[r-t] Time to vote?

Ted Steele teds.bells at tesco.net
Thu Oct 23 11:45:28 UTC 2014

On 23/10/2014 11:34, Graham John wrote:

  Presumably someone
> could ring 5056 Cambridge Surprise Major by C Middleton as 5056 Spliced
> Surprise Major (4m) comprising 1344 Cambridge; 1344 Cambridge-at-the-snap;
> 1344 Cambridge-at-the-halflead; 1024 Cambridge-at-the-quarterlead; with x
> com and atw. So three (or potentially up to 31) new methods would be named
> when all that has been rung is a peal of Cambridge. Also, what counts as a
> change of method and all-the-work. The composition would have different
> numbers of changes of method according to the rotations selected and used?
> I know the above is a silly example

Perhaps, but I think Graham's message highlights the greater silliness 
of naming rotations as anything different at all. I recently mentioned 
the case of Treble Bob variations; Ilkeston etc, which Don thought were 
not directly relevant to the discussion about rotations. My point though 
was to give an example of a case where several different ways of ringing 
two methods had been given specific names. It matters not whether the 
difference was rotational, restart or anything else. The point was that 
the names had become recognised and accepted as definitive of different 
ways of ringing the methods concerned; but most importantly while the 
methods involved were also clearly indicated and suffered no change of 
name. If a rotation or any other new way of ringing a method is 
sufficiently different to justify naming it (and simply starting from a 
different row is obviously not) then let it be known for example 
Thingummy's Rotation Of Silly Surprise.

I am really puzzled as to why the proposal to name rotations has 
attracted such support; whatever is decided here seems incredibly 
unlikely to change standard practice; but perhaps I am missing something 
deeply significant.



More information about the ringing-theory mailing list