[r-t] Unclassified (Was: ?CCBR meeting - Methcom, proposals)

Ted Steele bells at tedsteele.plus.com
Sun Jun 5 22:10:08 UTC 2016

On 05/06/2016 22:21, Richard Smith wrote:
> Ted Steele wrote:
>> Perhaps classify these as Freestyle.
> Why?  What purpose does such a class serve that's not served by leaving
> them unclassified?  We shouldn't be inventing classifications unless
> they have a clear purpose.
> Saying it's not currently classified makes its status very clear.  We're
> simply saying it doesn't fit cleanly into the most commonly rung classes
> of methods.  We're not expressing disapproval and pretending it doesn't
> exist, nor are we trying to shoehorn it into an arbitrary or
> inappropriate classes.
> Introducing a Freestyle class seems to be an attempt to cling to the old
> ideology that all methods must be classifiable, however far-fetched that
> classification may be.  Certainly it's better than the current muddle of
> Differential Little Hybrids and so on, but it's still not a useful class.

My use of the word Classify in my first post was unhelpful and ill 
considered as not really what I meant. Later I used Listed instead and 
that better fits my suggestion; which is to provide a title under which 
to record methods that does not imply any specific attributes at all to 
what is listed. Whether such a title should be included in a method name 
I think could be optional.

To say that something is not currently classified clearly implies that 
there could or should be some classification that either exists or needs 
to be created that would cover it. My point is that there is no need for 
classification. Certainly there are plenty of informative terms that 
describe groups of methods that have things in common and we should keep 
them but we don't need every method to be in such a class. My suggestion 
of Freestyle (and I accept there may be a better word for the job) is 
that it is not a class but simply an indicative term that informs, as 
part of a method title perhaps) that a method is innovative, different, 
designed for a specific purpose, is experimental or a novelty or 
anything else that is the reason why it does not sit neatly into an 
existing class; that it has in essence been designed regardless of the 
constraints of existing classifications (which does not mean that it 
necessarily ignores them).

We shouldn't be worrying about fitting everything into classes, lets 
just accept that some things don't fit and provide the facility for them 
to be recorded in a way that reflects that. If recognisable groups 
emerge they can of course become a class; time, technical developments 
and fashion will determine that. At least if such a system existed you 
(or perhaps the rest of us) would know where to find things.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list