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

[Ted Steele]

On 08/06/2016 22:18, John Harrison wrote:
> In article <8ff40898-7a93-d3d0-e4c4-9610e4651837 at tedsteele.plus.com>,
>     Ted Steele <bells at tedsteele.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> ... Freestyle .... an indicative term that ... a method ..... does not sit neatly into an existing class
> On that basis, every new development will be (and in the past would have
> been) classified as 'freestyle', which would not be very helpful when each
> of them subsequently developed into mainstream families that could not be
> separately classified because they were already labelled as freestyle,

Frankly, that is nonsense. The use of a (potentially temporary) 
non-specific label clearly does not preclude the allocation of new 
methods to a group if that is what the CC decides. It certainly has not 
prevented previous reclassifications and name changes. The term 
Unclassified would be a label in just the same way as Freestyle, and 
although it is rather more specific it no more prevents allocation to a 
specific class, should such emerge, than would any other label of 
convenience.
> or each type would retrospectively have to be unclassified as freestyle before
> being reclassified.

When was that ever a problem? In any case, since freestyle would not be  
a class nothing would be classified as that and allocation to a class, 
should one emerge, would not be reclassification but simply classification.

Ted

Ted
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160608/4523cfb3/attachment-0002.html>