[r-t] What people think they have rung

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
> Perhaps Don or someone would remind me of what exactly are the various
> variations of Kent and Oxford Treble Bob; Ilkeston, Worcester, Liversdege,
> Hampole and Killamarsh.

They all involve half-lead splicing of Kent and Oxford (or splicing at
a different fraction of the lead, if you prefer to think of it that
way, since Kent and Oxford only differ from one another in the handful
of changes around the lead end). It's not clear to me that these
really have anything to do with rotations of methods, particularly
since in those that still use bobs the calls are applied at the usual
lead end. Though, of course, one could think of folks ringing the
methods rotated to start and end at the lead ends, with calls at the
half-leads: but, other than that they are spliced, they differ from no
other methods in this regard. My own view is that it would be goofy to
describe such a thing as a different method, but that we are better
off simply trusting ringers' taste and desire to report what they ring
sensibly, to minimize occurrances of such things, rather than to
prohibit future, not-yet-thought-of examples where rotations are more
distinct, 'causing exactly the sort of problems we see every few
years.

There is nothing in today's rules, I believe, that would prohibit a
band from naming an asymmetric, differential treble bob method with
place notation 34x34.1x2x1x2x1x2x1x2x1x2x1x2x1x34x1 and giving it its
own name. That no one has so far done so is probably just a reflection
of the fact that ringers by and large do try to describe what they've
rung sensibly, and rarely game the system except when folks are
essentially challenging them to do so, as by making a lot of noise
about how awful it would be, ending the world as we know it, if they
did. :-)



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but
not philosophers."    -- Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_