Glad to hear it. Ever now n agin ya git one rite.

The ON clause determines the conditions for the join. Then the WHERE 
clause filters the result of the join.

If you remove the WHERE entirely you'll basically get what you expected 
- a bunch of rows which didn't match with NULL in the ck cols.

The WHERE clause filters that result. If the cols are null then nothing 
in the WHERE (except IS NULL) against those columns will match. Exactly 
what Leslie said.

Does that make sense?

Thank goodness OUTER joins are not so common.

On 4/6/20 6:33 pm, Kevin Baker wrote:
> That worked!!!  Both results match line for line. I would have never in 
> a million years came up with this solution.  THANK YOU!!
> 
> I'm very curious to know the rule to this. I'm hoping it's simple like 
> in the FROM cause after the ON, put any "Where's" from the second table. 
>   I see from what you did, all the "where's" for the ck table were moved 
> up into the FROM cause.
> 
> Are their any good resources I could read/watch to help me better 
> understand how you arrived at this solution or is this just experience.