Interestingly, I think her example is misguided, but not for the reasons one might think. Her example of "unnormalized" data is an example of a way one can define a set of data in a single attribute in an MV database. For example:
id | name | email
1 | Bob | firstname.lastname@example.org
2 | Sally | email@example.com
In that example, "email" is a multi-valued field which can contain a set (or possibly a bag) of email addresses (I do believe duplicates might be allowed, but I can't recall).
That seems to violate to first normal form (1NF), but this appears to cause problems in traditional databases for technical reasons, not mathematical ones. In a multi-value (MV) database, if you have a list of reports sent to specific email addresses, you can tie them to the particular email address you want and if someone deletes the email address, you can either throw an exception (because the report still exists) or have the equivalent of a cascading delete -- the report gets deleted.
This technique has several powerful benefits. Email addresses don't require a separate table, the query language can be simpler and many-to-many relations no longer require lookup tables. However, popular database systems don't support this (unless you do a lot of complicated work with rules or triggers).
I write that it seems to violate 1NF, but only because folks usually misunderstand 1NF. 1NF states that the domain of an attribute must contain single values. However, some (such as C.J. Date) argue that attributes don't need to contain indivisible values. A value can be a collection or an object. Traditional values allowed in attributes are not necessarily indivisible. A string can be broken down into characters. A date can be broken down into date parts. Integers can be broken down into prime factors. However, most would agree that dividing these types would be silly. So why do we rely on such arbitrary types? What is important is not that an attribute be indivisible; it's that the data contained in an attribute have a clearly defined type and operators which can act on that type (and in such a system, FK contraints which can work with user-defined types). Unfortunately, popular databases don't tend to support user-defined compound types very well and MV databases are merely a crippled implementation of the relational model.