[r-t] Truth (yet another definition)

[Andrew Johnson]

ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net wrote on 01/09/2008 18:20:14:

> Re: [r-t] Truth (yet another definition)
> 
> Matthew Frye 
> 
> to:
> 
> ringing-theory
> 
> 01/09/2008 18:22
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net
> 
> Please respond to ringing-theory
> 
> Wow this topic just stopped dead 18(?) days ago without anything 
> resembling a conclusion, does anyone else feel like trying to bring 
> a bit of life back into it?
> Any thoughts on my last suggestions (copied below)?
> 
I think that a peal with incomplete extents on
seven or fewer bells is a bad idea. It makes it trivially easy to
fix a miscall by inserting a whole plain course. You may say that
it is up to the individual, but band members will have different
views. Would we have to negotiate beforehand, or would 'peals'
of 5124 Stedman Triples be rung where two or three members of the
band don't count it, or would someone set his bell on hearing the
repetition?

The extent of triples as a peal is the easiest to explain to
a learner or a layman. Keep that, and try to keep to that spirit
when having rules for peals on other stages.

The mixed stage definitions are causing the complexity. Keep the
basic rules simple for the 99% of peals in one stage.

I've rung one peal in mixed stages - a 120 of Stedman Doubles 
followed by 7 extents of minor, so I'm not totally opposed to it,
but if it was no longer permitted then I wouldn't miss it.

One definition that is unclear is peals with non-peal parts after.
E.g. 5100 Stedman Doubles has been counted as a 5040 with a 
60 afterwards. This causes an ambiguity. Should a long length
of doubles or minor be allowed by ringing until someone falls 
over, then just count the length to the end of the previous 
extent? Surely not. What about ringing a 5040 with a false
720 afterwards? Is the intention of the band important?
You shouldn't be able to count the closing rounds as the 
opening rounds of another peal, so no counting 10080 Minor
as two peals, but what about 10800 Minor - can that be
two 5040s with an interlude? Can you do that retrospectively
when trying to get to a particular peal total? E.g. peal
498 is 10800, peal 499 a 5040, peal 500 specially booked.
If peal 499 is lost, then count 498 as two peals. That doesn't
seem right.

Where ever you draw the line there will always be someone trying
to break a rule to do something new, provoke a reaction, or
to see what happens. Relaxing the rules won't stop this.

Andrew Johnson







Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU