[r-t] [r-c] Definition of a peal (was Not A Block)

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Mon Jun 9 21:24:09 UTC 2014

Well I must admit that I am perhaps putting an extreme point of view because I think it is important that ringer have this discussion and get a sensible balance between allowing flexibility for innovation that isn't dominated by value judgements of a small group but does also respect the traditions. Sometimes that involves tearing up the rule book and starting again and asking people how far they are prepared to go before they say enough is enough. The discussion is important.
From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Mark Davies [mark at snowtiger.net]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 10:03 PM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] [r-c] Definition of a peal (was Not A Block)

Peter King also wrote,

> It was a few days ago when the purity of 7! was being discussed!

Well, maybe that was the wrong side of the argument to take. Maybe I
ought to have argued that taking the scalpel of simplification to the
Triples peal length was wrong because amputating all those crusty old
exceptions and special cases loses us some of our culture, our identity.

Maybe ringing shouldn't be reduced to the tiniest set of razor-sharp
mathematical axioms we can find. Maybe it is better off with a bit of
ancient lore, a bit of depth.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list