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

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Sun Dec 28 23:58:50 UTC 2014

It was said by someone, somewhere, at some point (I now forget who) that many groups had been discussing the motion for comprehensive review of the decisions. It was then said that this list had substituted discussing the minutiae in place of considerations of broad concepts and ideas that might have taken place elsewhere. While these highly technical and detailed discussions are truly fascinating, and I think very useful, I do worry that we are often losing the wood for the trees. Our focus on lead-based methods to the exclusion of anything else (such as rule-based) seems to be a glaring example of this. Perhaps a return to the very highest-level ideas soon would do us all some good.

I am now also quite concerned about whether we even want to bother considering lead-based methods separately from the general case - I think the best set of rules possible should naturally describe all types of construction. We should be trying our very best to express our concerns in those terms with the specific rules for lead-based methods following as a natural consequence. This is, of course, very difficult to do.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list