[r-t] Yorkshire Surprise Minor, etc

[Matt Dawson]

On Saturday, 18 March 2017, Richard Pullin <grandsirerich at googlemail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grandsirerich at googlemail.com');>> wrote:

> When looking through the Methods Committee proposed changes, and having a
> further look at this page on Tony Smith's site
> http://www.methods.org.uk/online/blk5.htm , I noted with interest that
> the contractions of Pudsey, Rutland, and Yorkshire Surprise to Minor have
> already been named as Minor Blocks.
>
> If the propositions are carried through, we will then legitimately be able
> to ring 1440s of Yorkshire, Rutland, and Pudsey Surprise Minor.
>
> However, each of these Minor methods contain a 16 cross section, so they
> are Delight methods. Does this mean that we might also have to relax, to a
> degree, the distinctions between Surprise, Delight, and Treble Bob?
>

This is a very good point and, in my opinion, highlights the problem with
the "make do and mend" attitude that the Methods Committee seems to have
with the current Decisions. The plan to include "blocks" might have kept a
smattering of people happy but is clearly causing more problems in the long
term.

The Committee could perhaps take notice of Don Morrison's email of a few
days ago - scrap the lot and start afresh. It's not as if there aren't
already a group of ringers rewriting the Decisions from scratch!

matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170318/aab6941b/attachment.html>