"I repeat for Michael's deaf eyes. In 1954 most folk had yet to be written. Contemporary folk was a phenomenon still to be realised."
.,,.,.
There you see the dishonest debater at work in all his glory!

You are most grossly & grotesquely begging the question, Ian -- ie committing the rhetorical enormity of [Wikipedia] 'petitio principii - "assuming the initial point".' What we are discussing is whether the product of this phenomenon you rubricate were "folk" at all. In affecting to assume that they were, so that you may assert that I have 'deaf eyes' in not recognising the fact, can you really not appreciate that you are putting a very silly little cart before a socking-great horse.

Whom do you imagine you will take in by such transparently dishonest and evasive manoeuvrings, you foolish fellow?

≈M≈