[r-t] Non-distinct fragments
ajwxyzt at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 22 13:30:25 UTC 2004
names are for record-keepers and CC bureacrats, not practical front-line
you have misunderstood me; i'm talking about the best practical way to think
about methods, not how to describe them. i'm a ringer (a change-ringer at
that ;-) ), not a record keeper.
what amuses me greatly is people ringing half a course of, say Yorkshire or
Cambridge and saying plain hunt to bring it round. Are the ringers really
too stupid to be able to deal with a change to Woodstock or Primrose at the
Actually, don't answer that one. I already know.
>From: "Graham John" <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
>Reply-To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
>Subject: Re: [r-t] Non-distinct fragments
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:19:59 +0000
> > There is a (surprisingly) low threshold at which names
> > become a hindrance etc.
>Yes, of course you need to learn the grids to ring the number of methods
>spliced that you have been doing, but I get the impression that you would
>prefer that grids should be the named units. If this were the case, not
>would you have to divide the number of methods you claim to have rung by
>but calling a peal would involve much more work for the conductor.
> > method name version: Ipswich, Newhall, Norfolk, King Edward,
> > Queen Mary, Cambridge, Ebor, Primrose
> > grid version: Cambridge over Cambridge.
> > Hmm...
>If Cambridge was the just the name for the grid, you would have to
>call out the half lead and lead end notation twice a lead, so people would
>know what to ring, and there would be no such thing as a plain course for
>people to ring on practice nights.
>Or have I misunderstood you?
>PS. If you named sections rather than grids, there would be even fewer to
>worry about, providing that you don't mind making six calls per lead to
>ringing-theory mailing list
>ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory