[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

Tim Barnes tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 2 18:40:02 UTC 2016

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk> wrote:
> Charm is a hunt method?  Really?  Why?
> Strange is a principle?
>> Tim, I suggest that you try learning the 6 (or 7) quark methods and
you'll see that they fit together and belong together.  Splitting them up
into all these different classifications just doesn't make sense.

I see they fit together, and I agree the distinction between hunt bells and
working bells for the 6 quarks (plus Meson) is incidental at best.  But if
I were to learn these methods, I know I'd make use of the fact that Charm
has 4 place bells that return to their starting places at the end of the
lead (7-10), whereas no place bell does this in Strange.  I appreciate that
others would learn and ring these methods without making this distinction.

With an aim of making things as simple, generic and consistent as possible,
carving out certain groups of methods, such as the quarks, for
"non-classification classification" special treatment seems to me to be a
step in the wrong direction.  But I'm all for simplifying the current
classification system, and I'd be interested to hear if anyone has a
proposal for a broader classification revamp -- perhaps one that also
results in the quarks being classified the same.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160602/816aaa08/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list