[r-t] Motion F

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Mon May 29 11:59:47 UTC 2017


In answer to your two main points:

 > I remain completely baffled as to why the "Methods" Committee
 > believes it should wield this overarching power over all
 > aspects of ringing, rather than just methods. Can you help me
 > understand why you believe this to be necessary?

I don't know where the "overarching power" idea comes from. That is not 
what I'm about, as you know. However I do believe it makes sense to have 
a unified technical body working, for the good of the Exercise as a 
whole, in providing method libraries and standards or definitions for 
method ringing.

> If I correctly understood Mark's letter last week you took 
> pains to convince Rob that one extension is subjectively better 
> than another, and that he should change his mind in its naming 
> to coincide with your tastes.

Clearly I drafted the letter badly. Rob was of the same view as me, that 
the "Chogolisa" extension of Bitteswell is objectively superior, and 
should be the one adopted. There is perhaps a degree of subjectivity in 
the fact that it "looks" a nicer extension, but in practical terms an 
extension people can ring on ten and twelve bells is much more useful 
that one which doesn't start until sixteen. We came to the same 
conclusion and, as I tried to make clear in my letter, an amicable and 
optimal solution was arrived at.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list