[r-t] Rules (was A date to pencil into your calendar)

[Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy]

On 2 September 2015 at 11:36, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > this topic didn't generate much debate within the sub-group. The
> > debate we had on this subject on r-t before the sub-group was formed
> > seemed decisive enough that we didn't put it to a vote at the time.
> > The consensus seemed to be that individual bands should be free to
> > ring peals in whole extents if they so choose, but that this
> > shouldn't be a requirement - e.g. a band might wish to ring a 5080
> > of Grandsire Triples to mark someone's 80th birthday.
>
> It further worth noting that putting in such a restriction returns us to a
> world where we view our job as telling ringers what they are allowed to
> ring, rather than simply documenting what ringers choose to ring.
>

I don't see how that's the case; either way ringers are allowed to ring
anything they like. The document simply describes what the word 'peal'
means, and it's up to ringers to decide for themselves whether or not they
choose to ring things defined as peals.  That's true no matter HOW we
define the word.

I can imagine a world in which anything goes and in which we're OK with
people using the word 'peal' for anything they like. That would be true
freedom, and there's a certain inspiring nobility to the thought. But as
long as we are imagining some limit on what the word 'peal' means, then I
don't see why the details of my definition make it prescriptive in a way
that the one in the document isn't.

On 2 September 2015 at 11:26, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> This topic didn't generate much debate within the sub-group.  The debate
> we had on this subject on r-t before the sub-group was formed seemed
> decisive enough that we didn't put it to a vote at the time.  The consensus
> seemed to be that individual bands should be free to ring peals in whole
> extents if they so choose, but that this shouldn't be a requirement - e.g.
> a band might wish to ring a 5080 of Grandsire Triples to mark someone's
> 80th birthday.
>
I admit that peals of triples and minor which include a partial extent
beyond 5040 are an interesting question meriting further discussion; I
admit that performances of 5016 minimus are tricky too (not that I can
imagine anybody wanting to ring them).

But put those aside for the moment. As I read these rules, they would allow
'peals' of triples less than 5040 rows long. Can it really be that people
think that uncontroversial?

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150902/3910066a/attachment-0003.html>