] examples still in existence, the more important this philosophy becomes."

Surely this is a contradiction!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20101016/0eff6647/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list