[r-t] Method name

[Iain Anderson]

Don
If you conduct the performance, you get to decide what it is called, and 
the records should reflect your decision.
This could be a perfect test case for determining whether we are indeed 
serious about being descriptive rather than proscriptive.
Iain Anderson

On 2016-01-22 04:02, Don Morrison wrote:
> There's a caters method that might be included in a peal we're 
> attempting in about a month. It's
>
> 9.1.9.149,129
>
> I, and I suspect many other ringers, would be quite happy to call it 
> "Little Bob Caters", but the Central Council clearly disagrees. Not 
> only can it not be Little Bob, to pass CC muster it must have a name 
> like <Something> Differential Little Bob Caters.
>
> However, it's not clear to me how the decision on extension applies to 
> things differential-ish (leaving aside that many ringers object to 
> viewing short course methods like this as "differential"--it's clear 
> the CC does so view them).
>
> Can this caters method be named "Baldrick Differential Little Bob Caters"?
>
> *Must* it be named "Baldrick", or could some other name be used?
>
> If it needn't be named "Baldrick", could it have an empty name 
> component (as Little Bob at even stages does), and thus its title 
> would be simply "Differential Little Bob Caters"?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160122/d9c2b766/attachment-0003.html>