[r-t] identity changes

[James White]

>> Most "ordinary" ringers would (I guess) disagree.

But we aren't talking about ordinary ringers, we are talking about those
that take an interest in describing what was rung so that it can be
recorded.  If we are going to have a language to describe things we will
need to define terms.  Now hopefully most of the time the definitions will
agree to the commonly held view but there will be occasions where it is
useful to define terms that "ordinary" ringers don't need to know, or to
define terms differently.

There are two definitions of "lead end" and I use both.  Context determines
what I mean.  If I am ringing and a ringer is unsettled by a trip, saying
"lead end", meaning the backstroke row with rounds leading, can be useful.
Yet this row is actually the "lead head" when we sit down to compose, the
"lead end" being the handstroke row before.

Most ringers will not care about identity changes - although they ring them
more than any other change - but it is useful to have the definition.  Is it
a change?  Well, no in the sense that nothing changes, but yes in the sense
that it is one of the allowed operations to move from one row to the next.

One final point, is someone a change ringer who only covers and never rings
methods or called changes?
Of course they are, it is just that their bell never changes place.
Otherwise when I make a place I am not change ringing and when I move places
I am?

Enough!

James