[r-t] Practical Extension

[Pip Dillistone]

Hear hear.

I for one had hoped that the new guidelines being worked on would finally
lean more in this direction, recognising that an obsession with laying down
axiomatic rules of extention had failed and got us in the present
predicament. I'd also hoped that they would put a mindset of
"permissiveness" front and center, as was apparently the goal in rewriting
them in the first place. Fancy that!!

In hindsight, if it's really that difficult to codify permissiveness (an
oxymoron if ever I heard one) then the whole thing should just be got rid
of.



On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, 13:08 Philip Earis, <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:

> Oh dear.
>
> MBD:
> "Why shouldn't extension work starting with four bell? There's something
> wrong with our approach it if doesn't"
>
> I think I hear the sound of the penny finally dropping.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with your (not "our") Methods Committee
> approach, in that (like any approach) it can't possibly be universal. So
> the logical, umm, approach would be simply not to bother pronouncing what
> constitutes a "valid" extension.
>
> The only glimpse of joy in this tedious mess is seeing Robin Woolley
> prattle on, seemingly without irony, about his "twatt extension"...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.org
> https://bellringers.org/listinfo/ringing-theory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180801/fb0347a4/attachment.html>