"Why do all the 1954 types throw insults into their posts?"
Do they? Point out where that is the case - (when you get the time and the inclination).
On the other hand - why do the antis always approach it as it has been presented as a gospel writ in stone - it never has been in my experience.
The definition was a not-too-far-off-the-mark attempt by people working in the field of folk song to make some sense of their findings. It worked for us, particularly with the Travellers, a non-literate community with , certainly up to the mid-seventies, a living, active tradition, still taking in and adapting songs and making new ones using the old forms.
As people have said, the definition is by no means perfect and is in need of a re-visit, but this needs to be carried out with far more care than the "out with the baby and bathwater" - or 'Somerset chainsaw massacre') approaches of the past.
Glueman wrote (before he took his vow of silence) "How reliable are the collectors and how scruplous their methods."
Perhaps he'd like to specify which collector and what particular reservations he has, then we might be able to help.
For me, the gravest charge that we can lay at the door of the early collectors is that they didn't get it completely right first time round, but given the time and circumstances, they will always have my admiration and gratitude.
It would be nice to get some reasonable alternatives to consider from Glueman, Sinister Supporter (can't get my tongue around his new persona just yet,) et all, but the latter dropped the ball in such a spectacular manner on the '1956 and all that' thread that it will be some time before I can take him seriously again.
Jim Carroll