[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[Don Morrison]

2009/3/19 Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>:
> This is correct. Phil Earis' view is that Yorkshire should not be a
> surprise method. And, whilst I'm not sure I agree with him, I can
> see a lot of logic in that position -- more so that I can see in the
> CC's definition of surprise, delight and treble bob.

Would it be possible to explain that logic?

The current distinction between surprise, delight and treble bob has
always seemed to me arbitrary, and it's not clear to me what value
such a distinction provides, other than preventing a collapse of name
spaces that might be unfortunate at this late date. But I don't see
what the benefit is of this alternate definition, and I'd like to
understand it, if possible.

Also, in this alternate view, is there a distinction between the
classes of, say, Yorkshire Surprise Max and Millenium Surprise Max?


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"a contrast...as time is for ever producing between the plans and
decisions of mortals, for their own instruction, and their neighbours'
entertainment"                          -- Jane Austen, _Mansfield Park_