[r-t] History

[John Camp]

At 20:33 on 06 June 2014, Simon Gay wrote:

> Maintain the purity of the definition of peals of Triples.

In what sense is "5040 changes" purer than "5000 changes"?  Is 5000
immodest or indecent or unchaste?  Filthy or scatological?  Or perhaps
it is adulterated with something, or more complicated, or blemished or
tarnished.

Defining the length of a peal on the basis of someone’s concept of 
purity seems somewhat lacking in cogency.

Make 'em all 5000 or more.  What good reason (other than tradition) is
there not to do so?  And very many people on this list devote much 
effort to fighting tradition.

JEC