>Hi Tore,
>
>>To be honest, I am getting more and more tired of reading your messages. You may be a guru in your own eyes
>
>I'm not pretending to be a GURU. Never was and never will be.
>
>>Do you really mean that we should use m.this and m.thisform in stead of this and thisform?
>
>No, I did not. However there are people up here who do, and have their reason for it. My point is that if VFP allows for something than it should not raise a C5, period. I really hate people telling other people that they are stupid, because the have some way of programming. This is very short sigthed.

Please tell me ONE good reason why anyone should use m.this or m.thisform! One of the conclusions in this thread is that if you only use this or thisform, the problems disappear. m.this or m.thisform is not recommended or even mentioned anywhere in documentation, it is something someone has decided to use without knowing the pitfalls. This person has obviously taken the hint that m.this and m.thisform is not a good idea. But still, you nag and nag that this is a bug? Get real! In my mind, you are only making a fool of yourself.

Or do you really mean that MSFT should delay VFP9 and put all their resources into modifying VFP so that VFP can handle all kind of abuse from the programmers? To put it bluntly, how arrogant/egoistic/unrealistic/stupid is it possible to get?

>
>>Oh, please, take a aspirin or two, or take a whole box. Simply because you can walk in the middle of the road at night, does not necessarily mean that you should recommend other people to walk there at all times? The logic is EXACTLY the same!
>
>I don't think so. First of all I do not reccomend anyone to walk on the middle of the road. I'm merely saing that the holes in the middle of the road should be fixed because someone might fall into it.
>
>To use your analogy, someone could have a good reason to walk on the middle of the road from time to time. For example, if both sides of the road are dirty and you're wearing new shoes, going to a wedding, the middle of the road might be your best choice. When such person falls into a hole in the road are you going to say that it was his own fault because he walked on the middle of the road? A road is expected to be hole free...
>
>The same analogy for a C5 error. IF a C5 error occurs in a very specific circumstance 99,9 % of all VFP developers never encounter, but some developer is taking this route because of a very special requirement or coding methodology ? Are you going to say it is his own fault. Point is that the C5 should not have occured, and that the problem should be resolved.
>
>Arguments that the developer is stupid in this case is beyond me. It is VFP that is showing a BUG, a BUG that needs be resolved, just like the hole in the road to prevent others fall into the same hole.
>
>Tore, I'm sorry if I raise some irritation at your side, but this is really how I feel about the fact. I'm tired to see the same low quality answers again and again. Esspecially statments like "with my 25 years of programming experience I've never needed that", essentailly saying: "You stupid, you don't need that, and I know because I've been a GURU quality programmer for 25 years and have programmed each and every possible algorithm".
>

So your own words that other programmers (no name mentioned) don't know what they are talking about, or don't understand the problem, is OK? Because you have your own opinion which is the only correct conclusion, and the other programmers are stupid? That's what you REALLY have written the last few days, and which I am tired of reading. It has mostly been YOU who have called the other stupid, which was why I asked you to take some aspirins and calm down. I can not recall that any people have called you stupid, but I may be wrong. If so, that is sad, but two wrong does not make one right.

To put it short, my point is: Why waste more energy on this? :-)

>Walter,