[r-t] Re-writing history
dfm at ringing.org
Thu Mar 26 04:40:31 UTC 2015
(Apologies if this been noted before and I just wasn't paying attention.)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Alan Barber <delibaba at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Of course, Oxford TB Minimus (m -34-14-12-14) perfectly demonstrates this
>> point. It is false within in a lead, yet the plain course is two extents -
>> so can be considered true. What's more, given the limited number of things
>> to ring on four bells, it is quite reasonable for people to want to ring it.
> Along with DNCBM and Bristol (on all numbers) the above is one of my
> favourite methods and is also a double method. And what's more in
> the plain course it has each change twice (once at each stroke). It
> is very good to ring on those occasions you meet 4 on a Sunday
> morning! Ali
The above method has been known and rung (and loved by at least one
ringer!) for decades, under the perfectly sensible name Oxford Treble
Bob Minimus. It is the obvious contraction of Oxford Treble Bob from
all higher, even stages.
Looking through the Central Council's method collections this evening
I stumbled upon the fact that the Council (well, some fraction
thereof), in it's wisdom, has now decided that it was actually first
rung just three months ago, apparently never having existed before,
and is actually called "Oxford Block Minimus". Not even Oxford Treble
Bob Block Minimus.
Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd? Hands up, please,
everyone who thinks the Central Council's creation of non-method
blocks last year was a good idea.
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy. It was what
got written down." -- Terry Pratchett, _Jingo_
More information about the ringing-theory