[r-t] Triples and below (was 'Rules', and before that 'A date to pencil into your calendar')

Philip Earis pje24 at cantab.net
Thu Sep 10 06:35:06 UTC 2015

Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy:
“We should choose between these on their own merits...I don't really care about the implications...it doesn't seem important to me...if consistency is an important concern, it could easily be accommodated by making 5040 the peal threshold (on all stages) rather than 5000. Why not? Sounds like a fair compromise”

Oh dear. You seem to have fallen into so many traps and logical fallacies I’m even left wondering whether your message is tongue-in-cheek.  I’ll give you benefit of the doubt and respond to your points.

One of the purposes of improving the current Decisions is to remove the unhelpful personal subjective biases that still litter them.  These have been a problem hard-wired into the Decisions since the earliest days of the CC’s “Legitimate Methods Committee” diktats.

Now I happen to think most surprise major methods rung for peals are pretty awful (and at times hinder ringing). Similarly BYROC 3-part compositions. I am hardly alone in these views. However, this doesn’t mean I feel such methods and compositions should be banned, delegitimised or whatever. Indeed, some ringers happily spend a lifetime predominantly ringing such drivel. Live and let live.

It may just be clunky phrasing, but I can’t help but think your phrases “I don’t care about the implications” and “It doesn’t seem important to me” betray a rather self-centred view of the world.

As for “making 5040 the peal threshold (on all stages) rather than 5000. Why not?” – again, I apologise if I am misreading your motives but it seems like you’re just trying to derail any progress here. 

There are currently large numbers of peals rung each year that are 5024s of major, 5000s of royal, 5001s of cinques, 5016s of maximus and so on. There are historical precedents for such lengths dating back nearly 300 years. And your bright idea is to now suddenly delegitimise these? What on earth would this gain?

(Incidentally, I’m pretty sure there are old historical precedents for peals of 5012 triples etc – I’m sure RAS will be able to confirm...)

The purpose of any Decisions should be to provide a simple framework describing change ringing, with as few arbitrary constraints or personal preferences as possible hard-wired in.  The approach Tim has been leading has various advantages.  It uses “true permutations” as its basic constraint.  It simplifies the current patched-up mess. It defines various terms used, to prevent ambiguity. And it splits the descriptive elements from the requirements / expectations of a performance. That you don’t like something isn’t reason to try to ban or delegitimise it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150910/6eb46ed5/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list