[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
richard at ex-parrot.com
Sun Aug 10 22:45:55 UTC 2008
Mark Davies wrote:
> Simple example: a peal containing Singles and Triples. All fine if it proves
> at the Triples stage. The description of the peal would list both Singles
> and Triples methods.
I'm not talking about that, though. I'm talking about an
extent of (say) triples and minor with changes of method
(and stage) at places that don't fit with your criteria
(which you still haven't let us seen in any great detail)
for whereit is permissable to change stage.
Either you have criteria, in which case it will curtail some
things that are desirable and force people into using a
silly description, or you don't have criteria which is what
I want and you have been adamently against.
So please put your cards on the table. If you want to
prescribe how changes of stage are allowed, let's see the
proposal. But irrespective of what it is, I can pretty much
guarantee that I won't like it, as whatever you choose, it
can still be circumvented by silly descriptions, and that is
precisely what we're trying to get away from in the current
More information about the ringing-theory