Interested parties can read his track record in usenet, slashdot and various other communities. They are advised to read the rebuttals as well.
He has been at it since 1999 at least; his ideas are sometimes sound, but the fervor with which he evangelizes them, and his neglect to take any opposing opinion into account, or respond respectfully, makes his work approach crackpot.
I am a fan of fringe ideas; on the positive extreme are people like Elaine Morgan of the Aquatic Ape Theory who is both dedicated to her position and also embraces criticism as an expected route to the truth. On the other hand are people .. who really should be seeking immediate medical help, and Usenet is full of them.
Most of the difficulty in programming comes from defining data in relationship to other data, rather than to abstract value systems(which are what types and classes are).
If this is the case, then we should formulate the vocabulary and definitions we use for our data structures in a way that makes it as easy as possible to define and maintain data relationships, and correspondingly, easy to generate any kind of index or result set. If you do this, the nitty gritty of "which data am I working with" is gone. SQL is the obvious example of how this works, but it's tied into database systems, which are not the only use case.
The system proposed is table-centric. I don't think tables are special, myself. I think all collection types are worth considering based on their properties to define relationships. The model I'm currently testing out myself relates a single value to any number of property lists and collections and autoupdates all of them.
Functional programming is a strongly related concept to my eyes, since in that paradigm, processing on list structures is used and reused to define many sorts of relationships.