[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 11 00:30:50 UTC 2008

> Mark Davies wrote, in reply to me:> > > OK, here's the latest. I don't know, you might like this!> >> [...]> >> > 3. In a two-stage peal, the structure of the composition should make clear> > which changes are treated at which stage.> > I take it all back. I do like this. It makes it clear that > we don't like the idea of isolated rows from being picked > out willy-nilly. But equally, it doesn't actually proscribe > it.
I don't like this much, it sounds wooly and isn't anything enforcable and therefore serves no real purpose.
Also, i would like to be able to pick changes out from within leads to be counted at a different stage (like one of my examples previously of minor and doubles extents with different cover bells) and going back to the compositions of multi-extent blocks of multi-minor, they are not required to make clear which changes are from which extent, so why when multiple stages are involved?
Get Hotmail on your mobile from Vodafone 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080811/476bdc9b/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list