[r-t] Method extension

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Fri May 1 20:30:15 UTC 2015

I could not agree more!

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Roddy Horton wrote:

> Can we not just define what we know is beyond doubt and that which serves a
> useful purpose (Treble Dodging, Surprise, Treble Bob, Alliance, Plain etc)
> and leave the rest to the band's discretion with the ability of the Council
> to intervene if as Philip says " where a band's naming appears wilfully
> perverse ".
> I do not believe that there are many bands who would deliberately do silly
> things, and if they do, then so what? If the method they rang is worth
> ringing it will be rung again whatever the name. If it is false in the Plain
> Course but they rang a true peal of it, who cares about what they didn't
> ring?
> I believe the current decisions are far too complex and do not actually
> produce a framework that ringers can understand. They seem to focus far too
> much on place notation, which is after all only a shorthand tool to describe
> the method, and the existence of so many established exceptions make the
> rules a farce to me.
> As we cannot come up with a set of comprehensive, all encompassing rules
> then let's have a minimalist approach and leave things to the discretion of
> the bands.
> Roddy
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list