[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

Iain Anderson iain at 13to8.co.uk
Fri Jul 25 13:42:42 UTC 2014

Mark Davies wrote:
> 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, [...]
Officially, neither St Helens nor Cloister exist.  The method is Bastow 
Little Bob Doubles, although I was taught it as Stedman Quick Six.  
That's four names for the same method so far.

> 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.
Whether we like it or not, we already have multiple names for the same 
method (at least in practice, if not in theory), and those of us that 
think of Plain Hunt as 2*n rows already have methods that are 
multiples/fractions of other methods.  The leap to allowing New 
Grandsire isn't very big.  And as someone has already pointed out, if 
you are going to ring Grandsire and New Grandsire in spliced, you are 
going to have to find a way of distinguishing them.  How about giving 
that different names?

I am aware that some of the list want to stop people from doing lots of 
silly things.  Surely the best way to do that is to let them do it, but 
don't draw attention to it.  That's how it works with my 7 year old.  
Telling him not to do something rarely works.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list