[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Mon Aug 11 06:59:01 UTC 2008

RAS writes,

> 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.


> So, ignoring the fact that singles and triples are not adjacent stages, 
> this doesn't actually disallow the false triples example, but it does make 
> it pretty clear that we don't like it and probably wish it were 
> disallowed.

Yep, I think so. It's not perfect - you can quibble it's very woolly, and 
needs much more interpretation than the rest of the definitions. Maybe it 
can be improved on. But hopefully it sets out an intention exactly as you 
describe. The intention being:

1. To let people ring what they want to ring, whilst
2. Maintaining some good standards of proof which they can apply to 
demonstrate they have rung a true peal.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list