Sigh...

It is perfectly possible to point out that somebody was a Marxist without intending to engage in a 'witchhunt'. But we all knew that, didn't we?

It would also be possible to conclude that Lloyd is unreliable on a variety of counts without disapproving of his politics. But we all know that, don't we?

There is a difference between throwing stones and taking claims and theories about this that and the other with a sensible pinch of salt. But we all know that, don't we?

"Now the latest mob are not only tearing down the work of the pioneers but also the opinions of those they talked to"

My thinking is that emotive language like this doesn't really help in taking a discussion forward. Not all of us have yet to learn this, though it has been pointed out on numerous occasions on these threads by the friends of some who use that sort of language. In fact, I have just realised that one such attempt to point it out immediately preceded the post I have quoted from.

"This is summed up perfectly by giving songs singers like Walter Pardon rejected as being folk Round numbers"

Struggling to see what or who this refers to but guessing it may be intended to comment negatively on the work of Steve Roud? That's a pity, of so. Especially if we are supposed not to be tearing down the work of others.

Also my understanding, on the basis of a piece with Pardon is that until the hordes of 'researchers' descended upon his he had never heard of the word 'folk'. This for me casts doubt on whether it is helpful to refer to what Pardon did and not consider to be folk apart from simply recording what he said on the topic for the sake of recording something he said.

On the topic of Pardon, we have already seen what appears to be one rather large creative leap from what he allegedly said to a gloss giving somebody's view of the significance of this. One is not obliged to accept others interpretations of texts.