[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position

[Don Morrison]

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> C.  No bell can make the same place consecutively for all of a method's
> changes (so for a method with n changes, the limit would be n-1).

I'm having a bit of trouble decoding this. Are "all of a method's
chanages" all the changes in a whole course of a method? Or are you
talking about a single lead of things that are divisible into leads (which
all CCC-approved methods are today, but not non-method blocks, and, I
believe, not necessarily "methods" as we're trying to define them).

If you mean a course, you presumably mean a plain course, since calls,
"not being part of a method (according to most folks)", that change
the fixed bell don't help. But if that's the case I'm still a little
befuddled: (a) it is exceedingly rare to ring a course of a method in
a peal or other lengthy touch that has no calls in it; and (b) the
issue that got this whole endeavor started was methods of which no one
ever has or, likely, ever will, ring a plain course, they having been
designed deliberately to fill a different niche. So is a plain course
really a meaningful, defined entity? And what about a rule-based
method that has one bell fixed throughout in some courses, but not in
others?

In saying this I'm not trying to argue for or against (C), I'm just trying
to understand what (C) actually says. It seems potentially a bit ambiguous,
at least to bear of my Pooh sized quantity of brain.

Am I missing something obvious?





-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"It used to be so simple, once upon a time."
            -- Terry Pratchett, _Witches Abroad_