[r-t] A New Hope

[Richard Smith]

Matthew Frye wrote:

> I think there absolutely is a need for *someone* to define 
> a "peal" in some way,

I agree, and that definition should be by (or at least 
sanctioned by) the CC.  But if the CC is to define a peal it 
needs to be open about why it needs to do so, and that means 
being open about the fact that it still recognises peals. 
That was the point I was trying to make in my email 
yesterday.

RAS