Yes. It's what some people call "the folk process". I think you've just demonstrated that this argument was pointless from the word go.

NO. As long as people think the folk process and the 1954 Definition is something that makes Folk somehow different from other musics then this thread will have a point. Trouble is, people only know Traditional English Folk Song as a dead music - something which Howard sums up quite nicely below there: That seems to be how traditional singers treated songs, with both tune and words likely to vary from one repetition to the next. It's something which revival singers mostly appear to have lost. Amen to that!

Is that really just a folk process? Or is it how all living traditional musics operate - be it classical, drum and bass, popular, hip-hop, or whatever? I say again: all music is determined by the folk process; just all music is covered by the 1954 Definition, bar in the minds of an entrenched orthodoxy of fundamentalists for whom it simply has to be different in terms other than stylistic diversity.

No. "No personal attacks" is the rule, and (being a rule) it applies to everyone. Nothing personal(!) against glueman.

So Jim Carroll gets away with it whilst Glueman must be censored? That's not a rule, Pip - it's inhumane discrimination, which is very personal against Glueman.

Gentlemen, we have a sneak in our midst; a snide, a snake in the grass, a tittle-tattle tell-tale. I suggest they owns up so might de-bag the blighter whereupon we might proceed with our merry row as befits the civilised chaps we most surely are!