[r-t] odds and ends

John Fisher ghoti at mad.scientist.com
Fri Jul 18 13:43:54 UTC 2014

> I answered the question I thought that John Fisher really wanted to ask

Really?  What do you think I really wanted to ask?  (FWIW I don't think I
wanted to ask a question at all, except rhetorically - I wanted to push you
towards precisely the conclusion MBD reached.)

> It was John Fisher's "I don't like the fact that 6ths-place 
> Morning Star turns into a differential hunter with 2 hunt bells" to 
> which I was responding.

That wasn't a question.  I stand by the statement, but I like even less the
idea that 6ths-place Plain Bob could be a method that isn't plain hunt,
given that both have the same plain course.

> Worrying about whether 6ths place Plain is or is not plain hunt is like 
> counting the number of angels dancing on a pin point.

6ths-place Plain *is* plain hunt, as far as I'm concerned.  I don't think
anybody's disputing that - I've asked twice so far, and nobody's made the
opposite case.  (Any takers?  This is the third time of asking.)  And if you
accept that, what's the difference from the Morning Star case, apart from
personal preference?

> Why should anyone have a problem with how a bit of ringing is analysed?

Because if you describe it one way, dishonestly, it's a peal, and if you
describe it another way (more reflective of what the ringers think they
rang) it isn't.

I can't understand what you're advocating, Robin, unless it's that anything
can be called anything, which I'm sure you aren't.  Can you explain, please?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list