[r-t] Philip's new Decisions, including Wiki page

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Tue Aug 5 14:37:57 UTC 2008

2008/8/4  <ted.steele at tesco.net>:
wrote some stuff then
> The more I read of these and other proposals to simplify and open up the decisions the more it becomes obvious why it is unlikely to happen. What we see is a wonderful demonstration of the difficulty of writing a set of rules to cover a variety of complex inter-related issues with numerous special cases in a way that will be at once acceptable and understandable to everyone while avoiding ambiguity and omission. It simply cannot be done simply! It is the same problem that leads to the need for experts to write out the legislation agreed by politicians and is the reason why even then the Acts are full of holes and require judges to decide what they really mean (and other judges later to correct them).

Everybody seemed to jump on Ted, but I really think that he had at
least that one good point to consider
Already the Decisions etc are so complicated that the ordinary bloke
hasn't a clue.
The CCCBR consists of far too many 'representatives' who don't have a
clue either, and who do not truly represent anyone's opinions but
their own, and when it comes to voting on an issue which they do not
understand are far more likely to say: well, I'll go along with the
reccommendations of the Committee, afterall, they are the experts and
should know.

Along with all the discussions that you are having, please take time
to step back, think awhile, and consider if what you are proposing
would be understood by someone as thick as Eddie Martin.... He'll try
to understand but keep it simple, precise and obviously a NECESSARY
change for the better comprehension of all

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list