roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk
Thu Jul 24 08:39:14 UTC 2014
If we are to improve the state of things then this is a really good example
where the description should reflect what the band understood they were
ringing, and also in this case what the inventor invented. John's argument
is very sound and the rules should allow for this.
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of Matthew Frye
Sent: 24 July 2014 00:06
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] Magenta
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?
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory