[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
iain at 13to8.co.uk
Tue May 31 13:20:52 UTC 2016
Bottom was only rung in the first peal. It was replaced by Meson.
Still not acceptable, though.
On 2016-05-31 14:13, Don Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk
> <mailto:iain at 13to8.co.uk>> wrote:
> > 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
> Ah, thanks, that now answers my question of a few weeks ago about why
> the double citation.
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory