>And I wonder when you will start answering my responses to you reasoning why to use SPs ?? You explicitely asked us to participate in a constructive discussion, but again you seem to chicken out.
>
>Walter, ENOUGH. I've already made the case for the use of stored procs. If you want to ask specific questions, I'll answer them, but I will debate this topic no more. Stored procs are generally the best way to go, and the majority of installations use them. It's not my problem if you don't agree.

Enough? I did politely respond to your post, and you politely answered to react on my post even TWICE. you did NEVER respond up today, despite your promise.

>What I'm about to say is similar to what Martín Salías said to you a few months ago in Message #1219155, when he said that he couldn't talk with you anymore....except that I'm not as nice as he is. (Funny how you didn't say he was chickening out...). I'd suggest anyone else who is viewing this post should also read Martín's message.

Not sure what you want to say here. It only says that the people involved dont want to discuss this on a technical level. Martin did not go deep enough to understand my message anyways. The statement made was that Design Patterns are more easily implemented in VFP because VFP being a data centric language with runtime evaluated code and not being a strict compile time type checking language. This gives the possiblity to change, amend and extend the design patterns very quickly and even at runtime without recompiling stuff. Because of VFPs dynamic typing you don't have to go through a lot of hoops (.NET Generics?), resulting in more compact code. Now for everyone who disagrees, please say why my statement does not make sense from a technical level, rather than blunt statements without any technical explanation and merit.

It is kind of sad you have to bring in others (like a Martin passing by), to give credit to your authority. Are you not able to draw up the technical counter arguments? Where is your ability to lay the finger on the sore sport of my observations? Do you need anecdotical statements from others to discredit me?

>- I'd can it with the 'chicken out' talk if I were you - I make more technical contributions up here than you do.

And?? So ?? I've never seen a UT rule prohibiting me to do that. FWIW, I try to turn this into a technical discussion and try to force you answer my post with technical info. It is YOU who is making that impossible because your avoiding any technical discussion with me anyways, and revert to anecdotical personal experiences, hence the statement of chicken out.

>- I've actually been privately criticized by a few for wasting my time in these debates with you. Part of me wishes these individuals would come forward with their comments, though you (Walter) have openly acknowledged a level of stubbornness and arrogance that I doubt ANY feedback would make a difference to you.

Wrong, again you did not read my responses to your posts on SPs. You would not say that if you read it.

>- It seems that many debates between us wind up with you learning something that you previously didn't know. I sure don't feel obligated to help someone's learning curve, when they'll eventually turn around and mouth off the way you do. If I felt I was somehow 'gaining' something in these debates, maybe I'd continue - but I can honestly say I've gained zero knowledge or valuable insight from you in these discussions.

Hmmm, I wondering what I'm learning from you? I could not think of anything technical. I've received many reactions (To follow your tactics) saying otherwise). Also, I refuse to believe you did not learn from my messages like message#1212503