[r-t] Minor Blocks
robin at robinw.org.uk
Sun Aug 3 07:35:52 UTC 2014
MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"
There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules'
method. (It probably is, anyway)
As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman.
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this,
'New Stedman' even?
We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world,
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years,
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes,
I've published a quarter using this name.
In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority
bother listening to them?
More information about the ringing-theory