[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Tue May 27 06:36:48 UTC 2014

So it looks like this dodgy motion passed by passed 91 votes to 68. We've seen many times before that bad technical motions can be carried by a confused and mostly-technically-illiterate membership, relying on the weight of the committee (stuffed with long-time place-men) backing them.

PABS: "I am genuinely surprised at the amount of opposition to the motion, which seems mainly to hinge on the previously unsatisfied demand to be able to ring compositions of false "methods". The alternative would have been to propose something that might have been defeated as a result of pleas from those who prefer to think of a method as something that should be worth ringing in its own right"

But would that have been worse? 

We now have a situation not just where the can has been kicked further down the road, as in previous years, but where the Methods Committee has tried to preserve things in aspic for all eternity.  Now, they will attempt to dismiss anything that doesn't comply with the existing Decisions as a "non-method block".  I thought it was very disingenuous of Peter Niblett to present this  as a reforming motion, when it was purposefully designed to shut the door on all future reform.

Just look at what happened at the meeting.  I wasn't there, but according to the semi-official twitter and facebook updates by a member of the CC PR Committee, a motion was proposed and carried in Any Other Business, on the lines that "It is time to subject the decisions on methods to a fundamental rethink" (CC tweet). 

Tony Smith, a fresh voice newly-re-elected to the Methods Committee (!)  seemingly spoke against this motion, saying (and I quote the twitter summary), "This motion will cause a lot of work and very little change. It is a mistake".

So who things meaningful change will happen in the next year? Seriously?

I don't want this to turn personal.  Whilst by no stretch of the imagination is he a cutting edge ringer, Tony's undoubtedly a clever chap who believes in what he says. I have a grudging respect and indeed admire the chutzpah of someone who simply bats away a request for wholesale change that has just been agreed, at long last, by the meeting and frankly say that it will be ignored. 

The situation is a big mess, and it's as clear as ever that no change will happen from within. When particles and antiparticles meet, be mindful of the energy released. 

The CC still have a Decision saying "That in the opinion of the Council the publication of palpably false compositions and worthless methods reflects discredit on their composers". As Richard Smith says, there's still nothing yet about the reflected discredit brought by the publication of palpably false statements and worthless Decisions.


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a charity, registered in England and Wales, number 207890 - Registered office: Thomas Graham House, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WF

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list