[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths

Martin Cansdale mjclists at gmail.com
Mon Jun 26 21:18:13 UTC 2006

Graham John:
> This is not the reason. It is:-
> a) so that the decisions are equally applicable on all stages
> b) so that the decisions [can] be equally applicable to peals and
> quarters (any length in fact)
Quarters are not peals.  Why does allowing quarters to conatin partial
extents mean that the same must be allowed for peals?  Why do quarters
and peals need exactly the same decisions?  Why not change it the
other way, lengthening all quarters of minor to 1440?

> See a) and b) above. If Major, then why not Triples. If Triples, then
> why not Minor etc.
If major, why triples?  My whole point is that the reason for change
given seems to be a vague feeling that all stages must be treated in
the same way.  Is there anything more to it?

> Any innovation, by definition, ignores hundreds of years of
> precedent. Innovation is an objective of the Council, as PJE
> keeps reminding us.
We could at least ignore the precedent for a really solid good reason.

> > ... why not change it to 4998 ... Or 4997
> See a) above.
Indeed.  Why not then change it to 4997 for all other stages, once
we've changed triples?

Sorry if I'm missing the point completely, but it does seem slightly
over the top to change the minimum length of a peal on lower numbers
as a result of quarter peal ringers wanting to name methods, and
doubles ringers wanting to ring more than 5040 (both quite possibly
reasonable desires).


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list