[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 21:45:06 UTC 2008
> You're spending a lot of time arguing with idea of breaking an extent up
> arbitrarily, but you haven't actually provided a decent alternative yet.
I'm trying to spend a lot of time arguing for (at most) twin-stage peals,
and for something coarser-grained than changes to select the stages for
proof. I think "method" is pretty good, actually. It's decent enough - just
not *absolutely* perfect. That's fine.
> And then you can look at the band, the composer, and any further details
> given, before forming an opinion. If it says "comp. DJP, cond. DCB" you
> probably know it's worth devoting some time to understanding it.
Hmm. So if I have no idea who DJP and DCB are? I'm expected to be one of the
in-crowd before understanding whether a peal is true or not?
A concrete example. I'm the peal secretary of the G&B. I'm expected to prove
peals and to tell conductors if they have rung something false, and not
record it in our peal database. What am I to do, in the absence of proper
guidelines to work against? Accept peals from my mates as true, and reject
as false those rung by people I don't know?
More information about the ringing-theory