Don;
"You see, the majority of the most ardent supporters of the 1954 definition seem to be saying that the music of those more recent singers whom they admire is acceptable as folk, while that of people for whom they have no liking or respect is not."
They are saying nothing of the kind. I happen to have liked and admired MacColl and I find the 1954 definition useful (not an ardent supporter - I have said often enough it needs updating) - I don't accept MacColl as folk - would you like to point out where I have?.
Can you give us one other 'ardent supporter of '54' who has said MacColl is 'acceptible as folk, or even that they liked his singing'?
"The word means whatever I want it to mean" - who has claimed that here apart from those who run 'anything goes clubs' and call them folk.
The word has documented definitions - tell us which one you 'are an ardent supporter of', (or do you have another one that isn't documented)? If you are unable to provide one it is you who are guilty of "the word means whatever I want it to mean".
Nobody has ever questioned your right to sing whatever you choose - if they have, tell us where they have? I have no idea what you sing or listen to just have you have no idea of my tastes.
I have no argument with any of your four points above - we are in complete agreement.
I could just do without the hostility and the unsubstantiated assumptions - that's all.
Jim Carroll