[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Simon Humphrey]

MBD:
> And are you being unnecessarily restrictive in excluding peals >= 4999 and
> < 5000? Where does it stop, eh?
Well, I suppose 4999 is mathematically more interesting than 5000, being a
prime number :-)
About 40320 r-t messages ago I asked where do you draw the line for the
number of different calls allowed in a peal.  The answer (paraphrased) was
that a line doesn't need to be drawn at all, in this case, and not in many
(most?) other cases also. 
The general approach, as proposed by Don et al and with which I strongly
agree, is not to proscribe anything, except for insisting on compliance with
a few fundamental requirements.  The trouble is, there seems to be a range
of opinions on what those requirements should be.
For peal lengths we probably all agree at least one line does need to be
drawn, at 5000. MBD, and others I guess, also want another line drawn at
5040 for triples and below.
5040 is mathematically neat and satisfying, but having two standards is not.
I can't imagine anyone readily accepting a minimum of 5040 for major and
above, so if we're going to have just one standard lets stick to the 5000
for everything. It might even engender some new fractional extent
compositions.  If people don't want to ring 5012s or 5026s of triples, fine,
let them ring 5040s: if they do, well why not?  
 
> I have a suspicion that, unlike those on this list, most peal ringers
> would
> never accept a 5012 as a peal of Triples.

I certainly would. Most peal ringers I know would only be concerned, if at
all, if (as now) the CC deemed it illegitimate.

SH