>Personal slights are not helpful here.

uhhhhh - personal slight? where? certainly none intended - I do not have great respect for the opinions of those (in any field I might add) who ONLY work on theory, write papers, etc. and never get their hands dirty. This does not mean I think they are bad people, just that they are usually clueless when it comes to making something actually work in the real world. An ounce of experience is worth a pound of education, and an ounce of talent is worth a pound of experience.

> I choose not to ignore the decades of experiencve that went into the development of the normalization process and you chose to readily dismiss them.

I do not ignore the normalization process or the contributions of others - nor do I put them on a pedastal. I use them the same way I use my tech-writing book and my spell checker (which I wish I had right now <bg>) - as tools that are valuable but less than perfect and that may not address real world situations worth a hoot.

Ya know - and I'll say it again - I doubt we would disagree much on a given practical implementation of this - we just approach it from different angles. I tend to (rightly or wrongly) value my own opinion over just about anybody else's until I'm proven wrong - which is not often. This isn't ego as much as it is practical efficiency. Coupled with my inate anti-establishment, anti-academic tendencies - things such as "Adherance to well established rules of normalization" rub me wrong from the get-go - though I probably end up at the same destination.

Thanks,
Ken