[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

[King, Peter R]

Errm, I'm not sure I see the rationale for that point of view. The CC definitions are unambiguous and clear - if arbitrary. I'm not sure how one can disagree with them per se. You can think they're not very useful and archaic (like the old plain method classifications, like Imperial and Court) or you can suggest new classifications which add real benefit. then you would have to give them new names to replace surprise TB etc.  But, given the present definitions Yorkshire is a surprise method. If it really helps you can say its a class beta method and not class alpha if you explain what that is and why it helps anyone to know this.

Peter
________________________________________
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Richard Smith [richard at ex-parrot.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:39 PM
To: ringing-theory
Subject: Re: [r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

Don Morrison wrote:

> Eh? I guess I haven't been paying sufficient attention. Can someone
> explain? If "are made adjacent to the treble's path" means "all such
> places are adjacent" this means Yorkshire isn't a surprise method.

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.

RAS

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net