[r-t] Doubles 240s

John Camp camp at bellringers.org
Sat Mar 21 17:38:15 UTC 2015

At 14:47 on 21 March 2015, James White wrote:

> It's all a question of definition.....which is really at the heart
> of all the recent discussions.

As I have said explicitly more than once.  But the point is really
that it's a good idea to use words in a manner which is consistent
with their normal usage.  Using a word to mean the opposite of what is
usually meant is unhelpful, even if that's how you define it.

At 14:59 on 21 March 2015, Don Morrison wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:24 AM, John Camp <camp at bellringers.org> wrote:
>> No doubt, but you're missing the point.  Those were pre-arranged
>> changes, not call changes.

> No they were umbrellas.

> This whole conversation started with call changes implicitly defined
> not by what the (non-)conductor does, but by what the bells
> do. Identity changes and all that.

So here we go again!  "Call changes" = "no call changes".  My verdict
on Don's proposition is that he is not guilty of obfuscation (by
which, of course, I mean guilty).


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list