[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Fri Aug 8 12:56:54 UTC 2008

RAS wrote:

> We need the definition of 'true' to sufficiently flexible 
> that it does not rule out things that are currently rung in 
> quarter peals, because it would be very confusing for 'true' 
> to mean different things in the contexts of quarters and of 
> peals.

But people ring false quarters, that doesn't make them acceptable. Also, I
am not necessarily convinced that exactly the same rules do have to apply to
quarters as to peals. The CC could say that multiple covers is acceptable in
quarters but not in peals, for example.

I proposed changes a couple of years ago on these lists that would have
harmonised quarters and peals. Part of this, was the simplification of
saying that peals were 5000 or more changes at any stage. As far as I am
concerned this does nothing to devalue the history or the challenge of
obtaining extents of Triples, but it does make the definitions much more
consistent with regard to the use of partial extents on 7 bells and above.
It is one of the very few areas where I disagree with MBD.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list