[r-t] Unclassified

[Ted Steele]

On 04/06/2016 17:03, Iain Anderson wrote:
> On 2016-06-04 07:01, Robin Woolley wrote:
>> There will be those who believe that 'unclassified' is no different
>> from 'non-compliant' or 'not-recognised'.
> Who are these people that you keep referring to?
> There are several ringers on this list who have rung the quark stuff and
> they seem to be universally asking for an unclassified category.  It is
> certainly far more appealing than Differential Little Hybrid.
>

I repeat; why not list such things as Freestyle; or some other title 
that suggests a lack of commonly used constructions and a freedom from 
established constraints; and let time determine which, if any are 
developing into groups that justify classification in their own right. I 
recall making such a suggestion a considerable time ago. Such things are 
of interest to comparatively few people but it might stimulate interest 
in some to see that there are change systems that are immediately 
recognisable by their names as being free of the normal "rules".

Ted