"Actually, what I was looking for was what would you call it."
It really isn't my problem John - I would neither attend or orga nise an event such as you describe - it would make calling it 'folk' meaningless for me.
This is the problem for me in all these arguments, people flounder around claiming what they do is fork because they have no other title for it - the term is a peg to hang a hat on.
I went to folk clubs and heard a mixture of old and new songs more or less giving the impression that they were related stylistically, whether they fitted into one description or not - it didn't matter.
I knew what type of song I was going to hear.
Bung a bunch of songs, some acoustically, some electronically, some narratively performed, some with loud, intrusive accompaniment - throw in some products of the pop industry for good measure and the whole thing defies cohesive description as far as I'm concerned.   
"So Jim, do you at least acknowledge that 'folk' is clearly what most of the population would call it?"
Most of the population wouldn't call it anything because they've never come into contact with it.
If you can't get agreement between those who are involved, how ca you possibly claim that "most of the population" agree on anything - you are doing it again - you are trying to get me to say that what you are doing is folk - it isn't.
I keep asking this question - many people here have expressed an indifference - in Muskett's case, an open contempt of folk muusic as it was give to us and the singers who gave it.
If you don't just want the term as a convenient hat-peg to hang your music on, why in god's name do you want your music identified with something that doesn't ring your bells.
You are not going to remove the existing definitions, you are not going to get all the collections and works of research labelled 'folk', locked out of sight - if following folk song is "living in the dim ad distant past" - don't taint your own music by using its identification tag - simple as that.
Jim Carroll