[r-t] Definition of a call

[edward martin]

On 9 June 2011 10:55, Leigh Simpson <lists at simpleigh.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>

>
> 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
>
>
>



Oh dear me & you a voting member of the Central Council
I've given you an example which ought to have been considered well before
the meeting but clearly wasn't:
In the last paragraph above which you kindly included, please consider what
I said :-

"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"

Presumably as rung by the St.Chad's ringers the conductor announces the new
primary hunt to effect the change over - it aint a bob so why complicate the
issue & pretend that it is?

Eddie Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20110609/0f572737/attachment-0004.html>