[r-t] All the work minor

[Philip Saddleton]

Mark Davies wrote:

>(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
>with.
>  
>
I don't understand a word of this: either a bell is in the same position 
at each lead-head or is not at the same position at each lead-head - 
what other possibilities are there? How does including the course-head 
change this?

If you exclude the course-head from the definition then you can not have 
a method with a two-lead course.

-- 
pabs