[r-t] Proportion of Surprise Methods

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Thu Mar 19 17:27:01 UTC 2009

I don't really see the point of the distinction between TB, Delight and 
Surprise anyway.  It seems that we are stuck with it (in the near term) 
for historical reasons, but arguing about variant such classifications 
sounds like flogging a dead horse.

cheers, Ander

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, King, Peter R wrote:

> 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

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list