[r-t] Call names (was Asymmetric Doubles)

[Graham John]

Ander wrote:

> However, according to the proposed "legislation", the former
> is a single and the latter is a bob!

It is interesting that you had to concoct a method to try and prove a
possible exception to the tens of thousands that have been named. If it
doesn't matter to you which is a bob or a single for this method, then why
not use the convention proposed, or give the call a completely different
name. What harm does that do?

On the other hand, if you are asked to define bob and single (i.e.
description, not legislation) for a bell ringers dictionary, are you going
to put:-

Bob - name for a call
Single - name for a call

What use is that to anyone? If you are asked to call a touch of Bob Doubles
at a tower you are visiting, are you going to say, "I am going to call 145
Singles" and then call a Single every four leads? 

Graham