I agree with a lot of the discussion comments.

Agree with the "bridge" table concept (nothing new there).

But I must say it seems like the second half of the article added little value. (Sorry - not trying to be a rude). But if I did not know better, and tried to build upon all the advice in this artilce, I think it would not be a good thing (sorry again). As others also stated, I don't like the design of the second bridge table - it does not seem like a good idea. However, I will keeping thinking about it to see where it may apply in my work

I'm glad that the article explicitly tells the reader to check out the comments/Discussion - as there is some good info to balance our the article.

Sorry if misunderstood some of the article