[r-t] Old methods
Earisp at rsc.org
Wed Jul 16 11:16:41 UTC 2008
"It seems there is some misunderstanding of the current CC Decisions. Since 2002, the Council has NOT *recognised* any peal whatsoever. Since then, there are two types of peal-length performance. Those which comply with the Decisions and those which do not. Those that do are 'included in the analysis' - which to most intents and purposes means inclusion in the table, published this year at CC supplement page 478. Those which don't are listed separately with details of their non-compliance...In conclusion, if the exercise at large 'likes' a method, it is rung; if it is not-liked, it becomes obsolete (very quickly, in some cases)"
I won't give a full reply to this, but your arguments are weak, complete rubbish, inconsistent and intellectually bankrupt. What you're doing is imposing some very subject personal preferences on what may be called a method, in an attempt to act as a guardian of method purity. You claim that this has no consequences for ringers, but that is also wrong.
My recent question about the elegant doubles method is a good case in point - there was no way to find any information about it in the oficial methods collection, because the self-appointed guardian of this doesn't regard this method as acceptable.
The consequence of the current decisions is to stifle innovation. I read your assertion that "It must be remembered that the original Decisions were based on what was seen to be acceptable to most ringers at the time. If 8 blows at lead were
generally acceptable say 100 years ago, the Decisions would allow them now" with open-mouthed incredulity - it makes my point far better than I could hope to. Do you not see anything even a bit dodgy about what you wrote? In those two sentences you perfectly encapsulate everything that is wrong with the Central Council and why in its current set it is doomed to failure.
Words fail me. I'll just say that the "Decisions", if there are any, should provide a framework of describing what can be rung, and that only.
This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4702 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ringing-theory