[r-t] Minor Blocks

Andrew Graham ajgraham42 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 23 18:14:20 UTC 2014

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
>By that reasoning would not Decision (D)B.2 say that if we include an
>MEB in a peal we must include at least two MEBs, and similary we can't
>ring three 1,440s and one 720 as a peal of minor? And (E)A.4. that we
>cannot have a method with but a single hunt bell? And assorted other
>oddities scattered through the Decisions?
>I would be surprised if the Methods Committee viewed a single lead
>entity as a method, but the Decisions do seem at best ambiguous on
>that point.

It feels to me that the wording of the decision about leads is subtly different to the two places Don cites; although I must admit I'm struggling to articulate exactly how.  (D)B.2 for instance refers to "any combination" of extents and MEBs which I would argue is any number of each, including zero or 1.
I would be prefectly happy if I get an EMail telling me we rang methods and not blocks.  To me, that is what we rang (which was part of the motivation for doing it)- it would be pretty daft to my mind if you could change a method to a block just by altering the lead-end.
What we rang was actually quite interesting in itself and wasn't only done to make a point.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list