[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Richard Smith]

ted.steele at tesco.net wrote:

> Why would you ever call "simple" cinques and max variable 
> cover? Only the cinques bits require a cover so it is only 
> variable cover if the cover changes during the cinques.

OK, so variable cover is not an appropriate term (at least, 
not if the tenor is at the back during all of the cinques). 
But my point (and, I think, the point everyone else has been 
making too) is not what you call the piece of ringing, but 
rather how you consider its truth.

The existing decisions have two separate standards of truth 
which we've (somewhat inaccurately) been referring to as 
'mixed stages' and 'variable cover', though none of the 
formal suggestions have included these terms.  With 'mixed 
stages', you prove the separate extents separately; with 
'variable cover', you prove them as a single unit.

So when I said, "either you call it variable cover [...] or 
you call if mixed Cinques and Max" I was simply referring to 
the standard of truth that's required.

RAS