[r-t] 1278 Major

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Fri Dec 23 17:51:28 UTC 2016

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Joe Norton <
strainsteamford0123456789+ringingtheory at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah yes, thank you. Does that mean it would be OK for internal places
> to made for the entire course of a method? Something like 3456 on
> eight bells?

As I read it, yes. Though my reading of the rules has more than once been
at variance with the methods committee's, in at least one case leading them
to change the rules to make my understanding explicitly outlawed! :-)

> Also, is it still the rule that blocks can only be named in a peal?

That is my understanding.

> I heard that it was being considered for the rule to be relaxed such
> that blocks could be named in quarters. I'm not sure if it actually
> happened though.

As far as I know the committee has said zilch publicly, even at a "maybe
we're thinking about maybe thinking about something" level, since the
Council's meeting six months ago. If memory serves, at that meeting they
promised to have more changes suggested by December, and to involve the
wider ringing community in discussions about them, none of which, so far as
I know, has occurred. The only rumours I have heard came out of their
report to the Administrative Committee a couple of months ago, which seemed
to involve a revised promise of some stripped down, early draft of
something out by the end of this year; that is, in the next week. I will be
delighted if I am mistaken about this and more has happened than I've seen
go by.

Personally I think a far more valuable change than allowing quarter peal
ringers to name non-method blocks would be to eliminate the whole notion
that some methods are to be classified as non-method blocks instead of
methods. Besides the peal/quarter issue, there's also the kinds of calls
you and use in them. Classifying methods as non-method blocks is thoroughly
silly and ill-considered, a solution in search of a problem. If the report
in the RW is accurate, as I have no reason to doubt, the majority of folks
that spoke on the subject when the Council was adopting this foolishness
opposed it, on a wide variety of grounds, as did the majority of those
writing to the RW on the subject before the meeting, but the Council went
ahead and adopted it anyway. All the committee/Council had to do instead
was say "OK, methods with this formerly proscribed properties are OK now",
a far tamer solution than inventing a whole new class of things that
corresponds not a whit to what ringers think of, and that introduce more,
new rules further dividing and restricting what ringers can and cannot do
without incurring the Council's disapprobation.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Taxonomists often confuse the invention of a name with the solution
of a problem."        -- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Mismeasure of Man_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20161223/1457bf08/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list