[r-t] Doubles 240s

[John Camp]

At 13:40 on 19 March 2015, Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> The null change certainly exists.  It simply means ringing the same row
> twice in succession.  The only question is whether doing that should be
> considered somehow illegitimate.

No: the only question is whether it can properly be described as a 
change.

The trouble with mathematicians is that they don't understand normal
language.  A purported marriage which is declared null and void is
not, and has never been, a marriage.  A "null change" is a purported
change which is not a change; a "null peal" is a pretend peal.

JEC