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

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Iain Anderson
<iain.anderson at talentinnovations.co.uk> wrote:
> I would expect that the vast majority of ringers would continue to ring 5040
> for triples if the limit was reduced to 5000, say.

I'm sure you are correct.

> Doesn't the fact that people could ring "short" peals somehow
> devalue the meaning of a peal?

In exactly the same way, and to exactly the same extent (pun intended),
that the fact that people can ring "short", length 5,008, peals of Bob
Major devalues the meaning of a peal.

I think in most cases a 5,001 of Stedman Triples is probably a bigger
accomplishment, for the band, for the conductor and for the composer,
than a peal consisting of 42 extents of Bob Doubles. And no, I'm not
suggesting banning the latter!

And while a 5,040 of Plain Bob Triples is almost certainly a smaller
accomplishment then ringing a cyclic, each lead different peal of
spliced surprise max, I don't the the existance of the former in any
way devalues the efforts of bands ringing the latter.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea."               -- Ross Callon, in RFC 1925