[r-t] Definition of a call

[Leigh Simpson]

I’m happy for a method to be cut up into any number of slices. What is Plain Bob anyway if it isn’t hunting with 2nds made as the hunt bell leads? What’s wrong with applying that rule within a more complex structure?

 

There’s no implication that the PN would run in reverse in the rule as now formed, as far as I can tell. The PN would continue in its usual form from where the “cut” had ended.

 

If you didn’t insist that “changing primary hunt bells in Grandsire triples = a ‘bob’ or whatever,” then how would you expect the ringers to know when they were supposed to effect the change?

 

Leigh

 

So you would allow for a method structure to be cut up into any number of slices, sewn back together in any way you like - some bits forward PN with others reverse PN - and still insist that you are ringing the orginal method?  If the method is palindromic about the path of the treble  then pesumably if the treble continues her regular hunting path  it would still appear to be the same method with some leads lengthened and others shortened.  but if the method is not pallindromic then the inevitable  flow of PN running in reverse would yield a different method...but not according to you?

 

My question is  why did they have to insist that changing primary hunt bells in Grandsire triples = a 'bob' or whatever they needed to call it? 

 

Eddie Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/2595eb32/attachment-0004.html>