[r-t] Me

Robert Lee rlee5040 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 27 22:24:01 UTC 2014

On Mon Oct 27 17:59, Robin Woolley 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?
I'm not sure 'desperate' is the right word. I, for one, don't lose any sleep over the decisions, but at the same time, it is a shame that those who rang in the Quark peals feel like they are being made to sit in a naughty circle because they don't happen to share the MC's (subjective) view that it is important that methods are true in the plain course.

>How many times have the 'Particles' been rung to a peal? Is it more than three?

Possibly something to do with the fact that it is pretty hard to ring. I believe the first Quark peal was the culmination of half a dozen attempts(?). The peal I eventually rang was after a couple of earlier-than-planned pub visits, and the Birmingham band didn't score first time either. 

In any case this is a moot point - twenty five years ago Chandler's and Rigel were probably the height of difficulty and the number of successes reflected this. Now, a number of bands can ring them without breaking sweat. And this is how progress is made - what was innovative yesterday is more mundane today. Link methods are now used in lieu of calls. Particle type methods are just a natural progression from this, with the increased flexibility and scope they offer.

Your earlier analogy to Friends Reunited made me think. Did it 'go out of fashion' as such? It was once in a position to provide a useful service, but eventually lost all credibility after failing to adapt to changing practices.

The MC does not need to go the same way.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list