[r-t] Restriction #4
rbennett at woosh.co.nz
Sun Nov 30 04:39:29 UTC 2014
Darling Point Doubles (named after the Sydney NSW tower) had a lot
of blows (8?) in one place. I think that it had been pealed
there in the early 1900s.
(This has nothing to do with Sydney's origins as a penal colony).
----- Original Message -----
From:ringing-theory at bellringers.net
To:"Ringing-Theory Mailing List"
Sent:Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:06:30 -0500
Subject:Re: [r-t] Restriction #4
> 4. Can't have more than 4 blows in one place
It may be my memory playing tricks on me, but I think I recall
reading something by Peter Niblett sometime in the past few months
saying even the Methods Committee no longer thinks this is a good
idea, and is considering relaxing it.
Whether their thinking (assuming I'm remembering correctly at all)
is to simply up the number to some larger but still arbitrary limit,
or to remove it entirely (while perhaps adding something like "it's
got to move at least once") I have no idea.
I presume Robin will correct me if I am mistaken about this, and
perhaps he can supply some more details of the Method
Committee's current thinking.
It will come as a surprise to no one that I advocate abandoning such
an arbitrary restriction, a motivation for which I have never seen
described. Doubly so since I gather at sometime in the past the
Central Council did endorse non-minimus methods with more than four
blows in one place. And, of course, even today such a restriction
applies neither to non-method blocks nor to calls.
"The only way to treat somebody as an equal is to
realize that that's exactly what they are."
-- William Deresiewicz, _Excellent Sheep_
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory