[r-t] (no subject)

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Fri Dec 24 18:35:22 UTC 2004

In Reply to Eddie:

The peal I was referring to is at C502 p13. Given the way my memory works, I
remember this being published as 'the first in the eleven pure double hunt
triples methods'.

Eddie talks about 'Aldington' and 'London New', 'irregular' methods which
certainly do not appear in pabs peal. In fact, 'London New' does not appear
at all - is this the same as 'London Delight' in the collection?

Eddie does have a good point about renaming. Having had to accept renaming
Brontosauri as Apatosauri, isn't it now time to rename, for example, Single
Court as Nottingham Single?

pabs thought he was answering my question, though Richard Smith did (thanks
Richard). I remembered that 500 became 250 due to a p-revolt, and remembered
it being put back to 500 the following year. What I didn't know was the
reason for the reduction. This peal didn't appear in the diary until 1997 as
497 and I remember making a mental note then to find out why - but never

MBD asked: 'Am I on my own here?' - NO!!. The peal must be 'spliced' - it is
just how many methods. Do we really want, in Glenn's example for 36 PB Minor
to be called 3 spliced? The band which rang the 497 spliced at least learnt
497 different methods.

It comes down to what the Exercise at large will accept, or will Don allow
us to ignore all Decisions and treat them as advisory? After all, rules are
for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men! (Who said this?)


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list