A proposal for a new SI unit of measure for kilt addiction.

[David Thornton]

Faulty, it's like comparing a speed rating to class. In other words, you give Hamish no credit for longevity. While many can match his accumulation short term, it would appear only cousin Ron has a true shot long term.

Respectfully submitted on Derby Day,
David

[Hamish]

Steve,

I am deeply touched that you should have chosen me (and my Kollection) as a foundation for your calculations ...... which, by the way are going WAY over my head! I am useless with figures and cannot follow your reasoning at all - is it any wonder I am unable to construct a kilt?!!

Also, I trust it will not throw your figures into a state of confusion, but kilt No.77 was received here yesterday (Saturday). It is the long-awaited 'Craig (Ancient)' from Geoffrey (Tailor) in Edinburgh - photos in another thread. Additionally, No.78 is due in two or three weeks. That is a navy blue fine pinstripe 3-piece kilt suit from "21st Century Kilts". If it is any consolation, I have no others on order .................... at the moment!

[sjrapid]

Faulty, it's like comparing a speed rating to class. In other words, you give Hamish no credit for longevity. While many can match his accumulation short term, it would appear only cousin Ron has a true shot long term.

Respectfully submitted on Derby Day,
David

I'd respectfully disagree, David. As well as having a little fun, and getting other XMTS members to rank themselves against the Kilted legend (who has taken the suggestion in good heart), my specific intention was to eliminate what you call longevity - thus enabling newbie members like myself whose addiction is still in its first year, to compare themselves with greater kilt collections and who have been at it for longer.

What is both interesting and scary is the number of people who have reported scores of >= 1 Hamish. I had thought it was unlikely that there would be many people in this league, but I was wrong.

I do give Hamish great credit both for his longevity and the size of his kollection. I've said so both in posts elsewhere, and by PM's to the great man himself.

Best regards

[David Thornton]

I'd respectfully disagree, David. As well as having a little fun, and getting other XMTS members to rank themselves against the Kilted legend (who has taken the suggestion in good heart), my specific intention was to eliminate what you call longevity - thus enabling newbie members like myself whose addiction is still in its first year, to compare themselves with greater kilt collections and who have been at it for longer.

What is both interesting and scary is the number of people who have reported scores of >= 1 Hamish. I had thought it was unlikely that there would be many people in this league, but I was wrong.

I do give Hamish great credit both for his longevity and the size of his kollection. I've said so both in posts elsewhere, and by PM's to the great man himself.

Best regards

My post was pure humor, carry on

David

[wsk]

I'd respectfully disagree, David. As well as having a little fun, and getting other XMTS members to rank themselves against the Kilted legend (who has taken the suggestion in good heart), my specific intention was to eliminate what you call longevity - thus enabling newbie members like myself whose addiction is still in its first year, to compare themselves with greater kilt collections and who have been at it for longer.

If I wander down the High Street, pop into a kilt maker's shop, buy a kilt, and then within the hour pop into the kilt shop at the other end of the street for another kilt, I could claim that I'm accumulating kilts at 17,520 per year. This then would give a 1.863 kH rating. Who's king of the mountain now?

But that result is completely bogus because it doesn't include longevity. To not include longevity wrongly diminishes Hamish's achievement and falsely promotes those of us who are lesser mortals. Goals worthy of achievement should require us to strive.

So, if I take this same extreme example and include what one might call Hamish time, then I think I get a more realistic rating:

Let:

k = number of kilts I own: 2
Hk = number of kilts Hamish owns: 76
t = time in years that I've owned kilts: 0.000114
Ht = time in years that Hamish has owned kilts (Hamish Time): 7.972

kt = rate that I claim to have acquired kilts per year: kt = k/t = 2 / 0.000114 = 17520
Hkt = rate that Hamish has acquired kilts per year: Hkt = Hk/Ht = 76 / 7.972 = 9.532

H = Hamish Rating (for Hamish this number is always 1)

Then my Hamish Rating is:

H = (kt/Hkt)*(t/Ht) = (17520/9.532)*(0.000114/7.972) = 0.026

By this method RiverKilt (55 kilts in 31 months) has a 0.723 Hamish rating. No small achievement that. I am a mere 52 mH by this method.

[starbkjrus]

All being said and adjusting for Single Malt vs. Spiced Rum with a liberal dose of Belgian Ales thrown in for good measure I seem to be at 5.76 mH.

[McClef]

I can't do the maths but have acquired 18 kilts in 10 months and 19 when the Maple Leaf arrives.

I don't intend to try to acquire too many more for a while at least which would tend to slow down my rate on an exponential basis (whatever that rate is measured in the SI Hamish unit)!

[Riverkilt]

Oh Boy!!!

Does it mean I'm more of a kilt addict if I was stone cold sober every time I made a kilt purchase....well, except for the leather RKilt when I was huffing leather fumes from the swatches Robert sent....

Ron

[sjrapid]

If I wander down the High Street, pop into a kilt maker's shop, buy a kilt, and then within the hour pop into the kilt shop at the other end of the street for another kilt, I could claim that I'm accumulating kilts at 17,520 per year. This then would give a 1.863 kH rating. Who's king of the mountain now?

Is it about being King of the Mountain?. I'm deeply envious if you have both two decent kiltmakers on your highstreet, and the financial wherewithal to go at that rate, however you measure it!

To not include longevity wrongly diminishes Hamish's achievement and falsely promotes those of us who are lesser mortals. Goals worthy of achievement should require us to strive.
brethren here?

Ah! I think I detect a note of competition here! With kilts you can count on one hand, I humbly yield to those with deeper addictions.

So, if I take this same extreme example and include what one might call Hamish time, then I think I get a more realistic rating:


Let:

k = number of kilts I own: 2

Hk = number of kilts Hamish owns: 76

t = time in years that I've owned kilts: 0.000114

Ht = time in years that Hamish has owned kilts (Hamish Time): 7.972

kt = rate that I claim to have acquired kilts per year: kt = k/t = 2 / 0.000114 = 17520

Hkt = rate that Hamish has acquired kilts per year: Hkt = Hk/Ht = 76 / 7.972 = 9.532

H = Hamish Rating (for Hamish this number is always 1)

Then my Hamish Rating is:

H = (kt/Hkt)*(t/Ht) = (17520/9.532)*(0.000114/7.972) = 0.026

By this method RiverKilt (55 kilts in 31 months) has a 0.723 Hamish rating. No small achievement that. I am a mere 52 mH by this method.

I like this idea as a set of modifications to the unit, but if you're going to weight for time, I wonder if you'd need to adjust for the total duration of ownership for each kilt not for the bulk. That would further enhance Hamish's glory, and diminish the newbies by comparison. Perhaps you'd like to propose a revision to the draft standard?

Best regards

[sjrapid]

I can't do the maths but have acquired 18 kilts in 10 months and 19 when the Maple Leaf arrives.

I don't intend to try to acquire too many more for a while at least which would tend to slow down my rate on an exponential basis (whatever that rate is measured in the SI Hamish unit)!

18 kilts in 10 months is about 4.15 Hamish (as originally proposed)! Wow you're in deep!

Best regards