[r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

[Philip Earis]

Matthew:
"If you can ring 4 consecutive blows then why not 6? why not 8? why not
12? why not 50? I personally don't particularly see a need for more than
4 or 6 at most, but I am guessing that you would never be happy with any
limit, and similarly with jump changes, if you can move 2 places, why
not 3? why not just move to any place in the change? It would be
impossible on bells of any weight, but on mini-rings or handbells you
could do it. Being able to ring any changes in any order? Is that the
way forward?"

Exactly! I think the message might be getting through.  All of these
constraints are arbitrary, so why not simply remove them all.  

My "framework" is that I don't think any decisions should put a "value
judgement" on any method - ie "this is better than that". Of course I
have my own views on different methods, but I don't try to impose them
by suggesting that things I don't like should fall foul of the official
"Decisions". 

Mine is not the radical view - it's the few in charge of the methods
committee and the CC that have the (unpalatable) radical views. They are
the ones who are happy to toss around words like "deprecate" in official
Decisions.

Some people are afraid of change. It's like protectionism versus free
trade. North Korea vs free markets. Live & let live.


Matthew again:
"Both of these examples are relating far more to compositions than to
the actual methods, to most ringers there is no real difference between
ringing a multi-extent block and ringing multiple individual extents"

Hmm.  The two can be surprisingly similar. Both were examples of CC
Decisions / pronouncements that, when liberalised, have led to good new
things.


DISCLAIMER:

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.