[r-t] bits and pieces

[Robin Woolley]

As I have remarked before, I have a shocking memory. I have recently been 
reviewing posts from quite a few days ago and noticed remarks concerning 
'Dixonoids'. I have just remembered that I stood up at the Colchester 
meeting in 2004 where, in the course of a long speech, I put the case for 
rule based methods such as Dixon's.



I said "I am told that Dixon's Bob Minor is a 'rules' method, but is not 
allowed under the decisions. This is strange when it is remembered that 
rules were the way ringing was done before blue lines & place notation had 
been invented. You cannot have a formula if you haven't invented place 
notation. A similar rule can be applied to Penultimus Little Court Maximus. 
It is quite clearly a 'rules' method & this approach would have removed the 
need for all these 'Little Little Little...' Penultimus Little Court at 
which ever stage we are interested in. A good rule does not necessarily need 
a formula."



I see no reason why I should depart from these views now, although perhaps 
this is where PJE gets his belief in my belief in 'historical purity'.



What do I really think?



i) Bands can ring what they choose.

ii) Should the Decisions be changed every time a new type of method comes 
along? No. (Formulating Decisions takes a long time and may become 
obsolescent in a very short time scale).

iii) Should there be some 'official' way of recording new types? Yes. 
(However, this is likely to need a word formula. Words are a problem, not 
least because styles of writing change over the years - look at 
Tintinnalogia with its sometimes semi-impenetrable language)



In general, if everyone knows and understands Decision (D)E, then there 
should be no problem! The PA committee has 'analysed' peals containing 
Dixon's and we might suppose that its successor, the PR committee, will 
carry on this practice. It was NOT the inclusion of Dixon's which caused the 
2003 St. Benet's peal to be un-analysed. 'Richard's False Course' is more 
likely to be a reason.



As a warning to the more extreme members of this list, someone I know, and a 
as mathematician she should know better, voted for particular way because of 
the invective thrown by one side at one particular person. As I remarked, I 
voted in favour of PJE's motion at the Cheltenham Council, but I'm willing 
to bet that many voted against because of something like this.



By the way, PABS re-formulation of the Extension decision includes provision 
to extend the lead-length for Little methods - once again, something I have 
advocated for many years (since 1995 at least).



As a final thought, for those who want to ring multi-place methods. Why not 
start with a few peals of Orpheus on all numbers?



Best wishes

Robin