[r-t] Old methods

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Thu Jul 17 10:06:07 UTC 2008

Well, I'm not really surprised by PJE's reply but more of that in a moment.

Matthew Frye says "so is there anywhere i could catch up on what exactly
PJE's problems with the CC decisions are?" No, and no doubt PJE would assume
you are too stupid to understand anyway so he won't bother.

To business.

PJE attempts to commit an intellectual fraud by conflating three paras. into
one. He also refuses (as always) to back up any of his arguments to the
contrary of what I have said. Let us go back into history.

Before 2002, Decision (D)E said:
"E. Recognition

The Council shall recognise all peals rung in complete conformity with parts
A to D above, and such peals shall be included in the Analysis.
In the case of peals not strictly complying with parts A to C above, the
Council will decide whether or not to include such peals in the Analysis,
regard being had to the merit of the performance. In considering the merit
of a performance, regard shall be had to local circumstances and/or the
technical implications of the performance."

Since the Norwich meeting in 2002, this decision has read:
"E. Analysis

The Analysis shall include all peals published in The Ringing World and
shall identify peals not complying with parts A to D above."

I assert, therefore, my second paragraph is correct. PJE should say which
part is not. Notice the change in title from 'Recognition' to 'Analysis'

Eddie remarks 'I'm afraid I can't agree with your: " If 8 blows at lead were
generally acceptable say 100 years ago, the Decisions would allow them now."
In my limited experience, fashions change...'

The argument, based on Grandsire, is irrelevant because all we are talking
about here a method having a different name if it has thirds place over a
different pair of hunt-bells. In fact, I happen to agree with Eddie in this
case but do we really want to change names every-time the fashion changes?
Alistair Cooke gave the following quote:" never forsake the fashions of your
youth." It comes down to a value judgment but it I feel it would be
*unlikely* that "If 8 blows at lead were generally acceptable...", then a
whole class of methods would have since been 'banned'. New Grandsire is not
'banned', you just can't call it that in a *published* peal report.

Earis then goes on to say "Of course, I wouldn't take the Woolley approach
and try to "ban" conventional Grandsire...". I don't see where he gets this
from. My first paragraph can be summed up in two sentences:
1. Grandsire triples can not be 'extented' with common bobs only;
2. Grandsire triples can have an extent preserving (say) the even parity of
all lead heads.
The only thing he may object to is me pointing out he's wrong about Stedman,
according to current thinking.

I said "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)." The last peal to include Variable Cover, which at Cambridge (1998)
was described as the greatest development in change ringing since sliced
bread, was rung in March 2005, according to Campanophile. So very quickly =
seven years.

By the way, I look forward to the publication of the 'Earis Dictionary of
Synonyms' containing the entry 'Analysis = Recognition"

By the way 2: perhaps 'complying' has too strong a meaning in D(E) -
'according with' might be better.

By the way 3: I would quite happily see Grandsire banned - but some people 
like it so I just prefer not to ring it. Would Earis like to see Stedman 

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list