[r-t] bits and pieces
robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Jul 27 07:01:11 UTC 2008
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
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?
More information about the ringing-theory