[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Jul 25 13:00:57 UTC 2014

```Tim Barnes writes,

> Funny you should say that Graham.  I have independently come to the same
> conclusion. The power of a good debate...

I'm vacillating back and forth between almost all of the options...

Currently wondering whether B is not better than A. If you are happy
that x16 and x16x16 can be named as different methods, does it not also
follow that you would think 16x and 16x16x are also different? This
would put you into the "New Grandsire" camp, where, the dearly-lamented
mew apart, few of us might want to be.

On the other hand maybe we are being much too black-and-white about
this. Now I think about it, there are many cases in ringing where the
"same" method is given different names. Original/Plain Hunt, St
Helens/Cloister, innumerable traditional names for certain Doubles
methods, not even to start on Doubles variations!

So how about an "Option F". In this, a method is defined as the shortest
sequence of place notation, and has a canonical name. However, it is
perfectly acceptable for a method to have other names for replications
or rotations of the sequence - we might even call them variations. This
would mean:

1. x16 is the method Original, and x16x16x16x16x16x16 is variation
called Plain Hunt.

2. 56.1T is Magenta Differential, and 56.1T.56.1T.56.1T.56.1T is a
variation known as Magenta Little Place. (Or, perhaps the Differential
is unnamed, and the first rung variation defines the canonical name).

3. x34x16x12x16x34x16 is an unnamed differential, with a TB variation
(6th's place Morning Star) with double the lead length - if anyone ever
rings either of them.

4. We might even be happy with peals of New Grandsire, given this would
then be an acceptable and known variation of Grandsire.

The method libraries would sprout another level - beneath a method would
be lists of its known/rung variations - but this would beneficial in
that a layer of hitherto-ignored ringing terminology could be recorded.
Software which uses the method libraries wouldn't need to change unless
the programmer wanted to expose the variations.

How about it? Is it too late to add an Option F, Tim?

MBD

```