[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Iain Anderson iain.anderson at talentinnovations.co.uk
Sun Aug 10 00:13:12 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> GACJ writes,
> > But this is wrong Mark. A bobs only peal of Grandsire has been rung 
> > hasn't it. It was 10080 changes.
> and,
> > I don't understand the logic behind saying that a peal of 10052 
> > Grandsire Triples is valid under your rule, because it comprises an 
> > extent of 5040 rows plus a partial extent of 5012 rows, yet 
> the 5012 
> > could not be rung as a peal in its own right.
> Argh! You are as bad as Don!! Do you people have no soul?! 
> Can you not see the story being spoiled??
> A peal of Triples should at minimum contain an extent. OK, 
> maybe you can ring a few more changes, say for a special 
> occasion: but generally a peal of Triples is going to be 5040 
> true and complete changes, isn't it?

What do you mean by "contain an extent"?  Would it have to be a continuous
block of 5040 true rows somewhere in the peal, or can we pick and choose the
5040 rows from anywhere?  You've already mentioned that you don't like the
idea of having bits left over that don't fit together.  I can imagine
someone (probably PABS) coming up with a composition of spliced that won't
fit with your ideas on what was acceptable.  Where would you draw the line?

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list