[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Thu Apr 20 16:10:46 UTC 2017

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
> The current classification system tells you whether a method is a
> hunter (and if so which type) or a principle via its title. If you
> keep a classification system, it needs to be consistent. Down is a
> hunter.

Err, no. The current classification system tells you whether or not the
people who defined the classification system chose to classify Down
according the the category "hunter" that they've decided is fundamental to
ringing. That does not make it fundamental to ringing. Whatever the
taxonomists may say, I suspect that most ringers find Down has no more in
common with Plain Bob or Bristol than it does with, say, Thames Lynx.
Probably less.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those
attributed by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia
entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote
pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that
belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained,
(d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs,
(h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that
tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn
with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have
just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a
   --Jorge Luis Borges , "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins",
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170420/127ded80/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list