1. I did not mean that the slits would cause your concrete to crack. I meant that if (when, in most cases) the concrete cracks, it will provide a channel for water to wick through, and it will more likely do so over a slit. If your floor never cracks then you probably didn't need the vapor barrier. The barrier is there as an insurance policy. Why put holes in the insurance policy? The concrete will dry through the top surface in due time, whilre the slits will be there for 30, 40, 80 years waiting to cause a problem.
2. I've been leaving messages on discussion forums for 4 years, and it is surprising how many replies I still get to my Hotmail account for some of the old messages I've left 3-4 years ago on ytmag, Greenspan, and so on. While this particular floor is done & over with, the content of these messages lives a very long time, and I like to provide info to those who continue to read them for years to come. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you, but I think I have as valid an argument as you do. I bleive a vapor barrier without slits is much, much better than a vapor barrior with slits.
3. A vapor barrier with slits, whether under your floor or on your walls, is less of a thing than a vapor barrier without extra holes. That would seem intuitive.
4. I meant no attack on you. If this has worked for you, great. Out of 100 installations, I bet more basements/floors with slits in the barrier would leak than those built without the slits. I certainly would not intentionally slit a vapor barrier. A boat with no leaks is infinately better than one with either a 4' or 4mm hole. If one wishes to build a waterresistant floor, one with a whole & complete vapor barrier with as few holes as possible is the best. That seemed simple to me, I'm not sure what you are arguing against.
If it worked for you, great. I'm not upset about that.
--->Paul