[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)
mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Sep 13 13:26:05 UTC 2015
I can't help but think we are constantly being sidetracked by stuff that
is, let's face it, a load of shite that no-one will want to ring.
For instance - I really can't see many people wanting to ring peals on
12 of London Minor over Stedman Doubles. Yes you might do it for a
laugh, and I have no problem recording it as a peal in some fashion, but
seriously? It's not going to sweep aside Bristol Max, is it. Similarly
whole-pull ringing. It can have its place as a teaching aid, but ringers
worked out four hundred years ago that cross changes were a damn sight
more interesting to ring.
If you try and accommodate these things in the "descriptive framework"
it is going to sidetrack the whole thing. Endless debate will ensue,
with no result. Leave it! The basic definitions of row, change and truth
as Tim has them are sufficient to encompass such things. We don't need
to mangle the part about method classification to cover them - that
should stick to the standard stuff.
More information about the ringing-theory