[r-t] RE: Exceptions

[Philip Saddleton]

Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote at 09:25:19 on Wed, 10 Nov 
2004
>Given that Anglia 10 and 12 are related - there is no doubt about this 
>within current interpretations - then Linconlshire S. Major seems to be 
>no longer related to the royal under the same decision, (G)B7. The 
>reason is that in major, places are made under the treble when dodging 
>in 7-8. The interpretation has always been that extensions below the 
>treble are counted from the lead head, so, to comply with (G)B7, places 
>need to be made in the royal when the treble is dodging in 7-8. In thed 
>royal, these places have been moved to 9-10. This was 'legal' before May31st.

Is this wilful misinterpretation? The related sections are those given 
the same letter in the tables - how else would you interpret this?

(G)C.2(c)v
Note that although the notation is necessarily different, the 
constructions permitted below the treble are structurally identical to 
those permitted above the treble.

>Isn't there a good case to be made that works are as important as place 
>notation. All the front work variations of Lincolnshire, such as 
>Vancouver, seem to be in-extendible dus to giving non-pb lead end.

I don't understand what point is being made here.

-- 
Regards
Philip
http://www.saddleton.freeuk.com/