[r-t] What's the meaning of a method havingaparticularfalsecoursehead

[Fielding Ian]

But the grouping of the False courseheads refers to INTERNAL falseness. Group A is being used out of context if it is being used to define EXTERNAL falseness.

I don't suggest applying a caveat - only that if group A is going to be used, that it is used in the correct context. If people consider defining the external false course head important and useful, could they perhaps think of a different way of labelling it so that it won't be confused with internal falseness?

Glint

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net
[mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net]On Behalf Of Leigh
Simpson
Sent: 25 April 2005 11:32
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: RE: [r-t] What's the meaning of a method
havingaparticularfalsecoursehead


> The argument you use, Richard may be consistent -
> but it is also defining for definitions sake rather
> than serving any useful purpose.

But consistency is surely the most important thing
with a definition. I think defining group A falseness
in the same way as all the other FCH groups is a good
thing. Adding an extra caveat: "but if it's group A
then everything's completely different" only confuses
the issue. Besides which, methods which are false in
the plain course are a little bit naughty, according
to the CC.

Leigh

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net