[r-t] All the work minor

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Dec 2 00:04:47 UTC 2004

Ander writes,

> If that's indeed  the case I don't see how one can interpret a one-lead
> method as having anything other than all hunt bells.

I'm not really in the business of interpreting CC Decisions... but:

(E) A. 1. (b) A method is defined by the places made between successive rows
of its plain course, which shall be a true round block, divisible into equal
parts which are called leads.

The deciding factor here is whether "divisible into equal parts" includes
"one part", and whether "leads" could include one lead. I think you could
not categorically rule out this possibility from this wording, all other
parts of the ruling being equal.

(E) A. 1. (d) Bells that are in the same position at each lead-head in a
course are known as hunt bells. Bells that are not in the same position at
each lead-head in a course are known as working bells. There shall be more
working bells than hunt bells.

I think the intention of this paragraph is to imply one-lead methods have
every bell a hunt bell. However, this is not the only interpretation. The
crucial question is, what does "each lead-head in a course" mean? Does it
include the course-head itself?

Strictly, the answer must be no, because if it did, there could be no
working bells: "Bells that are not in the same position at each lead-head in
a course" as a proposition would always be false. So, we must interpret
"each lead-head in a course" as "each internal lead-head in a course, that
is, excluding the lead-head which is rounds".

Now, one-lead methods have no internal lead-heads other than rounds. In this
case, none of the definitions in (E) A. 1. (d) hold, and so the method has
neither hunt bells nor working bells. There are therefore no clauses which
disallow it. And there you go - sloppy drafting, look what you can get away

To be honest, the wording of the Decisions is immaterial. I have observed we
have a lot of spouting off on this list about how crap the MC is and how the
Decisions are a load of rubbish, but whenever any discussion on methods gets
down to it, everyone toes the company line. Surely we should be thinking
these concepts through for ourselves. What IS a method? Do we hold in higher
regard the structure and classification afforded by disavowing one-lead
methods, or do we prefer to preserve the symmetry of the forces, and treat
them as methods like any other?

I don't know the answer, but it's worth thinking about. Perhaps the worst
thing about the MC Decisions is that they sometimes prevent people thinking
for themselves.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list