Yes this makes sense.. I'll still need to chew on it a while to have it 
sink in.

Thanks again for your help

On 6/4/2020 5:58 AM, Bernie van't Hof wrote:
> 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.