<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with much of Richard Smith's long
message, which I think is very sensible.. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The current CC decisions are based on a number of
underlying assumptions, many of which I would disagree with, and it is these
assumptions which dictate the way the decisions are formulated. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There seems to be general agreement on this list
that there needs to be a clear distinction between what constitutes a `peal' and
how the changes in that peal are classified. Classification is important as it
provides a way of telling what has been rung before and gives a common
understanding of what was actually rung, however it is pretty arbitrary and
could be done in a number of equally valid ways. The problems of classification
should not stop the acceptance of a peal if it meets the basic criteria. It
should be noted that at present (D)A defines `Conditions required for all peals'
and D(A)11 insists that "The methods and calls used in all peals shall conform
to the Definitions and Requirements given in Part A of the Decisions on Methods
and Calls". If they don't then what you have rung does not conform so isn't a
peal (at least in the CC's view). The analysis purely tells us which `peals'
published in the RW didn't conform so aren't considered as peals.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The first assumption in the decisions is that
methods can be treated as isolated individual objects separated from the real
practical aspects of ringing. This is typified by the statement that calls are
not part of a method. As Richard says calls are clearly necessary to do anything
other than ring plain courses. Methods do have standard calls and
they are the meta-data that provides the information necessary for real
ringing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Another assumption is that the basic building block
of ringing is `the method'. I think this is also wrong; once we get past a
single change then what we ring are `round blocks' which are usually composed of
individual `blocks', smaller round blocks and calls. A method is one
particular type of round block but there are others, touches, dixonoids,
spliced, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At present the word `method' is used in both a
colloquial and a technical way. The definition of a method as I understand it is
a round block of changes divisible into a number of equal parts (called leads)
and not containing any calls, either explicitly or implicity. Thus the technical
definition of a method clearly defines a whole course (a round block), however
colloquially we use the term `method' for both shorter and longer versions. A
`lead of a method' (a block), isn't the method itself, it is just a part of it,
and a `half-lead' isn't even sufficient to define the method unambiguously
without making assumptions. Until we have a clear separation of technical and
colloquial terminology we will continue to struggle to define what we
ring.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tony Cox<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>