"Nobody's telling you anything,"
"ps please don't let us get into a definitions swamp!"
Doesn't sound like that to me Jim
In fairness, you are not the first, 'definitions' and MacColl have long been no-go areas, thanks to people who don't wish to discuss these topics intelligently
I don't "enjoy" any sort of morass - I respect folk song enough to believe that its needs to be discussed fully without people creating walls around aspects they don't approve of or don't wish to think about
If you believe expressing controversial views is "turning a polite discussion into an argument" then we live in different worlds - debating serious subjects should never be carried out by 'nodding dogs'
It has become a recurring habit on this forum to debate something until you find yourself at a loss then cry "thread drift" or "irrelevant to the subject"
I have put a fair amount of information up about this subject already - it wasn't me who put up claims of "probabilities" - I responded to it.
What makes Steve's claim any less controversial than mine?
My objection was 100% on topic when I challenged his view about this song probably originating from the Pleasure Gardens - where is the thread drift in that?
" I react to a song on an emotional level"
And others choose more, which includes provenance
Do you object to those who wish to bringing in their point of view because it doesn't coincide with yours?
Jim Carroll