Ah, but the art of trying to entertain is to play to the crowd. So the accusation that I may do what I like and if you don't like it stuff you, is not a description I would be comfortable with.

As you ask, respecting others' views is part of the tapestry so a club that is known for liking traditional rather than "contemporary" isn't going to get somebody like me singing a song I wrote last week just to wind them up. Or I take it you feel I might? That's what I mean by you looking for monsters under the bed.

Consistency and logic are difficult to articulate when the issue is how they are perceived.

Mind you, you are right to question one thing, even if you are questioning your perception rather than something I or others wrote. I am not pissed off at purists, I am pissed off at hearing purism as a putdown to people who don't exhibit their view of what "folk" is. Even somebody with your rudimentary grasp (as you portray it, I'm not insulting for the sake of it) should be able to spot the difference. The problem here is that if you care about an aspect of what we call folk, you feel others are calling you purist as an insult. Methinks we are talking two different uses of the word purist here. But we know that, some people, me included, just like to argue the toss.

I still say folk cannot be defined because any definition I have ever looked at doesn't include an aspect that is covered by another definition. I stand my my point.