[r-t] Time to vote?

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Wed Oct 22 01:16:32 UTC 2014

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Graham John wrote:

> We have recognised that a set of rows can be generated in more than one way
> using methods and calls. Why create more ambiguity by allowing a method to
> be defined in different ways? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of peals
> that have been rung starting at the snap, or another place in a lead. Are we
> saying that the following is no longer a peal of Glasgow? No-one would have
> to relearn Glasgow to ring this.
> 5,024 Glasgow Surprise Major
> Roderick W Pipe

Of course it is still a peal of Glasgow.  How could relaxing the 
restrictions for naming of methods possibly change that?  However, if 
someone wants to make themselves appear foolish by naming the method 
"Glasgow-started-at-the-snap", I see no reason why they should be 
prohibited from doing so.

Similarly, under the current rules, there is nothing to stop someone 
naming (say) Glasgow with a 1456 single at every lead end as a new method, 
and then describing a performance as that new method with a call (18, 16, 
or 1678) at every lead.  Again, no "relearning" would be required, and 
this is perfectly legal currently.  Countless other follies like this are 
already possible.  Is anyone losing sleep over the fact they are currently 

There seems to be an implict idea that the rules ought to make it 
impossible (or at least difficult) for people to ring or name worthless 
things.  Such a goal is quite impossible to achieve, unless one severely 
restricts innovation as well.  And besides, what possible benefit could 
there be in achieving it?  Why is the odd silly performance a threat to 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list