[r-t] Grandsire/New Grandsire, etc

[Robin Woolley]

The Grandsire/New Grandsire argument: How does this differ from Stedman
with, say, a whole slow-six start? Should we rename all 'peals of 5000
Stedman (Caters or Cinques) because they must have a non-standard start?
How do you splice Grandsire and New G? If you ring GN, it's false straight
away, isn't it?

Richard refers to a peal in 2003. Since then, Methcom has certainly
suggested to the Editor he prints everything and leaves it to the Peal
Records (ne Analysis) committee to sort out. This suggestion was made in the
London meeting in March '07 - at which the CUG member was present. It was
brought up because a member was concerned about the RW filtering the
performances, rather than the Analysis committee whose job it is.

However, Richard is wrong concerning his peal at St. Benet's on 30th
December 2003. This was reported in the Ringing World at RW04/81 and was
referred to as non-compliant in the Peals Analysis report to the Colchester
meeting in 2004. (Richard rang the treble. I do not have an RW ref. for the
CC report). It must be another peal he was thinking of. Perhaps the 'jump'
peal he refers to was not printed as a decision of the RW staff - Leigh
Simpson puts it well so I won't repeat what he and I have already said,
except to remind everyone that if it's not in the comic, it doesn't have to
be 'analuysed'. (The concept of a Journal of Record is well established.)

I can't say for certain, as I wasn't on Methcom at the time, but I think the
change to Decision (D)E was made to get round the problem of "the majority
of ringers appear to continue to view the Council as telling them what is or
is not legal to ring" as Don says. This is a communication problem if it
hasn't entered the general conciousness. (*Perhaps John Camp could make
something of this in his RW column.*)I'm willing to bet that most members of
this list hadn't noticed this, either.

Maybe it's me, but I can never get my head around those who *need* their
outre performances to be 'accepted' by someone else. Who do you ring a peal
for?

By the way, someone thought that the more than four-blows rule was opening
the door to abolishing Doubles variations. I know PJE would like to get rid
of the name and prefers to think of them as half-lead spliced, and I myself
have joked along these lines with my erstwhile multi-doubles band, (sounds
much more impressive, doesn't it?), but the 4-blows rule applies to
*methods*. 8 blows at the back, say, are allowed at a *call*. This rule was
why the MUG-360 Triples peal had to be withdrawn since it was not obvious
when being rung, but some methods had more than 4 blows at the back. They
were all 2nds place method so these were those methods starting 7.167, etc.

Best wishes
Robin