Is it worth the effort? probably not.

Jim Carroll
"More misrepresentation."
More aggression
I may have mistaken your point, I have not misrepresented it - if I have, I apologise.
You had my text in front of you. You did a cut and paste job to change the meaning of what I said.

The term did not have a broader meaning
What I said was "Unfortunately (and for perfectly valid reasons), they chose a term for it which was already in use with a much broader meaning." This is true. I have produced evidence to back this up. If you want to contest the evidence, feel free to do so but simply denying it won't do.

The conference was made up of different national groups; from what I can gather, and difficulties in reaching a consensus arose from the fact that some aspects applied differently from nation to nation.
That's gobsmacking. All I can really say is, well done, you've just blown the 1954 definition out of the water.

All of this is a far cry from the 'anything goes' argument that is being applied to the term here - I may have missed it, but I don't recall your having stating your own opinion on that one.
I have stated quite clearly that I have a simple solution to clubs that put on music that doesn't suit my tastes. I don't go to them. That is all it is in my power to do.

"If you came to our club and started to jump up and down and demand your money back every time somebody sang a song that you felt didn't fit the 1954 definition then, yes, you would be asked to leave."
The subject of needing a definition would not com up unless you raised it. You would not be asked to leave unless you were causing a disturbance. That attitude is clearly reflected in your behavior on this thread and many others.

"The trouble is, you are very selective in your reading. You seize on every crumb, no matter how obscure or dubious, if it supports your case while brushing aside anything that doesn't fit your prejudices."
You demonstrate this on a regular basis.

"If you disagree with what I have to say, have the decency and honesty to to address what I have to say and not make things up" - was a direct response to your having written "Jim would have us believe, there are no other traditional clubs in the country" - which is simply untrue - I have never made such a statement, nor do I believe it - you made it up.
You've come pretty damn close to it. I borrowed that sentence from you when, despite having what I actually said in front of you, you totally misrepresented my meaning. Seems that when you used it, it was fully justified; when I used it was "******* aggressive".

The tenor of your responses to my postings ranges from patronising "I'' probably regret asking this..." to one of open aggression.
I hate to tell you this, Jim, but you can come over as a tad patronising and aggressive yourself. I don't think anyone who can come up with such a beautifully crafted piece of nastiness as "your "ding' ding - Lewes is on the bus" attitude" is in any position to claim the moral high ground.

I realise I should learnt to tolerate people like you
I can't tell you how much that means to me.

(you're not the only one who can be patronising)
So true.

but there really is no need for your constant open animosity
You seem to bring it out in me.

we are supposed do want the same thing out of the music.
Indeed we are. Why don't you join me in trying to promote traditional music in English folk clubs instead of doing everything you can to undermine it?