[r-t] Definition of a call

[Leigh Simpson]

This HTML email business is overrated. Anyway:

Me:
> > 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.

Eddie:
> 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
> presumably 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"

I don't understand how you get from "by omitting consecutive changes" to
"the inevitable flow of PN running in reverse". It's obvious that you might
get to something which is a different method (e.g. Little Bob from Plain
Bob), but the point is that the rule allows you to better describe how
a composition may be called - you can remove any set of changes and indeed
different sets of changes each time. There's no mention of PN running in
reverse - you just miss out a chunk of the method - or any mention of the
treble continuing its plain-hunting path (unless you miss out an
appropriate selection of changes).

> > 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?
 
> Presumably as rung by the St.Chad's ringers the conductor announces the
> new primary hunt to effect the change over - it ain't a bob so why
> complicate the issue & pretend that it is?

Nobody said it was a bob. "A call is a means of ...". It's clearly a "call"
as something is called out and the ringing changes! Announcing the new
primary hunt is effectively the same as missing out changes in order to
arrange to restart the lead.

Leigh