[r-t] Falseness (was Re: The null change

[Mark Davies]

Mr Earis writes,

> I ... do think a fundamental
 > axiom, or "line in the sand", needs to be in place to enable progress

That is definitely the case.

 > Where I strongly disagree with MBD is with his aversion to jump
 > changes (and also the null change)

"Aversion" is not right. I said I'd be happier ringing a jump-change 
composition than one with the null change! In fact it's on my to-do list 
since it sounds fun. (The null change, however, less so...)

At some point you do have to make a value judgement about things, and I 
think that this is only "peculiar" or "distasteful" where you disagree 
about someone else's judgement. My value judgement is that there is 
great beauty in the the (mathematically) arbitrary restrictions imposed 
by: bells only swap with their neighbour, and, some bells always swap. 
Innovation thrives within a framework, and this is just what 
changeringing has done over the last three centuries.

Also in a practical sense, I think there is no chance of getting 
amendments to method "rules" passed by the Central Council if we go too 
crazy. One step at a time is best. The first step, to me, is just to 
clear up the mess we have now. Blocks that are really methods! Let's get 
rid of them, eh.

MBD