[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
dfm at ringing.org
Tue May 31 13:13:34 UTC 2016
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 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???
Ah, thanks, that now answers my question of a few weeks ago about why the
However it still doesn't answer the Bottom question: surely Bottom should
have the same double citation as Strange, rather than being completely
absent, shouldn't it?
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"One of the surprises of her unoccupied state was the discovery that
time, when it is left to itself and no definite demands are made on
it, cannot be trusted to move at any recognized pace."
-- Edith Wharton, _The House of Mirth_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory