>snip<

>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

Ken,

Awww.. You're just a trouble causer. *g*

Seriously though I think that you and Jim really are a lot closer than most might take. In Jim's case I know he has the real life experience which backs up his 'take' on normalization though he can certainly speak for himself. I've also heard him say that if you need to denormalize to make something work just do it (Am I remembering correctly Jim?) but always plan for normalized approaches.

Best,

DD