[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> [...] Peals are:
>
> 1. True.
> 2. Of a minimum length.
> 3. Composed of changeringing methods.
> 4. Of a reasonable quality of performance.
>
> No-one is arguing over that, are they?

I'm not convinced about point 3.  "Composed of change 
ringing", I'll buy.  Whether I'll buy into the "methods" bit 
depends what, fundamentally, is meant by 'method'. 
Yesterday, in his long post, DFM gave two distinct meanings:

| 1) A specific kind of process for generating rows, decomposable down
| into sub-sequences of changes that are applied in order. Typically we
| make small modifications to these sub-sequences we call "calls". The
| current Decisions spend a lot of words both categorizing and limiting
| what this use of "method" applies to. The Norwich Axioms are a
| different set of categorizations and limitations.  [...]
|
| 2) A different meaning of "method" is as any sort of process for
| generating rows. It might be a "strict MBD kind of method"; or a rule
| based construction such as a Dixonoid; or something none of us have
| yet imagined.

I do not believe that a peal need be "composed of change 
ringing methods" if method means *anything* more than an 
sequence of changes.  In other words, I only believe that a 
peal is necessarily composed of a method if we define method 
in the second way.

I would prefer a type (2) definition of 'method', but I can 
live with a type (1) definition provided that we cut sever 
the link between peals and methods.

> But I can't really see why we're too worried about (2) and (4).

Is anyone worried about (4)?  (I hope you didn't take my 
comment about Lyddington Max at Cornhill seriously!)  I 
think we've all agreed that we can't legislate for good 
striking.  I've no problem including a bare statement (such 
as your point (4), above) if we want to make a nod in that 
direction.  But I'm sure we all agree it is no more than a 
gesture.

RAS