[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Iain Anderson]

Maybe it's something to do with the double RW reference in the methods 
table:

31 Strange  58 - 58 - 58 - 167T - 1T - 1T -  -  TE0987654321     Spliced 12/1252 15/161

12/1252 was the first peal.

15/161 was the fourth peal, but the first after the rule change.

So maybe a method has to be rung in a compliant way before it gets an 
entry, but then gets a reference to its first non-compliant performance???

IJA

On 2016-05-31 13:03, Don Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Graham John 
> <graham at changeringing.co.uk <mailto:graham at changeringing.co.uk>> wrote:
> > On 31 May 2016 at 11:41, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org 
> <mailto:dfm at ringing.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Any idea why it [Bottom Block Maximus] is not in
> > > http://www.methods.org.uk/method-collections/blocks/blk5.txt ?
> >
> > Because the peal it was rung in was the one that caused the
> > decisions to be changed and stupidly the CC has never applied rule
> > changes retroactively.
>
> Would not the same argument apply to Strange, which *is* including in 
> blk5.txt?
>
> And that peal has been rung again since the decisions were changed, so 
> should not it have been entered with a "first peal" that was not the 
> actual first peal, in the council's usual history rewriting way?
>
>
>
> -- 
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org <mailto:dfm at ringing.org>>
> "The name that can be named is not the enduring and
> unchanging name."
>   -- Lau Tzu, _Tao Te Ching_, tr J Legge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160531/2ce4beb7/attachment-0002.html>