[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Aug 8 13:05:01 UTC 2008

Graham John wrote:

> But people ring false quarters, that doesn't make them acceptable.

Do they?  Intentionally?  That's news to me.

> Also, I am not necessarily convinced that exactly the same 
> rules do have to apply to quarters as to peals.

Nor am I.  But I do want the same basic definitions to apply 
to peals and quarters.  So 'true' should mean the same for 
any piece of ringing irrespective of length.  If the CC 
don't want to require truth for quarters, but want it for 
peals, I can accept that (though I don't agree with it).

Perhaps a better example, closer to the status quo, would be 
that the CC might want to say that peals on triples or below 
had to be 'true and complete' (to use the term I introduced 
the other day -- i.e. a whole number of extents), but that 
peals on higher stages, together with quarters on any stages 
merely had to be 'true'.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list