[r-t] Me

[Matthew Frye]

On 27 Oct 2014, at 17:59, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> I have asked this question before, and I don't think I have ever received an answer: why are people desperate for 'compliance' for everything they do? We *know* that there are those who don't give a stuff for 'compliance' - I can think of one list member who seemed very surprised that a performance he took part in was the subject of a compliance-request from other members of the band.

I think you have answered your own question here. While one person in the band mentioned didn't care about "compliance" it's clear that some other members did care. Evidently some people both wish to ring things that are currently outside the rules and wish the things they ring to be recognised by those rules.

> b.t.w., Matthew Frye was talking de facto recently. 'Illegal', 'Forbidden', etc have a de jure connotation - so he is neither a fool or a knave in this case. Certainly, since 2002, methods comply or do not comply with decisions - and that is all.

Of course, I agree your interpretation is correct de jure, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the de facto situation. If ordinary ringers see "comply" and "do not comply" and think "legal" and "illegal" (and it is clear to me this is overwhelmingly common) then the de jure interpretation matters not one bit. The decisions are widely recognised as rules and *must* be thought of as such.

MF