[r-t] All the work minor

Don Morrison dfmorrison at gmail.com
Thu Dec 2 13:12:51 UTC 2004

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:48:07 -0000, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> What exactly is the difference that makes them "more different" Don? Is it
> just the truth implications of ringing a plain lead?

I'm not sure, but I think it may be related to the fact that you
basically can't ring a true touch of one of them. You sure aren't
going to be ringing a royal one of these guys, at least not with a
whole plain lead! While undoubtedly some would argue that means you
shouldn't ring them, I'm inclined to think there's no reason not to.
I'm just suspicious that any time you do it might well be more natural
to view them as something else.

Another striking difference, and I think what would seem "asymmetric"
is that normally the 2nds and last place versions of methods have the
same number of leads in the plain course. That's not the case with
these critters. Of course, it's also now not he case with Royal and
the like either, but somehow nine->one feels more bizarre to me than
nine->three. But I can't put my finger on why. Maybe it's something to
do with one lead being a degenerate case?

Perhaps the real underlying discomfort is that when you've only got
one lead, there really is no useful concept of a lead. In a normal
method you can use some leads and not others, and even if you compose
in whole courses leads provide the specific places within a course
where you shunt between different ones. With a one lead course a lead
offers nothing that a whole course doesn't. So in that case we have
something fundamentally different. That's not to say we shouldn't ring
it, but we may want to recognize that it is something different.

Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list