Re: All hail Bob (not)!

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:49:49 GMT
Message-ID: <Njl8g.1288$S7.800@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2006 08:02:42 GMT, Frank Hamersley

>> Bob Badour wrote:

>>> jiiiiim_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree it is no problem to write the query to get the average ages
>>>>>> where the age is known. Using null, how does one write the query to
>>>>>> get the correct result, ie. the average is unknown ?
>>>>> select case when count(*) = count(age)
>>>>>            then avg(age)
>>>>>            else null
>>>>>       end as avgage
>>>>> from   table
>>>> What say you Bob?  The silence to date has been most instructive.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Frank.
>>> Apparently, you do not know the meaning of plonk.  I see you use two
>>> email addresses. Plonk again.

>> You *are* simply a dullard of the first order - of course I used a
>> second email address given you had dumped the first in your killfile.
>> My standards of etiquette required bringing the above post to your
>> attention before handing you "the white feather" for having deserted the
>> original thread line prior to conclusion!

>>
>>> If you think it is appropriate to require the godawful mess above from a 
>>> casual user to get a correct result for a simple query, you only confirm 
>>> that you are an embecile.

>> Feasibility was simply the challenge you posed - your subsequent
>> protestations surely and simply demean yourself!

>>

>> All this confirms my view that whilst you have significant knowledge in
>> the CDT domain (and certainly more than I would ascribe to myself), you
>> don't have the guts to stick out a discourse that does not go entirely
>> your own way. Of course this is normal for bullies when events take an
>> unexpected turn.

>>

>> Much more curiously though your resort to bombastic posts (whilst a
>> feeble trait IMO for anyone professing intellectual tendencies) seems to
>> have recent CDTzens in thrall given the deafening silence to date. I
>> would have thought there would be at least one with an opinion for
>> either of our respective stances. Ce la vie - I live and learn.
>
> You are not doing so bad at the bombast yourself.

An interesting comment and fair; cruel, but fair like Dinsdale. Clearly I was particularly identifying Bobs legendary abruptness with people he holds have nothing to contribute. However I will not resile from a style that hopefully has some wit and is more prosaic than simple utilitarian statements where possible. Even if the subject matter is dry the discussion can have a bit of colour IMO if it doesn't unduly affect the outcome.

> More flame and less smoke, please.

:-) I thought there was enough flame(ing) already and hence very little smoke.

What is it with Bob though? Its not like its a case of the Emperors New Clothes - rather its more like a second rate knot in the cravat yet no-one else seems inclined to point it out, or conversely even lambast me if my response is faulty.

Cheers, Frank. Received on Wed May 10 2006 - 07:49:49 CDT