[r-t] Definition of a call

[Matt Dawson]

On 8 June 2011 14:54, edward martin <edward.w.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 3: I think that it is backward moving to allow a call to alter the length
> of the recognised structure of a method. Keeping the treble as PH, John Holt
> did produce a 720 of Bob Minor in which using 4th place bobs the PH was
> called to dodge 5-6 up (adding 2 rows to the lead block); make 4ths,
> (subtracting 4 rows from the lead block, and to dodge 5-6 down (adding 2
> rows to the lead block) thus allowing for all 720 changes of Bob Minor to be
> produced without the need for singles. As clever as this was, it never
> caught on in popularity and stands as a unique quirk of mathematics.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Dixonoids aside, I'd be
very interested in seeing Holt's 720 and possibly giving it a try.

> 4: That such an amendment in this wording was passed by majority vote
> leads me once more to question the qualifications of the individual C.C.
> member. Have they any idea of what is being proposed? If not then what gives
> them any reaasonable right to vote one way or the other?

Well, exactly - although that discussion does run the risk of boiling
down to the perennial "what's wrong with the CC" argument.

matt