[r-t] How much of a method do you need to include? (was Proof

[Iain Anderson]

RAS: 

> Matthew Frye wrote:
>
> > unfortunately i don't agree with it, if it matters so much 
> > to people then they'll follow it without anyone telling 
> > them to, I personally wouldn't want to ring a peal of 
> > triples that wasn't 5040 without a good reason, but 
> > neither would i want to be limited to only be able to do 
> > that.
> 
> Exactly so.  And I imagine this would be most people's 
> position.  I wouldn't want to ring a peal of triples that 
> was gratuitously not a 5040, but if by being a little 
> shorter (or longer) it was able to achieve some particularly 
> pleasing effect that would not otherwise be possible, then 
> yes, that sounds like a good reason to me.

I would expect that the vast majority of ringers would continue to ring 5040
for triples if the limit was reduced to 5000, say.  Doesn't the fact that
people could ring "short" peals somehow devalue the meaning of a peal?