Re: Counting duplicates in SQL

"Robert Klemme" <shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> wrote in message news:4m2ja7F3slcbU1_at_individual.net...
> On 04.09.2006 13:35, Jack wrote:
>> It is wrong to denigate someone who asks a legitimate question as a
>> possible/probable *CHEAT*
>
> Note that I did not claim you *are* cheating - I just expressed my
> impression. And you could have easily corrected that.

And I could say you are a ****. Just my impression. Of course you could easily correct that. See how it works?

>>> It is impossible for instructors to monitor all of the ways that
>>> students can cheat and self-policing professions are of great value.
>>
>> So?!!?!?!??!!?
>> What was he trying to accomplish by inferring I was a cheat?
>> The only possible answer is that he would put others off from helping.
>
> Usually it's more helpful to not provide solutions but hints at most.

Usually it's most helpful not to be offensive implying someone is a *CHEAT*. Get it?

> Your problem is so trivial that you can easily dig that up yourself -
> regardless whether it's a real world or a class problem. And you get the
> added benefit of understanding a fundamental feature of SQL.

Oooh nice put down :)
I have never come across any straight SQL solution which is not trivial once you know how it's done.
Get it?

The "standard" solution I posted initially was from a professional "Tech Ed" class I had come across whilst researching. the issue. That solution was not as clean or flexible as the one I came up with.

> Apart from that I actually offered help, but no immediate answer.

No you didn't. At best you offered to "grade" my post.

>> There is no need to stigmatise. It is counterproductive. Remember
>> McCarthy?
>> Don't you Americans ever learn?
>
> I don't know about Daniel, I'm German.

Same thing if you think about it.

> Choosing a certain language is also counter productive btw.

Dont get that one - must be a German/American thing.

> Regards

I note that you don't have the grace to apologise for your offensive implication.

Not to worry. Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 07:55:31 CDT