Two for the road, Report from Clerk & Nonstandard Subtotals

[John Esak]

> Instead, what I tried to do was describe a solution
> that would give you the following final result:
>
> A report that combines multiple files, and also does
> additional subtotaling after the grand total.  Also
> this report should not be corrupted by multiple
> instances running at one time.

I was entirely aware of this throughout this thread. I was trying (all that
time) to tell you that the solution you were providing (as good as it truly
was) was not addressing the single _requirement_ that I wrote the original
message about... standing on the record for which the report was running.
You just didn't get it and I'm sorry it dragged on.

>
> And yes, I feel that you were shutting me out here.  I
> also feel that you were denigrating my abilities by
> saying repeatedly that I had come up with nothing new.

Pure bullshit Jeff, you know what I think of your ability... and I have
stated it many time publicly here (and privately to many people). I'm afraid
that you had not come up with anything new in this particular regard as it
related to the "specific" need I was talking about. You just missed it over
and over and kept saying your ways would do the same thing... which,
finally, we agree it won't. I feel a little vindicated... and as for
denigrating you... bullshit, Jeff. I have always thought better of you than
to see you bring up such complete nonsense.

>  (I actually thought that creating a unique qualifier
> on the fly was a pretty cool idea, and original as far
> as I know).

Well, I probably shouldn't do this... It is a wonderful, and clever idea...
but original... not hardly Jeff. I published the NEX Accounting Group over
18 years ago and that is a prime function
throughout its reporting Menus. Generating qualifiers on the fly, and the
"mkqual" and "delquL" scripts were also something I published quite
liberally in print and on disk about 1990 or so.  I honestly believe you
either never saw any of this stuff, or don't remember. I thoroughly believe
you to be one of the very best filePro programmers out there and fully
capable of inventing such a thing yourself, too.

>
> But don't worry.  My feelings are not hurt too badly
> :-)

I do not feel bad in the slightest... because I meant you NO harm at any
time throughout this interchange. You frustrated me a little, (maybe a lot
:-), but I never once meant to insult you or denigrate you or do anything
than say that you were just not understanding the precise requirement. I see
now you were shooting for the end-result, but if the end-result can not be
arrived at from the standpoint I need(ed) you can see now it was not
viable... and that is all I was trying to say all these times.

> something like this off-line and thereby give up the
> possibility of getting the last word in :-)

the last word you say?? :-)


> Aw, I guess there's not much chance of that happening
> anyway, huh? :-) Hmm... come to think of it if I do a
> reply all - you said you would not respond to me any
> longer...  Its nice to know that option is available.
> :-)

I tried to explain that, also, Jeff... now c'mon... I meant if you were just
responding to me and not the list as well... and yes, just sending to me is
hard for me... I tried to explain that , too.  Let's let me have the last
word this time, huh?  :-)

John Esak
The Greatest FilePro Programmer In The World


(I'm a pisser, aren't I?  :-) And you thought all those other guys know how
to instigate??? :-))