[r-t] Definition of calls

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Wed Oct 27 21:28:12 UTC 2004

I agree with Tony Smith in that it is pretty much impossible and certainly
undesirable to provide a precise and binding definition of "Bob" and
"Single". However, Graham is quite right that this shouldn't stop us trying
to describe these terms. Perhaps this is an example of the Methods Committee
imagining that their every pronouncement must stand as inviolable law.
It would seem perfectly reasonable and helpful to have some OED-style
definitions along the lines of "a bob is a call /normally/ made by moving,
adding or removing a place..."

I wonder if it is as a reaction to past criticism that the MC now seem
unhappy to publish anything open-ended or less than absolutely determinate.
The method-extension software is another good example - I quite agree with
RPI Lewis (what's your first name mate?) that there is no need for the MC to
absolutely endorse any such software, as they would remain the final
arbiter of valid extensions; but it would be nice to have some software they
could recommend and support that worked pretty well most of the time.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list