[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
iain at 13to8.co.uk
Tue May 31 12:34:52 UTC 2016
Maybe it's something to do with the double RW reference in the methods
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???
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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory