[r-t] Doubles 240s

[John Camp]

At 14:37 on 17 March 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> There are plenty of things that I "dislike" in ringing, but for me this
> does not translate to any desire to prevent or discourage other people
> from ringing them.  Obviously Mark and others feel differently in this
> regard.  I wish I understood why...


> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Mark Davies wrote:

>> I believe change-ringing should involve changing bells!

Reluctant as always to mix it with the theory pros on this list, I 
nevertheless agree with MBD.  (This may be a first.)  But this isn't 
because of what I like or don't like: it's a question of definition, 
like so many arguments. 

The expression "null change" is weasely.  It isn't a change at all.
You don't say that you have rung a null peal if the band doesn't even
get to the tower.  And, as Marky says, change-ringing implies changes. 
Where do you stop, otherwise?  Is 5000 rounds a peal?

It isn't a question of wanting to stop other people from doing things.
Ring your 5000 rounds, by all means.  Just don't call it
change-ringing.

John Camp