Jim that's exactly what I'm doing. Trying to find out. But in a non-confrontational way, so that people will feel able to voice opinions even when they disagree with me. So that we might all slowly grope towards some mutual understanding, assuming we're willing to listen and learn. I respect your pedigree, I admire your forthrightness and can see much merit in your argument. But I also respect those who feel that folk music is all about participation, that repertoire is not the chief criterion, and/or believe that no-one should be denied the joy of making music - even if they're not very good at it. And I also respect the Z axis too - those who are passionate about new musical directions and new ideas flowering from old roots. I won't ask you to change your beliefs, but might I cordially request that you express them without recourse to insult? We really do have a job to do here, and a lot of people are taking this very difficult challenge seriously. I'm not going to restart our very interesting former debate about larders and tins and grills and jazz and all of that. But you must understand that words always and only mean what people choose them to mean, not what academics define (that follows common usage, it does not drive it), and we have to start from where we are at the end of 2008, not where we were in 1956. John Denver is understood as folk music by millions of people, and they have every right to that understanding. If we want to make progress we have to start with an acceptance of that status quo, not rail against the moon and frighten the horses. I do hope you can take that on board and maybe come up with some practical ideas on how to work through this problem. Thanks

Tom