pabs at cantab.net
Fri May 13 22:20:38 UTC 2005
Graham John said on 13/05/2005 22:54:
> What is the logic behind the MC renaming seven methods rung since 1983
> (letter from Tony Smith in this week's RW) because they are related to
> existing methods? This situation is also true for the list below (as we
> discussed in November).
> Group 1. Valid extensions with different names
> - Glasgow S Major, Clyde S Royal, Strathcylde S Maximus
> - Leatherhead S Major, Maximus, Fourteen, Sixteen, Kegworth S Royal
> - Reverse Carter Doubles, Birmingham Carter Triples, Caters, Cinques
> - Plain Bob on even numbers, Grandsire on odd numbers
> - Plain Bob on odd numbers, Grandsire on even numbers
> - Arlesey Bob Minor, Mirror Bob Major
The distinction between the methods identified in the RW and those that
Graham lists is in the Decisions at the time that the methods were rung.
With the exception of Kegworth, they were not related at the time.
When Kegworth was rung there was not a requirement for extensions to
have the same name.
More information about the ringing-theory