Mihail:
Am I wrong ?
Yes. Absolutely. Unless your English is really bad today then this is just wrong.
I would add here though, that any understanding that you might have been disrespectful of anyone in the thread is mistaken. I know that was merely down to difficulties with the language.
Many-to-Many (M:N) relationships are often required and the original question very much appears to be a good example of such a requirement.
Implementing such a relationship is typically done with a '
bridging' table, as illustrated clearly by Mshmyob in his post #2 of the linked thread. Such a table includes FKs to both tables within the M:N relationship. Each of the FKs is connected to the other table using a One-to-Many (1:M) link. Only together are they considered to reflect an M:N relationship.