Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
Yes, I am. Any definition has to have a starting point. For purposes of this thread I am starting with the physical kilt itself; of the type and style available to the general kilt buying public in 1950.
That's where our difference of opinion starts. My contention is that while a definition should have a starting point, it should be as neutral as possible, and start with the thing itself. A definition such as the one you've put forward will never be neutral.

Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
The quasi-kilt is the direct modification of a pair of trousers, not a modification of a kilt. The "inventor" of the "utility kilt" started out by modifying a pair of pants with cargo pockets.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The term "contemporary kilt" obviously applies to the Utilikilt, but is not restricted to it. There are plenty of contemporary kilts out there, including my own, which have no such origins as the one you describe.