[r-t] various

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Wed Oct 29 07:10:29 UTC 2014

Hi All,

MBD said "...It's the method libraries, isn't it. They are the shared 
glossary of ringing. If you ring a new method, you want it recorded in 
the libraries. Secondly, you want it recorded in a sensible place - 
alongside methods it is similar to. Thirdly, you want to be able to go 
to the libraries to see whether something has been rung and named 
before. People think it's all about "recognition" of peals, but actually 
it's the method libraries we should be worrying about."

Quite right BUT! Having never seen a line for Gluon, I thought I'd try 
my usual blue-line printer - but the p.n. wasn't there. I found it 
easily, however, in the provisionally named section of the 'most' 
official site - methods.org.uk.

Odd! The official site records it, but a non-official site-of-choice 

Sorry, MBD, but your argument - though perfectly correct - seems to have 
lost at least part of its foundation. They are in a library. Gluon 
(etc.) is only provisional, since it has not been rung since the CC mtg. 
in May.

I have remarked, and given reasons, before that I have no problem with 
methods false in the plain course but I cannot see the reason for a 
method with only one lead - if only because a plain lead is never 
available in a composition. I could define a bob-lead of Bristol S8 as a 
bob-lead of a 2nds-place 1-lead method, but why would I want to? 
(Because I can is never a good reason for anything.)

Another thing MBD refers to was "the "Bristol 14 Little 16" debacle". I 
have a vague memory of this, but cannot find any reference. (Unless it's 
a three lead course?) Perhaps he can remind us. There is "Bristol12 
Little  S. Fourteen", but this came about because Bristol Little S Max. 
had already been rung by terminating the hunt bell in 10ths place. The 
Decision Extension says that Little methods have the treble hunting to 
the same place, so this method could not be called Bristol Little 14 - 
especially as the same performance included Bristol Little - treble to 
10ths. The band could have called it Fred, or anything not already used, 
but the name chosen is fully descriptive.

I have argued elsewhere that there is a case for relaxing (G)D1a - but 
there seems to be no appetite for this. It does give some 'good' 
extensions in some cases.

MBD also refers to "and a bigger and bigger mess in the database at the 
heart of method ringing". Is he suggesting that the needs of the 
database is greater than the needs of method ringing? The database is 
the servant, not the master. A database never trained one new ringer in 
method ringing.

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list