[r-t] Opinions sought

Ian McCulloch ianmcc at physics.uq.edu.au
Sat Jan 26 11:21:44 GMT 2019

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019, Alexander E Holroyd wrote:

> In my view this whole discussion typifies the way the framing and 
> approach is all wrong.  (I appear to be in a minority here among those 
> who tend to discuss these things, although not necessarily among the 
> wider ringing world).
> There is no need for a formal definition of "spliced", any more than 
> there is for terms like "tail end" and "tower outing".
> Spliced refers to a piece of change ringing composed of more than one 
> method.  That is all anyone should ever need.

But this is a formal definition:  "Spliced" == "a piece of change ringing 
composed of more than one method".  Using that definition, I can 
categorise any piece of ringing into either spliced or not spliced.  (Of 
course some thing can be described in multiple ways, and it is possible 
that one description might qualify as "spliced" but another does not. 
This is inevitable.)

I simply don't understand your comparison to tower outings.  If you 
really wanted to NOT define what "spliced" mean, then any piece of ringing 
may be called "spliced", at the whim of the band that rings it.  But that 
doesn't seem to be what you are proposing.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list