[r-t] Fifield Doubles

[edward martin]

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

Eddie Martin

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 = 5.1.125.3.5.3.125.1.5.123,
>> b = 5.1.125.3.5.3.125.1.3.123
>
> 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
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>