"so why was it that Walter never sang out? "
Walter was totally unaware of folk clubs; there was no singing in his area that he was aware of and hadn't been since he was a boy.

"Walter realised or was persuaded by Roger Dixon [ FROM THE UK FOLK REVIVAL]"
Wrong again, I'm afraid - Roger was not a part of the folk revival - still isn't as far as I'm aware. As I said - he was Peter Bellamy's tutor and was aware of Peter's interest in the old songs.

"none of this alters the fact that Walter sang the songs that his audience from the UK FOLK REVIVAL wanted to hear."
Nope again - he sang the songs he wanted the audience to hear that he had heard as a boy from his family; that is where his interest came from - certainly not from any revival.
He occasionally responded to requests, but he much preferred to come with a set list that he had worked on in advance – he thought the songs were worth it.
He had some of the longest songs I have heard from an English source singer, but in the 20 years we knew him I never remember him slipping up on the words in public (or anywhere else, for that matter) – not once.
Walter had a magnificent traditional repertoire; he sang them to himself at home long before he sang them in public - he sang them, memorised them, wrote them down.... in the 1940s because he liked them and thought them important - he didn't get an audience for them till the 1970s but he had known them all his life.
He wasn't a "performer" nor did he consider himself a singer - to him, the songs were worth saving so he saved them - he did that before he ever knew there was a folk scene and would have done if he had never found there was such thing as a folk club - pretty well the same as every traditional singer we've ever met - they all sang the songs irrespective of the outside world - it meant nothing to them as far as the songs went.

"ABOUT TIME YOU GAVE CREDIT TO THE UK folk revivalists WHO SAVED HIS SONGS."
What - are you mad?
He'd written them down in books and memorised the tunes long before the revival was a twinkle in anybody's eye - as did every other traditional singer.
The revival was a beneficiary of songs that had been kept alive by singers for centuries - if anybody can claim the credit for saving them; it's the Gavin Greigs, Cecil Sharps, Alan Lomaxes, the Tom Munnellys.... and all those who virtually saved them from dying off with the older generation of singers.
Some revival singers recognise the tremendous legacy they have been bequeathed, but quite often that gratitude is not accompanied by an understanding of the songs – as demonstrated by poor uninspired performances of them – and occasionally, a contempt is shown for both the songs and the singers – as on this thread.
The older singers owe us nothing, or nothing matching what we owe them – we owe them everything.
If anything, today's folk revival has done possibly irreparable damage to the future of our folk songs by having to ask stupid questions like "what is a folk song" at the same time as claiming to run "folk club", or mixing them with pop songs that have pleased listeners for a time then spat out like old chewing gum because they no longer please and have been replaced by the 'new – improved' model - breaching the trades description act or what?
Most of the singers who gave us our songs were past their prime technically, -some well past it, but they nearly all brought a depth of respect and understanding to them that is seldom reached by modern singers – a few, but not many: beautiful description of octogenarian, Phil Tanner's 'Banks of Sweet Primroses' sounding like "a young man going out first thing on a summer's morning looking for love".
Too many singers now "perform" their songs in order to "please" their audiences rather than allowing the songs to take over and dictate how they should be performed – that is not going to be helped by arguments that you only need to stand up and sing them – if they are going to work you need to feel them to, to get them to take you over.
Ewan and Peg once described Sam Larner singing a song he must have sung hundreds of times throughout his life as sounding as if he was discovering its beauty for the first time – I cannot remember a revival singer ever leaving me with that feeling.

"Mr Know Everything"
Once more – not in a thousand years.
What little I know I have learned from listening to others – in the last forty years, that has been the older generation of singers – they are the ones who held the key to these songs, and the somewhat distasteful contempt for them shown on this forum is not only ungracious, it's bloody stupid.
Those among us who think they know everything usually know nothing, and are very unlikely ever to ever to learn (too far up their own arses).
They are invariably the dullest and most unimaginative singers, no matter how technically proficient they are - the worst are usually the crowd-pleasers who try to be everything to everybody and end up pleasing none.   

"Would someone be willing to translate what he's going on about into three easy sentences, please?"
Take more than three sentences to do that I'm afraid, Modette.
I'm happy to talk to anybody, trolls and genuine enthusiasts alike, while I can talk about one of our best traditional singers (and happy to pass on everything we've ever written or found out about him) - but there comes a point when..... well, you know!!
Please don't go away.

"the word 'folk' has come to have a variety of meanings "
Still waiting to learn what it means to enough people to make it a definition Steve

Jim Carroll