From mark at snowtiger.net  Fri Aug  1 15:42:29 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:42:29 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53DBA755.4050406@snowtiger.net>

Tim wrote,

> I'm therefore wondering if an improvement to Mark's suggestion would be to
> leave the Method Collections as a single level structure where all
> replications and rotations have equal status as methods, and then add a
> group identifier property that links methods that are replications or
> rotations of each other

No, I don't like this! It seems really useful for the method libraries 
to have a way of recording aliases, but, to address Chris Adams' very 
real concerns, there ought to be a "top level" which looks just like the 
method libraries do now.

After reflection, I think the canonical name of a method probably ought 
to be the one which is rung first to a peal, hence following the usual 
naming conventions. Existing "aliased" methods, such as Grandsire/New 
Grandsire, Original/Plain Hunt, Bastow/Cloister/St Helens all have 
reasonably obvious canonical names - that given in the current libraries.

Furthermore, I think the rules around describing what methods you have 
rung can be reasonably relaxed. If you ring a peal of New Grandsire, you 
could call it New Grandsire or Grandsire according to taste; that is, 
either the matching alias or the canonical name are fine. Of course, if 
you rang both Grandsire and New Grandsire in the same peal (spliced 
"restarts") then both names should be used. Perhaps it would not be 
acceptable (too confusing) to use an existing known alias for some other 
method, or at least another alias of the same method.

Finally, I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection. This 
particular proposal does not introduce any new method classifications or 
change anything about the current Decisions, except to allow method 
aliases to be recorded in the libraries. Surely it is a good thing if we 
can finally recognise names as popular and long-lived as Plain Hunt and 
Cloisters, which cannot currently be found in the libraries?

And of course there is a future benefit, in that it allows us to deal 
nicely with methods with divisible leads, in the proposed new world order.

MBD


From matthew at frye.org.uk  Fri Aug  1 17:38:30 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:38:30 +0100
Subject: [r-t]  Survey #2b: Lead divisibility.
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEep-As_s6WQKB8mN5f4oN6=raTJFKDfHguaVausefmYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D25509.5000201@snowtiger.net>
	<CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F72F9B8-DF60-4B52-98A2-0AE81C6155E9@frye.org.uk>


On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> MDB
>> How about it? Is it too late to add an Option F, Tim?
> 
> Not too late.  I suggest we scrap the current poll and launch a new one
> that includes Option F when MF is back online.

Sorry, got busy and distracted this week, but here's the altered survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SL735FJ

From the 16 votes cast in the first survey, option A seemed a clear favourite, with option C (giving the methods committee some discretion over the "approved" version) being particularly unpopular.

MF


From basilpotts at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 00:33:08 2014
From: basilpotts at gmail.com (basilpotts at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [r-t] T ested
Message-ID: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=" >click here to display email</a>

From harmans at bigpond.com  Sun Aug  3 00:56:25 2014
From: harmans at bigpond.com (Graham Harman)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:56:25 +1000
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>

Hi Basil,
I can't open the notification.
Annette.

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] T ested

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold
still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a
href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=
&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=
" >click here to display email</a>
_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net



From camp at bellringers.org  Sun Aug  3 07:08:06 2014
From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:08:06 +0100
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
	<000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <1448577362.20140803070806@bellringers.org>

At 00:56 on 03 August 2014, Graham Harman wrote:

> Hi Basil,
> I can't open the notification.
> Annette.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory
> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: [r-t] T ested

Basil's email address has obviously been hijacked.  I expect he knows, 
but I have notified him, as a similar message has appeared on 
ringing-chat,  It would be most unwise to click on any link.

John Camp



From robin at robinw.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 08:35:52 2014
From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 08:35:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
Message-ID: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>

Hi All,

MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"

There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's 
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A 
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a 
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty 
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as 
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules' 
method. (It probably is, anyway)

As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage 
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman. 
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this, 
'New Stedman' even?

We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world, 
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are 
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only 
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and 
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years, 
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes, 
I've published a quarter using this name.

In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name 
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the 
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even 
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority 
bother listening to them?

Best wishes
Robin





From mark at snowtiger.net  Sun Aug  3 09:47:00 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:47:00 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>

Robin writes,

> There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's
> Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A
> 'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a
> three-lead triple hunting course.

This isn't anything to do with my "Option F" is it? Option F concerns 
lead divisibility and rotations of methods only.

> As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage
> this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman.
> This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this,
> 'New Stedman' even?

This is a good point, though. It seems to me that it would be an 
excellent thing to recognise "old" aliases, such as Plain Hunt/Original 
and Bastow/Cloister, and that in some cases we have discussed (Magenta, 
Morning Star) the use of aliases would neatly solve the lead 
divisibility problem, too. However, do we really want people giving new 
names to rotations of existing methods willy-nilly?

I think this might well be a major problem, since (a) rotations of 
Stedman, and snap starts in Surprise, are frequently rung, and (b) 
ringers really like giving new names to methods. So we'd almost 
certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman, as well as 
innumerable new Surprise Major names. This, as you point out, is unhelpful.

So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of 
existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would 
like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only. This means that 
Original and Plain Hunt could both appear in the libraries, as well as 
any variants of Magenta or 6th's place Morning Star with the shorter 
lead length, but New Grandsire, Cloister and St Helens would not, nor 
would it be possible to name new rotations.

I think that's better. Ringing a variant of a method with a multiple or 
factor of the lead length is only likely to happen in the extreme cases 
we have discussed, where it actually makes sense to do so. I think?

MBD


From hcharles at grandsire.co.uk  Sun Aug  3 11:28:16 2014
From: hcharles at grandsire.co.uk (Hayden Charles)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:28:16 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>

Mark Davies wrote on 03/08/2014 09:47:
> So we'd almost certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman

It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really 
spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

HJC



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 19:54:54 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:54:54 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
	<53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
Message-ID: <A17F4B11-63F2-4E2E-9F51-15D7C7C6CDD2@frye.org.uk>


On 3 Aug 2014, at 11:28, Hayden Charles <hcharles at grandsire.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

To be blunt, the mind-set that allows one to think "Oh, X is *really* Y" is the root of many of the problems.

Stedman is Stedman. Spliced Erin and Bastow is spliced Erin and Bastow. Those two descriptions may cover the same set of rows. Life goes on.

MF


From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 20:00:51 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:00:51 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <2F937EBE-C190-4C5F-B574-6AB137253DBD@frye.org.uk>

On 3 Aug 2014, at 09:47, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only.

We've had too many polls, really, so I'm not running yet another just now for one word different. And retrospectively changing the options people voted on isn't a great idea even if it's a small change.

I'll give the current poll until tomorrow, then post something about the results. Some more careful analysis of the votes may be needed to decide what people think about Option F.

MF


From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Tue Aug 12 20:39:49 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:39:49 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow Updates
Message-ID: <54362c3246john@jaharrison.me.uk>

Apologies to Change-Ringers list subscribers for cross posting the same
message.

For those wanting to ring at local towers as part of your trip to the
Roadshow, the list of open towers has now been published, see: 
http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/general/2289-rr2014-9.html

And for those coming by rail it also mentions the extra stops at the Race
Course's own station.

Anyone involved with a local ringing society might also be interested in
the offer of a stall where you can sell your surplus reports.

The stand will not be manned, but it will be in sight of the Reception
Desk. 
   
 The conditions are: 
   
 Societies are responsible for replenishing their stocks during the day.
 The sale price must be clearly displayed on a price tag which also
 includes the name of the Society. A receptacle for money must be
 provided and clearly marked with the name of the Society. Any
 promotional literature included must be put inside each report. 
   
 Neither the Central Council nor the Roadshow Team is responsible for any
 money or stock left at this stand. 
   
 This is a system that has worked well at Council Meetings for a number of
years, but this is an opportunity to reach a much larger audience. 
   
 If you intend to take advantage of this offer, please let  the organiser,
Jackie Roberts  know (e-mail at the bottom of the web page above.)

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk


From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Sat Aug 30 20:25:52 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:25:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow - almost here
Message-ID: <543f6ff73cjohn@jaharrison.me.uk>

[Apologies to any C_R subscribers for cross posting.]

Lots of publicity in the Ringing World this week - hardly surprising with a
week to go.  

Lots of things happening and lots of things to do and see.

Most importantly for those (like most of us?) who put things off till the
last minute, the last day for buying tickets at the discount price is
tomorrow (31st).  After that it goes up to ?12, which is still good value
but there's more satisfaction in buying at the early bird price.

There are several new things this year, so worth looking at all the
information on http://ringingroadshow.co.uk quite apart from buying your
ticket. 

Subscribers to this list might be interested to know that the Methods
Committee is sharing the Public Relations Committee's stand, which is an
interesting combination.

Regards

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk


From mark at snowtiger.net  Fri Aug  1 15:42:29 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:42:29 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53DBA755.4050406@snowtiger.net>

Tim wrote,

> I'm therefore wondering if an improvement to Mark's suggestion would be to
> leave the Method Collections as a single level structure where all
> replications and rotations have equal status as methods, and then add a
> group identifier property that links methods that are replications or
> rotations of each other

No, I don't like this! It seems really useful for the method libraries 
to have a way of recording aliases, but, to address Chris Adams' very 
real concerns, there ought to be a "top level" which looks just like the 
method libraries do now.

After reflection, I think the canonical name of a method probably ought 
to be the one which is rung first to a peal, hence following the usual 
naming conventions. Existing "aliased" methods, such as Grandsire/New 
Grandsire, Original/Plain Hunt, Bastow/Cloister/St Helens all have 
reasonably obvious canonical names - that given in the current libraries.

Furthermore, I think the rules around describing what methods you have 
rung can be reasonably relaxed. If you ring a peal of New Grandsire, you 
could call it New Grandsire or Grandsire according to taste; that is, 
either the matching alias or the canonical name are fine. Of course, if 
you rang both Grandsire and New Grandsire in the same peal (spliced 
"restarts") then both names should be used. Perhaps it would not be 
acceptable (too confusing) to use an existing known alias for some other 
method, or at least another alias of the same method.

Finally, I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection. This 
particular proposal does not introduce any new method classifications or 
change anything about the current Decisions, except to allow method 
aliases to be recorded in the libraries. Surely it is a good thing if we 
can finally recognise names as popular and long-lived as Plain Hunt and 
Cloisters, which cannot currently be found in the libraries?

And of course there is a future benefit, in that it allows us to deal 
nicely with methods with divisible leads, in the proposed new world order.

MBD



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Fri Aug  1 17:38:30 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:38:30 +0100
Subject: [r-t]  Survey #2b: Lead divisibility.
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEep-As_s6WQKB8mN5f4oN6=raTJFKDfHguaVausefmYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D25509.5000201@snowtiger.net>
	<CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F72F9B8-DF60-4B52-98A2-0AE81C6155E9@frye.org.uk>


On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> MDB
>> How about it? Is it too late to add an Option F, Tim?
> 
> Not too late.  I suggest we scrap the current poll and launch a new one
> that includes Option F when MF is back online.

Sorry, got busy and distracted this week, but here's the altered survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SL735FJ

From the 16 votes cast in the first survey, option A seemed a clear favourite, with option C (giving the methods committee some discretion over the "approved" version) being particularly unpopular.

MF



From basilpotts at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 00:33:08 2014
From: basilpotts at gmail.com (basilpotts at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [r-t] T ested
Message-ID: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=" >click here to display email</a>

From harmans at bigpond.com  Sun Aug  3 00:56:25 2014
From: harmans at bigpond.com (Graham Harman)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:56:25 +1000
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>

Hi Basil,
I can't open the notification.
Annette.

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] T ested

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold
still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a
href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=
&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=
" >click here to display email</a>
_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net




From camp at bellringers.org  Sun Aug  3 07:08:06 2014
From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:08:06 +0100
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
	<000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <1448577362.20140803070806@bellringers.org>

At 00:56 on 03 August 2014, Graham Harman wrote:

> Hi Basil,
> I can't open the notification.
> Annette.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory
> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: [r-t] T ested

Basil's email address has obviously been hijacked.  I expect he knows, 
but I have notified him, as a similar message has appeared on 
ringing-chat,  It would be most unwise to click on any link.

John Camp




From robin at robinw.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 08:35:52 2014
From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 08:35:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
Message-ID: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>

Hi All,

MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"

There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's 
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A 
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a 
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty 
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as 
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules' 
method. (It probably is, anyway)

As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage 
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman. 
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this, 
'New Stedman' even?

We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world, 
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are 
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only 
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and 
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years, 
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes, 
I've published a quarter using this name.

In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name 
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the 
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even 
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority 
bother listening to them?

Best wishes
Robin






From mark at snowtiger.net  Sun Aug  3 09:47:00 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:47:00 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>

Robin writes,

> There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's
> Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A
> 'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a
> three-lead triple hunting course.

This isn't anything to do with my "Option F" is it? Option F concerns 
lead divisibility and rotations of methods only.

> As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage
> this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman.
> This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this,
> 'New Stedman' even?

This is a good point, though. It seems to me that it would be an 
excellent thing to recognise "old" aliases, such as Plain Hunt/Original 
and Bastow/Cloister, and that in some cases we have discussed (Magenta, 
Morning Star) the use of aliases would neatly solve the lead 
divisibility problem, too. However, do we really want people giving new 
names to rotations of existing methods willy-nilly?

I think this might well be a major problem, since (a) rotations of 
Stedman, and snap starts in Surprise, are frequently rung, and (b) 
ringers really like giving new names to methods. So we'd almost 
certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman, as well as 
innumerable new Surprise Major names. This, as you point out, is unhelpful.

So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of 
existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would 
like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only. This means that 
Original and Plain Hunt could both appear in the libraries, as well as 
any variants of Magenta or 6th's place Morning Star with the shorter 
lead length, but New Grandsire, Cloister and St Helens would not, nor 
would it be possible to name new rotations.

I think that's better. Ringing a variant of a method with a multiple or 
factor of the lead length is only likely to happen in the extreme cases 
we have discussed, where it actually makes sense to do so. I think?

MBD



From hcharles at grandsire.co.uk  Sun Aug  3 11:28:16 2014
From: hcharles at grandsire.co.uk (Hayden Charles)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:28:16 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>

Mark Davies wrote on 03/08/2014 09:47:
> So we'd almost certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman

It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really 
spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

HJC




From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 19:54:54 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:54:54 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
	<53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
Message-ID: <A17F4B11-63F2-4E2E-9F51-15D7C7C6CDD2@frye.org.uk>


On 3 Aug 2014, at 11:28, Hayden Charles <hcharles at grandsire.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

To be blunt, the mind-set that allows one to think "Oh, X is *really* Y" is the root of many of the problems.

Stedman is Stedman. Spliced Erin and Bastow is spliced Erin and Bastow. Those two descriptions may cover the same set of rows. Life goes on.

MF



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 20:00:51 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:00:51 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <2F937EBE-C190-4C5F-B574-6AB137253DBD@frye.org.uk>

On 3 Aug 2014, at 09:47, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only.

We've had too many polls, really, so I'm not running yet another just now for one word different. And retrospectively changing the options people voted on isn't a great idea even if it's a small change.

I'll give the current poll until tomorrow, then post something about the results. Some more careful analysis of the votes may be needed to decide what people think about Option F.

MF



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Tue Aug 12 20:39:49 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:39:49 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow Updates
Message-ID: <54362c3246john@jaharrison.me.uk>

Apologies to Change-Ringers list subscribers for cross posting the same
message.

For those wanting to ring at local towers as part of your trip to the
Roadshow, the list of open towers has now been published, see: 
http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/general/2289-rr2014-9.html

And for those coming by rail it also mentions the extra stops at the Race
Course's own station.

Anyone involved with a local ringing society might also be interested in
the offer of a stall where you can sell your surplus reports.

The stand will not be manned, but it will be in sight of the Reception
Desk. 
   
 The conditions are: 
   
 Societies are responsible for replenishing their stocks during the day.
 The sale price must be clearly displayed on a price tag which also
 includes the name of the Society. A receptacle for money must be
 provided and clearly marked with the name of the Society. Any
 promotional literature included must be put inside each report. 
   
 Neither the Central Council nor the Roadshow Team is responsible for any
 money or stock left at this stand. 
   
 This is a system that has worked well at Council Meetings for a number of
years, but this is an opportunity to reach a much larger audience. 
   
 If you intend to take advantage of this offer, please let  the organiser,
Jackie Roberts  know (e-mail at the bottom of the web page above.)

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Sat Aug 30 20:25:52 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:25:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow - almost here
Message-ID: <543f6ff73cjohn@jaharrison.me.uk>

[Apologies to any C_R subscribers for cross posting.]

Lots of publicity in the Ringing World this week - hardly surprising with a
week to go.  

Lots of things happening and lots of things to do and see.

Most importantly for those (like most of us?) who put things off till the
last minute, the last day for buying tickets at the discount price is
tomorrow (31st).  After that it goes up to ?12, which is still good value
but there's more satisfaction in buying at the early bird price.

There are several new things this year, so worth looking at all the
information on http://ringingroadshow.co.uk quite apart from buying your
ticket. 

Subscribers to this list might be interested to know that the Methods
Committee is sharing the Public Relations Committee's stand, which is an
interesting combination.

Regards

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk



From mark at snowtiger.net  Fri Aug  1 15:42:29 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:42:29 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53DBA755.4050406@snowtiger.net>

Tim wrote,

> I'm therefore wondering if an improvement to Mark's suggestion would be to
> leave the Method Collections as a single level structure where all
> replications and rotations have equal status as methods, and then add a
> group identifier property that links methods that are replications or
> rotations of each other

No, I don't like this! It seems really useful for the method libraries 
to have a way of recording aliases, but, to address Chris Adams' very 
real concerns, there ought to be a "top level" which looks just like the 
method libraries do now.

After reflection, I think the canonical name of a method probably ought 
to be the one which is rung first to a peal, hence following the usual 
naming conventions. Existing "aliased" methods, such as Grandsire/New 
Grandsire, Original/Plain Hunt, Bastow/Cloister/St Helens all have 
reasonably obvious canonical names - that given in the current libraries.

Furthermore, I think the rules around describing what methods you have 
rung can be reasonably relaxed. If you ring a peal of New Grandsire, you 
could call it New Grandsire or Grandsire according to taste; that is, 
either the matching alias or the canonical name are fine. Of course, if 
you rang both Grandsire and New Grandsire in the same peal (spliced 
"restarts") then both names should be used. Perhaps it would not be 
acceptable (too confusing) to use an existing known alias for some other 
method, or at least another alias of the same method.

Finally, I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection. This 
particular proposal does not introduce any new method classifications or 
change anything about the current Decisions, except to allow method 
aliases to be recorded in the libraries. Surely it is a good thing if we 
can finally recognise names as popular and long-lived as Plain Hunt and 
Cloisters, which cannot currently be found in the libraries?

And of course there is a future benefit, in that it allows us to deal 
nicely with methods with divisible leads, in the proposed new world order.

MBD



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Fri Aug  1 17:38:30 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:38:30 +0100
Subject: [r-t]  Survey #2b: Lead divisibility.
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEep-As_s6WQKB8mN5f4oN6=raTJFKDfHguaVausefmYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D25509.5000201@snowtiger.net>
	<CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F72F9B8-DF60-4B52-98A2-0AE81C6155E9@frye.org.uk>


On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> MDB
>> How about it? Is it too late to add an Option F, Tim?
> 
> Not too late.  I suggest we scrap the current poll and launch a new one
> that includes Option F when MF is back online.

Sorry, got busy and distracted this week, but here's the altered survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SL735FJ

From the 16 votes cast in the first survey, option A seemed a clear favourite, with option C (giving the methods committee some discretion over the "approved" version) being particularly unpopular.

MF



From basilpotts at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 00:33:08 2014
From: basilpotts at gmail.com (basilpotts at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [r-t] T ested
Message-ID: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=" >click here to display email</a>

From harmans at bigpond.com  Sun Aug  3 00:56:25 2014
From: harmans at bigpond.com (Graham Harman)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:56:25 +1000
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>

Hi Basil,
I can't open the notification.
Annette.

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] T ested

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold
still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a
href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=
&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=
" >click here to display email</a>
_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net




From camp at bellringers.org  Sun Aug  3 07:08:06 2014
From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:08:06 +0100
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
	<000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <1448577362.20140803070806@bellringers.org>

At 00:56 on 03 August 2014, Graham Harman wrote:

> Hi Basil,
> I can't open the notification.
> Annette.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory
> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: [r-t] T ested

Basil's email address has obviously been hijacked.  I expect he knows, 
but I have notified him, as a similar message has appeared on 
ringing-chat,  It would be most unwise to click on any link.

John Camp




From robin at robinw.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 08:35:52 2014
From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 08:35:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
Message-ID: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>

Hi All,

MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"

There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's 
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A 
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a 
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty 
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as 
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules' 
method. (It probably is, anyway)

As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage 
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman. 
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this, 
'New Stedman' even?

We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world, 
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are 
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only 
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and 
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years, 
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes, 
I've published a quarter using this name.

In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name 
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the 
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even 
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority 
bother listening to them?

Best wishes
Robin






From mark at snowtiger.net  Sun Aug  3 09:47:00 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:47:00 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>

Robin writes,

> There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's
> Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A
> 'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a
> three-lead triple hunting course.

This isn't anything to do with my "Option F" is it? Option F concerns 
lead divisibility and rotations of methods only.

> As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage
> this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman.
> This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this,
> 'New Stedman' even?

This is a good point, though. It seems to me that it would be an 
excellent thing to recognise "old" aliases, such as Plain Hunt/Original 
and Bastow/Cloister, and that in some cases we have discussed (Magenta, 
Morning Star) the use of aliases would neatly solve the lead 
divisibility problem, too. However, do we really want people giving new 
names to rotations of existing methods willy-nilly?

I think this might well be a major problem, since (a) rotations of 
Stedman, and snap starts in Surprise, are frequently rung, and (b) 
ringers really like giving new names to methods. So we'd almost 
certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman, as well as 
innumerable new Surprise Major names. This, as you point out, is unhelpful.

So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of 
existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would 
like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only. This means that 
Original and Plain Hunt could both appear in the libraries, as well as 
any variants of Magenta or 6th's place Morning Star with the shorter 
lead length, but New Grandsire, Cloister and St Helens would not, nor 
would it be possible to name new rotations.

I think that's better. Ringing a variant of a method with a multiple or 
factor of the lead length is only likely to happen in the extreme cases 
we have discussed, where it actually makes sense to do so. I think?

MBD



From hcharles at grandsire.co.uk  Sun Aug  3 11:28:16 2014
From: hcharles at grandsire.co.uk (Hayden Charles)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:28:16 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>

Mark Davies wrote on 03/08/2014 09:47:
> So we'd almost certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman

It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really 
spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

HJC




From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 19:54:54 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:54:54 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
	<53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
Message-ID: <A17F4B11-63F2-4E2E-9F51-15D7C7C6CDD2@frye.org.uk>


On 3 Aug 2014, at 11:28, Hayden Charles <hcharles at grandsire.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

To be blunt, the mind-set that allows one to think "Oh, X is *really* Y" is the root of many of the problems.

Stedman is Stedman. Spliced Erin and Bastow is spliced Erin and Bastow. Those two descriptions may cover the same set of rows. Life goes on.

MF



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 20:00:51 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:00:51 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <2F937EBE-C190-4C5F-B574-6AB137253DBD@frye.org.uk>

On 3 Aug 2014, at 09:47, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only.

We've had too many polls, really, so I'm not running yet another just now for one word different. And retrospectively changing the options people voted on isn't a great idea even if it's a small change.

I'll give the current poll until tomorrow, then post something about the results. Some more careful analysis of the votes may be needed to decide what people think about Option F.

MF



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Tue Aug 12 20:39:49 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:39:49 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow Updates
Message-ID: <54362c3246john@jaharrison.me.uk>

Apologies to Change-Ringers list subscribers for cross posting the same
message.

For those wanting to ring at local towers as part of your trip to the
Roadshow, the list of open towers has now been published, see: 
http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/general/2289-rr2014-9.html

And for those coming by rail it also mentions the extra stops at the Race
Course's own station.

Anyone involved with a local ringing society might also be interested in
the offer of a stall where you can sell your surplus reports.

The stand will not be manned, but it will be in sight of the Reception
Desk. 
   
 The conditions are: 
   
 Societies are responsible for replenishing their stocks during the day.
 The sale price must be clearly displayed on a price tag which also
 includes the name of the Society. A receptacle for money must be
 provided and clearly marked with the name of the Society. Any
 promotional literature included must be put inside each report. 
   
 Neither the Central Council nor the Roadshow Team is responsible for any
 money or stock left at this stand. 
   
 This is a system that has worked well at Council Meetings for a number of
years, but this is an opportunity to reach a much larger audience. 
   
 If you intend to take advantage of this offer, please let  the organiser,
Jackie Roberts  know (e-mail at the bottom of the web page above.)

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Sat Aug 30 20:25:52 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:25:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow - almost here
Message-ID: <543f6ff73cjohn@jaharrison.me.uk>

[Apologies to any C_R subscribers for cross posting.]

Lots of publicity in the Ringing World this week - hardly surprising with a
week to go.  

Lots of things happening and lots of things to do and see.

Most importantly for those (like most of us?) who put things off till the
last minute, the last day for buying tickets at the discount price is
tomorrow (31st).  After that it goes up to ?12, which is still good value
but there's more satisfaction in buying at the early bird price.

There are several new things this year, so worth looking at all the
information on http://ringingroadshow.co.uk quite apart from buying your
ticket. 

Subscribers to this list might be interested to know that the Methods
Committee is sharing the Public Relations Committee's stand, which is an
interesting combination.

Regards

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk



From mark at snowtiger.net  Fri Aug  1 14:42:29 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:42:29 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEdR0RuHupskBf10aqBJbfZBrurN_Vyo=mX6-oRfS=SdJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53DBA755.4050406@snowtiger.net>

Tim wrote,

> I'm therefore wondering if an improvement to Mark's suggestion would be to
> leave the Method Collections as a single level structure where all
> replications and rotations have equal status as methods, and then add a
> group identifier property that links methods that are replications or
> rotations of each other

No, I don't like this! It seems really useful for the method libraries 
to have a way of recording aliases, but, to address Chris Adams' very 
real concerns, there ought to be a "top level" which looks just like the 
method libraries do now.

After reflection, I think the canonical name of a method probably ought 
to be the one which is rung first to a peal, hence following the usual 
naming conventions. Existing "aliased" methods, such as Grandsire/New 
Grandsire, Original/Plain Hunt, Bastow/Cloister/St Helens all have 
reasonably obvious canonical names - that given in the current libraries.

Furthermore, I think the rules around describing what methods you have 
rung can be reasonably relaxed. If you ring a peal of New Grandsire, you 
could call it New Grandsire or Grandsire according to taste; that is, 
either the matching alias or the canonical name are fine. Of course, if 
you rang both Grandsire and New Grandsire in the same peal (spliced 
"restarts") then both names should be used. Perhaps it would not be 
acceptable (too confusing) to use an existing known alias for some other 
method, or at least another alias of the same method.

Finally, I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection. This 
particular proposal does not introduce any new method classifications or 
change anything about the current Decisions, except to allow method 
aliases to be recorded in the libraries. Surely it is a good thing if we 
can finally recognise names as popular and long-lived as Plain Hunt and 
Cloisters, which cannot currently be found in the libraries?

And of course there is a future benefit, in that it allows us to deal 
nicely with methods with divisible leads, in the proposed new world order.

MBD



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Fri Aug  1 16:38:30 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:38:30 +0100
Subject: [r-t]  Survey #2b: Lead divisibility.
In-Reply-To: <CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+16xEep-As_s6WQKB8mN5f4oN6=raTJFKDfHguaVausefmYTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D25509.5000201@snowtiger.net>
	<CA+16xEfaC6_zkuen3evybcV2r5Hvwa10iRgQ6fHDkNtQmLYr_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2F72F9B8-DF60-4B52-98A2-0AE81C6155E9@frye.org.uk>


On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> MDB
>> How about it? Is it too late to add an Option F, Tim?
> 
> Not too late.  I suggest we scrap the current poll and launch a new one
> that includes Option F when MF is back online.

Sorry, got busy and distracted this week, but here's the altered survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SL735FJ

From the 16 votes cast in the first survey, option A seemed a clear favourite, with option C (giving the methods committee some discretion over the "approved" version) being particularly unpopular.

MF



From basilpotts at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 23:33:08 2014
From: basilpotts at gmail.com (basilpotts at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [r-t] T ested
Message-ID: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=" >click here to display email</a>

From harmans at bigpond.com  Sat Aug  2 23:56:25 2014
From: harmans at bigpond.com (Graham Harman)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:56:25 +1000
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>

Hi Basil,
I can't open the notification.
Annette.

-----Original Message-----
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: [r-t] T ested

<style>Hermiones spell had done the trick Harry was still numb with cold
still wetter than hed ever 
</style><p></p><var>i've sent you a tagged message</var><p></p><a
href="http://104.151.219.87/?vimahe=mexuwu&fego=YmFzaWxwb3R0c0BnbWFpbC5jb20=
&id=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnlAYmVsbHJpbmdlcnMubmV0&hadijabula=cmluZ2luZy10aGVvcnk=
" >click here to display email</a>
_______________________________________________
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net




From camp at bellringers.org  Sun Aug  3 06:08:06 2014
From: camp at bellringers.org (John Camp)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 07:08:06 +0100
Subject: [r-t] T ested
In-Reply-To: <000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
References: <53dd7534.235e3a0a.66be.09ff@mx.google.com>
	<000001cfaead$5e8edd30$1bac9790$@bigpond.com>
Message-ID: <1448577362.20140803070806@bellringers.org>

At 00:56 on 03 August 2014, Graham Harman wrote:

> Hi Basil,
> I can't open the notification.
> Annette.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ringing-theory
> [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On
> Behalf Of basilpotts at gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:33 AM
> To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> Subject: [r-t] T ested

Basil's email address has obviously been hijacked.  I expect he knows, 
but I have notified him, as a similar message has appeared on 
ringing-chat,  It would be most unwise to click on any link.

John Camp




From robin at robinw.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 07:35:52 2014
From: robin at robinw.org.uk (Robin Woolley)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 08:35:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
Message-ID: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>

Hi All,

MBD said "I am not sure I completely understand Robin's objection"

There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's 
Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A 
'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a 
three-lead triple hunting course. Ringing either to a 720 looks pretty 
much the same to me and, as I mentioned before, it can easily be rung as 
Plain and 'fixed' afterwards. It has, if you like, become a 'rules' 
method. (It probably is, anyway)

As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage 
this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman. 
This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this, 
'New Stedman' even?

We have had the situation where if you go into any tower in the world, 
and you are asked to grab hold for Cambridge, you *know* what you are 
going to ring. (It's Surprise, not Delight, for example). The only 
problem is, as happened to one member of our tower, it was on eight and 
she only rings it on six. Multiple naming harks back hundreds of years, 
to the time when Single Court was called Nottingham Single - and yes, 
I've published a quarter using this name.

In conclusion, we know that Grandsire Doubles was originally the name 
for a specific 120 - most likely PBPBPS x 2. Do we really want the 
situation where Gransdire called PSBS x 3 has a different name? Or even 
for BPBPSP x 2? A small minority will anyway, but should the majority 
bother listening to them?

Best wishes
Robin






From mark at snowtiger.net  Sun Aug  3 08:47:00 2014
From: mark at snowtiger.net (Mark Davies)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:47:00 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>

Robin writes,

> There are several, but here's one. Consider Single/Double St. Hilda's
> Bob. This is simply Plain/Double Bob with the lead-ends re-labelled. A
> 'plain' is re-labelled a 'bob', and vice versa to give, nominally, a
> three-lead triple hunting course.

This isn't anything to do with my "Option F" is it? Option F concerns 
lead divisibility and rotations of methods only.

> As reagards aliases, this is all very well but do we want to encourage
> this in the future? As an example, my lad noticed a 1319 of Stedman.
> This needs an 'odd' start. Do we want to encourage a new name for this,
> 'New Stedman' even?

This is a good point, though. It seems to me that it would be an 
excellent thing to recognise "old" aliases, such as Plain Hunt/Original 
and Bastow/Cloister, and that in some cases we have discussed (Magenta, 
Morning Star) the use of aliases would neatly solve the lead 
divisibility problem, too. However, do we really want people giving new 
names to rotations of existing methods willy-nilly?

I think this might well be a major problem, since (a) rotations of 
Stedman, and snap starts in Surprise, are frequently rung, and (b) 
ringers really like giving new names to methods. So we'd almost 
certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman, as well as 
innumerable new Surprise Major names. This, as you point out, is unhelpful.

So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of 
existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would 
like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only. This means that 
Original and Plain Hunt could both appear in the libraries, as well as 
any variants of Magenta or 6th's place Morning Star with the shorter 
lead length, but New Grandsire, Cloister and St Helens would not, nor 
would it be possible to name new rotations.

I think that's better. Ringing a variant of a method with a multiple or 
factor of the lead length is only likely to happen in the extreme cases 
we have discussed, where it actually makes sense to do so. I think?

MBD



From hcharles at grandsire.co.uk  Sun Aug  3 10:28:16 2014
From: hcharles at grandsire.co.uk (Hayden Charles)
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:28:16 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>

Mark Davies wrote on 03/08/2014 09:47:
> So we'd almost certainly end up with eleven new aliases for Stedman

It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really 
spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

HJC




From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 18:54:54 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:54:54 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
	<53DE0EC0.9060805@grandsire.co.uk>
Message-ID: <A17F4B11-63F2-4E2E-9F51-15D7C7C6CDD2@frye.org.uk>


On 3 Aug 2014, at 11:28, Hayden Charles <hcharles at grandsire.co.uk> wrote:
> It has been pointed out before on this list that Stedman is really spliced. (Erin/Bastow)

To be blunt, the mind-set that allows one to think "Oh, X is *really* Y" is the root of many of the problems.

Stedman is Stedman. Spliced Erin and Bastow is spliced Erin and Bastow. Those two descriptions may cover the same set of rows. Life goes on.

MF



From matthew at frye.org.uk  Sun Aug  3 19:00:51 2014
From: matthew at frye.org.uk (Matthew Frye)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:00:51 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Minor Blocks
In-Reply-To: <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
References: <53DDE658.4020902@robinw.org.uk> <53DDF704.9030404@snowtiger.net>
Message-ID: <2F937EBE-C190-4C5F-B574-6AB137253DBD@frye.org.uk>

On 3 Aug 2014, at 09:47, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> So yes, I think you are right. The use of aliases for new rotations of existing methods seems problematic, so (please Tim, Matthew!) I would like to change Option F to cover lead divisibility only.

We've had too many polls, really, so I'm not running yet another just now for one word different. And retrospectively changing the options people voted on isn't a great idea even if it's a small change.

I'll give the current poll until tomorrow, then post something about the results. Some more careful analysis of the votes may be needed to decide what people think about Option F.

MF



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Tue Aug 12 19:39:49 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:39:49 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow Updates
Message-ID: <54362c3246john@jaharrison.me.uk>

Apologies to Change-Ringers list subscribers for cross posting the same
message.

For those wanting to ring at local towers as part of your trip to the
Roadshow, the list of open towers has now been published, see: 
http://www.ringingworld.co.uk/news-articles/general/2289-rr2014-9.html

And for those coming by rail it also mentions the extra stops at the Race
Course's own station.

Anyone involved with a local ringing society might also be interested in
the offer of a stall where you can sell your surplus reports.

The stand will not be manned, but it will be in sight of the Reception
Desk. 
   
 The conditions are: 
   
 Societies are responsible for replenishing their stocks during the day.
 The sale price must be clearly displayed on a price tag which also
 includes the name of the Society. A receptacle for money must be
 provided and clearly marked with the name of the Society. Any
 promotional literature included must be put inside each report. 
   
 Neither the Central Council nor the Roadshow Team is responsible for any
 money or stock left at this stand. 
   
 This is a system that has worked well at Council Meetings for a number of
years, but this is an opportunity to reach a much larger audience. 
   
 If you intend to take advantage of this offer, please let  the organiser,
Jackie Roberts  know (e-mail at the bottom of the web page above.)

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk



From john at jaharrison.me.uk  Sat Aug 30 19:25:52 2014
From: john at jaharrison.me.uk (John Harrison)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:25:52 +0100
Subject: [r-t] Roadshow - almost here
Message-ID: <543f6ff73cjohn@jaharrison.me.uk>

[Apologies to any C_R subscribers for cross posting.]

Lots of publicity in the Ringing World this week - hardly surprising with a
week to go.  

Lots of things happening and lots of things to do and see.

Most importantly for those (like most of us?) who put things off till the
last minute, the last day for buying tickets at the discount price is
tomorrow (31st).  After that it goes up to £12, which is still good value
but there's more satisfaction in buying at the early bird price.

There are several new things this year, so worth looking at all the
information on http://ringingroadshow.co.uk quite apart from buying your
ticket. 

Subscribers to this list might be interested to know that the Methods
Committee is sharing the Public Relations Committee's stand, which is an
interesting combination.

Regards

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk