[r-t] All the work minor

[Mark Davies]

Ander writes,

> I don't see what Mark's on about here either.

Oh dear, I wasn't expecting people to read all the way through to the end.
:-0

> For what it's worth I think "more working bells than hunt bells" ought
> to be dropped.  Why for instance is lh 214365 (cross differential)
> more worthy than 123564 (great grandsire)?

Exactly. But, if you did that, would you want to include an explicit dictum
to exclude one-lead methods?

Don writes,

> Note, too, that it would probably be rare to ring a plain lead of
> any method with a one lead course. The only way you could, I think,
> would be to include it in a multi-extent block.

Might make a good service touch Don...

But yes, the multi-extent block is the natural home of the one-lead method,
and this is the context the subject was raised in. In a peal of spliced
Minor, why can't we ring the 6th's place version of an a-group method? Is
there really a solid fundamental reason why this is absolutely not on?

> Having one lead methods seems "more different" to me than in
> some cases not being able to have two different kinds of lead end
> change.

What exactly is the difference that makes them "more different" Don? Is it
just the truth implications of ringing a plain lead? Bearing in mind the
lead is the course, this seems identical to a normal method - you can't ring
a plain course of a method without returning to your starting point. Is
there anything else?

MBD