[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Tue Aug 5 23:54:08 UTC 2008

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Martin Cansdale <mjclists at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: List01 <list01 at shropshirelad.idps.co.uk>
> Sent: 05 August 2008 22:32
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: Re: [r-t] Proposed definition of a peal (Dons 10 Rules)
> I think the second sentence is ambiguous and should be changed to:
> "The total number of bells that change position between rows is called the
> stage."
> ------------------------------
> So cambridge minor is at stage 4 and 6, depending on which bit of the lead you're in?

This is why I phrased my original version as awkwardly as I did, and
why I think we need to come up with a better alternative than Chris
has suggested.

Most bands ringing Cambridge minor would view the whole thing as of
stage 6, of course. But if someone really does want to think of
Cambridge Minor as a spliced minimus method-like-entity with a minor
method-like-entity, in really tiny chunks, we have no grounds for
stopping them, any more than we have grounds for stopping them today
claiming that their extent of Cambridge Minor is really an extent of
Original Minor with four different kinds of call, with one at every
division end.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Let's call it my vice. It pleases me to displease."
    -- Edmond Rostand, _Cyrano de Bergerac_, tr Lowell Bair

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list