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

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Sun Dec 28 22:53:20 UTC 2014

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> For now, I think we are better to focus on the definition and classification
> of the lead-based method. If you want, Don, let's worry about dixonoids
> later. Bigger fish (in that they represent 99.99% of what is actually rung)
> to fry first.

As I've said, or at least thought I'd implied, repeatedly in this
thread I am quite happy to do this, and don't object at all. But if
that's what we're doing, please, let's be sure to be explicit about
it. If we're talking only about lead-based methods, just say so, it's
not hard. We're trying to come up with better, and more precise,
definitions than the mess the exercise labors under today, and so if
there's more than one kind of method possible, we should be sure to
phrase what we do to allow for that. That's all I'm asking.

Viewed from a different direction, don't define things in such a way that they
read as applying to all methods when what we mean is just to apply them
to lead-based methods. It's fine not to bother thinking in depth about
other possibilities now, but then we have to be careful not to phrase things
so that they do apply to things we've not bothered to think about: that's
exactly what got us into the mess we're in already!

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"In wishing to apply verbal analysis to poetry the position of the the
critic is like that of the scientist wishing to apply determinism to
the world."                -- William Empson, _Seven Types of Ambiguity_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list