[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 7 11:47:08 UTC 2008

> But you CAN ring whatever you like. Go out this evening and ring a
> peal by kicking five empty cornflake packets. Nobody will be coming
> round to lock you up. The decisions merely determine what the CC
> counts as a peal. If people are worried about their peals 'counting',
> it's because they consider recognition via the decisions to be some
> measure of worth or social inclusion. The decisions may be too
> restrictive, possibly far too restrictive. I'd be delighted to see
> them improved, but if you're going to remove any concept of what's
> real, worthwhile peal ringing then why not just scrap them completely?

We've been over this ground several times before, have a look back towards the very start of this discussion for all the arguments for/against the need for people to have their peals recognised analysed or whatever by the CC/ringing world/other ringers.

To your second point, the moment you start introducing words like "real" and especially "worthwhile" then you are applying your own personal views on what those things mean, and that always results in disagreements which have very little possibility of being resolved as people have different views to eachother. If people want to ring something that's not worthwhile by my standards, then i won't ring, but i wouldn't want to stop them doing it, or getting some kind of recognition for doing it. The reason we still need decisions is to provide a framework to describe things within and also to ensure some degree of consistency and keep the essence of what a peal is and what you need to do to perform one (ie ring a bell in the right place 5000+ times)
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list