[r-t] Me

[Philip Earis]

Mark:
"People think it's all about "recognition" of peals, but actually it's the 
method libraries we should be worrying about"

Absolutely - this is the heart of the issue.

I don't really care if a puffed-up committee feel that some new things that 
are rung aren't worth being rung.

However, it's bizarre (and unacceptable) that new change ringing methods, 
which are evidently change ringing, and which can trivially be described and 
recorded using the existing language and notation of change ringing, are 
deliberately excluded from the centralised libraries of change ringing.

If I want to know the notation of rung methods like Gluon Maximus, or 
Stromboli Bob Minor, or Mersey Ferry Minor (to name just a few) why on earth 
should this be impossible to glean from the centrally-kept libraries?

The refusal to record new methods is a bonkers and ultimately futile 
approach - the methods committee have already rendered themselves painfully 
out of touch, and will be the architects of their own destruction.  I have 
no confidence in the value-judgement approach, and in the whole 
philosophical concept of many arbitrary "Decisions". I am far from alone.

In any case, I am keen this list provides a forum for tangible developments 
in change ringing, rather than being overly introspective about "Decisions". 
Please can someone now answer my question about the longest sequences of 
repeating changes in Simon Melen's monster extent of triples? Please?! (See 
my questions at 
http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/2014-October/005417.html 
for a reminder...)