[r-t] Truth (yet another definition)

Matthew Frye matthew__100 at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 2 22:45:20 UTC 2008

> 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?
In order:
So peals of triples between 5040 and 10080 are out then?
Peals of minor or especially doubles are already easy to fix if you miscall, just insert an extra extent. It's not very practical if you're in the last extent of minor or you're doing a complicated/specific/multi-extent composition, but most of the time it should be easy enough. Anyway, I wouldn't object to allowing whole plain courses to be inserted as a fix, provided the result is still true (though not nescesarily a whole number of extents).
On your other points, it would ultimately be up to individuals/bands to sort it out themselves and to decide what to ring/count or not, even now there may be varying standards within a band, eg if rounds comes up during a fire-up some people may then not count it, some still would so you may currently have peals that some people count for thier records but some people don't.
> 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.
So is the simplicity the most important factor? Even if that comes at the expense of ruling out potentially very interesting and worthwhile (imho) possibilities?
Yes 99% would would follow just the simple rules, which i think there is very little question over (every row N or N+1 times) but what happens to the 1%? Special cases? Or would you just ban everything that doesn't fall nicely into the easy definition?
> 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.
I would not miss kent if it were no longer permitted etc etc.
> 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.
No one said that it would, no one has said "let's relax the rules a bit to stop these silly people pushing them" as far as i understand it the argument is "let's relax the rules so we can ring more varied and interesting things" But like you say, if people want to mess about with stupid stuff that pushes/breaks the rules then they'll do it whatever those rules are, this is not a good excuse (and it's only an excuse, it's not a reason) to have overly restrictive rules.
Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080902/229fc451/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list