[r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11

[King, Peter R]

Isn't Bishopthorpe half lead spliced Buxton and Childwall. That might alert someone to potential problems. mAlso calling it an assymetric regular method  might help as the standard calling is only guaranteed for symmetric regular methods (I hope that's correct otherwise I shall receive a torrent of corrections!)
________________________________________
From: ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of edward martin [edward.w.martin at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:23 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] ringing-theory Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11

On 10 February 2012 07:43, Stephen Beckingham <bex280 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 February 2012 07:22, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
>> >  I consider Bishopthorpe Bob Minor to be regular.
>
> I'd agree. I would term it a regular asymmetric method. In my opinion the term "regular" is now most commonly used to describe the fact that a method has "plain Bob" lead ends. Other things, such as no penultimate places other than at half-lead are considered "desirable" by some people, but I would still term the method "regular".
> SJB

The problem that I have with this is that if the average Joe wanted to
call a 720 of  Bishopthorpe Bob Minor, seeing that it has PB leadings
and being told that it is a 'regular asymmetric method' might not
realise that calling the standard 720 with its bobs at WHW and a
single half-way & end, contains only 702 true changes

Eddie

_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net