dfmorrison at gmail.com
Fri Dec 24 01:44:29 UTC 2004
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:15:59 -0000, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Am I on my own here?
Mark does have a point.
As a ringer, I naively intend "spliced" to be the appropriate word any
time I am stirring together methods in anything other than whole
extents or MEBs of a single method.
So if you stir a bunch of methods together in chunks smaller than an
extent, but it's not officially "spliced," just what is it? Is a new
word needed? Am I ringing, say, a 5040 of "Convolved Minor" or
Or are we perhaps tripping over a change in the use of the Decisions?
Were the decisions that say it's "not spliced" intended to be
prescriptive of what we were allowed to ring, but now that we're all
being much more sensible and only trying to describe what ringers do
ring, are those decisions no longer fitting the facts?
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
More information about the ringing-theory