[r-t] bits and pieces

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Sun Jul 27 13:02:05 UTC 2008

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

I find it mind boggling that you appear to be offering this as a good
thing, and reasonable excuse for not including this peal in the

At least in the case of Dixon's there is the excuse, albeit one I
think inappropriate, that it is difficult to categorize the method,
and might be difficult to fit it into the structure of the Council's
various methods records. With a method false in the plain course, but
otherwise conforming to the Decisions, and capable of being rung to a
true extent, there is no such excuse. It's just a matter of taste. A
perfect example of an arbitrary and capricious piece bit of rule

While on the subject, where in the Decisions is the prohibition
against such methods? I just looked, and was unable to find it.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Saints aren't saints...They are just people who happen to enjoy doing
things the world approves of."  -- Sharyn McCrumb, _Bimbos of the Death Sun_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list