[r-t] Sacred cows
Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy
neminicontradicente at googlemail.com
Wed Oct 7 04:30:31 UTC 2015
As we know, in addition to its laudable attempts to simplify and liberalize
the method definitions, the framework produced by the 'rules subgroup' will
also have consequences for the meaning of the word 'peal' itself, with a
number of sacred cows slated for the chopping block.
As has been noted, peals on simulators would in future be possible, as
would peals on only two or three bells, and peals rung by a single person.
And of course, peals of triples and below would no longer need to be
composed exclusively of extents (or multi-extent blocks).
When some of us have attempted to defend the status quo in these regards,
the main argument offered in response is one of liberty: rather than impose
our own values on other ringers, we should mind our own ringing and let
them do as they like with theirs. It's easy to see the appeal of so noble a
However, the framework is still chock full of prescriptive rules which a
performance must follow to qualify as a 'peal'. In particular, note that
peals are still impossible when they involve—
•relays of ringers
•a non-ringing conductor outside the circle.
So let me ask: did the rules subgroup consider these particular sacred
cows? Would they be willing to sacrifice them in the interest of liberty;
or, if not, what justifies their survival?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory