"- like most/all, Ruth, I do put some limits on the amount of "academic rigour"

WAV, you're not demonstrating ANY. You're taking the word of someone whose work you don't know, whose sources you don't know, that this is the "English version" of a song. If all of this stuff is so important to you, surely you care about whether what you're singing really IS an English song or not? Otherwise, your whole thesis is more of a nonsense than ever.

Most of the people with whom you've had discussions about your singuular outlook here on Mudcat would consider the sort of research I've suggested a pretty minimal level of "academic rigour", particularly if you're going to start making sweeping claims about your philosophy and your approach. Surely you, in wanting to get to know your "good English culture", care about what versions of songs you're learning and where they've come from, and not simply learn whatever dross is culled from the first source on your Google search. Otherwise, your whole repertoire risks being a load of faked-up nonsense.

"the efforts, as a repat., I've made to practise my own English culture are not a bad thing. "

Well, judging from what i've seen today, they're really not all that impressive. It certainly puts a lot of your woeful ignorance about folk music into perspective, but it's still staggering to think of you making pronouncements about music, based on these hollow and flimsy sources, to people who have spent lifetimes on legitimate research into this music and culture.

*wanders away, shaking head in disbelief*