Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
Paul,

Regardless of the original intention of the poster (and his replies regarding my initial reply do clarify his meaning), you must admit that there is some "inverse snobbery" at Xmarks regarding traditionalists. That was my point.

In regards to work clothes, yes, the kilt originally was "field kit" -- but like those who say that kilts must evolve or die, why can't a kilt evolve from "field kit" to "formal wear"? Remember, a traditional kilt can be used for both.

Respectfully,

Todd
Todd, with all due respect: Yes, there are sentiments that can be construed as "inverse snobbery." There are also a TON of posts that show an even greater degree of kilt snobbery. That snobbery is what prompted my "over the top" post in the first place--the notion that one must own a traditional kilt to be able to say one owns a kilt (I am not willing to subject a $400+ garment to my lifestyle, and my lifestyle does not include full-on formal stuff).

Sure, I'd like to own a well-made semi-formal kilt in the tartan associated with my surname, in something other than a SportKilt, for wear on the rare occasion where a tie of any sort is appropriate. I've seen guys who (so my girlfriend tells me) look exceptionally dashing in their finery. Heck my girlfriend would probably tell you I would look as dashing if not more so (not that she's biased or anything). I don't begrudge anyone their ability to justify formal wear. It just isn't my scene.

It is good to read that you have figured out my point. I'll let it be a testament to my bad mood of the day (unrelated to anything on xmarks) that I didn't make it clear in the first place.