[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Iain Anderson]

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 
> performance???
>
> 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...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160531/d9c01b03/attachment-0002.html>