[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> I need to find out exactly what happens to "blocks" which now become
> accepted as methods under point (2). I think the idea was to retain
> "Block" in the method name. What are everyone's thoughts here?

I think the bands should be consulted.

For example, I suspect the band that named Chopping Block Minor might
prefer "Chopping Block Bob Minor" to "Chopping Bob Minor", while the band
that rang Not A Block Major almost certainly would prefer "Normandy
Surprise Major" since they said so in a footnote to the peal report.

Oh, wait, the Central Council *still* thinks of Normandy as a non-method.
Sorry. Maybe next year.

Also, there are a pile of doubles methods, Caunton Slow Course being the
canonical example, that were briefly recognized by the Central Council in
the early 60s, and subsequently disavowed. I hope they will come back under
the same names they were formerly accepted under.



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The universal truth is that every player in an amateur quartet knows
that the other three are playing fortes too loud and pianos very much
too loud."           -- Lester Chafetz, _The Ill Tempered String Quartet_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160530/e0951bef/attachment-0002.html>