No need to be defensive. You're correct: what you said was 'Think of pointers as "passing by reference".'

In the context in which the question was asked, someone was trying to learn: especially under those circumstances, I [myself/personally/individually] prefer to avoid ambiguities whenever possible. If someone in government can have trouble with the definition of the word "is," another person -- trying to understand programming -- might really get confused with English phrases such as "think of pointers as," instead of "pointers ARE..."

We have to not only convery the technical data, but we have to do so using mental imagery that is as simple as possible. If I were to say to you, "Think of the ocean as ... ," before I can finish my statement, your mind is already generating a mental image of the ocean, your subconscious recalls archetypes for the ocean, your mind recalls poetry relating to the ocean, all in anticipation of the conclusion of the statement. Just like this dissertation, way too many neurons become involved in the process! However, if I were to say to you, "The ocean is wet," then the scope of the mental imagery ends; the thought concludes. This is what I was trying to impart to you.

Passing a variable by reference in Fox *IS* -- for our intents and purposes -- the same as passing a pointer in C. It's an address where something starts. It could be a simple integer number, or it could be the entry point for an operating system. What "it" is, that thing that is pointed "to," doesn't matter. If *I* can understand pointers, for Pete's sake anyone can, and if in only this one small way I can help someone, then I'm going to try to do just that. Understand pointers, and you'll have no problems reading function prototypes for the Winders API ... and beyond.