[r-t] Adjacency in Extension

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:14 PM Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> We take Kent TB6 - since everyone on this list will be familiar with it.
>
> Above the treble, adjacency means that the 3-4 (typical Kent) places
> above the treble in 1-2 must be preserved somehow. Some typical
> extensions are:
>
> Kent TB8: 3-4 places with treble in 1-2
> Twatt TB8: 3-4 and 5-6 places with the treble in 1-2 and 3-4

I am really confused, now. Who could possibly imagine that Twatt TB could
be viewed as an extension of Kent? Sure, it’s related around the lead end,
but is in many other ways is a wildly dissimilar method. It’s like saying
Francesca Surprise is an extension of Cambridge. While perhaps of the same
phylum, they are clearly of different genera.

> MeyrickTB8: 5-6 and 5-6 places with the treble in 1-2 and 3-4 - in this
> case, the adjacency has acceptably moved to treble in 3-4

Well, at least there’s some consistency to the argument, as Meyrick seems
as thoroughly un-Kent-like as Twatt.

> Obnoxious TB8: 3-6 and 5-6 places with the treble in 1-2 and 3-4 - see

Like the above, only even more so.

> BUT
>
> Windsor TB8: 5-6 places with the treble in 1-2 - no adjacent places so
> not compliant.

Amusingly, this seems the most Kent-like of the various “extensions” you
quote, and yet is the only one you assert is prohibited.

Are we on different planets?


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
“When your children are teenagers, it’s important to have
a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you.”
         — Nora Ephron, /I Feel Bad About My Neck/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180726/05ea1f92/attachment.html>