[r-t] Non-distinct fragments

Andrew Tibbetts ajwxyzt at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 21 09:33:28 UTC 2004

>Why is this any different from claiming that your two changes of Cambridge
>rung to finish at the snap were in fact Cambridge and not something else
>starting X38?

As long as you've only claimed it as one method, you can call it whatever 
you like, as long as (in half-lead/lead-head spliced) it's got a symmetric 
string of notation for a whole lead. If you've used your 'something else' 
elsewhere in the composition, I think you're duty bound to call the extra 2 
this method.

With 5040 Plain Bob & 2 Cambridge S, for argument's sake, you've got to call 
the '2' something, and you can't call it Plain Bob, you can do whatever you 
like (following, of course, the CC Decisions - what sort of ringing pariah 
would take pleasure from manipulating those, I ask you...)

>I think your "non-distinct fragment" rule is just what is needed, because 
>doesn't matter which methods (of the same notation)

Methods are a wishy-washy concept anyway. Method = Grid + half-lead + grid + 
lead-head. Grids are the way forward.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list