[r-t] Minor Blocks

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Wed Jun 25 12:50:29 UTC 2014

Don wrote:

> If we want logical consistency, there is no such method as Single
> Court Minor,  all touches of it with the usual bobs and singles
> are just touches of Original with exactly the same bobs
> and singles.

Sorry, Don, but your arguments are normally much better than this. Why are
you mixing methods and calls. Methods are pre-defined specifications of
sequence of changes that ringers learn to avoid conductors having to learn
and call lengthy sequences of calls. All methods could be defined as a
sequence of calls.

> Putting the convenience of the tabulators ahead of a
> description of what people really ring, even if ambiguous,
> is the root cause of the mess we've got now. 
>Such a mistake should not be repeated.

Classification in any field is an attempt at logical division based upon
properties of the constituent members, and you only have to look at plants
and animals to see how difficult this is with the anomalies that arise (in
some cases whether it is a plant or an animal!). Nevertheless, at some point
you have to make a choice that you rationalise based upon logic. If the
logic is sound, then it is defendable. The problem I have with Blocks is
that the logic is flawed.

> How is this any different than the current foolishness
> of smashing link methods to a different form than
> actually rung to avoid falseness in the plain course?

I think it is very different. Firstly, it is not foolish - it is logical. It
is saying why would you want to classify/define a method in larger units
than necessary? In principle, the shorter it is, the easier to learn. The
"smashing link methods" required changing the place notation of the method
rung, i.e. pretending you had a call that wasn't needed in practice.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list