matthew at frye.org.uk
Wed Jul 23 23:06:22 UTC 2014
On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:27, John Warboys <john.warboys at lineone.net> wrote:
> Not sure whether it helps the debate at all, but as the "inventor" of
> Magenta I'd have been unhappy to have been forced to take it to its shortest
> non-repeating sequence and classify it as a differential. It was rung as a
> Link method in an 11-part cyclic Maximus peal in which all the other methods
> were hunters so it was logical to ring it as a hunter too; otherwise I guess
> the composition would no longer have been all-the-work as the treble would
> be considered a working bell.
An opinion such as this helps the debate greatly (imho). If the decisions are to serve the ringers rather than the other way around, then knowing what as many ringers (as opposed to us theorists!) as possible want of the decisions is invaluable.
There had previously been much talk about making the decisions descriptive rather than prescriptive, was that just empty talk? Do any of those who wish for a method to be forced to be defined and classified by the shortest non-repeating sequence now wish to argue that John's own description of his invention is wrong and he should be told that it is not to be permitted?
More information about the ringing-theory