>>>>>>I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Some people go out of their way to argue non-scientifically just because they can't stand to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Not many people like to be wrong, or to be told they're wrong when their experience and context may not match yours.
>>>
>>>mdot is science, not mdot is subjective and cosmetics. Ludicrous to have anyone argue for that.
>>
>>Sorry, I just cannot resist:
>>
>>You don't have to tell us that you have no grasp on what science is, its evident from all the delusional claims you make.
>
>Art is where the painter can use vomit or feces to make 'art'. That is not art. Scientific thinking is what is required here. Your arguments against mdot are subjective. You just don't like it.

Ok, lets deconstruct this.

Definition of science according to wikipedia:
"is a systematic enterprise for obtaining knowledge through testable explanations and predictions. "

mdot relates to science as muchs as a hammer relates to science. The first is a tool and the 2nd is a methodology to gain knowledge.

>Even though it is built into FoxPro you hate it.
There are a lot of features and language constructs build into VFP that walked the dinosaur and everyone agrees should not be used anymore.
I take it you are still using READ CYCLE because it is part of VFP?

>That is irrational and stupid.
Hmmm, I doubt you will find many people who will agree with you on that.

>I worked with some of the best real medical scientists.
And as you know, As I am, each and every day. This in itself does not prove anything. The scientist are not trained to build software applications.

>You cannot deny that in the case where a scatter memvar is used on a table, that there exist memvars matching the field names and the only way to distinguish between them is mdot.

Yes, and why would I want to do that when I can just use SCATTER NAME? Scatter memvar (without explicit fields references) would ruin any application when the name of the field is referring to a critical object in your application (like the Applic object).

>Fact, not subjective opinion which is why fools are so prevalent.
Only fools would rely on ancient techniques that should have no place in modern programming. We don't live in the 90-ties anymore. We should not program like we did in FOX2.X




>Because you think a speed increase doesn't exist or matter, does not change the fact that it is there.
Have I ever said it is not there. It is irrelevant in all but the most extreme cases.

>You are irrelevant.
Mwah, relevant enough for you to keep on trying to label me as a fool and replying to my messages.
I don't care whether people are taking my advice or not, as long as they do not work for me. You OTOH are desperate to be relevant and want to be heard and so desperately fight anyone who disagrees with you. Sorry lad, but your arguments do not make sense.

>"Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors."

Nice copy and paste from the stanford encyclopdia. Also from the same source:
"The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability. This article focuses on the question of how scientific objectivity should be defined, whether the ideal of objectivity is desirable, and to what extent scientists can achieve it."

BTW, this source does not describe science, but the phylosophy of science, which is a different thing altogether.