[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Simon Humphrey]

Finally caught up with this extraordinary flood of emails.

RAS:
> MBD (and, I think, GACJ, but less so) seems to think it is
> more important to excluded the worthless things even at the
> expense of excluding other obscure but interesting things.
> DFM, IJA and I are, I think, all of the opinion that you
> should exclude very little at all, and certainly not if it
> risks excluding something that is potentially interesting or
> worthwhile.

I'm with DFM, IJA, and RAS on this.  Worthless things will be recognised as
such and not rung again much, if at all: there is no great need to exclude
them explicitly.

PRK:
>An extent is something different which requires ringing all possible rows
>or permutations on that number of bells. So I am happy to say that I have
>rung a peal of major, but not an extent. Likewise I am happy to say I have
>rung an extent of minor but not a peal. So simply do away with the anomaly
>that is triples. I would be happy to say that I had rung a peal of triples 
>but not an extent.
>This is no more a second class peal than it would be on 8 or 12 or
>whatever.
I agree - MBD is being unnecessarily restrictive in wanting to exclude peals
of triples >= 5000 and < 5040.

MBD:
>Actually the possibilities for 5040+ change peals of Triples are a lot more
>exciting than I thought. If you ring fewer than 5040 changes, the composer
>just gets to pick the changes to leave out - not terribly exciting. If you
>ring MORE changes, the composer gets to choose which ones to have twice!
and
>Damn... I've got a feeling you could ring a true bobs-only peal this way
>though couldn't you, by adding a course instead of dropping one... am I
>right?

I'm sure you are! And maybe an easy(er) bobs-only peal composition of
Stedman triples could be obtained this way.
SH