[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 7 09:33:41 UTC 2008

> A question of degree, obviously, but an important question. The other thing
> is that the "only two stages, a stage apart" rule fits in well (to me) with
> what we think peal-ringing is all about. If you rang the 8th to a peal, and
> it consisted of one lead of plain hunt on 7 followed by N extents of Doubles
> with you following the 7th for entire of that, well I don't think you've
> rung a changeringing peal.
> Let's not devalue the concept of peal or the concept of truth.

This is sounding worryingly like the attitude that produced the current decisions, what if i wanted to ring a peal of spliced triples and minor on 8 bells? or even if i wanted to ring spliced minor, triples and major? There is no way to make decisions that will allow these kind of interesting things to be rung, without also allowing things that we would regard as not being as good. And i would certainly like to be able to ring with different numbers of cover bells, if that means that someone is allowed to ring a peal of minimus with 12 covers, then so be it, that's their time to waste.

Moving back to the issue, we seem to have a lot of technical jargon flying around, most of which is different from all the other jargon. I think that it's all meaning the same thing, that all rows are counted at the highest stage unless they are part of a complete extent at a lower stage, is that about right?
Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list