[r-t] All the work minor
mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Dec 2 08:48:07 GMT 2004
> I don't see what Mark's on about here either.
Oh dear, I wasn't expecting people to read all the way through to the end.
> For what it's worth I think "more working bells than hunt bells" ought
> to be dropped. Why for instance is lh 214365 (cross differential)
> more worthy than 123564 (great grandsire)?
Exactly. But, if you did that, would you want to include an explicit dictum
to exclude one-lead methods?
> Note, too, that it would probably be rare to ring a plain lead of
> any method with a one lead course. The only way you could, I think,
> would be to include it in a multi-extent block.
Might make a good service touch Don...
But yes, the multi-extent block is the natural home of the one-lead method,
and this is the context the subject was raised in. In a peal of spliced
Minor, why can't we ring the 6th's place version of an a-group method? Is
there really a solid fundamental reason why this is absolutely not on?
> Having one lead methods seems "more different" to me than in
> some cases not being able to have two different kinds of lead end
What exactly is the difference that makes them "more different" Don? Is it
just the truth implications of ringing a plain lead? Bearing in mind the
lead is the course, this seems identical to a normal method - you can't ring
a plain course of a method without returning to your starting point. Is
there anything else?
More information about the ringing-theory