[r-t] Fifield Doubles
edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Wed Dec 24 09:09:14 UTC 2008
You may well be right.
I was brought up in a 5-bell tower but have always deplored the
ridiculous concept of method variations, particularly in light of the
CCCB Decision that "a call is not part of a method"
I can only hope that the Doubles rot will never spread to higher numbers
All the best for Christmas & New Year
2008/12/23 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:26 PM, edward martin
> <edward.w.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know what it is officially supposed to be but you can get a
>> true 120 by ringing 3rds instead of 5ths whenever any one particular
>> bell is turned from the lead by treble.
>> ie :
>> p = 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.5.123,
>> b = 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.3.123
> I suspect some ringers might be more comfortable thinking of that as
> spliced Fifield and Little Oakley Bob Doubles. How do folks generally
> slice the distinction between calls not across the lead end versus
> splicing with asymmetric methods?
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
> "When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
> individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
> command. Very often, that individual is crazy." -- Dave Barry
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory