>You said that you wanted this thread to stop so what's the point? Do you want to reveal that I don't know normalization theory?

Ed,

Obviously you are feeling attacked. I can't od anything to change the way you feel, but I can tell you this, I said I wanted the name calliung and personal comments to stop. I sauid that I would prefer that either the discussion get back on subject or that it stop. I then posted a reply to you regarding the technical issues with a statement that you amde. I was looking for justification through explanation. I wanted to understand how the design would be still in tact when one of the contracts in the design, as I understood it, was violated.

The quoted sentence at the top of this reply is exactly what I was objecting to in your other posts to John. I never said anything about your knowledge or understanding of normalization. This subject has very little to do with normalization anyway. I have no aggenda to prove what anyone knows or does not know, I believe that they will prove it themselves.

Most of the value I get from the UT is what I learn in researching support for my ideas that are challenged. In order to effectively defend the ideas I must do some real research and find supporting facts and formulate sounds thoughts and ideas. This makes me learn more than the person challenging me about the subject.

I have been in some pretty heavy technical discussions with John both on line and in person. He wins some and I win some, but most come out a draw with us both agreeing to disagree.

This is in no way trying to prove that you have some whole in your knowledge of anything. In fact, if I didn't believe that you could support your comments I wouldn't waste my time or the bandwidth to challenge you.