>>I've had strong disagreements with others whom I think pick some interesting instances to go between extreme skeptic and extreme adulator. Doesn't mean I think they're psycho. I do think some people here are, shall we say, less recalcitrant/more timid when it comes to the naked truth than others. But throwing out terms like "psycho" and making an analogy to a violent crime - not exactly "science" in my book.
>
[snipped + reordered]
>Walter is a bully and those who permit him are cowards.

Dunno where you see me in this. I will voice my opinion when I see something I don't agree with - like Walter putting Store globally down as bad practice, Dmitry wasting time not pushing for local install.
On mDot I use it on reading/right side in addition to naming conventions, but not on left/assign side, said so often enough. Agreed with you often on large things, but on small things had and voiced other opinion as well for instance agreeing on futile indeces on columns with low or binary selectivity, but IIRC you disdained even BINARY index while I considered it an enhancement making such an index often useful.

Voicing same position even approaching half a dozen times on same question or parallel threads IMO is not worthwhile. Keyboard battles in fora gain nothing. For me cowardice can only be witnessed when threatened with physical violence or harm - and I try to write only what I'd also utter in a bar as personal guide line. The last is a general remark, NOT targeted at you or Walter personally.

>I use mdot and naming conventions and every bit of science-won experience to permit my code to co-exist with the crap. Mine is.

If I try to emulate academic analysis, I start with operational definition. For me, science is semantically linked to empirics, hypothesis testing and at least peer review, better habitual retesting every few years.
Others might group non-testable fields taught in universities under "science", for me this is "scholarship".

In programming we have nearly no peer review and not enough retesting, so "science" following above definition it is not. I'll give you that you not only do reality checks (hypothesis testing), but also allow and invite rechecks by offering code you ran. I have no problem if you say you reached your conclusion via scientific method - but that does NOT make them "science" in my vocabulary. I think I employ often the same, I just group it under "rational", offering ridicule, not appeal to authority in rhetoric usage, as in the adage, rhetoric might work where understanding might fail.

>Walter does not even understand my position. He demonstrates his lack of experience with the wider world of crappy coders. Walter's position is unable to be applied 100% of the time.

Coming back to keyboard battles and the number of posts lately. I think taking an axe to some wood might be better to relief the system and prepare it for real battles, which probably/hopefully will not occur.

regards
thomas