[r-t] Covering bells as degenerate hunt bells

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:
> Graham again:
> "...Then, separate from the decisions we can move all the method stuff in
> (E) into a technical dictionary and classification system. I feel that this
> should be much broader than methods, covering definitions of any technical
> term associated with change ringing, with examples to help understanding"
>
> I do thing this could be potentially attractive.  The problem, though, is
> that Tony Smith's current view is the diametric opposite: he thinks we
> should have very strict rules regarding methods, and be absolutely adamant
> that peals have to be in "recognised methods".
>
> Now I feel a peal is fundamentally a standardised performance for a few
> hours.  Tony's argument is that nothing is stopping people ringing such
> performances at the moment - his (and Robin Wooley etc) view is why do
> ringers feel the need for "non-compliant" performances to be "recognised" in
> a way that meets the current method descriptions?
>
> As such, without liberalising what constitutes a method I fear we may never
> break out of the present restrictive and vicious cycle.

I don't think this is in any way an argument against Graham's
suggestion:

1) If you believe that a particular individual or individuals will be
   impediments to getting Graham's suggestion implemented, those same
   individuals would surely just as strongly oppose your own.

2) You can just as easily liberalise what constitutes a method when
   its definition is taken out of the Council's Decisions and moved to
   some less strongly legislated framework as you can when it is
   within the Decisions.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other
languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their
pockets for loose grammar."                            --James Nicoll