[r-t] Falseness groups

[Simon Humphrey]

> An article by Roger Baldwin from 1979 attached.
> 
> Ian Fielding

I'd quite forgotten about this article, though I must have read it at the
time.

How much simpler Roger's argument would have been if he'd just considered
FCOs instead of FCEs!  But he does at least support my contention of the FCO
grouping for all irregular methods being exactly equivalent to the regular
groups.

I see he ignores the more intransigent irregular coursing orders, where bobs
affect non-contiguous bells, for which "regular" compositions are useless.
But the argument's the same for these, it's just more difficult (much more)
to join up the required courses.

SH